QUESTION 1: Would Jack Kirby have been as successful and the iconic master we know if he had not been given the freedom of creation by Stan Lee through the Marvel method (and instead worked for DC in those years)?
QUESTION 2: Did comic companies outside of the Big Two (Marvel and DC) ever embrace the Bronze Age, or were Archie Comics, Charlton Comics, Harvey Comics and others stuck in another era?
19 comments:
As a mild reader of Archie, Charlton and Harvey comics in the Bronze Age I would say that they never thought that their target audience would disappear. Maybe a little naive in a business world but who could have predicted the rise of super heroes and the creation of specialty stores for comic books. Then when the market shift happened in the 1980's it was too late to adjust.
Kirby. I tend to think of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as the Paul McCartney and John Lennon of the comic book world. Combative together but classic ground breaking work. Then they separate and the latter work is lesser in some ways. Yes there is the Fourth World stuff and Double Fantasy, but Lennon needed the lighter side of Paul to balance him.
I think of Kirby and Stan as Tesla and Edison. Stan/Edison were the businessmen that were able to translate to the masses Kirby/Tesla magical ideas. As an unfortunate by product Stan/Edison are known to the public and often creditted for Kirby/Tesla works. However, without their partnerships we would be reading funny books by candle light.
I always enjoyed Atlas comics in the Bronze age. The Destructor run was read so much it looked like it had gone through the wash. The others were fun too, Phoenix the Protector, Tiger-man, Brute, the Cougar, and the weirdest one Ironjaw! It was really a guy with a metal jaw.
I remeber reading some others, was Jungle Twins a thing or Yang kung fu. I remember a guy fighting an ape with kung fu on a cover. My sister read the Richie Rich and Hot Stuff comics that came in my three packs from the grocery store. They put a Marvel or DC on the outsides and sandwich an off brand in the middle.
Question 1: I have no idea. Kirby was brilliant, and I love his romance comics stuff he did with Joe Simon, but not sure it would have had the same verve without the experience of Marvel.
Question 2: This may be controversial for a comment on a site called "Back in the Bronze Age," which is the descendant of a site called "Bronze Age Babies," but I find the "ages' categorization to be mostly useless except in the broadest kind of shorthand. The qualities we may associate with Bronze Age comics not only developed at different times for different companies, but also for different titles within companies, and those very qualities range depending on the context of the genre. But the short answer is yes, Archie Comics (for example) were different in the 70s from the 60s and so on, reflecting changes in social mores and customs - even if the range of changes tend to be tamer than those in Marvel books, for example.
The beauty of Marvel when it first lit the fuse was the "nothing-left-to-lose" attitude. DC was the "Goliath", long established and frankly lazy from too much relative success. Kirby was a guy with a chip no his shoulder and strong need to prove he was a worthy creator. He'd partnered for a long time with Joe Simon and later with Stan Lee. His desire to show that he was the dynamo in the duos was potent. If he'd worked at DC it's entirely likely we'd have seen more work akin to Challengers of the Unknown, competent and well crafted but not really all that ground breaking.
One success led to another at Marvel and the relative freedom he got was allowing him to constantly grow and expand on his notions. New Gods would've become part of the sprawling Marvel Universe and sadly much like the Eternals would later, disappear into the mists. At DC they stand out, a breath of that Marvel magic infused into the somewhat weary DC frame.
We'd think of him as a great artist for sure, but as a creator his star would be even more eclipsed by both the reality and myth of Lee.
Rip Off
My quick answer to both questions is:
1. No - I don't think Kirby would be "The King" if not for his work at Marvel.
2. Yes - I think most other comic companies outside of Marvel and DC stayed pretty much stuck in the Silver Age for the most part.
1. Agree with the general consensus, i.e., that if it hadn't been for that time he spent at Marvel in the '60s, Kirby would not have been remembered in the same, i.e., he wouldn't have been considered "The King" as William pointed out.
2. Tougher question to answer because it varies from company to company. As Luther noted, Atlas/Seaboard's output was very much a product of what we call the Bronze Age. And I would say the same goes for Charlton: E-man, Doomsday +1, some of their horror anthologies and even licensed books like Space 1999 or the Phantom (with that great Don Newton art) are nothing if not squarely rooted in the Bronze Age.
I read Archies for a bit in late '70s, and while they seemed to have this sort of innocent quality about them, they still weren't necessarily stuck in the past. As Osvaldo noted, they also often reflected the changing times in some ways - if nothing else, many of the stories featured the characters wearing bell bottoms and other groovy '70s fashions, and/or talking about going disco dancing on a date or something. Kind of like the Brady Bunch...
I think only the comics aimed specifically at smaller children, i.e., the funny animal comics, the Harvey books, etc. retained a sort of timeless quality, as though there was nothing going on in the world around them.
1. No, I think Kirby needed a partner to bring out the best in him. His Silver Age Marvel stuff with Stan worked because of the synergy 9or whatever you want to call it) between them; I'm not sure either one could've done it alone. Even back in the 40s, Kirby's best stuff (Captain America, Sandman, etc.) was done with Joe Simon as a partner. I think that's why Kirby's 70s stuff is so hit-or-miss for most people.
2. I'd say most of the "other" comics companies missed the Bronze Age boat. I think Charlton tried--with stuff like Emergency, Six Million Dollar Man, E-Man--but whether they succeeded or not is another matter.
Mike Wilson
1. I don't think either would have been as successful without the other. To me, their personalities were different enough that they complemented each other instead of rubbing each other the wrong way, at least for awhile. Kirby's DC work in the 70's is pretty reflective of what Kirby would have done without Lee......great and imaginative ideas with brilliant art, but losing something in the scripting.
2. I don't think the Bronze Age came into play with most of the other companies. Charlton did try a few things, but the others basically stuck to their core audiences and weren't really interested, or didn't seem to be, in expanding them.
Love the Hot Stuff and Sad Sack looks!
1) I imagine Kirby as a minor artist were he not linked to Marvel s greatest. I was born in 61. Kirby art had become nearly unbearable to me when he jumped to D.C. In the early 70s as a kid.
2. If we think of Bronze Age as the 70s didn't Harvey, et. al. had one of two spinner racks at my local news agency with Marvel and D.C. sharing the other. Were they missing out? (Even though they died out?)
I am only going to comment on the Kirby question, as I have never read Archie comics or gone too far afield from the Big Two (I know, what a Philistine). Regarding how Kirby would have fared if he'd spent his career at DC, there are a number of variables involved here. I hate the term "wicked" problem and will rather say that it is complex; but there are many variables in favor of Marvel as many have noted, which include Marvel's underdog ability to "go for broke" with its characters and stories vs. DC's more staid, risk-averse position as number one; the Lee-Kirby partnership, which however one chooses to look at it, certainly stoked the creative fires and brought out the very best of both men; and the "Marvel Method" of working, which allowed an artist more input into plotting and designing stories. Another thing to consider is whether Kirby's style could have flourished at DC, and I think the answer to that is no. I don't have the time ATM to look through my books and mags (we're about to go buy the Christmas tree!), but I do recall reading that many at DC in the 60s felt that Kirby's dynamic style was over the top and rough compared to the artists they had in-house. Even when he came over circa 1970 to do his First World books, he was retouched, particularly when he drew Superman or certain members of his cast.
No, Jack Kirby was in the best possible place he could have been, and his output at Marvel is still unparalleled.
I believe Kirby would've done amazing things even without Stan Lee, although we never would have had the Marvel Universe as we know it.
Kirby was always bursting with ideas; they tumbled out of him so fast he could barely keep track of them. I've read that it made him a hazard behind the steering wheel because his brain was on another planet instead of on the road, and often employed a chauffeur like Mark Evanier for the safety of everybody on the highway.
The stuff inside him had to come out, if not at Marvel than at D.C. or somewhere else.
In fact, that's precisely what did happen.
Maybe he's currently on another plane of existence, creating quasars or galaxies or something weird and wonderful we haven't discovered yet.
A rather nice thought, I think.
M.P.
Well, as for the Kirby question, he would have been a comics artist extraordinaire no matter where he worked, whether at Marvel or DC, but he probably would not have been as successful in terms of popularity if he had been working primarily at DC.
I can't imagine the bigwigs at DC accepting some of the characters and concepts he created. Imagine a DC editor seeing the first ever drawing of the Silver Surfer:
Editor - 'Hey, what's with the shiny dude on a surfboard?'.
Kirby - 'I'm tired of drawing spaceships.'
Editor - 'C'mon Jack, you know how we do things here at DC, toss the silvery guy in the trashcan and just draw me a nice shiny spaceship, willya?'
As for Archie and company, I don't think they embraced the Bronze Age as much as our merry superheroes.
- Mike 'Hail King Kirby' from Trinidad & Tobago'.
1. Going with the consensus here. No, Jack would have kept busy, and done fine work, but I don't think he would have gained the lofty reputation he now has had it not been for his Marvel stint. As has been stated, the combination of Lee's scripting and editorial skills, and Kirby's imagination and artistic talents, joined to make a creative accomplishment neither would have done separately. Lennon and McCartney, again. Very much like Lennon and McCartney; maybe there was something in the atmosphere in the first half of the 60's that hasn't been repeated since...
2. To some extent, yes. Marvel and DC really led the pack into and through the Bronze Age. But Atlas certainly had that 'Bronzy patina', as did Charlton in some of it's output. Even Archie had it's Red Circle group, and seemed to make attempts to go beyond the parameters of the Silver Age books it had published. In Archie's case, titles like "Life With Archie" and "Archie at Riverdale High" tended towards the more dramatic stories emblematic of the Bronze Age.
1. I suspect DC would have reined Jack Kirby in more during those formative years for Marvel. I think they would have enforced their house style more - so some of the experimentation with the action, exaggerated forms and positions, and definitely the collage backgrounds might have been heavily hindered. Kirby was perfectly capable of following the rules; his early work on FF (first issues) is vastly different than what it evolved into 4 years later with Galactus etc. I'm not sure DC would have let him get that far with individualistic creativity.
2. I think of the Bronze Age (and all of the comic ages) as more of a mood than an actual era. Sure it can be timed to the early 70s until mid 80s but I think it had more to do with humanizing the characters and giving them situations that shaded and nuanced them. Heroes were fairly interchangeable in perspective in the Silver Age (sure Stan Lee gave them some real life problems but they were fairly "steadfast and true"). It felt like the stakes were raised in the Bronze Age and the path for heroism wasn't so clear. Or there were different routes to get there. The fictional risk was more real; the problems were more complex. The books tested the status quo. Watergate had an influence. Women characters were emerging as heroes and not damsels. Luke Cage was a headliner. Death was a possibility. I agree that Atlas -Seaboard jumped on that quickly, and some of the writers and artists there emerged to be the best in the business. Archie and a lot of Charlton ( but definitely not all) seemed to feign that "Bronze Age Attitude". It seemed a little bit like a kid trying to be cool by wearing cool clothes - it wasn't engrained, it was only on the surface. In fact, Archie may wear bell bottoms but Archie didn't really change. His biggest challenge in the main titles continued to be juggling dates with Betty and Veronica (Redartz' examples excluded). And surely Casper and Richie Rich weren't going to make significant social commentary. It just felt - and I'm sure this is subjective - that Marvel, DC and Atlas were more "adult" and progressive. And I would even argue that Marvel was more adult than DC, as DC always seemed to keep a toe in the Silver Age until Marvel tested the ground first. Marvel it seemed to me was making its second cycle of "realism" and "reflection"; the first cycle being with Jack and Stan on FF and Stan on Spidey. Those are my thoughts.
I think Kirby would have created some different but awesome comics wherever he went. There were some interesting things going on at DC in the '60s, like Deadman and Batlash. Here's a list of some DC gems of the 1960s:
http://ryanmcswain.com/2015/10/13/10-hidden-gems-from-1960s-dc-comics/
It also depends which writer he teamed up with, or if Kirby wrote for himself. What if he paired up again with Joe Simon, as he did briefly in the '70s with Sandman? They had a fantastic output at DC in the '40s, and the two could have rocked it again in the '60s.
Charlton had E-man, which was very Bronze Age. What about Warren comics with Vampirella?
In answer to question number two which I at first overlooked (sheesh) let me say that Charlton made a yeoman's effort to be part of the Bronze Age (E-Man, Doomsday +1, Yang) but simply never found the market to make it work long term. Their licensed projects like Space:1999, Six-Million Dollar Man, Emergency, were all firmly rooted in the zeitgeist of the Bronze Age but again just never found enough followers. In some ways since they produced talent like Joe Staton, John Byrne, Mike Zeck, and Don Newton, it might well be argued that Charlton helped nurture the Bronze Age in substantial ways.
Better late than never. Sheesh!
Rip Off
I think that the thing to remember whenever there is a Marvel/DC silver age comparison is that there was no monolithic DC comics. DC had many different editors, each overseeing their own books. Marvel was Stan. If Kirby had been at DC in the early sixties, he would have had to work for Mort Weisinger, OR Julius Schwartz, OR Murray Bolitnoff. I suspect he would have refused to work for Jack Schiff. Kirby could have come up with some great ideas for Krypton, but I don't see Weisinger allowing him to draw them. Kirby could have done war stories, but I expect he would have burned out quickly having to draw so many things that had to look exactly like what they were. Even if Kirby had stayed with the Challengers of the Unknown, who would have scripted it? What does Prof sound like? Or Rocky? or Ace? That was Stan's talent. His characters had distinctive voices. Take the balloons from a Gardner Fox JLA story, with no pictures, and try to identify the speaker. Take balloons from a Stan Lee FF or Spider-Man story, and it's pretty obvious who is who. As Redartz stated, each is great, but together, the sum is greater!
V. late to this great discussion but:
1. Let's not forget Stan's role as an EIC. Left to his own devices Kirby wanted to play in a sandpit of his own making - Fourth World, Eternal, 70s Cap. Stan (and later Roy Thomas) was the glue that connected the universe that we now say Jack co-built.That's not to put down Kirby at all, but his ideas had a broader canvas because of Stan.
2. It's arguable that no smaller publishers (with the possible exception of Atlas) ever fully lived in the Bronze Age, at least until Cerebus etc. And even then we could argue that the later-Bronze indies were precursors of the Copper Age. A lot of that is of course to do with the still-limited availability of direct distribution and comic shops until the late-70s.
Stan Lee gave Jack Kirby some focus. Without that, Jack was just too unrestrained in the '70s, with ideas just flying off in every direction without necessarily being refined. I also think Jack was burning out after his stellar efforts of the '60s. I think he kind of went a little crazy too!
Every great long-term comic artist I've watched peaks then burns out -- Ditko, Steranko, Byrne, Wrightson, Perez, John Buscema, Neal Adams etc,
Post a Comment