|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 23, 2024 13:24:00 GMT -5
Kirby had used Thor as a character at least twice prior to working for Marvel and there had been a Fox super-hero based on Thor in the early '40s, so it's not like the idea was brand-new to comics. It isn't hard to believe he suggested it to Stan (where Stan's supposed "Super-God" notion is pretty hard to swallow). A lot of Jack's big ideas were rehashes--brilliant rehashes, mind you--of ideas and concepts he'd explored before.
Cei-U!
I summon the precedent!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 23, 2024 13:32:48 GMT -5
There was a playfulness that was addictive, even in the more serious stories, as well as a constant awareness of the larger Marvel universe that was enticing. The Universe building wasn't just about pouring characters in a mag. Team ups were nothing new, I'm guessing appearances had also been done over at DC, but incorporating characters from outside the series to interact with the story, giving the impression of a larger canvas, wasn't what we had initially from Marvel. Take ASM #17-18 and compare them with Annual #1, published immediately before. In the later we see a shameless parade of superheroes doing exactly that, and a no less shameless caption at the bottom of every panel, reminding the reader that each one of them had their own comic. This was Lee's idea of "Universe building", not a creative concept, but a salesman's one. I can't believe Ditko being responsible for doing something that crass. In fact, I like to imagine him teaching Lee a lesson on how to go about it, in his next story, where he incorporates not the whole Marvel roster, but the characters that made sense for the story at hand. Call it crass if you want, Ozzie, but as with so much else that Lee did, he wanted to do what today we'd call "promoting the brand." DC trotted out Superman to introduce new books as early as 1949, when he appeared on the cover of Superboy #1. And how many issues of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, or the Legion-oriented comics appeared without Superman or Superboy on them? DC had the enormous advantage of a flagship character from whom many of the others characters in the industry derived. That’s why Superman would go on to appear on the covers of comics as varied as Shazam!, Captain Action, Inferior Five, and Jerry Lewis. And then there were his regular appearances in Action, World’s Finest, JLA and of course, Superman. Wasn’t that also crass, by your reasoning?. Remember, back then Lee had no such Big Kahuna who could hold down six titles at once, but a hodge-podge of characters whom he inserted, seeded, sprinkled, or if you prefer, jammed, into other books to promote his David of a line against a comics Goliath... and perhaps unwittingly, create the first truly intertwined universe in comics. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 23, 2024 13:53:54 GMT -5
Hopefully I won't be banned over siding with Ayn Rand over Jack Chick. Also I think Lee's writing really shined in Silver Surfer. I sought (and paid good money in the 90's) for the four issues of that series that weren't reprinted. And no Mangog will be Mangog that isn't Kirby's. They both helped me into reading old comics that I would have otherwise not gotten into. Like trying to get me into big band music. I still prefer Gil Kane's Adam (Him) over Kirby's. Why would you get banned? It was more a "joking aside" comment as I've found there are not a lot of Ayn Rand advocates as oppose to dissenters. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 23, 2024 14:24:50 GMT -5
An 8% increase in sales over 3 years is not what I would call a rapid ascent. I do think Romita and Stan did a very good job of keeping Spider-Man's quality. I mean how can you fault Romita's art and storytelling? But to imply it somehow soared into heights unknown by Ditko is a bit hyperbolic.
I also think Stan's work promoting Marvel (maybe his best talent) was having results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 23, 2024 14:34:49 GMT -5
DC had the enormous advantage of a flagship character from whom many of the others characters in the industry derived. That’s why Superman would go on to appear on the covers of comics as varied as Shazam!, Captain Action, Inferior Five, and Jerry Lewis. And then there were his regular appearances in Action, World’s Finest, JLA and of course, Superman. Wasn’t that also crass, by your reasoning?. Remember, back then Lee had no such Big Kahuna who could hold down six titles at once, but a hodge-podge of characters whom he inserted, seeded, sprinkled, or if you prefer, jammed, into other books to promote his David of a line against a comics Goliath... and perhaps unwittingly, create the first truly intertwined universe in comics. To answer your question, I'd have to read those comics, which I haven't in most cases, if any at all. Depends on whether the story made it so it was reasonable to have Superman in it.
I don't think it was unwitting, I think he learned the lesson Ditko taught him, but that's just my opinion. In case you were interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 23, 2024 15:18:48 GMT -5
Why would you get banned? It was more a "joking aside" comment as I've found there are not a lot of Ayn Rand advocates as oppose to dissenters. We calls 'em like we sees 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 23, 2024 15:19:31 GMT -5
Why would you get banned? It was more a "joking aside" comment as I've found there are not a lot of Ayn Rand advocates as oppose to dissenters. Good. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 23, 2024 15:22:25 GMT -5
DC had the enormous advantage of a flagship character from whom many of the others characters in the industry derived. That’s why Superman would go on to appear on the covers of comics as varied as Shazam!, Captain Action, Inferior Five, and Jerry Lewis. And then there were his regular appearances in Action, World’s Finest, JLA and of course, Superman. Wasn’t that also crass, by your reasoning?. Remember, back then Lee had no such Big Kahuna who could hold down six titles at once, but a hodge-podge of characters whom he inserted, seeded, sprinkled, or if you prefer, jammed, into other books to promote his David of a line against a comics Goliath... and perhaps unwittingly, create the first truly intertwined universe in comics. To answer your question, I'd have to read those comics, which I haven't in most cases, if any at all. Depends on whether the story made it so it was reasonable to have Superman in it.
I don't think it was unwitting, I think he learned the lesson Ditko taught him, but that's just my opinion. In case you were interested.
If I weren't, I wouldn't have responded. I just don't know if lee ever sat down and said, "I think I'll invent me an interconnected comics universe."  Not sure what you mean about having to read the comics with Superman on the cover and your definition of "reasonable" as it applies to funny books, to steal from slam bradley. Supes appears throughout the Jerry Lewis issue and he and some of the JLA pop up briefly in I5, which spoofs Marvel, DC, various creators and comics in general. He never even showed up inside the pages of Shazam 1 or Captain Action 1; he kinda sorta served as the host on Shazam and was actually being pushed aside on CA. Take a gander, Oz...   |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jan 23, 2024 15:37:23 GMT -5
When I say DC was outselling Marvel in the 60s, I mean the individual books were out selling the Marvel books. Superman and Action outsold Spider-Man (Marvel's best seller) by 2 or 3 to 1. It wasn't that DC had more books. Archie books were outselling Marvel books. The DC books that outsold Spider-Man in 68 were Superman, Batman, Superboy, Action, World's Finest, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Adventure (Supergirl)
Marvel was getting a very loyal fan base, but it was by no means a juggernaut yet. If memory serves, DC was, in a roundabout way, the DISTRIBUTOR of Marvel's comics, which is why they were limited in the number of titles. DC would not let Marvel distribute the numbers of comics that would outsell their own comics. Breaking away from DC's distribution is where Marvel was able to take a much larger share of the market. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 23, 2024 15:47:00 GMT -5
When I say DC was outselling Marvel in the 60s, I mean the individual books were out selling the Marvel books. Superman and Action outsold Spider-Man (Marvel's best seller) by 2 or 3 to 1. It wasn't that DC had more books. Archie books were outselling Marvel books. The DC books that outsold Spider-Man in 68 were Superman, Batman, Superboy, Action, World's Finest, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Adventure (Supergirl)
Marvel was getting a very loyal fan base, but it was by no means a juggernaut yet. If memory serves, DC was, in a roundabout way, the DISTRIBUTOR of Marvel's comics, which is why they were limited in the number of titles. DC would not let Marvel distribute the numbers of comics that would outsell their own comics. Breaking away from DC's distribution is where Marvel was able to take a much larger share of the market. Whenever I read about how DC distributed Marvel’s comics, I feel the universe is having a laugh. Always peculiar. I think about how Marvel UK once reprinted DC’s Star Trek: TNG comic. Random and peculiar. Not quite the same, but years ago, I was with energy company Ecotricity for my gas and electricity. I lost my electricity meter key. I contacted Ecotricity - and they told me they’d send a replacement but that it might take a while as big energy company E.On produced meter keys for small companies. Fine, but my brain was saying, “Why is E.On producing electricity meter keys for a smaller rival?” The world is peculiar. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 23, 2024 16:05:49 GMT -5
It's interesting to look over the credits for the "second stage" of the Stan Lee/John Romita Spider-Man.
When Don Heck takes over as penciler with #58, Lee takes credit for script, Romita for "breakdown", and Heck for "finalizing." Then it's "produced by Stan Lee and John Romita", with penciler Heck and the inkers getting vague euphemistic credits ("enchantment by Don Heck").
This sort of thing continues as Jim Mooney takes the lead with the lead as penciler, with credits like "Script: Stan Lee, Storyboards: John Romita, Illustration: Jim Mooney". With issue 70, the credits settle on Lee as "author", Romita as "innovator", and Mooney as "illustrator".
John Buscema gets the "innovator" credit with #72-73, then Romita returns as "innovator." Romita and Buscema trade off as "innovators" until issue 80, where Stan is "author/editor", then issue 81 just has the whole gang credited jointly for "story, art, and lettering" (maybe allowing Stan to blame the bottom-of-the-barrel villain "The Kangaroo" on Artie Simek!).
With issue 83, Stan claims the role of "writer", with Romita and "Demeo" as "illustrators." Stan credits himself as "writer", "scripter", "story", and "author" in later issues, and when John Romita steps in again with issue 93 (in place of Gil Kane), it's back to vague "by Stan Lee and John Romita".
With issue 100, as Stan is ready to hand the book over to Roy Thomas, he takes what may have been intended as his final bow with "Created & Written by Stan Lee".
Maybe Lee was just engaging in his frequently-seen playfulness with credits, but my hunch is he was too dependent on Romita to alienate him by running credits that would be interpreted as Lee being the primary plotter. If the very curious "innovator" credit has any actual relationship to the word--and remember, that credit was not a one-time gag, it was the standard running credit for a stretch there--it implies that Romita and Buscema were the ones working from a blank page, creating something new: innovating rather than implementing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 23, 2024 16:15:02 GMT -5
To answer your question, I'd have to read those comics, which I haven't in most cases, if any at all. Depends on whether the story made it so it was reasonable to have Superman in it.
I don't think it was unwitting, I think he learned the lesson Ditko taught him, but that's just my opinion. In case you were interested.
If I weren't, I wouldn't have responded. I just don't know if lee ever sat down and said, "I think I'll invent me an interconnected comics universe." Not sure what you mean about having to read the comics with Superman on the cover and your definition of "reasonable" as it applies to funny books, to steal from slam bradley. Supes appears throughout the Jerry Lewis issue and he and some of the JLA pop up briefly in I5, which spoofs Marvel, DC, various creators and comics in general. He never even showed up inside the pages of Shazam 1 or Captain Action 1; he kinda sorta served as the host on Shazam and was actually being pushed aside on CA. Take a gander, Oz... If Superman doesn't appear in any of those two, yes, that's quite shameless. Byrne had a little (shame):
As for what makes an appearance reasonable or not, I'll refer to my two previous examples: ASM #17-18 for the former and Annual #1 for thee later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 23, 2024 16:50:51 GMT -5
I guess one man's shameless is another man's expected hucksterism; I guess my bar for shameless behavior in plugging comics is not as high as yours, Ozymandias. But that's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 17:42:04 GMT -5
Why is Origins being held up as Gospel? I'm surprised people don't believe it was ghost written. Let's pretend that Kirby was as versed in Norse mythology as his family like to claim he was. Did he approach Stan with a pitch to do a Thor series or was it just an idea that he came up when Lee was prattling on about the next book they wanted to come up with? I think it's fairly obvious that it was Kirby who knew some facts about Norse mythology and that Stan had never heard of it. That doesn't mean that Kirby suddenly woke up out of bed one morning and thought "We've gotta do a Thor book!" Not only that, but a huge chunk of Marvel Norse mythology never happened in the actual mythology. Not sure what you are trying to say here, except that yes, Kirby came up withe the concept and created the Marvel Thor. Kirby was trying to come up with characters to do more superheroes, as he did with the FF, Ant-Man, a Spider-Man idea, the Hulk, and Thor.
It is unfortunate that so many fans take Stan's words as the truth.
Where is the proof that Kirby created the Thor character by himself? That's the problem with these Kirby arguments -- there's never a smoking gun. Kirby was working from full script at the beginning of the Journey into Mystery stories. Thor wasn't created using the Marvel method. Marvel's Thor had little in common with the Thor Kirby had written and drawn in earlier stories. In fact, it more closely resembled the Thor stories that Ditko did at Charlton. Thor was a character that had been used in numerous stories during the Golden Age and wasn't some unknown entity that Jack brought to Marvel because only he knew of the Norse God. Stan had even edited (and possibly written) a Timely comic that used the Thor character. When Jack began plotting/writing Thor he certainly added his knowledge of Norse mythology to the title. Many of the characters were made up and now drawn from actual Norse Mythology, but he was largely responsible for the Marvel version of Asgard. However, with regard to the origins of the Marvel character, Lieber claimed in his deposition that he came up with certain details of the character. That was never challenged in court or anywhere else that I'm aware of. Joe Sinnott said that Kirby was working from full script at that time, and that the issues he did himself were from full script. Yes, Stan made a number of false claims over the years, but Kirby also claimed to have invented everything under the sun. He claimed to have created monster comics, romance comics, superhero comics. He even claimed at one point to have co-created Captain Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 17:52:26 GMT -5
He was a child of the depression and he was making 200k doing freelance artwork. Think about that for a second. You mentioned this 200k figure twice before kirby101 asked about it and that's when you said it was "adjusted for inflation." Not to sound overly critical, but you should have led with that, because that makes it sound like he was making 200k in 1969 dollars, a huge difference. I apologize if I caused any confusion over the 200k figure. I assumed it was a known fact. He was rumored to be earning around $35,000 when he left Marvel, which in today's money is closer to 300k. The exact figure may have been less, but I find the "he had a family to feed" line a little wearisome. |
|
