Who Really Created the Marvel Universe? 0

[KCOComics]

17 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

Perhaps at the time Lee's scripting dazzled in comparison to the dull stuff at DC, but reading them today, they're just as stilted and comical as anything else from the period. I think Silver Surfer still holds up well from a scripting standpoint, as well as Thor, which was seemingly tailor-made for Stan's overwrought, florid speech. But for the most part, Silver Age Marvel stands out, to me, due to the big ideas, the imagination, and visceral impact. And to that end, I give Kirby, Ditko and co the lion's share of the credit. But this really is just personal preference we're talking about at this point.

To be serious for a moment, I really DO think Lee played a big part in all if it, and it really was a collaborative effort that made it all work. But my personal distaste for Stan's glory-hogging leads me to button-push in threads like these, hence the 

Allot of the early writing was very campy.  I read Fantastic Four 1 - 10 with my son a few years ago and some of it was pretty rough.  FF5 is a hard read.

A great scientist invents a time machine and thinks "  I'll go back in time to steal a fictional pirates gold"..  and this is where Doctor Doom is introduced to the world?? Do Lee or Kirby really want to take credit for that story? 

The reason DD survived such terrible writing is because Kirby drew a sinister looking character. He was compelling and frightening and I give Kirby a lot of credit for that.  DD isn't here today if he was drawn as poorly as he was originally written. 

[Prince Namor]

Couple of points.

1. Without Stan and Jack together or Stan and Steve together, there'd be no Marvel Universe, so they each deserve a share of credit. Jack would've still created stuff and Ditko would've still created his stuff, but Stan's input made it more than it would've ever been on their own. Most likely. It certainly wouldn't have been the Marvel Universe anywhere near how we know it. And it wouldn't have changed the world of comics into what it is today.

2. Stan didn't -script. After meetings where ideas were discussed, a synopsis was sometimes typed up. The ideas in that document could've come from more than one person. And really, unless you're just lying to yourself, all you have to do is read the Challengers of the Unknown series (the one's by Kirby) and you can see the genesis of 3/4ths of the Marvel Universe right there.

3. The Marvel Universe was already 'coherent' before Roy Thomas had anything to do with it.

4. The Marvel Superhero Universe is a DIRECT descendant of the Marvel Monster books, the likes of which Kirby was already doing at DC (example: https://www.comics.org/issue/14176/cover/4/ - https://www.comics.org/issue/13878/ - https://www.comics.org/issue/14237/ ) when he came up with the "Challengers' and incorporated the monsters and sci-fi elements into that. 

The earliest Marvel Superheroes were spawned from this as well - the FF with monstrous Ben Grimm battle the grotesque, underground Mole Man and his monsters and then the space race Skrulls - The Hulk, a Jeckyl/Hyde Monster as the 2nd Marvel 'Superhero' - The Sci-Fi based Ant-Man and Spider-man...

Stan wasn't doing monster books before Kirby came back to Marvel in the summer of 1958. In fact, in August of 1958, Marvel released ZERO books to the newsstand, giving some credence to Kirby's story that the line was about to be canceled when he came back to work for them. Marvel had been doing Romance, War, Western, a watered down sci-fi/horror, and Homer, the Happy Ghost. The line was really weak, though if you have any of those DeCarlo Millie the Models you want to part with, just let me know.

That first month. September of 1958 release dates - Kirby's talent and influence (inspired Stan?) put out three new #1's - Strange World's #1 (also featuring Ditko's return to Marvel), Tales to Astonish #1, and Tales of Suspense #1. The rest is history. 

 

 

 

[Ken Aldred]

10 hours ago, thunsicker said:

I've read enough of Lee's work without Kirby and Kirby's work without Lee to believe that it was a synergy.  Probably a bit of time and place as well.

Yup. Most likely a convergence of optimum conditions; creative synergy, right place at the right time, and a formula that basically seemed fresh and appealing in the 60s.

Possibly me being a little agent provocateur as I’m out of here soon.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Ken Aldred

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Yup. Most likely a convergence of optimum conditions; creative synergy, right place at the right time, and a formula that basically seemed fresh and appealing in the 60s.

Without a doubt. 

[Prince Namor]

And if we think back to where these two were at during this stage of their career it makes sense how it fit together. 
The comics division at ‘Marvel’ was floundering. It was seen as a ‘rip off and duplicate’ publisher, just a notch above Charlton.

Stan had no standing in the business - the popularity of the Timely Superheroes - which he’d been in the military for most of - was now over a decade past. 
Martin Goodman had made a horrible business decision in trying to purchase his own distributor (a lesson they apparently didn’t learn from) - and it had put their distribution in the hands of their biggest competition (DC) who was limiting them to only 8 titles a month. (Down from 30+ just a few years before) And the Comics Code was making things difficult for everyone. (Though DC put out 37 titles that month and Charlton 22). 
Stan had laid off the entire staff over the last year and was utilizing over stock work mixed with a small bit of new work. 
His work horse (Joe Maneely), had tragically died just a few months earlier. 
 

In walks Jack, who with Joe Simon had created one of Timely’s (and comics) biggest selling books in Captain America - who had then gone to DC and created more top sellers - and on their own ignited the romance genre - again setting sales records. 
 

But since the code essentially busted up the smaller publishers who couldn’t compete in a bland watered down market - Jack had been getting work where he could - but was beginning to be seen as ‘difficult’ by a DC staff that looked down on their artists and controlled everything in editorial. 
 

Stan would give Jack that space to be creative and in return Jack would produce like he never did before. Stan’s editorial guidance and overwatch gave them an audience and sparked a new popularity, the likes of which had never been seen. 
 

It’s important to note though - Marvel’s sales increased with those monster books, but didn’t really compete with DC or Archie or Dell - but it allowed them to operate and get financially more stable. 
 

As the ideas grew with Superheroes - they did better - but the sales were still behind those industry leaders. The early Marvel Superhero books sold well for Marvel - but not compared to the big publishers. However, the reaction to those comics from the people who bought them was thru the roof. 
 

Really, the sales started to explode once Jack was in his groove and Ditko was in his groove and Stan was more overseeing the entire line of comics. I’m sure he was still giving his ideas and editorializing (well, not much with Ditko), but both were somewhat free to really take charge of the books they were working on - and the sales started ramping up. 
 

Marvel didn’t become the #1 publisher until 1970. By then, Stan and Jack were mostly and Ditko, completely, finished doing any work there. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Prince Namor

[theCapraAegagrus]

Stan Lee.

[MatterEaterLad]

16 hours ago, thunsicker said:

I've read enough of Lee's work without Kirby and Kirby's work without Lee to believe that it was a synergy.  Probably a bit of time and place as well.

Sometimes 1+1=10.

Kirby + Lee = The Marvel Universe

With great collaborations the sum is greater than the parts. 

[the blob]

12 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Perhaps at the time Lee's scripting dazzled in comparison to the dull stuff at DC, but reading them today, they're just as stilted and comical as anything else from the period. I think Silver Surfer still holds up well from a scripting standpoint, as well as Thor, which was seemingly tailor-made for Stan's overwrought, florid speech. But for the most part, Silver Age Marvel stands out, to me, due to the big ideas, the imagination, and visceral impact. And to that end, I give Kirby, Ditko and co the lion's share of the credit. But this really is just personal preference we're talking about at this point.

To be serious for a moment, I really DO think Lee played a big part in all if it, and it really was a collaborative effort that made it all work. But my personal distaste for Stan's glory-hogging leads me to button-push in threads like these, hence the 

You are old. Stan's style was fine for a 8-14 year old in 1963, which is who he was writing for and who he was trying to hook long term, not a 40 year old. Watching most TV from bygone eras and a lot of it doesn't hold up. Heck, I started rewatching the first few episodes of the Sopranos the other day and was asking myself "why did I think this was the greatest TV I had ever seen?" It was ok (I do think it gets better in later episodes, but i stopped as I decided there is so much newer TV I can binge). I was watching Giligan's Island with my 9 year old the other day, a show I loved as a kid, and it was completely unwatcheable other than Ginger and Mary Anne. 

 

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, the blob said:

You are old. Stan's style was fine for a 8-14 year old in 1963, which is who he was writing for and who he was trying to hook long term, not a 40 year old. Watching most TV from bygone eras and a lot of it doesn't hold up. Heck, I started rewatching the first few episodes of the Sopranos the other day and was asking myself "why did I think this was the greatest TV I had ever seen?" It was ok (I do think it gets better in later episodes, but i stopped as I decided there is so much newer TV I can binge). I was watching Giligan's Island with my 9 year old the other day, a show I loved as a kid, and it was completely unwatcheable other than Ginger and Mary Anne. 

 

Sure, most of this stuff ages poorly. I'm 44, so I grew up with the copper age, and revisiting that stuff as an adult is a similarly eye-opening. For instance, as a kid I thought Claremont's X-Men was the be all end all. Looking at it now, it's very much over-written, melodramatic soap opera. Still love the stories, the characters, but the act of sitting and reading it, it can sometimes be tough to get through.  So, yes, absolutely there's the bias of age. But even as a kid in the 80's, the Silver Age Marvel stuff was pretty hokey to me. That being said, I still love it, for the imagination, for the raw impact of the visuals ,and for the sake of history. But I'm not hanging on Reed Richards' every last word like I would have as a kid.

[Namtak]

1 hour ago, the blob said:

You are old. Stan's style was fine for a 8-14 year old in 1963, which is who he was writing for and who he was trying to hook long term, not a 40 year old. Watching most TV from bygone eras and a lot of it doesn't hold up. Heck, I started rewatching the first few episodes of the Sopranos the other day and was asking myself "why did I think this was the greatest TV I had ever seen?" It was ok (I do think it gets better in later episodes, but i stopped as I decided there is so much newer TV I can binge). I was watching Giligan's Island with my 9 year old the other day, a show I loved as a kid, and it was completely unwatcheable other than Ginger and Mary Anne. 

 

Hey im watching gilligans island right now still holds.but get smart is way better in my book ,love abbot and costtello and i was born in late 80s so....the best of any era will always be great

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, the blob said:

You are old. Stan's style was fine for a 8-14 year old in 1963, which is who he was writing for and who he was trying to hook long term, not a 40 year old. Watching most TV from bygone eras and a lot of it doesn't hold up. Heck, I started rewatching the first few episodes of the Sopranos the other day and was asking myself "why did I think this was the greatest TV I had ever seen?" It was ok (I do think it gets better in later episodes, but i stopped as I decided there is so much newer TV I can binge). I was watching Giligan's Island with my 9 year old the other day, a show I loved as a kid, and it was completely unwatcheable other than Ginger and Mary Anne. 

 

DC was definitely writing for an 8-14 year old audience and that was one of the issues they had with Kirby is that he wanted to do smarter stories. DC felt that comics were still kid stuff. Kirby was a voracious reader who was up to date on science and UFO's and interesting information from magazines and books aimed at adults - which stimulated ideas for his stories.

Stan was writing for himself - it was a style he used in the humor comics as well as the funny caption mags he did. And he adapted that to Jack's input. That's where we got these serious stories of monsters and aliens mixed with wise guy humor. It was different than anything any one else was doing. But I think Stan was hoping for ANYONE to read it.  

As the humor lessened - and the stories got a little more serious - Stan was busy building an empire and giving Ditko and Kirby more room to be adventurous (ASM 20-38 and FF 37-52), the subject matter and the seriousness of it leaned farther away from kids. 

And suddenly Marvel Comics had an older, more educated audience made up of college students.

 

[the blob]

2 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

DC was definitely writing for an 8-14 year old audience and that was one of the issues they had with Kirby is that he wanted to do smarter stories. DC felt that comics were still kid stuff. Kirby was a voracious reader who was up to date on science and UFO's and interesting information from magazines and books aimed at adults - which stimulated ideas for his stories.

Stan was writing for himself - it was a style he used in the humor comics as well as the funny caption mags he did. And he adapted that to Jack's input. That's where we got these serious stories of monsters and aliens mixed with wise guy humor. It was different than anything any one else was doing. But I think Stan was hoping for ANYONE to read it.  

As the humor lessened - and the stories got a little more serious - Stan was busy building an empire and giving Ditko and Kirby more room to be adventurous (ASM 20-38 and FF 37-52), the subject matter and the seriousness of it leaned farther away from kids. 

And suddenly Marvel Comics had an older, more educated audience made up of college students.

 

DC was writing for an 8-14 year old audience that was eating more lead paint chips than Marvel's I guess. More like a 6 - 8 year old audience.

At least the super hero stuff. The War and other books were more mature.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by the blob

[Prince Namor]

4 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Sure, most of this stuff ages poorly. I'm 44, so I grew up with the copper age, and revisiting that stuff as an adult is a similarly eye-opening. For instance, as a kid I thought Claremont's X-Men was the be all end all. Looking at it now, it's very much over-written, melodramatic soap opera. Still love the stories, the characters, but the act of sitting and reading it, it can sometimes be tough to get through. 

That was the Stan Lee style and... I'm not sure anyone over did it as thoroughly as Claremont, WITHOUT Stan's sense of humor. All of it is there - the over-explanation, the sappy drama, the endless exposition, etc. - just without the sense of humor. Of course, at the time, it was seen as comics being serious and that was considered cool... it just doesn't seem to have aged very well. 

[Prince Namor]

7 minutes ago, the blob said:

DC was writing for an 8-14 year old audience that was eating more lead paint chips than Marvel's I guess. More like a 6 - 8 year old audience.

This was at a time when the code still forbid vampire stories - so the idea of having monsters - UGLY monsters - become 'superheroes', was actually a little controversial. When you compare 1961 Curt Swan to 1961 Jack Kirby, I doubt too many parents were buying those early Marvel's vs the DC books for their 6-8 year olds.

There are insider stories that Roy and Romita tell of DC staff talking about how 'ugly' the Marvel books looked at the time. If they were aiming that at 6-8 year olds, they were doing it wrong. 

7 minutes ago, the blob said:

At least the super hero stuff. The War and other books were more mature.

 

I always thought it was interesting how the war books got an easier pass on the code. It was still somewhat watered down, but they definitely had more death and blood than everything else combined. Even more than the Westerns. 

[Prince Namor]

Mike Sekowsky vs Jack Kirby - September/October 1961

Which one is for 6-8 year olds and which one might pull in a more adult audience?

[Prince Namor]

Curt Swan vs Steve Ditko  - March/April 1963 - Superman is unstoppable vs Spider-man is helpless.

[the blob]

17 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

This was at a time when the code still forbid vampire stories - so the idea of having monsters - UGLY monsters - become 'superheroes', was actually a little controversial. When you compare 1961 Curt Swan to 1961 Jack Kirby, I doubt too many parents were buying those early Marvel's vs the DC books for their 6-8 year olds.

There are insider stories that Roy and Romita tell of DC staff talking about how 'ugly' the Marvel books looked at the time. If they were aiming that at 6-8 year olds, they were doing it wrong. 

I always thought it was interesting how the war books got an easier pass on the code. It was still somewhat watered down, but they definitely had more death and blood than everything else combined. Even more than the Westerns. 

Kubert's war books are works of art. I will admit that while I collect them and look at the pictures when I flip through them, I haven't read that many, though I read the first appearance of Enemy Ace not so long ago and didn't feel like it was written for a young child.

[the blob]

17 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Mike Sekowsky vs Jack Kirby - September/October 1961

Which one is for 6-8 year olds and which one might pull in a more adult audience?

yeah, so much of the DC stuff was so stiff and dopey. Not all of it, but enough of it.

[Namtak]

23 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Curt Swan vs Steve Ditko  - March/April 1963 - Superman is unstoppable vs Spider-man is helpless.

Spoiler alert(spidey win at the end .not so helpless now hu?)

[Namtak]

29 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Mike Sekowsky vs Jack Kirby - September/October 1961

Which one is for 6-8 year olds and which one might pull in a more adult audience?

The justice league for sale?im in!