Originally posted by LordofBrooklynKirby made poor decisions yet somehow you wanted to blame Stan Lee. Stan Lee had money Kirby did not. Kirby left. Life is not fair you man baby but Stan Lee does not need to support him or his family. He was a big boy and made his own decisions. Your inability to be realistic and to just cry about this gives me great pleasure.
Where did I say that Stan Lee was compelled to "PAYOUT" to Kirby or his heirs?What I DID say and have continued to reiterate is that LEE did NOTHING to support Kirby in life or his heirs in death in getting property royalties and artwork retrieved from Marvel comics.
All Stan Lee had to do with his combination of charisma and gravitas at Marvel is state the following.
"I believe Jack Kirby is due full royalties and the complete return of any and all artwork"
You mean to tell me something akin to that is Lee taking up for Kirby's "Failure" as a father or provider or even more insulting to mention the term "CucK' with this circumstance?
Lee was a winner.
😂 🙂
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Where did I say that Stan Lee was compelled to "PAYOUT" to Kirby or his heirs?What I DID say and have continued to reiterate is that LEE did NOTHING to support Kirby in life or his heirs in death in getting property royalties and artwork retrieved from Marvel comics.
There's literally no difference in what you're saying, here. You say you never said he was supposed to support them and then criticize him for not supporting them. You can't take both stances.
Be a man and take a stance instead of playing a transparent word game that no one believes.
Your stance is very clear: he should have supported them. I disagree with that stance.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
All Stan Lee had to do with his combination of charisma and gravitas at Marvel is state the following."I believe Jack Kirby is due full royalties and the complete return of any and all artwork"
That's not appropriate nor is it correct. Kirby is not entitled to all that. And what Kirby is entitled to is up to Kirby to have negotiated, not Stan Lee. Lee is not Kirby's lawyer. Nor was Lee qualified to be a lawyer for Kirby.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
You mean to tell me something akin to that is Lee taking up for Kirby's "Failure" as a father or provider or even more insulting to mention the term "CucK' with this circumstance?
Yes. Kirby's family is not Lee's responsibility. Unless Lee is the Godfather to Kirby's children or Lee is Godbrothers with Kirby. OR Lee cucked Kirby and those are actually Lee's kids.
If none of those exceptions are at play (none are), then your entire point is absurd and wrong. And as a Christian, you need to put the blame for any problems Kirby's family has with making money on Kirby himself and/or on the children for not working hard enough. You think I'm just being mean, surly, or unreasonable but it's in the freakin' bible. It's a fundemental thing primary school children are taught in Christian churches.
The Parable of the Talents. The onus is on the individual to make the best of what they were born into rather than expecting outside help. It is a sin upon your own head for not making the best of what you were born into. That can include money or genetic gifts.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV
https://tifwe.org/five-lessons-for-our-lives-from-the-parable-of-the-talents/
Are Kirby's "heirs" in poverty? No? Then Stan Lee had no business (no pun intended) performing charity for them. It's not appropriate and would come off as very odd. If you have a problem with how Kirby's children got shafted, you should take that up with Kirby, not Stan Lee. Lee was not Kirby's executor, lawyer, or boss.
Originally posted by FlyattractorFalse.
[b]All you did was call LoB names and then make things up. That isn't how you win "Debates". [/B]
Originally posted by quanchi112
Kirby made poor decisions yet somehow you wanted to blame Stan Lee. Stan Lee had money Kirby did not. Kirby left. Life is not fair you man baby but Stan Lee does not need to support him or his family. He was a big boy and made his own decisions. Your inability to be realistic and to just cry about this gives me great pleasure.Lee was a winner.
😂 🙂
Originally posted by quanchi112
That is your opinion it is not proven. In life men walk on their own and Kirby lived his own life. Just because Stan Lee was more successful does not mean he can Surt Kirby through life. Regardless of your belly aching you picked the time right after Lees death to ballyhoo over it. You are a dim witted man who probably heard this somewhere and just let it dictate your tiny brain without looking at any other perspective.Stan Lee died a king. Long live the MCU under the Disney banner.
Originally posted by Flyattractorm
[b]Like I said. You just put your own spin on things aka (Pretend) and then cut your self down with the "your opinion is not proven" because the exact same can be said about YOUR OPINION on this or any subject for that matter. [/B]
Tbh, Lee DID kind of play unfair with Jack.
He undoubtedly earned his spot as a legend, no doubt. He also probably took credit for things that someone else did, and played politics a LOT better (Which someone like Quan might say is part of being successful. Maybe it is, but it also shoots down the myth that capitalism objectively rewards innovation or production, and therefore that makes it great. The mere existence of politics means it does not.)
Originally posted by FlyattractorMy opinion is a realistic one. LoB falsely projected his opinion as the correct one. He was actually arguing Stan Lee should support the Kirby heirs. Gtfo.
[b]Like I said. You just put your own spin on things aka (Pretend) and then cut your self down with the "your opinion is not proven" because the exact same can be said about YOUR OPINION on this or any subject for that matter. [/B]
My opinion is based off accountability and being intelligent. Leaving like a dolt because he was salty to go play at dcdud not pan out for him. Life is not fair but in the end you have to take care of yourself. He was not fired or forced out. He made poor decisions Lee ended up making great ones. Kirby was very creative but that does not mean you will be successful. He was not and poorly managed his life whether it is fair or foul. If you want to cry over it feel free I will enjoy your pain tbh.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's literally no difference in what you're saying, here. You say you never said he was supposed to support them and then criticize him for not supporting them. You can't take both stances.Be a man and take a stance instead of playing a transparent word game that no one believes.
Your stance is very clear: he should have supported them. I disagree with that stance.
That's not appropriate nor is it correct. Kirby is not entitled to all that. And what Kirby is entitled to is up to Kirby to have negotiated, not Stan Lee. Lee is not Kirby's lawyer. Nor was Lee qualified to be a lawyer for Kirby.
Yes. Kirby's family is not Lee's responsibility. Unless Lee is the Godfather to Kirby's children or Lee is Godbrothers with Kirby. OR Lee cucked Kirby and those are actually Lee's kids.
If none of those exceptions are at play (none are), then your entire point is absurd and wrong. And as a Christian, you need to put the blame for any problems Kirby's family has with making money on Kirby himself and/or on the children for not working hard enough. You think I'm just being mean, surly, or unreasonable but it's in the freakin' bible. It's a fundemental thing primary school children are taught in Christian churches.
The Parable of the Talents. The onus is on the individual to make the best of what they were born into rather than expecting outside help. It is a sin upon your own head for not making the best of what you were born into. That can include money or genetic gifts.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV
https://tifwe.org/five-lessons-for-our-lives-from-the-parable-of-the-talents/
Are Kirby's "heirs" in poverty? No? Then Stan Lee had no business (no pun intended) performing charity for them. It's not appropriate and would come off as very odd. If you have a problem with how Kirby's children got shafted, you should take that up with Kirby, not Stan Lee. Lee was not Kirby's executor, lawyer, or boss.
You're INCAPABLE of making the DISTINCTION between the MANY forms of support that exist i.e financial, moral, physical etc. and then you extend that to a FAILING on my part. I was VERY clear on the type of support Lee failed to provide Kirby.
Words have MEANINGS and to suggest that being RATIONAL is ceasing to be a "MAN" is the type of ABJECT IDIOCY I would expect from Quan.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
You're INCAPABLE of making the DISTINCTION between the MANY forms of support that exist i.e financial, moral, physical etc. and then you extend that to a FAILING on my part. I was VERY clear on the type of support Lee failed to provide Kirby.
You've made a huge mistake.
You've made it clear you're moving the goalposts at this point.
There's no reason at all that Stan Lee should be "supporting" Kirby's "heirs." I've made it very clear why.
It's actually a creepy thought that Stan Lee should be supporting another man's children (oh, wait, we are moving the goalposts with word games so "heirs"😉. That he doesn't know them. He didn't raise them. He's not their godfather.
The only reason you have provided that he should be supporting Kirby's heirs is you just want him to.
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Words have MEANINGS and to suggest that being RATIONAL is ceasing to be a "MAN" is the type of ABJECT IDIOCY I would expect from Quan.
Right. Words have meaning.
You clearly didn't read my post. So you don't know what my words mean. Go back and read it. Understand why using cowardly word games is very unmanly. Understand what the bible says if you are such a strong/devout Christian. Then understand why you trying to force Stan Lee to "support" Kirby's "heirs" is not only creepy, it's odd as hell.
Answer this: are those heirs impoverished?
Here, read this:
https://deadline.com/2014/09/jack-kirby-marvel-settlement-lawsuit-supreme-court-hearing-841711/
Widely viewed as one of the Kings of Comics, Kirby created or co-created some of the biggest names on the page and now on the big screen in the superhero blockbusters that Hollywood has profited from in recent years. However, while his often partner Stan Lee was a Marvel employee, Kirby was a work for hire and had no rights to Captain America, The Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, the original X-Men and the plethora of other characters he played a pivotal part in bringing to life. The settlement between Marvel/Disney is confidential, but you don’t have to be a Supreme Court Justice to know that if a deal was reached this late in the process, it must be a healthy one for the Kirbys – who were holding a lot of the cards for once. Further concluding the matter, the Kirbys today have also notified the SCOTUS that they now want their petition dismissed.It was a long legal road for them and Marvel to get to today’s deal. After failing repeatedly in lower courts, Lisa Kirby, Neal Kirby, Susan Kirby and Barbara Kirby petitioned the High Court on March 21 for a hearing on the matter. In their petition, the heirs wanted SCOTUS to rule in favor of their assertion that they had the right in 2009 to issue termination notices on 262 works that the comic legend helped create between 1958 and 1963. Those 45 notices went out to Marvel/Disney, Fox, Sony, Universal and Paramount Pictures and others who’ve made films based on the artist’s characters under the provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act. Marvel sued in 2010, after failing to reach an agreement back then with the Kirby family to invalidate the termination notices. Jack Kirby himself passed away in 1994.
Oh, so they were just money-grubbing scum who wanted some of the success from Kirby's work. Kirby was a contractor and Stan Lee was an employee.
So there it is. There's what actually happened.
Stan Lee owed them nothing. Not support of any kind. They deserved nothing.
So what's your problem? 🙂
It would be nice if Stan had helped out in some capacity but he has no obligation to do so. The entertainment biz is full of people who've been screwed financially, look at what the Kemp brothers did to the rest of Spandau Ballet. Spandau toured not too long ago as well, water under the bridge. Or the others needed the money.