This’ll be a short one friends, as I’ve got all sorts of irons in the proverbial fire with the ongoing (and growing) pushback towards Roy Thomas and John Cimino’s villainy, as well as work on an article which proves conclusively just how fraudulent and inept the collected “comics journalism” community is.
In fact, this is a rather topical, pop-culture centric thing that I don’t even care about and am somewhat pressed to comment on because- per usual- I kept waiting for other people to get it and then have to write about it when they don’t.
So, if you care about such things then you likely saw the recent news that critically acclaimed actress Julia Garner was cast as the legendary herald of Galactus himself, The Silver Surfer. Strictly for the context of why I am writing about this, may I stress that I, personally, was indifferent to this casting- these characters aren’t real people and the MCU has surprised me before to say nothing of the fact that Garner is a talented actress.
But what’s kept my interest is seeing an ongoing discussion of why Julia Garner, a woman, would be cast as a historically “male” character- and then, the extremely straightforward logic of why both sides believe this occurred.
The answer has been laid out in front of you rather plainly. And it ties into what is going on with Roy Thomas and Wolverine at this very moment.
The tell-tale clue is the announcement that this version of the Surfer is a “Shalla-Bal version of the character”- and who created Shalla-Bal??
Stan Lee. She first appears in Silver Surfer #1 in 1968. And who created the Silver Surfer…? (*- it was brought to my attention to also include John Buscema who designed Shalla-Bal; that’s a fair point and I should but I don’t believe most Marvel Studios staff or the press involved in covering them will bring up or care about Buscema as they seldom reference anyone other than Lee.)
It’s important to note that the Silver Surfer as originally presented is one of the handful of characters that was inadvertently admitted by Stan Lee (and Roy Thomas, who was present the first time Lee saw the character) that was created and conceived by Jack Kirby. And, because they slipped that out, it’s never been able to be retracted- therefore, its commonly accepted that Kirby adds the Surfer into the story completely on his own, to Lee’s surprise.
That. That is it.
That is everything.
This specific issue is a slippery slope with Marvel and connects to them “suddenly” deciding to credit Roy Thomas- an Editor- with co-creation of Wolverine.
Both Lee and Thomas have gone on record several times about Kirby delivering his completed pages for Fantastic Four #48 and being surprised by the appearance of a gleaming figure soaring above the city as Galactus prepared to invade Earth.
- “There, in the middle of the story we had so carefully worked out, was a nut on some sort of flying surfboard”. – Stan Lee, 1995
- “Jack may have come up with the name ‘Galactus’, or I might’ve. I probably wanted to call him Irving. The thing came back and I could hardly wait to start writing the copy. All of a sudden, as I’m looking through the drawings, I see this nut on a surfboard flying through the air. And I thought, ‘Jack, this time you’ve gone too far.'” – Stan Lee
Note Lee’s “I could hardly wait to start writing the copy“- he refers to writing the dialogue to Kirby’s completed story, with margin notes to let Lee know what he was intended. Granted, Lee changed some things to further the narrative to his own direction but essentially, Kirby was directing the stories. He delivered the Surfer as a completed character with definite intentions.
Mark Evanier, a man lacking in empathy who has a pathological need to be seen as an authority, wrote in his terrible Kirby biography:
- “Jack saw the Surfer as a creature formed of pure energy, one who had never been human, which explained why he’d been roaming about the Fantastic Four comic, asking Earthlings to explain love and hate and other (to him) alien concepts. In Stan’s story, the Surfer had been a man on another planet who sacrificed human form to save the woman he loved.” – Mark Evanier, Chili Eating Contest Champion
When Lee took the character away from Kirby he thought to use it as his grand statement, the mouthpiece for his philosophy, such was the hubris of Lee after experiencing minor celebrities on college campuses. (We might also make a connection towards universities therefore always being useless for the money, if so-called college-educated people lapped Lee’s bullshit up but that’s another column)
Lee was so ambitious he decided to launch a double-sized Silver Surfer solo series that would be his ultimate work as an author. (Which is why a young Jim Shooter ghost-plotted some of those stories, but I digress. Geez, lots of asides today.)
So that’s all. That’s it– that is the distinction of WHY there has been a woman cast as the “Shalla-Bal version” of the Silver Surfer. Conservative fans think it’s “woke“. Liberal fans think it’s “progressive“. It’s neither. It’s fucking neither. It’s Marvel and Disney, who are corporations, serving to control their intellectual property rights and keep any and all attention away from figures like Jack Kirby, the primary and main architect of the Marvel Universe as we all know it.
That’s why Julia Garner was cast. That’s the only reason. Stan Lee created Shalla-Bal. Shalla-Bal originates in Lee’s solo Surfer series. Lee is documented as crediting Kirby with the idea of the Silver Surfer. That’s it. This is just a variation of Roy Thomas subverting the creation of Wolverine, with Marvel Studio’s helpful assist!
For the record, my own beliefs are far, far, far from the conservative viewpoint so this article is not intended to take a political side. Fuck Republicans. I’m just genuinely surprised that not one “comics journalist” or outspoken fan with a ghastly YouTube channel was able to figure this out, regardless of their political viewpoints or their degree of sexism.
Comic Book Resources could have sussed this out. The Beat could have put fans hip to it. Any number of comics-related press might’ve simplified this and reported on the actual multifactorial decision process that led to this so-called “controversial” movie casting. And saved me twenty minutes!
But that’s not the kind of shit they do, so… you’re stuck with Four Color Sinners for the time being. Yer welcome.
Four Color Sinners 
Lee’s Surfer is a tiresome whiner, as bad or worse than D.C.’s sickening crocodile-crier Enemy Ace. I hope the talented actress isn’t forced to deliver such drivel in a hillbilly accent. Barf.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Kirby Heirs litigation ended just shy of a decade ago. It is not going to be reopened for a number of reasons. One is that the window for the litigation is closed. Another is that an all-but-guaranteed aspect of the settlement was that the Kirbys accept the appellate court decision upholding the district court’s determination of work-made-for-hire is binding.
Most importantly, the question of who created what was never a material issue in the litigation. To quote the district court judge in her decision:
“[T]his case is not about whether Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is the real ‘creator’ of Marvel characters, or whether Kirby (and other freelance artists who created culturally iconic comic book characters for Marvel and other publishers) were treated ‘fairly’ by companies that grew rich off the fruit of their labor. It is about whether Kirby’s work qualifies as work-for-hire under the Copyright Act of 1909.”
This point is a persistent blind spot for Kirby advocates who double as Lee detractors. The legal issue was never the extent of Kirby and Lee’s relative contributions. The issue was whether Kirby had been dealing with Marvel in a work-made-for-hire capacity. If one is of the view that Kirby was responsible for everything, and Lee contributed nothing, fine. But it was irrelevant to the litigation. Kirby’s efforts were still work-made-for-hire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you RS. I should try to clarify that I am not even trying to detract from Stan, which is a mistake most people (I’m not saying you) are making- nor am I trying to say Kirby’s heirs are trying to get more money. I literally am just not good enough of a writer to properly articulate what I DO mean, which is just that Marvel is doing this on their own and not for any reverence for Lee or resentment for Kirby- that’s a very pro wrestling distinction that critics of my point keep making- I’m saying, Marvel is being proactive in maintaining their narrative, nothing more, nothing less. It’s proactive to do this to keep the timeline under the same umbrella.
If not, then explain the ‘Stan Lee’ documentary sanctioned and produced by Disney LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF THIS WRITING. I don’t bring it up to disparage STAN- people thinking this can’t see beyond the obvious- forget about Stan- he’s a tool- I’m talking about the larger machine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I never get tired of butthurt Lee fans who deride “Kirby advocates” and “Lee detractors” while telegraphing their ignorance by citing “work for hire.” How do these people live with Marc Toberoff’s victory on behalf of the Kirby family on the steps of the Supreme Court?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, you can take your delusional view of things, and your bullying, and you can fuck right off.
LikeLike
Just once…. once! I’d like it if a discussion developed.
LikeLike
Michael and I have history, and I don’t think he’s ever responded to anything I’ve written that wasn’t verbal abuse directed at a strawman.
As for his specific statements here, I’ll go through them for you.
–I am not “butthurt” over anything having to do with Stan Lee or Jack Kirby. That has nothing to do with my life to any degree that would call for my being “butthurt” one way or the other.
— I am not a “Lee fan.” I’ve written a fair amount of comics criticism, and participated in a number of discussions on online comics forums. I don’t think I’ve ever written anything particularly complimentary of Lee’s work. I have written things that have been quite complimentary of Kirby, though. While I do consider their Marvel work a collaboration, however forced, I have always been of the view that Kirby was doing the heavy lifting in the partnership.
–I’m not necessarily “deriding” Kirby advocates, Lee detractors, or those that wear both hats. People are what they are. I think people such as Michael or yourself go a lot further than I would on the Kirby vs. Lee argument, but I also think you have more of a basis for your view than the Lee partisans. What I cannot stand are people such as Michael who go ballistic when they encounter someone who doesn’t confirm them in everything they think. People can reasonably disagree on things like this without all this nastiness. My first instinct when confronted with bullying like Michael’s is to hit back, but I’ve gotten to the point where, this comment notwithstanding, I try to keep it short.
–I am not “telegraphing my ignorance” by noting the Kirby case was about work-for-hire. If anything, Michael is telegraphing his ignorance, or more specifically, his denialist perspective, by claiming that it wasn’t.
–Beyond some boilerplate, such as a non-disclosure clause, and an acceptance on the Kirbys’ part that the appellate court’s decision against them was binding, neither Michael nor I nor anyone else commenting here know what was in the Kirbys’ settlement with Marvel. The Rich Johnston account of a mid-eight-figure payout has not been corroborated by any other journalist. Johnston himself hasn’t been able to corroborate his source’s claims. I should note that I’ve talked with Johnston about this, and he all but acknowledged his source was Kirby lawyer Marc Toberoff. In my view, it was Toberoff, that discredits the information right there. If Toberoff is so lacking in ethics that he would discuss this publicly at all, he can’t be trusted to tell the truth about it. He would also be a fool to give accurate information, because that would likely result in an investigation by the bar authorities. The only reason he would have for talking about this would be to advertise his legal services, and having the perception out there that his representation can result in lottery jackpot settlements is certainly going to attract clients. Would he have incentive to exaggerate? I think so.
–Finally, it was highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ever heard the Kirbys’ appeal. As a rule, the Supreme Court does not hear civil disputes unless the appellate courts are in disagreement about the legal issues. There’s no appellate disagreement about the definition of pre-1978 work-made-for-hire. On two other occasions, the Supreme Court has had the option of hearing a case predicated on the work-for-hire issue at the heart of the Kirby suit. The first was with Hogarth v. Burroughs, back in the 1990s. The other was Markham v. Hasbro in 2022. The Supreme Court refused to hear either one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t doubt you about Rich Johnston telling you that at all RS but jeez, if Toberoff revealed anything to THAT guy, so transparent a drama whore that he is… it doesn’t say much for Toberoffs shrewdness. Unless he quickly deduced no one takes Johnston seriously.
LikeLike
RSM, do you have much success characterizing other people as bullies? Your response is straight out of the Goebbels/Lee/MAGA playbook. By delusional I think you mean fact-based.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fact: The district-court judge in the Kirby case said it was about work-for-hire.
Fact: The three-judge appellate panel who reviewed the district-court judge’s decision unanimously agreed the Kirby case was about work-for-hire, and unanimously agreed with her assessment of the work-for-hire decision.
Fact: Marc Toberoff and the Marvel/Disney lawyers who filed briefs re: the Kirby appeal argued the case was about work-for-hire.
Michael Hill: The Kirby case was not about work-for-hire.
Whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RSM, have you been exposed to any court documents yourself, or do you just like to make up shit?
The Supreme Court case was to be discussed in private conference on 29 September 2014. The settlement was announced on the 26th.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirby-v-marvel-characters-incorporated/
Marc Toberoff: “The Kirby Works were not created as ‘works-made-for-hire’ for Marvel’s Predecessors.”—Marvel Worldwide, Inc. et al v. Kirby et al, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER & COUNTERCLAIMS, 28 April 2010.
Bruce Lehman, Amici Brief: “Kirby’s creations in 1958-63 were not works for hire according to the interpretation of the 1909 Act by this Court, Congress, and under the common law. Per Section 26 of that statute only a traditional ’employer’ is considered an ‘author … in the case of works made for hire.’ In drafting that provision, Congress clearly contemplated regular, salaried employment and Congress’s exhaustive research leading up to the 1976 Act shows that certainly no one in 1958-63 construed work for hire to include the copyrighted material of freelancers like Kirby.”
https://asai.org/understanding-the-kirby-case-asai-joins-amicus-brief-for-kirby-v-marvel-comics-disney/
LikeLiked by 1 person
OhMiGod.
BRUCE.
B-R-U-C-E.
(Cue the voice of Christopher Walken in the “More Cowbell” sketch.)
BRUCE.
BRUCE LEHMAN.
For those not awed at the sound of the name BRUCE, Lehman has been a lobbyist for various non-studio Hollywood interests who happened to work 50 years ago on a Congressional legislative drafting committee about reforms pertaining to the 1976 Copyright Act. He’s quite insistent on the notion–not reflected in the law itself–that reformations in the new law that work-for-hire had to be acknowledged in writing were retroactive. The language of the legal text did not say this. Lehman–excuse me, BRUCE–was given some firepower among tendentious legal ignoramuses in 1989 in the CCNV v. Reid decision when some dumbcluck clerk of the late Thurgood Marshall repeated the claim of Lehman–excuse me, BRUCE–in a historical side note to the decision. The note had no precedental value. It was an example of obiter dictum–comments in a decision that had no material relevance to the case at hand. The Supreme Court’s view of this particular obiter dictum have been reflected in their treatments of the Hogarth and Markham cases cited above. They rejected it. But no matter how often the argument has been proven a loser, denialists like Michael will cite Lehman–excuse me, BRUCE–as having relevance to these legal issues.
Nope. Point me to where a judge has ever confirmed Lehman–excuse me, BRUCE–on these issues. Hasn’t happened.
I don’t acknowledge validity from cranks. And neither should anyone else.
LikeLike
As for Toberoff, he was just trying to move the goalposts. It was always a work-for-hire argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, I don’t live in your delusions, where lawyers who say what you want to hear have binding authority in the cases they argue, rather than the judges who actually decide the cases.
In the real world, where I live, Marc Toberoff has no authority whatsoever to declare something work-made-for-hire or not. Neither does Bruce Lehman. In the real world, that authority is vested in federal judges who hear cases, such as the Kirbys, where the work-made-for-hire status of specific material is disputed. The district court judge in the Kirby case ruled the material was work-made-for-hire. The appellate judges reviewing her determination unanimously agreed.
Why you think Toberoff and/or Lehman have the power to overturn those judges’ rulings, I have no idea, other than they’re saying what you want to hear. If you ask them, I can promise they’ll agree with me that they don’t have the authority you seem to think they have.
As for the Supreme Court, they’re quite unlikely to hear any case that is brought to them. They agree to hear something like three percent of the appeals filed. As a rule, they do not hear civil disputes where there is no disagreement about the material legal issues among the country’s various appellate courts. There is no disagreement among the appellate courts about the definition of pre-1978 work-made-for-hire. If you ask Toberoff or Lehman, I’m sure they’ll confirm all of that, too. The Supreme Court all but certainly was not going to grant cert to the Kirby appeal.
Here’s another thing to run by Toberoff and Lehman: All legal arguments are hot air unless and until the judge or judges overseeing a relevant case say they are not. Toberoff is willing to make any argument on behalf of a client as long as it doesn’t get him sanctioned. That’s his job. Lehman, if he’s honest, will acknowledge that his views on pre-1978 work-made-for-hire, or his contention that fair use is unconstitutional, have been roundly rejected by the judiciary in this country. Pretty much everything they’ve had to say about the issues in the Kirby case have been confirmed as hot air, at least for the time being.
Finally, believing what you want to hear despite it being contradicted by reality is far more characteristic of the more dedicated Trump voters than anything I’ve said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ RS, so how do you view the current Roy debacle?
LikeLike
I don’t agree with what Thomas is doing, but I really don’t care that much about it. The subject of Wolverine’s creation is pretty well documented. Anyone who’s interested in learning about it is going to get an accurate picture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, ‘accurate’ isn’t guaranteed. Those series of Forbes pieces weren’t accurate. And many pieces don’t provide context or other interviews with the same parties which contradict earlier or later statements. Just saying.
LikeLike
What’s the inaccuracy in the Forbes article? That it doesn’t mention Andy Olsen? The article would be better if Olsen was mentioned, but I don’t think it’s damning that he isn’t. Thomas says he doesn’t remember the Olsen submission. I think it’s reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. It’s most likely an example of the “Cure for the Better Breakfast” situation in Mad Men. Olsen’s metal-reinforced skeleton idea was added to the character by Chris Claremont and Dave Cockrum. That may have been a tacit acknowledgement of Olsen’s submission, although Olsen should have gotten some compensation.
Apart from Olsen, the account of Wolverine’s creation is generally agreed upon. There’s some quibbling about the details by the principals, but that’s to be expected. Thomas wanted a character named Wolverine to be developed, and the character was to be Canadian. The assignment was given to Len Wein and John Romita, Sr. Wein scripted the first story with the character for The Incredible Hulk series. That story was drawn by Herb Trimpe. The character was then integrated into the X-Men revamp. Artist Dave Cockrum designed the character’s uncostumed appearance. Scriptwriter Chris Claremont, with substantial input from Cockrum, John Byrne, and Frank Miller, developed the character’s psychology beyond the badass attitude. Everything else, such as the origin of that badass attitude and the nature of the claws and so forth I think is no more than conflicting recollections. No one is lying.
In general, Thomas strikes me as honest. He has ego issues that lead him down bad roads at times, but he says what he says in good faith. That’s what’s going on with the question of whether he should be given official credit as a co-creator of Wolverine.
LikeLike
There are three Forbes articles RSM, so I’m (possibly unfairly) compiling them altogether but the third one in particular- not written by Rob Salkowitz, I don’t believe (I am currently out and will respond in full later), had some errors based on repeated hearsay and/or poor memories.
My primary points of coverage are the contradictory statements, the transparent campaign the past few years to remake Thomas’s image as a great and prolific creator, basically all of the things that I cover.
I believe creating multiple prints of yourself with Wolverine to sell at conventions is misleading if not literally a lie. I’ll write more later.
LikeLike
“I believe creating multiple prints of yourself with Wolverine to sell at conventions is misleading if not literally a lie.”
That would look ridiculous even if Thomas was the undisputed sole creator of the character. As I said, the guy has ego issues that lead him down bad roads.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That should be “Cure for the Common Breakfast.” Sorry.
LikeLike
Pathetic and all you do is show your filled with hate and jealousy and resentment plain and simple. THE MAN turned a throwaway sketch by Kirby into a full fledged character because THATS WHAT STAN DID…. He took the scraps and made them into something!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know what to glean from your endless posts. I already knew you’re a fuckin’ idiot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I honestly, genuinely believe posts like the one above from “True Creator Supporter” are from false-flag accounts created and maintained by Kirby’s biggest fans and champions in an ongoing attempt to “demonstrate” that anyone who wants to give Stan credit for anything is an idiot.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for other people but I’ve always stressed that to not give Stan credit for anything is both misguided and works against the greater point(s) that I believe need to be made. Quite frankly, Stan deserves credit. That has never ever been the point- at least, not my point, though I believe your mind is made up so I doubt you care. But I’ll try to keep this short:
It’s about Stan getting credit for what he DIDN’T do, not about what he did do.
Also, this entire site exists simply because I’ve read so many instances of contradictory statements and simply wanted to bring attention to them.
But as for True Creator/Rosp/60s guy… one point Mr. Waid? Is that twice now this guy has said something in the comments that Thomas’s buffoon manager repeated just days later, and even seemed to know to announce that Thomas would be making a statement days before he did. I can’t prove it’s not Cimino but I also don’t care. It’s all online nonsense and, as I’ve said a few times in the past, I’m simply writing a blog, I’m not on the Supreme Court. Insult me and block me, simple as that. If anyone ever wants to have an honest discussion, a respectful debate, or even meet me outside of a convention to kick my ass, I’d long for such experiences- simply because they seldom, if ever, happen. This is not a site for “let’s you and him fight”- this is a site to bring up points to hopefully expand a discussion on them.
LikeLike
Also, comments have to be approved now which I hadn’t quite mastered before. Unless you’re Michael Hill, who no sane person could accuse of having an ongoing campaign to disparage Stan’s contributions, everyone has to have their comment approved- not that people are falling over to comment here. But that should solve that issue, and thank you for your detective work on this matter.
LikeLike
I said something similar to this on reddit a few days ago and got down voted for it, so I’m glad the real experts agree with me.
Maybe I could post a link to this article there and ruffle a few feathers?
LikeLiked by 2 people