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

[Dr. Haydn]

It has been suggested (I forget by whom--I read a lot of stuff on comic book sites) that this story predates the origin story in Tales of Suspense 39 and therefore was initially planned as Iron Man's TRUE origin story (though admittedly it's numbered X-131, while TOS 39 was X-51). Kirby (with Bernstein) certainly introduces the main character and fleshes out his personality. (The tale only lacks the backstory on why Tony Stark has a bad heart.) Notice the credits: NO FORMAL CREDIT BOX, unlike the previous Iron Man Story. Instead, the names are hastily added at the bottom of the page (and not in the hand of credited letterer, John Duffy), like they were in the transition period of late 1962.

[Zonker]

On 2/20/2023 at 9:32 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

It has been suggested (I forget by whom--I read a lot of stuff on comic book sites) that this story predates the origin story in Tales of Suspense 39 and therefore was initially planned as Iron Man's TRUE origin story (though admittedly it's numbered X-131, while TOS 39 was X-51). Kirby (with Bernstein) certainly introduces the main character and fleshes out his personality. (The tale only lacks the backstory on why Tony Stark has a bad heart.) Notice the credits: NO FORMAL CREDIT BOX, unlike the previous Iron Man Story. Instead, the names are hastily added at the bottom of the page (and not in the hand of credited letterer, John Duffy), like they were in the transition period of late 1962.

I've read that as well, but if true, why bother with the grey to gold armor transition in this story, if it was done first?  Why not just start with the golden armor?  Unless maybe they heavily reworked this story after giving #39 to Heck to draw (but with Kirby's cover image already in front of him).

[Prince Namor]

A couple of thoughts on this theory...

- As with every new character so far, the second appearance would feature a recap of the origin. Not with Iron Man. Is that because this was actually the first story done? (The origin flashback would be in TOS #41)

-If Stan switched them, did he do so for appearances? Kirby no longer is seen as having done the 'first' story, so the real creator is Stan... 

-Is this Stan's new M.O.? Take a synopsis from a past Kirby story and use a different artist, so that the appearance is that HE is brains behind everything. The first few stories of Spider-man follow this (taken from the Private Strong/Shield stories), and TOS #39 as well (taken from the Green Arrow story).

-(from Chris Tolworthy) Why are #39 and #40 backwards? In every other story, the first story defines the character and the second one is a Cold War story. (Exp: Thor's origin in JIM #83 and then #84 fights a far eastern warlord - Hulk's origin in #1 and then #2 vs a Russian warlord - Ant-Man origin and then the 2nd story vs the Russians...)

-Real Science (Kirby) vs poor story telling (#39)... in #40, Stark has the tools he needs to make advanced technology, it makes sense. But in #39, Stark is able to create that advanced armor with the latest microprocessors from rusty scrap parts? (In the Green Arrow version, he has to simply make explosive arrows). 

-The armor color is just an angle in the story. Tony creates, but isn''t necessarily thinking in terms of appearances. Based upon what his date says, he makes the adjustment. It's not weird or improbable that it'd take place in the first story. In fact, it would fit the way scientific thinkers work vs creative thinkers. 

[Zonker]

On 2/20/2023 at 12:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

-The armor color is just an angle in the story. Tony creates, but isn''t necessarily thinking in terms of appearances. Based upon what his date says, he makes the adjustment. It's not weird or improbable that it'd take place in the first story. In fact, it would fit the way scientific thinkers work vs creative thinkers. 

 Doing it this way might also serve as an explanation for why Tony is called the Iron Man versus the "Golden Man."  

[Dr. Haydn]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:10 AM, Prince Namor said:

A couple of thoughts on this theory...

- As with every new character so far, the second appearance would feature a recap of the origin. Not with Iron Man. Is that because this was actually the first story done? (The origin flashback would be in TOS #41)

-If Stan switched them, did he do so for appearances? Kirby no longer is seen as having done the 'first' story, so the real creator is Stan... 

-Is this Stan's new M.O.? Take a synopsis from a past Kirby story and use a different artist, so that the appearance is that HE is brains behind everything. The first few stories of Spider-man follow this (taken from the Private Strong/Shield stories), and TOS #39 as well (taken from the Green Arrow story).

-(from Chris Tolworthy) Why are #39 and #40 backwards? In every other story, the first story defines the character and the second one is a Cold War story. (Exp: Thor's origin in JIM #83 and then #84 fights a far eastern warlord - Hulk's origin in #1 and then #2 vs a Russian warlord - Ant-Man origin and then the 2nd story vs the Russians...)

-Real Science (Kirby) vs poor story telling (#39)... in #40, Stark has the tools he needs to make advanced technology, it makes sense. But in #39, Stark is able to create that advanced armor with the latest microprocessors from rusty scrap parts? (In the Green Arrow version, he has to simply make explosive arrows). 

-The armor color is just an angle in the story. Tony creates, but isn''t necessarily thinking in terms of appearances. Based upon what his date says, he makes the adjustment. It's not weird or improbable that it'd take place in the first story. In fact, it would fit the way scientific thinkers work vs creative thinkers. 

What interests me is one piece of evidence suggests TOS 40 is the later story (X-131 versus X-51), while the format of the credits (handwritten credits across the bottom of the page versus a formal credit box) suggests TOS 40 is earlier. So, it's up to the internal evidence of the stories themselves to guide us here. (Larry Lieber is the only participant in either story who is still alive to weigh in on the issue.)

[Dr. Haydn]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:10 AM, Prince Namor said:

A couple of thoughts on this theory...

- As with every new character so far, the second appearance would feature a recap of the origin. Not with Iron Man. Is that because this was actually the first story done? (The origin flashback would be in TOS #41)

-If Stan switched them, did he do so for appearances? Kirby no longer is seen as having done the 'first' story, so the real creator is Stan... 

-Is this Stan's new M.O.? Take a synopsis from a past Kirby story and use a different artist, so that the appearance is that HE is brains behind everything. The first few stories of Spider-man follow this (taken from the Private Strong/Shield stories), and TOS #39 as well (taken from the Green Arrow story).

-(from Chris Tolworthy) Why are #39 and #40 backwards? In every other story, the first story defines the character and the second one is a Cold War story. (Exp: Thor's origin in JIM #83 and then #84 fights a far eastern warlord - Hulk's origin in #1 and then #2 vs a Russian warlord - Ant-Man origin and then the 2nd story vs the Russians...)

-Real Science (Kirby) vs poor story telling (#39)... in #40, Stark has the tools he needs to make advanced technology, it makes sense. But in #39, Stark is able to create that advanced armor with the latest microprocessors from rusty scrap parts? (In the Green Arrow version, he has to simply make explosive arrows). 

-The armor color is just an angle in the story. Tony creates, but isn''t necessarily thinking in terms of appearances. Based upon what his date says, he makes the adjustment. It's not weird or improbable that it'd take place in the first story. In fact, it would fit the way scientific thinkers work vs creative thinkers. 

Interestingly, though Kirby et al. spend many pages laying out Tony Stark's triple life in TOS #40, there is no mention anywhere in the story of how he was injured in his origin story of TOS #39, especially on page 3, where he ruminates about his life-saving chest plate. One would think that would have rated (at least) a brief flashback somewhere around here, if the origin story was truly written first.

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1963

Jack also did the cover for Rawhide Kid #33 - and even inked it himself. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1963

Meanwhile over at DC Comics, there was an artist by the name of John Romita, who was really coming into his own...

[Dr. Haydn]

None of Romita's covers are signed. I guess DC frowned upon that?

[Prince Namor]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:09 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

None of Romita's covers are signed. I guess DC frowned upon that?

I'm not sure if it was policy or not... I don't think many artists for any of the big publishers signed covers...

[Dr. Haydn]

On 2/21/2023 at 10:05 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm not sure if it was policy or not... I don't think many artists for any of the big publishers signed covers...

I recall a Curt Swan cover from around this time where he snuck the word Curtis on a background marquee.

 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Kathy #22 and Modeling with Millie #22 come out on February 5th, and Kirby does the cover to Two Gun Kid #63 (inked by D. Ayers).

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Three of Marvel's titles for the week would feature a new look... the corner art box, as displayed here on Patsy Walker #106 (Al Hartley art).

Steve Ditko in his 2000-2002-ish essays would take credit with coming up with the idea for these corner art boxes, saying that Stan had to ask Goodman for permission to do it. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Journey Into Mystery #91 - Stan must've thought the problem with JIM #90 was the art, as he let his brother Larry actually -script one more issue (as opposed to the one's he pretended to -script with Kirby). And this one blows too. 

Stan's 'plot' didn't help either. 

I guess it 'helps' that Joe Sinnott is a better action artist than Al Hartley (who did humor/romance), though here his work isn't exactly... his best. 

If Kirby had left at this point, the Marvel Universe would've fallen apart pretty quick.

Feel free to point out your favorite goofy panels.

[bc]

So he strained his brain?

 

Also, did the Valkyries teleport from Asgard to earth to bring the strength belt from Odin? Inquiring minds and stuff...

-bc

[Dr. Haydn]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:21 AM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Kathy #22 and Modeling with Millie #22 come out on February 5th, and Kirby does the cover to Two Gun Kid #63 (inked by D. Ayers).

From the Grand Comics Database: "MR. Ayers recalls this story [The Bronc-Buster] as the first one he worked from Stan Lee's plot synopsis (AKA Marvel method). While The job number on the lead story is earlier (X-142) it's entirely possible Ayers received both assignments around the same period and possibly worked on that story Marvel method as well. Info per Nick Caputo, March 2013."

Edited February 22, 2023 by Dr. Haydn
changed MR. Ayers back to MR..

[Zonker]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:35 AM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Journey Into Mystery #91 - And this one blows too. 

.

  It's not a great story by any means, but I find this one better than some of the others attributed to Larry Lieber.  I could see this basic story fitting into something DC might have published in 1963:  Change Thor to Green Lantern, Loki to Sinestro, his Asgardian prison to Qward, the hammer becomes the power ring, etc. and you would basically have a meh, okay mid-run issue of Green Lantern.  

[Prince Namor]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:08 PM, Zonker said:

  It's not a great story by any means, but I find this one better than some of the others attributed to Larry Lieber.

Better than #90? I agree. Other than that, he didn't actually write any of the others. Which ones do you think this story (Stan's plot) is better than???

On 2/22/2023 at 8:08 PM, Zonker said:

I could see this basic story fitting into something DC might have published in 1963:  Change Thor to Green Lantern, Loki to Sinestro, his Asgardian prison to Qward, the hammer becomes the power ring, etc. and you would basically have a meh, okay mid-run issue of Green Lantern.  

Probably closer to a Superman story, but yeah... not a ringing endorsement to the modern day Shakespeare's 'plot' or his brother's '-script'. 

Nowhere does it say Larry wrote the 'story' - it just listed him as '-script'. Which in Stan Lee world means he did the dialogue. And the dialogue is stiff, sometimes silly, and obviously written in simplistic comic book form for a younger reader. Hence, the comparison to DC Comics. Which completely goes against Stan's later claim that he wanted to write stories for a more 'sophisticated' audience. 

Minus Kirby, this is what we get from a Thor story at early Marvel. 

[Prince Namor]

In the Spring, the 2nd Annual Alley Awards would be listed in Jerry Bails and Roy Thomas' Alter Ego Fanzine... with Marvel getting some recognition... in particular the FF already surpassing the JLA as best group! 

1962

• Best Comic Book of the Year - Fantastic Four  (Marvel Comics)
• Best Editor of a Comics Group - Julius Schwartz  (DC Comics)
• Best -script Writer - Gardner Fox
• Best Pencil Artist - Carmine Infantino
• Best Inker - Murphy Anderson
• Best Hero - Hawkman  (DC Comics)
• Best Group of Heroes - Fantastic Four  (Marvel Comics)
• Best Villain - Sub-Mariner (Fantastic Four)  (Marvel Comics)
• Best Supporting Character - The Thing (Fantastic Four)  (Marvel Comics)
• Best Short Story - "Origin of Spider-Man" by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko, Amazing Fantasy #15  (Marvel Comics)
• Best Book-Length Story - "The Planet that Came to a Standstill", by Gardner Fox & Carmine Infantino, Mystery in Space #75  (DC Comics)
• Best Single Comic Book Cover - The Brave and the Bold #42, by Joe Kubert  (DC Comics)
• Comic Most in Need of Improvement - Batman  (DC Comics)
• Hero/Heroine Most Worthy of Revival - The Spectre  (DC Comics)

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1963

Jack also did the cover for Tales to Astonish #43 (inked by Sol Brodsky) - but inside we again get a Stan Lee plot, with Larry Lieber ---script, Don Heck art (and Ray Holloway lettering). 

Holy Cannoli, this story and it's dialogue might be as dumb as JIM #90... from the Marvel House of Lame Ideas! This is what a Kirby-less Marvel would've looked like. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Prince Namor