sfcityduck

Ditko consistently stated that Spider-Man was a Ditko & Lee creation not a Kirby & Lee creation. And, yes, Ditko consistently stated that Lee did a synopsis for the first story, moved to a plot meetings and with Ditko doing art and Stan did dialogue, and eventually they stopped talking directly about plot but Stan still did dialogue.

What's strange is that I've never seen Kirby make that claim. He claimed to have showed Stan old art. But Ditko has a specific recollection that he published in his blog some 21 years ago: This doesn't help the Kirby created Spider-Man view at all.

Where did Kirby claim he had pencilled a full Spiderman story for Marvel? Kirby's claim: The Kirby's Museum's (fan website really) "rejected story" was done for another publisher who rejected it back in 1954. That's the "Silver Spider" story.

Worth noting Shooter is not referring to story pages.

Shooter says: RE: Kirby Spider-Man pages: I saw, and held in my hand, exactly one such page. It was a page of design drawings. I remember that his version of Spider-Man had a “Web-Gun” and wore trunks, I think, like Captain America’s. He was far bigger and bulkier than Ditko’s version. There were no similarities to Ditko’s Spider-Man costume. I think he had boots with flaps. There were notes in he margin that described the character, again, nothing like the Ditko version. I think there was something about him being related to, or having some connection with a police official, which was how he’d find out about trouble going on. It was a long time ago, I can’t swear to that last item, but I can swear to the fact that it wasn’t similar to the Ditko version. I remember thinking, “This isn’t at all like Ditko’s.”

The choice of the name and costume is very relevant to Ditko’s contribution but not real relevant to Stan’s. Ditko’s argument is that he and Lee not Kirby and Lee created the Spider-Man that Marvel went with. And based on what we know of the “Silver Spider” and the Fly it appears that is likely the case. Ditko got Stan to change directions by pointing out the Kirby’s concept was likely plagiarism of Simon & Kirby’s earlier work. Ditko is rebutting that Kirby created his Spider-Man even while acknowledging Stan’s storytelling leaves much out.

Thanks for including Ditko’s comments which liken Kirby’s “adult Spider-Man idea” to the Fly (although it really is more Captain Marvel when you talk about a teenager magically turning into an adult hero). Ditko makes clear he had not seen a story penciled recently by Kirby for Marvel but work Kirby had shown Stan for an old idea for another publisher (eg “Silver Spider”) to be renamed Spider-Man or Spiderman

The “initial Spider Man” story you are referencing was what? Are you referring to “Silver Spider” or something else and if it was something else what is your evidence?

That is not what Ditko says.

How is that relevant to this discussion? He drew Steve before he became Captain America! So what? No one is claiming he can't draw a 98 pound weakling and, more relevant here, NO ONE IS CLAIMING HE PENCILED AF 15 (I hope!).

The more you read comics, the more you realize that it's not the plot or the character name or the costume that matters - it is the characterization. C.C. Beck and Bill Parker don't get "creator credit" for Marvel's Captain Marvel just because of the name. The issue is not whether Kirby gets credit for the name Spider-Man, the issue is whether he created Marvel's "Spider-Man."

Peter Parker did not buff himself out so he could get revenge on bullies. The 99 pound weakling did.

The source of info for the Foom article is uncertain. The description is of Silver Spider which was actually a Simon creation. Kirby may well have suggested "Spider-Man" as a name, but that's just another variation on the old Spider theme and it wasn't a name that was ever pitched to another publisher (again that was Silver Spider - Foom was making errors which is why its not really worthy of any weight). The costume had nothing to do with Spider-Man as we know him today.

Red Circle was a fringe publisher in superheroes (Archie was big in teen of course). And yes, Atlas/Marvel was a fringe publisher. Ditko had worked for S&K and fringe publishers. So you'd expect him to have kept an eye open for what S&K were doing as it might be a work opportunity. You are getting a little contentious. I do actual research. More apparently than the Kirby Museum article you republished in the two above posts. They focus on a memo Kirbly likely never saw because it was buried in Joe Simon's rejection file (kept by Simon not Kirby) for an idea that was fully published in a Fox comic with a hero named Spider Queen.

Simon worked in commercial art before the Fly in 1959. He worked in commercial art afterwards. He did not do Prez until around 1973. It was a bit of lark. Kirby had this to say in 1990 about Simon and wanting to get out of comics:

There was a lot of injustice in the comic industry when it came to credits. But, at DC they worked largely off of full scripts. The writers were writing full dialogue to give to the artists. In Lee & Kirby's case, he was dialoguing the art - art that only had margin notes not scripted dialogue.

I see more similarity with 99 pound weakling ads on the back of comics (or even Batman's origin story push-ups) than I do to Spider-Man.

I would not expect Ditko, Lee, or Kirby to admit to plagiarism. Ditko alerted Lee to the Fly similarity because he was accusing Kirby of self-plagiarism. The Fly was a 1959 comic by a more fringey publisher (MLG/Red Circle) and Ditko had worked for S&K was working for the more fringey publishers and probably kept abreast of what was happening..

Because? Kirby has the answer in the 1990 interview - he was smart enough to switch over to commercial illustration which was far more lucrative. Kirby wished he'd changed careers.

Two things: First, that memo was in Joe Simon's file. No reason to believe that Kirby ever knew it existed or read it. He was notoriously uninterested with happened to a story after he was done. I doubt he was reading a memo on a rejected idea. Second, far more likely that Ditko or Lee (or even Sid Jacobson) were ripping off Spider Queen from Fox's Eagle Comics 2 (9/41 - and S&K were done with Fox by then):

Seek? Maybe not. But he received it. As for "need," I've read pretty much all of Kirby's work (early, S&K, post S&K, Marvel, DC, and 80s) and IMHO he benefitted greatly from collaborators.

Ever read Mr. A? That just sounds like Ditko.

You call it "feedback," "suggestions," "revisions," "demands," or whatever word you want. But Kirby clearly said he discussed the plot with Stan and it was either "approved" or Kirby had to "change it, to maybe further the plot." Seem clear to me.

So now the theory is that Kirby was plagiarizing a halloween costume he may or may not have seen seven to four years earlier? Doesn't work for me. Comics are full of plagiarism (or swipes) so Kirby might have been ripping off something else, but I seriously doubt Jack "King" Kirby would have ripped off a Halloween costume. More likely, he would have been ripping off "the Tarantula" when S&K did "the Fly" and that character had a web gun (originally Kirby's design according to Ditko). If Ditko was ripping something off, it was probably Spider Queen's webshooter sequence. In any event, "Spider Man" is a generic name. The "Spider" had been a pulp hero since the 1930s. And other publications and heros pre-dating Marvel's Spider-Man also were doing "spider-characters" besides Spider Queen and Tarantula, like "the Web" and bit characters actually named Spider Man, etc. More than I personally know of I'm sure.

Jack says he was getting either approval or input from Stan. And if it was input, he was acting on that input: