Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 29, 2024 8:57:55 GMT -5
When 1/3rd of DC's line of comics goes down and gets canceled because they outprice themselves at 25 cents, it's the failure of Kirby's New Gods, but when Marvel's numbers drop it's because the whole industry is going downhill. How to explain Star Wars then? As for Star Wars, many non comic fans bought the book It's worth noting that although Star Wars was supposedly "the book that saved Marvel", it too suffered falling sales figures for every year that it was published (for the years that we have figures for anyway). From things I've seen about sales of Fantastic Four and Spider-Man through the '60s and '70s, and Star Wars in the '70s and '80s, I think there was definitely a gradual but sustained fall in comic sales across those decades -- certainly up til the early-to-mid '80s. Any discussion of a particular creative team's merits based on sales figures has to take that overall downward trend into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 9:08:15 GMT -5
Wikipedia says the NZ was "Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby". With top billing for Lee. Amazingly, Marvels own website does credit Kirby. So there is hope. More than likely because Stan did not give Kirby detailed synopses with details like special metals. I'm sure I've read that the Negative Zone was Kirby's thing and that he originated it precisely so that he could incorporate collage and interstellar photographs into the artwork, which he sort of did. Can't remember where I read this though. I have read that in several places, though I can never find the original source. Just referred back to.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 29, 2024 9:17:30 GMT -5
When 1/3rd of DC's line of comics goes down and gets canceled because they outprice themselves at 25 cents, it's the failure of Kirby's New Gods, but when Marvel's numbers drop it's because the whole industry is going downhill. How to explain Star Wars then? As for Star Wars, many non comic fans bought the book It's worth noting that although Star Wars was supposedly "the book that saved Marvel", it too suffered falling sales figures for every year that it was published (for the years that we have figures for anyway). From things I've seen about sales of Fantastic Four and Spider-Man through the '60s and '70s, and Star Wars in the '70s and '80s, I think there was definitely a gradual but sustained fall in comic sales across those decades -- certainly up til the early-to-mid '80s. Any discussion of a particular creative team's merits based on sales figures has to take that overall downward trend into consideration. The entire industry was having falling sales. I think that what saves Marvel was the initial series and all the reprints and different formats that Marvel sold.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 9:29:10 GMT -5
I don't know why the Fourth world books failed. It was Kirby's ultimate masterpiece, I'm thinking maybe the Bi-monthly status affected it. As for Star Wars, many non comic fans bought the book If memory serves, at least part of the problem was that certain wholesalers were keeping back hundreds of copies, reporting them as unsold, then selling them at a discount under the table, resulting in pure profit for them and a net loss for DC. (This was also true for other popular but "badly performing" series at both DC and Marvel.) Factor in some behind-the-scenes sales figure manipulation shenanigans by DC staffers who resented Kirby and wanted the books to fail and...
I think it was the late Bob Bierbaum who first ferreted out these unpleasant facts but I could be misremembering. Hopefully, one of our fellow CFFers who can access their fanzines more easily than yours truly can point you in the right direction.
Cei-U! I summon the dark side (get it?) of 1970s comics retailing!
THIS^^^ Affadavit fraud was a very real component of why some books that were popular in the day were cancelled. Why were Neal Adam's X-Men and his Green Lantern cancelled, when even then, there was such big fan excitement about them? Why was Conan in trouble early and early issues hard to find, when there were so much interest in the book (it thankfully recovered). Why were sales on such a big event like Kirby's Fourth World, with Marvel fans going to DC to buy the books, "not good enough". Affidavit Fraud was very real and took down more than a few books that fans today look back on as high points.
As I have pointed out before, we don't really know what the Fourth World numbers were or why DC decided to cancel them. We have heard they were a mid selling book and that books with lower sales were not cancelled. But for DC mid selling could be 300,000 compared to Bats and Supes. And 300,000 was better than the FF at that time. So was Kirby's failure still a better seller than the still "hit" book, the FF? Add in affidavit fraud and where are we really?
And all this is just to point out that the narrative that Kirby could not succeed without Stan is blatant BS. The situation was more complex and quite apart than fans reading the book or not.
In truth, Stan could not succeed without a great artist doing the heavy lifting.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 9:35:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 9:53:49 GMT -5
But, but, but ...Stan did give credit to Ditko and Kirby.
From Stan Lee's autobiagraphy in 2002.
Notice "co-creator is in quotes. And even then, he claims all the ideas, all the characters, all the concepts, originated with him and him alone.
You are being so generous Stan. as you continue to steal from those who did the real creating.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 29, 2024 10:43:29 GMT -5
Fantastic Four didn't tank after Kirby left. It remained Marvel's second best selling book. Sales figures were down across the board. If there had been a faster drop towards the late 70s figures I could see your point. Besides, if you following your logic, FF was already losing readers while Kirby was still on the book. Right. When 1/3rd of DC's line of comics goes down and gets canceled because they outprice themselves at 25 cents, it's the failure of Kirby's New Gods, but when Marvel's numbers drop it's because the whole industry is going downhill. How to explain Star Wars then? And how is it a victory for the FF when the #2 book is selling 100,000 less copies a month than #1? How do you explain when John Byrne took over and the numbers went up on the FF? Or when he left? How do you explain during the speculation years when it didn't budge? That book lost popularity when Kirby left - plain and simple. 1978 177,802 1979 253,831 Byrne's first run as artist 1980 228,207 leaves the book 1981 192,731 1982 234,043 comes back as writer/artist 1983 257,298 1984 268,568 1985 264,760 1986 251,083 1987 216,108 leaves again 1988 185,305 1989 180,000 1990 187,008 Speculation Years 1991 217,200 Speculation Years 1992 205,542 Speculation Years As I said, the Fantastic Four was already losing readers while Kirby was still working on it. Whether that was because of the price increase or a decline in the quality of stories, I don't know, but it definitely didn't go from 340k on Kirby's last issue to 285k on the next issue. I'm also not sure what any sales figures after Kirby and Lee leave matter in terms of this debate. Are we meant to assume that if Kirby had stayed on the book it would have continued to sell well throughout the 70s? What conclusions are we meant to draw from the figures? Was Kirby's Fantastic Four so special that other creators struggled to handle the material? Were the characters not as popular as other titles? Why bring up Star Wars? Star Wars was a cultural phenomena. I'm not sure you can say the same about the Fantastic Four.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 29, 2024 11:00:47 GMT -5
But I guess, since the dialog in those books was what was really important, he can take the credit. Hey, c'mon…there's no need to be sarcastic towards posters here who think that Stan's dialogue was an important component of what made these stories great. That's not the appropriate tone for this thread. But to your point, Stan didn't "just" do dialogue. That's way too simplistic a take on it. He was a co-creator of most, if not all, of Marvel's classic Silver Age superheroes and many of the monthly stories originated with him (or co-originated with him), and after providing a rough plot outline -- verbal or on occasion typed -- he allowed the artist to run with it. He would then add the dialogue which gave the characters life, and his scripting was almost always entertaining. On some occasions, Stan's dialogue could even be surprisingly deep and philosophical, given that these comics were aimed at 8 to 14-year-olds for the most part. The fact that Stan was something of a braggy, carnival huckster and did often take too much credit for himself shouldn't obscure the fact that he was an extremely important part of Marvel's success in the '60s. His contribution to the personalities of these fictional characters is also a big part of why we're still talking so passionately about those comics 60 odd years later.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 11:17:01 GMT -5
I edited out that sarcastic last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 29, 2024 11:24:19 GMT -5
That's certainly an interesting possibility. I have always thought that the artwork did a really poor job of what Stan's dialogue was telling us had happened, so you might well be right. This, however, I just don't see at all. Don't forget, that when Everett and Lee where developing the character, prior to working on issue #1, it was Everett who came up with the idea of Daredevil being blind, inspired by his own daughter who was visually impaired. It was Stan, however, who came up with the idea of Daredevil having a radar-sense (I've read that he was worried that the concept of heightened abilities might offend some blind people). Given that the concept of this new Daredevil being blind and having a radar-sense were in place before work started on that first issue, I find it improbable that Everett was drawing Matt Murdock getting about via an electronic gizmo in his cane. Besides, as I say, I just don't see that in the artwork you posted. I still haven't read most of these very early DD issues so these images are new to me but I can see why it might strike someone that way. Looking at the series of pings along Matt Murdock's meandering path, they seem to be reflected back from the objects he then avoids - the girl, the desk, the corner, etc. So far, so good, that's just how a radar is meant to work. But the last ping, the only one that we see "in real time", as it were, does seem to be reflected back towards Matt Murdock's cane, not his head - I think that's a significant point in support of MWGallaher's idea. Not conclusive all by itself, but still suggestive. Are there any other Everett panels showing the radar at work?
No, there is nothing else in the issue showing the radar. There are some panels showing him using his hearing and sense of smell to aid his heroic activities, but those could have been originally intended to be representations of Matt's training to refine his natural senses, as per the notion--which was at the time taken as established fact--that blind people's other senses improve to compensate for the lack of vision. My contention is that "the concept of this new Daredevil being blind and having a radar-sense" were in fact not in place before work started: that Stan Lee did indeed come up with the radar-sense angle but that it came after Everett completed the pages, exactly contrary to what Confessor takes as a given. This gets to just the point I was trying to express: if we take as a given that all the key elements were in place before Stan's artists (in this case, Everett) did their work, it it's not surprising that someone says "I just don't see that in the artwork..." I think it's quite clear in the artwork that he is walking with the crook of the cane (where, presumably, the electronics are installed) pointing ahead of him (which, again, is absolutely not how someone who is blind or is trying to appear blind would carry it), and that the "pings" are all shown at the level of the cane, and emitting from the crook of the cane. Bottom line is, I think Everett gave Stan a story about a blind superhero acrobat, Stan decided it was too implausible and injected the radar-sense concept by tacking on some radioactive waste that wasn't part of Bill Everett's pages. Which leads to questioning just how detailed a plot he gave Everett, if he gave him any plot at all, which, ultimately, leads to looking at all the early Marvel comics in a different light, when we divorce ourselves from presumptions about their development process.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 29, 2024 11:47:36 GMT -5
It leads to Stan claiming he dreamed of ALL the ideas. titles, concepts and characters and then artist like Kirby and Ditko "help him out" is more than simply "bragging, it is pure BS and credit stealing. And that lead to great financial gain for Stan to the detriment of others. Brush that away all you want, but it is not a little thing.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 29, 2024 12:13:41 GMT -5
I edited out that sarcastic last sentence. Thank you, kirby101.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 29, 2024 15:55:24 GMT -5
Or was it "Bill, we are going to take over the old 'Daredevil' trademark. Work me up a story about an acrobatic hero we can use that name for. Make him kind of like the guy from the old Lev Gleason book, but different. I can't wait to see what you come up with." Steve Ditko said he had been asked to do Daredevil before it came to Everett, and was told he could use the Gleason character if he liked. linkJack Kirby seems to have had input into the shot of Daredevil used on the cover and splash page of DD #1. Is it known whether that would have been drawn before or after the rest of the issue?
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 29, 2024 19:22:47 GMT -5
I've been enjoying the Atlas series, Strange Worlds, which was a science fiction anthology series that included elements of horror and fantasy. There's no way of knowing who plotted and scripted each story -- whether it was Stan & Lieber or the artists themselves -- but the editorial directive is essentially same: short 4-5 page stories with an O.Henry/Twilight Zone style twist at the end. I believe the debut issue includes the very first story Kirby did upon returning to Atlas in '58. Marvel has collected the Kirby and Ditko stories from Strange Worlds in Monsters: The Marvel Monsterbus by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber & Jack Kirby and Marvel Masters of Suspense: Stan Lee & Steve Ditko Omnibus, but if Stan was providing plots, it was a sentence at best. I suspect he scripted the Ditko stories. It's possible that Lieber scripted the Kirby stories, but Jack may have done so himself. The Ditko stories are very cool, and to my tastes, better than the Kirby stories, but there's also fantastic work from Don Heck, Dick Ayers, and John Buscema. Kirby's stories are probably closest to what I would consider actual sci-fi, but it's clear from reading the stories that sci-fi wasn't something that only Kirby could do. The bullpen could crank out just about any genre. Any link between this series and the Fantastic Four is tenuous at best. It's becoming clearer to me that a character book was a distinctly different thing from these anthology books, though some of the stories accomplish a great deal in 4-5 pages.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 30, 2024 7:26:12 GMT -5
It leads to Stan claiming he dreamed of ALL the ideas. titles, concepts and characters and then artist like Kirby and Ditko "help him out" is more than simply "bragging, it is pure BS and credit stealing. And that lead to great financial gain for Stan to the detriment of others. Brush that away all you want, but it is not a little thing. I don't think anyone here is saying it's a "little thing" though, I can't speak for everyone else here but personally I find the old "Stan created the Marvel Universe" to definitely be reprehensible, but I find the comments that try to swing the pendulum just as far the other way and minimize his role to nearly nothing to be just as bad. It would seem far more accurate to simply say, "Stan's claims of total creator ship of nearly everything are farcical, and the fact that his co-creators went un-credited and underpaid for their contributions was borderline criminal but Stan Lee was never the less a historically important figure in the early days of the Marvel Universe and his contributions are deservedly well loved to this day." It's possible to be critical while still being objective.
|
|