|
|
Post by commond on Jun 25, 2024 3:58:54 GMT -5
From comicchron: "Also significant about 1966 is that Marvel finally ran its first figures for Fantastic Four and Amazing Spider-Man, in issues #61 and #47 respectively. By this time, both titles were well established, many classic stories having already appeared — and we find Spidey selling over a third of a million copies. We don't know what sales were for these titles between 1962-1965, but it's interesting to note that while they grow throughout the rest of the 1960s, that growth is not dramatic." Amazing Spider-Man eventually climbs into the top 10 in 1969 (#7) with Fantastic Four just outside at #12, but that had more to do with DC's dramatic decline in sales than the Marvel books experiencing a huge growth in popularity. Any particular reason the increase to .15 hurt DC more than Marvel? I know about the .25/.20 fiasco but I don't recall reading about the effects of the .15 increase Comicchron suggests it's because Marvel raised their prices later in the year, but it was basically around the same time. Alan Stewart notes that DC's explanation was rather impersonal while Stan tried to spin it a different way -- Aquaman #46 (Jul.-Aug., 1969) Not sure if Stan's soapbox played any role, but it may point to a significant amount of fan loyalty. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 25, 2024 4:18:50 GMT -5
Here’s that Roy Thomas version of the story we were talking about earlier … - from a 2021 article in The Hollywood Reporter, written by Roy ThomasStan wanted to accommodate Kirby … because he realized that Kirby was valuable to the company … and to Stan. So, in 1966, after Kirby had - at the very least - been contributing substantially to the plots and providing dialogue suggestions and notes on the original art, Stan as editor stopped crediting himself as writer and we now have a co-credit … “Produced by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.” Jack Kirby had been co-plotting the Fantastic Four since 1961. Five years. Before Stan Lee stopped giving himself sole writer credit. Thomas has to add in that Kirby just wasn’t communicating very well. But I have to ask … If he had no idea that Kirby wanted credit for his plots, why did he make this offer? And how does Thomas know that Kirby suggested the “produced by” form of the credit? Is that what Stan told him? I guess every individual reader has to decide for himself. We know that Jack and Roz were extremely hurt and angered by the January 9th, 1966 article in the New York Herald Tribune and that it did irreparable damage to Stan and Jack's professional relationship. I think we can safely assume that the article was the catalyst for the "produced by" credit. Whether Stan suggested it as a means to appease Jack, or Jack demanded it, we'll never know. From what we know of Jack and his personality, I'm inclined to believe that he suggested the shared credit rather than fight for the plotting credit like Ditko did. I'm not sure whether Jack was ready to walk at this point, but he surely must have know the strain that the plotting credit put on Ditko's relationship with Stan, and realistically he must have realized that Stan wasn't above replacing an artist even if Jack leaving was the last thing Stan wanted. Jack's primary motivation, after all, was putting food on the table. We also know that the Kirbys mentioned in the Groth interview that Stan should have at least used a "produced by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby" credit, seemingly forgetting that Stan did run that credit for several years. I don't know where Roy got the story from. Presumably from Stan. Perhaps from office chat. I don't think you can automatically assume it's untrue because it came from Roy Thomas. We also know that it didn't cause any immediate strife between Lee and Kirby. In fact, in a longer piece Roy wrote about it, he suggests that Stan thought the shared credit meant everything was okay and Jack and Stan were back on an even keel. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 25, 2024 4:48:27 GMT -5
One thing I'm curious about is how people think Jack's career would have fared if he'd stayed at National instead of ending up at Atlas. I think we can all agree that Goodman would have closed his comics division if Kirby hadn't joined Atlas in the late 50s, but the reality is that at the time Jack had nowhere else to go. Let's assume he's not blackballed at National and continues to work for DC throughout the 60s.
Given what we know about Jack's feelings about editors, writers and scripts, does anyone think he would have had a problem working under some of the editors at DC or working from full script? Is he respected inside the company? Do they change his artwork at all? Does he develop the same art style as he did at Marvel or something different? How long to people think he lasts at DC?
Despite how Jack felt about Stan Lee and Martin Goodman, and not receiving the proper credit and royalties for the creation of the characters and the plotting of the stories, does anyone disagree that the Marvel Method enabled Kirby to reach new creative heights that he may not have achieved if he'd been at DC simply because it allowed him to the storyteller on the page with less editorial interference than he suffered later on. From a fan's point-of-view, selfishly speaking, did we receive better work from Kirby at Marvel than we would have at DC or do people see it differently?
Conversely, if he stayed on at Marvel instead of quitting for DC, does he eventually start doing more of his own writer-artist work? Would this have been the better move career-wise? Presumably, he gets treated better at Marvel in the early 70s than he did upon his return because the young guys hadn't taken sides in mommy and daddy's divorce.
This is all just spit balling, but it was stuff I was thinking about on my commute home.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 25, 2024 5:50:31 GMT -5
I feel tark is looking at Spider-Man through the lens of today, not 1970 when Stan left.
If Spider-Man was truly a popular culture phenomena, why did Marvel almost go under if not for the Star Wars comics in 77?
Why did Marvel only beat DC in total sales because of reprints, mostly of Kirby and Ditko.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 25, 2024 6:13:39 GMT -5
Flash appeared in Showcase 4,8,13,14, which was June of 58. He got his own title almost a year later in March of 59.
Challengers were in 6,7,11,12 which was Feb of 58. COTU #1 was in May of 58, 4 months later.
If Flash was such a bigger hit, why did they wait a year, while moving Challengers almost immediately into its own title.
Showcase #4 is of great historical significance, but we are talking sales, not places in history right now.
I will also point out that young Roy Thomas reviewed FF #1 in a fanzine and said how much it resembled Kirby's Challengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jun 25, 2024 7:01:41 GMT -5
One thing I'm curious about is how people think Jack's career would have fared if he'd stayed at National instead of ending up at Atlas. I think we can all agree that Goodman would have closed his comics division if Kirby hadn't joined Atlas in the late 50s, but the reality is that at the time Jack had nowhere else to go. Let's assume he's not blackballed at National and continues to work for DC throughout the 60s. Given what we know about Jack's feelings about editors, writers and scripts, does anyone think he would have had a problem working under some of the editors at DC or working from full script? Is he respected inside the company? Do they change his artwork at all? Does he develop the same art style as he did at Marvel or something different? How long to people think he lasts at DC? Despite how Jack felt about Stan Lee and Martin Goodman, and not receiving the proper credit and royalties for the creation of the characters and the plotting of the stories, does anyone disagree that the Marvel Method enabled Kirby to reach new creative heights that he may not have achieved if he'd been at DC simply because it allowed him to the storyteller on the page with less editorial interference than he suffered later on. From a fan's point-of-view, selfishly speaking, did we receive better work from Kirby at Marvel than we would have at DC or do people see it differently? Conversely, if he stayed on at Marvel instead of quitting for DC, does he eventually start doing more of his own writer-artist work? Would this have been the better move career-wise? Presumably, he gets treated better at Marvel in the early 70s than he did upon his return because the young guys hadn't taken sides in mommy and daddy's divorce. This is all just spit balling, but it was stuff I was thinking about on my commute home. It's an interesting creative question. Certainly, many bands within inner turmoil end up creating better music when they're together because of that turmoil than when they're not. What would've happened if Kirby had gone to Archie without Joe Simon... he might have stayed there and possibly had the opportunity to do many of those ideas without interference, but... would it have been as good? It wouldn't have been the same, but it would've been good. New Gods is amazing. Kamandi is amazing. The Demon is amazing. Mister Miracle, etc. One thing is for certain... Kirby created on a grand scale wherever he went. |
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jun 25, 2024 7:03:16 GMT -5
Flash appeared in Showcase 4,8,13,14, which was June of 58. He got his own title almost a year later in March of 59. Challengers were in 6,7,11,12 which was Feb of 58. COTU #1 was in May of 58, 4 months later. If Flash was such a bigger hit, why did they wait a year, while moving Challengers almost immediately into its own title. Showcase #4 is of great historical significance, but we are talking sales, not places in history right now. I will also point out that young Roy Thomas reviewed FF #1 in a fanzine and said how much it resembled Kirby's Challengers. Exactly. But if people ignore these facts, it helps Stan Lee and Marvel continue their lies. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 25, 2024 7:07:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure graduating from Showcase to your own title is much of a barometer...just about every title feature in Showcase did so after Flash. I think Space Ranger was the only one who didn't.... you have Sea Devils, Adam Strange, Rip Hunter, Green Lantern, Atom, Metal Men (and of course Teen Titans MUCH later)
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 25, 2024 7:13:22 GMT -5
It's the time frame we are talking about. Challengers got it's own title in less than half the time that the supposedly much more successful Flash did. But we are told here COTU was not a hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 25, 2024 7:21:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure graduating from Showcase to your own title is much of a barometer...just about every title feature in Showcase did so after Flash. I think Space Ranger was the only one who didn't.... Au contraire, mon frere: Space Ranger's series ran for six years, first in Tales of the Unexpected #40-82, then in Mystery in Space #92-99, 101, and 103.
Cei-U! I summon that little rascal Cryll!
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 25, 2024 7:27:59 GMT -5
LOL Ditko was only able to get 340,000 readers on Spider-Man. Romita added another 40,000 before the numbers started going down. And somehow Ditko was a big failure. Let's try some basic understanding of numbers. In 1966, TASM was ranked #12 among all superhero titles from every publisher. By 1969, ASM rose to #5. Not too much of a head scratcher to conclude that something...hmmm...whatever that might be...was the reason TASM rose from #12 in 1966 to #5 in 1969. One thing is certain: it was not, nor would it ever be Steve Ditko, no matter how defensive some may be over his work and how he was completely overshadowed by Romita.
[/quote]It's not pure conjecture.[/quote][/div]
No, it is pure conjecture if you cannot produce the actual numbers, rather than your reaching "If Lois Lane was selling 458,000 copies in 1960, and Challengers had the same power to get it's own title as quickly as Lois Lane... those Kirby numbers must have been upwards of 400,000 a month as well."
"...must have" is not unequivocal fact, but reaching to--as always--give some credit to Kirby.
Next:
Green Lantern only needed three consecutive Showcase issues (the last published in February, 1960) before he received his solo title, hitting the stands in August of the same year, so by your backfiring criteria, Green Lantern was a bigger hit, and obviously so, as it became one the pillars of DC's Silver Age, unlike Challengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 25, 2024 7:35:04 GMT -5
LOL Ditko was only able to get 340,000 readers on Spider-Man. Romita added another 40,000 before the numbers started going down. And somehow Ditko was a big failure. Let's try some basic understanding of numbers. In 1966, TASM was ranked in 1966, ASM was #12 among all superhero titles from every publisher. By 1969, ASM rose to #5. Not too much of a head scratcher to conclude that something...hmmm...whatever that might be...was the reason TASM rose from #12 in 1966 to #5 in 1969. One thing is certain: it was not, nor would it ever be Steve Ditko, no matter how defensive some may be over his work and how he was completely overshadowed by Romita.
Maybe some would disagree but Romita was a better artist than Ditko and drew the figures beautifully. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 25, 2024 7:52:56 GMT -5
The rise on the list was due to the decline in sales for DC after the Batman show was cancelled, not due to a big increase for ASM. Romita's numbers were barely 10% more than Ditko. Spider-Man became popular under Ditko's hand.
Please stop with this "it only became a hit with Romita".
GL continued with Broome and Kane. Challengers lost Kirby after 8 issues. We are talking about the people who made the books big. The comparison to the Flash is a bust, so drag in GL.
And I don't recall anyone saying Challengers was their biggest book, just that it was a hit under Kirby, and was one of the factors in Marvel doing the FF.
This was dismissed by people here.
|
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jun 25, 2024 8:01:21 GMT -5
I feel tark is looking at Spider-Man through the lens of today, not 1970 when Stan left. If Spider-Man was truly a popular culture phenomena, why did Marvel almost go under if not for the Star Wars comics in 77? Why did Marvel only beat DC in total sales because of reprints, mostly of Kirby and Ditko. Yes. The Cartoon in 1966-67 did as much for Spider-man as the comics ever did. But Spider-man still wouldn't get a movie made for another 35 years. In between that time we'd get 4 Superman movies, 4 Batman movies, a Supergirl movie, 4 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies (!!!), and even a Spawn movie! |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 25, 2024 8:09:47 GMT -5
I feel tark is looking at Spider-Man through the lens of today, not 1970 when Stan left. If Spider-Man was truly a popular culture phenomena, why did Marvel almost go under if not for the Star Wars comics in 77? Why did Marvel only beat DC in total sales because of reprints, mostly of Kirby and Ditko. No, I am not looking through the lens of today, but the rapid ascent of Spider-Man due to the Lee/Romita impact during the period in question, when they were actually on the book, and relevant to this analysis, what impact Spider-Man had as a property and cultural icon, which did not occur during the Ditko era.
This is also a period when TASM roase to become Marvel's far and away best-selling title. There's no spinning that. This is also a period where the character--unlike five of his six selected Marvel stablemates--received a solo animated series--
--rather than serialized segments (being the longest-running of all 1960s Marvel cartoons with three seasons, while Fantastic Four and Marvel Super-Heroes each had one). The period where numerous non-comic publications covered the appeal of the character to adults (Spider-Man having this appeal more than other Marvel characters). The period where Spider-Man merchandising outpaced his Marvel stablemates, which would continue into the 1970s.
So, for the period in question, I would have no need to talk about the late 1970s, when the initial period after Ditko's departure--when the test was how and if Spider-Man would survive and thrive under a new creative power, IOW, did the title and character just sit in a holding pattern of no growth, or did it become wildly popular, which was reflected in its sales position in the genre? The answer is clear, ans noted above, there's no spinning that.
|
|
