Unca Ben

On 2/23/2024 at 6:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

Were they rejected pages? Did Stan decide Ditko was the right guy for the job? (Even though he clearly WAS). Or did Stan see Kirby's involvement in both the Spider-man idea with Joe Simon, as well as his involvement with Joe Simon on the Fly at Archie as a possible legal issue and THAT was the reason he gave it to Ditko...

From Ditko:

Stan never told me who came up with the idea for SM or for the SM story Kirby was penciling. Stan did tell me SM was a teenager who had a magic ring that transformed him into an adult hero: SM.

I told Stan it sounded like Joe Simon's character, The Fly (1959), that Kirby had some hand in, for Archie Comics. Now here is a Fly/Spider connection. Not in any seeing a fly on a wall but in being told, in hearing, of the connection. And to paraphrase Stan, this connection "may even be the true one" and the other, of seeing a fly on a wall and of someone being transformed from an adult SM (Kirby/? version) into a teenage SM (Lee/Ditko version) and without any magic ring, a falsehood.

Stan called Jack about The Fly. I don't know what was said in that call.

Day(s) later, Stan told me we would be doing SM. I would be pencilling the story panel breakdowns from Stan's synopsis and doing the inking.

Kirby's five pencilled SM story/art pages were rejected. Out went the magic ring, adult SM and whatever legend ideas that SM story would have contained.

which is all from the article that i quoted.  so i know.

the point is, as this clearly states and  as i originally said in my first post, spider-man would have been a rehash of the fly if stan hadn't given the job to ditko.

On 2/23/2024 at 6:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

as opposed to the 'Village Voice'? Yes.

different context.  i was pointing out examples of how stan reached pop culture.  you were putting ellison above "an actor".  that's the fallacy of appealing to authority.

nice twist, though.

On 2/23/2024 at 6:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

 I quote one of the most famous sci-fi writers and you quote 'an actor' to defend Stan. Sums it up.

appeal to authority?  nice.

On 2/23/2024 at 6:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Which part isn't true? Are you saying 1953 in the Comic Book world was the same as 1955 after the Wertham hearings? Let's be clear on what facts you think I got wrong here, because I DIDN'T.

i talked about stans success  thru the 50's. which then includes post wertham.

On 2/23/2024 at 6:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Ditko clearly stated he was doing work he wasn't credited for. That the working arrangement had changed. And that, with Annual #2, was when he decided to quit.

He did not specifically mention pay. But when you're doing the other person's work, you're NOT getting paid for it.

Stan WAS getting paid for writing the ASM and Dr. Strange. $15 a page ($142 per page adjusted for inflation), to take a completed story and add dialogue.

take it up with ditko.  i'm just repeating what he has said.  the reason that he left marvel is known only to him and stan. the only money gripe he had was royalties  with goodman. 

On 2/23/2024 at 6:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

I know Stan Lee Marvel readers need their hands held through the puzzling idea (to them) of sequential art, to be told exactly what is happening in pictures that clearly explain it, but this is a pretty easy 'written word' mystery to figure out:

"Dear Editor:"

Ah.  more insults.  it begins.

On 2/23/2024 at 4:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

See, Lee didn't keep Atlas afloat. It was a boom time in comics. 

 

Less than a year. Post-Wertham was a tough time in comics.

So when it's Stan thru the 50s, it was a boom time in comics.  When It's Kirby's company failing in the 50s, it was a tough time.  Gotcha.  

On 2/23/2024 at 4:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

Here's someone's opinion on it that I respect more than yours:

Hey, me too!  There's a lot of opinions that I respect more than mine.  
 

Which reminds me of a saying that I subscribe to:  "I don't respect half of you half as well as I should like; and I respect less than half of you half as well as you deserve."   Then I disappear.  

On 2/23/2024 at 5:14 PM, Frisco Larson said:

BUT did Steve Ditko yell "FACT" before he made his statement? That seems to carry a lot of weight around here ... 

It's all the latest rage nowadays.  The claim is the fact and the fact is the claim.  Understand?

On 2/23/2024 at 5:01 PM, shadroch said:

 

Kirby and Ditko got paid exactly what they agreed to. I'm not sure how anyone with common sense thinks that is stealing, but if you keep repeating it often enough, you might come to believe it.

amen.

On 2/23/2024 at 4:02 PM, Prince Namor said:

Or face the facts in reality, that Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from those artists.

not according to Ditko. But what would he know?  you understand way more than he did.  just because.

On 2/23/2024 at 4:00 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

In the other interview he even makes a point to specify, for himself and especially for STAN, because this is his WHOLE POINT, "There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands."

 

and Ditko says he worked from a one or two page synopsis.  Which mean Stan had input, contrary to Kirby's claims when he was angry with Stan.  Not to mention your claims.  Who came up with the radioactive spider?   Not Jack.  And Steve mentions the costume and web shooters and sticking to walls.  He didn't mention the radioactive spider origin being his.  He also mentions Stan's input on the Spidey sense in one of his essays or interviews.  And he mentions regularly working from 1 or 2 page synopsis from Stan, until he and Stan started disagreeing on a lot of stuff. 

So your indictment that Stan had zero input and Jack and Steve did all the creating is not true.  Especially at the beginning, when these characters were CREATED.

Here are some quotes from Kirby when he wasn't grinding an axe against Stan:

"WE shared laughs, ideas, and stubby cigars"

"I've always enjoyed working with Stan - we've been a successful team.  In the collaboration something good comes out; it's the chemistry of a good team."

So instead of cherry-picking Kirby's quote when he felt hurt or angry, the big picture sounds like more than the one-dimensional take of "Stan taking credit for other peoples ideas".  

On 2/23/2024 at 2:46 PM, shadroch said:

FACT:  BEARS BEAT BEETS

On 2/22/2024 at 9:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Adams and O'Neil's Green Lantern Green Arrow is much more realistic and 'hip' than the silly drug story in Spider-man.

Wein and Wrightson's Swamp Thing, the Jim Aparo Spectre's, Grell's Warlord (man, I wish Cockrum would've stayed on the LoSH)... Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol...

DC gave us Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Sandman and all the Vertigo Comics, Batman Year One, Preacher, Y the Last Man... Elseworlds...

 

And who did these writers emulate?  It certainly wasn't the 1960's DC writers like Jack Schiff, Otto Binder, Edmond Hamilton, E. Nelson Bridwell or Bill Finger.  They wrote comic books geared for children as per National's dictate. 

It was Stan Lee who brought relevance to comics that greatly expanded comic book readership to college kids and older.  DC was the one who copied Marvel's (and Stan's) success at that point.

On 2/22/2024 at 9:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

In reality, I question what Stan Lee really did for comics as an artform AND even as a viable sales IP.

They made a big budget Superman movie in 1978. Stan Lee couldn't GET a big budget superhero movie made. It didn't really happen for Marvel until Avi Arad and Kevin Feige put Iron Man together in 2008. (Though Blade from 1998, realistically counts. It's still 20 years later, and not a superhero though).

DC was superior to Marvel in seeing the comic book as an artistic and creative artform. DC outsold them in the 60's and created better comics in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

New Gods is better than anything Marvel did in that time period 1971-73 and maybe even until Starlin basically did his homage to it with Thanos. Kamandi- the Demon... just those two books surpass most of what Marvel did in the same time period.

Adams and O'Neil's Green Lantern Green Arrow is much more realistic and 'hip' than the silly drug story in Spider-man.

Wein and Wrightson's Swamp Thing, the Jim Aparo Spectre's, Grell's Warlord (man, I wish Cockrum would've stayed on the LoSH)... Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol...

DC gave us Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Sandman and all the Vertigo Comics, Batman Year One, Preacher, Y the Last Man... Elseworlds...

Marvel just followed the same Stan Lee method... repackage someone else's idea - call it your own - and convince the Marvel Zombies that it's the greatest thing they'll ever read!

Marvel sold more, which makes no difference to me. DC had better comics, stories, and variety.

I don't need a cheerleader to tell me what's good. I was able to do that on my own.

Lots of opinions.

On 2/22/2024 at 7:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Fact: Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from those artists.

You can debate everything else all you want. It's an indisputable fact. 

Bob Kane: Vilified. (At least he paid the guys he stole credit from - and in the END admitted they deserved credit).

Stan Lee: Worshipped. (Yep. He was the promoter that Kane wasn't).

And yet Steve Ditko, the AynRandian that he was, never mentioned pay being stolen from him by Stan. 

He did mention credit, which is why he was credited with plotting ASM starting around ish 25 (?). 
When Stan said that he wished Ditko would come back, Steve did mention he would if Martin Goodman paid him the royalties that he was due.  This had to do with Spidey merchandising, not a lack of payment for plotting. 
In his essays, Ditko has said he was fairly compensated at Marvel for his Work-for-hire.  That was not his bone of contention with Stan.

On 2/22/2024 at 7:31 AM, Prince Namor said:

Nice try.

Jack brought Spider-man to Lee. It's fact.

Simon and Kirby had a character, called Spider-man (with hyphen). The logo was done, letters to editors and their response and possible changes exist. It's exactly what happened. No faulty memory by Jack at all.

Groth didn't really push Kirby on the specifics, but in an interview done the same year, Kirby expounds upon it:

 

PITTS: So, you’re saying you had the original idea and presented it to Ditko?

KIRBY: I didn’t present it to Ditko. I presented everything to Stan Lee. I drew up the costume, I gave him the character and I put it in the hands of Marvel. By giving it to Stan Lee, I put it in the hands of Marvel, because Stan Lee had contact with the publisher. I didn’t. Stan Lee gave it to Steve Ditko because I was doing everything else, until Johnny Romita came in to take up some of the slack. There were very few people up at Marvel; Artie Simek did all the lettering and production.

KIRBY: My initial concept was practically the same. But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect. Personality wise, he’s a bit withdrawn, but there are lots of people like that. But Steve Ditko, despite the fact that he doesn’t disco– although he may now; I haven’t seen him for a long time– Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it.

There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it.

FROM Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

and here's another quote from Kirby: 
"The only book I didn't work on was Spider-Man, which Steve Ditko did. But Spider-Man was my creation."  and  "I created Spider-Man. I drew the first Spider-Man cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that.  He was a wonderful artist, a wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is."

.............................................................................

And I would counter with Ditko's essay. I'm sure that you are aware of it.

"KIRBY: My initial concept was practically the same. "  

Kirby's costume?  Kirby's character?  This is Steve's recollection of it.  From this essay: "Almost all of the bits of this "creation" (the scientist, magic ring, etc.) were never used.  So what is left of the original creation?  A name, a teenager, an aunt and uncle."

Part of Ditko’s essay “An Insider’s Part of Comics History: Jack Kirby’s Spider-Man article shown again and discussed in Alter Ego, 2001, Steve Ditko contests Jack Kirby’s claim of creating the costume, saying that he received a sketch of Jack Kirby’s costume which was more like Captain America, and also saying that Steve himself created the costume, look and movement, webshooters, etc.  Steve Ditko also discusses the 5 page synopsis that he received from Stan which was a product of a conversation between Stan and Jack, which went mostly unused including a penciled splash picture of the Jack Kirby drawn Spider-Man.  He also wrote “Stan said Spider-Man would be a teenager with a magic ring which could transform him into an adult hero-Spiderman.  I said it sounded like the Fly, which Joe Simon had done for Archie publications…. Kirby had penciled five pages of his Spider-Man.  How much was pure Kirby, how much Lee, is for them to resolve.”  This early version reminded Steve Ditko of the Archie comic by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby called the Fly, and he has written that he pointed out the similarity to Stan Lee, so Stan (wisely) chose to give Ditko the project, likely to make it different from the Fly and add his own Ditko flair to the character.  https://comicbookhistorians.com/marvel-1960s-jack-kirby-stan-lee-steve-ditko-who-created-what/
 

And as far as contributing the name "Spider-Man" as evidence of co-creation from Kirby, does that mean Kirby and Lee's "Thor" has another co-creator?   (much less the "Human Torch"?)

“Does anyone wonder or care what S-M would look like, be like today, if I had never mentioned the Fly and just inked Jack/Stan’s S-M idea?” — Steve Ditko, ‘The Silent Self Deceivers’ 2012 (as reprinted in ‘The Complete Four-Page Series and other Essays’, 2020)

“The Lee/Kirby S-M idea, five art pages, was not a story, no kind of blueprint but a flawed, failed S-M idea. The potential (acorn, seed) could not be brought to life.”  — Steve Ditko “Roislecxse” The Avenging Mind 2007 (reprinted ‘The 32 Series by Ditko’ Vol 1, Overture, 2019)

On 2/21/2024 at 6:10 PM, gunsmokin said:

I’d start with this one. The other was given to another boardie. Both written by Michael Hill. I’d also read Dr. Michael Vassolo’s blog regarding Timely/Atlas/Marvel. I’d consider Doc to be the preeminent expert and still some unbiased.

Thanks!  I am familiar with Vassallo's blog.  but not the Kirby book (pamphlet?) pictured.  I will look it up.  Thanks again!

On 2/21/2024 at 6:02 PM, gunsmokin said:

Our opinions on the matter are so different on the matter, it really seems pointless to argue about it with you. I’ll let Chuck carry the flag from here on out.

Okay.  but I'd like to know which books you were referring to, since you think that I haven't read them.

On 2/21/2024 at 6:00 PM, gunsmokin said:

There are at least two very good books regarding Kirby’s side of the story that you should consider reading. You seem to believe only what the corporate employee had to say on the matter. 

which books? I have a Kirby Ditko Marvel library.  I probably have those books and have already read them. 

side note: just read the introduction to an old Marvel Masterpieces by either Colan or Heck, I think.  I can't recall exactly.  but the artist mentions receiving lots of plots from Stan, ranging from a few pages to a couple notes.

On 2/21/2024 at 5:41 PM, frozentundraguy said:

I had not read your post when I wrote mine.

Oops. sorry.  that happens on here.  

On 2/21/2024 at 4:16 PM, gunsmokin said:

Problem is that some of your assumptions are based on Lee’s claims of creatorship as well as plotting and writing. In Lee’s words from the beginning, Kirby and Ditko were the artists that drew Lee’s stories and that was utter nonsense.

Not true.  I can show you letters pages and Bullpen Bulletins in Stan's own words that show otherwise.

On 2/21/2024 at 5:13 PM, gunsmokin said:

You didn’t answer my question. As far as weaving stories, he occasionally forgot characters actual first names. Characters he claimed he created. This whole argument really starts and ends with  Lee claiming sole ownership and creatorship or the characters in his fireside origin books. 

You are cherry picking.  In a few letters page at the time, Stan said Ditko create Dr. Strange and brought it to Stan.  In other letter pages and in Bullpen Bulletins, Stan gave plenty of credit to guys like Kirby and Ditko.  He has said this many many times.

Are you basing your claim on  a single source or sources while ignoring all the times that Stan claimed otherwise? 

I just read an early story where Spider-Man was referred to as Superman.

I would cite this as evidence as to how busy Stan was during this period. 
Making a mistake during a creative mess (a creative mess - as opposed to tidy idleness) is not evidence that Stan had nothing to do with character creation.  He co-created so many characters in a short period of time it was hard to keep track given how busy he was, along with the dreaded deadline doom, and editing his own work.

You ever make mistakes that you didn't catch?

On 2/21/2024 at 5:04 PM, gunsmokin said:

I don’t know who wrote the article and it doesn’t really matter as far as I’m concerned. Let me ask you this… did Stan deserve to be paid the full writers pay or should it have been shared with his plotters/artists?

It probably depended upon each individual issue.  As a sweeping generalization, I'd say Stan likely deserved the writers pay during the first couple or so years of Marvel and as things progressed and the "Marvel method" became streamlined, guys like Kirby and Ditko and perhaps to some degree Heck and Ayers and perhaps, at least on occasion, Colan and Buscema and Romita likely deserved a share of the writing pay.   Or dividing the writers pay into subdivisions of plotting and / or scripting, which would of had to been done, generally speaking, on an issue-by-issue basis.  But Stan was not going to take a pay cut because his method proved to be successful. 

Al this ignores the reality of what was happening with Marvel at the time.  It was a small group of creators as say compared to the main competition that was the behemoth DC that had multiple editors and writers along with the pencillers, inkers and letterers.  And I'd bet DC's production dept. and support staff was huge compared to Marvel's.   

Like a start-up company competing with a well-established firm.  (which I've experienced). 

In a start-up, workers end up wearing many hats.  And they don't often get paid for all the hats they wear, but paid just for the job description under which they were brought on.  It's the way the company survives and competes - or else no one has a job.  If folks don't like it, then go work for Lockheed or Westinghouse or Cisco.  But when companies like Yahoo! or Google first started, workers whether they were permanent or temp had to do lots of tasks that they weren't being paid for.  Or else no one would have a job.
Now, once the company grows and staff and support departments are added, things can be different.

During the sixties (or at least the early to mid sixties) Marvel was like that start up.  That's mostly the period of time we're discussing, here. 

As Marvel grew Kirby was offered a full time position as art Director and he turned it down.  It was then given to Romita.

Ditko appeared to have a personality conflict with Stan; the issues he has raised in his self-published works revolved around the creation / co-creation of Spidey and Stan receiving credit  for what Ditko thought was his.  I have not ever read Ditko complaining about Stan "stealing" money from him.  Plotting credit, yes.  it's also on record that Ditko didn't feel marvel should return the art he did while under work-for-hire for marvel.  And Ditko being Ditko - would not have refrained from all this if he had felt otherwise.