32 thoughts on “Key 1960s Moments”

1. Aaron Noble 12 September 2013 at 3:37 pm

   Has anyone seen the original Agatha Harkness design mentioned here? I thought she looked pretty great as she appeared!

   Reply ↓
   1. Rand Hoppe 12 September 2013 at 4:42 pm

      Yes.

      

      First published in Greg Theakston’s Jack Magic: the Life and Art of Jack Kirby, Volume Two

      Reply ↓
      1. Rand Hoppe 12 September 2013 at 5:22 pm

         And subsequently published in Kirby Collector 58…

         Reply ↓
      2. Aaron Noble 13 September 2013 at 6:03 pm

         Wow! I see a whole different character there, which I have to admit is perhaps more interesting than the more generic-witch (still awesome) version that was published. What about the Thor pages that Roz thought were too good for Marvel, have you got those up your sleeve as well?

         Reply ↓
         1. Kirk G 14 September 2013 at 10:26 pm

            I believe one of them is the full page Watcher in a space suit that has appeared as a solo piece. There’s also reports that Jack claimed he (had to) remove an entire sequence from the FF regarding the Watcher and used it over in Thor. This was probably part of the interrupted Galactus arc, as original pencils have surfaced that showed altered figures of the Watcher turned into Galactus. Mark Evanier might have better info on the other “withheld” pages Roz lobbied him to keep.

            Reply ↓
            1. Rand Hoppe 16 September 2013 at 12:52 pm

               Yep, the Watcher in space suit that first appeared in the Kirby Unleashed portfolio would be something that was withheld.

               
            2. Rand Hoppe 16 September 2013 at 1:43 pm

               And a bunch of splashes were published in the Marvelmania Portfolio

               

               

               

               
      3. Kirk G 14 September 2013 at 10:28 pm

         Thank you, Randy. I agree, the alternative looking interpretation does speak of an “entirely different” character. I wonder how Jack would have envisioned that going down with HER in charge of Franklin?

         Reply ↓
2. Matt Larcombe 13 September 2013 at 10:42 am

   I am 33 years old and have been a fan of comic books since I was 9. When I got into comics as a kid, Kirby was a legend whose work, however, I was largely unfamilair with and what I did see didn’t impress me — actually, I thought it looked quite goofy. Fast forward 15 years and I suddenly have access to much of The King’s work via reprints and am in awe. Kirby was the greatest pop artist ever, greater than Warhol or Lichtenstein by far. The man was a genuine demiurge.

   Reply ↓
3. patrick ford 15 September 2013 at 9:58 am

   This piece contains the same error as the recent Mike Gartland piece.
   There are things we know about comic book history, and an amazingly large number of things we don’t know about comic book history. One thing which has joined the ranks of what we know, is Kirby did not have a contract with Marvel from 1956-1970.

   Reply ↓
   1. Rand Hoppe 16 September 2013 at 12:24 pm

      Good one, Pat. You’re talking about the entries in 1966: January-February and 1968: Early this Year 1968, right? “contract” could easily be replaced with “terms” or “arrangement” to resolve your concern, no?

      Reply ↓
      1. patrick ford 17 September 2013 at 9:47 am

         It’s always been assumed there was a contract. I’m not sure where that came from. Mark Evanier mentions a contract in his book on Kirby, and has mentioned a contract in numerous articles and comments over the years. Kirby as far as I’ve read never mentions a contract.
         As it turns out we now know Kirby did not have a contract and neither did Stan Lee. In fact the evidence shows Lee did not have a contract until 1972, which contradicts Lee’s long standing story that Perfect Film wanted Lee under contract before finalizing the purchase of Marvel from Goodman. Which brings up another point. Books and articles should stop reporting Lee’s claim Perfect Film demanded he be under contract in 1968 as a fact. Absent the contract it’s likely Lee’s story is simply another of his self-aggrandizing stories.

         Reply ↓
4. Rand Hoppe 17 September 2013 at 6:47 pm

   John used this Marvel ad in the June 1965 issue of Newsdealer magazine as the basis for the sales figures in 1961-1964.

   

   Reply ↓
5. Anthony Lloyd 18 September 2013 at 4:25 pm

   Sad there was so much” politics” at marvel in the 60,s so much has been said about Kirby and Ditko’s departure it seems Lee was a tyrant (useful quality in editing) and Goodman was a very vindictive and greedy (hard headed business man) sad when you think the best two artists of that era ( in my opinion ) were both to leave within a few years of each other and work for other companies , but to be fair some of the work Ditko did at Charlton albeit short lived was in my opinion some of his best work , Gordiano gave him free rein with the stories which I shall cherish forever. In the case of Kirby the artwork was stunning although the stories were in my opinion similar to The Inhumans( New Gods ) and later The Eternals must admit did not read many comics in the 80’s and onwards so for me the 60,s was my” Golden Age” despite the “politics”

   Reply ↓
6. patrick ford 22 September 2013 at 2:52 pm

   Another of those “too good for Marvel” pieces was a drawing of Galactus which ended up as the front cover of the Gods Portfolio.
   The unaltered pencils were in the Marvelmania Portfolio and that drawing was reprinted in TJKC#3.

   Reply ↓
   1. Rand Hoppe 25 September 2013 at 11:22 am

      Yes! This, too.

      

      Reply ↓
7. Stan Taylor 20 November 2013 at 12:21 am

   Hi guys,
   Nice work but I have a few questions. Pat Ford essentially says that Kirby had no contract in the mid-sixties. But I have quotes from Kirby where he mentions a contract and how it was coming up for renewal. Is this a semantical debate or was there never any sort of contract?

   Has this “deposition” Kirby did for Marvel in the Joe Simon case ever been printed. I can’t conceive of anything Kirby could have said that would be detrimental to Joe’s case, but i could be wrong.

   I like the theory that Ego was inspired by Stan Lee. if only Kirby had drawn him more on model.

   Besides the 1966 cartoons, 1966 was a year full of Marvel using Kirby art to sell merchandise.

   Is there any evidence that Kirby supplied the idea behind Captain Marvel?

   Thanks
   Stan Taylor

   Reply ↓
   1. patrick ford 25 November 2013 at 3:03 pm

      Stan, It seems that Kirby never had a contract with Marvel. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Kirby mention a contract, but I know Mark Evanier said in his book that Kirby’s contract had run out and he was looking to renew it at better terms.
      If Kirby did have a contract then neither Marvel nor the Kirby heirs were able to produce it for the recent lawsuit.
      A side note to this is Marvel was not able to produce a contract with Lee prior to 1971. It may be Lee’s often told tale of Perfect Film insisting Lee be under contract before closing on their deal to purchase Marvel is just another bit of Lee aggrandizement.
      Kirby’s declaration is available as part of the Disney v. Kirby heirs lawsuit.

      Joe Simon’s book THE COMIC BOOK MAKERS says on page 205 that in 1969 he engaged the law firm Freind & Reiskind and secured the copyright for the first ten issues of Captain America. He says the copyright office sent him certificates of copyright for the first ten issues.
      Simon is correct the copyright for Captain America became ripe for renewal in 1969. The first issue was published in 1941 and the first copyright term is 28 years. Simon also told Gary Groth in TCJ that he had the copyright to Captain America.
      These claims are more than a little curious. Simon sued (he says, and there is mention of an “action” in some related letters I’ve seen) Goodman in 1966 (State) and 1967 (Federal) court. Those dates do kind of fit with Kirby’s affidavit (1968) but do not fit the 1969 date when the copyright was up for renewal.
      Simon makes no mention of the 66-67 dates in his book and the implication is everything is following him being awarded the copyright in 1969.
      Obviously Simon could easily have gotten his dates mixed up, except the renewal could not have been awarded to him before 1969 because it was still protected by the original 28 year term.
      Simon proceeds on page 205 to say Kirby was called into Goodman’s office and told by Goodman that Simon wanted the copyright (the copyright Simon says he had?) and that Simon was going to cut Kirby out. Simon then says Kirby “bristled” when told this and agreed to side with Marvel. He then goes on to say what Kirby did not know was co-author he was entitled to half the copyright.
      There are a number of obvious problems with those comments by Simon. Most obviously Simon would not have been present at any meeting between Kirby and Goodman, so how would he know Kirby “bristled” or even that they met? Simon may be paraphrasing something said in a deposition by Goodman or Kirby, but he doesn’t say. Another problem is in his book as well as interviews Goodman has consistently said he alone created the Captain America character, and he did so before he began working for Goodman. That is likely what Simon said in his deposition in 1966, 1967, or 1969. Since Simon was the editor in chief at Timely he clearly was an employee and anything he created for Simon once he was on salary as an employee would be work-made-for-hire.

      Harry Mendryk and David Spurlock have mentioned having access to depositions they say are covered by a non-disclosure agreement and in his book Simon also says the various case related documents are subject to a non-disclosure agreement.
      I guess Simon had no trouble disclosing the documents to his fan/employees so they could question Kirby’s role, but then say they can’t really comment because of the non-disclosure agreement which Simon apparently violated by giving those fans access to the sealed documents. . Anyhow both Mendryk and Spurlock say the basis of Simon’s claim is he created Captain America before he was employed by Timely and without Kirby. Keep in mind the issue is the character Captain America. The first ten issues are simply the publications to which the copyright was attached. Based on this it gives the impression it was Simon’s intent to cut Kirby out, rather than include him. Kirby in Simon’s eyes was the co-author of Captain America #1-10, but not the co-creator of Captain America. In other words Simon is telling the same tale told by Stan Lee. He created the character and assigned it to Kirby on a work-for-hire basis.
      Simon goes on to describe (still page 205) the settlement payment:
      “I will tell you that part of the payment was made to me, part to my attorney—a much larger share than his legal fees would constitute. My attorney in turn, passed his payment on to me.”
      Simon then says three years later (1972, the date of Kirby’s assignment of rights to Marvel) he ran into Kirby. He says Kirby told him he had still been paid nothing. Simon ads that “eventually” Kirby was paid the small share which had been paid directly to Simon and that in this way Marvel saved a “substantial amount of money.”
      It sounds to me like Simon had two opportunities to tell KIrby he was being cheated, once in 1969 while Kirby was still at Marvel and perhaps not in a position to demand anything. And then again in 1972 when Kirby signed the assignment “under duress” at a time when he was under contract with DC and should have been free to act on the full amount owed him rather than signing the agreement where he apparently waived his rights in exchange for Marvel forgiving a $1000 debt.

      Simon’s story is very hard to believe. How could it be Simon sued Goodman in 66 and 67 and then Goodman failed to protect the copyright for Captain America #1-10 in 1969. And Simon says he was given “certificates of copyright” by the copyright office. Yet I posted here the other day on another thread the Kenyon and Kenyon copyright documents prepared by Simon and Kirby friend attorney Charles R. Brainard, and signed by Kirby. There are ten of those documents one per issue.

      Reply ↓
      1. patrick ford 26 November 2013 at 12:50 pm

         Charles R. Brainard handled the copyright registration for Marvel in 1968-1969.

         http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00141/356975/66/16.html

         He probably came into possession of this photograph at that time. It seems somewhat unlikely he is the third man in the picture, but it certainly a possibility.The postcard was attached to Kirby’s 1966 affidavit.

         http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00141/356975/66/15.html

         https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fnew-york%2Fnysdce%2F1%3A2010cv00141%2F356975%2F66%2F15.pdf%3Fts%3D1376380861&chrome=true&docid=b573bd3fe4d2edc8be3c1a8069a9219c&a=bi&pagenumber=10&w=800

         Reply ↓
8. Mark Evanier 24 November 2013 at 8:28 pm

   Just noticed this: The Romita and Trimpe redraws on the Marvelmania Kirby posters were done before I ever got involved with Marvelmania, which occurred in July of 1969. So listing them for 1970 is wrong. That probably happened around May of ’69.

   Reply ↓
9. Stan Taylor 30 November 2013 at 3:45 pm

   Hi Pat,
   First, to you and all readers, I hope you had a joyous Thanksgiving holiday.
   You said;
   “..If Kirby did have a contract then neither Marvel nor the Kirby heirs were able to produce it for the recent lawsuit.

   The problem I have as one who must decide whether to delete this from a biography is that first you make a direct statement of position, yet in the next sentence you add on a modifier “If” that leaves room for doubt. So which is it?

   My recollection is that the contract was described not as an employment contract but rather as a “personal services contract that bound Kirby to Marvel or possibly Martin Goodman. This is a specific type contract that would not have been specific enough to describe the employment position. If this is true than neither side would have entered it into the record as it didn’t make the work description clear. It was way after the creative period alluded to in the case.

   Trying to make sense of Joe Simon’s claims is like trying to catch greased pigs-it ain’t gonna happen.
   There was a state action made first, but not for copyright ownership. It was a claim for damages and residuals for the merchandising of Captain America. I consider this a nuisance suit trying to get the merchandisers to pay up to avoid a lawsuit. This suit was later rolled over to the federal case that did include the copyright facets.

   The whole thing about Kirby working behind Simon’s back is ridiculous, it could have been avoided with a simple phone call. As one who has been involved in lawsuits i can assure you that when Simon first hired a lawyer to file a case, the lawyer asked for a list of people who could help, and one consisting of who could hurt the case. He would have asked for a list of all people involved in the creation of the property. The artist (Kirby) first among all. They would have contacted Kirby to get his statements to see if they helped or hurt before they actually sued Marvel. Just so they could be ready for any discrepancies. Joe was also wrong about Kirby being cut out since under the law Kirby couldn’t have been a part of the suit. He was a paid employee of Marvel at the time. Using Simon’s statements about the case is useless. In his book he laughs at Kirby signing some statement about giving up the rights into perpetuity, yet he ended up signing a similar statement to end the case. Trying to figure out just how Captain America came to be is impossible, Joe has told different stories throughout his career. Kirby for his part has never wavered. He has said that Goodman asked for a new character and he and Joe sat down and worked a new one up. This idea that Joe thought up the character, drew up an origin, and then put him on a shelf until an opportunity arose goes against his earlier statement that he came up with the idea and when Goodman accepted it he then went to find artists who could rush the character out and chose Al’s Avilson and Gabrielle, but changed his mind when Kirby said he could do it.

   How do we know that the assignment signed in 1972 had anything to do with paying off Kirby’s loan, and for paying Simon’s share to Kirby. Personally, since he was no longer working for Marvel he should have balled it up and thrown it away. Why did he do it?

   As to Joe Simon getting the rights to Captain America, I don’t care, but I do know that he couldn’t have done any better than Marvel has. Joe was so far passed his prime that he would have flopped trying to reboot the character. BUT.. I would have liked for him to take the case to court rather than settle out of court.

   I haven’t given my opinion on the latest court decision against the family. On the one hand I am sorry for the family, but on the other I totally understand the decision. From what I know of how he worked in 1961-4 it obviously fit the description of “work for hire” Now we can argue about the right or wrong of work for hire, but it is an accepted part of copyright and contract law. So if it is allowed by law, then there must be guidelines as to what is covered, and under the law, the work description at Marvel was clearly under those guidelines. Kirby was given jobs to draw by Marvel, they were free to edit, and change them as they saw fit, plus the pages were passed to others to finish. There was no evidence that Kirby ever on his own drew up stories and then took them in to sell on spec. There was never any evidence of Kirby working on his own and then offering the work to Marvel. Jack always said that the origin of the FF came about as a management fiat from Martin Goodman.

   Anyway, thanks for letting me spout off. and the best to all.

   Stan Taylor

   Reply ↓
10. patrick ford 1 December 2013 at 12:02 pm

    Stan, Disney/Marvel and the heirs agreed there was no contract 1958-1970. That is one of the undisputed facts of the case.

    I’m of the opinion all Simon’s actions were simply Simon looking for a quick settlement. I think it’s evident he and Marvel were on the same page since even after settling with Marvel in the past Simon came forward again before the release of the recent Captain America movie and got another settlement. I assume Marvel’s attitude would be, “Oh, It’s Joe Simon again, give him some money and he’ll go away.” It’s the cost efficient move .

    The court case involved Lee saying he alone created all the characters and plots and then bringing in Kirby to illustrate his ideas. No matter what Kirby contributed after that point Kirby is in the work for hire position.
    The heirs argument was that Kirby brought characters on spec to Lee (even the very idea of trying the super hero genre). Lee was free to either purchase (The FF, etc.) or reject (Kirby’s Captain Glory, later sold to Topps) these characters.
    The best possible evidence Kirby was the person bringing ideas to Lee would have to be the Kirby SPIDERMAN. There are a lot of people who back up Kirby’s claim he brought Lee the character based on Simon’s logo, the Oleck script, and the S&K character The Fly.
    Lee was asked about this and said Kirby never brought him a Spiderman character based on The Fly. Unfortunately Lee’s depositions are so heavily redacted due to a protective order granted to Disney/Marvel that we don’t know if he was asked follow up questions concerning what was in Kirby’s story. Since Lee says Kirby did not bring him a Spiderman based on The Fly that means Lee is either saying the Kirby Spiderman story was something like the AF #15 story, or Lee is saying that he (Lee) created the Spiderman version similar to The Fly. Lee did acknowledge Kirby created a Spiderman story, and claimed that Marvel paid him for those pages even though they were rejected.

    Reply ↓
11. Stan Taylor 1 December 2013 at 2:20 pm

    Him Pat,

    Still not convinced about the contract as I haven’t seen or read the part of the transcript of the trial to get the full context. The assumed contract was never meant to be a work contract.

    I don’t entirely feel that Joe’s clams were nuisance just to get a quick payoff.. He did have to take his last suit all the way to the appelate level. And I doubt Marvel took him so cavalierly. But he certainly used some nuisance ploys to help him.

    You wrote;
    The heirs argument was that Kirby brought characters on spec

    I agree, and this is where they lost the case. Even I don’t see any evidence of Kirby doing spec work for Marvel. There really wasn’t any competition that Kirby was offering these ideas to. They could never make a strong case for any spec creation. Nowhere did Kirby ever take any of his ideas to other companies (until 1970 DC) The Kirby’s never produced any product used to make a presentation to an editor. It was all done verbally during regular editorial meetings. There is a difference between creating a character and than offering it outright to a company and taking a hint from an editor and trying to flesh out a story based on editorial guidelines. All writers and artists tried to add in new concepts to make their stories more unique, this doesn’t make them the creators of the book.

    You are talking to the choir about Spider-Man. I have a whole chapter on the creation of Spider-Man and can’t find Lee or Ditko in much of it. But again the character was offered to Marvel; not sold.

    The biggest concern I have about the trial decision is that the judge relied too much on Lee’s unquestioned statements rather than letting these statements face questioning in a trial. He took out the adversarial facet of a trial.
    Best
    Stan

    Reply ↓
    1. patrick ford 1 December 2013 at 5:33 pm

       Stan, It’s apparently not true that Kirby did not pitch characters to Lee without the aid of presentation art. Jim Shooter claims to have held in his hands Kirby’s presentation art for Spiderman.
       Neal and Susan Kirby described Kirby creating what sound like presentation drawings for Thor and the FF. Neal Kirby mentioned Kirby had at first drawn Thor with large horns on his helmet. Susan Kirby said her mom told her her dad was creating some new super heroes down in the basement. Susan said she she saw a drawing featuring three not four characters and her dad told her Susan Storm was named after her. You also have later presentation art for characters like The Black Panther and the Boomerang.
       My thinking is Kirby created presentation art to pitch new characters before they were approved and he was given an assignment. What happened to most of these is a mystery. Marvel may still have them, they may have been recycled as pin-ups in the early years.
       I do agree the heirs did not have much evidence to counter Lee’s testimony. And of course the best testimony would have been for Lee to say that Kirby brought him characters and offered them for sale to Marvel. Naturally Lee did exactly what I said he would do when I spoke about the lawsuit prior to Lee giving his depositions. Lee didn’t credit Kirby at all, and inn fact backtracked on old statements from the ’60s where he’d given Kirby some small bits of credit for character creation.
       It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to Lee.

       Reply ↓
    2. patrick ford 1 December 2013 at 5:46 pm

       BTW. Lee absolutely did face adversarial questioning. Marc Toberoff’s Dec. 2010 deposition of Lee ran over 300 pages and Lee was groaning about the number of exhibits near the end of it.
       Unfortunately the vast majority of Lee’s depositions is hid behind a protective order. If the case had gone to trail all that would have been made public and Lee would have faced further questioning. As things stand we will probably never know what is in the 100s of pages of Lee’s depositions which Disney/Marvel did not want made public.

       Reply ↓
12. Stan Taylor 2 December 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Hi Pat,
    I find your argument weak. Using 50 year old memories of children really stretches it. What Shooter saw was not presentation work but production work. Jack actually started drawing a story. I have seen no evidence of Jack making up a presentation to sell to Marvel. All i have eve seen is production work done after the go ahead was given. Even if you think that Coal Tiger was a presentation piece, the character was edited and changed before publication (thank god) If Jack was going it on spec, where were the paychecks for the property? Even Siegel and Shuster got $130. If you are doing something on spec than you are trying to sell the work, If one company refuses to buy, you take it to another company. Kirby never did this. Until 1970 ( and why he didn’t ask for the copyrights I’ll never know)
    Stan

    Reply ↓
13. patrick ford 2 December 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Stan, As oppossed to fifty year old memories of Stan Lee? Keep in mind 1961 was the year of Neal’s Bar Mitzvah and Susan Kirby was 15-16 years old.
    Shooter was quite specific that what he saw was not a story page.
    http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/03/my-short-lived-inking-career.html

    “RE: Kirby Spider-Man pages: I saw, and held in my hand, exactly one such page. It was a page of design drawings. I remember that his version of Spider-Man had a “Web-Gun” and wore trunks, I think, like Captain America’s. He was far bigger and bulkier than Ditko’s version. There were no similarities to Ditko’s Spider-Man costume. I think he had boots with flaps. There were notes in he margin that described the character, again, nothing like the Ditko version. I think there was something about him being related to, or having some connection with a police official, which was how he’d find out about trouble going on. It was a long time ago, I can’t swear to that last item, but I can swear to the fact that it wasn’t similar to the Ditko version. I remember thinking, “This isn’t at all like Ditko’s.”

    P.S. I must have seen that page when I was in Sol’s office and he was going through the rejects stack looking for pages for me to try inking. I don’t think I ever got to look through those pages again.

    P.P.S. Years later, 1986, I had occasion to talk with Jack at the San Diego Con. He insisted that he created Spider-Man. I told him that I’d spoken to Steve Ditko, Sol, and other people who were there at the time, including Stan, obviously, and that they all agreed that Steve’s version was the one that was used, though Jack did his version first. “

    Reply ↓
14. Joseph Dickson 22 June 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Hi John –
    I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but though you write that FF#67 was the last issue drawn on large-size sheets, I believe that #71 (Sizzling Big Action Issue) was the last such issue. I figured that out based on comparisons with #72, years ago.

    Of course, I could be wrong, but then some other considerations would have to explain the sudden change in appearance starting with #72. Less detail, figures are larger in the panels, Sinnott had less to work with – to my eyes.

    Reply ↓

15. Pingback: The Jack Kirby Legacy | Needless Essentials Online | All Geek, All the Time

16. Pingback: Key 1970s DC Moments | The Kirby Effect

17. Pingback: Key Late Career Moments | The Kirby Effect

18. Pingback: » boraê

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.