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

[Hybrid]

X-Men is one of the biggest examples of "My Real Daddy", where a work becomes more popular and defined by a different creator than the originator. It's definitely true that Chris Claremont was biggest mastermind behind X-Men we know now (alongside others like Len Wein, David Cockrum, John Byrne, and so on). He may not have created the X-Men themselves, but he did create many, many characters and worldbuilding elements associated with the team, such as Rogue, Psylocke, Shadowcat, Phoenix Force, the Brood, Lockheed, the Shi'ar, the New Mutants (Magik, Sunspot, Cannonball, Karma, Cypher, Warlock, Magma, Wolfsbane, Dani Moonstar), Excalibur, Madelyne Pryor, Mr. Sinister, Gambit, the Hellfire Club, Emma Frost, Strong Guy, Rachel Summers, Forge, Mystique, and so on.

I also notice that X-Men is probably the Marvel property least associated with The Man and The King, compared to the likes of Fantastic Four, the Avengers, Spider-Man (for Stan), Captain America (for Jack), and the general MU. It's actually rather easy to forget Stan and Jack were technically the creators of X-Men, and they were the ones who created iconic characters Cyclops, Angel, Beast, Iceman, Jean Grey, Professor X, and Magneto, as well as coming up with the mutant concept in general, originally to avoid having to come up with intricate backstories of how they got their powers, but also to commentate on real world social issues without the baggage of the real thing.

In my opinion, you can't really say they aren't the creators, even if the X-Men as a whole became radically different, more expansive, better defined, and much, much more popular without them. At the end of the day, they were still the ones who put pen to paper and conceptualized the X-Men to begin with. Yes, it was met with lukewarm reception, middling sales, with both men leaving relatively early in the run, and was seen as a poor man's Fantastic Four that ultimately got cancelled for five years before coming back better, but they still provided the foundation of for later creators to work with. Put simply, it's like denying that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman or that Bob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman, even though they themselves changed radically over the decades that followed.

It's also a counterargument I refer to when someone tries to suggest the X-Men are somehow "less Marvel" than the others and should be separated into their own universe. That of course being "The X-Men were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. You don't get more Marvel than that".

So that being said, how much credit do Stan and Jack deserve for X-Men overall?

[Snoop Dogg]

All of it. Glory to the progenitors!

[RachelGrey]

X-Men is one of the biggest examples of "My Real Daddy", where a work becomes more popular and defined by a different creator than the originator. It's definitely true that Chris Claremont was biggest mastermind behind X-Men we know now (alongside others like Len Wein, David Cockrum, John Byrne, and so on). He may not have created the X-Men themselves, but he did create many, many characters and worldbuilding elements associated with the team, such as Rogue, Psylocke, Shadowcat, Phoenix Force, the Brood, Lockheed, the Shi'ar, the New Mutants (Magik, Sunspot, Cannonball, Karma, Cypher, Warlock, Magma, Wolfsbane, Dani Moonstar), Excalibur, Madelyne Pryor, Mr. Sinister, Gambit, the Hellfire Club, Emma Frost, Strong Guy, Rachel Summers, Forge, Mystique, and so on.

I also notice that X-Men is probably the Marvel property least associated with The Man and The King, compared to the likes of Fantastic Four, the Avengers, Spider-Man (for Stan), Captain America (for Jack), and the general MU. It's actually rather easy to forget Stan and Jack were technically the creators of X-Men, and they were the ones who created iconic characters Cyclops, Angel, Beast, Iceman, Jean Grey, Professor X, and Magneto, as well as coming up with the mutant concept in general, originally to avoid having to come up with intricate backstories of how they got their powers, but also to commentate on real world social issues without the baggage of the real thing.

In my opinion, you can't really say they aren't the creators, even if the X-Men as a whole became radically different, more expansive, better defined, and much, much more popular without them. At the end of the day, they were still the ones who put pen to paper and conceptualized the X-Men to begin with. Yes, it was met with lukewarm reception, middling sales, with both men leaving relatively early in the run, and was seen as a poor man's Fantastic Four that ultimately got cancelled for five years before coming back better, but they still provided the foundation of for later creators to work with. Put simply, it's like denying that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman or that Bob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman, even though they themselves changed radically over the decades that followed.

It's also a counterargument I refer to when someone tries to suggest the X-Men are somehow "less Marvel" than the others and should be separated into their own universe. That of course being "The X-Men were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. You don't get more Marvel than that".

So that being said, how much credit do Stan and Jack deserve for X-Men overall?

Technically they gave up on the X-Men and the characters stayed on the sidelines for several years until Giant Size X-Men revitalized them. Sure they deserve credit as the original creators, but in the end they had nothing to do with the lasting popularity. The lasting popularity foundation was created by Len Wein, Dave Cockrum, Chris Claremont, John Byrne and others.

[Andru]

Weren't the X-Men fighting grasshoppers under Lee's pen?

[Kurisu]

About as much as Liefy deserves for Deadpool. They created them, but no one cared until someone else got hold of them.

[Electricmastro]

If you ask me, I think that house foundation builders should always get credit for building the foundation of the house, while later people like Chris Claremont, Len Wein, David Cockrum, and John Byrne helped add all sorts of walls, furniture, and decorations. Those tend to be noticed first before noticing the foundation, but Stan and Jack's foundation isn't any less deserving of credit at the same time.

[gurkle]

The creator credit (which finally got added to all the Lee/Kirby creations after Disney settled with the Kirby estate) is just that, a credit. It's like a TV series, where the person who wrote the pilot gets creator credit forever even if they never had anything to do with the show in all the episodes that followed. Lee and Kirby were more important than that, because so many concepts and characters from the early issues have remained a vital part of the franchise, but it is true that others improved on their run, and it's not considered the benchmark for the entire series like the Kirby "Fantastic Four" or the Ditko "Spider-Man." So I'd say they deserve credit for creating the series and others (Thomas, Adams, Wein, Claremont, Cockrum, Byrne, etc.) deserve credit for making it good.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

If you ask me, I think that house foundation builders should always get credit for building the foundation of the house, while later people like Chris Claremont, Len Wein, David Cockrum, and John Byrne helped add all sorts of walls, furniture, and decorations.

Outstanding description!!!

Those tend to be noticed first before noticing the foundation, but Stan and Jack's foundation isn't any less deserving of credit at the same time.

Hear! Hear!

[FIGHT]

About as much as Liefy deserves for Deadpool. They created them, but no one cared until someone else got hold of them.

Pretty much.

[AbnormallyNormal]

My interpretation of it is, given the later canon and writing and everything now if you go back and read those early Lee/Kirby issues you can get more out of them in hindsight but without all the later work those early issues would just read as empty pointless "monster of the week" type ad hoc storytelling (for the most part).

The main contributions Lee/Kirby made were Sentinel idea, Juggernaut, Magneto definition, concept of Brotherhood, and sort of the basic variety of mutant abilities among the O5.

But a lot of it was ultra convoluted and just filler

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the Sentinels, Magneto, Mimic and the Brotherhood of Mutants .

They also created the original mutants - Xavier, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, iceman, Angel.

So that's a big chunk of the X-Men there.


In terms of writing, Lee's take on the characters hasn't endured. In terms of art, the designs of Magneto, the Sentinels and others have endured to this day, so Kirby gets huge props. The O5 X-Men wear matching uniforms and that's generally been the look of the X-Men in the movies and in Grant Morrison's run and the Ultimate X-Men run and the X-Men Evolution cartoon. So that's an aesthetic that has endured more than the all-new all-different look of the X-Men from Claremont/Byrne/Cockrum/Wein.

The X-Men are the bastard ugly ducklings of the Lee-Kirby run and it found adopted parents under Claremont and Wein and others, but it still resembles its biological parents a fair deal.

[Hybrid]

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the Sentinels, Magneto, Mimic and the Brotherhood of Mutants .

They also created the original mutants - Xavier, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, iceman, Angel.

So that's a big chunk of the X-Men there.


In terms of writing, Lee's take on the characters hasn't endured. In terms of art, the designs of Magneto, the Sentinels and others have endured to this day, so Kirby gets huge props. The O5 X-Men wear matching uniforms and that's generally been the look of the X-Men in the movies and in Grant Morrison's run and the Ultimate X-Men run and the X-Men Evolution cartoon. So that's an aesthetic that has endured more than the all-new all-different look of the X-Men from Claremont/Byrne/Cockrum/Wein.

The X-Men are the bastard ugly ducklings of the Lee-Kirby run and it found adopted parents under Claremont and Wein and others, but it still resembles its biological parents a fair deal.

Don't forget the Juggernaut!

But yeah, good point. Honestly, as I said before, of all the classic Marvel properties it seems Stan and Jack are the least associated with the X-Men versus their other works that defined the MU. They had the basic idea down, it was just expanded upon by everyone else. They clearly didn't think much of it, as both left relatively early on in the run, after Issue #19 I think. Compare this to Stan and Jack's historic run on the Fantastic Four, which lasted a whole decade and over 100 issues, and you can see how they thought of the titles. X-Men was the forgettable throwaway, Fantastic Four was the crown jewel.

Stan had this to say about how X-Men grew:

"Who knew they'd multiply the way they did! I might as well have created a bunch of rabbits!"

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Don't forget the Juggernaut!

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.

[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.