 |
| Images copyright MARVEL COMICS |
When MARVEL announced the release of FANTASTIC FOUR - The LOST ADVENTURE a couple of years back, I was quite excited. After all, how could it be anything other than interesting to see what the legendary JACK KIRBY had originally intended for this tale before STAN LEE revised it into a flashback, bookended by new JOHN BUSCEMA artwork? And it was interesting - but it certainly wasn't the blockbusting, overwhelming experience we were all led to expect.
JOHN MORROW, in his introduction, says that Stan and John's version was "a real mess that, quite frankly, didn't make much sense". I disagree - if anything, it was Jack's version that was somewhat lacking in that department. It's no secret that Jack wasn't trying too hard in his last few months at Marvel, and was content to produce entertaining, but less than earth-shattering, one-off, basic stories as he marked time 'til moving to DC COMICS. The coincidence of a bust of JANUS being unearthed at almost the same time the FF battle a villain of the same name is a tad too contrived. Stan could no doubt have diluted this aspect with a bit of clever dialogue, but instead of running with a one-off tale, he made better use of the character and used the story as a prologue to a two-part adventure in the Negative Zone.
Also, by editing out the twin that Jack introduced, Stan's clever twist in the tale of the 'brother' being the evil manifestation of Janus himself is more in keeping with the 'two-faced' aspect of the name, and resulted in a far more satisfying resolution to the episode. Sure, it would've been nice if Jack had drawn the complete issue, but Big John B's input isn't too distracting, thanks to Joltin' JOE SINNOTT's inks.
Jack's story wasn't bad - but Stan's version had more depth, more characterization, more drama, more conflict - and, ultimately, far more entertainment value - not to mention being much more satisfying. At least, that's how I see it, but I suppose it's really rather subjective as to which presentation is better. In the final analysis, the most that can be accurately - and objectively - claimed is that the two versions are merely 'different' - and only slightly at that. Stan and Jack might not always have agreed on which direction a story should go, but neither of them ever produced a "mess" in their lives.
In Volume 11 of FF MARVEL MASTERWORKS, JON B. COOKE suggests in his introduction that Stan's decision to delay the story may have been due to "spite from a hurt ex-partner". I confess that I was surprised by this comment - and even more surprised that Marvel printed it. To introduce this unfounded and unwarranted speculation from out of nowhere is recklessly irresponsible. In what way would the printing sequence of a one-off story have affected Jack - by then an ex-contributor? The idea is ludicrous and clearly without merit; there is no evidence to suggest that Stan's decision to delay the story is attributable to anything other than taking the time required, as editor, to work on what he saw as problems with the plot.
One can never be dogmatic in speculating how history may have been altered had certain aspects been different, but it's not entirely unlikely that, had Jack never left Marvel, the story may well have seen print more-or-less exactly as it appeared with Stan's revisions - but illustrated by Jack from cover to cover. After all, Stan often asked Jack to redraw panels and pages to accommodate his ideas for the direction of the plot, so there's no reason to suppose that it would have been different on this occasion. Therefore, perhaps the only difference Jack's departure made to the finished result, was that the revisions were rendered by John Buscema instead of Jack himself.
However, there are other issues raised by this landmark story. To read what they are, click on this link.
4 comments:
I'm afraid I've never read the original all-Kirby version of the tale but I suppose I should trust in Stan Lee's judgement. If he thought it didn't work and needed re-shaping he was probably right. His instincts were usually sound.
Actually, the story of what happened to this tale makes me sad because I've been reading about the Kirby family court case, on the "20th Century Danny Boy" blog and, while I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of who created what and who rightfully owns what, now that I know artists back then didn't get paid for unused material - but still got lumbered with the expenses of producing it - it makes me realise how peeved-off Kirby must've felt every time he had something rejected, knowing he'd put the work in for no reward.
What interests me, Steve, is whether Marvel, having printed loads of rejected pages and covers in their Masterworks and Omnibus editions over the years, ever got around to paying the artists or their estates for the right to do so, not having paid for the artwork when it was originally produced.
I assume they must have. There's all that stuff in the case about the terms and conditions of the sale that were written on the back of the cheques the artists got for their work. Presumably, as the artists weren't paid at the time, they would never have signed the declaration and, in the absence of a contract, I would've thought they'd legally retain the rights to it.
The problem with that 'though, Steve, is that most of the stuff we're talking about was done at a time when even the artists saw no value in retaining or seeking the return of the original art, published or not. Because Marvel owned the copyright on the characters, the artists may not even have thought about exactly who the actual art belonged to.
So, when Stan decided not to use Steve Ditko's cover for AF #15 and asked Jack Kirby to draw another version (and, contrary to Jack's memory of events, that's the way it happened), Steve wouldn't have been paid for his cover, but he probably wouldn't have bothered to seek it's return. It most likely lay around the Marvel offices for years before somebody realised its historical significance.
I seem to remember Mark Evenier saying that Jack wasn't paid for a Hulk pin-up because it wasn't used, even 'though Herb Trimpe essentially traced the layout for his version of the poster (at Marvel's request). Marvel, therefore, probably had the original art to pass along to Trimpe.
If the artists WERE ever paid for those "rejected" pages, it must have been long after the event, but I wouldn't like to bet on it. Let's hope they were 'though.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that Marvel would print stuff they KNEW hadn't been paid for, only that any unused artwork found in their files would, naturally enough, be presumed to have beeen paid for years before, whether or not such was actually the case.
Post a Comment