Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters?

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

^Like I said... SOP.

Im not sure it was a SOP. It seems it depends on what editor you get. Kirbys work looked great and for them to change it seemed petty. Yeah maybe they wanted to keep a certain look than why even have Kirby draw anything if they were just going to change so much of it from other artists. Kirby had a definite style for the faces(Chins always had the squiggly line). Drawings and comics that Kirby did that are untouched are the best ones if you ask me and the ones that didn't get butchered probably were done when editors that were know it all dickheads weren't around or a replacement editor was there.

Kirby's work could take on another dimension when working with another strong artist, yet retain his distinctive look. Check out the cover team-up with Romita from Captain America #193...

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

^Like I said... SOP.

Im not sure it was a SOP. It seems it depends on what editor you get. Kirbys work looked great and for them to change it seemed petty. Yeah maybe they wanted to keep a certain look than why even have Kirby draw anything if they were just going to change so much of it from other artists. Kirby had a definite style for the faces(Chins always had the squiggly line). Drawings and comics that Kirby did that are untouched are the best ones if you ask me and the ones that didn't get butchered probably were done when editors that were know it all dickheads weren't around or a replacement editor was there.

Kirby's work could take on another dimension when working with another strong artist, yet retain his distinctive look. Check out the cover team-up with Romita from Captain America #193...

Yeah that's a nice cover. I can see that romita did the background mob and maybe the falcon. Cap is Kirbys except for the face.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The face is Kirby with Romita inks.The entire cover is Kirby inked by Romita. The ink line is typical of Romita's work. The crowd is a "Kirby Krowd". Very much representative of his work.

I get the impression you've no idea what you're talking about..

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The face is Kirby with Romita inks.The entire cover is Kirby inked by Romita. The ink line is typical of Romita's work. The crowd is a "Kirby Krowd". Very much representative of his work.

I get the impression you've no idea what you're talking about..

The crowd looks more like the work of Romita as does the head. Romita inked it and obviously took over the Kirby Trademarks. I have a lot of works by Romita and some by Kirby. Romita inks definitely took over the back crowd and much of caps head but not the body. If you cant respond to me without throwing those kind of comments don't respond to me.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

That mob is 100% Kirby.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

That mob is 100% Kirby.

The positions but Romitas inks took over much of the detail especially on the right side. Also the Falcon does not look like Kirbys at all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The face is Kirby with Romita inks.The entire cover is Kirby inked by Romita. The ink line is typical of Romita's work. The crowd is a "Kirby Krowd". Very much representative of his work.

I get the impression you've no idea what you're talking about..

The crowd looks more like the work of Romita as does the head. Romita inked it and obviously took over the Kirby Trademarks. I have a lot of works by Romita and some by Kirby. Romita inks definitely took over the back crowd and much of caps head but not the body. If you cant respond to me without throwing your fat headed comments in my direction don't respond to me. Im getting sick of your treatment towards me.

The crowd has all the hallmarks of Kirby's work. Romita's ink can't hide that. Cap's head is also very Kirby. The eyes, the nose, the mouth and jawline are typical of Kirby's work.

Comic book art is a collaborative work. Inkers aren't tracers. They add to the artwork. Classic inkers like Murphy Anderson, Tom Palmer, Klaus Janson and Joe Sinnott always enhance what is there. Sinnott's work with Kirby on the FF is thought of as one of the best art collaboration in comics. Sinnott did some redrawing and even redefined how the Thing looked. So much so that Kirby began drawing the Thing more like Sinnott's finishes. Romita when working as a inker added his own style to the page. Look at his inks over Gil Kane and Ross Andru. You could still see the Kane or Andru, but Romita is there too. That's how comic book art works.

If you have any problems with what I've said, please feel free to contact a mod.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The face is Kirby with Romita inks.The entire cover is Kirby inked by Romita. The ink line is typical of Romita's work. The crowd is a "Kirby Krowd". Very much representative of his work.

I get the impression you've no idea what you're talking about..

The crowd looks more like the work of Romita as does the head. Romita inked it and obviously took over the Kirby Trademarks. I have a lot of works by Romita and some by Kirby. Romita inks definitely took over the back crowd and much of caps head but not the body. If you cant respond to me without throwing your fat headed comments in my direction don't respond to me. Im getting sick of your treatment towards me.

The crowd has all the hallmarks of Kirby's work. Romita's ink can't hide that. Cap's head is also very Kirby. The eyes, the nose, the mouth and jawline are typical of Kirby's work.

Comic book art is a collaborative work. Inkers aren't tracers. They add to the artwork. Classic inkers like Murphy Anderson, Tom Palmer, Klaus Janson and Joe Sinnott always enhance what is there. Sinnott's work with Kirby on the FF is thought of as one of the best art collaboration in comics. Sinnott did some redrawing and even redefined how the Thing looked. So much so that Kirby began drawing the Thing more like Sinnott's finishes. Romita when working as a inker added his own style to the page. Look at his inks over Gil Kane and Ross Andru. You could still see the Kane or Andru, but Romita is there too. That's how comic book art works.

If you have any problems with what I've said, please feel free to contact a mod.

Inkers can add to the artwork but sometimes they overtake it. Romita himself has said several times that he was asked to redo many of Kirbys drawn heads and this looks like one of them. Romita softened the head and it has lost much of Kirbys pencils. There are plenty of comics that if you see the Kirbys pencil version first than the inks all of Kirbys trademarks are their(i.e. New Gods) not so with this cover. The Kirby shapes are there(I don't see it in the Falcon) but Romitas Inks have heavily influenced the Kirby characters. Looking at this cover I see Romita all over it. The most Kirby thing that stands out is Caps running toward the page.


Why would I contact a mod? If you want to act like a cock of the walk I don't care. Of course I will call you out on it anyway.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The crowd looks more like the work of Romita as does the head. Romita inked it and obviously took over the Kirby Trademarks. I have a lot of works by Romita and some by Kirby. Romita inks definitely took over the back crowd and much of caps head but not the body. If you cant respond to me without throwing your fat headed comments in my direction don't respond to me. Im getting sick of your treatment towards me.

The crowd has all the hallmarks of Kirby's work. Romita's ink can't hide that. Cap's head is also very Kirby. The eyes, the nose, the mouth and jawline are typical of Kirby's work.

Comic book art is a collaborative work. Inkers aren't tracers. They add to the artwork. Classic inkers like Murphy Anderson, Tom Palmer, Klaus Janson and Joe Sinnott always enhance what is there. Sinnott's work with Kirby on the FF is thought of as one of the best art collaboration in comics. Sinnott did some redrawing and even redefined how the Thing looked. So much so that Kirby began drawing the Thing more like Sinnott's finishes. Romita when working as a inker added his own style to the page. Look at his inks over Gil Kane and Ross Andru. You could still see the Kane or Andru, but Romita is there too. That's how comic book art works.

If you have any problems with what I've said, please feel free to contact a mod.

Inkers can add to the artwork but sometimes they overtake it. Romita himself has said several times that he was asked to redo many of Kirbys drawn heads and this looks like one of them. Romita softened the head and it has lost much of Kirbys pencils. There are plenty of comics that if you see the Kirbys pencil version first than the inks all of Kirbys trademarks are their(i.e. New Gods) not so with this cover. The Kirby shapes are there(I don't see it in the Falcon) but Romitas Inks have heavily influenced the Kirby characters. Looking at this cover I see Romita all over it. The most Kirby thing that stands out is Caps running toward the page.


Why would I contact a mod? If you want to act like a cock of the walk I don't care. Of course I will call you out on it anyway.

Romita was the inker on this cover. Not a guy doing a "correction". There is a difference.

Falcon is in a very Kirby pose. The legs and hands are classic Kirby.

I'm just having a conversation here. Replying to your points and offering why I think you're wrong. It's kind of what a discussion boards are about. If that is being a "fathead" or acting like "the cock of the walk", then nearly everyone here is one.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

The crowd has all the hallmarks of Kirby's work. Romita's ink can't hide that. Cap's head is also very Kirby. The eyes, the nose, the mouth and jawline are typical of Kirby's work.

Comic book art is a collaborative work. Inkers aren't tracers. They add to the artwork. Classic inkers like Murphy Anderson, Tom Palmer, Klaus Janson and Joe Sinnott always enhance what is there. Sinnott's work with Kirby on the FF is thought of as one of the best art collaboration in comics. Sinnott did some redrawing and even redefined how the Thing looked. So much so that Kirby began drawing the Thing more like Sinnott's finishes. Romita when working as a inker added his own style to the page. Look at his inks over Gil Kane and Ross Andru. You could still see the Kane or Andru, but Romita is there too. That's how comic book art works.

If you have any problems with what I've said, please feel free to contact a mod.

Inkers can add to the artwork but sometimes they overtake it. Romita himself has said several times that he was asked to redo many of Kirbys drawn heads and this looks like one of them. Romita softened the head and it has lost much of Kirbys pencils. There are plenty of comics that if you see the Kirbys pencil version first than the inks all of Kirbys trademarks are their(i.e. New Gods) not so with this cover. The Kirby shapes are there(I don't see it in the Falcon) but Romitas Inks have heavily influenced the Kirby characters. Looking at this cover I see Romita all over it. The most Kirby thing that stands out is Caps running toward the page.


Why would I contact a mod? If you want to act like a cock of the walk I don't care. Of course I will call you out on it anyway.

Romita was the inker on this cover. Not a guy doing a "correction". There is a difference.

Falcon is in a very Kirby pose. The legs and hands are classic Kirby.

I'm just having a conversation here. Replying to your points and offering why I think you're wrong. It's kind of what a discussion boards are about. If that is being a "fathead" or acting like "the cock of the walk", then nearly everyone here is one.

The falcon looks like Romita to me.

Well I don't take jabs at anyone here personally unless someone does it to me first. You took a personal jab at me so I threw one back. The worst I do is call NuSpock(a fictional character)a crybaby. Of course something as stupid as that gets me a point or thrown off the boards. Totally ridiculous.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

What are you on about?

 

[TRON JA307020]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

What are you on about?

My early posts on TrekToday. Too much to explain.


Pencils of Jack Kirby. Notice the face. Many inkers kept the face just like that for many of the finished comics.

http://romitaman.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=17123&artistid=921

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

What are you on about?

My early posts on TrekToday. Too much to explain.

Actually, I was curious where I attacked you "personally".

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

Comic book art is a collaborative work. Inkers aren't tracers. They add to the artwork. Classic inkers like Murphy Anderson, Tom Palmer, Klaus Janson and Joe Sinnott always enhance what is there. Sinnott's work with Kirby on the FF is thought of as one of the best art collaboration in comics. Sinnott did some redrawing and even redefined how the Thing looked. So much so that Kirby began drawing the Thing more like Sinnott's finishes. Romita when working as a inker added his own style to the page. Look at his inks over Gil Kane and Ross Andru. You could still see the Kane or Andru, but Romita is there too. That's how comic book art works.

I would argue that Anderson's inks on Infantino turned the latter's work into something more striking. If you ever sampled Infantino's Anderson-free work on The Flash, Creepy, or his Star Wars run, Infantino's work was exceptionally hard-edged and stylized, as opposed to the more flexible, "pretty" work with Anderson (with the combined work used extensively for 60s/70s licensing art). That "pretty" effect could be said of Sinnott's work with Kirby, instead of the light, unobtrusive inks of Mike Royer.

Romita and Kane sort flip-flopped; at times, Romita's inks were light, but present, while in other cases, it was so dominant, that Kane's pencils ended up looking like a mere template for Romita.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

It sounds like Stan lee might have gotten Roddenberryitis.

He's fed into the hype of who he is.

However, he is also one constant of Marvel...he's been around since the beginning...and stuck with Marvel, while others have left to DC.

Also, more important (i think to the "mythos" of Stan Lee)...he's still alive, while the rest of his peers are no longer there. So he's literally the living embodiment of the creation of today's popular Marvel characters.

And--- he's the "Kevin Bacon" of Marvel...whether or not he had a deep role in creating these characters, he's the common link between all of them.

With DC, they don't have anyone who's been around since the rebirth of DC heroes...and even then, they have had some many incarnations, it's hard to pinpoint a common link.

Also, many of the DC heroes (most of the popular ones created in some form by the 1940's) had separate creators who have long since died, and their children never took up the mantle in any significant creative way.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Does Stan Lee Get Too Much Of The Credit For The Marvel Characters

As a writer? Yes.

As the driving force behind Marvel? No.

Every product needs a salesman, and that's Stan's forte. And like others have mentioned, even being minimally involved in the creation of so many iconic characters is an achievement.

Plus, he personally helped screw over the Comics Code. On behalf of all my Hellblazer/Sandman/Swamp Thing comics, I'm grateful for that.

 

[optiflex]

It seems that Stan Lee is getting all the credit for the Marvel Comic characters that have populated the successful Disney Marvel comic movies at the detriment of Jack Kirby. While I love Stan Lee he doesn't seem to concerned with mentioning Kirby very much when he is interviewed. In these last few years Stan Lee has morphed from a figure well known to comic book fans to a celebrity now well known to the general population since the success of the first Spidey films and now even more so since the success of the Disney Marvel films. The general population thinks that Stan came up with all these characters on his own and was a one man creative machine when really Kirby had just as much to do with it. Yeah kirbys name is given on the movies as a created by credit but tptb seem to be basically sweeping him under the rug when it comes time to promoting the movies. Even when Stan is asked questions in interviews the interviewers almost always ask him how HE created the characters and so forth without ever mentioning Kirby. I think its a great injustice and even more sad that Stan is getting rich while Kirbys surviving family gets nothing. Friends of mine for instance that never read the comics all love Stan and are amazed how many characters he created including Captain America. I remind them that Kirby created cap and that he co created many of the characters they think Stan created alone. The response I usually get is "Whos Jack Kirby". Anyone else find that kind of sad that Kirby has been largely ignored?


p.s. I know hes dead but I believe he should be just as celebrated as Stan. If anything just for the respect of the amazing work he did.

 

[optiflex]

Stan Lee actually published a pamplet prior to the Marvel Superhero era explaining his thoughts on why Publishers deserved all the creative credit because they hired the people. lets not forget he even tried to grab credit for Captain America in one movie! Captain America was well documented to be created by Simon and Kirby. I get his reasoning. Marvel bought the rights to the Character, so now it was his You can google the pamphlet and have a good laugh at his belief that I sign the paychecks, so I created it. You can theorize all you want but your arguing for a guy who actually published a pamphlet outlining how he justified grabbing credits. He was the P.T.Barnum of Comics. an amazing self promoter. Theres extentensive research showing original panels where his contribution was simple a note, here and there, and then a full writing credit. This is not unique. In the music industry it happened constantly.I liked the Rock band Journey. if you look at the albums each song is loaded with co-writing credits. One guy leaves and suddenly a band churning out pop hits one after another and they can't produce a single? How is that possible with 5 fantastic song writers still in the band? Yet the one guy has 3 in in his next solo album? In the comedic field they have a long history of stealing each others jokes. Jaye Leno was notorious. Stan Lee's promotional abilities is what the Statue should be honoring. Theres no doubt that the two major companies would instantly create their own alternative to the others new creation. it happened constantly. Is anybody clammoring to take credit for failures and stupid things? Like the Thanos Copter?

 

[optiflex]

Another great example is the Beach Boys. Mike Love has tried over the years to claim he was the entire creative force of all their music. Even stuff he disliked, he tried to take credit for. Lets see, huge self promoter, check. Demanding co-writing credits, check. The only difference is Stan Lee avoided bad mouthing people. Stick a Mic in Loves face and 5 minutes later you'll have the lead story on any Entertainment show titled Mike Love claims he created....(spiderman, Nasa, the internet)I think most people realize Brian Wilson did it all even when he wasnt present...but hey, Kokomo was the greatest Rock song ever written! Just ask Mike Love.