How much credit do Stan Lee and Jack Kirby deserve for X-Men?

[Hybrid]

Eh, perhaps unpopular to say this, but I don’t think the 60s run of Fantastic, a few small exceptions, wasn’t particularly great either. Like the with the X-Men’s case, I felt that it didn’t get consistently engaging until the 80s. “Forgettable throwaway” probably isn’t accurate in terms of what they thought of it, but more so that they and Roy Thomas seemed to have trouble finding solid directions to go in.

I think what you're describing is "The Seinfeld Effect", where a revolutionary work seems generic because it's been copied and improved on so many times. The FF were the first team to not have secret identities at all, they bickered and held petty grudges against each other (before all teams got along swimmingly), and having a monstrous character as a hero (Thing). Concepts like the villain being a foreign dictator and a planet-eating entity were new. There's also The Galactus Trilogy, which was the first example of a continuous story arc -- two and a half issues, but still.

Lee-Kirby's run on the Fantastic Four was revolutionary, and you simply can't deny that. The collaboration was open enough thanks to the Marvel Method that Jack Kirby got to showcase his endless creativity. Not only was the FF the birth of the Marvel Universe as we know, but the title introduced many worldbuilding concepts associated with the brand. This includes:

• Doctor Doom and Latveria.
• Galactus, the Silver Surfer, and the other Heralds.
• The Kree.
• The Skrulls.
• Black Panther and Wakanda.
• The Inhumans.
• Namor and Atlantis (which existed before, but canonized through FF).
• Mole Man and the Moloids.
• Annihilus and the Negative Zone

The Fantastic Four were also gave Stan Lee the leverage to greenlight his next project -- Spider-Man! Then all the other heroes followed. Their rogues gallery deserves mention, as you have everything from Annihilus, Blastaar, Galactus, Molecule Man, the Wizard, the Mole Man, among others, and of course, Doctor Doom who has gone on to be quite possibly the most prolific and widespread villain in Marvel. Say what you will about how it hasn't aged well, but to say it's "not great" more likely owes itself to the Seinfeld Effect than the idea that it's legitimately bad.

[Electricmastro]

I think what you're describing is "The Seinfeld Effect", where a revolutionary work seems generic because it's been copied and improved on so many times. The FF were the first team to not have secret identities at all, they bickered and held petty grudges against each other (before all teams got along swimmingly), and having a monstrous character as a hero (Thing). Concepts like the villain being a foreign dictator and a planet-eating entity were new. There's also The Galactus Trilogy, which was the first example of a continuous story arc -- two and a half issues, but still.

Lee-Kirby's run on the Fantastic Four was revolutionary, and you simply can't deny that.

Well revolutionary doesn't always mean good, or at least in the sense that I'll come to have the opinions I have and they'll always be my own despite the disrespect some people may interpret from my opinion, even though disrespect isn't my intention. And I did mention "a few small exceptions" after all, like the aforementioned Galactus Trilogy, which is quite compelling and very well done, regardless of how it "seems generic because it's been copied and improved on so many times."

To suggest that you think I was meaning to say that 60s Fantastic Four (or 60 X-Men for that matter) is 100% entirely legitimately bad would be an inaccurate, oversimplified view of my opinion, or a similar opinion from anyone else that think some parts of it are better than others, not as disrespect of something revolutionary, but as a surely innocent expression of one's feelings.

[Hybrid]

Well revolutionary doesn't always mean good, or at least in the sense that I'll come to have the opinions I have and they'll always be my own despite the disrespect some people may interpret from my opinion, even though disrespect isn't my intention. And I did mention "a few small exceptions" after all, like the aforementioned Galactus Trilogy, which is quite compelling and very well done, regardless of how it "seems generic because it's been copied and improved on so many times."

To suggest that you think I was meaning to say that 60s Fantastic Four (or 60 X-Men for that matter) is 100% entirely legitimately bad would be an inaccurate, oversimplified view of my opinion, or the similar opinion of anyone else that think some parts of it are better than others, not as disrespect of something revolutionary, but as a surely innocent expression of one's feelings.

I agree that compared to today, the Lee-Kirby FF might seem lacking, but I'm referring to it in the context of its time, hence the "Seinfeld Effect" term.

[Triniking1234]

Lee and Kirby as introduced a visually impaired supporting character which was pretty uncommon in those days even when you included Lee's Daredevil as a main character.

[Electricmastro]

I agree that compared to today, the Lee-Kirby FF might seem lacking, but I'm referring to it in the context of its time, hence the "Seinfeld Effect" term.

Well you can use whatever term you want to interpret my opinion with as much as you want, but whether considering the context of "of its time" or "not of its time," I'll still feel the way I do and come to have the comic opinions that I have. Don't know what else to tell ya buddy.

[The Kid]

I think someone brought up a lot of the X-Men concepts that were made by Lee/Kirby and it's honestly more than I expected. That's a solid base for a franchise for Claremont and co. to work with. I'll give them credit for that although it's not like their FF where they pretty much defined the entire mythos of the franchise to this very day. The person who defined the X-Men mythos to the same degree is Chris Claremont. Funny enough I don't personally find either of those runs particularly readable nowadays lol but I'll blame that on different times

[gurkle]

The thing about the Lee/Kirby FF is that even if you think other runs did it better, every run is using concepts and tropes and story types from that series, and most of them use the same basic cast of guest stars. Even when an FF writer does something different from Lee/Kirby it's like a reaction to their run, e.g. making Sue stronger and more competent is a commentary on how passive she seemed to be in the '60s.

Another example is Frank Miller's Daredevil. There hasn't been a run since then that doesn't owe something to it, and even a lighter run is a reaction against Frank Miller. He's the definitive Daredevil creator but that doesn't mean we have to like his work the best.

Similarly lots of people can name X-Men runs they like better than Claremont's but no one can deny that their favorite X-Men run is partly inspired by Claremont's work.

[Electricmastro]

Similarly lots of people can name X-Men runs they like better than Claremont's but no one can deny that their favorite X-Men run is partly inspired by Claremont's work.

I will say that I like Claremont's run overall since I find it to be the most consistently engaging out of all the runs, though that's not to say I like every issue he wrote for equally. There are also definitely releases that came before his time as a regular contributor that I also favor, like X-Men #16 and #58.

[MrSinister]

Yeah, the Juggernaut. One of the most impressive villains of comics' history. Also a villain who Claremont rarely did much with. I mean I think there were a few issues with Black Tom Cassidy but that's about it.

There was also that time he beat colossus in a bar, another story he and tom paid arcade to kill the x-men, that time with nimrod and my favorite Juggernaut story vs Dazzler and the new x-men after mutant massacre.

[Hybrid]

He was also an opponent that the X-Men faced soon after Longshot joined the team.

[Beaddle]

How many X-Men characters did Stan Lee create?

[Hybrid]

How many X-Men characters did Stan Lee create?

1. Professor X
2. Cyclops
3. Angel
4. Beast
5. Iceman
6. Jean Grey
7. Magneto
8. Quicksilver
9. Scarlet Witch
10. Toad
11. Mastermind
12. Blob
13. Mimic
14. Juggernaut
15. Master Mold
16. Bolivar Trask
17. Unus the Untouchable

I'd say that about covers it. Not bad for what was originally a 19 issue run.

[Marvel Wars]

There is also the Vanisher.

[JasmineW]

Stan Lee did not create The Vanisher, he created himself.

[MarvelMaster616]

I think Stan Lee and Jack Kirby definitely deserve a solid share of credit for creating the X-Men. At the same time, I think they get more credit than the should compared to the likes of Chris Claremont, Len Wein, Louise Simonson, and Dave Cockram. While Lee and Kirby created the X-Men, they weren't the ones who made them so popular and iconic.