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

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 12:41 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It's EXACTLY what Ditko said - that Kirby came up with and drew the initial (OBVIOUSLY unpublished) Spider-Man story.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.

The “initial Spider Man” story you are referencing was what?  Are you referring to “Silver Spider” or something else and if it was something else what is your evidence?

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:12 PM, sfcityduck said:

The “initial Spider Man” story you are referencing was what?  Are you referring to “Silver Spider” or something else and if it was something else what is your evidence?

Jeez... the REJECTED one that Kirby drew for Marvel PRE-AMAZING FANTASY #15 that Ditko was going to ink when he noticed (or heard) it was heavily based on the Fly. Ditko told this to Stan Lee, who had no clue and would have been none the wiser if that story had gone to print. Why do I need to keep repeating this for you? It's only been referred to about 20 times in this thread. You need to calm down and stop raging at people because of your own incomprehension.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:12 PM, sfcityduck said:

The “initial Spider Man” story you are referencing was what?  Are you referring to “Silver Spider” or something else and if it was something else what is your evidence?

In Ditko's own words:

"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."

Prince Namor quoted this on the previous page, why not read it?

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:09 AM, Prince Namor said:

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"

Thanks for including Ditko’s comments which liken Kirby’s “adult Spider-Man idea” to the Fly (although it really is more Captain Marvel when you talk about a teenager magically turning into an adult hero). Ditko makes clear he had not seen a story penciled recently by Kirby for Marvel but work Kirby had shown Stan for an old idea for another publisher (eg “Silver Spider”) to be renamed Spider-Man or Spiderman

Edited July 10, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Zonker]

Jim Shooter referenced seeing a page of the pre-Ditko Kirby version of "Spiderman"

And presumably Ditko is remembering at some point seeing pencils of the Kirby version of "Spiderman" when he later sketches out the differences between Captain America, Kirby's Spiderman concept, and what we now recognize as the Ditko Spider-Man.

i.e. this guy

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:30 AM, Steven Valdez said:

In Ditko's own words:

"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."

Prince Namor quoted this on the previous page, why not read it?

The choice of the name and costume is very relevant to Ditko’s contribution but not real relevant to Stan’s.  Ditko’s argument is that he and Lee not Kirby and Lee created the Spider-Man that Marvel went with.  And based on what we know of the “Silver Spider” and the Fly it appears that is likely the case. Ditko got Stan to change directions by pointing out the Kirby’s concept was likely plagiarism of Simon & Kirby’s earlier work.

Ditko is rebutting that Kirby created his Spider-Man even while acknowledging Stan’s storytelling leaves much out.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:41 AM, Zonker said:

Jim Shooter referenced seeing a page of the pre-Ditko Kirby version of "Spiderman"

And presumably Ditko is remembering at some point seeing pencils of the Kirby version of "Spiderman" when he later sketches out the differences between Captain America, Kirby's Spiderman concept, and what we now recognize as the Ditko Spider-Man.

i.e. this guy

Shooter says:

RE:  Kirby Spider-Man pages: I saw, and held in my hand, exactly one such page. It was a page of design drawings. I remember that his version of Spider-Man had a “Web-Gun” and wore trunks, I think, like Captain America’s. He was far bigger and bulkier than Ditko’s version. There were no similarities to Ditko’s Spider-Man costume. I think he had boots with flaps. There were notes in he margin that described the character, again, nothing like the Ditko version. I think there was something about him being related to, or having some connection with a police official, which was how he’d find out about trouble going on.  It was a long time ago, I can’t swear to that last item, but I can swear to the fact that it wasn’t similar to the Ditko version. I remember thinking, “This isn’t at all like Ditko’s.”

[sfcityduck]

Worth noting Shooter is not referring to story pages.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:23 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Jeez... the REJECTED one that Kirby drew for Marvel PRE-AMAZING FANTASY #15 that Ditko was going to ink when he noticed (or heard) it was heavily based on the Fly. Ditko told this to Stan Lee, who had no clue and would have been none the wiser if that story had gone to print. Why do I need to keep repeating this for you? It's only been referred to about 20 times in this thread. You need to calm down and stop raging at people because of your own incomprehension.

Where did Kirby claim he had pencilled a full Spiderman story for Marvel? Kirby's claim:

Quote

GROTH: Can I ask what your involvement in Spider-Man was?
KIRBY: I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Man cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that.

The Kirby's Museum's (fan website really) "rejected story" was done for another publisher who rejected it back in 1954. That's the "Silver Spider" story. 

[Zonker]

On 7/10/2023 at 10:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

Where did Kirby claim he had pencilled a full Spiderman story for Marvel? Kirby's claim:

 

I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if necessary) our best source for a Kirby-penciled Spiderman story comes from Ditko (quoted on the previous page of this thread:

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.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 7:34 AM, Zonker said:

I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if necessary) our best source for a Kirby-penciled Spiderman story comes from Ditko (quoted on the previous page of this thread:

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.

What's strange is that I've never seen Kirby make that claim. He claimed to have showed Stan old art.  But Ditko has a specific recollection that he published in his blog some 21 years ago:

This doesn't help the Kirby created Spider-Man view at all.

[Zonker]

Two very telling points from Ditko's recollections on the previous page of this thread.

Quote

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.

Ditko references a Stan synopsis.  One would think if Stan told him there would be a synopsis but then never delivered one to Ditko, that would have been worth a mention at this point, right?

Quote

Marvel's SM is a co-creation of Lee and Ditko, two persons.

As far as I can tell, Ditko never claimed sole creation of Spider-Man.  But he didn't appreciate what sounded to the black & white Ditko worldview like weasel-words coming from Stan: "I consider Steve Ditko to be the co-creator..."

[sfcityduck]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:24 AM, Zonker said:

 

As far as I can tell, Ditko never claimed sole creation of Spider-Man.  But he didn't appreciate what sounded to the black & white Ditko worldview like weasel-words coming from Stan: "I consider Steve Ditko to be the co-creator..."

Ditko consistently stated that Spider-Man was a Ditko & Lee creation not a Kirby & Lee creation. And, yes, Ditko consistently stated that Lee did a synopsis for the first story, moved to a plot meetings and with Ditko doing art and Stan did dialogue, and eventually they stopped talking directly about plot but Stan still did dialogue.

 

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko makes clear he had not seen a story penciled recently by Kirby for Marvel but work Kirby had shown Stan for an old idea for another publisher (eg “Silver Spider”) to be renamed Spider-Man or Spiderman

Ditko obviously DID see Kirby's penciled pages, saying "That is the Spider-Man 'given' to me".  Ditko discusses seeing the story in detail in the opinion piece you posted ALONG with Ditko's drawing of the Kirby Spider-Man. Significantly, Ditko noted that  Kirby's Spider-Man was a teenager who lived with his elderly aunt (and uncle). I reiterate that YOU actually posted it on this very page.... did you not look at what you were uploading?

And there is no indication that Kirby showed Stan the old CC Beck story instead drawing a brand new Spider-Man story himself. In fact, Ditko's own words testify that the latter is the case.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

On 7/11/2023 at 12:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

Where did Kirby claim he had pencilled a full Spiderman story for Marvel? Kirby's claim:

The Kirby's Museum's (fan website really) "rejected story" was done for another publisher who rejected it back in 1954. That's the "Silver Spider" story. 

Kirby didn't claim that, but Ditko did -- in the opinion piece that you yourself posted recently. The Silver Spider story pitch was created and drawn by CC Beck (that's not Jack Kirby, and Ditko would have known the difference), and is not what Ditko described being given to ink in early 1962. For more information, read your own post.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Mmehdy]

I think one thing is clear....by the evidence Kirby/Ditko were the true creators of the marvel universe with a little stan sprinkled on top.Lets look at more evidence...more stories on this post to confirm what we now know.

[Bronty]

On 7/12/2023 at 5:46 PM, Mmehdy said:

I think one thing is clear....by the evidence Kirby/Ditko were the true creators of the marvel universe with a little stan sprinkled on top.Lets look at more evidence...more stories on this post to confirm what we now know.

I think we needed all three of them for it to happen.

To look at it from another angle, I find it interesting to look at the pre-hero books.    Same creative team, but slightly before the superheroes so all of that antagonistic energy about who did this or that is taken out of the equation because by and large no one cares.     They are not all that different than the hero books in a lot of ways, but they also prove the point I think that you needed the right writer/editor, the right artists, the right concept, all together and all at the same time for it to work.    If you pull any ingredient out of that cake, its no longer cake.   

[Dr. Haydn]

On 7/13/2023 at 10:55 AM, Bronty said:

I think we needed all three of them for it to happen.

If you pull any ingredient out of that cake, its no longer cake.   

Kirby and Ditko were the batter, Lee was the frosting?

[Bronty]

On 7/13/2023 at 12:00 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Kirby and Ditko were the batter, Lee was the frosting?

That's a pretty good analogy.    The frosting may not do much of the work, so to speak, but without the frosting the cake doesn't sell.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:23 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Jeez... the REJECTED one that Kirby drew for Marvel PRE-AMAZING FANTASY #15 that Ditko was going to ink when he noticed (or heard) it was heavily based on the Fly. Ditko told this to Stan Lee, who had no clue and would have been none the wiser if that story had gone to print. Why do I need to keep repeating this for you? It's only been referred to about 20 times in this thread. You need to calm down and stop raging at people because of your own incomprehension.

You can say countless times that Lee would have sent the Kirby spiderman story to print if Ditko hadn't told him it reminded him of the fly, but that doesn't make it true.  You're still putting thoughts into Lee's head that contradict not only what Lee has said but also what everybody else involved, including Ditko and Kirby, have said.   And it requires concluding that Stan Lee would have cared that it was reminiscent of the Fly, even as you might say, in the same breath, that he shamelessly ripped off other publishers.  Nobody has ever been quoted saying that Stan Lee liked what Kirby did, and all have agreed that his disapproval was the first step toward making it something different.   The tenor of this argument being waged here remains fascinating in the way that some people try so hard to come off sounding like they're coming at it with no agenda, and don't realize their vitriol is glaringly obvious even before they lapse, as they often do, into name-calling.  And every argument stems from one guy is God and the other is the Devil.  Does the original idea of one guy mean everything regardless of how much another guy changed it?  If you're talking about Kirby being the guy with the idea (silver surfer) then yes.  Even though he was drawn as one of several minions and, in the original pages, a quickly dispatched one,  the fact that Lee turned him into something else is seen as without any consideration whatsoever, and the surfer is deemed "100%" Kirby.  But if the original idea is something Stan Lee said, and Ditko did a lot to make it better, than the original idea to be disregarded completely.  Even if Ditko had originally placed a huge emphasis on the costume in his claims of creation and it was later revealed that there were halloween costumes on sale years before which, if you cut and reassembled the various versions, you could "create" one that was virtually identical to Ditko's.  When talking about how Stan Lee would collaborate on stories, some of the guys who downplayed, or disregarded completely, his contribution, are the same guys who mocked the way he would assume voices for characters and jump on tables enacting fight scenes.  Like so many things, as the rabbi said in "Fiddler", they can't both be true.  But people want to operate from some perceived larger truth -- that the guy they like is a God and the guy that don't like is the Devil, so all facts that support those conclusions are accepted, even when they contradict each other.

The fact is that in comics, and in every form of entertainment, everybody steals from what has come before and when people collaborate they often don't realize how much their own thoughts were sparked or changed by things other people said. Ultimately, the team becomes a thing in itself, and in some cases it becomes greater than the sum of its parts.