|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 14, 2018 5:26:17 GMT
In terms of total overall creative input and impact on the Marvel we know today, it's hard to argue that anybody belongs ahead of Stan, at least to me. So who's number two, in your mind?
Ditko? Kirby? Romita Sr? Romita Jr?
... Claremont?!
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 14, 2018 6:59:14 GMT
I don't know shit about comic books.
So if I know Kirby is a big deal... then he must be a really big deal.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
 
|
Post by havenless on Nov 14, 2018 7:07:56 GMT
Difficult to compare artist value vs writer value. Most of Marvel's most important artists were also writers. Kirby definitely is at the top for pure artists. He's probably number 2 overall to Stan.
What is more valuable, time at the company or major impactful moments? Stan definitely had both, but if it's time, Quesada is up there, Bendis was there for 18 years writing major books, Clairemont of course. But Mark Millar did Ultimates, which arguably set the tone for the MCU and the direct storyline was most responsible for the 2012 Avengers. Millar did Civil War and he did Old Man Logan, arguably 3 of the biggest movie adaptations of Marvel comics. But then Clairemont did Phoenix Saga and Days of Future Past... So after Kirby there's a good debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 14, 2018 8:36:47 GMT
It's between Kirby and Ditko.
Kirby did the most to define the Marvel universe, however Ditko contributed the flagship character and also did important revisions to the Hulk and Iron Man.
Lee was less important than Kirby and Ditko to be honest--since they were doing the drawing and often how the Marvel Method worked is that Lee might give an idea, but the artist did the plotting. Then Lee came in and would do the dialogue.
After Lee, Roy Thomas probably had the most importance at Marvel for bringing Conan and Star Wars to it (and Lee agreeing to it).
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 14, 2018 10:24:33 GMT
For the number of characters he co-created and the influence of his art, I'd say it would have to be Kirby
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Nov 14, 2018 11:53:01 GMT
I don't know shit about comic books. So if I know Kirby is a big deal... then he must be a really big deal. Aren't you going to tell us you liked him in "When Harry Met Sally" and "City Slickers"?  |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 14, 2018 12:29:57 GMT
Jack Kirby absolutely.
He definitely contributed a lot to Marvel.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 14, 2018 20:21:06 GMT
Kirby for sure, not that Ditko was slouching.
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 14, 2018 20:40:18 GMT
I don't know shit about comic books. So if I know Kirby is a big deal... then he must be a really big deal. Aren't you going to tell us you liked him in "When Harry Met Sally" and "City Slickers"? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 14, 2018 22:00:30 GMT
Like President Ackbar™, I don’t know anything about comic books, but I know Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. So I’m guessing they have to be high up there in the ratings. On the other hand, how about that Valerie Hobson? |
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Nov 14, 2018 22:22:23 GMT
Aren't you going to tell us you liked him in "When Harry Met Sally" and "City Slickers"? I don't get it. Bruno Kirby co-starred in both. I'm assuming that's what he meant. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 14, 2018 22:29:55 GMT
Bruno Kirby co-starred in both. I'm assuming that's what he meant. oh thanks i had no clue |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 15, 2018 21:57:07 GMT
In terms of total overall creative input and impact on the Marvel we know today, it's hard to argue that anybody belongs ahead of Stan, at least to me. So who's number two, in your mind? Ditko? Kirby? Romita Sr? Romita Jr? ... Claremont?! Actually what is up for debate, and VERY much so, is if Stan was actually #1.
A great many people, industry insiders who were there mind you, say KIRBY was #1, and Stan was actually #2. Personally I believe this to be the case myself. I've heard way too many stories about how Jack made all the stuff up while drawing and all Stan would do was add dialog after the fact. Too many stories to discount.
I'm not downplaying Stan's contribution. Certainly he was on fire in the 60's as a writer and creator. No doubt. But I believe Jack was the REAL #1.
That makes Stan #2 or #1.1 if you like...
And then #3 goes to a handful of guys like Steve Ditko, John Buscema, John Romita Sr. Gil Kane, Herb Trimpe, Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway, who were instrumental in continuing to push Marvel forward as the #1 comic company it became. These guys were work horses!
Romita Jr. and Claremont came after the heavy lifting was done. Honorable mentions also go to John Byrne, Frank Miller, Walt Simonson and Bill Mantlo.
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 15, 2018 22:00:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 15, 2018 22:01:11 GMT
I hear Steve Ditko a lot. He’d probably be #2.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 15, 2018 23:06:45 GMT
Surprised everyone abstained from Liefeld jokes. Bravo.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 16, 2018 0:51:56 GMT
In terms of total overall creative input and impact on the Marvel we know today, it's hard to argue that anybody belongs ahead of Stan, at least to me. So who's number two, in your mind? Ditko? Kirby? Romita Sr? Romita Jr? ... Claremont?! Actually what is up for debate, and VERY much so, is if Stan was actually #1.
A great many people, industry insiders who were there mind you, say KIRBY was #1, and Stan was actually #2. Personally I believe this to be the case myself. I've heard way too many stories about how Jack made all the stuff up while drawing and all Stan would do was add dialog after the fact. Too many stories to discount.
That's blasphemy on the MCU boards!
But seriously, finally someone has the courage to speak the truth. Yes, Stan Lee took credit for much of Jack Kirby's creations, similar to how Bob Kane took credit for much of Bill Finger's creations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 16, 2018 3:32:47 GMT
The most significant comic book creation of the 1960s was Spider-man. There is no question his design is so different and unique.
The issue is whether Spider-man stands out as the most distinguishing aspect of Marvel. That is debatable.
I would say in terms of public awareness, Spider-man stands out the most, then the Hulk maybe.
If we are talking the Marvel Universe then Kirby is undoubtedly the number 1 contributor.
The question is how much Stan Lee actually contributed to establishing the Marvel Universe/Spider-man.
If you look at his job-he would have been working his ass off on dozens of titles if he was writing the plots, having to write the scripts for all those different comics each month. So the likelihood that much of the time he suggested a bare idea or direction, and then the artist did the plotting, is more likely to be true-especially when you consider, after Kirby and Ditko left, Lee stopped coming up with new ideas. Personally, I think Spider-man was at least 95% Ditko. I think he did much of the plotting and Lee just looked at the drawings and did the dialogue (and he said that often the pictures were so obvious he could just write in a caption).
Lee might have claimed too much credit, but one theory I heard is that he had to because of his financial relationship with Marvel. He didn't start to claim such a big writing credit until Marvel had new management in the 70s (so he could keep his job)--and then again when it because a bigger company in the 2000s.
An example of this is that he was supportive of the Corman Fantastic Four, but after the new Marvel management took over, he had to keep his mouth shut about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Nov 16, 2018 6:16:47 GMT
Tim Cook
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Nov 16, 2018 6:25:17 GMT
I'd say Kirby, but I think Mark Millar is up there (for his contributions at Marvel, DC, smaller Comic Book publishers, and his own publishing brand.)
|
|
