|
|
Post by tolworthy on Aug 3, 2014 11:57:13 GMT -5
I just received a whole pile of Alan Class comics. I am in heaven! Alan Class reprinted old American comics in Britain: most seem to be Marvel and Charlton mystery stories from 1961 give or take 3 years, with a few superheroes from the period. It's fascinating. For the first time in my life I can read a whole pile of Lee-Ditko fantasy and monster tales, alongside early superheroes like Ant Man. One thing seems obvious to me: Marvel's success was a complete accident. A total fluke. Entirely down to chance. In my opinion. Now, according to both Stan and Jack, it was all planned. According to Origins of Marvel Comics, Stan Lee one day decided to write good comics. And according to Kirby's 1980s interviews, HE decided to pull out all the stops and save Marvel. And yet... it seems to me that the truth is the other way around. Success was a complete fluke, and they then decided it was deliberate. It seems to me that Marvel published average fantasy stories (which I LOVE by the way) and then mediocre superheroes. Really, those early Ant Man, early Iron Man, Strange Tales Torch, early Thor, etc? Classics they ain't. Early Hulk was more interesting, but it was cancelled, which tells you what readers thought. Yuck! So here's my theory of how Marvel was a complete accident: DC did it. In 1961 Stan needed to sneak a superhero comic past National (DC), who distributed his comics and would not appreciate them competing with their own superheroes. So thanks to DC, Stan was forced to make it look like a monster comic. But the thing about monster comics is, - the humans are not the stars, so they can have human weaknesses (unlike superheroes)
- the stories are usually done-in-one, so you can have real changes, real conflict: no limits (unlike those safe superheroes)
Lo and behold, fans liked it! Thanks, DC, Marvel owes you one! So in 1962, when the sales on the FF were looking good, Stan was more open to new ideas if they included realism. So he let his two best artists a bit more freedom to each do the one thing they had always wanted to do. - Kirby, the fighter, was interested in real legends, so he was allowed to do Tales of Asgard as a backup.
- Ditko, the introvert, was interested in real people, so the next character was allowed to be particularly weedy, young, with extremely down to earth problems.
Nobody expected them to be hits: all the efforts of Lee, Kirby and Ditko to deliberately create hit superheroes (Ant Man, most of Kirby's own stuff, Mr A. etc) generally got cancelled. So we have three ideas that sold: realism, heroic gods, and problems. Gradually, from 1963 to 1964, these three concepts spread to all the comics. Stan was doing what he always did, blindly following whatever sold, and the rest is history. I find this fascinating because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is generating a ton of money for the people who can claim to have created these ideas, when nobody did: sure, people put in a lot of work, but the fact that idea A was a success and idea B was a flop, well that was totally random, in my opinion. Any thoughts? |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409 
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 3, 2014 12:34:57 GMT -5
I think that your theory holds water a lot better than the "it was all planned" self -serving explanation.
But even if the initial start of Marvel was a fluke, I am convinced that its success as a phenomenon was due to Stan's hyperbolic communication style and to Jack Kirby being allowed to fire on all cylinders.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Aug 3, 2014 13:44:10 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. They were the right people at the right time. And I am thankful for it! I would never have heard of Marvel (and the stories would not have lasted as long) if not for Stan Lee, and I would not have cared if not for Jack Kirby.
But I find it fascinating that they could not duplicate the magic afterwards.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 3, 2014 15:26:38 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. They were the right people at the right time. And I am thankful for it! I would never have heard of Marvel (and the stories would not have lasted as long) if not for Stan Lee, and I would not have cared if not for Jack Kirby. But I find it fascinating that they could not duplicate the magic afterwards. That's true, and it does suggest that it was a fluke as much as anything else. Raw talent does not guarantee success, as we've often seen. Besides, I am convinced that the motivation of the Founding Fathers (as it were) of the Mighty Marvel Comics Group was not to revolutionize comics or to create an empire. Stan seemed to simply derive a lot of fun out of writing in a grandiose and flamboyant style and Jack, I suspect, was the quintessential creator who creates for creation's sake. Linking all the new characters in a coherent world was a very clever move, as was making the nascent Marvel universe a world based in science-fiction rather than pure fantasy. Trying to tap into the 60s pop culture vein was also very smart. For a few years back then, it was good move after good move; even sometimes lousy stories couldn't stop the momentum (and with people like Lee, Kirby and Ditko, lousy stories were few and far between anyway). I think the magic could never be recreated later on, even by the founders, because it had already been done... by them. Trotsky might have argued in favour of a permanent revolution, but there is no such animal. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 16:49:09 GMT -5
Wonder the same about DC's Silver Age. If the Flash & GL revamps had not sold well DC would have been very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Aug 3, 2014 18:05:11 GMT -5
A superhero is only as effective as his villains. Timely (and later, Atlas) leaned heavily on Nazis, "Japs," and "Commies," even into the Marvel Age. Often lazy and one-dimensional, the villains never seemed to rise to the level of the heroes. Few, if any, were memorable at all.
Then, in the first years of Marvel we had Dr. Doom, Loki, Dr. Octopus, Kang, Baron Zemo, Magneto, etc., as well as a re-purposed Namor and Red Skull, villains who possessed the necessary gravitas to elevate the proceedings and enhance the grandeur of these heroes who were capable of defeating them. The villainy may have its roots in the Monster comics, the grandiose, megalomaniacal bad guys who threatened global extinction, but that blueprint provided the perfect challenge for the Marvel heroes.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 3, 2014 18:52:05 GMT -5
I believe you were the one, tolworthy, who made the case ages ago that Fantastic Four #1 was likely originally intended to be a one-shot story in Amazing Fantasy or some other similar anthology title. The evidence all lined up neatly, and that forever changed my impression of the beginning of Marvel. But the new information you offer here is even more enlightening.
Thanks for constantly keeping us thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 3, 2014 19:32:58 GMT -5
Tolworthy,
I agree in some respects. None of the key players had any ideas of revolutionizing the medium or even expressing themselves personally. They were trying to sell funnybooks to a fickle young audience; trying to come up with something that might last more than the many short-lived successes Lee, Ditko and Kirby in particular had all experienced. I say "last," but I mean maybe something along the lines of 6-7 years, rather than a craze-idea that burnt out more quickly because of contingent circumstances (no more WWII, fewer patriotic superheroes) or the craze burning out (3-D comics).
Thus you can look at a lot of stuff, like the Ant-Man work, and see stuff not much more radical than a Mary Marvel adventure. This was the stuff the pros did to pay the bills.
OTOH, I think that even as pros they were capable of getting jazzed about certain ideas, and regardless of whether Stan or Jack came up with "heroes with problems," I think they both invested a lot of energy into making certain books the best they could. I think they did start patterning the superhero stories more after the mystery tales: I've often commented that the Spidey Origin reads like your basic "monkey's paw" tale, where an innocent learns the cost of using power improperly.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 3, 2014 19:34:58 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. They were the right people at the right time. And I am thankful for it! I would never have heard of Marvel (and the stories would not have lasted as long) if not for Stan Lee, and I would not have cared if not for Jack Kirby. But I find it fascinating that they could not duplicate the magic afterwards. Do you mean after the two were no longer collaborating? |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2014 20:08:23 GMT -5
tolworthy, you drew me in with the sensational title for this thread. I only agree as far as any creator can't possibly know what the public will accept. They did their best and used their best ideas and hoped for the best. Many movie studios create movies that they Think will be a hit , only to bomb. It's a gamble. Valiant comics had a plan which worked for about 5 years and then they crashed. Marvel built on their foundations to become the blockbuster that they are today.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,866
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 3, 2014 20:10:16 GMT -5
Valiant comics had a plan which worked for about 5 years and then they crashed. That was due less to the original plan failing and more to Jim Shooter being ousted, followed by the original owners selling Valiant to a video game company that had extended itself too far and had no idea what to do with a comic book line. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2014 20:17:05 GMT -5
Valiant comics had a plan which worked for about 5 years and then they crashed. That was due less to the original plan failing and more to Jim Shooter being ousted, followed by the original owners selling Valiant to a video game company that had extended itself too far and had no idea what to do with a comic book line. It proves that Stan Lee and Kirby were instrumental in building " The Accident". |
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Aug 4, 2014 1:39:14 GMT -5
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. Sorry it took so long to reply - I've been at work. Do you mean after the two were no longer collaborating? Yes, or even earlier than that. My pet theory is that it all went pear shaped in 1968. Stan (following Martin Goodman) made a number of decisions that, to my mind, cause Marvel's skyrocketing sales to begin to fall. It suggests to me that they did not realise what was causing the sales in the first place. Then a few years later when Stan left for Hollywood. Stan wanted to leave comics to write movie scripts. , it suggests to me that he did not realise what he was leaving behind! He had created something more beloved to its fans than any movie could be (and years later a multi billion dollar movie franchise would be just one result). I don't think Stan realised what he had. I only agree as far as any creator can't possibly know what the public will accept. True, and they certainly put in the effort. It's interesting to see how many covers and inner panels were changed: Stan really cared. Yet even after he hit the jackpot and had legions of adoring fans, I'm not sure he knew what had happened, or why. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,409
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 4, 2014 5:07:29 GMT -5
Valiant comics had a plan which worked for about 5 years and then they crashed. That was due less to the original plan failing and more to Jim Shooter being ousted, followed by the original owners selling Valiant to a video game company that had extended itself too far and had no idea what to do with a comic book line. Yeah, the plan didn't fail... It was abandoned! Part of the appeal of Valiant (to me) was that in reaction to the general early 90s trend, it focused on the stories and had a long term vision. It started failing when it joined the bandwagon of killing most supporting characters, undoing all he world-building that had been the hallmark of the line and trying to become another early Image comics. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 4, 2014 5:13:19 GMT -5
Another great, thought-provoking post there, tolworthy. Thanks!
To echo shaxper, this is my favourite post of yours since your "Fantastic Four #1 was originally devised as a monster story for Amazing Fantasy" post on the old CBR board. I actually debated your points in that old post with a couple of comic reading friends down the pub one night (and we decided you were probably right). I could definitely see myself doing the same with the ideas you've put forward in this thread.
|
|
