Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1964) The Slow Build 5 5

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:13 AM, N e r V said:

Ok, that’s an interesting take. I’ve never seen Mark Evanier be anything but entirely pro Kirby. I’ve posted on boards in the past he’s been on. If anything he’s disliked by others for being to anti Stan Lee and to much pro Kirby. Lol

He has taken the stance that Larry Lieber wrote all the scripts for Kirby on the monster stories.

There's zero proof, and from an outsiders view who takes into consideration all things that we DO know, completely beyond sense. 

Yet he repeats it over and over and over, again diminishing Kirby's talent.

Some friend.

 

He's also taken to advancing the view that Jack had a bad memory and was prone to saying non-sensical things.

When pressed on it, he couldn't show proof. Actual proof.

Then low and behold he started that 'I created Superman' story about Jack. 

The Stan Lee Brigade, led by Houseroy and his fanboy magazine have used that 'poor memory' schtick to downplay Jack's claims for decades as they tried to build Stan's story (and Larry's as well).

Stan's been caught in so many lies - the factual errors that we know of in Origins is remarkable - yet, they have somehow turned it around to make Jack look like the guy with a faulty memory who gets his facts wrong? Unbelievable.

And Evanier has played into this, KNOWING, that Jack's stance has remained the same throughout the years. It's STAN who has constantly changed his story because he's been caught in a lie.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 8:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

He's also taken to advancing the view that Jack had a bad memory and was prone to saying non-sensical things.

On the other hand, Stan Lee's bad memory deluded him into thinking he created every Marvel character and story of the Silver Age. In reality, he was a glorified proofreader and huckster.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:47 PM, N e r V said:

Yeah I’d have to group that in with the Stan Lee --script to Fantastic Four #1 that exists. I’m probably in the same group as Mark Evanier and others who question when that --script was written. It’s easy enough to see Lee producing a Fantastic Four #1 --script to take credit after the fact. The only question I have is that it’s apparently existed since the 1960’s when there was no reason even thinking to write something like that. Kirby was still at Marvel and the feud was years away over who did what. Was Stan planning on stealing credit around 1965 or 1966 and typed it up as part of his master plan? If it’s legit is it simply based on ideas that Jack Kirby and Stan Lee discussed and he typed it up? I’ve never seen either side clearly explain on how it’s real or a fake. You can dismiss it either way as some do but it still leaves questions. I’ve seen and owned a few of the original Marvel scripts Lee and others did at the time in Marvel method and they can be pretty short with older ones sometimes longer as the system evolved.

Another contrarian view that Evanier has and yet changed that I pointed out earlier - how he has SO MANY written plots Stan gave Jack for the stories over the years - without providing PROOF that any of them exist. And when, asked under oath - completely forgot them and said Jack worked entirely on his own without any assistance from anyone at Marvel. (That quote is viewable online)

And...

Mark Evanier in the YANCY STREET GAZETTE #17 (1968). This is only months before Evanier met Kirby and began working for him. 

[Math Teacher]

On 9/28/2023 at 4:26 AM, Steven Valdez said:

JACK KIRBY -- 'I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Man cover [actually the first 2 covers]. I created the character. I created the costume.'

It really seems like he was talking about the known, published costume in this quote. Why would he say 'I created the costume' if he was talking about some obscure prototype that never saw print?

If Kirby created Spider-Man, why did he have a tendency to forget to put the spider symbol on both the front and the back of Spider-Man's costume?

     

 

 

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 9:25 PM, Math Teacher said:

If Kirby created Spider-Man, why did he have a tendency to forget to put the spider symbol on both the front and the back of Spider-Man's costume?

     

 

 

Indeed, but Ditko had trouble keeping Spidey's webbing curves consistent from one panel to the next -- or even in the same panel. The first 2 examples are from ASM #5. The first shows the webbing curving in different directions on each forearm. The second panel shows Spidey without his chest bug... and this continued for multiple panels until it suddenly appears. This sort of thing happened in every issue of Ditko's run, even his final issue, #38 (the forearm webbing anomaly right on the cover; they're going in the wrong direction on his chest and right foot, too).

EDIT: Flipping through a few more Ditko issues, and pretty much every Spidey drawing has a mistake with the webbing patterns. Sometimes it even changes direction halfway through. Not that I really care, and I slavishly worship Ditko as if I was a lowly peon... but to say Jack made mistakes on Spidey's costume really falls flat as 'evidence' that he did not create the costume. It was complex to draw, and Jack and Steve were both working very fast in those days.

PS: At least Super-Man (below) knows who Dr Doom is.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[jimjum12]

On 9/28/2023 at 5:42 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Claiming that Kirby said he created Superman seems to be a piece of hyperbole to make a convenient point. He's very prone to exaggeration as a narrative technique.

... so is Kirby. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Zonker]

I usually try to find areas where we don't have to point the finger at either Lee or Kirby as out-and-out lying. So, by being charitable with what we consider to be "writing" we can understand Kirby being sure that what Kirby was doing (in the Marvel method) counted as writing, while Lee was equally sure that what Lee was doing also counted as "writing."  But a couple of Stan Lee's claims in the Origins book just defy belief: the idea for Thor being prompted by a supposed Stan Lee radio show interview (back in 1961??), or the contradictory Doctor Strange claim versus his real-time disavowal ("twas Steve's idea.")  Makes me doubt all the other tall tales in that book and thereafter.

And then we have Kirby's TCJ memory about the genesis of the Hulk. Even Roz has to pull him back from this one.  (Emphasis mine in the below for the statements that particularly make me go )

Quote

KIRBY: The Hulk I created when I saw a woman lift a car. Her baby was caught under the running board of this car. The little child was playing in the gutter and he was crawling from the gutter onto the sidewalk under the running board of this car — he was playing in the gutter. His mother was horrified. She looked from the rear window of the car, and this woman in desperation lifted the rear end of the car. It suddenly came to me that in desperation we can all do that — we can knock down walls, we can go berserk, which we do. You know what happens when we’re in a rage — you can tear a house down. I created a character who did all that and called him the Hulk. I inserted him in a lot of the stories I was doing. Whatever the Hulk was at the beginning I got from that incident. A character to me can’t be contrived. I don’t like to contrive characters. They have to have an element of truth. This woman proved to me that the ordinary person in desperate circumstances can transcend himself and do things that he wouldn’t ordinarily do. I’ve done it myself. I’ve bent steel.

GROTH: Was the child caught between the running board…?

KIRBY: He wasn’t caught. He was playing under the running board in the gutter. His head was sticking out, and then he decided he wanted to get back on the sidewalk again. But being under the car frightened his mother. He was having difficulty crawling out from under the running board, so his mother looked like she was going to scream, and she looked very desperate. She didn’t scream, but she ran over to the car and, very determined, she lifted up the entire rear of that car. I’m not saying she was a slender woman, [laughter.] She was a short, firm, well-built woman — and the Hulk was there. I didn’t know what it was. It began to form.

ROZ KIRBY: You also said the Hulk reminded you of Frankenstein.

KIRBY: The Hulk was Frankenstein. Frankenstein can rip up the place, and the Hulk could never remember who he formerly was.

The earliest Hulks don't have Banner changing in an adrenaline-fueled rage (that came later) but were triggered by the sun going down at nightfall.  So kind of a combination of Frankenstein and the werewolf, wrapped up in a Comics Code Approved super-science gamma-ray explanation.  

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/28/2023 at 8:28 AM, Zonker said:

The earliest Hulks don't have Banner changing in an adrenaline-fueled rage (that came later) but were triggered by the sun going down at nightfall.  So kind of a combination of Frankenstein and the werewolf, wrapped up in a Comics Code Approved super-science gamma-ray explanation.  

If memory serves, the adrenaline-fueled Hulk originated with the Ditko-Lee reboot of the character in Tales to Astonish, sometime in 1964. (I guess we'll get there in this thread in due time!) Ditko certainly doesn't get quite enough credit for his contributions to the Hulk. (Iron Man as well, for that matter.)

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:32 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Indeed, but Ditko had trouble keeping Spidey's webbing curves consistent from one panel to the next -- or even in the same panel. The first 2 examples are from ASM #5. The first shows the webbing curving in different directions on each forearm. The second panel shows Spidey without his chest bug... and this continued for multiple panels until it suddenly appears. This sort of thing happened in every issue of Ditko's run, even his final issue, #38 (the forearm webbing anomaly right on the cover; they're going in the wrong direction on his chest and right foot, too).

EDIT: Flipping through a few more Ditko issues, and pretty much every Spidey drawing has a mistake with the webbing patterns. Sometimes it even changes direction halfway through. Not that I really care, and I slavishly worship Ditko as if I was a lowly peon... but to say Jack made mistakes on Spidey's costume really falls flat as 'evidence' that he did not create the costume. It was complex to draw, and Jack and Steve were both working very fast in those days.

PS: At least Super-Man (below) knows who Dr Doom is.

"Spider-man light beam." Hmm...I wonder when it became known as the spider-signal, officially (referencing Batman's gadgetry), and did the Distinguished Competition object?

[shadroch]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:42 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Evanier is just making assumptions there, about Kirby not designing the known Spider-Man costume. He wasn't around to know if Ditko drew his version of the AF#15 cover before or after Kirby's.

Claiming that Kirby said he created Superman seems to be a piece of hyperbole to make a convenient point. He's very prone to exaggeration as a narrative technique.

Yet, when Stan does the same thing, you accuse him of being the world's worst liar.

One guy is a liar, and the other is prone to exaggerate, as a narrative technique.

Fair and balanced.

[Prince Namor]

The idea that Stan and Jack were 'equal' in their hyperbole or memory lapses or exaggeration is ridiculous.

Stan lied that he did the monster stories with Jack. Stan lied that he created the Fantastic Four. Stan lied that he didn't know who the Challengers of the Unknown were. Stan lied EVERY issue of EVERY comic by Marvel when he called himself the 'writer' or 'author' or whatever cleverly deceitful way he could creatively phrase it. Stan lied about creating Spider-man. Stan lied about creating Thor. Stan lied about Martin Goodman's golf game. Stan lied about Larry Lieber being Kirby's 'scripter'. Stan lied when he said Ditko was ignoring HIM. Stan lied (in print) about Wally Wood. Stan lied under OATH in a court of law. 

Stan lied about the Marvel Value Stamp prizes that you never got for cutting those things out of your comic!

Stan lied about almost EVERYTHING.

The Stan Lee brigade repeats the same 2 to 3 things about Jack over and over and over (one of them - the Superman claim - which has no basis in fact) and they think that's EQUAL. 

It's not even worth debating. Stan Lee was one of the world's biggest BS artists. The best thing - the ONLY great thing that ever happened to him, was he was able to latch on to Kirby and Ditko for part of the 60's. Other than that he showed no sign of artistic creativity at all. He went 20 years with NOTHING and then 43 more with NOTHING. 

You think New Gods was a failure? It's still in print because of its popularity. Kamandi just had a collected edition. Omac just had a collected edition. Kirby's post Marvel work is STILL being bought and read.

Stan Lee's post Kirby material? Not so much.

Stan Lee in his last 43 years had ZERO.

As in NOTHING.

THAT is a failure.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Prince Namor

[The humble Watcher lurking]

Outstanding thread . Very informative.

[shadroch]

I hope I fail as spectacularly as Stan did in my last 43 years.  If there is one word that doesn't come to mind when I think of Stan Lee, it certainly isn't failure. 

It's amazing how hatred can blur reality. 

[jimjum12]

On 9/28/2023 at 8:46 PM, shadroch said:

I hope I fail as spectacularly as Stan did in my last 43 years.  If there is one word that doesn't come to mind when I think of Stan Lee, it certainly isn't failure. 

It's amazing how hatred can blur reality. 

Such a good way of saying that. I have trouble understanding why people are so full of this venom, so many years after all this even allegedly occured. As for 4th World popularity, I don't believe I've ever had even one person ask about them at a convention. These popular trades I keep hearing about are in the $5 clearance areas around here, if they're even stocked at all. I've asked the LCS guys around here, none are interested in tying up capital to stock them. Maybe the popularity is some sort of regional phenomenon. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) 

[shadroch]

Stan joined the other failures in 2010 when he got his Star on Hollywood Blvd. 

Fame- check

Fortune- check

Glory- check

Beloved-check

An inspiration- check

role model- check

Yep, Mr. Lee certainly was a spectacular failure.

 

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:37 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

If memory serves, the adrenaline-fueled Hulk originated with the Ditko-Lee reboot of the character in Tales to Astonish, sometime in 1964. (I guess we'll get there in this thread in due time!) Ditko certainly doesn't get quite enough credit for his contributions to the Hulk. (Iron Man as well, for that matter.)

Love that Ditko Hulk run in TTA. They used that Leader storyline in the '66-67 Hulk cartoon.

Seems like the 'Hulk by Night' shtick was dropped after Hulk #3. For the second half of the original series, Banner used a gamma-ray machine that turned him to and from the Hulk at the flick of a switch. But the device started acting up, and in the final issue he had the body of the Hulk with the face of Banner... so he started wearing a Hulk mask! Yep, it was getting real goofy.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - AD

Edited September 29, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - Statement of Publication

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - Statement of Publication

It's interesting how the perception people have is of Marvel exploding in the 60's is not really the reality. Strange Tales at 189,305 is LOWER than it was when Kirby was doing the monster books in 1961 (191,261). Woody Woodpecker sells almost 20,000 more copies a month - Little Lulu and Yogi Bear almost 50,000 more a month.

My estimates on ASM and FF (around 240,000 a month), is still 100,000 less than the Three Stooges and Tarzan for Dell. Charlton has a hit with the Flintstones at 325,350.

Marvel was in the ACG/Charlton range of Comic Sales, but Goodman allowed for it to continue on... even books like this that didn't really have the quantity of sales he wanted (above 200,000). Some might say that people didn't 'get it' - those Human Torch stories with the generic villains - some might even say 'the sales weren't good enough', 'it was an experiment that didn't work'. Stan had tried his best, but he didn't make it work.

Instead, Stanley kept on and kept on and the line would grow. 

What was his motivating factor to keep it going until it worked? Goodman's positive reinforcement? The thrill of creativity? Having something to prove?

No.

Stanley got paid for the 'writing' of these stories. Without having to actually write them.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Steven Valdez]

Comics, trashy magazines and cheap soft-porn paperbacks in the '60s and '70s were an easy way of laundering money.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Steven Valdez