Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1963) Butting Heads, Unexpected Success and Not Expected Failures! 3 3

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

Except neither Ditko or Lee ever mentions it.

Ditko DOES specifically name the Fly as what Kirby's pages reminded him of. 

I would not expect Ditko, Lee, or Kirby to admit to plagiarism.

Ditko alerted Lee to the Fly similarity because he was accusing Kirby of self-plagiarism. The Fly was a 1959 comic by a more fringey publisher (MLG/Red Circle) and Ditko had worked for S&K was working for the more fringey publishers and probably kept abreast of what was happening..

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:26 PM, Prince Namor said:

For anyone who's ever read Amazing Spider-man #8 with the Robot that's brought to school... here's a Kirby story (written and drawn) from Tales to Astonish #32. 

I see more similarity with 99 pound weakling ads on the back of comics (or even Batman's origin story push-ups) than I do to Spider-Man.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

According to many Comic Book editors at DC, they came up with lots of ideas and they rewrote plenty of dialogue. They never took --script credit for it.

 

There was a lot of injustice in the comic industry when it came to credits. But, at DC they worked largely off of full scripts. The writers were writing full dialogue to give to the artists. In Lee & Kirby's case, he was dialoguing the art - art that only had margin notes not scripted dialogue.

[Prince Namor]

On 7/9/2023 at 11:39 PM, sfcityduck said:

I would not expect Ditko, Lee, or Kirby to admit to plagiarism.

Ditko alerted Lee to the Fly similarity because he was accusing Kirby of self-plagiarism. The Fly was a 1959 comic by a more fringey publisher (MLG/Red Circle) and Ditko had worked for S&K was working for the more fringey publishers and probably kept abreast of what was happening..

Do some actual research. The Fly has more in common with Spider-man than Spider-Queen does.

And Archie is a 'fringe publisher'? The Fly's first Statement of Publication with Average Copies sold showed 239,182 (Fly #12, ons March 1961) which would make it a better selling comic than any of Marvel's titles for the same time period. 

Marvel was the 'fringe publisher' at the time. 

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

No he doesn't.

And Simon DIDN'T immediately change over. He started the Fly and then bailed when Kirby wouldn't stay and do all the work. Then he came to DC when Kirby was there and created... Prez? Brother Power the Geek? 

LOL.

Meanwhile Jack was creating an entire New Universe of characters. 

Simon worked in commercial art before the Fly in 1959. He worked in commercial art afterwards. He did not do Prez until around 1973. It was a bit of lark.  Kirby had this to say in 1990 about Simon and wanting to get out of comics:

Quote

 

GROTH: Before we get to The Fantastic Four and your ’60s period at Marvel, you also helped Joe Simon with The Fly and Private Strong. Can you tell me how that came about? Joe Simon apparently had left comics for a few years.

ROZ KIRBY: Joe called Jack.

KIRBY: Yes, he had. I’ve always been a friend of Joe’s, and I did The Fly and Private Strong with him. It was my last shot with Joe because he went back to commercial art.

GROTH: Why did he go back to comics for that brief period?

KIRBY: It was like a reflex action — you go back to comics. But Joe is older than I am, and I think a lot more grown up in his ways. He quit comics and began doing commercial art. There were things arising in comics that weren’t exactly wholesome. But I stuck to it — it was the only thing I knew. I had to deal with that, and it hurt me in many, many ways. In many ways it still hurts me. Thinking back on it I just didn’t know what else to do.

GROTH: Do you remember at what point in your life you realized that you were devoting your life to comics and that comics had become a career? I suppose it must have dawned on you at some point that you were a comic artist and that your identity was that of a comic artist.

ROZ KIRBY: His real dream was to make movies.

KIRBY: I wanted to make movies and was doing comics... In fact, later on I was dealing with producers and people who actually made movies — I still do. What I really wanted to do is make movies. If I made a movie it would be a good one. If I made a movie and there was money to be gotten for that movie, I can tell you it would be a terrific movie. Steven Spielberg did what I couldn’t do. [Laughter.] Somehow he made it and I didn’t.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 8:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

Do some actual research. The Fly has more in common with Spider-man than Spider-Queen does.

And Archie is a 'fringe publisher'? The Fly's first Statement of Publication with Average Copies sold showed 239,182 (Fly #12, ons March 1961) which would make it a better selling comic than any of Marvel's titles for the same time period. 

Marvel was the 'fringe publisher' at the time. 

Red Circle was a fringe publisher in superheroes (Archie was big in teen of course). And yes, Atlas/Marvel was a fringe publisher. Ditko had worked for S&K and fringe publishers. So you'd expect him to have kept an eye open for what S&K were doing as it might be a work opportunity.

You are getting a little contentious. I do actual research. More apparently than the Kirby Museum article you republished in the two above posts. They focus on a memo Kirbly likely never saw because it was buried in Joe Simon's rejection file (kept by Simon not Kirby) for an idea that was fully published in a Fox comic with a hero named Spider Queen.

[Steven Valdez]

In Marvel’s own fan magazine, FOOM, 1973:
'It was only after Steve Ditko had left the strip that Kirby and Lee, in separate forums, claimed that Kirby had actually initiated the character. Kirby had earlier thought-up a character called Spider-Man for another company, and had gone as far as A COVER MOCK-UP. That company folded and the character seemingly died before he was born. However, Kirby later recalled the name, suggested it to Stan Lee, and designed a costume for Spider-Man.'

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 1:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

I see more similarity with 99 pound weakling ads on the back of comics (or even Batman's origin story push-ups) than I do to Spider-Man.

Now you're just being a contrarian.

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

Slightly off topic, but notice how Thor has four joints in each finger in panel 2?

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:06 PM, Steven Valdez said:

In Marvel’s own fan magazine, FOOM, 1973:
'It was only after Steve Ditko had left the strip that Kirby and Lee, in separate forums, claimed that Kirby had actually initiated the character. Kirby had earlier thought-up a character called Spider-Man for another company, and had gone as far as A COVER MOCK-UP. That company folded and the character seemingly died before he was born. However, Kirby later recalled the name, suggested it to Stan Lee, and designed a costume for Spider-Man.'

The source of info for the Foom article is uncertain. The description is of Silver Spider which was actually a Simon creation. Kirby may well have suggested "Spider-Man" as a name, but that's just another variation on the old Spider theme and it wasn't a name that was ever pitched to another publisher (again that was Silver Spider - Foom was making errors which is why its not really worthy of any weight). The costume had nothing to do with Spider-Man as we know him today.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:11 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Now you're just being a contrarian.

Peter Parker did not buff himself out so he could get revenge on bullies.  The 99 pound weakling did.

Edited July 10, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

The more you read comics, the more you realize that it's not the plot or the character name or the costume that matters - it is the characterization. 

C.C. Beck and Bill Parker don't get "creator credit" for Marvel's Captain Marvel just because of the name. The issue is not whether Kirby gets credit for the name Spider-Man, the issue is whether he created Marvel's "Spider-Man."

Edited July 10, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 2:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

The more you read comics, the more you realize that it's not the plot or the character name or the costume that matters - it is the characterization. 

C.C. Beck and Bill Parker don't get "creator credit" for Marvel's Captain Marvel just because of the name. The issue is not whether Kirby gets credit for the name Spider-Man, the issue is whether he created Marvel's "Spider-Man."

Kirby quite evidently came up with the initial spark, Ditko then developed the character. And Stan Lee watched some kind of arthropod crawling up a wall.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 2:24 PM, sfcityduck said:

Peter Parker did not buff himself out so he could get revenge on bullies.  The 99 pound weakling did.

The point here is that Kirby was fully capable of drawing nerdy milksops. Bruce Banner is another pre-Parker example.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:11 PM, Steven Valdez said:

The point here is that Kirby was fully capable of drawing nerdy milksops. Bruce Banner is another pre-Parker example.

How is that relevant to this discussion?  He drew Steve before he became Captain America! So what? No one is claiming he can't draw a 98 pound weakling and, more relevant here, NO ONE IS CLAIMING HE PENCILED AF 15 (I hope!).

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:10 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Kirby quote evidently came up with the initial spark, Ditko then developed the character. And Stan Lee watched some kind of arthropod crawling up a wall.

That is not what Ditko says.

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

That is not what Ditko says.

It's EXACTLY what Ditko said - that Kirby came up with and drew the initial (OBVIOUSLY unpublished) Spider-Man story. Ditko (who was assigned to ink Kirby's pencils) noticed it was very similar to the Fly, and alerted Stan Lee to that fact. Lee had no idea one way or the other.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:15 PM, sfcityduck said:

How is that relevant to this discussion?  He drew Steve before he became Captain America! So what? No one is claiming he can't draw a 98 pound weakling and, more relevant here, NO ONE IS CLAIMING HE PENCILED AF 15 (I hope!).

 

 

It's 100% relevant because Stan Lee claimed Kirby's version of Parker/Spider-Man was 'too heroic' looking, as if Kirby was incapable of drawing nerdy guys; so Lee went with Ditko instead. I thought this was reasonably well known?

[Prince Namor]

On 7/10/2023 at 3:42 AM, Steven Valdez said:

It's 100% relevant because Stan Lee claimed Kirby's version of Parker/Spider-Man was 'too heroic' looking, as if Kirby was incapable of drawing nerdy guys; so Lee went with Ditko instead. I thought this was reasonably well known?

That is exactly what Lee claimed.

[Prince Namor]

On 7/10/2023 at 3:41 AM, Steven Valdez said:

It's EXACTLY what Ditko said - that Kirby came up with and drew the initial (OBVIOUSLY unpublished) Spider-Man story. Ditko (who was assigned to ink Kirby's pencils) noticed it was very similar to the Fly, and alerted Stan Lee to that fact. Lee had no idea one way or the other.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

A MINI-HISTORY

13. "Speculation" © 2003 S. Ditko

 

After a brief review of the origin of Spider-man (SM), we will be able to legitimately engage in some speculation. For me, the SM saga began when Stan called me into his office and told me I would be inking Jack Kirby's pencils on a new Marvel hero, SM. I still don't know whose idea was SM.

Stan said he always liked the name Hawkman but DC had the name and the characters. (Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon had the Hawkmen.)

So Marvel's character would be called SM. Stan/Marvel would claim the insect category (Ant Man, Wasp) though technically, a spider is not an insect.

This is relevant to one of Stan's later claim, "memories", "remembrances", that the source of SM was his liking for The Spider, "The Master of Men", a pulp hero who also appeared in a few serials.

There had already been previous spider comic characters: The Tarantula, Alias the Spider, Black Widow, The Web and who knows what other spider characters, villains.

Stan was interviewed on Larry King Live (May 4, 2002). King said: "You say... that you saw a fly on your wall back in 1962" and "Spider-man was born."

Lee: "You know, I've been saying it so often, for all I know it might be true... trying to get a name for him... lnsectman didn't sound so good. Mosquitoman didn't have the flavor. But then Spider-man sounded nice and mysterious and dramatic to me."

Why not just call the character the Fly or the Flyer or Flyman since he expressed liking Hawkman, a flying hero? Or why not the Human Fly since Marvel already had the Human Torch and he could then claim the "human" category.

A leap from a fly to a spider is like from man to a cannibal.
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.

Now we can speculate: What if I never said anything about the Simon Fly and Kirby had completed pencilling that magic ring-teenager-into-an-adult-SM-legend story? I would just be inking Jack's pencilled and Stan's dialogued pages. SM would have Jack's adult SM in a costume resembling Captain America's costume with the same type open-face mask and a belt with a holster for a web gun (like the Tarantula).

There would be lots of nots: Not my web-designed costume, not a full mask, web-shooters, no spider- senses, no spider-like action, poses, fighting style and page breakdowns, etc.

Does anyone care to speculate on what kind of success that Lee/Kirby/Ditko SM would have had?

The only example available, but a very poor one, is the Lee/Kirby/Ditko SM in The Amazing Spider-man #8. It is a bad example because it is not Kirby's costume and apes my action style, etc. But the story/art/inking, the visual look, gives it some clue as to what the Lee/ Kirby/Ditko SM might have looked like.

Now surely, at some early point, Stan and Jack would get fan letters about the relationship, similarities, between Marvel's SM and Archie's Fly, originally produced by Simon. Both SM and the Fly would be based on the same magic ring, boy-into-adult theme and there is the possibility that more of the Fly legend might also be used in the SM legend.

More surely, Joe Simon would have entered in with his claim to the ideas because of his involvement with The Fly and the earlier, undeveloped Silver Spider or the (no hyphen) Spiderman. He would have a valid claim since he and Kirby had worked on a few of the early Fly stories and as a team on many other projects at different companies. The Silver Spider and The Fly precede Spider-man.

Where does this leave Stan "the creator", that Spider-man was his "idea", that he was "the first sayer"?

With the rejected five pages of Kirby's SM, Kirby and Simon have no valid claim to the ideas of Marvel's SM. That specific hero and story world are the ideas of Lee and Ditko. But it also does not prove that the name SM came from Stan as his original name and idea.

It is all too much of a corrupt package deal claim. The name SM is used as a label to validate a claim, to "prove" everything done in the Marvel SM comic came from Stan. He is to be not only the "creator'' of the SM name but everything in SM is his "original idea", a "first saying". Too few minds care to examine the labeling and the true content of the SM package objectively, in factual, rational terms. It is all accepted on faith.

There is still a mystery with Joe Simon's never realized Silver Spider, first published in his memoir (1990) and Jack Kirby/Stan Lee's (or SLJK's) "ideas" for SM. There are fundamentally contradictory differences in originality, creativity, between the five Kirby SM pencilled pages and the published Lee/Ditko SM.

There is not even a credible resemblance, not any valid point of comparison, between the non-Marvel Fly, unused SM pages and the published Marvel SM. What is to be considered credible evidence or testimony is someone's gratification or the arbitrary feelings of others, outsiders.

And even more assuredly, there can be no clear solo "creator'' claim to be made or believed, that one person cannot claim and keep on claiming that he alone with his "idea", the first idea, regardless of whoever the artist – Kirby, Ditko, etc. – that the "idea", by itself, alone, could "create" the exact same Marvel-published SM.

If Stan told his "idea" to any other writer, would that writer have written the exact same dialogue as Stan? And Stan is not alone in actually believing this. Such is the power of a prestigious public spotlight and blind faith.

As with many issues, does the man for or against any claim care to examine the full context – a long paper trail of interviews, etc. – to examine all that is relevant, necessary, for a correct understanding and judgement?

A proper whole has a structure of specifically designed necessary parts, connecting, functioning, in a division of labor, properly integrated for a non-contradictory whole, an end result product.

The "my idea" as a "creator" is an equivalent claim, a corollary claim of actually needing nobody else, no other mind and hand.

To understand, to know a thing, one needs to identify comparisons and contrasts, to see similarities and difference, mistakes and contradictions, truths and lies. Who has been willing to accomplish the necessary clarity, objectivity?

A concrete example has existed for willing minds to understand the issue.

Compare the "creator/creation" issue of Marvel's SM involving two known persons – Stan and me – in one creation – SM.

Compare it with the creator/creation of Mr. A, The Mocker, Static, etc., where one person did it all (even the lettering).

If Stan, with also my mind and hand (two people), is a "creator", a person that creates, what am I who does it alone?

Doesn't the prefix co – meaning together as in cooperation, joint as in co-owner – settle the issue? Marvel's SM is a co-creation of Lee and Ditko, two persons.
Mr. A, The Mocker, etc., are creations of one creator, one person.

The co-creators and creator concepts factually and truthfully identify the person(s) and the actions necessary in both contexts of two minds/hands and one mind/hand.

Is it the subjective, a desire, a need to be known as the "creator'' or the intrinsic, the "creator'' is in the personality, in the "idea", in the "first saying"?

Or is it in the objective, the actual doing with clarity, facts, proof, a valid understanding of the creator/creation process?

For many, the subjective – liking a personality – and the intrinsic – innate, inherent in a personality – clinches, "proves", the truth of "my idea" claim. For those "true believers", there is no other way possible for the "creation" to come about or possible to identify the "creator''.

The emotionalist wants his claim accepted as true -- truth "known" through his feelings. The true believer wants his claims accepted as true – truth "known" through his faith. Those "truths" by personality or position are to make their truth claims self-evidently true without any validation. So there is absolutely no need to examine what is the basis of their revealed "truth".

Those two methods, (1) subjective, 2) intrinsic), oppose, negate the objective method. The objective method requires identifying, defining, examining and evaluating the right issue in a proper context, of gathering the relevant information with a valid standard and arriving at a rational, logical, just conclusion.

NEXT: "The Mistrial"