Stan Lee hogged all the credit from Ditko and Kirby. Stabbed them both in the back. So the people with no real idea keep saying and, of course, Alan Moore added a great deal of inaccuracy and lies to his attacks on Lee. I think Moore assumed that if he attacked Lee he'd get a lot of people paying attention.
Have you seen how many comic companies were around in 1960? Great characters and great stories. They mostly never made it past 1965/67. Why did Marvel become so popular and even overtake DC at a time when mostthought comics were on the way out?
Stan Lee.Despite all you read and hear Lee was, apparently, a nice easy going man who dry-vomited when he was told to sack staff. It was him saying "We have to let you go" as a friend or the boss's (remember he was paid staff, too) impersonal "beat it!" Luckily for Marvel, Lee realised that to make the company (he was with Timely before WW 2 -sorry, Moore, he would not have been "12 or 13 years old" as you claimed-) a success needed a brash, publicity hound who would push Marvel Comics (AND creators). He came up with one publicity stunt after another and Marvel was a success.
When he fired those artists he sincerely believed that they would be walking into more work "they were legends!"
Lee did not steal any Kirby art. He did not rob Kirby of money. Kirby was "work for hire" and he KNEW how comics worked. Later in life, at a convention, he told Lee that he did not blame him. Lee had no idea what he meant.
Lee taking credit for everything. Lee had a bad memory for names. Thus he used character names he could remember easily. Lee said himself in interviews that his memory was bad. "People keep saying I did this or created that so I just say 'If you say so!'" In an interview with Roy Thomas for Alter Ego magazine it became Roy Thomas interviewing Roy Thomas as Lee could not remember certain things "Well, if you say so!". Thomas noted how Lee returned to check over things at Marvel one day and and saw Iron Man work. He thought it was ridiculous that t6he helmet did not have a nose featurte. It was changed. Theyear after he asked whose idea the nose was "it looks awful!"
Certain factions have twisted and lied because they belonged to certain cliques -they werte "Kirby acolytes" or "Ditko devotees" Never ever look at the positives but always go for anything that can be used against someone.
Ditko very likely ripped off the Spider-Man costume from one Kirby designed for a NY store. Ditko is always portrayed as the betrayed, poor artist. He had -up until his death- an office in an expensive part of New York so he was NOT cash-strapped. Private family wealth? There are persistent rumours that Dotko took money for the Spider-Man movies but either way he was not poor and certainly no down-trodden poor creator.
Kirby was a jobbing creator and, apparenytly, lived well. Not super rich but not surviving on peanut butter sandwiches either. He is nearly always portrayed as the sad, near tears man who was cheated by Lee. Lee, in fact, had nothing to do with the decision to fire Kirby.
Imagine my surprise when I read several blogs declaring Kirby was a self grandising back-stabber wjho never credited old partners such as Joe Simon (though I have seen a few Kirby interviews in which he refers to Simon). "Kirby's Fourth World made no sense"/"He made it up as he went along" and "It only really worked after modern creators took it over".
Really?
Then videos on You Tube more-or-less saying the same thing and Kirby is seen as "erratic" at best in his work.
The thing is that modern readers will believe anything they see online. Many are too young to even remember the 1970s let alone 1960s but why bother with facts.
ENJOY the comics and ignore the fake drama.
Have you seen how many comic companies were around in 1960? Great characters and great stories. They mostly never made it past 1965/67. Why did Marvel become so popular and even overtake DC at a time when mostthought comics were on the way out?
Stan Lee.Despite all you read and hear Lee was, apparently, a nice easy going man who dry-vomited when he was told to sack staff. It was him saying "We have to let you go" as a friend or the boss's (remember he was paid staff, too) impersonal "beat it!" Luckily for Marvel, Lee realised that to make the company (he was with Timely before WW 2 -sorry, Moore, he would not have been "12 or 13 years old" as you claimed-) a success needed a brash, publicity hound who would push Marvel Comics (AND creators). He came up with one publicity stunt after another and Marvel was a success.
When he fired those artists he sincerely believed that they would be walking into more work "they were legends!"
Lee did not steal any Kirby art. He did not rob Kirby of money. Kirby was "work for hire" and he KNEW how comics worked. Later in life, at a convention, he told Lee that he did not blame him. Lee had no idea what he meant.
Lee taking credit for everything. Lee had a bad memory for names. Thus he used character names he could remember easily. Lee said himself in interviews that his memory was bad. "People keep saying I did this or created that so I just say 'If you say so!'" In an interview with Roy Thomas for Alter Ego magazine it became Roy Thomas interviewing Roy Thomas as Lee could not remember certain things "Well, if you say so!". Thomas noted how Lee returned to check over things at Marvel one day and and saw Iron Man work. He thought it was ridiculous that t6he helmet did not have a nose featurte. It was changed. Theyear after he asked whose idea the nose was "it looks awful!"
Certain factions have twisted and lied because they belonged to certain cliques -they werte "Kirby acolytes" or "Ditko devotees" Never ever look at the positives but always go for anything that can be used against someone.
Ditko very likely ripped off the Spider-Man costume from one Kirby designed for a NY store. Ditko is always portrayed as the betrayed, poor artist. He had -up until his death- an office in an expensive part of New York so he was NOT cash-strapped. Private family wealth? There are persistent rumours that Dotko took money for the Spider-Man movies but either way he was not poor and certainly no down-trodden poor creator.
Kirby was a jobbing creator and, apparenytly, lived well. Not super rich but not surviving on peanut butter sandwiches either. He is nearly always portrayed as the sad, near tears man who was cheated by Lee. Lee, in fact, had nothing to do with the decision to fire Kirby.
Imagine my surprise when I read several blogs declaring Kirby was a self grandising back-stabber wjho never credited old partners such as Joe Simon (though I have seen a few Kirby interviews in which he refers to Simon). "Kirby's Fourth World made no sense"/"He made it up as he went along" and "It only really worked after modern creators took it over".
Really?
Then videos on You Tube more-or-less saying the same thing and Kirby is seen as "erratic" at best in his work.
Now none of these 'critics' have written or drawn comics. They have no idea of the creative process or how creators had to produce work to earn a living. Their heads are firmly lodged up their arses.
Ditko created his own problems and if you don't know what I mean -read a book. Ditko was offered work but he was 'cheated': let's make it clear that Lee and Ditko (by every fact and definition) were CO-creators of Spider-Man (avoiding the stolen costume factort). Lee stated this fact many times and even put it in writing for Ditko. But Ditko wanted full credit. unfairly, and knew that if given that credit, the man who had given him so many breaks (Lee), would be put in a very bad position and that would also create big problems for Lee with his bosses.
There are stories from numerous people and creators of Lee and Kirby actively working together in Lee's office. Kirby's little group of supporters ignore that.
But, suddenly, we now see Kirby become one of the bad guys alongside Lee. Ditko has had his critics over the years, too. People like to create these dramas. Twist facts. Tell lies. Because, sadly, the fact that all three men created some of Marvel Comics greatest and most loved characters is secondary. they MUST have their little dramas.
The thing is that modern readers will believe anything they see online. Many are too young to even remember the 1970s let alone 1960s but why bother with facts.
ENJOY the comics and ignore the fake drama.
