What does Marvel look like if Stan Lee is never involved?

[shadroch]

I hate it when companies are trying to make money.

 

 

You're missing the point. Goodman didn't care about anything but money. He didn't care if there was a cohesive universe, story continuity, or even continuity between the cover and the contents. The trouble was there was no driving force behind it all and nothing holding all the pieces together like Stan Lee did at Marvel.

 

I will give Goodman a little credit for allowing the art to be returned to the artists, paying higher rates to the artists and writers, and all around trying to improve things for his talent in general. The idea was that if he gave a little, he would make more. But again, without a single vision to pull it all together, it floundered and failed.

 

 

Seaboard lasted long enough to publish four issues of most titles. It didn't last long enough to have a cohesive universe. It started at a terrible time in the economy, at a time when there was a great paper shortage, and a gas shortage that greatly contributed to distribution problems. DC came out with a bunch of new titles at the same time- Beowulf, Hercules, Claw, stalker, Justice Inc, Freedom Fighters, Secret society, ect, ect, and 95% of them didn't last very long either.

Not to mention Marvels expanded line- Inhumans,Marvel Presents, ect, ect.

It was a terrible time to attempt a new company. Any would have failed.

[rjpb]

I hate it when companies are trying to make money.

 

 

You're missing the point. Goodman didn't care about anything but money. He didn't care if there was a cohesive universe, story continuity, or even continuity between the cover and the contents. The trouble was there was no driving force behind it all and nothing holding all the pieces together like Stan Lee did at Marvel.

 

I will give Goodman a little credit for allowing the art to be returned to the artists, paying higher rates to the artists and writers, and all around trying to improve things for his talent in general. The idea was that if he gave a little, he would make more. But again, without a single vision to pull it all together, it floundered and failed.

 

 

Seaboard lasted long enough to publish four issues of most titles. It didn't last long enough to have a cohesive universe. It started at a terrible time in the economy, at a time when there was a great paper shortage, and a gas shortage that greatly contributed to distribution problems. DC came out with a bunch of new titles at the same time- Beowulf, Hercules, Claw, stalker, Justice Inc, Freedom Fighters, Secret society, ect, ect, and 95% of them didn't last very long either.

Not to mention Marvels expanded line- Inhumans,Marvel Presents, ect, ect.

It was a terrible time to attempt a new company. Any would have failed.

 

All true, but Atlas /Seaboard was a big disappointment at the time, collectors were very excited initially, especially with the talent on board, and I remember picking up all the first issues when they came out, but the lack of cohesion, both as a comic universe and from one issue to the next, turned readers off very quickly.

[rodan57]

If you give your writers/artists creative ownership and freedom, cohesion will be difficult. Stan edited all early Marvel titles and probably wrote 90%. His memory may not have been great but he kept (with letters from fans) a pretty good handle on the Marvel Universe (that is once he realized he was creating one).

[MedicAR]

All true, but Atlas /Seaboard was a big disappointment at the time, collectors were very excited initially, especially with the talent on board, and I remember picking up all the first issues when they came out, but the lack of cohesion, both as a comic universe and from one issue to the next, turned readers off very quickly.

 

There's a really good history of the company here.

 

From that article by Jon B. Cooke:

"Inside Comics #3 (Fall 1974) speculated, "Seaboard seems to be off on the right foot and, if their plans succeed, we may be in store for a real treat." Jim Steranko's Mediascene #11 (Jan.-Feb. 1975) crowed, "Seaboard Periodicals has unleashed a tidal wave of events on the stunned comics industry. Quicker than you can say, 'Jack the giant killer,' the new publishing company... is establishing itself as a leading contender in the race for comics supremacy." The Comic Reader #109 (Aug. 1974) gushed, "[Martin] Goodman will undoubtedly use his contacts with distributors to Seaboard's advantage, so this looks like a comics group that will make it, and big... We know that the line-up will be exciting as well as surprising...." Such was the hyperbole generated throughout the industry concerning the arrival of Seaboard Periodicals in 1974."

 

It sounds like the hype leading up to the beginning of Image.

 

As for the lack of cohesion among creator owned properties, that a good point. But the lack of cohesion from issue to issue and even between the cover and the contents is a real mystery. Surely if the creators owned any of their material, they would have wanted the cover to match the contents at the very least.

[The Black Hand ®]

I think the bigger question would be "What would comics be like if Siegal and Shuster hadn't created Superman .

 

Or what if Archie had never been born?

[Hammerhead]

....I like to think the comic business would of died off without Stan coming through with The Marvel Age of Comics. We owe a lot to Stan "The Man" Lee. I always have and always will be a Marvel fan. Not a single DC comic in my 13 long box collection!! My 9 year old son might have one Batman comic I got thrown in on a ebay purchase awhile back in his one long box of readers!