>MFW normies think Stan Lee created all the Marvel characters
>MFW Disney will never name check Kirby
>DC/WB will easter egg him in the justice league movie because of Darkseid
>>83456962
>DC/WB will easter egg him in the justice league movie because of Darkseid
It'll be buried and unnoticed beneath the pile of religious allegories.
>>83457004
>not wanting Kirby being shown in stained glass as the God of Comics
>>83457067
What movie??
>>83457096
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
How come Bob Kane never gets any crap for taking credit he doesn't deserve?
>>83458096
he weaseled his way in via contracts/court cases, and probably because of this most people today don't even know of the existence of Bill Finger
Why do people admire Stan Lee? He's such a lying cunt bastard.
>>83458096
Probably a little too late.
>>83458096
Most people don't even know who Bob Kane is.
Goddamn, I just realized.
The "Justice League" movies may be the first time we'll see Kirby Krackle on the big screen.
>>83458762
right, I considered including that fact
>>83458696
source?
>>83458096
He said he regretted being an ass later in life.
For what that's worth I mean.
>>83458964
It's not going to get the kirby family the royalties they deserve for his legacy.
>>83458096
He takes a lot of crap. He's the DC Stan Lee. I suck DC off and even I hate the cunt.
>>83459083
Didn't revlon make kirby sign off on the comics stating that he didn't come up with any of the stuff?
Basically marvel doesn't mention Kirby because then his family could get back in on the action
>>83458096
God was on his side
>>83458762
>Bob Kane
>B Kane
>K Bane
>¿Que Bane?
>>83459234
So they twisted his arm into saying he didn't do anything?
>>83456962
Now that Marvel settled out of court with the Kirby family they get their money and there's an official "created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby" credit on comics, movies, etc.
They even get the credit on franchises they did nothing to make popular, like X-Men.
Kirby-holics may not like Lee getting co-creator credit but he'll never be able to claim sole credit again.
>>83459302
Not sure . He probably got some cash out of it. My understanding is that he said he had nothing to do with the characters creation.
His family could sue but they would probably lose but it would hold up any upcoming films so they just won't name drop Kirby.
It's weird.
Starlin didn't even know thanos was in the avengers till someone posted on his Facebook page haha. I don't know what kind of pay out they would have to do but a "name drop" or something wouldn't cost much . And considering Hollywood accounting these films barely break even so they could easily never give the family anything
>>83459315
He claims sole credit by frequent omission of Kirby's contributions, Kirby always made an effort to mention Joe Simon's contributions in their many collaborations, it's not too much to ask of Lee to say "me and Jack" instead of "i" when it comes to who created or wrote things.
>ditko is too crazy to appear in Spider-Man or Dr Strange
At least he got name checked (sorta) as Peter's landlord Ditkovitch
>>83456962
>captain America will never look at a photo of his old WW2 platoon and kirby is in the pic
>>83459588
I agree Lee is a credit hog, not as bad as others in the industry, but that's a low standard.
But it used to be that a lot of people would think that he really did it all by himself. That's less likely now that Kirby has an official co-creator credit on everything.
After Lee is dead (not that I want that any time soon) his showmanship will fade away and he'll be just a name, equal with his collaborators.
What's gotten everybody talking about this Stan Lee and Jack Kirby stuff recently? It's happening now that I bought that Hot Toys Stan Lee figure because I thought my collection needed a 90 year old man.
I knew about the shit that happened but now I feel like I did a bad thing buying this.
>>83456962
They had his name in the credits of Civil War though.
>>83459795
Simon and Kirby had official credit on Captain America even before the settlement that gave Kirby creator credit on everything else. I don't know how that particular arrangement went down.
>>83459745
>it used to be that a lot of people would think that he really did it all by himself
>That's less likely now that Kirby has an official co-creator credit on everything
The opposite is true actually, it's more likely now that he's so popular amongst people who will never pick up a comic book in their lives.
>his showmanship will fade away and he'll be just a name, equal with his collaborators
Except that he'll be immortalised his dozens of cameos in popular movies, tv shows, video games etc..
Do you really think Stan Lee will become a name only comics fans will recognise like Gene Colan?
>>83456962
DC isn't gonna acknowledge him either, sorry
>>83457004
>putting Jack Kirby in the context of white christian symbolism
are you literally a moron
>>83458096
He got bitchslapped by Steranko.
>>83456962
>It's a Kirby vs Lee thread
>>83459947
I thought Jack Kirby was white ?
>>83461693
The guy is a jew. But still pretty much white.
>>83456962
What would Kirby think if he read Civil War II?
>>83461765
He'd be annoyed it wasn't a crazy new idea
>>83461765
He'd care more about things like contracts, payment, creator credit, and all that stuff than the actual comic. If anything, he'd be shittalking DC over Rebirth and the Watchmen thing.
>>83459207
Stan Lee is an attention whore but he did not arrange contracts to prevent Kirby and Ditko from getting credit as co-creators, and he typically mentions he's not the sole creator whenever some two-bit interviewer calls him the "creator of Spider-Man" or something like that.
>>83459257
Man, fuck that guy forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txe99l08dX8
>>83457203
>MFW Bendis doesn’t get a mention
Aaaaand it feels sooo good!
