Yeah, some aren't household names, but the majority of them are, yes?
But you're right that it's in the past. It doesn't make it any less right for anyone who got screwed over, though.
MightyGodKing tears Kurtz a new one.
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
- Status
But you're right that it's in the past. It doesn't make it any less right for anyone who got screwed over, though.
Oh I get that, it's not right. But the dude is dead. He's not exactly going to hire a PR rep to gain back his popularity.
As far as his estate is concerned, I'm sorry to say, but he should have handled his contracts better. Look at Tolkien's estate. Those bastards are tighter than a snare drum about releasing the rights to his work.
Thor, Fantastic Four, Iron Man, The Hulk, , X-Men, Galactus, Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, Black Panther, Captain America,.
These are the only ones I've ever heard up growing up. All through TV shows and pop culture. Actually, I only knew of the X-Men, Iron Man, and Hulk growing up. My shit was all about He-Man, Ghostbusters, and TMNT. Fantastic Four etc... I only learned about through the internet in my late teens.
To be brutally honest, all I know about the X Men and Spider-Man is from the cartoons and movies.
These are the only ones I've ever heard up growing up. All through TV shows and pop culture. Actually, I only knew of the X-Men, Iron Man, and Hulk growing up. My shit was all about He-Man, Ghostbusters, and TMNT. Fantastic Four etc... I only learned about through the internet in my late teens.
To be brutally honest, all I know about the X Men and Spider-Man is from the cartoons and movies.
Hey Nick, I'm wondering, what if Marvel didn't give Kirby's estate more money, but rather gave Kirby more recognition? For example, Stan Lee gets a cameo in every Marvel superhero movie, what if they dropped Kirby's name somehow in every movie? Stark is assisted in Iron Man 3 by General Kirby. Avengers 2 involves Agent Kirbivsky, a shadowy operative from Natasha Romanov's past.
Would more recognition, without the financial stuff, make you feel better?
Would more recognition, without the financial stuff, make you feel better?
More often than not, that's for the best.
I agree those X men cartoons didn't have the fucked up soap opera crap associated with the comic books.
Eh, I don't know. That's not the kind of recognition I mean. Everyone gets excited to see Stan Lee because it's Stan Lee. I honestly don't know what could be done to give him more public recognition save for Lee name-dropping him (and a few others, like Steve Ditko) in every interview.
Well, okay, yeah, that might not be the best example. But given how recognition basically costs Marvel nothing, I think it's less of an uphill battle to try to get Marvel to acknowledge Kirby's contributions and his role in Marvel superhero history, compared to trying to get a piece of the monetary pie.
S
Soliloquy
Good for them. I never would have had the resources or urge to do all that. I have $50 more than I would have had if I had done nothing with the idea.
I wonder who came up with the start menu, and does that person get royalties from every windows os that is sold. I wonder who decided an X at the upper right of a program would be the best and if they get royalties from every windows os sold. I just don't get the idea that work for a company has to pay royalties to peoples kids when they're dead.
S
Soliloquy
I've got an idea called "The Twig." It's about a twig.
S
Soliloquy
Fifty bucks! Woo!
S
SeraRelm
I do feel they should give Kirby the public recognition for his work, but not money for things which were never in his contract, as unfortunate as that may be. When you are paid to do work, you do the work and get paid. If someone else makes money off that work, well, you got paid and agreed to the sum. They took the chance with that money, not you. You took the paycheck.
I liken it to musicians who are famous for playing on records but the artist that put out the CD gets the money. They are studio musicians who get their cut and walk away. If the song blows up, it's not likely that they are going to be extra compensated. Take, for example, the recent death of Donald "Duck" Dunn. He's a musician who's not well known, but has played on some very iconic music. Some of his work helps make the song recognizable, but his estate isn't going back and saying, "Hey, we want more money for this dude's work so that we can have more coin". Ultimately, it's a money grab.
And this is the best argument in favour of Marvel losing...
Yeah, Kirby's dead, but that doesn't mean it's fine that Marvel screwed him over... whether or not his estate should get anything is a whole other argument.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say what Marvel did was ethically correct. I said, it's in the past and it is what it is now. The situation is pretty damn convoluted as to who owns the rights to what. Because Kirby is dead it's hard for his estate to make claims on items not included in his contracts. What he should have done as soon as he started making good money with Marvel was to hire an agent and a lawyer. That's generally what you do if you're in any sort of industry where you work with a company that markets your creations.
I think a big factor in Marvel not acknowledging Kirby in movies etc is because of the Kirby estate itself.
This is exactly what I think.
I think more then anything Kirby needs to be recognized for his work. His name needs to be known. However, by the Kirby estate pushing for a cut of the money made by said characters, they are actually making it hard for Marvel to bring his name out into the spotlight.
A good example was everyone flipping their shit over Jack Kirby supposedly not being credited in the Avengers movie, causing people to go so far as to hound Stan Lee, who had to dance around the issue because he really can't say anything about it without possible causing a legal shitstorm. The next day or so, earlier screenings proved that the movie did have Jack Kirby credited in the credits, so all the arguing was for something that was not even a problem.
I don't know, I am so far out of the situation it's hard for me to really come into it properly.
Wes Cherry created Solitare for Windows, the most played computer game of all time. He was an intern.
Well at least with the comic books you didn't need to hear Jubilee's voice. >.>
I thought this as well. Kirby was compensated for a job. If Marvel were to give anything else I could see an attorney taking that as Marvel's acknowledgement of Kirby having partial ownership. Could the writers and artists of following decades follow suit with their creations for Marvel (Wolverine, all those new XMen, Deadpool, etc.)?
Does Marvel or DC give current creators anything more than compensation for work completed? (I don't know which is why I'm asking?)
And not to knock Kirby as his art was fantastic, but there were other artists that could have done just as well. Kirby had no hand in Spiderman and he's one of the most popular and recognizable hero's out there. And Ditko's name is not thrown around like Lee's is. Stan's writing style is really what defined the characters and separated Marvel from DC.
Not popular and recognizable enough for people to spell his name right apparently.
When I get responses, it tells me the content in the Email. Strange it didn't do that on yours.
It usually does for me as well. Either it got deleted FAST or twitter is borked.
Maybe it invaded your email.
Also, I agree with Scott. If nothing can make it better, then there's no point wringing one's hands over this.
No, that's Buckley's M.O.
Relatively popular blogger in the nerd (well, comic nerd) community. Got his big start to "fame" doing "If I wrote Legion of Super-heroes..." and "If I wrote Dr. Strange..." posts.
- Status