I love this photo of Kirby. It poses him as a guy of small stature, who achieves greatness through his art and imagination. Though the creator of many great pages and stories, the man himself, as posed, is vastly overshadowed by the work he created.
Here are the only 1970's DC stories by Kirby not reprinted recently in collected hardcover or trade form, JUSTICE INC. 2-4 by Kirby. Issue 1 by Al McWilliams is also linked at the end after the Kirby stories. All written by Dennis O'Neil, the only O'Neil/Kirby series collaboration. (With the exception of RICHARD DRAGON KUNG FU FIGHTER 3, Sept 1975.) Another crimefighting pulp adventure character, JUSTICE INC is an interesting companion series to O'Neil's run on THE SHADOW during the same period.
DC even did a new series starring the Avenger character (art by Scott Hampton, as a backup series in the 2010 DOC SAVAGE series) in the last few years, so clearly DC has the rights to publish these stories, but for some reason just didn't include it in the KIRBY OMNIBUS 2 volume!
A powerful editorial, about more than just Kirby, but about the Big Two's consistent unethical treatment of creators across the board. But especially unforgivable, their treatment of Alan Moore and Jack Kirby, the two who largely created the foundation their multi-billion-dollar cross-media empires are built on.
It would not only be good ethics, but also simply good and professional business, to reward in some modest proportionate way those whose work built their empires. Even just righting the wrongs of past injustices, from this point forward, would do a great deal to wipe away the company shames of the past, and give back to these companies far more than they stole from Alan Moore, Jack Kirby, Shuster, Siegel and others.
Moore didn't seem to be so creator rightsy when he was building his rep on characters created by other, work for hire, artists/writers, including...Jack Kirby.
[INTERVIEWER QUESTION:] You have made your discomfort with DC’s policies very clear. Would you have similar misgivings about working for Marvel?
[writer Chris Roberson: ] I don’t have as clear an understanding of the internal workings of Marvel, of how they deal with their current creators. I can say that I would be deeply uncomfortable on ethical grounds making a living working on, for example, characters created by Jack Kirby whose family receives absolutely no remuneration for it. Yeah, so it’s largely a moot point because I have not been offered work, and at this point I doubt I will, but if offered I would turn it down.
[UPDATE: Chris Roberson has e-mailed in to offer the following correction: “I’ve learned since speaking with you that Marvel reached a settlement with the creators of Captain America some time ago, and in that instance at least the Kirby estate has seen remuneration for Kirby’s creation.”]
[UPDATE 2: Neal Kirby has e-emailed to correct the above: “The settlement Roberson refers to was only between Marvel and Joe Simon. My parents were not part of that action, and never received any remuneration from Marvel for Captain America. Also, neither the estate nor myself and my sisters (separate from the estate) have ever received any funds from Marvel for Captain America.”]
Wow. For all the thousands of pages that Jack Kirby drew, for the central characters KIRBY DIRECTLY CREATED, all the books of his reprinted art on those series, all the subsequent comics, books, licensed toys, cartoons, movies... the Kirby family receives zero in compensation.
And presumably, likewise no compensation for secondary characters Kirby created in FF, THOR, HULK, AVENGERS, X-MEN, and so forth, and the billions those licensed stories and characters have generated in books and other media.
Quote:
Is there anything you can point to that DC could change that would make you feel comfortable working for them again?
There is, actually, and it was suggested not to me, but in a public forum, I think on Heidi MacDonald’s ComicsBeat.com, by Kurt Busiek. Kurt is tireless in wading into enraged inflamed conversations online and being a voice of reason. But what Kurt suggested was that if Marvel and DC both were to retroactively grandfather their current work-for-hire creator-equity deals— For example, now if you work for DC and you create a character that appears in one of their books, and then years down the line it’s an action figure or it appears in a movie or appears in a TV show or gets republished or whatever the case may be, the person that created that character gets a check. So what Kurt suggested was if DC and Marvel were to grandfather their current equity deals back to 1938 that they would obviate the need for the lawsuits that many of the creators and their estates continue to bring and that also they would have a public relations bonanza on their hands because they would be able to show how they were taking care of the people that made these characters that people cherish now. In much the same way that Time Warner settled with Siegel and Shuster in the ’70s so they could trot them out for the premiere of the Superman movie. How great would it be if Time Warner could point to how they were helping pay for Tony DeZuniga’s hospital bills while they were promoting the Jonah Hex film, or whatever the case may be. I think if they took better care of the people who created the characters that other hands now service, that would do a great deal to engender fonder feelings on my part.
One other thing I would add is that if DC and Marvel did retroactively grant the creator-equity deals to their former creators, we wouldn’t need a Hero Initiative now, because those guys would be getting money. It would reduce the profits a miniscule amount for the larger corporations, but it would take care of entire generations of now dying old men and women who have gone on to see their creations continue to generate revenue they or their children don’t have any part of.
Your career previous to comics was in science fiction and prose publishing. Do you ever have conversations with your friends from that world about creators’ rights in comics, and if so, how do they react?
I’ve had those conversations and it depends. I mean, to people that have a blushing familiarity with prose novels, they’re aghast at the way that the rights structures work, at least for work-for-hire stuff, but for those novelists who’ve done work-for-hire novels, whether it’s writing novels for tie-ins for TV shows or games or action figures or whatever the case may be, they’re perfectly sanguine about it, because it’s the same thing. The difference is that in the prose world, the work-for-hire stuff is a very small sliver that is kind of—I don’t want to say the bottom rung, but it’s not the thing that the most attention is paid to. More attention is paid to stuff that people create themselves and own. And there are sometimes confused looks when I have to explain that the reverse is true in the comics industry.
Wow again.
Busiek speculates that simply compensating creators and their families would pay for itself in public goodwill and P.R. of being good to their creative talent.
And further, that it would save Marvel and DC tons of money they would continue losing for decades in endless litigation.
It's disgusting to me that Shuster and Siegel won a suit over ACTION COMICS # 1, and yet because it went right back into more litigation, they never saw a dime of that. And that Alan Moore chooses not to sue, to avoid similar draining legal costs, and would be barred from speaking publicly about his dealings with DC, because in that situation it would be regarding a pending legal case.
I think Moore would have a big problem suing because so much of his "original" work is based on their existing characters. Even "Watchmen" started as his spin on the Charleton characters.
For example:
Do you compensate Alan Moore for "creating" Rorshach when he bascially was a renamed version of the Question? And when you do, what about Ditko's rights? Do you have to credit Ditko as a co-creator of Rorshach? I can't see Moore going for that.
And if taking an existing character and putting a new spin on it (ala, again the Question) entitles one to compensation as the creator what about characters who were revised and revamped but kept the same name? Is, for example, Frank Miller now entitled to be considered a co-creator of Batman because of how radically he re-envisioned aspects of the character?
It really is more of a minefield than Kirby supporters like to believe. And, as I've said before, Jack Kirby was a well-established pro when he worked for Marvel in the 1960s and knew exactly how work for hire operated. He got paid the same whether a book sold well or it flopped. He certainly didn't hand his paycheck back in when a book didn't sell. He gambled that signing off his rights was a better bet than keeping the rights and self-publishing.
Moore didn't seem to be so creator rightsy when he was building his rep on characters created by other, work for hire, artists/writers, including...Jack Kirby.
Good point.
Marvel doesn't compensate the Kirby family, but I don't know what DC does. I recall Dick Giordano in the 80's saying that when DC did reprints of stuff like GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW, NEW GODS, DEADMAN and other early/mid 1980's baxter reprint books, that DC at that point paid the same rates for reprints as they paid writers and artists on newly published work. I don't know if that policy carries on into the collected books DC publishes in the modern era.
I'd like to think Moore is more creator-aware than he was in his early 30's (circa 1983-1989) when he was working for DC. But it can't be disputed that he was far more aware in his 30's of legal contracts, than were, say, Shuster and Siegel at age 18, when they were swindled out of the rights to Superman.
As I posted earlier in the topic, there was a SWAMP THING issue where Moore brought in Kirby's character The Demon, where Alan Moore had a dedication to Kirby by the story credits, "Dedicated with awe and affection to Jack Kirby". And yes, it arguably is hypocritical that he built his reputation while utilizing others' work-for-hire characters. Similar to his story "Pictopia" in ANYTHING GOES 2 (1986), that was critical of the "dark" trend in comics, despite his being one of the major proponents of bringing in what he himself termed a "Dark Age" in comics.
I think Moore would have a big problem suing because so much of his "original" work is based on their existing characters. Even "Watchmen" started as his spin on the Charleton characters.
For example:
Do you compensate Alan Moore for "creating" Rorshach when he bascially was a renamed version of the Question? And when you do, what about Ditko's rights? Do you have to credit Ditko as a co-creator of Rorshach? I can't see Moore going for that.
Yeah, it gets really complicated. As innovative as the storytelling in WATCHMEN is, the characters as you say are all unquestionably thinly veiled imitations of copyrighted Charleton heroes, that DC editorial management asked Moore to create, so he could do his story without killing off the previously copyrighted Charleton heroes. So it gets really complicated who "created" or owns the characters in WATCHMEN. Plenty there for DC to keep Moore in litigation for many years.
But from the other perspective, the Charleton characters re-packaged in WATCHMEN existed for roughly 2 decades virtually unknown, until Moore's innovations brought them to the peak of sales and acclaim that they never would have in other hands. Still, even with that argument, they were never 100% Moore's creation, a lot was there before Moore entered the picture.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
And if taking an existing character and putting a new spin on it (ala, again the Question) entitles one to compensation as the creator what about characters who were revised and revamped but kept the same name? Is, for example, Frank Miller now entitled to be considered a co-creator of Batman because of how radically he re-envisioned aspects of the character?
It really is more of a minefield than Kirby supporters like to believe. And, as I've said before, Jack Kirby was a well-established pro when he worked for Marvel in the 1960s and knew exactly how work for hire operated. He got paid the same whether a book sold well or it flopped. He certainly didn't hand his paycheck back in when a book didn't sell. He gambled that signing off his rights was a better bet than keeping the rights and self-publishing.
I would hope that Miller is compensated for his enormous contribution to the Batman mythology. While he did not create Batman, his ideas are visible in the last 30 years of Batman stories by other creators, and elements in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS are adapted into several of the Batman movies, that have grossed in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. I'd hope that Miller at least gets generously compensated in royalties on the DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and YEAR ONE trades and hardcovers. He probably receives none for his concepts in 30 years of stories his two works inspired. And likewise probably no compensation for his ideas used in the films and cartoons. And since he did not actually create Batman, that is a reasonable limit.
I feel the same way about Kirby's work for Marvel and DC. That he (or his family/estate) should get a percentage of the profits for any new published book of the art and stories for which Kirby is directly credited. And at least a tiny slice of the movies based on these concepts, such as X-men, Avengers and Fantastic Four, particularly the movies and series adapting the stories Kirby specifically created. At some point, like Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, or Jules Verne, all these characters will become public domain, and belong to neither Marvel or the Kirby estate. And at that point, anyone can publish them without copyright/ownership issues.
John Byrne in an editorial in FANTASTIC FOUR CHRONICLES, published in 1982, said that he accepts the work-for-hire arrangement without complaint, because he accepts that while the company profits off his work if it is successful, the company also can take a financial loss if his ideas are not well received by readers. And whether it sells or not, he still gets paid. With additional royalties if it is successful.
In Alan Moore's case, I don't really understand his level of animosity toward DC, who while they obviously didn't cut him in on the additional licensing revenue, still made him a millionaire! While he arguably could be compensated more, he has been far more compensated than other workhorses and major contributors to Marvel and DC, such as Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Gil Kane, Berni Wrightson and others, whose best work was published before the modern system of royalties and creators' rights was put in place in the early 1980's.
In a COMICS JOURNAL 138 interview in 1990, Gary Groth interviewing Alan Moore voiced his contempt for the Image Comics guys, whose characters like McFarlane's SPAWN and Jim Lee's WILDCATS were barely veiled copyrighted re-workings of the Marvel series they had just left (like the Charleton heroes re-invented in WATCHMEN). And after a few issues by McFarlane and Lee, they farmed out these characters to other new talent who, just like at Marvel or DC, got paid work-for-hire. In Groth's words, the only difference between Marvel and Image is "who owns the shit." There is no creative innovation, there is no better compensation of work-for-hire talent. [** CORRECTION: The issues discussed were in Gary Groth's interview of Neil Gaiman in COMICS Journal 169, July 1994. My apologies for the initial defective memory. ]
But really, how is this any different than someone who works as a restaurant manager, a stockbroker, a bank loan officer, a massage therapist, an advertising account executive, a nurse, or a middle manager? In any of these fields, you could argue your labor is far more profitable for the company than the compensation they give you. As a rule of thumb, one article I read said whatever a company is paying you, they are earning at least double what they pay you, or you wouldn't be there in the first place. I've calculated at several jobs they earn 4 or 5 times what they pay me for my labor. One more than tenfold. So is the comics field really that much different in its compensation? Simply because they're glamorous characters and intellectual properties, those contributions to a company are more visible than in other fields.
I think the current creators have a pretty good gig. 10 years ago, I knew a guy who had worked for Marvel, and he said at entry level, a creator doing one 22 page book a month with page rates alone (not including royalties if it sells well) earned about 50,000 a year. One assumes that as they become more established professionally, that goes up. And (as with the Image Comics guys) they can, once established enough break off and work for Dark Horse or Image, or start their own company to get a greater compensation for their established following and marketability. As in any other field. Arguably that's as fair as any other professional field, you establish yourself, develop marketable talent, and then seek greater compensation for that established talent.
Yeah, as a small example of that beyond the above, I looked a while back at Alan Moore's Wikipedia listing. It listed his self-described religious belief as "neo-paganism".
I read the linked description of that belief 4 times, and still have no idea what the hell it means.
Jack Kirby’s Fantastic Four World’s Greatest Artist’s Edition is 168 pages and 15” x 22” – the same size as Kirby’s original art.
This book will feature reproduction of the original art for four complete “twice-up” stories from Fantastic Four #33 (Side-by-Side With the Sub-Mariner), #45 (Among Us Hide… the Inhumans!), #47 (Beware the Hidden Land!), and #60 (The Peril and the Power!)
In addition to the four issues, the book will contain reproduction of the original art for 22 Kirby Fantastic Four covers, many pin-ups, splashes, and interior pages from classic issues dating back all the way to Fantastic Four #3.
Yeah... while these oversized "Artist Edition" reproductions of original art are interesting, somehow I just can't bring myself to shell out the cash for them. I mean, it's almost all stuff I have in its comic book form, some of it I also have in multiple forms, like Marvel Masterworks or DC Archive hardcover editions, or trades, in addition to the original issues.
One I saw that was really nice was an "artist edition" of Barry Smith's CONAN work.
Another recent original art reproduction book of Kirby work reproduced some of his best 70's DC work, such as his KAMANDI and DEMON first issues. Titled JACK KIRBY: PENCILS AND INKS.
The one you list is from IDW, and reprints original art of FANTASTIC FOUR 33, 45, 47, 60, and scattered other FF pages. Arguably Kirby's most definitive and most popular work. Although I've always been most attached to his 70's DC work from 1970-1975.
Yesterday was a busy day for me, but I just want to draw attention to Kirby's birthday yesterday on August 28th. In particular this birthday. If he were still alive, this would be his 100th birthday.
Especially for the occasion, Two Morrows created a new book titled KIRBY 100, which along with Kirby art, also has tribute by 100 comics professionals.
If you haven't read KAMANDI 1, November 1972 by Jack Kirby, here it is for your reading pleasure, in its entirety.
Enjoy.
Arguably Kirby's most successful new series of the 1970's era, and for a few years, DC's best selling title. Whether it's NEW GODS 7, THE DEMON 1 and 2, OMAC 1, or KAMANDI 1, ETERNALS 1 and 2, or later the Machine Man origin story "X-51" in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY issue 8, Kirby demonstrates a talent for doing powerful origin stories.
It even includes the initial map of Kamandi's world that covers most of the series. Kirby only started to venture beyond it in the last few of his 40 issues.
A little bit after the fact, but still wanted to commemorate it. I chose the above double page spread from Kirby's SILVER STAR 2, published by Pacific Comics in April 1983. Showing that even at the twilight of Kirby's career when he arguably wasn't doing his best work, he was still capable of producing memorable and impressive pages, on a par with his KAMANDI, DEMON, ETERNALS or BLACK PANTHER work.
From his last few months at Marvel in 1970, this page from SILVER SURFER 18, the last issue of the series, and the only issue drawn by Kirby.
One of those random single-issue stories by Kirby that few people know about. Along with anthology mystery stories in CHAMBER OF DARKNESS 4 and 5, And a brief series of 10-page Inhumans stories in AMAZING ADVENTURES 1-4, these were among the last few stories Kirby did for Marvel in 1970.
Possibly Kirby was experimenting with new characters other than the ones he normally worked on, or he was churning out pages to fill out his contract before departing over to DC. Since most of these stories he both wrote and pencilled, I suspect he wanted to do work himself that Stan Lee couldn't take credit for. Or possibly he was warming up for doing a ton of writer/artist work he'd soon be doing at DC, his first writer/artist work in 10 years. In any case, they're interesting stories, for being obscurities outside the work he is known for.
Wow, scarcely do I mention Kirby's writer/artist run in AMAZING ADVENTURES 1-4, than a day later I run across this outstandingly intelligent video discussing those stories, as a microcosm of the recurring themes in Kirby's storytelling and artwork.
The double-page splash from MISTER MIRACLE 7, April 1972.
One of my favorites of Kirby's 1970-1975 work. I think issues 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of FOREVER PEOPLE, NEW GODS and MISTER MIRACLE were the issues where these series really took form. Regrettable that these series were just on the edge of being concluded when they were cancelled out from under Kirby. And that we had to wait 13 years only to get... THE HUNGER DOGS graphic novel, instead of whatever would have been the actual and far better conclusion while Kirby was still in peak form.
For me, I pretend HUNGER DOGS never happened, and that the actual conclusion is Levitz/Giffen's "Great Darkness saga" in LEGION 290-294. Which unlike HUNGER DOGS, is a satisfying conclusion, and still leaves some compelling mystery as to the details of what happened over the intervening 1,000 years.
But for whatever flaws, Kirby's Fourth World is a mind-blowing torrent of concepts and visuals. Even Kirby's 15-issue JIMMY OLSEN run, though lighter in tone, delivers a similar endless stream of characters, worlds and concepts.
A legal battle poised to head to the Supreme Court was forestalled Friday, as the heirs of legendary comic creator Jack Kirby reached a settlement with Marvel. The details of the settlement have not been publicly released, but Marvel and the Kirby estate issued a joint statement regarding the decision.
“Marvel and the family of Jack Kirby have amicably resolved their legal disputes, and are looking forward to advancing their shared goal of honoring Mr. Kirby’s significant role in Marvel’s history,” the statement read.
At issue in the dispute was whether the heirs of Kirby, who died in 1994, had the right in 2009 to issue termination notices on 262 works that Kirby had a hand in creating between 1958 and 1963. The notices went out to Marvel, Fox, Paramount, Sony, and other studios which have made films based on Kirby’s characters.
The Kirby family argued that the termination notices were valid because Kirby held a copyright interest in those works. Marvel’s position was that Kirby, as a work-for-hire artist, had no copyright interest in the characters. Marvel and Disney filed suit against the heirs in 2010 to invalidate the termination notices. A lower court ruled for Marvel in 2011, and an appeal by the heirs to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was subsequently denied.
Had the appeal by the Kirbys to the Supreme Court been successful, the heirs would have been entitled to possibly millions of dollars of royalties on movies such as Iron Man and The Avengers, and Marvel would have had to negotiate with them for the right to use Kirby’s characters in future films.
In addition, repercussions would have been felt across the comics industry as work-for-hire creators suddenly gained a basis for claiming copyright interest in their works.
The Supreme Court! To borrow from Biden, that's a big f---ing deal!
I somehow missed this back when it was reported. But regardless, relevant to our earlier discussion.
It sounds like Marvel settled, to avoid potentially having to make a a far larger settlement, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Kirby family.
Another Kirby double-page spread. This one from an unpublished 1978 adaptation of the British TV series THE PRISONER. Kirby did a full issue, complete script, pencils and partially inked, that I have xeroxes of from years ago. There were two abortive attempts, one issue by Kirby, and a previous issue by Englehart and Gil Kane.
Not until 1988 was there a published THE PRISONER series, by Dean Motter.
A later PRISONER series at least utilized this Kirby splash page as a cover. It would be nice to see the full work published.
I keep it boxed with an "unpublished wing" of my collection, and store these Kirby and Gil Kane PRISONER xeroxes with: * CANCELLED COMIC CAVALCADE (the 30 abruptly cancelled DC titles from Oct 1978, collected in two Xerox volumes, about 200 pages each), * the unpublished Kirby DINGBATS 2 and 3 (issue 1 is FIRST ISSUE SPECIAL 6), * and the unpublished Rick Veitch "Swamp Thing meets Jesus" story (if I recall, what would have been issue 88, in 1989. Veitch quit the series when DC without warning said they would not publish it).
By Stan Lee, with Kirby/Ayers art. Ayers remains among my favorite Kirby inkers, for all the monster, war, western and romance stories where he inked Kirby's art from 1960-1963, and on FF 6-20 (issue 5 was inked by Sinnott, 1-2 by George Klein, 3-4 by Sol Brodsky). And Ayers inked the 1st issue of AVENGERS. Ayers also inked SGT FURY issues 1, 2, 3, and 13 over Kirby (1963), before taking over as penciller of that series for close to 20 years.
"SSSERPO!" appeared in AMAZING ADVENTURES 6, Nov 1961 (cover dated the same month as FANTASTIC FOUR 1)
Kirby's pre-Marvel monster stories (and likewise the Ditko stories of that era, circa 1958-1963) remain among my favorites of his work.
A rare treat in that era was the occasional Kirby/Ditko art combination. The last Kirby/Ditko story I'm aware of is FANTASTIC FOUR 13, introducing the Watcher, and the Blue Area of the moon, some of which is reproduced by Byrne/Austin in the famous conclusion to the Phoenix storyline in X-MEN 137 in 1980.
Today is Kirby's 102nd birthday. Look how excited these guys are!
A pin-up from FANTASTIC FOUR ANNUAL 5, November 1967. (Out the same month as FF 68.) One of multiple pin-ups in the same issue. Most of the others are of the Inhumans and FF. Kirby was 50 years old when he drew this. Who could have imagined how dominant and influential Kirby's work would become, and on the back of it how dominant Marvel would become, when his 102-issue FF run was coming out every month?
He passed away 25 years ago, but his star has not faded. The work and Kirby's legacy endures.
Even so, much as I love Kirby's FF, THOR and other Marvel 1960's work, my heart is even more in Kirby's 1970-1975 DC work. In particular his JIMMY OLSEN, FOREVER PEOPLE, NEW GODS, MISTER MIRACLE, THE DEMON, KAMANDI, OMAC, JUSTICE INC., and FIRST ISSUE SPECIAL runs. I think there was never a time in my 47 years of collecting where I eagerly awaited each new month's comics than when KAMANDI, THE DEMON and OMAC were coming out.
The above masterpiece is pages 2 and 3 of THE DEMON 2, Nov 1972. Very atmospheric, I love the way Kirby draws statues, rock, and old castles. I think Kirby was at his peak in 1971-1972, with Royer inking his work. A bit more loose than the detail of his 1965-1966 work, but beautiful and decorative in a new way.
I also loved Kirby's work from 1976-1978, on: THE ETERNALS 1-19, and ANNUAL 1, CAPTAIN AMERICA 193-216, ANNUAL 4 and 5, CAPTAIN AMERICA'S BICENTENNIAL BATTLES treasury, 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY movie adaptation treasury, and the 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY series issues 1-10, MACHINE MAN 1-9 (spun off from 2001 issues 8-10), BLACK PANTHER 1-12, and DEVIL DINOSAUR 1-9. And WHAT IF issue 11 ("What if the Marvel Bullpen Staff got the FF's powers")
Not quite as high on my list as Kirby's 70's DC work, but still a lot of great stuff, particularly ETERNALS 1 and 2, and 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY issue 8 (the origin of Machine Man).
From 1959-1978, Kirby produced just an enormous body of work, across a multitude of genres and characters, that dominated the industry, and still have tremendous influence.
Kirby's later 1980's work on CAPTAIN VICTORY, SILVER STAR, HUNGER DOGS and SUPER POWERS, well... not so much. They are more of an echo, the dying ember of that 20 year period that preceded them.
But man... the work itself in that 1959-1978 period, and the enduring influence on artists like John and Sal Buscema, Rich Buckler, Keith Giffen, George Perez, John Byrne, Steranko, Ladronn, Allred and many others, is just beyond measure.
Comics creators and friends shown include Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, Mark Evanier, Steve Sherman, Walt Simonson, Steve Rude, John Romita Sr., two of Kirby's own children who lived with him across those decades, along with many other comics writers and artists. They discuss Kirby's art style and influence, their personal relationships with Kirby, his personal life and work habits, and the major events of his life as a comics professional.
One part that was really interesting is that what Kirby wanted but was denied at both Marvel and DC in the 1960's and 1970's, as far as royalties, creator ownership and profit sharing, have been part of Marvel and DC contracts for any starting artist since 1985. Just after Kirby's career ended. That if Marvel had just given him that kind of a contract in 1969, he probably would have spent the remainder of his career at Marvel.
Here's an interesting and lengthy piece from THE COMICS JOURNAL on Kirby, with a lot of behind-the-scenes photos of Kirby, going back to his World War II days, and with his children in the 1950's and 1960's.
But it mostly discusses the issue of character creation, plot and story credit not given to Kirby by Stan Lee for the creation of Silver Age Marvel.
It gets pretty down and dirty in the viewer comments after the article. I think it's pretty beyond dispute that Kirby did a lot more than he was given credit for, and on a lot of pencil pages, in the side margins Kirby supplied plot and dialogue, much of which was used verbatim by Stan Lee, while Lee took credit for the writing.
The wildest for me is that when Martin Goodman suggested to Lee (as Lee himself describes in ORIGINS OF MARVEL COMICS, 1974) Goodman suggested that JLA was a big seller for DC, and persuaded Lee to do a similar superhero group for Atlas/Marvel in 1961. But in ORIGINS OF MARVEL, Lee says that he came up with all the characters and concepts, and then gave it to Kirby to draw.
But as detailed here, Lee apparently wanted to do another revival of Sub-Mariner, Captain America and the Human Torch (which previous revival had failed miserably in 1954-1955) and it was Jack Kirby and Sol Brodsky who had pushed Lee that it would be better to use new characters, that gave us the FF.
Had he not left us when he did, Jack Kirby would be celebrating his 102nd birthday today. He also would be celebrating that he is increasingly getting the kind of recognition that was frustratingly denied him during his lifetime. Oh, a lot of people — darn near everyone in the comic book industry, near as I can tell — knew that he was more than a great artist; that he was also a writer and a creator and that so many brilliant ideas during the years he worked in comics sprang from his brilliant mind.
They all knew that but it was rarely said aloud by certain parties when it might have led to better contacts and compensation for Jack…and seeing his authorship and co-authorship properly acknowledged while he and his life-partner Roz were around to see it. I would also like it if Jack had lived to see his work — especially his "Fourth World" books for DC (New Gods, Forever People, Mister Miracle, some of Jimmy Olsen) — reprinted and reprinted and reprinted and reprinted constantly, often in high-ticket hardcovers, to fill a demand for work which, at the time it first came out, was dismissed by some as a failure.
Make no mistake about this: Jack knew it would happen. He didn't know when but he knew it would happen. With each passing year, I more appreciate his brilliance, his prescience and his basic decency as human being. I also more appreciate his work but I think that's true of most of us who read it. I don't need to tell anyone how good the stories and drawings he put on paper were. That, you can see for yourself. Just trust me on this: If you liked the work, you would have loved the man who did it. Perhaps you already do.
As I write this, Disney theme parks are festooned with the name of Kirby. Yes, of course, they're promoting a product — the upcoming film of The Eternals, based on a Kirby creation. Like it or not, that's how you get hailed in the world today…by association with something that is very, very popular and therefore very, very lucrative. Disney is also hailing him as a creator or co-creator of most of the Marvel Super-Heroes.
I understand there are those who think it is not enough. I also understand that there are those who think Disney is blurring the history a bit to make it seem like these were Disney creations, not Disney purchases. All I can say is that I believe Jack was severely wronged by folks who owned these characters in the past. They denied him the two things that mattered to him: Proper credit and meaningful compensation for the Kirby family. He has them now. I'm happy and I don't know anyone who actually knew Jack who is not delighted with how things have turned out.
We all have a great deal of trouble talking about what's come to pass without using phrases like "Oh, if only he were here to see it." But like I said, he knew. I don't know how he know but he knew. Happy birthday, Jack. I will never stop thanking you…for all you did for me and for all you did for everyone.
For all the "recognition" given Kirby, I still doubt Marvel, DC, or Disney are adequately compensating Kirby for the level of profit gained from his work.
I recall Dave Stevens said of the Rocketeer movie that he was compensated "in the low six figures" for his licensed characters. Probably in the neighborhood of $200,000. For his one creation. How much more does Kirby (or his surviving family) deserve for the dozens of profitable characters Kirby has given to the comics publishing field, and to films, tv series, animated series, and licensed toys and so forth?
I would consider the scales reasonably balanced if Marvel and DC at least gave the Kirby family 1 or 2% of every comic book, collected paperback or collected hardcover those 2 companies constantly put back in print of Kirby's stories. But I doubt his family get any part of that.
It would be great if Disney gave a generous compensation to the Kirby estate for an Eternals movie, and it guilted and generated public pressure on Marvel and DC to likewise follow with (finally) appropriate compensation to the Kirby family proportionate to the Marvel/DC profit from Kirby's work.
There are two people in comics I think deserve compensation like no others. One is Jack Kirby. The other is Neal Adams.
But in the case of Adams, he did less than 200 comics in his most influential period, and he has been generously compensated. Whereas Kirby, despite his unequalled contribution, has not. Again, not even getting into movies and other character licensing, just a tiny percentage of book printing of Jack Kirby's comics alone would be a significant windfall for the Kirby family. But even from the stories themselves in print, I don't see evidence that the Kirby family receives a dime from even those books. There is what is legal, and there is what is fair. This is how the industry treats its most prolific and iconic creator.
Kirby doesn’t deserve shit. He was an experienced creator who made a conscious choice to repeatedly enter into work for hire arrangements rather than start his own business and take any risk.
Adams, to his credit, had the balls to walk away from DC and Marvel and start his own studio. Furthermore, Adams was not afraid to go to bat for people who are genuinely ripped off like Seagal and Schuster. He wasn’t just fighting for creator rights for himself.
Kirby doesn’t deserve shit. He was an experienced creator who made a conscious choice to repeatedly enter into work for hire arrangements rather than start his own business and take any risk.
Adams, to his credit, had the balls to walk away from DC and Marvel and start his own studio. Furthermore, Adams was not afraid to put himself at great career risk for people who were genuinely ripped off like Seigel and Schuster. He wasn’t just fighting for creator rights for himself.
At times I believe everything you just said. Adams did show a level of courage and willingness to break out on his own and leave the comics industry behind. While in the 1970's Adams was in his 30's and Kirby in his 50's, both had wives and children and mortgages, and there was risk. I think Kirby was more in love with comics, and thus more reluctant to leave it behind for animation or other ventures. But he finally did after 1978, and only came back once creator rights and royalties began. But alas, way past his prime.
Mark Evanier, in one of the documentaries I linked a page or so back, said that what Kirby wanted in the 1960's and 1970's is now the standard contract, and if he could have gotten that in 1963 or 1970 or 1978, he gladly would have stayed the remainder of his career at Marvel. Now Kirby would not even have to fight for it, it's the standard contract.
And I just feel that retroactively, that should be offered to the Kirby estate, by both DC and Marvel, for Kirby's singular contribution to both companies. That's not too much to ask for the single greatest contributor to those two companies, spanning from the 1940's till 1978. That's not just handing it to Kirby, I think he earned it, ten times over. That's just giving proper compensation. His family should have what the surviving family of any current Marvel or DC contributor would receive.
There's very few who I think gave such a contribution that would be appropriate. Jack Kirby. Stan Lee. Steve Ditko. Neal Adams. Will Eisner. It's a pretty small club.
The last of Kirby's 1970-1976 DC material, released in a new edition.
The "Dingbat" part comes from a Kirby tryout series in FIRST ISSUE SPECIAL issue 6, a kid gang title called DINGBATS. I found out from speaking to John Morrow at Orlandocon in 1998 that there was a lot of Kirby material created for DC that was never released, including 2 additional issues of DINGBATS. I have xeroxes of the unpublished DINGBATS issues I purchased about 15 years ago.
The "Love" part of the title comes from two other unpublished Kirby projects. Similar to Kirby's IN THE DAYS OF THE MOB and SPIRIT WORLD magazines published in 1971, there was a huge volume of Kirby anthology stories created for two other proposed magazines, TRUE DIVORCE CASES, and a black-audience-targeted romance magazine SOUL LOVE. Given the way Kirby was jerked around with DAYS OF THE MOB and SPIRIT WORLD (both of which DC published only the first issue of each, despite that Kirby created 2 complete issues of both series) Kirby shelved the romance titles. Over the last 25 years or so, Two Morrows has published many pages and complete stories from these lost issues in their fan press magazine THE JACK KIRBY COLLECTOR. But this book marks the first time they've been released in one publication in their entirety, finally, roughly 50 years later.
SPIRIT WORLD was also released in 2012 in magazine-sized hardcover form, with both complete issues for the first time. (the second issue material was split up and published across DC's color comics DARK MANSION 6 and WEIRD MYSTERY 1-3 in 1972, but in the hardcover is reprinted together for the first time in its original black and white form. The 1972 comics also include Kirby photo-collage and text features for the aborted issue 2 that are not in the collected hardcover. I actually prefer the issue 2 stuff in the color comics.)
And DAYS OF THE MOB likewise was released in hardcover in 2013 with the complete issues 1 and 2. (Only one story from issue 2 was ever published before this hardcover, in AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS fanzine issue 1, in 1974. The rest all is published here for the first time.)
It's amazing to me that all this material, unpublished for decades, is finally all in print.
The only other unpublished story I mentioned earlier, what would have been SANDMAN 7 in 1975 if the title was not prematurely cancelled (and what would have later seen print in KAMANDI 61 in 1978, if that title likewise had not been prematurely cancelled, that was printed as xeroxes in CANCELLED COMIC CAVALCADE in 1978, that finally saw print in some mainstream form in THE BEST OF DC digest issue 22 in March 1982) finally saw print in KIRBY OMNIBUS, VOLUME 2 hardcover in 2013, and again more recently in JACK KIRBY BRONZE AGE OMNIBUS hardcover in 2019.
Leaving only Kirby's JUSTICE INC. issues 2-4 his only remaining 1970's DC material not re-released in hardcover or trade form.
Kirby's Fourth World material also has been released in several new hardcovers and trades. I like the material best as it was separated into four trades of: JIMMY OLSEN 133-139,141-148 NEW GODS 1-11, NEW GODS 6 (1984), and HUNGER DOGS (1985) MISTER MIRACLE 1-18
and soon to be released FOREVER PEOPLE 1-11 (July 2020).
In addition to an 8" X 11" hardcover JACK KIRBY FOURTH WORLD OMNIBUS, at an unweildy 1,500-plus pages. Beware on this version, the first edition has printing errors, and DC did a later printing that buyers could trade for a corrected version. (earlier Fourth World hardcovers (2007-2008) and trade paperbacks (2011-2012) collected this material across 4 volumes each, in an odd canonization that didn't give you a complete story in any single volume. I much prefer the new trades that collect each individual series in a separate volume)
Since DC has left these the only un-collected ones from Kirby's 1970-1976 canon of work for DC, here are the JUSTICE, INC stories, accessible online for your reading pleasure.
issue 1 "THis Night An Avenger Is Born", 18p O'Neil story/ Al McWilliams art issue 2"The Skywalker", 18 pages, by O'Neil, Kirby/Royer issue 3 "The Monster Bug", 18 pages, by O'Neil, Kirby/Royer issue 4 "Slay Ride In The Sky", 18 pages, by O'Neil, Kirby/Royer
Al McWilliams' art on "Justice Inc." is serviceable but terribly dated for that era. It looks like something from a late 50s Charleton comic, during a time where guys like Adams, Wrightson, Smith and Starlin were breaking boundaries and expanding the medium. That alone would have hurt the book's chances.
Kirby's stuff was better but, as your source notes, his heart clearly wasn't in it.
The first issue cover by Joe Kubert shows what could have been. While I know Kubert of that era would have been busy with war comics and setting up his art school, it's very unfortunate that he wasn't given lead art duties that the project. A Kubert "Justice Inc.," in era of experimental comics like "Warlord" selling big numbers, could have been a real contender for DC.
Well, with Kirby, his art was more loose and less detiled than guys like Adams, Wrightson, Kaluta and Aparo, but up till 1972 I think that while Kirby's art didn't have the same detail as it did in his 1966 FANTASTIC FOUR (say, around FF issues 44-65), as in the two above splash pages from THE DEMON, his art is still beautiful and visually striking.
Even in Kirby's looser work in 1973-1978, Kirby still from just a conceptual storytelling point of view was right on the pulse of what readers wanted. KAMANDI for a while was DC's best seller. THE DEMON was also popular, and his "Chariots of the Gods"-themed THE ETERNALS series was popular as well. I didn't like everything Kirby did, but I liked a high ratio, and he has a very consistent style across every series he worked on.
I don't know what happened with Al McWilliams. He seemed to have lost work elsewhere, and then picked up loose work at Marvel and DC to pick up the slack starting in 1974-1975. Possibly he worked on comic strips before that. Aside from this JUSTICE INC issue 1 story, he also inked John Byrne IRON FIST stories in MARVEL PREMIERE 25, and then the first issue of IRON FIST in his own book. And on Gold Key's original series STAR TREK comic book, issues 38-61 (July 1976-March 1979), and a Black Hood comic book produced around 1975, that wasn't published until 1983-1984, with rare shorter separate stories by Al McWilliams, Neal Adams and Gray Morrow, in BLUE RIBBON COMICS 8, 1983.
There was also a separate BLACK HOOD comic, 3 issues, issue 1 of which had a few pages of McWilliams, along with stories by Morrow, Wildey, Toth, Spiegle and Boyette. I bought these issues years ago for the Toth stories.
From 1950 to 1952, McWilliams primarily drew romance comics and crime comics for Lev Gleason Publications.[4] Then in 1952, he and writer Oskar Lebeck created the science-fiction comic strip "Twin Earths", which ran through 1963.[6] From 1966 to 1968, he drew the sea-adventure strip Davy Jones, a spinoff of Sam Leff's Curley Kayoe.[5][7]
McWilliams' and writer John Saunders' Dateline: Danger!, which ran from 1968 to 1974, introduced the first African-American lead character of a comic strip,[8] Danny Raven, co-star of this adventure series about two intelligence agents working undercover as reporters.[9]
Other comic-strip work includes the Star Trek and Buck Rogers strips.[5] He worked as an assistant on John Prentice's Rip Kirby in 1964 and 1965; on Don Sherwood's U.S. Marine strip Dan Flagg from 1965 to 1967; and on Leonard Starr's On Stage in 1969 and 1970.[7] McWilliams also illustrated for advertising.[5]
He drew no confirmed comic-book stories from 1952 through 1965, when he illustrated two tales in Warren Publishing's black-and-white horror comics magazine Creepy. He went on to draw stories in the supernatural/mystery anthology comics Boris Karloff Tales of Mystery and Twilight Zone, two TV-series spinoffs published by Western Publishing's Gold Key Comics, along with a smattering of other stories for that imprint — including some issues of the superhero series Doctor Solar, Man of the Atom — as well as for Warren and Tower Comics. Concentrating on Dateline: Danger!, he drew no comic books from 1968 to 1974. That year he did three supernatural stories for Red Circle Sorcery and Mad House, from Archie Comics' Red Circle Comics imprint, along with a handful of stories for Atlas/Seaboard Comics. He inked roughly a half-dozen Marvel Comics stories in 1975 and illustrated the first issue of DC Comics's Justice Inc. before returning to Gold Key, where he drew and lettered stories through 1982. His work there included issues of Flash Gordon and the TV-spinoff comic Buck Rogers in the 25th Century [and STAR TREK issues 38-61].
His last known comics work is penciling and inking two short stories published in the May 1984 issues of two comics in Archie's Archie Adventure Series imprint, Blue Ribbon Comics #8 and Steel Sterling #6.[4]
Al McWilliams is another o those guys whose work was credited in the 1970's, and largely uncredited before then, but whose work goes all the way back to the earliest Golden Age comics of the 1930's. My guess is he tested his options at Marvel and DC in 1975, and then found working conditions more to his liking at Gold Key, where he worked until his retirement in 1982.
I wonder if Jack Kirby had any interaction with Al McWilliams.
