Who's more responsible for Mavels Sucsess? Jack Kirby or Stan Lee

[Kirk Langstrom]

This thread was originally in community.

oh, well that explains it.

 

[Kitsune]

Marvel succeeded after Jack left. Jack had some success after he left Marvel. It's pretty clear that as a team they worked well together, but that nether is completely responsible for Marvel's success. As teams go, I think the best comparison would be Jobs and Wozniak. Kirby's creativity and drive remind me of Wozniak, while Stanley Martin Leiber. had the marketing and promotional skills similar to Jobs.

While Stan was not necessarily the creative force that moves Marvel, his successful collaborations with other creators such Ditko show that Stan had an ability to get bring out the best out of his collaborators, for this reason I would tend to lean towards Mr Leiber, but it's clear that there was more than one, and as others have pointed out, more that two creative forces at early Marvel.

One only need to look at the history of the second Atlas Comics to realize how much the EIC influence the EiC can have on the company. Atlas/seaboard had some of the best creators of the day, and they including artist Larry Lieber (Stan's brother), and from what I've read, some of the comics were pretty revolutionary for the time. But the EIC eager to replicate Marvel's success, tried to turn the original concepts in to Marvel clones, which resulted in the company's failure. I guess I'm arguing that Stan Lee's influence stems largely from not $#^ing things up, and sometimes that's more important that people might think

 

[venom892]

As so many have already said While Stan and Jack Started the fire many others kept it burning.From what I heard Jack's design for Spider-man was horrible but in comes Steve Ditko who designs one of the best superhero costumes of all time.Also without Roy Thomas taking over a few books after stan and jack left we probably wouldn't have a lot of the characters we love still running.So If anything Marvel's success was a group effort.

 

[Xofenroht]

Personally, I choose Roz Kirby to be more responsible for Marvel's success. Something tells me that Jack would have killed Stan had she not been around.

On a more serious note,

Although I believe that neither of the two ("The King" nor "The Man") deserve exclusive credit for Marvel's success, you've got to give it to Jack Kirby for simply ensuring the success of the comics industry as a whole. Not only did he (along with Joe Simon) create Captain America, but he also designed a great huge chunk of Marvel's Silver Age characters, not to mention all of the work he did for DC with Etrigan, The New Gods and the Fourth World stuff. Plus, whenever I hear of people within the industry talk about who had the greatest influence on them, "THE KING" usually comes out about 99% of the time. These are people like Moore, Gaiman and Miller, who were heavily influenced by Kirby's work in comics and have taken that and influenced the next generation of comic book storytellers. So, for people like me who interested in both writing and illustrating comics, I've GOT to give it to "THE KING".

Stan is more of the public face and voice of Marvel. He's the only comics writer that people outside of the comic book community can really name. But he did have a huge ego, which caused artists like Ditko and Kirby great and undeserved trouble. I respect "The Man" and all, but we're talking about "The Man" next to "THE KING".

Think about the fact that before you even open the pages of comics, especially in Jack and Stan's day, it's the art on the cover that has to draw your attention to it. When you flip through a comic, you're generally looking at the art. Now think about the fact that Jack went on to create more characters after leaving Marvel, while Stan stayed at Marvel and didn't really bring out anything new beyond what he started with Jack and/or Ditko and you'll find out where the genius in this duo rests.

Don't get me wrong though, Stan knows how to talk to the public and that's why he has the recognition he does.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Now think about the fact that Jack went on to create more characters after leaving Marvel, while Stan stayed at Marvel and didn't really bring out anything new beyond what he started with Jack and/or Ditko and you'll find out where the genius in this duo rests.

Lee largely withdrew from the writing process by the early 70s, and, indeed, stepped down as EIC soon after; he created plenty of other characters in collaboration with other artists than Kirby.

Kirby, certainly, was a tremendous creative force of his own, but if you're bringing in his post-Marvel work, it's fair to point out that nothing he created since has been even remotely as popular as the stuff he did with Lee at Marvel; certainly, some of it was influential for other creators, but the general audience more or less completely overlooked the Fourth World, Kamandi, OMAC, etc. (only the Fourth World, mainly Darkseid, are well-known, and that's because they were integrated into the center of the DCU by later creators).

They were both very important, as were a bunch of other people.

 

[Xofenroht]

You have a point, but we're not talking about popularity here. If we start talking about popularity, the argument clearly goes to Stan. He IS the most popular.

Of course, I'm extremely biased in that aspect, considering what went down between Marvel and Kirby, and how many people working in comics rallied behind Kirby. Even Will Eisner supported him, but I don't ever recall seeing Stan's name on the petition anywhere.

 

[CaptainCanada]

You have a point, but we're not talking about popularity here.

I was under the impression we were talking about "success", which does indeed mean popularity; popular books sell more, ie, are successful.

Lee is more well-known as a person, but that doesn't really make him a more successful creator; he co-created many popular titles, and some that were not successful at the time but later creators retooled (Daredevil, X-Men, most notably). One area that Lee definitely did contribute more was as frontman for the company (the big reason he's more well-known than Kirby); he knew how to market the product and how to interact with readers and fans.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

You have a point, but we're not talking about popularity here. If we start talking about popularity, the argument clearly goes to Stan. He IS the most popular.

Of course, I'm extremely biased in that aspect, considering what went down between Marvel and Kirby, and how many people working in comics rallied behind Kirby. Even Will Eisner supported him, but I don't ever recall seeing Stan's name on the petition anywhere.

Stan reportedly tried his best to get Jack his original artwork back, and also to set up a pension for Roz after Jack passed away...

 

[Xofenroht]

See, I look at success as who made the biggest waves. That's why I'm looking at who Kirby influenced and what all he produced, rather than how popular he is compared to Stan. I just imagine my favorite comics storytellers without Jack Kirby. Considering Kirby just sort of stumbled upon his prestige within the industry, just trying to make a living and Stan was hired into Timely (or Atlas or whatever Marvel was back then) by his uncle (and did some pretty underhanded things to get to the top, from what I hear), I'd still say that Kirby was more responsible.

Besides, it started with "Captain America" and Kirby was on that from the beginning, not Stan.

 

[Xofenroht]

Stan reportedly tried his best to get Jack his original artwork back, and also to set up a pension for Roz after Jack passed away...

Did he really? That's cool of him. I was always sort of wondering what happened with Roz after Jack's passing.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Did he really? That's cool of him. I was always sort of wondering what happened with Roz after Jack's passing.

The Kirby family is kind of cool with Marvel at the moment. Jack's daughter has recently published some stuff with them...

 

[Xofenroht]

That's cool man. It definitely closes a chapter in my book since I wasn't sure how to feel about Marvel after hearing about the Jack Kirby incident. This, to me, is a sensitive subject, especially because it gets so personal and goes so far back (even before some of our parents were born.)

 

[CaptainCanada]

Besides, it started with "Captain America" and Kirby was on that from the beginning, not Stan.

That's not what Simon says.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

That's not what Simon says.

Simon Says: Stand on your head! t:

 

[Xofenroht]

That's not what Simon says.

Hahaha...uhhh, wait...what?

 

[CaptainCanada]

Hahaha...uhhh, wait...what?

Joe Simon, who says Kirby had nothing to do with the creation of Captain America.

 

[blackcobra]

Hahaha, you summoned me.

Thank you for providing such an insightful response. The revelations you've shared with us reinforces my suspicion that Jack Kirby was the real genius, while Stan seemed to be an opportunnist. I'm glad someone was able to summon you, because I'm all out of Soul Shards

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I sometimes think that because Stan Lee is still alive people get to hear his side of things,and since Jack Kirby is gone..and Steve Ditko is a recluse..things fall to him too much. I sometimes think that if Mr.Kirby was still alive..we would be thinking Marvel's success was equally spread..instead of just Stan "The Man" Lee all the time.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I sometimes think that because Stan Lee is still alive people get to hear his side of things,and since Jack Kirby is gone..and Steve Ditko is a recluse..things fall to him too much. I sometimes think that if Mr.Kirby was still alive..we would be thinking Marvel's success was equally spread..instead of just Stan "The Man" Lee all the time.

well it also helps that stan has his charisma... ive seen pictures and busts of jack, never heard him speak.. but he doesn't scream charisma to me...

Stan also use to (not sure if he does still) but i've heard him and read from him on several accounts many good things about jack and when people have said "the creator of" he use to say dual creation and bring kirby to the table too.. but this day and age it seems like he kinda stopped trying due to the press and media forgetting about kirby. Ive met stan in person twice, and he has great respect for the kirbster.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I think people side with Kirby generally because he's the underdog and he's...well...dead at the moment and really can't speak for himself. Was he great, no doubt. But even HE gets undeserving credit sometimes. Many speak of him as the best there ever was or will be at designing characters, overlooking the greatness of writer artist dous like Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil who basically saved Batman, Green Lantern, and even laid the foundations for modern day X-Men. Or Julius Schwarz, who revolutionized comic writing and comic character development as a whole. Or even the talent of Lien Wein and Dave Cockrum who created the most diverse and creative team of superheroes ever, the All-New All-Different X-Men. That's why I h-a-t-e this tired old argument. It blatantly assumes that everything Kirby and Lee touched turned to gold, or even worse that it turned to gold because of them. Anyone who reads the classic Silver Age comics knows for every popular hero they created a made special, there were ten superheroes they created a simply did not get. DareDevil, the Avengers, the X-Men, Dr. Strange and even the Fantastic Four took a while to hit their stride, often failing initially to garner either critical or financial success or both. That's partially Stan's fault, I think. He tends to paint a picture of Marvel as a succession of perfect stories, one after the other, sometimes in messages to the public. However, when I hear Stan really sit down and talk about the industry I think "there is a guy who 'gets it'". Jack was incredibly creative, but without Stan we saw him create a string of propoganda based characters who were no more deep or complex than Lone Ranger comics. Sure he wrote a lot of stories for Marvel, but Stan really knew how to tap into that creative environment that spawned heroes who were more than simple kiddie-corn and dime store mags. He created, in effect, the Marvel Universe. The idea of comics which had real people instead of just two dimensional heroes. I think if we want to see what caused Marvel's ultimate success, it was that creative environment. Not any one particular book or character, since Stan, Jack, Roy Thomas, Jim Steranko, Romita and several other collaborators tried many different types of characters and comics.

 

[The Mad Titan]

If it weren't for Julie Schwartz, Marvel, and superhero comics in general really would have folded.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

If it weren't for Julie Schwartz, Marvel, and superhero comics in general really would have folded.

That's fine, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

[iloveclones]

My opinion is that Stan Lee was in the right place, at the right time. He had a wonderful little creative spurt, and happened to be surrounded by a couple of great people, like Kirby and Ditko, who could give it life. Had they (and others) not been there, it probably never would have happened. But I think it all starts with Stan.

 

[Darthphere]

Lets put it this way, we're talking about the success of Marvel, not who's better. Jack Kirby is better, fact. But the success of Marvel hinged on one thing, Spider-Man, and that was Stan and Ditko.

 

[Xofenroht]

I really don't think it's up to us to decide who's more responsible for Marvel's success any way, to tell you the truth. It's not like we're going to reach a conclusion. It's pretty obvious that a number of things ensured Marvel's success.