Kirby at 100

If he were still with us, Jack Kirby would have been one hundred years old today…but of course, an awful lot of Jack is still with us. Hundreds of characters he created or co-created are still appearing, many of them in hit movies that have made them more famous than ever. Back in the sixties, Jack predicted that there would someday be highly-successful, big budget motion pictures of Thor, Captain America, et al. He told me that when I first met him in 1969.

One of the reasons he never got his financial due out of Marvel was that the folks who ran Marvel back then never believed that. They had a limited idea of how much anything in Marvel Comics could ever be worth and didn't want to share those meager amounts with anyone. It was pretty simple math: The less they paid Jack and all the other folks who created their comics, the more they got to keep for themselves. When he told them what he saw as the potential value of the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and the rest, they nodded politely, refused him five-dollar raises and joked behind his back that he was out of his friggin' mind. And later, they sold the company for beads 'n' trinkets because they lacked the one thing Jack had by the tonweight: Imagination.

Jack's spirit and influence are also evident in 2017 in projects featuring characters and properties he never touched directly — and not just comic books. I see Kirby in movies and TV shows and advertising and videogames and animations and toy design and even in fine art. Anywhere someone makes a visual statement, you're likely to find at least some talent influenced — directly or indirectly — by Jack Kirby.

It is important to understand that when we, his fans and admirers, speak of the talent of Jack Kirby, we are not just speaking of the drawing. The drawing was great. The drawing was wonderful. We would be celebrating this man today just for the drawing. But the drawing was a function and a means of expression for Jack Kirby the Visionary — a man who dealt in concepts and creations and stories, and who always thought in bigger pictures than anything he could put down on a comic book page.

Jack was all about the story and the idea…and more importantly, the next story and the next idea. That was a key reason that so much of what appeared in Marvel comics of the sixties could later spin-off or be expanded upon. Someone else working on Fantastic Four might have come up with a new villain good for one issue and maybe a few repeat appearances down the line. With Jack, you got characters who could be brought back again and again and even stand on their own. That's why there is now an Inhumans TV series. That's why there have been Silver Surfer films and comics. Even his weakest ideas were worth building upon.

It was that way with the comics Jack wrote on his own. It was that way with the comics where Jack had a collaborator, even a collaborator who got sole writer credit. Kirby almost never drew what someone else told him to draw, nor did most of them even want him to. He almost always controlled how the story was told — what happened in each panel and on each page. That, some people do not seem to grasp, is writing. Devising or even just contributing to the plot is also writing.

He almost always added in new characters, new supporting players, new ideas. Two or three times when my then-partner Steve Sherman and I worked with him, he'd assign us to plot out some sequence in one of his comics. We'd sweat over the material and hand it in, and Jack would always tell us we'd done a great, fantastic, fine job…

…and then he'd use almost none of it — and by "almost none," I'm probably overstating how much he did use.

I felt at first like we'd failed but I came to understand that was just the way Jack worked and he could no more stop doing that than he could have started drawing left-handed. He didn't follow others' scripts and plots slavishly or sometimes at all. He didn't even follow his own stories. He'd tell me and/or Steve the plot of the next New Gods or Forever People he was slated to write and draw. It would be a brilliant tale and we would make our major contribution by saying something like, "That sounds terrific, Jack" and then we'd go home, which was our second most-important contribution.

Then the next week, we'd go back out to his home and read, right off the original art, what he'd written and drawn. On those pages might well be very little of the plot he'd told us not seven days before, the plot he'd started drawing as soon as we left. I'd say, "Uh, Jack, what happened to that story you told us last week?" and he'd be absolutely unaware of any shift.

As a professional writer of 48 years now — to some extent, due to this man — I understand that sometimes you sit down to write one thing and for good or ill, wind up writing something else…and sometimes, you really don't know how you got from there to here. With Jack, he always knew where he was going but he had the kind of brain that could find a dozen ways to get there. And of course, sometimes if you take alternate routes, they lead you to alternate destinations.

In the last year or two, as a result of a legal action — and also, I'm told, some folks at Disney who felt it was right — the credits on most of the properties Kirby launched with Stan Lee began to read "Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby." During his lifetime, this was something Jack only saw when someone at Marvel wasn't paying attention and the truth accidentally got through. Now, it is contractually guaranteed and everything Disney has put out to honor Jack has made it clear that this is not merely a way of saying Jack drew up Stan's ideas. Those comics were co-creations in every sense.

Fans can and will probably forever argue that a given comic was 70% one guy and 30% the other, or insist one particular character was mostly Stan or mostly Jack. Having worked myself in collaborations where the participants could sometimes not honestly separate who'd contributed what, I have a limited enthusiasm for those debates. I also have my own theories on what each contributed and I expound on them in the big, exhaustive bio of Jack that I hope to finish soon. (Hint: I believe that when Stan says "I wrote that comic" and Jack said, "I wrote that comic," those two men are not using the same definition of the word "write" but they both made significant contributions.)

The important thing is that Jack has been fully recognized as co-creator in time for his Centennial. I can't tell you how happy that makes me. He was a dear man…kind and generous. They may have called him "The King" but if you approached him, he was just a guy named Jack who was glad to talk to you about almost anything, including your work and your projects and your career. Just being around him made you feel smarter and more creative.

He inspired those he met and those he didn't. It was better if you did meet him but from afar and even since he passed in '94, many, many people have been motivated to write and/or draw, not necessarily in the same style and not necessarily in the same media. There are prose authors who've told me they were inspired by Jack, sculptors who've told me they were inspired by Jack, musicians who've told me they were inspired by Jack…I once even had a spot welder tell me he was inspired by Jack. I'm not sure I fully understood that last one but it had something to do with the maximum effort on every Kirby page motivating the spot welder to put maximum effort into every weld. Or something.

The photo above is of me sitting next to Jack at, I believe, a 1971 comic convention at the Disneyland Hotel. If it wasn't shot there, it was at some other con close to that date. I was 19 that year and well aware of the singular honor and boon of Jack Kirby — a man who needed no assistants — taking me on as one. With each passing year since, I increase my estimate of what that opportunity was worth. To just be around that man and his mind was/is a still-expanding privilege.

But I'll tell you: Though you can't sit with the man and hear his stories and his insights, you can get a helluva lot of them in the work he left us, particularly the stories he wrote, drew and edited in the seventies. Most of them are in print…and for the ones that aren't, just wait a year or two and they'll be back. They have an amazing staying power and a unique relevance to the world today. They're so rich that every time I read them, I see things that weren't there on previous readings. I get things that weren't there on previous readings.

And I pause and think, "Wow. He died in 1994 and I'm still learning from that man." Happy Jack Kirby Day, everyone. We were sure lucky to have him.

Today's Video Link

Back in the previous century, the popular performer of kids' records Raffi recorded a tune called "Banana Phone" that made a bit of a splash, especially after someone — I have no idea who — decided to play the record at an accelerated speed. Disc jockeys played it that way back when there were disc jockeys. This video of it, which I featured on this blog ten years ago, got five million hits and it was only one of about twenty online.

Here we have a new interpretation of the song — barbershop style. These guys call themselves The Newfangled Four…

Sunday Morning

Too much news this weekend. These are by no means in order of importance…

Didn't watch the fight. I've never had much interest in any event that is basically two people hitting each other. Put Trump and Paul Ryan in the ring and maybe I'll tune in…but I couldn't gin up the slightest interest in whether McGregor beat Mayweather or Mayweather beat McGregor. The only thing I ever find intriguing about this kind of thing is that, for example in this case, McGregor is a guy who could probably beat the crap out of better than 99% of the people on this planet. On a different day or in a match-up, there's a good chance he would have even beaten Mayweather. But he's going home a "loser"…with only $75 million.

The pardon of Joe Arpaio is Trump pandering to the Alex Jones wing of his base, the ones who love it when laws are broken when they're broken in the name of white supremacy. While those guys love the officials who do everything they can within the law to smack down minorities, their super-heroes are the ones who are macho enough to break the laws and say, "Come and get me, punk." The pardon tells us a lot about how the Trump administration is going to roll for the rest of its existence and maybe it's for the good that it's now out in the open like that.

Former White House counterterrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka is making the rounds to insist he resigned and was not fired. This probably means he was ordered to resign or he would be fired, which is about as vast a difference as the difference between brown onions and yellow onions. The White House has announced he will be replaced just as soon as someone there figures out what he did except to go on interview shows and lie a lot. If it turns out that's all he did, they have dozens of people who can take his place.

And then there's Hurricane Harvey…and oh, that's sad. It's not enough to say, "Those poor people" and you should remember that you can do something about this. As I just suggested in a Tweet, praying for them and keeping them in your thoughts are sweet notions but they don't rebuild a single building. There are some problems in this world about which we have to say, "I hope someone does something to help" because there's absolutely nothing we can do. And then there are those where we can do something. A donation of money — even if you can't afford much — will help someone in some way. In those matters, praying and "sending good thoughts their way" are kind of the dictionary definition of The Least You Can Do.

I just send some dough to Operation USA, which is a charity I know to do very good work. Only a tiny fraction of what you give them goes to administrative costs and staff salaries…and I'm not suggesting there aren't other charities where most of your donation dollars don't make it to the needy. But when I give to Operation USA, I know I'm not paying for its CEO's shag carpeting. Even the best government response to a tragedy like this doesn't repair everything and given who's running the government these days, I don't have a lot of confidence that private contributions won't be needed. If you were thinking of making a donation to thank me for this blog, please send it there instead.

My Latest Tweet

  • Trump's new plan: Every week 60% or more of America disapproves of him, he's going to say "I'll show you!" and pardon Joe Arpaio again.

My Latest Tweet

  • Praying for folks in TX is nice. So is keeping them in your thoughts. But donating $ might actually do some good. http://www.opusa.org/

Mystery Message

Earlier today, I found an odd message on my iPhone. I have blurred most of the phone number but otherwise, it looked like this…

I have not and will not respond but what do we think the deal is here?  "+49" is the country code for Germany.  I'm not sure I know anyone who would have a German cell phone but if I do, it is certainly not someone who would address me as "Baby."  My first thought is that if I reply, I incur some sort of ghastly charge and that's the end of it.

If that's not it, then I'm guessing I get back some sort of text from a person who claims to have a yearning for my body but has some reason to need my credit card number before they can meet with me.  Something like that.

A quick online search showed me nothing about the scam or the phone number.  Anyone here have any idea what they're up to?  That sure is a cute little bear…

More on Jer

My piece on Jerry Lewis when he died aroused some controversy, especially among folks who believe that when someone dies, you must only say nice things about them for 24 hours or 48 or the first month…or in some extreme cases, forever. I would suggest that there's a sliding scale and it has something to do with how nice and civil the deceased was in life. If an ax murderer who killed twenty people dies on Saturday, I shouldn't have to wait until Monday to mention that thing he used to do with the axes.

Paul Fitzpatrick, who I really only know through e-mail correspondence, wrote a much nicer piece about Jerry on his blog. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the nasty side of Jerry in person, I would have written something more like Paul did.

Several folks wrote to ask me why, in my piece on Jerry, I didn't mention the first time I encountered him back when I was a toddler. Answer: I wrote the piece on Jerry's passing in a hurry and to tell that tale would have made it too much about me. I also didn't want anyone to think I held that against him because I honestly didn't. But if you want to read it, it's here.

And if you do read it, this may interest you. I mention seeing Jerry's movie Don't Give Up The Ship at the Paradise Theater in Westchester, on Sepulveda right near where LAX wasn't then but is now. The Paradise is now an office building and a few months ago, my friend Roger sent me then-and-now photos of it. Here they are. I'll let you figure out which is which…

Check Mates

I love fact-checking websites like Politifact and factcheck.org and am sad that more folks don't. Some people seem to treat them as great annoyances or even weapons in some conspiracy to rewrite history. I keep imagining a scenario that goes something like this…

  1. Someone has long had a hate on for Whoopi Goldberg. He doesn't like her comedy or doesn't like her face or doesn't like something she said or doesn't like black women named Whoopi or something…
  2. Someone else posts on the web a story that says Ms. Goldberg was "humiliated, handcuffed and dragged out of the TV studio," arrested for operating an illegal puppy mill." The originator of this story probably doesn't believe this for a minute. I mean, he knows it came from his imagination. Maybe he wants to see how many suckers he can get to believe it. Maybe he just wants the clicks on his site. As I related here, I was once asked to write for a movie gossip magazine by an editor who didn't care if her headlines were true, just so long as they caused people to buy the magazine.
  3. But that Whoopi hater loves the story. He clicks. He spreads his joy to others.
  4. A fact-checking site debunks the story pretty thoroughly but then — and this is the amazing part to me —
  5. The Whoopi-hater doesn't retract or decide he was hoaxed. He likes the story too much for that. He still believes it because he's fantasized a lot of things about Ms. Goldberg and decided that she's just the kind of despicable human who would run an illegal puppy mill.
  6. So any source that says it ain't so has to be lying, covering-up, part of the conspiracy to hide the truth, etc.

Too often these days, we see situations that are like the old joke line, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts!" I suppose people have always been this stubborn but the increase of online social media and "news" channels like Fox News have given these people a greater, louder voice.  I don't like it when reality has to be sacrificed in the quest for some supposed greater good.

I occasionally have a few beefs with fact-checking sites, one being that they sometimes seem to not differentiate between bad phraseology or merely being wrong and a deliberate lie.  Another is the idea that we can "score" lies like this…

That's the one on Trump and it usually gets touted as saying something like, "84% of all Trump statements" are either Half True, Mostly False, False or "Pants on Fire."  No, it doesn't.  It's a measure of the Trump statements that Politifact chose to examine.  Last week when Trump said "I love chocolate ice cream," they didn't score that.

The man makes 77-minute speeches and in a 77-minute speech, he probably says several hundred things one could evaluate as fact or fiction.  They choose to evaluate five or ten of them…the ones most likely to turn out to be untrue.  The final score has a lot to do with which ones they decide are worth an analysis.

This is not to say I don't think Donald Trump lies his ass off every chance he gets.  I'm just suggesting the measuring system is being represented as something it's not.

Also, all untrue statements are not equal.  Politifact just cited columnist David Frum for saying, "No president in history has imposed larger personal lifestyle costs on the taxpayer than Donald Trump."  They say that's Mostly False because all the data on that isn't in yet.  Politifact adds, "Although Frum didn't include this qualifier, he might have meant at this point in Trump's presidency. Trump does seem on pace to outstrip previous presidential spending by the end of his term."

In other words, it's looking like Frum will be proven right but he hasn't been yet.  That's a lot different from the other kinds of things Politifact rates as Mostly False, like Trump claiming there are things in a health bill that aren't in there or saying "Gas prices are the lowest in the U.S. in over ten years!" when they aren't.

All that said, I'm glad we have these fact-checking sites and I haven't seen one yet that didn't strike me as a lot more accurate than the people they cover. My problem isn't really with them. It's that too many people in this country don't want to believe what they don't want to believe.

Cuter Than You #28

Still more hummingbirds…

ASK me: Credits, Microphones and Other Topics

My lawyer tells me I don't have to pay Ken Levine a royalty if I answer questions on a Friday. Here's a bunch of short ones, starting with the one from Joel O'Brien…

When a TV program is squeezed so much to allow the greatest possible number of commercials, the end credits will be run at breakneck speed and in microscopic size. Sometimes, the credits for the program just run are airing as the next program has already begun. I imagine it has something to do with legal agreements with the writers and producers? Please, Mark. Tell us what you know.

The new practice of rushing through credits as fast as possible is because of a belief that if you have long credits, then commercials, then the start of the next show, you create the ideal interval for viewers to pick up their remotes and see what's on other channels. To prevent that, networks rush the credits…but they can't rush the credits of workers in unions that have negotiated how their credits must be displayed. The folks in unions that haven't gotten that in their deals — and those in positions that aren't unionized — are stuck with however the producers choose to display their names…or not.

Next up is one from Jim Held…

You've been posting a few photos of voice actors at work including the late amazing June Foray. In all these photos there seems to be a big round flat sort of "filter" thingie between the actor and the microphone. I see the mikes also have padding around then I assume to kill the popping of sharp exhales. But what are the big round disk shaped things? More filters?

Yep. And in some cases, they're there to stop spittle from getting on the microphone. Some voices can be kind of moist. You should have seen Mel Blanc doing Sylvester. It was magical but in some ways, it was like having front row seats for a Gallagher performance. And Mel didn't even need a watermelon.

Next, here's one from Craig Buchman…

Are you sure you didn't start your blog sooner than 2000? I've lived in my current place since 1999 and could swear I had been reading your blog at my last place of residence. I seem to remember doing a search for comic books or such and found your blog way back in the day. I've read it regularly since. I really enjoy good writing.

I put up my first website, which was at www.evanier.com, on December 18, 2000. Actually, there was a website there for two weeks before that as I tinkered with the design but since the address hadn't been publicized, it got zero hits. On 12/18/2000, I finally declared it finished and went on a bunch of other sites to announce it…and the thing grew from there.

After a little while, I decided it was too self-promotional (and unfair to relatives with the same surname) to call it that and I set up www.newsfromme.com and relocated it there. But December of 2000 was my first online presence. And by the way, this post is #24,673 so we're creeping up on #25,000. Thanks, Craig.

Lastly, let's take one from a reader who signed his name as "Dennis W."…

Just finished reading DC's collection of the Silver Age Suicide Squad by Kanigher, Andru and Esposito. A question occurred to me that I am surprised I've never seen answered: Why did silver age DC comic stories have chapters?

For a long time, there was a belief that a comic was more commercial if it had a lot of stories in it. Editors would sometimes argue — and sales figures would suggest — that buyers preferred three 8-page stories to one 24-page story because they'd think, "Hey, if I buy this comic, I get three stories, whereas if I buy that comic, I get only one." But the evidence from the sales charts wasn't definitive and there were also sales reports and letters that indicated readers liked bigger stories with more characterization and the feeling of a "big" adventure.

Some of the best ideas the writers had couldn't be squished into eight or nine pages. And it was also easier to come up with one premise for a story than to think of three. That led to a trend towards longer, book-length stories.

But! The editors and execs couldn't completely disregard the data that suggested some readers preferred to get three stories instead of one. So, to kind of have it both ways, someone came up with the idea of making a book-length story look more like three stories by breaking it into three chapters. They did this for a while but eventually, the thinking evolved and sales figures indicated that book-length was jes' fine and there was no need to create the rhythm of the story ending and resuming twice in one issue. Thanks to everyone for their questions.

ASK me

My Latest Tweet

  • ‪Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Also announces new cabinet post: Secretary of Intimidating Minorities. ‬

Today's Video Link

Tony Bennett doing what Tony Bennett does so well…

ASK me: Autograph Shows

From Robert Hackett…

I just saw your most recent post that mentioned the Hollywood Show. What percentage of celebrities do these signings because they genuinely need the money and what percentage just want to get out of the house and meet fans or such? I see the upcoming Hollywood Show has Barbara Bosson, who was married to Steven Bochco for 27 years. Surely she does not need the money?

Well, I don't know about Ms. Bosson but it has been my observation that some folks you'd assume surely don't need the money need the money. Maybe they went through a messy divorce or maybe they had some bad investments or a Business Manager who put all their money into a chain of Bill Cosby Day Spas for Women or something. When I have been in a position of being able to hire actors, it's mostly for jobs that pay scale — i.e., the minimum rate set by their union. You'd be surprised at some of the "name" actors who either call me, have their agent call me or have a friend contact me when there's a chance I can hire them.

I would say that more common than that is the actor who ain't had a lot of people asking for his autograph lately or treating him like a celebrity. I see a lot of folks at the Hollywood Show and other autograph-vending events that strike me as more interested in that than the cash. It's a very strange thing to go from being on a series for years — which often means being recognized everywhere you go and getting many forms of preferential treatment — to not being recognized at all or very often. Spending a few days chatting with people who know who you are, even if they don't splurge for an autographed 8-by-10 can scratch a lingering itch.

There are also some who don't need the money but have a hard time saying no if someone says to them, "Hey, you could make X thousand dollars for signing your name for two days." Even some really rich people have trouble turning down real easy money. Some of them — and I know this from personal conversations — give the dough to charity or to some sick relative. Back in 2001, in a post here, I wrote about a melancholy memory from one of the earliest Hollywood Shows…

…It involved the late comedian Pat Paulsen who, at the time of course, was not a late comedian. Alas, he then knew he was about to become one. He'd been diagnosed with something terminal — the big "C," I believe — and was out on a crusade to accrue cash to leave his family. Pat was a very sweet, very funny man who had managed to not rack up much of a fortune during his years on television — though I suspect his last minute putsch for dollars was less a matter of needing cash than of needing something constructive to do. Whatever, for his last few months, he was appearing everywhere he could, performing and signing, making whatever money he could make.

Colleagues were abetting him. Ruth Buzzi was sitting with him that day, dolled up in the Gladys Ormphby outfit she wore on Laugh-In, signing and posing for photos, with and without him, all proceeds going to Pat. A few other stars lent their celebrity to the effort while autograph dealers, aware that the supply of Paulsen autographs was soon to be finite, were stocking up, buying multiples from him. It was sad…but it would have been even sadder if Pat hadn't had that outlet.

Anyway, to answer your question, I'll take a guess and say that at one of those shows, 25% need the money, 25% would like the money, 25% can't turn down the money and 25% like the attention and the fact that they get to chat with people who know who they are and what they've done. And in each of those groups, there are probably some who tell themselves it's for one of these reasons when it's actually to some extent about another of them.

ASK me

Recommended Reading

Eric Levitz explains why, despite firm predictions and phony "news" stories, Obamacare is not collapsing. It's also a lot more popular than some people want to admit.

Today's Video Link

I live not far from the building they used to call "Television City in Hollywood" and I drive past it often. A week ago last Tuesday, I was late for an appointment because of this…