What if?

[Forbush-Man]

Seems to me he made a comment about how the pulp Spider had a ring that would leave a mark on his victims after he hit them, and how that "left a mark" on his own imagination....

 

 

Isn't that an idea stolen from The Phantom?

 

Good question! These Pulp Heroes, or at least a few, all had rings that left a mark. The Scorpion was nother, The shadow had Girasol ring,....and most of them were bored multi-millionares who fought crime in disguise. The Shadow is credited as the first costumed crime fighter,....or at least the most noteworthy!

 

Where's POV,....we can start up our debate about Pulps & Comics again with this one.

[precodekeith]

Keep in mind, he was editor from 1941 (?) up, and didn't really do all that much Earth shattering until Kirby & Ditko joined the team. Close to 20 years of somewhat mediocre (sp?) books until FF # 1. He was a top-rate promoter with a keen sense of his fan base though!

 

This is true. Stan had many, many years of stereotypical comic stories under his belt. When Kirby & Ditko teamed with him.... bam!

 

So, who knows???

 

Lee, Simon, Kirby, Ditko..... any one of these guys could take credit, either on an individual or collaborative basis....

 

Whatever the case, the question at hand still would be moot in my eyes. AF 15 didn't come out in the GA. We're intellectually stroking ourselves over the idea of "what if?"

[Forbush-Man]

You're right, no argument from me.

 

Let's start a new thread/discussion!!!

 

In the Silver Age forum, of course!

[Aman619]

Keep in mind, he was editor from 1941 (?) up, and didn't really do all that much Earth shattering until Kirby & Ditko joined the team. Close to 20 years of somewhat mediocre (sp?) books until FF # 1. He was a top-rate promoter with a keen sense of his fan base though!

 

you know, that rings true. But think about it: just who were Stan's collaborators on all those awful comics for those lost uninspired 20 years? OH lets see, there was Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Maneely, Ayers etc etc Or was that the post '61 MARVEL bullpen too?

 

Is it any less easy to believe that Stan "woke up" creatively with FF#1 than to believe Jack Kirby did? I think we have to face up to the fact that these guys were banging out craapola for a living for their whole lives at that point, and finally the time was ripe and a new idea STUCK an dcaught kids (and college kids') imaginations! And then they all cranked it up---Stan giving direction, marketing and scripting, and Jack and the artists plotting the actual stories panel by panel and huge creative input as to powers, costumes, casts of characters and villains.

 

I always think of it as a wild fun ride all of a sudden for them after toiling in embarassment and obscurity until well into their 40s and nobody was thinking about who did what and who ot credit for creating anything.....until it was all worth some money! Then feelings got hurt and some were left out of the rewards...

[precodekeith]

Those are some good ideas, but not really relevant to the nucleus of this thread, right?

 

My personal down & dirty thoughts are that if AF 15 "would have" came out in the GA, it would have never been worth by now. After all, the GA was a time of a homogenous American society in crisis, & anything out of the norm, at the time, would have been doomed from the get-go.

[Forbush-Man]

Keep in mind, he was editor from 1941 (?) up, and didn't really do all that much Earth shattering until Kirby & Ditko joined the team. Close to 20 years of somewhat mediocre (sp?) books until FF # 1. He was a top-rate promoter with a keen sense of his fan base though!

 

you know, that rings true. But think about it: just who were Stan's collaborators on all those awful comics for those lost uninspired 20 years? OH lets see, there was Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Maneely, Ayers etc etc Or was that the post '61 MARVEL bullpen too?

 

Never said they were "awful", just not "Earth-shaking"(review post above). Kirby & Ditko arrived at Atlas/Marvel around 1958-1959 there abouts. Still about 15+ years without any real merit, IMHO.

 

Is it any less easy to believe that Stan "woke up" creatively with FF#1 than to believe Jack Kirby did? I think we have to face up to the fact that these guys were banging out craapola for a living for their whole lives at that point, and finally the time was ripe and a new idea STUCK an dcaught kids (and college kids') imaginations! And then they all cranked it up---Stan giving direction, marketing and scripting, and Jack and the artists plotting the actual stories panel by panel and huge creative input as to powers, costumes, casts of characters and villains.

 

Never meant to imply there wasn't creativity, just that much of it, IMHO, came from sources outside of Lee. I do give Lee credit for the "flawed hero" concept.

 

I always think of it as a wild fun ride all of a sudden for them after toiling in embarassment and obscurity until well into their 40s and nobody was thinking about who did what and who ot credit for creating anything.....until it was all worth some money! Then feelings got hurt and some were left out of the rewards...

 

I have no doubt that it was, in fact, a "wild-ride" once it took off. This was not meant to be a "Lee stole the credit" question, more of a "Who did what" for the sake of discussion. As I've read things, there were feelings hurt at the time as the artists felt left out of the loop. So is was purely money during the ealry years that created those feelings, you say? I thought most of that took place during the mid 60's-early 70's?!? The "Marvel Age of Comics" took of with FF #1 in 1961.

 

I'll take two 's on that one.

[Forbush-Man]

I hope you fellow Golden Age forumites don't mind a discussion which, according to Joe Simon, concerns a Silver Age hero he claims to have inspired during the 1950's. It's relative then.

[Mr. Zipper]

Those are some good ideas, but not really relevant to the nucleus of this thread, right?

 

My personal down & dirty thoughts are that if AF 15 "would have" came out in the GA, it would have never been worth by now. After all, the GA was a time of a homogenous American society in crisis, & anything out of the norm, at the time, would have been doomed from the get-go.

 

A significant part of the great appeal of Spider-Man is that he shared with teens from that era many of the same problems -- insecurity, dating problems, bullying, not-belonging, etc. Peter Parker had a body supercharged with special powers, but his mind was still that of an everyteen underdog who was wracked with misplaced guilt and a devotion to an elderly aunt.

 

Would the culture of the late 30s have identified and cared about Peter's problemed psyche? Just a guess, but probably not.

 

The teens of the late 30s had recently emerged from the Great Depression and the storm clouds of world war were amassing on the horizon. They were not so introspective as to be able to easily identify with Peter Parker. Their problems were much more serious than getting marble-mouthed around Betty Brant; they had problems like worrying about how much food was going to be on the table, and were the relatives back in the "old country" okay.

 

And for every reason why Spider-Man -- a precursor to the "me" generation -- would have failed in 1938, Superman succeeded. They wanted a hero that was a "super" MAN, not a confused boy. Superman didn't have problems of his own, he solved other people's problems. He was the ultimate symbol of hope for better times -- an infallible champion of truth and justice.

 

It's no coincidence that when Spider-Man gained massive popularity, the times were very different and it coincided with the nadir of Superman's popularity.

 

These are 2 characters imbued with very different appeals, each custom fit to the era in which they were created.

[Elvis]

You are correct !!!

 

 

 

Whoooooow hold the phone. Is that an original art page from cap 6???

 

WOW.

 

Krazy Kat, I need details on who, what, where, when and how much!

 

Elvis

[tth2]

Those are some good ideas, but not really relevant to the nucleus of this thread, right?

 

My personal down & dirty thoughts are that if AF 15 "would have" came out in the GA, it would have never been worth by now. After all, the GA was a time of a homogenous American society in crisis, & anything out of the norm, at the time, would have been doomed from the get-go.

 

A significant part of the great appeal of Spider-Man is that he shared with teens from that era many of the same problems -- insecurity, dating problems, bullying, not-belonging, etc. Peter Parker had a body supercharged with special powers, but his mind was still that of an everyteen underdog who was wracked with misplaced guilt and a devotion to an elderly aunt.

 

Would the culture of the late 30s have identified and cared about Peter's problemed psyche? Just a guess, but probably not.

 

The teens of the late 30s had recently emerged from the Great Depression and the storm clouds of world war were amassing on the horizon. They were not so introspective as to be able to easily identify with Peter Parker. Their problems were much more serious than getting marble-mouthed around Betty Brant; they had problems like worrying about how much food was going to be on the table, and were the relatives back in the "old country" okay.

 

And for every reason why Spider-Man -- a precursor to the "me" generation -- would have failed in 1938, Superman succeeded. They wanted a hero that was a "super" MAN, not a confused boy. Superman didn't have problems of his own, he solved other people's problems. He was the ultimate symbol of hope for better times -- an infallible champion of truth and justice.

 

It's no coincidence that when Spider-Man gained massive popularity, the times were very different and it coincided with the nadir of Superman's popularity.

 

These are 2 characters imbued with very different appeals, each custom fit to the era in which they were created.

Zipper, excellent post. I think you are spot on, on why Superman succeeded when he did and why Spider-Man succeeded when he did, and why Spider-Man would probably not have been a big success as a GA hero. I think this is reflected by the fact that by the 1960s, Superman was considered pretty lame by the more sophisticated comic readers.

[chrisco37]

Those are some good ideas, but not really relevant to the nucleus of this thread, right?

 

My personal down & dirty thoughts are that if AF 15 "would have" came out in the GA, it would have never been worth by now. After all, the GA was a time of a homogenous American society in crisis, & anything out of the norm, at the time, would have been doomed from the get-go.

 

A significant part of the great appeal of Spider-Man is that he shared with teens from that era many of the same problems -- insecurity, dating problems, bullying, not-belonging, etc. Peter Parker had a body supercharged with special powers, but his mind was still that of an everyteen underdog who was wracked with misplaced guilt and a devotion to an elderly aunt.

 

Would the culture of the late 30s have identified and cared about Peter's problemed psyche? Just a guess, but probably not.

 

The teens of the late 30s had recently emerged from the Great Depression and the storm clouds of world war were amassing on the horizon. They were not so introspective as to be able to easily identify with Peter Parker. Their problems were much more serious than getting marble-mouthed around Betty Brant; they had problems like worrying about how much food was going to be on the table, and were the relatives back in the "old country" okay.

 

And for every reason why Spider-Man -- a precursor to the "me" generation -- would have failed in 1938, Superman succeeded. They wanted a hero that was a "super" MAN, not a confused boy. Superman didn't have problems of his own, he solved other people's problems. He was the ultimate symbol of hope for better times -- an infallible champion of truth and justice.

 

It's no coincidence that when Spider-Man gained massive popularity, the times were very different and it coincided with the nadir of Superman's popularity.

 

These are 2 characters imbued with very different appeals, each custom fit to the era in which they were created.

Zipper, excellent post. I think you are spot on, on why Superman succeeded when he did and why Spider-Man succeeded when he did, and why Spider-Man would probably not have been a big success as a GA hero. I think this is reflected by the fact that by the 1960s, Superman was considered pretty lame by the more sophisticated comic readers.

 

I'll second that. Great post, Zip. I think you're dead-on in your analysis.