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

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

X-Men #5 - 

Part TWO: 

[Dr. Haydn]

X-men #5 was a nice, fun, early Silver Age action issue with some interesting character bits for heroes and foes alike.

 

A few random thoughts:

So, telekinesis has a plural form! I wonder if Stan realized this when he dialogued this panel?

[Dr. Haydn]

Mastermind is a smoker! That would rank a parental advisory or two in 2023.

Wasn't there a famous panel with Mastermind pursuing his smoking habit in the Dark Phoenix Saga, a decade and a half later?

[Dr. Haydn]

And, finally: as Kitty Pride would so eloquently phrase it 20 years later: Professor X is a JERK!

 

[Mmehdy]

I noticed that Kirby/Ditko paved the way for the 1968 creative explosion....it is great to see how marvel evolved step by step...thanks for the great postings...it appears the other creators "got it" and went with it....

Edited October 9, 2023 by Mmehdy

[Steven Valdez]

On 10/10/2023 at 7:52 AM, Mmehdy said:

I noticed that Kirby/Ditko paved the way for the 1968 creative explosion....it is great to see how marvel evolved step by step...thanks for the great postings...it appears the other creators "got it" and went with it....

It's uncannily similar to the evolution of popular music in the '60s. Primitive yet powerful in the early-mid decade, bursting into unmatched innovation and creativity circa '68.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/10/2023 at 2:15 AM, Steven Valdez said:

It's uncannily similar to the evolution of popular music in the '60s. Primitive yet powerful in the early-mid decade, bursting into unmatched innovation and creativity circa '68.

I don't know about the comics, but the music may have had an additional stimulant helping out...

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS APRIL 1964

Amazing Spider-man #14 - Written by Stan Lee  (The Poor Man's Shakespeare)  Illustrated by Steve Ditko (The Poor Man's Da Vinci)  Lettered by: Art Simek (The Poor Man's Rich Man)

Cover by Steve Ditko

The difference between a Stan Lee 'Story' that's done with Kirby or Ditko, as opposed to anyone else becomes more and more clear, especially one Ditko begins to assert himself even more...

Part ONE: 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS APRIL 1964

Amazing Spider-man #14 - 

Part TWO: 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS APRIL 1964

Amazing Spider-man #14 - Letters Page(s)

[Prince Namor]

Ditko on this issue:

The Green Goblin was introduced in The Amazing Spider-man #14 (July 1964). The story guest stars The Hulk. (That cover plays a problem and solution that will be explained in an appropriate context.)

Stan's synopsis for The Green Goblin had a movie crew, on location, finding an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. Inside was an ancient, mythological demon, The Green Goblin. He naturally comes to life.

I rejected Stan's idea.

Why? For the same reason I rejected other ideas of Stan's on Spider-man. (Others to be explained in due time.)

The mythological creature was too far out for Spider-man. Since Peter Parker is a teenage costumed hero, I believed we should keep Spider-man's fiction from be- coming too fantastic. A mythological demon made the whole Peter Parker/Spider-man world a place where nothing is metaphysically impossible. It would open up the story line to anything goes. Any kind of idea is easier to come up with than the best idea for the character. But especially with a teenage hero, the story line's premise should show him growing up in a more stable, understandable environment, story world. That is why I showed so many panels with Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, and Peter Parker in school with classmates (which Stan did not like).

A line has to be drawn for what is acceptable and not acceptable for a character. (I even had magic limits on Dr. Strange. Amazing Spider-man Annual #2 (1965) featuring Dr. Strange, was, as an annual should be, a special event. It does not necessarily have to connect with the monthly adventures. And Spider-man was already long undercut with space aliens.)

[Prince Namor]

Ditko actually show horned that between two other train of thoughts... character creation:

A MINI-HISTORY

1. "The Green Goblin" © 2001 S. Ditko

First, some needed background: Stan Lee never wrote a full script for any Spider-man, Dr. Strange or Hulk story (or any of the five-page back-up stories) we did together. A full script is where the writer alone decides on the complete story line. He breaks down the story for the number of panels needed for every page, describes every panel idea (setting, action, mood, etc.) and he writes all the captions and dialogue.

That fully detailed story script is given to an illustrator.

The panel's artwork is story illustration. The script illustrator illustrates the writer's written panel ideas. His job is to translate the script's conceptual material into an equivalent perceptual material: the verbal into the visual; the writer tells an idea, the illustrator shows the idea in a composition, a picture. At its best, it is a harmonious integration of the two distinct divisions of labor: a full script writer and a story illustrator.

For Marvel's Spider-man, Dr. Strange and Hulk stories, Stan wrote a synopsis, a one- or two-page brief story outline. His synopsis contained no panel/page breakdown, no specific panel ideas, no captions or panel dialogue, so there was no full story. A synopsis is an incomplete story line. As such, it cannot be translated into an equivalent, useable picture story.

A full script is a complete verbal story, a creation. But since it lacks illustrations, it is not a publishable comic book story creation.

A synopsis is also a creation. But it is not a complete story creation as a full-script.
A writer can be a creator of a full-script or a creator of a synopsis. But the creator and the creation ends there.

Their creation is fulfilled, complete, the end product of one mind and hand.

While a created full script needs an illustrator, a created synopsis needs an artist - a creative artist. The artist has to collaborate – co-create – by supplying additional story ideas and story line for a publishable story/ art creation. The artist has to collaborate with the synopsis writer in providing, in co-creating, the rough equivalent of a full-script, a complete page/panel story idea breakdown. Then, alone, the artist creates the visual story/art continuity. He provides rough panel dialogue, a rough full script for the writer to use, edit and, for the final panel, dialogue.

Stan surrendered his part of the writer 's division of labor, as a writer of a full script, to the artist. He also incorrectly identified the true roles and function of each person in the way he wrote credits (to be dealt with later).

... back to The Green Goblin....

[Prince Namor]

And the claims made about the Goblin and himself vs Stan...

Then, at some point before issue #25 (where I am publicly credited with plotting Spider-man and Dr. Strange), Stan chose to break-off communicating with me.

That initiated break-off means no Stan Lee synopses, no kind of Stan Lee input, no Stan Lee "ideas" of any kind on anything. And certainly no "lifting idea" for issue #33 (Feb.1966).

I'm on my own in providing a// the story ideas, story continuity, for Spider-man (Dr. Strange).

Before Stan's choice, decision, in initiating the breakoff and sustaining the no-communication between us, we had a specific, working, collaborating system. When Stan gave me a synopsis, I would read it and we would go over it for clarification, etc.

On my own, I would decide how to fill in and work out the whole story line, to change, reject, add, etc.
I would work out the number of panels for every page, the story idea for every panel, sequence, the whole

story continuity.
I penciled the panels and made a rough dialogue script for every panel as a guide for Stan's panel dialogue.

We would go over every penciled panel. Stan would see, understand, what I did with his synopsis and why. I noted any needed changes, adjustments, additions, etc., on a page border; they would be fixed by me after

the lettering and before I did the inking.

We also went over the inked version to which what S-M/villain action could make a good cover idea. I would sketch the possible ideas until we arrived at the one that looked best.

This was our cover idea method until Stan wanted me to do the covers on my own. (The reason to be explained later.)

In choosing not to see and communicate with me, Stan never knew what he was getting in my Spider-man (Dr. Strange) stories and covers until after the ritual where Sol Brodsky took the material from me, took it into Stan's office and came out saying nothing about anything.

So their couldn't have been any kind of disagreement or agreement, no exchanges, no "lifting idea", no problems between us concerning The Green Goblin or about anything else from before issue #25 (June 1965) to my final issues. On my own, I changed Stan's mythological demon into a human villain. So I had to have some definite ideas: who he was, his profession and how he fit in the Spider-man story world. I even used an earlier, planted character associated with J. Jonah Jameson; he became The Green Goblin. It was like a sub- plot working its way until ready to play an active role.

Stan used The Green Goblin again in #17 (Oct. 1964) and #23 (Apr. 1965) and I continued to use and develop The Green Goblin in his twin roles until I left Marvel.

Another point to clear up is that it was my policy to personally take in my penciled and inked pages and to pick up the lettered pages to be inked.

I did it because it is easier to solve any actual story/ art problems with the problem before us. The problems were more perceptual than conceptual. Just hearing about a problem over a phone or with some notations on the art page is inadequate.

When I picked up pages to be inked, I considered or ignored any story/art comments made by Brodsky. I don't know if the actual source was Stan or Sol.

I was under no obligation to correct a situation I did not initiate. The responsibility of resolving the situation rested with Stan.

So whatever the source, whatever the claims, the printed items revolving around The Green Goblin, they have nothing to do with the factual situation among Marvel, The Green Goblin, Stan and me.

The real issue had to be what is the best for a particular unique character? That means coming up with credible, formidable villains, memorable supporting characters, having meaningful relationships for conflict and dramatic possibilities, in a credible, fictional story/adventure world where the too far out doesn't get in.

That involves an individualist approach rather than conforming to any idea: using villains from another book or the fad of the moment such as wearing turtleneck sweaters and Nehru jackets which came into comics fashion, "realism", and soon went out.

And the focusing on the 'who ', the status of a personality, and not on the 'what', the published story/art content, or seeking, claiming, to be the "one", the "creator" who "created" it all, makes no sense in the real world.

Or it makes as much sense as either hydrogen or oxygen claiming to be the "creator'' of the "creation", water.

Alone, the metaphysical "one" would remain a gas in a waterless world. Alone, in a comic book world, the potential would never be actualized in a published Spider-man.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/10/2023 at 1:15 AM, Steven Valdez said:

It's uncannily similar to the evolution of popular music in the '60s. Primitive yet powerful in the early-mid decade, bursting into unmatched innovation and creativity circa '68.

Yup. I think we're at the beginning of Marvel's first peak here. It'll get even better when continued stories become the norm in 1965, giving Kirby and Ditko more room to stretch...

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/10/2023 at 1:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

Stan surrendered his part of the writer 's division of labor, as a writer of a full script, to the artist. He also incorrectly identified the true roles and function of each person in the way he wrote credits.

 

In two sentences, Steve Ditko cut to the heart of the problem with the Marvel Method, as it was practiced in the 1960s.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/10/2023 at 1:08 PM, Prince Namor said:

It makes as much sense as either hydrogen or oxygen claiming to be the "creator'' of the "creation", water.

Alone, the metaphysical "one" would remain a gas in a waterless world.

This Ditko guy could write!

[Steven Valdez]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:37 AM, Prince Namor said:

I don't know about the comics, but the music may have had an additional stimulant helping out...

Depends if we're talking about comics or comix  

[Steven Valdez]

On 10/11/2023 at 5:05 AM, Prince Namor said:

Ditko on this issue:

The Green Goblin was introduced in The Amazing Spider-man #14 (July 1964). The story guest stars The Hulk. (That cover plays a problem and solution that will be explained in an appropriate context.)

Stan's synopsis for The Green Goblin had a movie crew, on location, finding an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. Inside was an ancient, mythological demon, The Green Goblin. He naturally comes to life.

I rejected Stan's idea.

Why? For the same reason I rejected other ideas of Stan's on Spider-man. (Others to be explained in due time.)

The mythological creature was too far out for Spider-man. Since Peter Parker is a teenage costumed hero, I believed we should keep Spider-man's fiction from be- coming too fantastic. A mythological demon made the whole Peter Parker/Spider-man world a place where nothing is metaphysically impossible. It would open up the story line to anything goes. Any kind of idea is easier to come up with than the best idea for the character. But especially with a teenage hero, the story line's premise should show him growing up in a more stable, understandable environment, story world. That is why I showed so many panels with Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, and Peter Parker in school with classmates (which Stan did not like).

A line has to be drawn for what is acceptable and not acceptable for a character. (I even had magic limits on Dr. Strange. Amazing Spider-man Annual #2 (1965) featuring Dr. Strange, was, as an annual should be, a special event. It does not necessarily have to connect with the monthly adventures. And Spider-man was already long undercut with space aliens.)

Stanley should have been credited as a letterer, TBH. A preliminary letterer at best. That's literally what he did.

[mrc]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:37 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

In two sentences, Steve Ditko cut to the heart of the problem with the Marvel Method, as it was practiced in the 1960s.

The Marvel Method wasn't a problem. It was why Marvel was successful and however many times people say otherwise won't make it true. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/11/2023 at 8:13 AM, mrc said:

The Marvel Method wasn't a problem. It was why Marvel was successful and however many times people say otherwise won't make it true. 

Kirby - Successful before the Marvel Method, successful after the Marvel Method. 

Lee - Not so much.

Marvel since the Marvel Method went away = HUGELY successful.

The PROBLEM with Marvel Method, is that it basically had Stan Lee STEAL both credit and pay for the writing. That was its only purpose.