|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 22, 2024 14:51:10 GMT -5
I read that DC used to call Marvel brand “I” for imitators. In this case, the imitators surpassed the first version. Yeah, speaking strictly as a reader, the JLA and the DC characters and comics in general never captured my imagination as a kid reading them whereas with Marvel it was a completely different experience. Like night and day. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 22, 2024 15:11:57 GMT -5
My take, for what it's worth, which isn't much and for what anyone cares, which is probably less. 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? The golf story is almost certainly apocryphal. Can we be 100% sure it didn't happen? No. But it smacks of the kind of tall tale that tends to happen with these things. Believing it isn't quite in line with believing in Santa, but it's close. That said, Goodman's business model almost his entire career was to find trends and follow them, preferably while flooding the market. So it's no stretch at all to think that he noticed DC was putting out super-hero books again and asked why Marvel wasn't doing it too. Do I believe that FF happened because JLA was selling so well and a golf game? No. But it's highly probable it happened because DC was suddenly putting out Flash, Green Lantern, JLA, the legacy super-heroes, as well as Showcase and Brave & Bold being filled with superheroes almost monthly. 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/ Meh. The legal issues have been, by and large, either settled, or mooted because of prior lawsuits and the passage of time. There's very little still at stake for either the Kirby or the Ditko estates other than trying to stick it to the man. I also think the argument that FF wasn't work for hire is pretty weak. Particularly given that the second half of FF #1 is almost certainly a re-worked monster story 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. It's extremely clear that the higher ups at DC thought the Marvel books were crap and that their popularity was a flash in the pan. That really didn't start to change until Carmine took over and started to bring in the artist-editors who recognized that DC was creatively moribund. 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. Remove the JLA from history, and the Marvel's destiny walks down a very different path. This is hyperbolic to the point of silliness. Goodman had never met a trend he wasn't going to follow. JLA was a result of superhero books trending because of the success of the Schwartz reboots. Goodman was eventually going to jump on that trend even if Schwartz hadn't rebooted the JSA as the JLA. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 22, 2024 17:28:12 GMT -5
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.
The originator of the golf story was undoubtedly Stan Lee, so I think we can safely assume that he is the source for the JLA story given his close relationship with the publisher. Goodman has never gone on record about anything, although the article I linked to mentions he denied the golf story in a deposition. I don't know where that information comes from but presumably it's true. Jack, of course, claimed that The Fantastic Four was his idea. So, basically you've got Stan bringing up the JLA story during the period where Jack had left Marvel and they were both taking shots at each other. It's entirely possible it was an invention of Stan's to further discredit Kirby's role in the creation of The Fantastic Four and claim sole creatorship. Interestingly, once Kirby returned to Marvel it was all back to happy stories about their collaborative efforts and how special it was, so it's hard to take their 1970s quotes without a grain of salt. Things to consider about the JLA sales story: 1. The timing works out in terms of the publication dates of the JLA and Fantastic Four. 2. The JLA was indeed selling well. 3. It was a team superhero book. 4. It was DC's highest selling non-Superman or Batman book. 5. Dell's market share was shrinking at the same time that superheroes were becoming more popular. 6. Goodman had always copied whatever genre was selling. 7. Goodman didn't have to attend a golf game to learn about the sales. 8. Goodman had been directly involved in the content of the published materials for decades, ordering Stan to do whatever he desired. 9. Goodman didn't listen to Stan at the time, why would he listen to a freelancer like Kirby? Personally, I believe that when Goodman heard that there was another book other than Superman and Batman selling well, and it was a new team concept, he did approach Stan about doing the same thing at Marvel. I also believe that Stan wasn't happy with his role at Marvel. I believe there's a kernel of truth in the things his wife supposedly said to him, not necessarily creatively, but in his role under Goodman. I also believe in the romantic notion of Stan and Jack beating the system instead of producing some knockoff shlock. Now maybe it didn't happen like that. Perhaps Jack beavered away and came up with the entire thing by himself and Stan said it was good and convinced Goodman to publish it. That's equally possible, and certainly a possibility that's been deeply ingrained in the minds of comic fans over the years, but to me that implies that Stan and Goodman had no agency, which doesn't make sense, especially when it comes to Goodman. It also goes against the grain of the complaints whenever Lee or Goodman did take action to screw over the creators. So, apparently when you're creating a book, the publisher and editor sit around twiddling their thumbs, but when it becomes successful suddenly they're making all these Machiavellian moves? I don't buy it. I think a much simpler explanation is Goodman said do the book, they did it the way they wanted to, and when Goodman saw that it was selling he was happy. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 22, 2024 18:32:01 GMT -5
Things to consider about the JLA sales story: 1. The timing works out in terms of the publication dates of the JLA and Fantastic Four. 2. The JLA was indeed selling well. 3. It was a team superhero book. 4. It was DC's highest selling non-Superman or Batman book. 5. Dell's market share was shrinking at the same time that superheroes were becoming more popular. 6. Goodman had always copied whatever genre was selling. 7. Goodman didn't have to attend a golf game to learn about the sales. 8. Goodman had been directly involved in the content of the published materials for decades, ordering Stan to do whatever he desired. 9. Goodman didn't listen to Stan at the time, why would he listen to a freelancer like Kirby? Personally, I believe that when Goodman heard that there was another book other than Superman and Batman selling well, and it was a new team concept, he did approach Stan about doing the same thing at Marvel. Excellent, and quite undeniable bullet points. Well, one must believe editor/writers and publishers are nothing less than absolute hacks / cutthroats when that mischaracterization is designed to inflate the importance of one--and only one--artist to the point of placing him on the throne of Godhood. There's no rational way for anyone to argue Marvel's various parties were not very aware of what DC was doing. Any time an innovator breaks new ground and is rewarded with healthy-to-great sales, the industry takes notice, and often copy+pastes the source. This was the case with teen books in the wake of the Archie explosion, more adult-leaning humor books after MAD, etc. Few were ever above jumping on the new hot thing from an innovator, but for some reason, when it comes to one man (which is what this is ultimately all about), he had no help developing anything at the dawn of Marvel. Simply ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 23, 2024 0:10:48 GMT -5
Things to consider about the JLA sales story: 1. The timing works out in terms of the publication dates of the JLA and Fantastic Four. 2. The JLA was indeed selling well. 3. It was a team superhero book. 4. It was DC's highest selling non-Superman or Batman book. 5. Dell's market share was shrinking at the same time that superheroes were becoming more popular. 6. Goodman had always copied whatever genre was selling. 7. Goodman didn't have to attend a golf game to learn about the sales. 8. Goodman had been directly involved in the content of the published materials for decades, ordering Stan to do whatever he desired. 9. Goodman didn't listen to Stan at the time, why would he listen to a freelancer like Kirby? Personally, I believe that when Goodman heard that there was another book other than Superman and Batman selling well, and it was a new team concept, he did approach Stan about doing the same thing at Marvel. Excellent, and quite undeniable bullet points. Well, one must believe editor/writers and publishers are nothing less than absolute hacks / cutthroats when that mischaracterization is designed to inflate the importance of one--and only one--artist to the point of placing him on the throne of Godhood. There's no rational way for anyone to argue Marvel's various parties were not very aware of what DC was doing. Any time an innovator breaks new ground and is rewarded with healthy-to-great sales, the industry takes notice, and often copy+pastes the source. This was the case with teen books in the wake of the Archie explosion, more adult-leaning humor books after MAD, etc. Few were ever above jumping on the new hot thing from an innovator, but for some reason, when it comes to one man (which is what this is ultimately all about), he had no help developing anything at the dawn of Marvel. Simply ridiculous. Just for variety’s sake, could you provide some quotes to make it a little more clear what you are arguing against? Like “the mischaracterization of one - and only one - artist and placing him on the throne of Godhood.” And maybe include some support that anyone is literally claiming “when it comes to one man (which is what this is ultimately all about), he had no help developing anything at the dawn of Marvel.” Because I don’t think that’s what it’s really about. I think people have noticed that Stan Lee stole a lot of credit. He took sole credit for writing Fantastic Four and Thor. Sure, he was having story conferences with Jack Kirby. He was the editor. That’s what an editor does. He has story conferences with the writer. He didn’t write anything down. The first person to put anything on paper is the artist Jack Kirby. You can quibble about how much Stan Lee did, but it’s very clear that Kirby is co-writer and co-plotter at the very least. But it’s not reflected in the credits. Stan Lee was then adding captions and dialogue. Nobody is disputing this and nobody is saying Stan did nothing. But Jack didn’t get credit for his plotting efforts. And Stan took the money for plotting, which should have gone to Jack. That’s the issue. Stan Lee was a credit thief. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 23, 2024 15:54:10 GMT -5
There were things written down. The Kirbys found synopses in Jack's studio and gave them to Mark Evanier. Stan did offer a plotting credit to Jack, but Jack refused it and settled for the "produced by" credit instead. Whether Stan was prepared to give Jack a percentage of his writing fee is another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 23, 2024 16:18:42 GMT -5
Stan did offer a plotting credit to Jack, but Jack refused it and settled for the "produced by" credit instead. He refused it. It seems to me that if one desires to be officially recognized on the public stage as a writer, then such a person would readily accept a plotting credit. Funny how Kirby's refusal of this key point in the entire "Stan was a thief" / cutthroat / plotted next to nothing / "just the editor" narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 23, 2024 16:19:45 GMT -5
There were things written down. The Kirbys found synopses in Jack's studio and gave them to Mark Evanier. Stan did offer a plotting credit to Jack, but Jack refused it and settled for the "produced by" credit instead. Whether Stan was prepared to give Jack a percentage of his writing fee is another story. I am sorry I forgot to be extra super precise enough for you. Stan seldom wrote anything down before he got the art from Jack Kirby. I am aware that there are a few pieces of paper. But if it’s nothing more than a synopsis, Kirby is still doing the plotting. When exactly did Stan offer a plotting credit to Jack? Do you have a timeline on that? When did the “produced by” credit start appearing? We’re talking about a long period of time. Several years. The process must’ve changed several times. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 23, 2024 16:41:06 GMT -5
The first issue of Fantastic Four with a "produced by" credit seems to have been FF #56, cover dated November 1966.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 23, 2024 17:01:38 GMT -5
The first issue of Fantastic Four with a "produced by" credit seems to have been FF #56, cover dated November 1966. Thanks, chaykinstevens. That’s a big help. Now I’d like to find the source of the story that Kirby turned down the plotting credit. I’ve been looking for it online on and off all afternoon. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it before. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 23, 2024 17:58:13 GMT -5
The source was Roy Thomas
link |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 23, 2024 18:07:47 GMT -5
As the temperature seemingly rises, I feel prompted to day... Peace, peace, true believers!
We all love these comics, and discussion is better served by youthful enthusiasm than by acrimony.
Yes, "youthful". Because even the old geezers among us are still young at heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 23, 2024 19:40:39 GMT -5
Sorry, but HouseRoy is as reliable as Stan when it comes to this.
We are talking about "I created Wolverine Thomas".
And it was so much more than what was on the splash page, Kirby was fighting for the piece of the characters he was promised since they started.
When Stan stared writing "By Lee & Kirby" did Kirby get any of the writer's money?
That is rhetorical, he didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 23, 2024 20:42:17 GMT -5
Sorry, but HouseRoy is as reliable as Stan when it comes to this. We are talking about "I created Wolverine Thomas". And it was so much more than what was on the splash page, Kirby was fighting for the piece of the characters he was promised since they started. When Stan stared writing "By Lee & Kirby" did Kirby get any of the writer's money? That is rhetorical, he didn't. I’m inclined to take anything Roy says with a big helping of salt. But I don’t even know exactly what he sad. The above link to the article links to this page. But I don’t think that’s the issue here. The “produced by” credit (that Kirby supposedly agreed to when he supposedly rejected a credit for plotting) didn’t appear until 1966. So, in this scenario, Kirby plotted The Fantastic Four for five years before Stan Lee offered him a plotting credit. I don’t think Stan looks great in that version of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 24, 2024 2:12:46 GMT -5
When Stan stared writing "By Lee & Kirby" did Kirby get any of the writer's money? That is rhetorical, he didn't. According to Tom Brevoort, no money was paid to the credited plotter in those days. From around the early 70's a flat rate of $25 was paid, which had risen to $50 by the end of the 70's, then Shooter changed things to a split of 1/3 to the plotter and 2/3 to the scripter, later changed by Tom DeFalco to a 50/50 split. tombrevoort.com/2019/07/27/lee-kirby-the-four-work-stages-of-lee-kirby/ |
|
