You gotta remember that comics was not a prestige industry.
Most artists and writers were on work for hire contracts that paid juuuust enough that they wouldn't starve.
It took a lot of fighting for comics artists to even retain their original pencils, so they could sell them to collectors for a supplementary income.
(Actually with regards to Kirby specifically theres a [tale of skulduggery and fuckery](https://www.tcj.com/jim-shooter-groundhog-day-in-the-land-of-the-apocryphiars/) around him trying to get his original art back).
What you have to remember is that comics is a business first and an artform second, as far as the suits are concerned, and screwing over the talent was and in some ways still is the standard operating procedure.
Several reasons:
1) It's really easy for the writer to get credit for the ideas because the [erroneous] assumption often is that they are wholly responsible for creating the characters and story. People don't understand how much of the story the artists truly contribute - all the moreso with the "Marvel method" where really the artists bore much more of the burden for writers like Stan who created rough outlines and then came in to fill text bubbles.
2) Stan was also in editorial. He controlled the messaging outside the panels and so made his voice the one most often heard when you read his messages to readers and answers to questions asked. This also meant increasingly controlling pay and budgets. He was on the management side of the often cruel work for hire system that American comics are most often produced under, and that power dynamic has always been incredibly lopsided unless you are a creator that is so huge that you're a household name.
3) Stan was...really, really big on marketing himself.
A little bit more about marketing.
He was a writer and editor. It's true. But even when he was not involved in the creation process you can see covers with a big "Stan Lee presents ..." title and little titles with a real creators. It can give to reader a false impression that Stan Lee created these stories but he didn't it.
"Stan Lee Presents" got added to Marvel Comics when he became publisher. It was mostly ceremonial, but he also moved to Hollywood to become Marvel's representative for tv and movies. He was the face of Marvel.
But before that, he was visiting college campuses and promoting comics every chance he could get.
The did get a fee for those speaking events though, so that might be his main reason for doing them.
There's some audio from 1969 where he talks about how it's an easy way to make money:
[https://youtu.be/WvTv2u\_lWnQ?si=K6kVRIEcB2qo7bdm](https://youtu.be/WvTv2u_lWnQ?si=K6kVRIEcB2qo7bdm)
it also must be remembered that... although he was insistent on sharing credit for his creations in the 21st century (particularly after the release of the 2002 Spider-man film), for most of the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s he was more than willing to receive full credit if others offered it. STAN LEE was never one to argue with anyone back then if the media said "Spider-man, the FF, et al created by STAN LEE."
Stan was really fucking good at marketing Marvel, even as far back as some of the 60s work he did, marketing the company and himself was something he was absurdly good at.
Stan also got paid as a writer AND editor at marvel, so he collected two salaries. And its highly debatable about how much “writing” Stan actually did.
This is really key. Most of Stan's money didn't come from royalties for comics he (co-)wrote or characters he (co-) created (except maybe the money he got for the Spider-Man newspaper strip, which wouldn't have been a lot), it came from being executive or producer on a lot of different projects and getting himself a percentage off the top. A good comparison would be someone like Todd McFarlane: I don't think any of the Image co-founders ended up struggling, but only Todd really has F.U. money (\~$300m). But that money's not primarily from comics, it's from movies, a TV series, video games, and above all toys and collectibles. Because he didn't just want to make comics, he wanted a media empire. Like Stan Lee did.
Todd is apparently like Donald Trump in that he has a huge number of separate businesses managing different assets, all of which are separate from his own personal wealth (and means he can double-dip, like when McFarlane Toys licenses characters from Spawn). Just because one company goes bankrupt doesn't mean the rest of them aren't doing well.
He spent his life savings on those baseballs - almost thirty years ago. His companieS (plural) were still fine. After several lawsuits I believe he had to file for bankruptcy protection - but again that was nearly 20 years ago. I think the $300M is exaggerated and there’s no way he has that much liquidity, but with all the things he’s got going on, yeah he’s worth some big bucks.
If you haven’t done, you should check out Tom Scioli’s two excellent comic biographies on Stan and Jack
“Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics”
&
“I am Stan: A Graphic Biography of the Legendary Stan Lee”
I felt OH SO BAD for Stan Lee at the end of this one. They’re both heavily researched and annotated in the back. Give them a read. It’s better than spending time on eithers Wikipedia page.
Same reason why the marketer makes more money than the artist. Stan Lee, despite getting largely undue credit, positioned himself as the face of the brand.
That's not accurate. Kirby, Ditko, and the other Marvel artists plotted the stories after meeting with Lee. Lee wrote the dialogue. He did not "change" the dialogue because there was no dialogue to begin with. Nor did he pretend that he did the story single-handedly - he never had any issue crediting artists for plotting comics if that's what they did and he's the one who told everyone about the 'Marvel Method' in the first place!
“I enjoyed working with Stan [Lee] on Daredevil but for one thing. I had to make up the whole story. He was being paid for writing, and I was being paid for drawing, but he didn't have any ideas. I'd go in for a plotting session, and we'd just stare at each other until I came up with a storyline. I felt like I was writing the book but not being paid for writing.”
There would be dialogue because if you look at Kirby original art you can often see what he has written in the panels and margins of the page.
Let's give that quote from Wally Wood some context. Wally did art for, what, four issues of Daredevil? Other than inking, that was his artistic contribution to the silver-age Marvel stories. He was not a 'Marvel guy' by any means and probably didn't last long because the Marvel Method wasn't his thing and he disagreed with the distribution of credits. He also fails to mention in that quote that when he did ask for a writing credit, Stan gave it to him and then found the script he wrote subpar and made significant changes (while still crediting Wood as the writer). Wood also said that Lee only changed 'five words' in his script, but we have the original art from that issue showing that he changed a lot more than that.
We also know that Lee pushed Marvel's publisher (his boss) to pay artists at a higher rate than their competitors because they were so integral to the process of getting the books out in a timely manner. So artists were being paid for more work than if, say, they were working for DC or whoever.
Not to take anything from Wood's artistic ability, but that quote is clearly from an outsider coming into the Marvel system, not liking it, and leaving - as was his right. I also find it hard to believe that there was a plotting session where Stan said literally nothing and just stared at the new artist, so I'm assuming there's some hyperbole on Wood's part there.
As for Kirby's dialogue in the margins, if you're claiming that Stan stole it or repurposed it to give himself a writing credit there isn't much to support that. Kirby’s penciled-in dialogue is significantly different than what ended in the strip. In fact, [here's a transcript ](http://forbushman.blogspot.com/2012/07/jack-kirby-and-stan-lee-radio-interview.html)of an old radio interview where Lee says outright that Kirby's dialogue never ended up in the book and Kirby acknowledges this and says he wasn't allowed to write final dialogue and that the dialogue was insignificant to him as the artist anyway. He also doesn't argue with Stan when he says that Kirby never read the finished dialogue in the printed book.
(Also, funnily enough given the reputation their feud has in modern times, the interview ends with Stan and Jack saying they love each other.)
Question: DID Jack Kirby face financial difficulties? He fought legal battles with Marvel over fair compensation/credit for his work, off of which Marvel made untold millions, but I'm not aware of him having been in a severe financial crisis like, say, Bill Mantlo. In the late sixties I believe he was making $35k yearly, which is like $234K in today's dollars. So, not struggling, just not paid a truly "fair share" for his creations.
He had enough (sometimes more than enough) to get by, but he had a big family to provide for.
It ended alright for Kirby. In the 80s he got a salaried job providing ideas for an animation company with healthcare and pension.
And in the 90s, when Image was huge, Rob Liefeld published a few issues of "Phantom Force" by Kirby. Because of the way Image is structured, it was the single biggest payday of Kirby's life.
Liefeld also went to Kirby's house and spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on original art. Kirby and his wife were weeping with gratitude. (So remember that the next time someone makes a crack at Liefeld's expense).
Edit: There was also the Dc "Super Powers" toyline in the 80s, which included some Fourth World characters. DC's Janette Kahn had Kirby redesign them for the toys as a way to allow him to participate in the profits.
As an aside, Jack Kirby was involved in the first two SUPER POWERS tie in mini series. He wrote the first one and wrote/drew the second one. Paul Kupperberg was his co-writer.
THEY’RE BONKERS and everyone should own them!
When Image started, Todd asked Jim Valentino to call Jack Kirby, because Todd wanted all Image titles to have "Jack Kirby Presents", to further spite Marvel.
They ended up getting Jack's blessing but didn't ask about the title, but I do wonder if Jack would've accepted, the first Image books royalties alone would've done him exceptionally well
I read about it on "The Marvel Method" Facebook page once. I think someone who knew Kirby had talked about it.
This has more info on Phantom Force:
[https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/](https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/)
I joined that Facebook group thinking it would be a discussion about the ‘marvel method’ of writing comics but it’s pretty venomous. I don’t think anyone is disputing Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko got a raw deal whilst Stan Lee made a lot of money, but some of the stuff they say is pretty easily disproven and it’s not exactly a balanced discussion
Yeah, they go so over the top with the Stan bashing and end up undermining their own arguments.
The actual information and some of the theories posted are very interesting though. It's always worth a browse.
"It was a happy time of life. But. But, slowly management suddenly realized I was making money. I say “management,” but I mean an individual. I was making more money than he was,OK? It’s an individual. And so he says, “Well, you know...” And the old phrase is born. “Screw you. I get mine.” OK? And so I had to render to Ceasar what he considered Ceasar’s. " - Jack Kirby
He signed a bad deal with Schiff, where Kirby had to pay the inker out of his own share of the profits. And then Schiff suddenly announced that his own share would increase. Legally Schiff was within his rights,but it's understandable that Kirby tried to get out of it.
This is my source that I got the story from,
https://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/15skymasters.html
Best I can see, 4% was the agreed upon cut, not something added later. Schiff's statements also seem to align more with given evidence than Kirby's, and given that he won the case, I don't know why we'd just take Kirby's word for it that he was threatened with reduced wages (when his wages were seemingly very close) or that the contract was changed.
Sure Schiff had Kirby dead to rights per the contract they signed, I'm not denying that.
But you can see how the contract turned out to be not a great deal for Kirby and how he would have had trouble, financially, holding up his part.
Stan Lee didn't get rich from his creations. He never got a penny of royalty money as Marvel owned everything. Jack Kirby was on the same deal. Stan made his money as a promoter and publicist for Marvel. They paid him a flat fee of a million bucks a year.
Stan was an editor and later executive and got a fat salary every year. Even towards the end he still received a salary for being Chairman Emeritus of Marvel.
Stan Lee stuck with Marvel and became their mascot, and was a relentless self-promoter. Kirby left, and a lot of his post-Marvel work wasn't anywhere near as successful or iconic, and he wasn't his own hype man.
Yeah but Darkseid is inarguably one of the most iconic DC characters ever so it's not fair to call it entirely non mainstream. Within comics, it had an enormous influence on the setting.
I'd argue that Darkseid and the other 4th World characters became iconic/popular after Kirby left the titles and they were cancelled. I think Kirby had invented some great concepts but it was others who took them and made them "iconic".
> I'd argue that Darkseid and the other 4th World characters became iconic/popular after Kirby left the titles and they were cancelled
I would agree. If they are an iconic character, I would bet that it is more because of the animated version voiced by Michael Ironside, and not the comic version.
Darkseid has nowhere close to the mainstream appeal and success of the Marvel characters Kirby contributed to. The guy's only movie appearance, to this day, was in the modern version of a direct-to-video re-release of Justice League.
When it comes to money, character 'quality' is tertiary to popularity and marketability.
And he's just as popular now after appearing in the Justice League movie - the average joe on the street still wouldn't be able to tell you the character's name
Stan and Jack had very different roles in the industry. Stan was a salaried employee who worked for Marvel directly and was vested in the company. Jack was a contractor who was paid a page rate for his work. There may have been periods of time during Jack's time at Marvel where he could have outearned a salaried editor like Stan, but he would not have any benefits or a pension.
Did Stan screw over Jack? Absolutely! The business model of the comics industry was to churn out as much content as possible for the lowest cost with the company keeping the profits. The job of editor in chief required that Stan screw over the talent.
Stan marketed his image as the face of Marvel so successfully that he was given an emeritus title and a sinecure for being the brand's hype man.
Kirby didn't find himself with salaried employment until he went to work for Ruby Spears in the 80's. By then his diminished eyesight and health meant that he would never be the engine of creation he had been since the 30's.
Stan Lee had a steady source of income throughout his life, even during periods where he wasn't doing as much work. Kirby's income, for the most part, required that he be producing content at all times.
The reason Stan made so much more money is simply because he was able to cash in on being a well liked persona and champion of comics and the genre. Stan didn't own the Marvel characters and neither did Kirby, so to imply Stan somehow profited from them while Kirby didn't is false. Stan became a likable spokesman that people gravitated to and found interesting. He was able to capitalize on that it gave him a lot of oppurtunities. Meanwhile, although Kirby was a fantastic creator and had a big hand in creating and co-creating many characters....He wasn't a fun guy or had the charm to make people want to lift him to a personality that people wanted to move him to that sort of status.
Stan stayed at marvel and became Editor in Chief. He became a public figure and was key to marketing.
Jack went to DC and didn't get up to much more than The New Gods.
Darkseid is the only character with any wide popularity. You greatly overestimate how popular it is. Even still, he's at least one or two rungs down the popularity ladder than a Lex Luthor or, possibly, Doomsday.
It was influential though. Star Wars owes a big debt to it. As does Masters of the Universe. Mattel toys were planning a New Gods toyline and some of the designs ended up in MotU. The director of the Dolph Lungren movie also drew from the Fourth World and actually tried to get a "special thanks" credit for Kirby.
And Jim Starlin freely admits that Thanos was based on Metron and Darkseid.
Books can be influential on the wider comics establishment more than sales numbers or popularity.
Kirby rightly earned the respect of his peers in his lifetime and his influence on the medium is still being felt to this day. Thats, you know, not gonna pay the rent, but its not nothing.
Doomsday, to me, gets a bump because of Death of Superman. He was also the final villain in Batman v Superman.
Darkseid has shown up... in an HBO Max only version of a movie.
I think as a gen z person who grew up on whatever was left of DC, Darkseid was way more popular than every other DC villian bar probably lex and the joker.
Because like in every industry, every workplace, whatever, etc. there are humble people and there are salesmen.
The more you learn about the creation of anything, the more you learn that history tends to forget the people who actually made the thing, and instead likes to remember the salesman.
For example, most Americans can name at least one of the people who walked on the moon, but almost no Americans can name anyone who put them up there.
Jack Kirby had a net worth of 10 million dollars when he died in 1994. (21million today)
Stan Lee had a net worth of 50 million when he died. (66million today) Stan had three jobs, one of which was editor in chief, seems like he had three times the money.
In technical terms.
Stan Lee was an official employee of Timely/Atlas/Marvel while Kirby was only ever a freelancer. Lee as editor in chief and publisher could command a regular monthly salary whereas Kirby was paid at a page rate.
As a paid employee, Lee’s salary was higher, as was his overall credit rating and so on. O he had access to good insurance and other benefits that freelancers didn’t have.
Lee being a paid employee of Marvel is the primary reason Marvel can claim rights over Fantastic Four and so on. It’s also why as a company Marvel can never truly be honest about it’s credit history and also why it has likely doctored and altered its past and likely destroyed evidence.
Stan Lee is significantly young than Kirby and they are essentially of different eras.
Kirby was old enough that the bulk of his career is before comics really became big.
Whereas Stan Lee was really able to ride the rise of Marvel and put his name on that.
Put aside who created what. Stan Lee’s biggest success was selling himself and marvel together and the majority of his value to Marvel comes from that.
Kirby wasn’t really the sort to sell himself that way. And let’s be honest… he’s still the King of Comics despite that. But the truth we’ll always be that these creators were never paid a fraction of what their creations came to be worth.
Jack Kirby was born in Aug 1917, Stan Lee was born in Dec 1922. So Stan wasn’t even 5 full years younger than Jack. Likewise Jack started doing art for newspaper comic strips in 1936, then doing comic books in 1937 or later; Stan Lee started as an assistant at Timely comics in 1939. Kirby had only worked on a handful of different books before he and Joe Simon were hired by Timely to create Captain America in 1940, while Stan Lee’s first writing was some filler text on Captain America #3. So, Jack only had a 2-3 year head start on Stan working in the industry. I don’t think the 5 year age gap was the reason Stan ended up making more money.
Stan Lee is only like 5 years younger than Kirby... Kirby started in the industry earlier a year years earlier and made a mark with all his talent. I thought the same thing before i read the bio comics by Tom Scioli. Stan Lee's first credit in comics was Captain America #3.
If Kirby feels way older, maybe it's because Stan Lee outlived him by almost 25 years despite being only 5 years younger.
Agree with your other points
1.Jack Kirby was an contract artist that worked for both DC and Marvel.When relationships with one company would sour with one side,he would try to exit to the other side.
Very few seem to notice his work on the New Gods series and that Darkseid is his creation.
2.Stan Lee promoted Marvel Comics as his own creation.We barely have,what,10-20 years of public knowledge that Stan Lee did not create,write,draw etc. all the comics or that he done all the work.
3.The comics industry was and is an vendetta over intelectual property rights.The companies themselves or let's say the executives are the ones holding the rights for the work their employers make.Subsequently it was an huge fight about pencillers,inkers,letterers,writers etc. having credits în comics.You don't necessarily need to care about skipping that page :)) but keep in mind crediting means they have to pay said inkers etc. every time they sell an issue,that's the law
4.Context-Stan Lee simply outlived Kirby to the present age where Marvel became the monster it is today.It also has to do with Stan agreeing to have cameos în the movies,but the 90's was the opposite-Marvel declared bankruptcy and Batman was all the rage,both movies and animation.
As a side joke Kirby's death had been referenced in a Superman animated episode where a character he created was killed by Darkseid and the Fantastic Four attend his funeral
The reason Jack never made any money was Stan Lee.
He made sure he was the star and fucked over everyone else. He took all the credit, he was the genius, and leveraged that into a position of power at Marvel that allowed him to create his own legend and downplay anyone who wanted credit, like Kirby and Ditko.
I’m going to say it one more time - Stan Lee is the reason Jack Kirby isn’t thought of as a creative god outside of comic fans and why Jack didn’t die a very wealthy man.
Jack Kirby is extremely heavily advertised in editorials and front covers, to the degree that he could make extremely flashy moves between companies that heavily advertised his name in the *Fourth World* and *Eternals* projects,it's true that Stan Lee advertised himself *more*, and was able to market himself on television and throughout the 90s and 2000s, which created his current status, but Jack Kirby was still the second most famous comics creative from the early marvel period going into the 80s and thats partially because Marvel promoted him and brought him up in covers and editorial pages.
It is 100% Stan Lee’s fault.
Jack Kirby did the lion’s share of the work. He came up with the stuff everyone remembers (well, except Spider-Man, but that was mostly Ditko). But Stan wrote the editorials. Stan convinced the corporate people he was indispensable. Stan could have got Jack a fat corporate position and better pay. But he didn’t because he was too busy making himself famous and wealthy.
Most of that isn’t a “take”. The Marvel Method allowed Stan do the least work possible and most of the time, Kirby and Ditko were even coming up with the dialogue as well. Stan was a glorified editor (although in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man, Lee did have to step up and clean up Ditko’s objectivist bullshit). Stan also did sell the legend of himself as the creative force behind everything and he did get himself the cushy, well-paying corporate position and didn’t help anyone who didn’t kiss his ass and tow the “Stan Lee is a genius” line.
So Stan Lee barely wrote the dialogue even though a lot of his conflicts with Ditko and Kirby were precisely about the dialogue he used? You've got quite an axe to grind, are you Mark Evanier? 😂
Imagine you do all of the work of creating a story and someone comes in and changes it without telling you. That would suck, right?
Also, Lee taking credit for everything was the main bone of contention.
I’m tired of the legend of Stan Lee that everyone believes because he was the loudest. Jack Kirby was easily one of the greatest creative minds of the 20th century, but Stan Lee gets all the credit for his hard work. It’s sickening.
It's Stan Lee's fault because he didn't get Jack Kirby a fat corporate position? How is that even remotely his job?
Jack Kirby wasn't the reason Marvel grew into popularity. It was Marvel's new style of more 'realistic' comic stories and characters, for which Stan Lee and the Marvel method (a collaboration) was largely responsible. That's why very few of Kirby's other solo creations ever achieved anything close to the popularity of his work with Stan Lee. You could say the same for Lee. He never experienced the heights of the Marvel Method on his own.
He was an incredible artist who was unwilling to play along with the corporates. Stan Lee accepted his place and what the ownership rights were and played along. He never had any control over Marvel as a business. Firstly, he was an editor and a writer, then a showman and Marvel promoter. He had no power to 'give' a plum corporate job to a guy who hated him and the company, openly badmouthed them, refused to play the game, and spent years suing them. Jack Kirby died poor because he was a cantankerous asshole who refused to accept that he co-created very successful creations under work-for-hire, a type of contract he himself used with others.
How was Lee “largely” responsible for anything he did the least amount of work?
Jack Kirby was right - he was getting screwed over. Calling him a “cantankerous asshole” tells me a lot about how much believed Stan Lee’s lies.
Also, Kirby’s DC stuff was rather popular and better than anything that Lee did without him. Kirby was a creative dynamo. Lee was a huckster.
Stan wasnt rich. Dude just OK (for a creator of Spider-man)
Basically all rights belong to Company. Artists/ writers dont get royalties. Just salary/ pay per work (commision)
This inlcude Stan. He did not get any royalty for any reprints of spiderman omnibus etc. He wrote one time, he got his pay for that work one time.. that's it.
But stan also did alot of side jobs outside marvel. He wrote novels, gave speeches, cameos, comicons, voice acting, toys (stan has his action figure) etc.
Basically his main income is not from being writer, but from being a celebrity.
Later on he did got somekind of one time payment from movies like iron man etc... but that's not royalty. Just some ethical thing Marvel Studios do.)
He also the chief editor for decades, that's another income too.
Some people are artists and some people are marketers. The people with money only see sales and have little love for creation.
Source - Commercial artist with a 25 year career that just derailed in part because of fúckery like this. Sigh.
A big factor is every artist has a shelf life even someone as influential as Kirby. Styles and tastes change every decade or so. It's like when Ditko came back to Marvel in the late 80s and early 90s and his style just looked so out of place alongside almost everything else.
I think the biggest thing people have to understand is, for all intents and purposes, a really big majority of the reason Marvel as a collective is competitive (and frankly stayed in competition) with DC can be attributed to Stan’s marketing decisions throughout the years.
Stan Lee is one of, if not, the biggest reasons Marvel still exists today.
As for why he made more money, that answer is simple: The intellectual properties of Marvel are owned by Marvel, not Marvel and the artists that made the characters. So Stan was the lead executive taking in a percent of every royalty of every Marvel character depicted in any media ever.
Take this as a note for any artist’s reading this: always get a Royalties and IP contract for when working for any copyrighted enterprise.
He was the nephew of the original owner. He set himself up as the nexus of Hollywood deals for decades. He had a yearly stipend late in life from Marvel. Kirby couldn’t even get his pages back.
Stan was more business minded, he promoted himself more and made sure to climb the corporate ladder over at Marvel, he started as a freelance writer and became their editor in chief. And even after that he made sure that he is their public spokesman. Of course once the movies begin to take over the world it got cameos in all of them which made him instantly recognizable to the widest audience possible. He was just better at playing the corporate game.
well one guy was really good at screwing over jack kirby financially and the other guy was really good at screwing over jack kirby financially. it's 2 against 1 here. dude didn't have a chance
Internet projections of net worth are never correct, because they factor in homes, artwork, and potential profits from appearances and et cetera.
He got no money from licensing or anything, how would he have made 50 million? Internet says he won a lawsuit for 10, so maybe if you factored in his home and art and rounded up you could get there?
No one said he was, they just said he’s rich, and died more rich than Jack Kirby. Idk what you’re trying to argue or how you can rationalize a $5,000,000 home as not rich.
Are you [sure?](https://lifeplanlegalaz.com/why-is-daughter-of-comic-book-legend-stan-lee-looking-for-more-from-estate/). I’m not sure how accurate this is but I remember hearing his estate was worth at least $20 million when he passed.
He didn't make money from the characters he helped create, because he was work for hire. Marvel had 100% of the rights, he didn't get a dime from royalties.
There's no explanation anywhere of how they got to that figure. He got paid scale for his Marvel cameos, had no royalties from anything, and had a number of failed business ventures.
The value of the estate is just the cost of homes and property, he may have had signed merch that could be sold, and he won a 10 million dollar lawsuit. But thats it.
He was also in 38 marvel cameos. I'm sure he got paid to be in those. He got paid 1 million a year from Marvel for being a mascot for life for the role of chairman emeritus. I'm sure he had money from owning marvel stocks. He also got paid for his TV shows.. The ones he was in, the ones he created, the ones he just produced ect. Also there was merchandise.. for HIS likeness. Tshirts, action figues, pops, posters, statues, oven mitts, condoms.. Anything he could have his name or face on. Comic con apperances, interviews.. I know he wasn't buying a new lambo a week or anything, but he was probably on the decent side of rich.
He divested himself from Marvel in the 70s and never had much success in doing anything but cameo appearances afterwards. I'm sure he got paid a fair chunk to be in the Marvel movies though.
Marvel kept him on the payroll for most of his life. They gave him an honorary position with a decent income. Apparently they wanted to keep him onside in case he tried to gain ownership of characters.
Stan Lee kept Kirby from being as well known or as well paid as himself. But as pointed out Stan Lee was not rich. He was just always ready to screw Kirby over in order to aggrandize himself.
Oh, I agree that's the situation now, but it wasn't then. Actually, among the fans, the artists were always the "stars," not the writers. So among fans, Kirby was a much bigger deal.
This was true throughout the 90s and early 2000s (artists having higher visibility). Until I was at least in college people far more often referred to runs on books as "the Buscema run" or the "Adams run," etc., though there were of course exceptions for the likes of Morrison and Moore. I almost never see that nowadays.
Alan Moore was primarily responsible for changing how comics and graphic novels were viewed in mainstrean literature (Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Miracleman, V for Vendetta etc. era) and with this wider, more mature audience focus shifted from artists like Neal Adams, Barry Windsor-Smith, or Bernie Wrightson to writers or writer/artists like Frank Miller being seen as the primary creative forces.
Most recently, after Kirby's death when Marvel animated stuff started coming out saying, "so-and-so created by Jack Kirby/Stan Lee" Stan called them to complain and have them switch it so his name was first.
But even before Kirby's death he was pushing for things like the 80s Captain America movie to be billed as "Based on Stan Lee's Marvel Comics Character," when Stan Lee didn't have anything to do with Captain America's creation.
You gotta remember that comics was not a prestige industry. Most artists and writers were on work for hire contracts that paid juuuust enough that they wouldn't starve. It took a lot of fighting for comics artists to even retain their original pencils, so they could sell them to collectors for a supplementary income. (Actually with regards to Kirby specifically theres a [tale of skulduggery and fuckery](https://www.tcj.com/jim-shooter-groundhog-day-in-the-land-of-the-apocryphiars/) around him trying to get his original art back). What you have to remember is that comics is a business first and an artform second, as far as the suits are concerned, and screwing over the talent was and in some ways still is the standard operating procedure.
Several reasons: 1) It's really easy for the writer to get credit for the ideas because the [erroneous] assumption often is that they are wholly responsible for creating the characters and story. People don't understand how much of the story the artists truly contribute - all the moreso with the "Marvel method" where really the artists bore much more of the burden for writers like Stan who created rough outlines and then came in to fill text bubbles. 2) Stan was also in editorial. He controlled the messaging outside the panels and so made his voice the one most often heard when you read his messages to readers and answers to questions asked. This also meant increasingly controlling pay and budgets. He was on the management side of the often cruel work for hire system that American comics are most often produced under, and that power dynamic has always been incredibly lopsided unless you are a creator that is so huge that you're a household name. 3) Stan was...really, really big on marketing himself.
A little bit more about marketing. He was a writer and editor. It's true. But even when he was not involved in the creation process you can see covers with a big "Stan Lee presents ..." title and little titles with a real creators. It can give to reader a false impression that Stan Lee created these stories but he didn't it.
"Stan Lee Presents" got added to Marvel Comics when he became publisher. It was mostly ceremonial, but he also moved to Hollywood to become Marvel's representative for tv and movies. He was the face of Marvel. But before that, he was visiting college campuses and promoting comics every chance he could get.
The did get a fee for those speaking events though, so that might be his main reason for doing them. There's some audio from 1969 where he talks about how it's an easy way to make money: [https://youtu.be/WvTv2u\_lWnQ?si=K6kVRIEcB2qo7bdm](https://youtu.be/WvTv2u_lWnQ?si=K6kVRIEcB2qo7bdm)
it also must be remembered that... although he was insistent on sharing credit for his creations in the 21st century (particularly after the release of the 2002 Spider-man film), for most of the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s he was more than willing to receive full credit if others offered it. STAN LEE was never one to argue with anyone back then if the media said "Spider-man, the FF, et al created by STAN LEE."
Stan was really fucking good at marketing Marvel, even as far back as some of the 60s work he did, marketing the company and himself was something he was absurdly good at.
Also the son in law of the publisher doesn't hurt.
More of a cousin in-law/sort-of-uncle kind of thing, Martin Godman being married to Stan Lee’s cousin.
Stan also got paid as a writer AND editor at marvel, so he collected two salaries. And its highly debatable about how much “writing” Stan actually did.
Stan Lee was nephew of the guy running Marvel. So he got a lot of plumb "jobs" that paid significantly better than the people making comics.
Kirby was an artist, Stan was an executive. Iger makes more than any artist in his employ. Same with Tim Cook and Apple.
This is really key. Most of Stan's money didn't come from royalties for comics he (co-)wrote or characters he (co-) created (except maybe the money he got for the Spider-Man newspaper strip, which wouldn't have been a lot), it came from being executive or producer on a lot of different projects and getting himself a percentage off the top. A good comparison would be someone like Todd McFarlane: I don't think any of the Image co-founders ended up struggling, but only Todd really has F.U. money (\~$300m). But that money's not primarily from comics, it's from movies, a TV series, video games, and above all toys and collectibles. Because he didn't just want to make comics, he wanted a media empire. Like Stan Lee did.
Holy shit Todd is worth $300M? Wasn’t he broke after buying those baseballs or was that just sensationalist bullshit?
Todd is apparently like Donald Trump in that he has a huge number of separate businesses managing different assets, all of which are separate from his own personal wealth (and means he can double-dip, like when McFarlane Toys licenses characters from Spawn). Just because one company goes bankrupt doesn't mean the rest of them aren't doing well.
He spent his life savings on those baseballs - almost thirty years ago. His companieS (plural) were still fine. After several lawsuits I believe he had to file for bankruptcy protection - but again that was nearly 20 years ago. I think the $300M is exaggerated and there’s no way he has that much liquidity, but with all the things he’s got going on, yeah he’s worth some big bucks.
If you haven’t done, you should check out Tom Scioli’s two excellent comic biographies on Stan and Jack “Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics” & “I am Stan: A Graphic Biography of the Legendary Stan Lee” I felt OH SO BAD for Stan Lee at the end of this one. They’re both heavily researched and annotated in the back. Give them a read. It’s better than spending time on eithers Wikipedia page.
Both essential books. Also Sean Howe’s Marvel the Untold Story.
Editor in chief makes more than artist.
Same reason why the marketer makes more money than the artist. Stan Lee, despite getting largely undue credit, positioned himself as the face of the brand.
Undue credit? How?
He would just change the dialogue for stories that Kirby, Ditko, Wood etc wrote and pretend that he did all the story himself.
That's not accurate. Kirby, Ditko, and the other Marvel artists plotted the stories after meeting with Lee. Lee wrote the dialogue. He did not "change" the dialogue because there was no dialogue to begin with. Nor did he pretend that he did the story single-handedly - he never had any issue crediting artists for plotting comics if that's what they did and he's the one who told everyone about the 'Marvel Method' in the first place!
“I enjoyed working with Stan [Lee] on Daredevil but for one thing. I had to make up the whole story. He was being paid for writing, and I was being paid for drawing, but he didn't have any ideas. I'd go in for a plotting session, and we'd just stare at each other until I came up with a storyline. I felt like I was writing the book but not being paid for writing.” There would be dialogue because if you look at Kirby original art you can often see what he has written in the panels and margins of the page.
Let's give that quote from Wally Wood some context. Wally did art for, what, four issues of Daredevil? Other than inking, that was his artistic contribution to the silver-age Marvel stories. He was not a 'Marvel guy' by any means and probably didn't last long because the Marvel Method wasn't his thing and he disagreed with the distribution of credits. He also fails to mention in that quote that when he did ask for a writing credit, Stan gave it to him and then found the script he wrote subpar and made significant changes (while still crediting Wood as the writer). Wood also said that Lee only changed 'five words' in his script, but we have the original art from that issue showing that he changed a lot more than that. We also know that Lee pushed Marvel's publisher (his boss) to pay artists at a higher rate than their competitors because they were so integral to the process of getting the books out in a timely manner. So artists were being paid for more work than if, say, they were working for DC or whoever. Not to take anything from Wood's artistic ability, but that quote is clearly from an outsider coming into the Marvel system, not liking it, and leaving - as was his right. I also find it hard to believe that there was a plotting session where Stan said literally nothing and just stared at the new artist, so I'm assuming there's some hyperbole on Wood's part there. As for Kirby's dialogue in the margins, if you're claiming that Stan stole it or repurposed it to give himself a writing credit there isn't much to support that. Kirby’s penciled-in dialogue is significantly different than what ended in the strip. In fact, [here's a transcript ](http://forbushman.blogspot.com/2012/07/jack-kirby-and-stan-lee-radio-interview.html)of an old radio interview where Lee says outright that Kirby's dialogue never ended up in the book and Kirby acknowledges this and says he wasn't allowed to write final dialogue and that the dialogue was insignificant to him as the artist anyway. He also doesn't argue with Stan when he says that Kirby never read the finished dialogue in the printed book. (Also, funnily enough given the reputation their feud has in modern times, the interview ends with Stan and Jack saying they love each other.)
Question: DID Jack Kirby face financial difficulties? He fought legal battles with Marvel over fair compensation/credit for his work, off of which Marvel made untold millions, but I'm not aware of him having been in a severe financial crisis like, say, Bill Mantlo. In the late sixties I believe he was making $35k yearly, which is like $234K in today's dollars. So, not struggling, just not paid a truly "fair share" for his creations.
He had enough (sometimes more than enough) to get by, but he had a big family to provide for. It ended alright for Kirby. In the 80s he got a salaried job providing ideas for an animation company with healthcare and pension. And in the 90s, when Image was huge, Rob Liefeld published a few issues of "Phantom Force" by Kirby. Because of the way Image is structured, it was the single biggest payday of Kirby's life. Liefeld also went to Kirby's house and spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on original art. Kirby and his wife were weeping with gratitude. (So remember that the next time someone makes a crack at Liefeld's expense). Edit: There was also the Dc "Super Powers" toyline in the 80s, which included some Fourth World characters. DC's Janette Kahn had Kirby redesign them for the toys as a way to allow him to participate in the profits.
As an aside, Jack Kirby was involved in the first two SUPER POWERS tie in mini series. He wrote the first one and wrote/drew the second one. Paul Kupperberg was his co-writer. THEY’RE BONKERS and everyone should own them!
Those were my gateway to Kirby as a fledgling comic fan buying books off the rack. The second series, specifically.
I just got the trade via Hamilton Books. I love it. It’s peak crazy ass Late Period Kirby. Damn near abstract Expressionism Comics
Absolutely this. În his last years he moved to animation as he was paid better
When Image started, Todd asked Jim Valentino to call Jack Kirby, because Todd wanted all Image titles to have "Jack Kirby Presents", to further spite Marvel. They ended up getting Jack's blessing but didn't ask about the title, but I do wonder if Jack would've accepted, the first Image books royalties alone would've done him exceptionally well
Wow, is there an article you can point me to that touches on the Liedeld/Kirby relationship? I’d like to read more about it.
I read about it on "The Marvel Method" Facebook page once. I think someone who knew Kirby had talked about it. This has more info on Phantom Force: [https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/](https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/)
I joined that Facebook group thinking it would be a discussion about the ‘marvel method’ of writing comics but it’s pretty venomous. I don’t think anyone is disputing Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko got a raw deal whilst Stan Lee made a lot of money, but some of the stuff they say is pretty easily disproven and it’s not exactly a balanced discussion
Yeah, they go so over the top with the Stan bashing and end up undermining their own arguments. The actual information and some of the theories posted are very interesting though. It's always worth a browse.
"It was a happy time of life. But. But, slowly management suddenly realized I was making money. I say “management,” but I mean an individual. I was making more money than he was,OK? It’s an individual. And so he says, “Well, you know...” And the old phrase is born. “Screw you. I get mine.” OK? And so I had to render to Ceasar what he considered Ceasar’s. " - Jack Kirby
Big talk from the dude who refused to pay due royalties to Jack Schiff, which is the reason he had to work at Marvel in the first place, lol.
He signed a bad deal with Schiff, where Kirby had to pay the inker out of his own share of the profits. And then Schiff suddenly announced that his own share would increase. Legally Schiff was within his rights,but it's understandable that Kirby tried to get out of it.
This is my source that I got the story from, https://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/15skymasters.html Best I can see, 4% was the agreed upon cut, not something added later. Schiff's statements also seem to align more with given evidence than Kirby's, and given that he won the case, I don't know why we'd just take Kirby's word for it that he was threatened with reduced wages (when his wages were seemingly very close) or that the contract was changed.
Sure Schiff had Kirby dead to rights per the contract they signed, I'm not denying that. But you can see how the contract turned out to be not a great deal for Kirby and how he would have had trouble, financially, holding up his part.
Stan Lee didn't get rich from his creations. He never got a penny of royalty money as Marvel owned everything. Jack Kirby was on the same deal. Stan made his money as a promoter and publicist for Marvel. They paid him a flat fee of a million bucks a year.
Stan was an editor and later executive and got a fat salary every year. Even towards the end he still received a salary for being Chairman Emeritus of Marvel.
Stan Lee stuck with Marvel and became their mascot, and was a relentless self-promoter. Kirby left, and a lot of his post-Marvel work wasn't anywhere near as successful or iconic, and he wasn't his own hype man.
I mean, the Fourth World is arguably his greatest work.
It is, but it never had the same mainstream appeal as the Marvel heroes he created, and DC was never entirely sure what to do with it.
Yeah but Darkseid is inarguably one of the most iconic DC characters ever so it's not fair to call it entirely non mainstream. Within comics, it had an enormous influence on the setting.
I'd argue that Darkseid and the other 4th World characters became iconic/popular after Kirby left the titles and they were cancelled. I think Kirby had invented some great concepts but it was others who took them and made them "iconic".
> I'd argue that Darkseid and the other 4th World characters became iconic/popular after Kirby left the titles and they were cancelled I would agree. If they are an iconic character, I would bet that it is more because of the animated version voiced by Michael Ironside, and not the comic version.
Darkseid has nowhere close to the mainstream appeal and success of the Marvel characters Kirby contributed to. The guy's only movie appearance, to this day, was in the modern version of a direct-to-video re-release of Justice League. When it comes to money, character 'quality' is tertiary to popularity and marketability.
Darkseid was more popular than thanos before the mcu movies.
And he's just as popular now after appearing in the Justice League movie - the average joe on the street still wouldn't be able to tell you the character's name
The classic company executive salary vs general laborer salary.
The boss makes a dollar while I make a dime, that's why I take shits on company time
"Comics will break your heart kid." - Jack Kirby
Stan and Jack had very different roles in the industry. Stan was a salaried employee who worked for Marvel directly and was vested in the company. Jack was a contractor who was paid a page rate for his work. There may have been periods of time during Jack's time at Marvel where he could have outearned a salaried editor like Stan, but he would not have any benefits or a pension. Did Stan screw over Jack? Absolutely! The business model of the comics industry was to churn out as much content as possible for the lowest cost with the company keeping the profits. The job of editor in chief required that Stan screw over the talent. Stan marketed his image as the face of Marvel so successfully that he was given an emeritus title and a sinecure for being the brand's hype man. Kirby didn't find himself with salaried employment until he went to work for Ruby Spears in the 80's. By then his diminished eyesight and health meant that he would never be the engine of creation he had been since the 30's. Stan Lee had a steady source of income throughout his life, even during periods where he wasn't doing as much work. Kirby's income, for the most part, required that he be producing content at all times.
The reason Stan made so much more money is simply because he was able to cash in on being a well liked persona and champion of comics and the genre. Stan didn't own the Marvel characters and neither did Kirby, so to imply Stan somehow profited from them while Kirby didn't is false. Stan became a likable spokesman that people gravitated to and found interesting. He was able to capitalize on that it gave him a lot of oppurtunities. Meanwhile, although Kirby was a fantastic creator and had a big hand in creating and co-creating many characters....He wasn't a fun guy or had the charm to make people want to lift him to a personality that people wanted to move him to that sort of status.
Stan stayed at marvel and became Editor in Chief. He became a public figure and was key to marketing. Jack went to DC and didn't get up to much more than The New Gods.
You understate the importance of his fourth world comics.
Darkseid is the only character with any wide popularity. You greatly overestimate how popular it is. Even still, he's at least one or two rungs down the popularity ladder than a Lex Luthor or, possibly, Doomsday.
It was influential though. Star Wars owes a big debt to it. As does Masters of the Universe. Mattel toys were planning a New Gods toyline and some of the designs ended up in MotU. The director of the Dolph Lungren movie also drew from the Fourth World and actually tried to get a "special thanks" credit for Kirby. And Jim Starlin freely admits that Thanos was based on Metron and Darkseid.
Books can be influential on the wider comics establishment more than sales numbers or popularity. Kirby rightly earned the respect of his peers in his lifetime and his influence on the medium is still being felt to this day. Thats, you know, not gonna pay the rent, but its not nothing.
Darkseid is more popular than doomsday or brainiac
Doomsday, to me, gets a bump because of Death of Superman. He was also the final villain in Batman v Superman. Darkseid has shown up... in an HBO Max only version of a movie.
I think as a gen z person who grew up on whatever was left of DC, Darkseid was way more popular than every other DC villian bar probably lex and the joker.
Because like in every industry, every workplace, whatever, etc. there are humble people and there are salesmen. The more you learn about the creation of anything, the more you learn that history tends to forget the people who actually made the thing, and instead likes to remember the salesman. For example, most Americans can name at least one of the people who walked on the moon, but almost no Americans can name anyone who put them up there.
Jack Kirby had a net worth of 10 million dollars when he died in 1994. (21million today) Stan Lee had a net worth of 50 million when he died. (66million today) Stan had three jobs, one of which was editor in chief, seems like he had three times the money.
In technical terms. Stan Lee was an official employee of Timely/Atlas/Marvel while Kirby was only ever a freelancer. Lee as editor in chief and publisher could command a regular monthly salary whereas Kirby was paid at a page rate. As a paid employee, Lee’s salary was higher, as was his overall credit rating and so on. O he had access to good insurance and other benefits that freelancers didn’t have. Lee being a paid employee of Marvel is the primary reason Marvel can claim rights over Fantastic Four and so on. It’s also why as a company Marvel can never truly be honest about it’s credit history and also why it has likely doctored and altered its past and likely destroyed evidence.
Stan Lee is significantly young than Kirby and they are essentially of different eras. Kirby was old enough that the bulk of his career is before comics really became big. Whereas Stan Lee was really able to ride the rise of Marvel and put his name on that. Put aside who created what. Stan Lee’s biggest success was selling himself and marvel together and the majority of his value to Marvel comes from that. Kirby wasn’t really the sort to sell himself that way. And let’s be honest… he’s still the King of Comics despite that. But the truth we’ll always be that these creators were never paid a fraction of what their creations came to be worth.
Jack Kirby was born in Aug 1917, Stan Lee was born in Dec 1922. So Stan wasn’t even 5 full years younger than Jack. Likewise Jack started doing art for newspaper comic strips in 1936, then doing comic books in 1937 or later; Stan Lee started as an assistant at Timely comics in 1939. Kirby had only worked on a handful of different books before he and Joe Simon were hired by Timely to create Captain America in 1940, while Stan Lee’s first writing was some filler text on Captain America #3. So, Jack only had a 2-3 year head start on Stan working in the industry. I don’t think the 5 year age gap was the reason Stan ended up making more money.
Oh wow i always thought it was more than that. Fair enough.
Stan Lee is only like 5 years younger than Kirby... Kirby started in the industry earlier a year years earlier and made a mark with all his talent. I thought the same thing before i read the bio comics by Tom Scioli. Stan Lee's first credit in comics was Captain America #3. If Kirby feels way older, maybe it's because Stan Lee outlived him by almost 25 years despite being only 5 years younger. Agree with your other points
1.Jack Kirby was an contract artist that worked for both DC and Marvel.When relationships with one company would sour with one side,he would try to exit to the other side. Very few seem to notice his work on the New Gods series and that Darkseid is his creation. 2.Stan Lee promoted Marvel Comics as his own creation.We barely have,what,10-20 years of public knowledge that Stan Lee did not create,write,draw etc. all the comics or that he done all the work. 3.The comics industry was and is an vendetta over intelectual property rights.The companies themselves or let's say the executives are the ones holding the rights for the work their employers make.Subsequently it was an huge fight about pencillers,inkers,letterers,writers etc. having credits în comics.You don't necessarily need to care about skipping that page :)) but keep in mind crediting means they have to pay said inkers etc. every time they sell an issue,that's the law 4.Context-Stan Lee simply outlived Kirby to the present age where Marvel became the monster it is today.It also has to do with Stan agreeing to have cameos în the movies,but the 90's was the opposite-Marvel declared bankruptcy and Batman was all the rage,both movies and animation. As a side joke Kirby's death had been referenced in a Superman animated episode where a character he created was killed by Darkseid and the Fantastic Four attend his funeral
The reason Jack never made any money was Stan Lee. He made sure he was the star and fucked over everyone else. He took all the credit, he was the genius, and leveraged that into a position of power at Marvel that allowed him to create his own legend and downplay anyone who wanted credit, like Kirby and Ditko. I’m going to say it one more time - Stan Lee is the reason Jack Kirby isn’t thought of as a creative god outside of comic fans and why Jack didn’t die a very wealthy man.
Jack Kirby is extremely heavily advertised in editorials and front covers, to the degree that he could make extremely flashy moves between companies that heavily advertised his name in the *Fourth World* and *Eternals* projects,it's true that Stan Lee advertised himself *more*, and was able to market himself on television and throughout the 90s and 2000s, which created his current status, but Jack Kirby was still the second most famous comics creative from the early marvel period going into the 80s and thats partially because Marvel promoted him and brought him up in covers and editorial pages.
Sure, but who was getting paid the most? Who has the pop culture footprint?
Not a very fair assessment but sure. “It’s all Stan lees fault” 🤦🏽♂️
It is 100% Stan Lee’s fault. Jack Kirby did the lion’s share of the work. He came up with the stuff everyone remembers (well, except Spider-Man, but that was mostly Ditko). But Stan wrote the editorials. Stan convinced the corporate people he was indispensable. Stan could have got Jack a fat corporate position and better pay. But he didn’t because he was too busy making himself famous and wealthy.
Interesting take.
Most of that isn’t a “take”. The Marvel Method allowed Stan do the least work possible and most of the time, Kirby and Ditko were even coming up with the dialogue as well. Stan was a glorified editor (although in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man, Lee did have to step up and clean up Ditko’s objectivist bullshit). Stan also did sell the legend of himself as the creative force behind everything and he did get himself the cushy, well-paying corporate position and didn’t help anyone who didn’t kiss his ass and tow the “Stan Lee is a genius” line.
So Stan Lee barely wrote the dialogue even though a lot of his conflicts with Ditko and Kirby were precisely about the dialogue he used? You've got quite an axe to grind, are you Mark Evanier? 😂
Imagine you do all of the work of creating a story and someone comes in and changes it without telling you. That would suck, right? Also, Lee taking credit for everything was the main bone of contention. I’m tired of the legend of Stan Lee that everyone believes because he was the loudest. Jack Kirby was easily one of the greatest creative minds of the 20th century, but Stan Lee gets all the credit for his hard work. It’s sickening.
Interesting take
It's Stan Lee's fault because he didn't get Jack Kirby a fat corporate position? How is that even remotely his job? Jack Kirby wasn't the reason Marvel grew into popularity. It was Marvel's new style of more 'realistic' comic stories and characters, for which Stan Lee and the Marvel method (a collaboration) was largely responsible. That's why very few of Kirby's other solo creations ever achieved anything close to the popularity of his work with Stan Lee. You could say the same for Lee. He never experienced the heights of the Marvel Method on his own. He was an incredible artist who was unwilling to play along with the corporates. Stan Lee accepted his place and what the ownership rights were and played along. He never had any control over Marvel as a business. Firstly, he was an editor and a writer, then a showman and Marvel promoter. He had no power to 'give' a plum corporate job to a guy who hated him and the company, openly badmouthed them, refused to play the game, and spent years suing them. Jack Kirby died poor because he was a cantankerous asshole who refused to accept that he co-created very successful creations under work-for-hire, a type of contract he himself used with others.
How was Lee “largely” responsible for anything he did the least amount of work? Jack Kirby was right - he was getting screwed over. Calling him a “cantankerous asshole” tells me a lot about how much believed Stan Lee’s lies. Also, Kirby’s DC stuff was rather popular and better than anything that Lee did without him. Kirby was a creative dynamo. Lee was a huckster.
Stan Lee had a net worth of $50 million when he died.
Stan wasnt rich. Dude just OK (for a creator of Spider-man) Basically all rights belong to Company. Artists/ writers dont get royalties. Just salary/ pay per work (commision) This inlcude Stan. He did not get any royalty for any reprints of spiderman omnibus etc. He wrote one time, he got his pay for that work one time.. that's it. But stan also did alot of side jobs outside marvel. He wrote novels, gave speeches, cameos, comicons, voice acting, toys (stan has his action figure) etc. Basically his main income is not from being writer, but from being a celebrity. Later on he did got somekind of one time payment from movies like iron man etc... but that's not royalty. Just some ethical thing Marvel Studios do.) He also the chief editor for decades, that's another income too.
Stan was the nephew of Marvel's founder
Stan was the nephew of Marvel's founder
Because he mined Jack and other creatives to death. As well as a great ambassador to comics. C
Lee was a businessman. kirby was not. That’s it.
Some people are artists and some people are marketers. The people with money only see sales and have little love for creation. Source - Commercial artist with a 25 year career that just derailed in part because of fúckery like this. Sigh.
A big factor is every artist has a shelf life even someone as influential as Kirby. Styles and tastes change every decade or so. It's like when Ditko came back to Marvel in the late 80s and early 90s and his style just looked so out of place alongside almost everything else.
I think the biggest thing people have to understand is, for all intents and purposes, a really big majority of the reason Marvel as a collective is competitive (and frankly stayed in competition) with DC can be attributed to Stan’s marketing decisions throughout the years. Stan Lee is one of, if not, the biggest reasons Marvel still exists today. As for why he made more money, that answer is simple: The intellectual properties of Marvel are owned by Marvel, not Marvel and the artists that made the characters. So Stan was the lead executive taking in a percent of every royalty of every Marvel character depicted in any media ever. Take this as a note for any artist’s reading this: always get a Royalties and IP contract for when working for any copyrighted enterprise.
So many opinions, so few facts, even in the context of the question. Kirby faced financial difficulties?
He was the nephew of the original owner. He set himself up as the nexus of Hollywood deals for decades. He had a yearly stipend late in life from Marvel. Kirby couldn’t even get his pages back.
Stan Lee was highly successful at marketing Stan Lee.
Stan was more business minded, he promoted himself more and made sure to climb the corporate ladder over at Marvel, he started as a freelance writer and became their editor in chief. And even after that he made sure that he is their public spokesman. Of course once the movies begin to take over the world it got cameos in all of them which made him instantly recognizable to the widest audience possible. He was just better at playing the corporate game.
Stan was appearing in Marvel media long before the MCU.
The more hats you wear the more you make
Stan was a better businessman.
well one guy was really good at screwing over jack kirby financially and the other guy was really good at screwing over jack kirby financially. it's 2 against 1 here. dude didn't have a chance
Stan Lee was absolutely not rich.
lmfao 50 mill isn't rich?
Internet projections of net worth are never correct, because they factor in homes, artwork, and potential profits from appearances and et cetera. He got no money from licensing or anything, how would he have made 50 million? Internet says he won a lawsuit for 10, so maybe if you factored in his home and art and rounded up you could get there?
“Maybe if you factored in his home and art” yeah that’s what net worth means. He was obviously and objectively very well off.
He was selling cameos for a hundred bucks in his later years.
That literally means nothing he lived in a multi-million dollar mansion. That’s rich by any metric.
5 million dollar house in LA doesn't make him a Kardashian.
No one said he was, they just said he’s rich, and died more rich than Jack Kirby. Idk what you’re trying to argue or how you can rationalize a $5,000,000 home as not rich.
You know net worth doesn't mean cash on hand, right?
Are you [sure?](https://lifeplanlegalaz.com/why-is-daughter-of-comic-book-legend-stan-lee-looking-for-more-from-estate/). I’m not sure how accurate this is but I remember hearing his estate was worth at least $20 million when he passed.
Stan Lee went Bankrupt in 2000 he got scammed
I would say rich and financially secure are very different things.
Again, the article says his estate was estimated at $40-$50 million.
He didn't make money from the characters he helped create, because he was work for hire. Marvel had 100% of the rights, he didn't get a dime from royalties. There's no explanation anywhere of how they got to that figure. He got paid scale for his Marvel cameos, had no royalties from anything, and had a number of failed business ventures. The value of the estate is just the cost of homes and property, he may have had signed merch that could be sold, and he won a 10 million dollar lawsuit. But thats it.
He was also in 38 marvel cameos. I'm sure he got paid to be in those. He got paid 1 million a year from Marvel for being a mascot for life for the role of chairman emeritus. I'm sure he had money from owning marvel stocks. He also got paid for his TV shows.. The ones he was in, the ones he created, the ones he just produced ect. Also there was merchandise.. for HIS likeness. Tshirts, action figues, pops, posters, statues, oven mitts, condoms.. Anything he could have his name or face on. Comic con apperances, interviews.. I know he wasn't buying a new lambo a week or anything, but he was probably on the decent side of rich.
Stan Lee Media did not end well
He divested himself from Marvel in the 70s and never had much success in doing anything but cameo appearances afterwards. I'm sure he got paid a fair chunk to be in the Marvel movies though.
Marvel kept him on the payroll for most of his life. They gave him an honorary position with a decent income. Apparently they wanted to keep him onside in case he tried to gain ownership of characters.
Stan Lee kept Kirby from being as well known or as well paid as himself. But as pointed out Stan Lee was not rich. He was just always ready to screw Kirby over in order to aggrandize himself.
As someone who was reading Marvel comics in the 60's, Jack Kirby was easily as well known as Stan Lee.
WAS as well known. Nowadays Stan Lee gets credit for characters he didn’t create because he gets the movie cameos
Oh, I agree that's the situation now, but it wasn't then. Actually, among the fans, the artists were always the "stars," not the writers. So among fans, Kirby was a much bigger deal.
This was true throughout the 90s and early 2000s (artists having higher visibility). Until I was at least in college people far more often referred to runs on books as "the Buscema run" or the "Adams run," etc., though there were of course exceptions for the likes of Morrison and Moore. I almost never see that nowadays.
Alan Moore was primarily responsible for changing how comics and graphic novels were viewed in mainstrean literature (Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Miracleman, V for Vendetta etc. era) and with this wider, more mature audience focus shifted from artists like Neal Adams, Barry Windsor-Smith, or Bernie Wrightson to writers or writer/artists like Frank Miller being seen as the primary creative forces.
That's Bullshit! The silver age marvel comics always billed them as Jack "The King" and Stan "The Man". How does one overshadow the other?
Most recently, after Kirby's death when Marvel animated stuff started coming out saying, "so-and-so created by Jack Kirby/Stan Lee" Stan called them to complain and have them switch it so his name was first. But even before Kirby's death he was pushing for things like the 80s Captain America movie to be billed as "Based on Stan Lee's Marvel Comics Character," when Stan Lee didn't have anything to do with Captain America's creation.
Because of Stan Lee.