 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
This is an absolutely true story. Because my comics dealer convinced me in 1970 that Jack ('King') Kirby's New Gods/Jimmy Olsen/Forever People and Mister Miracle would one day be worth a fortune, it was the only time I ever bought two copies each of any comic mags. I had collected and read Fantastic Four 1-200 (1961-1978), as they came out, and then I gave up reading comics.
It's now the year 1999 and I'm in my local comic store (a different one from 1970) and a customer walks in and wants to sell his Fantastic Four collection (he had 200-415 plus all the Annuals and such). The dealer wasn't interested, but the customer wanted to buy the entire Kirby Fourth World series, which the dealer didn't have much of. So I took him aside and we worked out a trade: His Fantastic Fours for my second complete set of Kirby's Fourth World.
I'm happy because I got the FFs, complete with Bullpen Bulletins, that got me through the 20th century. To me it was worth it. My friends say he got the better end of the deal. What do you think? Honestly, it works for me, I have no regrets and I enjoyed the Fantastic Fours.
I should mention that I bought all my comics on the stands at their then current price. I don't really follow the price guides for values so I don't know the 'street worth' of any comic, nor did I back then. (I know that FF #1 is worth a fortune, but I don't know the value of FF #156, or 196 or even 236). So I didn't check a price guide to see the difference in value.
Anyway, what would you have done? Kept the Kirby mags or swapped for the FFs?
17 comments:
That's a tough call, BP. On the one hand, as they were spare issues, you made a good deal because you got mags you wanted in exchange. On the other hand, I'd imagine that, nowadays, Jack's Fourth World series would be worth more than the FFs you got for them. However, back then, Jack's mags weren't really out-and-out collectors' items or even particularly scarce or expensive to acquire. On balance, I'd say that as you were (and still are) happy with the deal, you made the right decision.
I should mention that have a silly "problem" when it comes to comics. I bought them all on the stands at their then current price. I don't really follow the price guides for values so then, and now, I don't know the street value of a comic. (I know that FF #1 is worth a fortune, but I don’t know the value of FF #156, or 196 or even 236). So I did not check a price guide to see the difference in value.
in 1970 that Jack ('King') Kirby's New Gods/Jimmy Olsen/Forever People and Mister Miracle would one day be worth a fortune,
As I don't follow the current prices of old comics was the dealers prediction true?
I remember reading those Kirby titles and not being impressed either by the writing or the artwork.
Part of your first sentence seems to be missing, T47, but it's meaning isn't affected.
They're worth more now because of the 'cult' that has built up around Kirby since his death, but the comics didn't sell as well as expected at the time, and I don't think they're massively expensive now - or at least, they weren't the last time I looked.
Besides, they've been reprinted quite a few times over the years (they've already been paid for so why not?) and are readily available for anyone who wants to read them.
The Kirby’s get residuals when his stuff i s reprinted and its not cheap.
On a financial basis I think the Kirby New Gods etc would have been worth a considerable amount more than FF 201 onwards. But for me story wise FF 201 onwards with the Byrne issues in particular are more entertaining and as your an FF fan and comics should be about entertainment I think you chose correctly. Saying that I would have picked the Fourth World series if they included Jimmy Olsen, Mr Miracle and Kamandi as I liked them especially Kamandi but Forever People and New Gods I found boring..
The Kirby estate might get residuals now, BP, but if so, it's a relatively recent development as they never used to. Also, as the settlement with Marvel was never disclosed, it's uncertain what the financial deal is - it could have been a one-off lump sum they were given. I'm not sure what deal, if any, they have with DC.
The reprint books may not be cheap from the customers point of view, but for many years (pre-settlement - and maybe even now), they were cheaper to publish because the material had already been paid for.
******
Yeah, but FP, NG, MM and JO only amounts to 55 issues, McS, whereas BP got around four times that many comics in return, so perhaps that would even things out (value-wise) a bit. Yeah, you're right - NG and FP were a bit boring - Jimmy Olsen was the best thing that Kirby did for DC I'd say.
Yes it is a recent development.
I think I could argue a case that it was my appreciation of Stan & Jack's Marvel heroes that helped make them so popular, BP, and therefore I should get a settlement too. As for all the other Marvel fans - they'll have to make their own case.
All I can say is if you haven’t read them they are new to you.
In terms of money the New Gods is worth more. I was never a fan of Byrne but Kirby’s DC work in general wasn’t readable. Kamandi was the best in my opinion, not because it had the big ideas but because it read ok as a comic. New Gods didn’t speak English as she is spoke which makes it a slog.
Trouble with Kamandi was that after Mike Royer left, the inker that replaced him made Jack's art look terrible. Like I said, Jimmy Olsen still stands as his best DC work in my opinion. I bought the Kamandi Omnibus - enjoyed some stories more than others. I think Jack was on autopilot by this time, PS.
May I ask a slightly off-topic question which I often ask about the New Gods but I've never gotten an answer to - not even from the Execs at DC Comics when I've met them?
Just who were the New Gods comics targeted at?
I was seven years old when the saga started in 1971 and it was wayyy over my head (although I did really like both Kammandi and OMAC). As an adult, I've bought some of the New Gods collections and enjoyed them greatly: I consider them some of Kirby's best work for power and excitement despite the clunky dialogue and dated fashions. But I'm still left with the question – who were Kirby and DC trying to target as readers? There were things like the underground comics and Sar Reach emerging but these hadn't really permeated the mainstream. The fact that DC insisted on Superman's face being redrawn is an indication that they still regarded their product being aimed at a fairly juvenile audience.
I'm sure that if the same comics had been released in the late 1980's, they would have found a much larger audience. I'm also equally sure that if Kirby had produced more "standard" superhero fare for DC, they would have been top sellers.
That's such an interesting question, SEE, that I hope that other Crivs join in with their opinion. I suspect that Kirby's DC mags were aimed at the usual readership at that time (which seemed to be an 8-14 age-group), though there would've been a contingent of older teenagers included as well. I imagine that both Kirby and DC would've liked to think of their comics as 'all age' friendly, Kirby moreso, and given the college readership that his Marvel mags had appealed to, he would've hoped to duplicate that following with the DC ones. Comicbooks back then, though, were generally still seen by the general public as kids-stuff.
As for his faces being redrawn, that was pretty much standard procedure back then, even at Marvel. Kirby couldn't draw Spider-Man very well, and John Romita often inked some of the Spidey characters in Jack's mags to keep them 'on-model'. And Jack himself was often called upon to redraw panels in other artists work to 'pump it up' a bit. It amazes me that some Kirby fans seem to think that Jack was picked on at DC, but he wasn't. Nothing happened to his art that didn't also happen to others (when required), but it tended to be less noticeable with other artists, whereas Kirby's style was more distinctive and changes were therefore more obvious. He also couldn't draw Superman's hair very well (or even consistently), and in some panels Jack drew Supes as if he had a 'comb-over' to hide a bald spot.
Remember also, that Kirby's New God's were reissued in a six-part series around the mid-'80s (to promote a toy-line I think) and they didn't really set the world on fire - otherwise there'd have been a new series launched off the back of it.
I believe that the New Gods were aimed at two groups of readers. First the traditional 8-14 year olds that the Kid mentioned. But DC, in my opinion, wanted Kirby to do for them what he did at Marvel, and bring in (or keep) older teen-agers and young adults. But the sales figures were not there according to Julius Schwartz and Carmine Infantino who I spoke to about this. They regarded Kirby, really, as just another artist. They evaluated talent not by what they created but by their sales.
I don’t believe the New Gods would have done better in the 1980s, with the comic readership going so far down. With the loosening of the Comics Code stronger, more violent comics became the rage. The comic Kirby did were no longer in fashion.
Finally, DC was run by a cooperation that sold the likeness of Superman and crew to lunch boxes, Halloween costume, and thousands of other companies. They wanted his face to always be the same “Curt Swan” face they had used for years.
So why then would they have Kirby do Jimmy Olsen? To lure him away from their competitor, Marvel.
I've always suspected that DC lured Kirby away from Marvel because they believed the rumours that Jack was mainly responsible for Marvel's success, and that without him, 'The House Of Ideas' would collapse. It didn't - it survived and thrived, which tends to confirm (in my opinion) that a gentleman by the name of Stan Lee played a mighty big hand in Marvel's popularity among comicbook readers. I'm not saying that he did it alone, of course, but he was the creative equivalent of KFC's secret ingredients.
Make Mine Marvel!
going back to the original base for these comments, I would opt for the 4th world, for their originality and daring. Much as I love the FF, its glory days were before #200.
Re the success of the New Gods 80s reprints, I believe they were done because DC felt they owed something to Kirby. The New Gods did not go away, and have been handled since by talents including Byrne, Starlin and Simonson. I have read the Simonson issues and they are very good.
Stan remained the creative force behind Marvel in the 70s, but not for his writing input but in as much as setting the tone and style of Marvel as a young and friendly place to be. However good some of the DCs were, and especially with Adams, Kirby, Kubert, Toth, Redondo, Wrightson, Kaluta all doing great work in the early 70s, it was the Marvels that had you coming back for more. I think a lot of credit needs to go to Roy Thomas during this period, who hired and let loose a very skilful band of writers: Englehart, Gerber, McGregor, Starlin, Wolfman, Wein, Moench and Isabella.
Spirit of '64
I'd agree that DC reprinted the New Gods in the '80s partially because they believed they 'owed' Kirby something, but it was also (if I remember correctly) because of a toy line at the time which included some of his 4th World characters. Two birds with one stone, so to speak. I think the longest run on DC Kirby characters after the fact was the Orion run by Simonson that you mentioned, but even that lasted only for 25 issues. Other creators had a crack at them, but no one yet has managed to make them an overwhelming hit, suggesting that they just don't have a wide appeal.
I wouldn't disagree with your thoughts on Roy Thomas (though some of the writers he hired were better than others), but I was thinking primarily about Stan scripting the FF, Thor, and Spider-Man after Kirby and Ditko left Marvel. Apparently, circulation actually increasing on those titles, demonstrating that Stan's involvement with them was a huge component in their continued success until other writers eventually took over.
Post a Comment