|
|
Post by commond on Jun 24, 2024 3:36:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 24, 2024 4:36:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 24, 2024 5:01:25 GMT -5
Thanks commond for the links. I always thought about the difference of the personalities of Stan , Jack and Steve and what they brought to the table as salesmen. Stan kept the brand alive. Kirby and ditto never pushed the products and if you relied on them, Marvel would have faded away. Lee in various forums continued to connect to the fans and even today, movie goers know who Stan is and really don't know who Kirby or Ditko are. There are more than a few people that were there in the 60's-70's that will say that both Lee and Kirby did the books together , but I've never seen some that was there say that Jack did them all by himself. All we can go by is old interviews and accounts by people that talked to them like Thomas and Shooter that state that Lee was in charge. Kirby was the idea man, but history shows that he needs a partner. Many of his solos efforts show ideas that are abandoned instead of developed. I love both creators. Even a sports team needs all the players, Jordan never won a championship without teammates to join together with in the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 24, 2024 8:27:26 GMT -5
Stan kept the brand alive. Kirby and ditto never pushed the products and if you relied on them, Marvel would have faded away. Indded. I will always point to a very uncomfortable fact (for the Lee-did-little-to-nothing crowd) easily seen through the process of elimination: history proves The Amazing Spider-Man grew into a publishing and licensing juggernaut under the Romita/Lee era. This was not happening during Ditko's run. Post Marvel--specifically post Lee, Ditko never created or worked on a character with anywhere near the level and impact of Spider-Man once he departed from the title. In Kirby's case, who is going to argue that his post Lee output (no matter how good New Gods turned out to be) approached or matched the height of his run with Lee? If they're being honest, they will not make such an argument. There is a reason why, and its not a coincidence Lee was the key element involved. [/i] Agreed, yet this is always written off as myth or the "propaganda" of alleged Lee loyalists. At the end of it all, Kirby (and Ditko) must be sold as the creative masters who pulled opportunists along for the ride, which is quite nonsensical. Quoted for truth. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2024 8:36:39 GMT -5
Yes, Stan gets credit for being a PR hype man, an editor and dialog writer. The problem comes from him being the originator and creator, with some help from the artist. Something he used his PR skills to claim for decades after he stopped working on books.
Of course they worked together, Ditko and Kirby did the plot and art, and Stan wrote the script after that. Occasionally, as Editor, he would make changes to the stories.
As for Stan making the books a hit. That is not true, all that College circuit stuff came about in the late 60s, after Spidey and the FF were hits.
Don't confuse Mr. Stan Lee Presents, with what was happening when the books started.
And the issue, as always, is Stan's claims of authorship, for things he didn't do, including taking money for things he didn't write.
If someone wants to hand wave that away, that's fine. Some of us are bothered by it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2024 9:01:58 GMT -5
Where are the sales figures that sales got better when Romita took over?
I know FF sales fell after Kirby left. But that was also during a down period for all comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2024 9:08:24 GMT -5
commond __ All we can go by is old interviews and accounts by people that talked to them like Thomas and Shooter that state that Lee was in charge. Kirby was the idea man, but history shows that he needs a partner. Many of his solos efforts show ideas that are abandoned instead of developed. . What ideas did Stan develop, besides " Bring back Doom, or Bring back Galactus". What did he do with the Silver Surfer for 17 issues after he changed Kirby's concept? How were sales on that book? Was there any change or growth to him? Anybody who thinks the Apocalypse / New Genesis storyline was abandoned and not far more complex than anything Stan had worked on, didn't read New Gods. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 24, 2024 9:15:13 GMT -5
It was wrong for Lee to take all the credit
But I will say This about the post Kirby and Ditko books- there is no guarantee in any comic series that sales will continue. There were many “hot” books in comics history that faded after time. Look at the original Captain America , Flagg, Howard the Duck , to name a few. Why did they get cancelled? There has to be a force that keeps it interesting to the comic buyer. Lee gets credit for their longevity. I even point to the revamped Avengers title starting with 17 of volume 1, it could have bombed. Maybe the audience would leave after the big stars were taken off the book. There are no guarantees.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2024 9:25:00 GMT -5
The first Captain America lasted a decade, long after Kirby and Simon left, and long after his WWII purpose was done,
The first issues sold over a million copies, for all those who say Kirby couldn't have hits without Stan. And Challengers was a bigger hit than the Flash when Kirby was doing it.
How were New Gods sales compared to the FF averaging 340, 000?
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jun 24, 2024 9:55:52 GMT -5
So, I was subbed to this thread or so I thought, but come to realize I've missed dozens of posts bc Proboards dropped it from my notifications.
I don't know how, but I'm sure this is Stan Lee's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 24, 2024 10:35:59 GMT -5
It was wrong for Lee to take all the credit But I will say Thai about the post Kirby and Ditko books- there is no guarantee in any comic series that sales will continue. There were many “hot” books in comics history that faded after time. Look at the original Captain America , Flagg, Howard the Duck , to name a few. Why did they get cancelled? There has to be a force that keeps it interesting to the comic buyer. Lee gets credit for their longevity. I even point to the revamped Avengers title starting with 17 of volume 1, it could have bombed. Maybe the audience would leave after the big stars were taken off the book. There are no guarantees. Howard probably ran longer than a lot of people expect. After issue 31, they did the Magazine and when that ended it's run, they left it alone for a few years and then rebooted the comic for two issues sometime before the movie came out I believe IDK, as decent as Mantlo was continuing the style, it just wasn't the same without Gerber They also did the movie tie-in, but I can't really say how successful that was or beneficial to the sales of the comic |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 24, 2024 12:02:14 GMT -5
Where are the sales figures that sales got better when Romita took over? . I believe I posted the sales figures in this thread, and in another, which illustrated how sales steadily increased the year Romita took over The Amazing Spider-Man. As noted in an earlier post, The Amazing Spider-Man was trailing the Fantastic Four--Marvel's biggest title at the time--in sales during the Ditko era; it was only during the Romita era when ASM became Marvel's unchallenged, biggest selling title. Among superhero titles from all publishers in 1966, ASM was #12. By 1969, ASM rose to #5 (with the Fantastic Four then trailing at #9). That rise occurred in the Romita/Lee era, and the point where Spider-Man had become a cultural (and growing licensing) icon, and clearly Marvel's true flagship character/book. One would take from the data that the dramatically rising sales did not (and permanently knocking off the F.F. as Marvel's top seller), nor was it going to happen in the three years / two months of the Ditko era, primarily due to Ditko not being the kind of creator who produced the type of stories (and certainly not art) that would resonate so powerfully with the maturing readership of the mid-late 1960s. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 24, 2024 12:18:18 GMT -5
The first Captain America lasted a decade, long after Kirby and Simon left, and long after his WWII purpose was done, The first issues sold over a million copies, for all those who say Kirby couldn't have hits without Stan. And Challengers was a bigger hit than the Flash when Kirby was doing it. The conversation is centered on the 1960s rise of Marvel as a successful publisher of superhero comics, not Kirby's Silver Age work at DC, or any part of his Golden Age career at all. Its the historic gravity of the Marvel period on which the talent and reputations are judged while there, and it is undeniable that Kirby--after no longer working with Lee at Marvel--never reached the sales figures earned during his partnership with Lee. That is the point, unless someone can post the sales figures for each Kirby title during his entire run at DC, for an accurate comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2024 13:45:40 GMT -5
Where are the sales figures that sales got better when Romita took over? . I believe I posted the sales figures in this thread, and in another, which illustrated how sales steadily increased the year Romita took over The Amazing Spider-Man. As noted in an earlier post, The Amazing Spider-Man was trailing the Fantastic Four--Marvel's biggest title at the time--in sales during the Ditko era; it was only during the Romita era when ASM became Marvel's unchallenged, biggest selling title. Among superhero titles from all publishers in 1966, ASM was #12. By 1969, ASM rose to #5 (with the Fantastic Four then trailing at #9). That rise occurred in the Romita/Lee era, and the point where Spider-Man had become a cultural (and growing licensing) icon, and clearly Marvel's true flagship character/book. One would take from the data that the dramatically rising sales did not (and permanently knocking off the F.F. as Marvel's top seller), nor was it going to happen in the three years / two months of the Ditko era, primarily due to Ditko not being the kind of creator who produced the type of stories (and certainly not art) that would resonate so powerfully with the maturing readership of the mid-late 1960s. I'll have to look, my search didn't turn up ASM for that period. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 24, 2024 14:47:18 GMT -5
Comichron has sales figures for Amazing Spider-Man here. GCD has a scan of the first statement of ownership from ASM #47 here. Date of filing was given as 10/1/66. I think ASM #43 would have been the last issue published before that date, but I don't know how long it would take for a given issue's sales to be known, so what the split would have been between Ditko issues and Romita issues is unclear. Average yearly sales were 340k, with the issue closest to filing date selling 363k, suggesting early Romita was probably selling better than late Ditko. |
|
