|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2024 17:27:20 GMT -5
Okay, we need some scholarship here. The only reference I have ever found that links the JLA to Goodman giving a green light to superheroes is the fictional golf game story. And to me, saying it wasn't that game that didn't happen, but it was still the new JLA book, I need to see somebody (except Stan) that Goodman in fact was swayed by the JLA book.
I can't find any articles or interviews. This by no way means none exist, just that I am not a great researcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 21, 2024 18:07:12 GMT -5
JLA sold fine, but how was that such a big hit to make Goodman shake up everything? And why was their first book modeled after Challengers and then only have individual hero books for 2 years and then not do a JLA type book with the Avengers in 63? Once again, it wasn't a mid-level selling book. It was the 13th best selling book in all of comics. That needs to be drilled home; at the time of JLA's debut, the Silver Age was young, and nearly every publisher wanted in on the superhero trend (Archie would take a little longer jumping on that bandwagon), but there was a process: try whatever worked with single characters (as opposed to an established team right out of the gates), then attempt to bring them together in a group book. I see no difference with the way Marvel waited for The Hulk (debut: 5/1962), Thor (debut: 8/1962), Ant-Man & the Wasp (debut: 1/1962. 6/1963, respectively), and Iron Man (debut: 3/1963), to each catch on before getting the itch to replicate DC's success with a team of dissimilar heroes in the form of The Avengers in September of 1963. The point being that Goodman and Lee's creation of The Avengers was based on a very specific model explosively repackaged and launched by DC: gathering several dissimilar heroes from solo or anthology titles. This is not about whether or not Challengers had an influence on the Fantastic Four, therefore it may have also sparked the Avengers (if that's the suggestion). Aside from historical references from the participants, the "eye-test" evidence for comic publishing / the dawn of Silver Age superheroes during that period of history would be far too coincidental if Marvel just so happened to create a team that is the JLA by another name (an argument which should apply to the Doom Patrol and a certain mutant team book which followed shortly after the former's debut). Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 21, 2024 18:31:57 GMT -5
I imagine much of the scholarly work is based around debunking whether the golf game ever happened, but even if it didn’t, that doesn’t prove that Goodman knew nothing about the JLA’s sales. It simply proves that Liebowitz didn’t tell Goodman about the JLA sales during a game of golf. There’s even a quote from Liebowitz where he says everybody knew about the sales anyway.
Let’s look at some patterns of behavior:
1939 — Goodman sees that comics and the superhero genre are becoming popular and contracts with Funnies Inc.
1948 — Goodman tells Stan to do romance comics.
1951 — Goodman tells Stan to do horror comics.
1955 — Westerns
1958 — Kaiju monsters
And that’s not even touching on how derivative some of these books were.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2024 19:43:25 GMT -5
Tark. I simply don't think the planning was that far ahead.
"Let's do Superheroes Stan, we will start with a team like the Challengers Jack will do, then if that works, then will add few more, And even if the other hit is our Spider guy, we will have enough heroes, absent our two best sellers, to do a team book. Because JLA is the big book."
Don't you think it more logical that he just said to do Superheroes, and a year or so later, when they didn't fail, he thought a team book might work. Again, I don't see the JLA as the spark that birthed the Marvel superhero.
And I will say again, why, if the golf story is pure BS, and we have no other source that Goodman talked about the Justice League, is there reason to think it was the book that pushed Goodman?
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 22, 2024 0:24:27 GMT -5
I think I'm still missing something here - why does anyone care who at Marvel came up with the idea of doing superheroes? If it was a business guy, it was just a business decision: so it worked out - thanks to the creative talent that implemented it beyond his wildest dreams - good for him.
If it was a creative guy, does it matter if it was Kirby or Lee? For me, I don't see why it should. If it was Kirby, it wouldn't raise his stature in my judgement: his achievement was in revitalising the genre as a creator not in coming up with what turned out to be a good business decision. If it was Lee, OK, I suppose it could reinforce the idea that he was a savvy operator, foreseeing the next big thing in comics, but no one ever doubted Stan's good instincts as a salesman. And again, it wouldn't change my idea of him as a comics creator.
Whoever came up with the idea, I doubt they had any idea of the magic that the creative talent at Marvel was going to make with it because that magic emerged from the combination of talents involved, including, as I think everyone will concede, at least to a degree, Stan Lee. Even the biggest creative engines, Ditko and Kirby, though I imagine they probably had some feeling of what they could do if let loose, I don't think would necessarily have foreseen the tremendous burst of creativity and invention that happened for a few short years in the 60s at Marvel. Which to me is far and away the most important thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 22, 2024 1:41:25 GMT -5
Regarding the Avengers book: keep in mind that it was thrown together at the last minute to fill the slot originally intended for Daredevil, which was terminally late thanks to Bill Everett's drinking problem. Marvel had to send something to the printer or face a whopping financial penalty. So even there, the relative success of the JLA title was not the primary impetus for its creation.
Cei-U!
I summon the glimpse behind the curtain!
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 22, 2024 5:23:23 GMT -5
I think I'm still missing something here - why does anyone care who at Marvel came up with the idea of doing superheroes? If it was a business guy, it was just a business decision: so it worked out - thanks to the creative talent that implemented it beyond his wildest dreams - good for him. If it was a creative guy, does it matter if it was Kirby or Lee? For me, I don't see why it should. If it was Kirby, it wouldn't raise his stature in my judgement: his achievement was in revitalising the genre as a creator not in coming up with what turned out to be a good business decision. If it was Lee, OK, I suppose it could reinforce the idea that he was a savvy operator, foreseeing the next big thing in comics, but no one ever doubted Stan's good instincts as a salesman. And again, it wouldn't change my idea of him as a comics creator. Whoever came up with the idea, I doubt they had any idea of the magic that the creative talent at Marvel was going to make with it because that magic emerged from the combination of talents involved, including, as I think everyone will concede, at least to a degree, Stan Lee. Even the biggest creative engines, Ditko and Kirby, though I imagine they probably had some feeling of what they could do if let loose, I don't think would necessarily have foreseen the tremendous burst of creativity and invention that happened for a few short years in the 60s at Marvel. Which to me is far and away the most important thing. I agree that the finished product is the most important thing, and the beautiful thing about The Fantastic Four was that it turned out to be far better than anything Goodman had asked for. Personally, I believe the success of The Fantastic Four was due to the fact that it incorporated both of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's interest. Kirby brought the science stuff and his fascination with mutations, science fiction and space. Stan brought the angsty superheroes with problems melodrama and would occasionally get on his soapbox over things the college kids cared about. As for why people should care, it matters in a legal sense in terms of whether it was work for hire, but it also matters to those Kirby fans who feel he was exploited by Goodman and Lee. As far as I know, Goodman was never interviewed and never went on the record about anything. I believe he may have given a deposition at some point but other than that we never heard his side of the story. Lee has his version of events that we're all familiar with. The Kirbys had theirs. At the end of the day, I don't think that it boils down to recognizing who the true creative force was. I think was about money. It was a different era where people accepted handshake agreements instead of having everything in writing. Goodman apparently promised either through Lee, or personally, to pay Ditko and Kirby royalties but never did. In many people's eyes, the golf story is an example of how Marvel (and now Disney) control the narrative surrounding the creation of their IP. Here's an article from last year that goes into more detail -- www.thenation.com/article/culture/stan-lee-marvel-comics-exploitation/ |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 22, 2024 8:32:20 GMT -5
Regarding the Avengers book: keep in mind that it was thrown together at the last minute to fill the slot originally intended for Daredevil, which was terminally late thanks to Bill Everett's drinking problem. Marvel had to send something to the printer or face a whopping financial penalty. So even there, the relative success of the JLA title was not the primary impetus for its creation. Cei-U! I summon the glimpse behind the curtain! Has this ever been verified? I've seen it repeated quite a bit, but never with a source attributed to it. I know the Motley Fool was the first to write about this, and they provided no source nor evidence to back it up. It makes sense; I'm just not sure it's a proven fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 22, 2024 9:22:54 GMT -5
Regarding the Avengers book: keep in mind that it was thrown together at the last minute to fill the slot originally intended for Daredevil, which was terminally late thanks to Bill Everett's drinking problem. Marvel had to send something to the printer or face a whopping financial penalty. So even there, the relative success of the JLA title was not the primary impetus for its creation. Cei-U! I summon the glimpse behind the curtain! Has this ever been verified? I've seen it repeated quite a bit, but never with a source attributed to it. I know the Motley Fool was the first to write about this, and they provided no source nor evidence to back it up. It makes sense; I'm just not sure it's a proven fact. I first heard it from Roy Thomas. He and Everett were good friends and even roommates at one point so I'm reasonably certain it's true.
Cei-U! I summon the reliable source!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2024 9:38:17 GMT -5
As young people reading these books we never realize what real world situations determine what books we saw and why. The behind the scenes stories are fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 22, 2024 9:38:58 GMT -5
I agree that the finished product is the most important thing, Agreed, and in the case of Marvel titles such as The Avengers and X-Men, part of that finished product's success to live beyond a couple of issues was their foundations--rather, were they planted in good soil, so to speak. That soil was undoubtedly the JLA and Doom Patrol, respectively, as their models were so unprecedented in the Silver Age, that next to no one would be able to keep a straight face and claim the Marvel teams were just snapped into existence by the mind of some alleged "super-creator", or was the wildest example of creative coincidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2024 9:41:56 GMT -5
I read that DC used to call Marvel brand “I” for imitators. In this case, the imitators surpassed the first version.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 22, 2024 10:57:57 GMT -5
I agree that the finished product is the most important thing, Agreed, and in the case of Marvel titles such as The Avengers and X-Men, part of that finished product's success to live beyond a couple of issues was their foundations--rather, were they planted in good soil, so to speak. That soil was undoubtedly the JLA and Doom Patrol, respectively, as their models were so unprecedented in the Silver Age, that next to no one would be able to keep a straight face and claim the Marvel teams were just snapped into existence by the mind of some alleged "super-creator", or was the wildest example of creative coincidence. And who said that? What I questions was NOT if two years into the Marvel superhero Universe, they decided to do their own super team and maybe the JLA was one of the factors. . But if the JLA in 1961 was the reason Marvel first tried superheroes. I say again, absent the golf game myth, is there any historical record of those involved saying it was. Further "unprecedented"? In the early 60s, they were just reviving superheroes, "Silver Age wasn't even used until 1965. The 40's were barely a decade old. Super teams were all over the place. To think that teaming up the superheroes was some amazing creation that Goodman or Stan would not think of without the JLA is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 22, 2024 11:02:35 GMT -5
I read that DC used to call Marvel brand “I” for imitators. In this case, the imitators surpassed the first version. I don't think DC thought Marvel's were good books. And sales in the 60s confirmed it for them. The whole industry changed in the 70s, and their 60s model did not help them keep up. Though by the end of the 70s they reorganized their line and were as relevant as Marvel into the 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 22, 2024 11:37:08 GMT -5
In the early 60s, they were just reviving superheroes, "Silver Age wasn't even used until 1965. The 40's were barely a decade old. Super teams were all over the place. To think that teaming up the superheroes was some amazing creation that Goodman or Stan would not think of without the JLA is absurd. Superhero interest died in the Golden Age, with only a couple of titles--the bigger legacy titles at DC--still enjoying some sort of reader interest. There were no "super teams all over the place" at the dawn of the Silver Age at all, and would not be until the JLA set the standard in March of 1960, one that's still used over 60 years later. This was no All-Winners Squad (ending only after a feeble, short run in 1946) or JSA (ending in 3/1951), nor were any average young readers even thinking of those relics at the time (if they were aware of those concepts at all), so any attempt to undercut the impact of DC's innovation to an audience who did not care or were even aware of that history is grabbing at anything to shift the creative impact / influence all to one person in one way or another, which is the absurd part, as its certain that DC's historic revival of superheroes, then turned into a successful group title led the more than inspirational charge for any publisher of superhero teams in the 1960s. Remove the JLA from history, and the Marvel's destiny walks down a very different path. |
|
