|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 25, 2016 22:49:50 GMT -5
And I am absolutely sure that there was at least one crossover between Simon and Kirby characters. (I think at DC.) I don't remember where, but I am totally sure.  You are correct, sir. S&K teamed their DC characters twice, once in Detective #76, once in Boy Commandos #1. And how can anyone credibly claim that "Kirby had no interest in connecting characters if he could avoid it" when the very existence of the Fourth World books says otherwise? Cei-U! I summon the counterargument? That's a bit different, though, don't you think? The FW was designed as an interconnecting set of stories and characters from the start, all based on a specific set of core ideas or themes. But I don't think there's any evidence Kirby wanted to connect, say, the Demon and Kamandi and OMAC, which might be a closer parallel to the interconnectedness of the MU. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 26, 2016 19:42:12 GMT -5
Stan Lee changed superhero comics forever: no one had done anything like it before and everything afterwards has been influenced by Stan's work directly or indirectly. More important than the shared universe (didn't DC already have that?) to me were the addition of early-MAD-style humour and soap-opera sub-plots and characterisation. I also think you have to make a distinction between his work with Kirby and Ditko on the one hand, where the artist was probably coming up with the basic concept and Stan was mainly an interpretor/scriptor, and on the other hand his work with artists like Romita or Colan, where Stan really was the writer for all intents and purposes, though the artist had a lot of freedom to interpret the story visually. We lump them all under the "Marvel method" but there's a big difference, IMO. Nah, Romita definitely did a lot of the plotting, and I think Colan did his fair share as well. And while I totally credit Stan with the Jewish humor of the early Marvels, I don't think it's impossible that a lot of the soap opera came from the guy who invented romance comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 26, 2016 19:44:44 GMT -5
And I am absolutely sure that there was at least one crossover between Simon and Kirby characters. (I think at DC.) I don't remember where, but I am totally sure. You are correct, sir. S&K teamed their DC characters twice, once in Detective #76, once in Boy Commandos #1. And how can anyone credibly claim that "Kirby had no interest in connecting characters if he could avoid it" when the very existence of the Fourth World books says otherwise? Cei-U! I summon the counterargument? Cool. Thank you. I didn't have time to google that. (And I'd already spent ten minutes looking!) |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Feb 26, 2016 20:33:24 GMT -5
From what I've read about the origin of the Marvel Method, it didn't start as a way to get artists to do more of the work - it started as a favor to the artists. It was a way that they could keep drawing even if Stan didn't have the next script ready. As freelancers, the artists needed to be drawing, and if Stan couldn't keep them busy they'd be looking for another gig, and/or their income would suffer. I think Stan tried to be a good boss, as he understood it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 20:42:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 26, 2016 22:22:05 GMT -5
I do think that Stan was the first to grasp the idea of shared universe continuity as a marketing gimmick to sell books, and I'm surprised (given how well it works!) that this hasn't been adapted by movies/tv/novels etc.
Putting Daredevil in Spider-man might get people to check out Daredevil, PLUS the sense of it "all being the same story" might mean that fans will want to check out ALL the Marvel books so they don't miss anything.
Also, on another note, Stan was maybe the best writer at defining character through dialog to even work in comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Feb 26, 2016 22:53:32 GMT -5
Stan was the conductor and carnival barker-in-chief.
I don't mean either in a disparaging way.
He oversaw the creators and basically connected the books tightly, which was a brilliant idea. DC had continuity before that, but it was pretty fast and loose. Stan pushed the whole idea of referencing back issues, connectivity and a tight inter-crossing of characters and titles.
No one had trumpeted comics publicly as a form before Stan, and he was in the right place at the right time, especially as he was one of the main driving forces behind putting the newer, hipper twist on DC's musty old neutered line.
Bear in mind the time as well. It's was the 60's, baby ! The Beatles and counterculture were in swing and Stan made everyone feel connected and important through the letters pages and Stan's Soapbox.
In retrospect, and today's different climate, I'm sure Stan wishes he could change things so artists could have a piece of what they'd help to create, especially Ditko and Kirby.
As far as the Marvel method, that was born out of necessity. Stan was swamped, writing and overseeing this new universe, and basically plotted and scripted while giving the artist the freedom to develop the lay out mostly as they saw fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 27, 2016 4:24:24 GMT -5
I know ultimatejzebel put this up just for fun, but I'm genuinely curious what everyone thinks of it. I forget when exactly it was taken or where I first saw it, but I'm pretty sure it was in the early 70s and know it was before I ever saw or even heard of the Burt Reynolds Playgirl photo it was presumably parodying. At the time I thought it was pretty cool of Stan to be so daring, but how does it come across now? Still OK, sleazy, or what? Also, you have to say that it kind of sums up Stan in a way - can you imagine Kirby (let alone Ditko!) ever posing for a picture like that? Or, if they did, enjoying it with such obvious glee? He was a showman through and through and loved the spotlight. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 27, 2016 4:30:25 GMT -5
Stan Lee changed superhero comics forever: no one had done anything like it before and everything afterwards has been influenced by Stan's work directly or indirectly. More important than the shared universe (didn't DC already have that?) to me were the addition of early-MAD-style humour and soap-opera sub-plots and characterisation. I also think you have to make a distinction between his work with Kirby and Ditko on the one hand, where the artist was probably coming up with the basic concept and Stan was mainly an interpretor/scriptor, and on the other hand his work with artists like Romita or Colan, where Stan really was the writer for all intents and purposes, though the artist had a lot of freedom to interpret the story visually. We lump them all under the "Marvel method" but there's a big difference, IMO. Nah, Romita definitely did a lot of the plotting, and I think Colan did his fair share as well. And while I totally credit Stan with the Jewish humor of the early Marvels, I don't think it's impossible that a lot of the soap opera came from the guy who invented romance comics. Whoever came up with them, they were of an entirely different order from what Ditko was doing in Dr. Strange or Kirby in Thor and the FF. I still feel like I see more of Stan writing by himself in Daredevil (because the plots in a series like DD were so rudimentary) than in the Kirby/Lee collaborations. Good observation about the romance comics, but the question is: would Kirby have thought of combining the two genres without Stan? Had he done anything like that before? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 15:16:39 GMT -5
I know ultimatejzebel put this up just for fun, but I'm genuinely curious what everyone thinks of it. I forget when exactly it was taken or where I first saw it, but I'm pretty sure it was in the early 70s and know it was before I ever saw or even heard of the Burt Reynolds Playgirl photo it was presumably parodying. At the time I thought it was pretty cool of Stan to be so daring, but how does it come across now? Still OK, sleazy, or what? Also, you have to say that it kind of sums up Stan in a way - can you imagine Kirby (let alone Ditko!) ever posing for a picture like that? Or, if they did, enjoying it with such obvious glee? He was a showman through and through and loved the spotlight. Stan actually talked about that picture when he appeared on last week's episode of Comic Book Men. And he says they were all joking about the Burt Reynolds Playgirl pic and how much press it got and the guys in the bullpen told him he should do something similar to get press for Marvel and egged him on into doing it, and he agreed, but now thinks it was probably a bad decision. Like all Stan stories, you can take it with a grain of salt or it could be true. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 15:27:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it was in the early 70s and know it was before I ever saw or even heard of the Burt Reynolds Playgirl photo it was presumably parodying. Would have been more like the early 80s as that Batman/Hulk Treasury came out in 1981. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 27, 2016 17:39:55 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it was in the early 70s and know it was before I ever saw or even heard of the Burt Reynolds Playgirl photo it was presumably parodying. Would have been more like the early 80s as that Batman/Hulk Treasury came out in 1981. I'm even more impressed - Stan was in great shape, considering how old he must have been in 1981. |
|
|
|
Post by JKCarrier on Feb 28, 2016 16:47:47 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it was in the early 70s and know it was before I ever saw or even heard of the Burt Reynolds Playgirl photo it was presumably parodying. Would have been more like the early 80s as that Batman/Hulk Treasury came out in 1981. I believe the pic was originally intended for the "Marvel Fumetti Book", which came out in '84. But they chickened out and printed a version where Stan is covered up in a "Hulk suit" instead (you can see that version here). I don't think the "uncensored" version was ever officially released, but stuff like this always seems to leak out sooner or later... |
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Feb 29, 2016 18:43:02 GMT -5
That Stan photo was mentioned (but not shown) in Sean Howe's great book, page 261. Howe indicates it was shot in January 1983 and that the photo was shot by Eliot R. Brown. The text from Howe's book may be read here, the picture's included: seanhowe.tumblr.com/post/30036061521/stan-lee-centerfold-photograph-by-eliot-rBtw, the Burt Reynolds centerfold was in Cosmopolitan, not Playgirl. The magazine was cover dated April 1972 so it likely hit the stands in late March 1972, a few months before the release of the film Deliverance (probably his best film work at the time). Months earlier Burt had appeared on a talk show with Cosmo editor Helen Gurley Brown and she thought he'd be perfect as Cosmo's first centerfold; this was after her first choice, Paul Newman, had declined her offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 19:09:40 GMT -5
If shot in 1983, that would put Stan at 61 years old (born 1922). You don't find many sexagenarians having such ribald fun. Excluding Ish of course. |
|
