The Kirby Conundrum, or, Why I've Been So Slow to See The Avengers

The Avengers is probably the biggest movie of the year. As most of you know, I'm a bit of a superhero nut, so it'd only be natural to assume that I've already seen the movie three or four times, right?

Well, that's not the case. Not only have I been super busy with plays and other things (only three performances left for Blithe Spirith, by the way!), but I've also had a bit of an emotional reluctance to go see the movie.

You think it'd be a no-brainer. Iron Man was the best superhero movie for about a month before The Dark Knight completely blew it out of the water. Captain America was the best Joe Johnson movie that wasn't The Rocketeer (which probably sounds like damning with faint praise, but I love both of those movies, so there). Heck, even Thor was pretty much okay. Put 'em all together under Joss Whedon's direction, and you've got a surefire hit for nerds of all creeds, right?

I'm still on the fence about seeing The Avengers, and it's not because I think Joss Whedon's overrated (I'm looking at you, Firefly). Rather, it has everything to do with this guy:

Those eyebrows have a name, and that name is Kirby. Jack Kirby worked for Marvel comics throughout the 1960s and 1970s, creating or co-creating most of the characters affiliated with The Avengers. Heck, Kirby's name is so synonymous with some of his creations that typing "Jack Kirby" into Google's image search brings up an issue of Captain America as the first result.

And what a good image that is.

Now, comic book companies are pretty notorious for their unfair treatment of their creators. Most comic book characters created as "work for hire," so the creators have little or no claim on the intellectual property of the characters they create. Finding out, then, that Jack Kirby was treated poorly by Marvel Comics was no great surprise, but the company seems to have gone above and beyond in his case.

You can find out more details here (where you will also notice that DC Comics, owners of Batman and Superman, don't treat their employees any better), but the basic gist is that Marvel forced Kirby to sign increasingly unfair contracts before they would return his original artwork to him, artwork they had no right to keep in the first place. They continue to make money off Kirby's name and creations but refuse to give his estate any sort of compensation.

It's an issue I'm legitimately torn on. On the one hand, Marvel has every legal right to keep the proceeds from Kirby's creations. The courts ruled in the industry's favor. They do nothing illegal. Additionally, I'm not 100% convinced that the Kirby estate is entitled to any sort of compensation, although that's an issue I know next to nothing about. On the other hand, though, just because the courts opted to uphold the contracts Kirby signed doesn't make those contracts any more ethical.

I enjoy reading about these corporate-owned characters, especially when great talent is brought in to further expand on a character's motivations and origins. Kirby may have had Captain America punch out Hitler, but it was writer Steve Englehart who pitted the Captain against a supervillain equivalent of Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. When a writer does his or her job with a character, they make the character relevant for a whole new generation of readers.

I would hate for there to never be another Captain America story, especially when there are almost infinite stories that could be told. However, at no time should the well-being of a fictional character be placed before that of a living person. The lack of respect Marvel showed to its #1 creator, and continues to show him, gives me pause.

I haven't yet decided whether I will see The Avengers or not. I'm actually considering a complete boycott of both major comics publishing houses. Whatever I decide, I can guarantee both Marvel and DC comics will be seeing a lot less of my money.

Not that there's all that much of it to see, but you get my point.