|
|
Post by commond on Jul 9, 2024 3:06:55 GMT -5
I've been continuing to read the Atlas books, and I've gotta say, if Jack Kirby was the savior of Atlas then it didn't manifest itself that way in the actual books. Even if it was Kirby who persuaded Goodman and Lee to do sci-fi books, his input is limited and his stories are no better or worse than anyone else's. I suspect that's because he was still working as a freelancer at the time. It's not clear whether he's writing his own stories or working from a script from Lieber or one other staff writers. Knowing Jack and the way he felt about writers, if he was working from a script then he probably created his own version of the story. The most notable thing about his stories so far is that he doesn't really stick the landing in the way that a lot of the other stories do. He's starting to move into monster territory now, so things may change. Ditko is by far the most creative and imaginative of the artists. The books feature some really beautiful art from Don Heck, Al Williamson and John Buscema, but you can tell they're working from scripts. Ditko is the one guy who you feel is either plotting the stories himself or reworking old inventory stories into something new. I've been very impressed by the Ditko stories. Even though the books were bimonthly, there's a lot of repetition. It's basically the same set of ideas over and over again. Common themes include time travel, alien invasions, invisibility, giant invaders, tiny invaders, and stories that touch on the cold war, nuclear war, and the civil rights movement, though for the latter they use prejudice against robots as an allegory for prejudice against black people. It's easy to get burnt out if you read too many issues in a row. It did strike me that a lot of the stuff they did in the superhero comics wasn't that original since they'd done it all before in the sci-fi/monster books. I also have a raised eyebrow at the idea that only Kirby knew about science, etc., since he didn't write all of these stories and Stan had to have at least had some general knowledge of what was happening in the books. The read through continues. I just wanted to touch base with myself for the sake of my own insanity. Without Kirby's covers and lead stories - HIS was the lead story in over 90% of those books - Marvel would have closed down. This is not immediately true. Kirby started doing the covers and lead features on a consistent basis with the books published in October of '59, more than year after he returned to Atlas. He did many of the covers for the books upon his return, but the lead features were often drawn by other artists. It doesn't appear that he took on that workload until he began working for Atlas full-time. So, the idea that Atlas was saved by a bunch of books featuring Kirby covers and lead stories isn't really accurate. Unless you're saying he saved Atlas in 1960. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 4:36:23 GMT -5
I remember as a kid the "persona" of Stan was ever present in the Marvel material I read. Sure, there was the actual writer credit on the early classic material, but especially stuff like Stan's soapbox always made me feel like I was privy to some special creative world. Surely the whole bullpen got along just jolly with everyone equally contributing their wonderful parts to make the magic Marvel somehow had in spades.
Ok, so I grew up, learned a lot more about the actual histories, from the well confirmed to the highly speculative. And of course it gave me some perspective that maybe, just maybe, my childhood glee was in part due to the promotional sparkle Stan had versus the reality of exactly who was contributing what to the actual stories I read.
And I'm glad the full contributions of folks like Kirby get the spotlight they deserve. He was a giant of his time and a legend to this day.
But back to Stan, it doesn't diminish my association of what his "persona" represented. He became the face of Marvel, and had a marketed likability that elevated the Marvel "experience" for countless young readers back in the day, regardless of a single word of dialogue or story idea he may or may not have come up with himself. And as such, Stan the "figurehead" is really why he got and continues to get proportionally much more attention than others when it comes to the Marvel story.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with "Stan the embellisher" getting some callouts for taking personal credit at some expense of other creators. Being a great marketer doesn't mean "can do no wrong" either of course, and fair is fair. But more putting things in proportion, while again it's great for the full stories of all the creative talent to be told, the name Stan is still going to put a smile on a lot of people's faces. He was a character for sure, but the "myth" of the man sure is an enjoyable one, and perhaps ideally so if one can also keep a balanced outlook on his actual creative contributions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 9, 2024 8:10:05 GMT -5
I remember as a kid the "persona" of Stan was ever present in the Marvel material I read. Sure, there was the actual writer credit on the early classic material, but especially stuff like Stan's soapbox always made me feel like I was privy to some special creative world. Surely the whole bullpen got along just jolly with everyone equally contributing their wonderful parts to make the magic Marvel somehow had in spades. Ok, so I grew up, learned a lot more about the actual histories, from the well confirmed to the highly speculative. And of course it gave me some perspective that maybe, just maybe, my childhood glee was in part due to the promotional sparkle Stan had versus the reality of exactly who was contributing what to the actual stories I read. And I'm glad the full contributions of folks like Kirby get the spotlight they deserve. He was a giant of his time and a legend to this day. But back to Stan, it doesn't diminish my association of what his "persona" represented. He became the face of Marvel, and had a marketed likability that elevated the Marvel "experience" for countless young readers back in the day, regardless of a single word of dialogue or story idea he may or may not have come up with himself. And as such, Stan the "figurehead" is really why he got and continues to get proportionally much more attention than others when it comes to the Marvel story. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with "Stan the embellisher" getting some callouts for taking personal credit at some expense of other creators. Being a great marketer doesn't mean "can do no wrong" either of course, and fair is fair. But more putting things in proportion, while again it's great for the full stories of all the creative talent to be told, the name Stan is still going to put a smile on a lot of people's faces. He was a character for sure, but the "myth" of the man sure is an enjoyable one, and perhaps ideally so if one can also keep a balanced outlook on his actual creative contributions. I quite agree, and it reminds me of how as a kid I was convinced that McDonald's must serve the best food in the world. Ronald McDonald, Hamburgler, Grimace, Mayor MacCheese... Like Stan at Marvel, their make-believe world helped create an imaginary space that drew me in and filled me with childish joy. Powerful advertising, brand recognition and loyalty-building, there. Luckily, despite the eventual Bullpen Disillusion, I can still enjoy Marvel comics. That's more than I can say for McDonald's stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 9, 2024 10:21:59 GMT -5
It has been said that Stan's greatest talent was PR. And his main product was himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 9, 2024 10:45:24 GMT -5
This is not immediately true. Kirby started doing the covers and lead features on a consistent basis with the books published in October of '59, more than year after he returned to Atlas. He did many of the covers for the books upon his return, but the lead features were often drawn by other artists. It doesn't appear that he took on that workload until he began working for Atlas full-time. So, the idea that Atlas was saved by a bunch of books featuring Kirby covers and lead stories isn't really accurate. Unless you're saying he saved Atlas in 1960. That’s exactly what princenamor is saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 9, 2024 10:48:24 GMT -5
By 1960, the only monthly books Marvel had were ALL the Kirby lead story books. Kirby was doing 75% of ALL the cover for Marvel and 100% of the covers for the Monster books. Marvel whole Method of Operation was that the cover was THE most important aspect of things and Kirby was doing 100% of them for those books. AND they were monthly. They were the ONLY comics Marvel had that were selling consistently each month and they were Marvel's best sellers. Right here. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 9, 2024 15:24:40 GMT -5
I remember as a kid the "persona" of Stan was ever present in the Marvel material I read. Sure, there was the actual writer credit on the early classic material, but especially stuff like Stan's soapbox always made me feel like I was privy to some special creative world. Surely the whole bullpen got along just jolly with everyone equally contributing their wonderful parts to make the magic Marvel somehow had in spades. Ok, so I grew up, learned a lot more about the actual histories, from the well confirmed to the highly speculative. And of course it gave me some perspective that maybe, just maybe, my childhood glee was in part due to the promotional sparkle Stan had versus the reality of exactly who was contributing what to the actual stories I read. And I'm glad the full contributions of folks like Kirby get the spotlight they deserve. He was a giant of his time and a legend to this day. But back to Stan, it doesn't diminish my association of what his "persona" represented. He became the face of Marvel, and had a marketed likability that elevated the Marvel "experience" for countless young readers back in the day, regardless of a single word of dialogue or story idea he may or may not have come up with himself. And as such, Stan the "figurehead" is really why he got and continues to get proportionally much more attention than others when it comes to the Marvel story. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with "Stan the embellisher" getting some callouts for taking personal credit at some expense of other creators. Being a great marketer doesn't mean "can do no wrong" either of course, and fair is fair. But more putting things in proportion, while again it's great for the full stories of all the creative talent to be told, the name Stan is still going to put a smile on a lot of people's faces. He was a character for sure, but the "myth" of the man sure is an enjoyable one, and perhaps ideally so if one can also keep a balanced outlook on his actual creative contributions. First of all, welcome back! Great to see you. That said, I agree. The persona real-life "character" of Stan Lee was a big part of the Marvel aesthetic/mythos/vibe whatever you want to call it. Stan's Soapbox and the Bullpen, even if it was BullS**t, made Marvel feel larger than life and more exciting somehow. I'm sure being a kid at the time helped. too. I fully support creators getting their accurate credit for sure, and Stan deserves credit for his promotional role for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jul 9, 2024 15:32:58 GMT -5
This is not immediately true. Kirby started doing the covers and lead features on a consistent basis with the books published in October of '59, more than year after he returned to Atlas. He did many of the covers for the books upon his return, but the lead features were often drawn by other artists. It doesn't appear that he took on that workload until he began working for Atlas full-time. So, the idea that Atlas was saved by a bunch of books featuring Kirby covers and lead stories isn't really accurate. Unless you're saying he saved Atlas in 1960. That’s exactly what princenamor is saying. Not exactly. This is what he originally wrote: This is a famous story based upon Jack Kirby's version of events. It has been contradicted in part by the recollections of others (Don Heck and Joe Sinnott, for example), but the fact is, we don't know what truly happened. What we do have as evidence are the books Atlas published. Atlas wasn't riding on Jack Kirby's coat-tails through the first year unless you want to give Kirby all the credit for being the cover artist. Kirby rises to prominence -- in the books -- with the monster stories. Jack has made contradictory statements about how he felt about doing the monster stories. There have been suggestions made that Goodman was the one who ordered Stan to do monster stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 17:22:54 GMT -5
First of all, welcome back! Great to see you. That said, I agree. The persona real-life "character" of Stan Lee was a big part of the Marvel aesthetic/mythos/vibe whatever you want to call it. Stan's Soapbox and the Bullpen, even if it was BullS**t, made Marvel feel larger than life and more exciting somehow. I'm sure being a kid at the time helped. too. I fully support creators getting their accurate credit for sure, and Stan deserves credit for his promotional role for sure. Thanks impulse , good to be back on here! |
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jul 11, 2024 23:56:30 GMT -5
Jack Kirby had bickering heroes before the FF - Boy Commandos, Boy's Ranch, Race for the Moon, Challengers of the Unknown. Stan lee didn't. That last sentence is simply not true. Lee was using the bickering heroes trope at Timely in his earliest days at the company, particularly in his prose stories in the anthology books like Marvel Mystery and All-Winners. And the competition between Bucky and Toro for leadership of The Young Alllies was a big part of that series' appeal. I get that you hate Stan Lee, and many of your citations provide solid justification for your position, but you don't do yourself any favors when you misrepresent the facts.
Cei-U! I summon the historical accuracy!
Young Allies were created and established by Kirby and Simon. Lee didn't even 'script' a story until issue #6 and he only did a couple of issues. He was already signing everything he touched in those days, so it's pretty easy to tell if you go look. I get that GCD 'credits' him with writing certain stories - but if he didn't sign it - I don't count it. And I can't find what you're talking about in All-Winners - as clear as I can see Lee never wrote any of the main stories in that comic. Same with Marvel Mystery - that was Burgos writing/drawing the Human Torch and Everett writing and drawing Sub-Mariner. In truth - according to Comics Historian Michael J. Vassollo (who has written forwards on some of those Timely Collected Editions and currently just released the The Atlas Artist Edition No. 1: Joe Maneely Vol. 1), Stan did very little of the writing in the Timely years. |
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jul 12, 2024 0:24:55 GMT -5
Without Kirby's covers and lead stories - HIS was the lead story in over 90% of those books - Marvel would have closed down. This is not immediately true. Kirby started doing the covers and lead features on a consistent basis with the books published in October of '59, more than year after he returned to Atlas. Goodman had like a 3 month period to try other cover artists before Jack took over completely. Kirby Covers. September 1958 - 3 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers October 1958 - 0 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers November 1958 - 0 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers December 1958 - 1 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers January 1958 - 3 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers February 1958 - 2 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers March 1958 - 4 for 4 of the Sci-Fi covers April 1958 - 2 for 2 of the Sci-Fi covers April 1958 - 3 for 3 of the Sci-Fi covers ETC He did many of the covers for the books upon his return, but the lead features were often drawn by other artists.. No. Kirby's stories led off 90% of those books. MORE than 90%. FACT. You're just repeating what you've been led to believe. I'll show you one, and then you can go do the rest on your own: 30 issues of Journey Into Mystery from #52 to #82 (all PRE-Thor) Kirby - 28 times with the lead story. Ditko - 2 93.3% (That's MORE than 90% of the time) Facts. It doesn't appear that he took on that workload until he began working for Atlas full-time. So, the idea that Atlas was saved by a bunch of books featuring Kirby covers and lead stories isn't really accurate. Unless you're saying he saved Atlas in 1960. Stan Lee had two years to save Marvel with a New comic, a new concept, ANYTHING. From the Implosion in Sept of 1957 to the almost closing in 1958 - NOTHING. Then from Sept 1958 to the next almost closing in August of 1959 - Nothing. Kirby brought Sci-Fi back to Marvel in Sept 1958 - something Goodman wasn't a fan of, simply because he'd had no previous success with it. Jack had been doing it at DC. It was enough to keep the presses running for another year. When Goodman again planned on pulling the plug (Zero books released again for the month of August 1959), Kirby came back full time and the books went monthly. Sales went up again. At least enough to keep the presses running. It was Kirby who saved Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 12, 2024 2:18:07 GMT -5
That last sentence is simply not true. Lee was using the bickering heroes trope at Timely in his earliest days at the company, particularly in his prose stories in the anthology books like Marvel Mystery and All-Winners. And the competition between Bucky and Toro for leadership of The Young Alllies was a big part of that series' appeal. I get that you hate Stan Lee, and many of your citations provide solid justification for your position, but you don't do yourself any favors when you misrepresent the facts.
Cei-U! I summon the historical accuracy!
Young Allies were created and established by Kirby and Simon. Lee didn't even 'script' a story until issue #6 and he only did a couple of issues. He was already signing everything he touched in those days, so it's pretty easy to tell if you go look. I get that GCD 'credits' him with writing certain stories - but if he didn't sign it - I don't count it. And I can't find what you're talking about in All-Winners - as clear as I can see Lee never wrote any of the main stories in that comic. Same with Marvel Mystery - that was Burgos writing/drawing the Human Torch and Everett writing and drawing Sub-Mariner. In truth - according to Comics Historian Michael J. Vassollo (who has written forwards on some of those Timely Collected Editions and currently just released the The Atlas Artist Edition No. 1: Joe Maneely Vol. 1), Stan did very little of the writing in the Timely years. Please note I specifically cited prose stories, the two-page text fillers most comics of the time featured. In these stories, Stan would team up all that title's feature characters, having them squabble just as he later would the FF, Avengers, etc.
Cei-U! I summon the point of order!
|
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jul 12, 2024 3:45:13 GMT -5
Young Allies were created and established by Kirby and Simon. Lee didn't even 'script' a story until issue #6 and he only did a couple of issues. He was already signing everything he touched in those days, so it's pretty easy to tell if you go look. I get that GCD 'credits' him with writing certain stories - but if he didn't sign it - I don't count it. And I can't find what you're talking about in All-Winners - as clear as I can see Lee never wrote any of the main stories in that comic. Same with Marvel Mystery - that was Burgos writing/drawing the Human Torch and Everett writing and drawing Sub-Mariner. In truth - according to Comics Historian Michael J. Vassollo (who has written forwards on some of those Timely Collected Editions and currently just released the The Atlas Artist Edition No. 1: Joe Maneely Vol. 1), Stan did very little of the writing in the Timely years. Please note I specifically cited prose stories, the two-page text fillers most comics of the time featured. In these stories, Stan would team up all that title's feature characters, having them squabble just as he later would the FF, Avengers, etc.
Cei-U! I summon the point of order!
There's nothing in Young Allies. Stan was doing 'Unsolved Mysteries', copied from some News Source. You're going to have to specifically point it out what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jul 12, 2024 3:56:37 GMT -5
This is not immediately true. Kirby started doing the covers and lead features on a consistent basis with the books published in October of '59, more than year after he returned to Atlas. Goodman had like a 3 month period to try other cover artists before Jack took over completely. Kirby Covers. September 1958 - 3 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers October 1958 - 0 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers November 1958 - 0 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers December 1958 - 1 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers January 1958 - 3 of the 4 Sci-Fi covers February 1958 - 2 of the 2 Sci-Fi covers March 1958 - 4 for 4 of the Sci-Fi covers April 1958 - 2 for 2 of the Sci-Fi covers April 1958 - 3 for 3 of the Sci-Fi covers ETC He did many of the covers for the books upon his return, but the lead features were often drawn by other artists.. No. Kirby's stories led off 90% of those books. MORE than 90%. FACT. You're just repeating what you've been led to believe. I'll show you one, and then you can go do the rest on your own: 30 issues of Journey Into Mystery from #52 to #82 (all PRE-Thor) Kirby - 28 times with the lead story. Ditko - 2 93.3% (That's MORE than 90% of the time) Facts. Here's what I've read thus far. This covers the period from 1958-59. For clarity's sake, the lead feature is defined as whatever appears on the cover regardless of the order in which it appears. Strange Worlds #1 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Strange Worlds #2 (Cover: Ditko, LF: Heck) Strange Worlds #3 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Strange Worlds #4 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Buscema) Strange Worlds #5 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck) Tales to Astonish #1 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Tales to Astonish #2 (Cover: Ditko, LF: Sinnott) Tales to Astonish #3 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Reinman) Tales to Astonish #4 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Sinnott) Tales to Astonish #5 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Tales to Astonish #6 (Cover: Kirby, LF; Ditko) Tales to Astonish #7 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Tales to Astonish #8 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck) Tales to Astonish #9 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck) Tales of Suspense #1 (Cover: Heck, LF: Heck) Tales of Suspense #2 (Cover: Ditko, LF: Sinnott) Tales of Suspense #3 (Cover: Buscema, LF: Sinnott) Tales of Suspense #4 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Tales of Suspense #5 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Forte) Tales of Suspense #6 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Tales of Suspense #7 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Tales of Suspense #8 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Tales of Suspense #9 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Strange Tales #67 (Cover: Sinnott, LF: Ditko) Strange Tales #68 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Sinnott) Strange Tales #69 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Burgos) Strange Tales #70 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Strange Tales #71 (Cover: Jack Davis, LF: Ditko) Strange Tales #72 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) Strange Tales #73 (Cover; Kirby, LF: Kirby) Strange Tales #74 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Kirby) I haven't read Journey into Mystery yet, but let's have a looksie. Journey into Mystery #49 (Cover: Maneely, LF: Forte) NB: not new stories, but the book returned from hiatus and changed to sci-fi from this issue Journey into Mystery #50 (Cover: Sinnott, LF; Ditko) Journey into Mystery #51 (Cover: Heath, LF: Ditko) Journey into Mystery #52 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Sinnott) Journey into Mystery #53 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck) Journey into Mystery #54 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Journey into Mystery #55 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Ditko) Journey into Mystery #56 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck) Journey into Mystery #57 (Cover: Kirby, LF: Heck, Kirby (splash)) I'm not going to bother with the math, but I can tell you it's not 90%. Even if you consider the lead feature to be the first story in the book, it doesn't help Kirby's case much. The fact is the pattern of Kirby doing the cover and the lead feature (as the first story in the book) was established in Tales of Suspense and Strange Tales once Kirby began doing the monster stories not sci-fi stories. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jul 12, 2024 5:45:03 GMT -5
I have a question.
In an interview for nterview for the New York 1975 Comic Art Convention Handbook, Kirby said, "I was given monsters, so I did them. I would much rather have been drawing Rawhide Kid. But I did the monsters… we had Grottu and Kurrgo and It… it was a challenge to try to do something – anything – with such ridiculous cha
Was Kirby's heart really in these monster stories? Why did Lee, Kirby & Ayers sign their names to the Rawhide Kid stories but no one signs their name to the monster stories?
I've quite enjoyed the final Challengers stories that Kirby did, and I think his work on Rawhide Kid is more rewarding than his work on the anthology books has been. Both Heck and Ditko are doing better work on the anthology books, so it's not simply an issue of them being short stories. Ditko began experimenting with splash pages and both Ditko and Heck use far more interesting "camera" angles than Jack. Ditko, in particular, seems to be getting intensely into his stories. I liked a couple of recent Kirby stories I read, but I'd be hard pressed to call them the best story in the issue. I realize this thread is meant to be about Stan, but I'm using it as a catch-all thread to avoid dragging this into other threads.
|
|
