|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 8:12:58 GMT -5
About the Kane/Finger debate, Finger is the uncredited writer of Detective #27. Many of the ideas that went into the formation of Batman were his, it's not what later creators did to make the Batman into what we know, it's Finger was the co-creator. Similarly, Stan Lee did not come up with the idea of the Fantastic Four or Spider-man or Thor or Dr. Strange and have Kirby or Ditko draw it. They most likely originated with the artists and Lee helped write the story. This is the essential point in Marvel denying royalties to these men (which started with Goodman),
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 8:14:12 GMT -5
My post was responded to your post about history books, but I should have made clear you did not say "if you weren't there, you can't know" (that was driver). So I was commenting on more than one thing.
I am sorry that it looked like I was accusing your post of being anti-intellectual.
As my first post hopefully shows, I do not endorse the “if you weren’t there, you can’t know” premise. Some creators have stated that, but I don’t believe in that philosophy. No-one could have been here, there and everywhere for everything they wish to discuss. Okay, we should move on from that phrase. I am sorry I over reacted.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 19, 2023 8:42:16 GMT -5
Similarly, Stan Lee did not come up with the idea of the Fantastic Four or Spider-man or Thor or Dr. Strange and have Kirby or Ditko draw it. They most likely originated with the artists and Lee helped write the story. Still, it was Stan's snazzy scripting that attracted and held readers. That's a huge part of creating the characters, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 19, 2023 9:02:16 GMT -5
How can we really know the facts? Joe Friday will ferret them out.
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Apr 19, 2023 9:12:31 GMT -5
Old Chicago news reporters' maxim: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
Still, checking it out has limits. It's also important to keep in mind the line between what's known and what's believed, and especially not to become so emotionally involved in one's own subjective conclusion that it transforms into "fact".
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 19, 2023 9:22:55 GMT -5
There are events that can verified by other writings. And " the truth is generally in the middle " is an interesting but faulty premise. If I get robbed at gun point , and the suspect is caught, do we just figure I probably didn't really get robbed and that the truth is in the middle? Sometimes a person is definitely wrong. Sorting through what really happened just takes some work. Of course sometimes people just out and out lie, but I don't think that's the norm. More like 'That guy robbed me at gunpoint' vs. 'That guy conned me and I needed to get my money back'. That's more like what we're talking about in alot of these instances.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 19, 2023 10:21:51 GMT -5
ps I just re-read the line where you said "But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance" and then the anti-intellectual attitude bit and realize I skipped over a line and lost context. So, me am not so S-M-R-T. My post was responded to your post about history books, but I should have made clear you did not say "if you weren't there, you can't know" (that was driver). So I was commenting on more than one thing.
I am sorry that it looked like I was accusing your post of being anti-intellectual.
No blood, no foul. I'm probably a little over-sensitive form 30 years in retail, with people talking to me like I am stupid (a very small group; but, it is a trigger point for my temper). It was worse at Barnes & Noble, where you would get some superior jackass who would ask for something, in a condescending manner. I once had an adult male ask for The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and then add (in a very condescending tone) "It's by Mark Twain!" I took a deep breath and delivered back some subtle snark with "Yes, I am familiar with the works Samuel Langhorne Clemens, author of Life on the Mississippi, Roughing It and the story 'The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.'" The guy didn't utter another peep. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions and getting my back up. Chalk it up to a long day of preparing for a visit from a regional manager by performing a bunch of cosmetic fixes that have F-all to do with running a business, but won't matter because they will nit-pick about cosmetic things, because we have a good operation and they have to justify their paper-pushing existence. That and a district manager whose idea of leadership is forwarding e-mails we already received from our corporate office and adding his irrelevant two cents. Never thought I'd miss the military.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 11:00:17 GMT -5
Similarly, Stan Lee did not come up with the idea of the Fantastic Four or Spider-man or Thor or Dr. Strange and have Kirby or Ditko draw it. They most likely originated with the artists and Lee helped write the story. Still, it was Stan's snazzy scripting that attracted and held readers. That's a huge part of creating the characters, IMO. That is a huge part in evolving the character or making it popular. And Stan deserves the praise he gets for his scripts. But that is not the same as solely creating a character. There are many hands in making Batman the ultra-popular character he is today, only Kane and Finger created him. Same with Captain America, it is only Simon and Kirby. And this has a very big monetary impact, as creator royalties can be large sums. (the sticking point with both the Kirby and Ditko lawsuits against Marvel.) The Origins of Marvel Comics is an out and out fabrication of the comics Kirby and Ditko and others created with Stan.
I am all for giving Jim Starlin credit for making Captain Marvel a fan favorite, or John Byrne for reviving Superman, but neither is the creator.
The credits for Lee on this page is a lie. A deliberate lie to forward the corporate line.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 19, 2023 14:54:18 GMT -5
Still, it was Stan's snazzy scripting that attracted and held readers. That's a huge part of creating the characters, IMO. That is a huge part in evolving the character or making it popular. And Stan deserves the praise he gets for his scripts. But that is not the same as solely creating a character. There are many hands in making Batman the ultra-popular character he is today, only Kane and Finger created him. Same with Captain America, it is only Simon and Kirby. And this has a very big monetary impact, as creator royalties can be large sums. (the sticking point with both the Kirby and Ditko lawsuits against Marvel.) The Origins of Marvel Comics is an out and out fabrication of the comics Kirby and Ditko and others created with Stan.
I am all for giving Jim Starlin credit for making Captain Marvel a fan favorite, or John Byrne for reviving Superman, but neither is the creator. Not a good comparison. None of those writers were there at the beginning. But Stan wrote the first Spider-Man, the first FF, etc. He gave Spidey his personality. What would Peter Parker have been like if Ditko had written him? Very different I'd imagine. Therefore, yes, Stan is a co-creator.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 16:10:05 GMT -5
That is a huge part in evolving the character or making it popular. And Stan deserves the praise he gets for his scripts. But that is not the same as solely creating a character. There are many hands in making Batman the ultra-popular character he is today, only Kane and Finger created him. Same with Captain America, it is only Simon and Kirby. And this has a very big monetary impact, as creator royalties can be large sums. (the sticking point with both the Kirby and Ditko lawsuits against Marvel.) The Origins of Marvel Comics is an out and out fabrication of the comics Kirby and Ditko and others created with Stan.
I am all for giving Jim Starlin credit for making Captain Marvel a fan favorite, or John Byrne for reviving Superman, but neither is the creator. Not a good comparison. None of those writers were there at the beginning. But Stan wrote the first Spider-Man, the first FF, etc. He gave Spidey his personality. What would Peter Parker have been like if Ditko had written him? Very different I'd imagine. Therefore, yes, Stan is a co-creator. I am not arguing Stan had nothing to do with bringing the characters to comics or helped shape them in their first appearance. I am arguing against his and Marvel's contention that the ideas started with him and he was the creator. The truth is the ideas mostly started with Kirby, Ditko and others. Stan gets co-credit for his scripting of the first issues. But his Funky Flashman musings about how he came up with everything and then brought them to the artist is a complete fabrication.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 19, 2023 16:37:39 GMT -5
Arguably, Kane's biggest detractor was actually Kane himself.
My introduction to the man behind the 'Created by...' byline was through an interview printed in the 1989 Overstreet Price Guide in which Kane is not only open but surprisingly honest about the creation of Batman. Let's define 'honest' as being a forthright declaration of memories as Kane best recalled them fifty years later. Sure, he might have misremembered some detail about Batman's gloves or something half a century down the road, but he is clear on one thing - that Bill Finger deserved to share the byline. He says this outright - "He never asked and I never offered one, but if I could back 15 years I'd add and say 'here you go, buddy'" (or words very close to that - I don't have access to my copy now).
The problem is, Kane had this opportunity close to 25 years previously when Finger spoke at the 1965 New York convention and detailed some of his contributions to Batman's creation. Jerry Bails spoke with him shortly there afterwards and published the account of the interview in an issue of Biljo White's Batmania fanzine. The costume, the 'Bruce Wayne' name, 'Gotham City', the utility belt, etc. were all credited to Finger. Kane, threatening legal action, chose to make a statement that he and he alone came up with Batman - "I challenge Bill to repeat those statements in front of me... The fact is that I conceived the 'Batman' figure and costume entirely by myself even before I called Bill in to help me write the 'Batman'... The only proof I need to back my statement is that if Bill co-authored and conceived the idea, either with me or before me, then he would most certainly have a by-line on the strip. It is conspicuous by its absence, So?"
So - the Bob Kane of 1989 confirmed much if not most of what the Bill Finger of 1965 said even going so far as to debunk his preposterous "if he created Batman, it would say that on the comic claim, yet the Bob Kane of 1965 chose to outright lie and, unknowingly at that time, contradict even his 1989 self (not that Kane remained honest for long since he forged some Bat-Man drawings for his recent autobiography and added a little '1934' date on them to create, once again, the impression that he did everything without Finger). So in this case, given the fact that it's not really a Kane said/Finger said situation, but a 1965 Bob Kane said vs. what a 1989 Bob Kane and 1965 Bill Finger said we know a lot more than I think people realize that we do. Sad that Kane was only willing to offer credit when it became a meaningless gesture since Finger died in 1974, but sometimes that's what it takes for the truth to come out, I guess.
|
|