Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1950's. (1957) Jack Kirby's Marvel Age has already begun! 2 2

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

Ditko also had FIVE stories in This Magazine is Haunted #12, including this awesome cover.

Story ONE is written by Joe Gill

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

This Magazine is Haunted #12 (Steve Ditko)

Story TWO (writer unknown)

Edited July 25, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

This Magazine is Haunted #12 (Steve Ditko)

Story THREE (written by Joe Gill)

Edited July 25, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

This Magazine is Haunted #12 (Steve Ditko)

Story FOUR (writer unknown)

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

This Magazine is Haunted #12 (Steve Ditko)

Story FIVE (writer unknown)

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

Ditko also did a story for Charlton's Texas Rangers in Action #8 (Dick Giordano cover)

 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

Atlas would also lose Writer/Editor and sometime artist Don Rico to the Atlas Implosion, his last title coming out this month - Lorna, the Jungle Girl #26 (Bill Everett cover). Don had been around since 1940 with Lev Gleason, working on the early Daredevil/Silver Streak comics, before coming to Atlas in 1951. He handled most of the horror line and jungle comics. After Atlas, he moved to Los Angeles where he began writing for film and television. He also had over 60 paperback novels published. Now THAT's a writer!

He returned very briefly to write a story or two for Marvel in 1964, but that was it. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

The idea that superheroes were dead in the 1950's is a bit misleading. Superman is a superhero, and probably one of the three most famous ones, and he was selling extremely well, even in 1957.*** The TV show with George Reeves had been running since 1951 (it would end after the 1958 season). Batman was selling well. Wonder Woman was selling consistent enough to still be around. 

Superman was DC's #1 selling book and everything they had tied to him sold as well. 

DC had great success with it's latest idea, 'Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen' (which had its own title) and apparently thought, "Why not" and green lighted Superman's Girl Friend Lois Lane for Showcase #9 (and #10). Unsurprisingly, it did well enough to turn into a regular series.

Al Plastino did the cover and the art for the first story, written by Jerry Coleman. 

***In 1960, the Superman Family of comics, led by Superman at #3 with 810,00 (#1 and #2 were Dell titles), and made up SIX of the top 11 places in the listed Comic Book Sales figures. Batman was at #6  - so SEVEN out of the top 11 spots were Superheroes....

[Zonker]

On 7/25/2022 at 1:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

The idea that superheroes were dead in the 1950's is a bit misleading. Superman is a superhero, and probably one of the three most famous ones, and he was selling extremely well, even in 1957.*** The TV show with George Reeves had been running since 1951 (it would end after the 1958 season). Batman was selling well. Wonder Woman was selling consistent enough to still be around. 

Superman was DC's #1 selling book and everything they had tied to him sold as well. 

 

Yes, the Superman collection of books was a true sales juggernaut throughout the 1950s and beyond.  It was its own thing entirely, I suppose fueled mainly by the TV show.  But we now know Wonder Woman by contract had to be published continuously by DC, or else the rights would revert to William Marston's heirs. 

Batman's continued longevity during this period of time is a bit of a puzzle.  We know by 1964 the Batman franchise was understood to be in trouble, leading to the appointment of Julius Schwartz to oversee the New Look overhaul. Maybe Batman continued to coast through the 1950s just on the tremendous momentum established the decade before?  Maybe the 1940s Batman serials continued to be shown in 2nd run movie houses?  I seem to recall it was the fondness for those old serials that led to the 1960s Batman TV show, rather than any particular popularity of the Batman comics published during then-recent memory.

Anyway, you're correct that superheroes were never completely "dead" in the 1950s, but clearly that overall population of diverse characters went into relative hibernation then, compared to what came before and to what was about to follow.  

[Prince Namor]

On 7/25/2022 at 2:52 PM, Zonker said:

Yes, the Superman collection of books was a true sales juggernaut throughout the 1950s and beyond.  It was its own thing entirely, I suppose fueled mainly by the TV show. 

The show helped I'm sure, but... two years (and beyond) after it had ended:

1960 - ranked #3 with 810,000 copies (7 of the top 12 are Superman Family books)

1961 - ranked #2 with 820,000 copies (4 of the top 5 are Superman Family books, and 8 of the top 10)

1962 - ranked #1 with 740,000 copies (4 of the top 4 are Superman Family books, and 7 of the top 9)

FOUR YEARS after the show ended and he's the #1 selling title and the #1 selling family of books!

On 7/25/2022 at 2:52 PM, Zonker said:

But we now know Wonder Woman by contract had to be published continuously by DC, or else the rights would revert to William Marston's heirs. 

Yes, but Wonder Woman's numbers look to be consistent throughout the 60's and only when Marvel really began to rise in 1967, did we see those numbers suffer. It's too bad we can't see it's sales from the 50's...

On 7/25/2022 at 2:52 PM, Zonker said:

Batman's continued longevity during this period of time is a bit of a puzzle.  We know by 1964 the Batman franchise was understood to be in trouble, leading to the appointment of Julius Schwartz to oversee the New Look overhaul. Maybe Batman continued to coast through the 1950s just on the tremendous momentum established the decade before?  Maybe the 1940s Batman serials continued to be shown in 2nd run movie houses?  I seem to recall it was the fondness for those old serials that led to the 1960s Batman TV show, rather than any particular popularity of the Batman comics published during then-recent memory.

Based on the numbers available, I think the long time notion that Batman was 'in trouble' is overstated. Batman was a Top Ten title through 1960, 1961, 1962... no numbers listed for 63 or 64, then in 1965 still in the top ten (#9) with a very respectable 453,000 copies... The TV show DID blow it up - those numbers nearly doubled! In fact, it helped push DC's whole line to bigger numbers!

It's also interesting to note that, the changes made by DC to Batman (and thank god, they made them, as they probably played a huge part in the long term QUALITY), seem to be in contrast to the goofy, campy nature of the TV show which more closely mirrored the pre-new look Batman!

Detective seemed to hover in the #14-17 ranking pre-show, at about 300,000 copies, and it's benefit from the show wasn't as good - ranked at #11 (404,000).

On 7/25/2022 at 2:52 PM, Zonker said:

Anyway, you're correct that superheroes were never completely "dead" in the 1950s, but clearly that overall population of diverse characters went into relative hibernation then, compared to what came before and to what was about to follow.  

For sure. Compared to the 40's and then the 60's on, it had certainly dried up.

The raw numbers:

 

Batman

1960 - #6 - 502,000

1961 - #7 - 485,000

1962 - #10 - 410,000

1963 - Not Listed

1964 - Not Listed

1965 - #9 - 453,000

1966 - #1 - 898,000 (DC takes 9 of the top 10 spots, and 10 of the top 12)

1967 - #1 - 805,000 (DC takes 9 of the top 10 spots, and 10 of the top 12)

1968 - #3 - 533,000 (DC takes 7 of the top 8 spots, and 8 of the top 10)

1969 - #9 - 355,000 (DC takes 7 of the top 10 spots, Archie takes over #1)

I thought this was the Marvel Age of Comics????

 

Wonder Woman 

1960 - #25 - 213,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Tales to Astonish at #43 with 163,000)

1961 - #29 - 230,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Tales to Astonish at #40 with 184,000)

1962 - #27 - 215,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Modeling with Millie at #44 with 143,000... Tales to Astonish is at #46 with 139,000)

1963 - Not Listed (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Rawhide Kid at  #23 at 194,000)

1964 - Not Listed (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Strange Tales at  #35 at 215,000)

1965 - #64 - 209,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Journey Into Mystery at  #50 at 232,000)

1966 - #62 - 220,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Amazing Spider-man at  #16 at 340,000 - FF is #19 with 329,000)

1967 - #76 - 175,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Amazing Spider-man at  #14 at 361,000 - FF is #17 with 329,000)

1968 - #50 - 166,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Amazing Spider-man at  #12 at 373,000 - FF is #16 with 344,000)

1969 - #44 - 171,000 (Marvel's #1 LISTED title is Amazing Spider-man at  #7 at 372,000 - FF is #12 with 340,000)

 

In 1960's numbers, Challengers of the Unknown was #21 at 228,000 (Flash was #18 with 298,000), so despite a moderate showing here, this is from a full year WITHOUT Kirby doing the book... wish I could see what those numbers were like for the early issues...

 

[bc]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:18 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

For May Stan Lee only wrote:

Sherry the Showgirl #7 with Al Hartley art - Final Issue

Dippy Duck #1 with Joe Maneely art - First, Last and Only Issue

 

Atlas only releases 23 titles for the month, and Stan only has a hand in two of them, one being the amazingly awful Dippy Duck #1. In fact, Dippy the Duck is one of THREE #1's that Atlas would release for the month... so it seems they weren't even aware at this point of the change over or it happened mid-month. The other number one's were:

Jack Kirby's Black Rider #1 (which could've been put together through inventory)

and Al Hartley's Date with Patsy #1 - both First, Last and Only Issue.

also in May - two titles on their second and final issue: Kid from Dodge City #2 and Kid from Texas #2.

 

The full effects of the implosion would begin the following month...

This book is credited as the latest cover date to sport the Atlas globe.

That's about the only thing its got going for it.

-bc

[sfcityduck]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:43 AM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1957

The idea that superheroes were dead in the 1950's is a bit misleading. Superman is a superhero, and probably one of the three most famous ones, and he was selling extremely well, even in 1957.*** The TV show with George Reeves had been running since 1951 (it would end after the 1958 season). Batman was selling well. Wonder Woman was selling consistent enough to still be around. 

Superman was DC's #1 selling book and everything they had tied to him sold as well. 

 

 

A couple of minor observations. First, Wonder Woman was not that popular, Sensation was cancelled, Comic Calvacade was cancelled, All-Star was cancelled. They had to keep printing WW.

Second, Batman and Robin (who actually had more GA appearances than Batman) were really fun comics in the early to mid-1950s. They fell out of favor with the whole Batwoman, Batgirl, Batgrandparents, Batman II, etc. thing that played out in the late 50s and early 60s. The concepts didn't evolve with the times, which was why the Batman TV show worked as camp.

Third, Superman's Pal started in 1954 and Superboy had graduated to his own title back in 1949 while still inhabiting Adventure. Ironically, Adventure was one of the most creative titles of all, debuting Legion of Superheroes, Krypto, Brianiac, and other interesting characters. Which is one reason why the Superman books stayed popular. They were also fun! 

But the success of Batman and Superman were sui generis. They were both in Serials and newspaper strips and, in Superman's case Movies and TV. They were heavy heavy hitters that no one else could touch. You couldn't copy them because DC would sue you out of existence (as it did to Fawcett and the Marvel family), so it was not reasonable for any publisher to view Superman and Batman as an indicator that superhero comics still had legs.

BUT, you make a good point about the non-demise of superheroes in the 1950s. Aside from DC's two Superboy helmed titles (Adventure and Superboy), four Superman helmed titles (Action, Superman, Superman's Pal, and World's Finest), three Batman and Robin helmed titles (Detective, Batman, and World's Finest), there was also the short tryout for Phantom Stranger, the debut of the new Martian Manhunter, and backups like Green Arrow and Aquaman percolating along before Showcase 4 debuted Flash (Jonny Quick was the last GA DC hero to be retired from his backup all the way in October 1954). But no new non-Superman books with staying power.

DC was the not the end all be all of superheroes in the 1950s. Quality kept Doll Man going into 1953 (with Doll Girl debuting in 1951) and Plastic Man going until November 1956 (all the way into the Silver Age!).

Fawcett kept Captain Marvel, CM Jr., and the Marvel Family in print into 1953 and they finally disappeared with the last issue of Marvel Family in January 1954 (legally terminated).

Harvey's Black Cat has an argument for being the first GA revival because while she dropped off the cover of Black Cat in August 1951, she was revived and back on the cover in August 1955 for a three issue run (and revived again in October 1962).

But the reality is that the high quality Atlas superhero Revival which lasted from Dec. 1953 all the way to Oct. 1955 was the closest anyone came to reviving superheroes as a major genre outside of DC. But it ultimately failed. Just a year before Showcase 4.

Aside from those mentioned above, other new superheroes of the 1950s included Timely's 1951 Marvel Boy, ME's 1955 The Avenger, Harvey's 1953 Captain 3-D, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

The bottom line is that at no time between 1950 and Showcase 4 was there ever a time when DC was the only publisher of superheroes. Perhaps Fawcett and Quality could have sustained their superheroes, but DC intervened legally or financially, and those likely scared other publishers off.

Still, publishers didn't succeed with new superheroes until DC proved non-Superman and Batman books could make a go of it, and the zeigeist began to change. We should all agree on this view that has been held since comic fandom began, but I'm pretty sure that on this thread it will turn out that Jack Kirby is responsible not Julius Schwartz, Gardner Fox (who created as impressive and array of GA superheroes and groups as anyone), Kanigher, Infantino, etc., and even Jerry Bails (whose cheerleading was instrumental). Jack Kirby deserves a lot of respect for what he did, and what he did makes him the king of the SA. So there's really no reason to use Kirby in an attempt to disminish others who also deserve a lot of respect for what they did. The world is big enough and we are mature enough to recognize the fact that just because others did great things (and at times were greater than Kirby) does not diminish Kirby's greatness. There's room enough in the world for many great creators.

Edited July 26, 2022 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

A couple of minor observations. First, Wonder Woman was not that popular, Sensation was cancelled, Comic Calvacade was cancelled, All-Star was cancelled. They had to keep printing WW.

Yeah, it's already been pointed out that Wonder Woman had to be published to keep the copyright. The point I made was that Wonder Woman posted respectable numbers in the 1960's, so it wasn't like it was published and no one was buying it. 

On 7/26/2022 at 1:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

But the reality is that the high quality Atlas superhero Revival which lasted from Dec. 1953 all the way to Oct. 1955 was the closest anyone came to reviving superheroes as a major genre outside of DC. But it ultimately failed. Just a year before Showcase 4.

High quality Atlas Superhero revival? It's pushing it to say Oct of 1955 as only Subby really lasted that long. Cap and the Human Torch's own titles didn't make it past May of 1954. Not much of a revival. 

On 7/26/2022 at 1:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

We should all agree on this view that has been held since comic fandom began, but I'm pretty sure that on this thread it will turn out that Jack Kirby is responsible not Julius Schwartz, Gardner Fox (who created as impressive and array of GA superheroes and groups as anyone), Kanigher, Infantino, etc., and even Jerry Bails (whose cheerleading was instrumental).

No one is disagreeing on that. That work has been recognized for its importance over and over and over. Nothing has changed.

It's simply being pointed out that much of this era HAS been overlooked, and certainly some of Kirby's work hasn't gotten as much of a spotlight as it should.

Kirby did stellar work during this period, and much of it for DC Comics. Challengers of the Unknown IS a key book and a direct influence of the Fantastic Four. You can't change that. All you can do is come in here and try and talk down Kirby, in hopes that people are too dumb to SEE the obvious. The problem for you is that there's even MORE to come and I'm going to keep posting it. Because Kirby was a CONSTANT creator - month after month after month after month... THIS is the man who played a much bigger part in the creation of the Marvel Universe than Stan Lee would ever have anyone believe. And HERE he will get his due. 

Stan Lee fans who've hypnotized themselves into believing he was the be-all, end-all of comic books have a real fear of seeing this work. Of seeing the truth. No one is denying Stan's REAL part in its success. Just saying BS to his BS about how HE created it all. 

People like you come in here and talk down Jack, and point the finger at ME as if I'm putting down Stan, just because I'm showing this work and pointing out the TRUTH.

Fact: Stan, even by his own admission, was a HACK writer during this era. READ IT. It's there for you to see.

Fact: Jack Kirby did outstanding work during this time and it's directly related to work he'd later do at Marvel when he returned and directly related to the Marvel Age of comics. READ IT. It's all right here for you to see. And there's MORE. A LOT MORE. Stan Lee fans don't want that work RECOGNIZED because it sheds light on the LIES that Lee has told for decades.

Fact: Joe Simon did nothing special in the world of comics without Jack Kirby. And yet Jack succeeded without Joe Simon time and again. Joe Simon can twist reality all he wants. YOU can twist reality all you want. Bottom line is, Jack went on to GREAT success in comics without Joe Simon. Joe Simon, without Jack Kirby did not. 

Opinion: Joe Simon as the 'business' side of S&K, was actually a poor business man who got them ripped off a number of times.

Fact: Stan Lee didn't create anything special before or anything special since, the decade he worked with Jack Kirby. 

Fact: Steve Ditko did considerably similar work (maybe even better) pre-Stan Lee. READ IT. It's there for you to see. 

You can DENY all you want. You can put Jack down all you want. You can twist it around and come in here now as if you have the best intentions, but your intentions are clear: you want to downplay Kirby. 

On 7/26/2022 at 1:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

Jack Kirby deserves a lot of respect for what he did, and what he did makes him the king of the SA. So there's really no reason to use Kirby in an attempt to disminish others who also deserve a lot of respect for what they did. The world is big enough and we are mature enough to recognize the fact that just because others did great things (and at times were greater than Kirby) does not diminish Kirby's greatness. There's room enough in the world for many great creators.

You're such blowhard hypocrite.

You came in with: "Jack Kirby was the junior partner in Simon & Kirby, both financially and, in the case of Captain America, creatively."

Read Blue Bolt #1 (all Simon) and then #2 and on when Kirby started in on the series. Night and Day. Creatively, Kirby was far superior to Simon on day one.

And: "The legend of Kirby is way overblown when it comes to the  GA. "

This is just so dumb I can't even begin. 

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 7/22/2022 at 9:34 PM, kav said:

One thing's for sure.  Kirby could not draw Superman.

 

or Spider Man for that matter.

That issue was a bit tragic. In addition it contains some equally phoned-in art from another all-time great, Alex Toth.

A sad sight when I saw it on the stands back then.

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS APRIL 1940

Let's look at Joe Simon's Blue Bolt from one month and then Kirby joining in the following month and SEE the differences!

The first collection I ever read of these stories COMPLETELY skip this first story by Joe Simon because of how different it looks without Kirby's involvement on the series. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MAY 1940

For the 2nd issue, when Jack's work becomes a part of it, you can already see the difference in quality. Jack still didn't get his name on it - that wouldn't happen until #5. But his work in the next few issues would be of noticeable quality compared to issue #1. 

THIS is why Simon needed Kirby. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS 1940

Jack's work was just, plain and simply, far superior. Still crude compared to even the Silver Age, but for the time, he was seen as a special talent by other artists. An innovator in a new field. 

[shadroch]

It's strange what people get obsessed about. I realize we can't all find a cure for cancer, or a way to keep french fries warm until we get them home, but one would hope they could find something slightly more productive to do with their life. 

Imagine standing before The Maker and explaining to him that you decided the best use of his gifts was to attempt  to discredit a guy whose sin was bringing  such joy to millions. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by shadroch

[sfcityduck]

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yeah, it's already been pointed out that Wonder Woman had to be published to keep the copyright. The point I made was that Wonder Woman posted respectable numbers in the 1960's, so it wasn't like it was published and no one was buying it. 

 

No disagreement on 60s sales numbers. By then, DC's efforts had reinvigorated the superhero market. But, it cannot be disputed that Wonder Woman probably did not survive based on her sales numbers alone in the late 40s, when GL and Flash were cancelled, given that Sensation, Comic Calvacade, and All-Star were cancelled.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

High quality Atlas Superhero revival? It's pushing it to say Oct of 1955 as only Subby really lasted that long. Cap and the Human Torch's own titles didn't make it past May of 1954. Not much of a revival. 

 

The revival was the most significant of any publisher in the 1950s prior to DC. The work by, for example, Everett and Romita was high quality. But it failed. Which shows why DC's revival was a remarkable event in comic history.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

It's simply being pointed out that much of this era HAS been overlooked, and certainly some of Kirby's work hasn't gotten as much of a spotlight as it should.

Kirby did stellar work during this period, and much of it for DC Comics. Challengers of the Unknown IS a key book and a direct influence of the Fantastic Four. You can't change that. All you can do is come in here and try and talk down Kirby, in hopes that people are too dumb to SEE the obvious. The problem for you is that there's even MORE to come and I'm going to keep posting it. Because Kirby was a CONSTANT creator - month after month after month after month... THIS is the man who played a much bigger part in the creation of the Marvel Universe than Stan Lee would ever have anyone believe. And HERE he will get his due. 

 

I'm not sure who is overlooking the 1950s. I own Archive style HCs of Kirby's Fighting American, Boy's Ranch, Challengers of the Unknown, and Atlas work (Monsters, War, and Westerns); HC Omni's of Kirby's Green Lantern; HC compilations of Sky Masters dailies and sundays; Slim Archive style HCs of Young Romance; and other relevant book on this era like the Ditko archives. So it is not like this material is unavailable or unknown or overlooked. I think it is actually quite popular. For me, the late 40s to mid-50s are a favorite era generally.

I'm not talking down Kirby. I called him, quote, "Great." The problem is in your zeal to make him the "greatest" of all eras, you are doing a disservice to Joe Simon, Stan Lee and many others. So some context is necessary on this thread.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Stan Lee fans who've hypnotized themselves into believing he was the be-all, end-all of comic books have a real fear of seeing this work. Of seeing the truth. No one is denying Stan's REAL part in its success. Just saying BS to his BS about how HE created it all. 

 

Can you point me to the quote where I or anyone else on the thread make the strawman argument you claim to be refuting? My argument is that what made Marvel great was the synergy between Lee and Kirby. 

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

Fact: Stan, even by his own admission, was a HACK writer during this era. READ IT. It's there for you to see.

 

As I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread, Stan's 1950s work is not the basis for his reputation. He admittedly was depressed and burned out and later on in the timeline one of his best friends and collaborators dies. So it was a down time for Stan. But lots of creators have down times before periods of greatness (ever suffered through Van Gogh's potato eater paintings?). For Stan, the 60s greatness was a reaction to the 1950s. So claiming Stan sucks because of the work he did in the 1950s is entirely upside down and ignores the real arc that Stan traveled.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Fact: Jack Kirby did outstanding work during this time and it's directly related to work he'd later do at Marvel when he returned and directly related to the Marvel Age of comics. READ IT. It's all right here for you to see. And there's MORE. A LOT MORE. Stan Lee fans don't want that work RECOGNIZED because it sheds light on the LIES that Lee has told for decades.

 

Jack Kirby was a constantly active and prolific comic artist. Do I think his 50s work was the best of his career? Not even close. Do I think it was "great"? Mostly no. It made him money, but it was not his creative height. It was not in the top echelons of 1950s work either. 

Is it "directly related" to the work he'd later do at Marvel? A minor bit. Challengers showed an evolution in his style which was toward the more refined work he'd do for Marvel in the 1960s. I agree his 1960s style is much better than his style in the 1940s and 1950s generally. The 1960s were, IMHO, Kirby's peak. But aside from Challengers 3, which Kirby did not write (it was the Wood brothers) but he did swipe for a few minor elements of FF 1, I'm not sure I'd call anything he did a presaging of the genius that ultimately was the Marvel "formula" that led to the successes of the 1960s. Certainly Yellow Claw and Fighting American were not.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Fact: Joe Simon did nothing special in the world of comics without Jack Kirby. And yet Jack succeeded without Joe Simon time and again. Joe Simon can twist reality all he wants. YOU can twist reality all you want. Bottom line is, Jack went on to GREAT success in comics without Joe Simon. Joe Simon, without Jack Kirby did not. 

Opinion: Joe Simon as the 'business' side of S&K, was actually a poor business man who got them ripped off a number of times.

 

 

And there you go again - trying to elevate Kirby by pushing others down. Joe Simon had a very successful career in newspapers, with Jacquet, at Fox, and at Timely before he met Kirby. Joe was a good GA artist who had the ability to mimic Lou Fine (which is not easy). He created Captain America - which ironically most Kirby fans would say was Kirby's greatest pre-1960s creation. 

Joe Simon is also the one who came up with the idea of doing romance comics, not Jack Kirby, an idea you have repeatedly touted as leading to massive sales.

Simon and Kirby both had lucrative careers together in which they made well above most other comic artists because Joe generally negotiated good deals. They did get ripped off. That happens in business.

I'm not sure why you want to slander Joe, doing so even to his grandchild at one point, but I don't think it is responsible or accurate.

The fact that Kirby's 1960 period was one of the greatest of all time by a creator does not mean that Joe Simon was a hack. As I said above, that others are great does not diminish Kirby's greatness. You need to recognize that to avoid the trap of trying to disparage others in an attempt to elevate Kirby - an immature tactic.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Fact: Stan Lee didn't create anything special before or anything special since, the decade he worked with Jack Kirby. 

Fact: Steve Ditko did considerably similar work (maybe even better) pre-Stan Lee. READ IT. It's there for you to see. 

You can DENY all you want. You can put Jack down all you want. You can twist it around and come in here now as if you have the best intentions, but your intentions are clear: you want to downplay Kirby. 

 

And there you go again and again, again.

No one is contending that Stan Lee's 1940s or 1950s are evidence of his greatness or entitlement to HoF status. It is his 1960s that matter. Lee did put in his time, did have some interesting creations, and Atlas did produce very interesting work under Lee's watch prior to the 1960s, but his contribution was not HoF stuff. Again, though, that point is NOT relevant to the 1960s. Lee's contributions in the 1960s, a reaction to his 1950s, were indisputably essential to the "greatness" of Marvel.

Ditko's 1950s output, which I've read in the Ditko archives and other books, are a pale shadow of the greatness of Spiderman in my opinion. Nothing that would merit Ditko in the HoF. He was not in the top echelon of pre-code artists. Ditko peaked in the 1960s. Since working at Marvel, he's done essentially nothing that moves the needle for me. If you are a fan of his DC work or a Mr. A fan, that's great, to each his own, but it is not HoF stuff either.

My providing some context that Kirby and Ditko are not the two greatest artists in every era (for Kirby) or the 1950s through the 1970s (for Ditko and Kirby) is not "downplaying anyone." It is providing the relevant context that makes comic history accurate. Your myopic hype of Kirby and Ditko in all eras is intended to do one thing: Further your attack on Lee. 

I don't find it accurate or convincing.

On 7/26/2022 at 6:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

You came in with: "Jack Kirby was the junior partner in Simon & Kirby, both financially and, in the case of Captain America, creatively."

Read Blue Bolt #1 (all Simon) and then #2 and on when Kirby started in on the series. Night and Day. Creatively, Kirby was far superior to Simon on day one.

And: "The legend of Kirby is way overblown when it comes to the  GA. "

This is just so dumb I can't even begin. 

 

Simon had a bigger reputation and more important experience when S&K teamed up than Kirby. He had been an artist for newspapers and comics (with Jacquet) and an editor at Fox and Timely. He'd created successful characters without Jack. And when it came to Captain America, an idea and costume created by Simon, the 25% deal S&K negotiated with Goodman was to be split 15% to Simon and 10% to Kirby.  So, yes, my statement was absolutely factually accurate that when they entered into their partnership Kirby was the junior partner financially and creatively.

As for Blue Bolt, I don't see much difference between Simon and Kirby's stories. I actually prefer Simon's, but that may be because when it comes to that late 1930s and early 1940s era, I really like the stylings of Lou Fine, who Simon sometimes ghosted/imitated on Fox, and which that Blue Bolt story echoes. That's just a matter of taste. You probably don't like Fine.

Kirby in the 1940s put out cartoony and elastic art that often seemed rushed, and included some weird anatomy. I am not a fan of his DC output compared to other art of that period. (I prefer more realistic and clean art like Raboy and later Adams for superheroes over cartoony superhero art). Kirby was not great at drawing beautiful women in the 1940s (for example, I prefer Baker and Toth and others for romance). He did 10 issues of Captain America, nothing that memorable at DC, and a lot of retreading of the kid gang concept. His romance work is not in the top echelon of that genre. He certainly did a LOT of work, much of it enjoyable, but he's not in my top 10 of GA artists. He certainly was NOT the king of the GA. So, yeah, the legend of Kirby that Stan Lee hyped up and 60s fandom grew up on is overblown and a disservice to other creators who really are overlooked. For example, it is amazing that it has taken so long for Everett to get attention for his 1930s-1950s work. He was overlooked because, unlike Kirby, he was not a major force in the 1960s and never worked at EC (another 60s fan favorite). So it took fandom a while to appreciate his full career.

Nothing dumb about any of that.

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 7/26/2022 at 10:11 AM, shadroch said:

It's strange what people get obsessed about.

Yeah, like you and Stan Lee? Like you and my threads? Strange indeed.