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

[jimjum12]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:48 AM, Mmehdy said:

I lived it....from 61 up and man or man did we get a bargain for 12cents

We could get TWELVE comics for a dollar, it kept us out of our parent's hair for hours. GOD BLESS... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... around here we had Paul's Discount which had piles of comics for a nickel each. Richard got his ASM 1 there. 

[Prince Namor]

 In the process of writing TWO books at once so... sorry if I've gotten behind here (one of them with a deadline)... hope this helps in the meantime!

 

 

 

 

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 5/11/2024 at 11:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

 In the process of writing TWO books at once so... sorry if I've gotten behind here (one of them with a deadline)... hope this helps in the meantime!

 

 

 

 

Archie Comics ruling.

I wonder what Stan Lee would say? The older we get the more we know truth is stranger than fiction. Imagine telling this to Marvel Zombie fan in the 1970s? They will say people lie or they are foolish.

Edited July 14 by The humble Watcher lurking
spelling

[Prince Namor]

Heck they won't believe it NOW! They'll make up some excuse!

[Mmehdy]

are we done here?.....

if so, I would like to thank everyone involved, I learned a lot going step by step, I hope someday a book will come out in more detail explaining all of these threads and expanding on that, and count me in as a preorder.

 History as written is always different when you use a microscope....as evidenced here. My opinion:

Stan: excellent promotor and I liked what he did pre FF with Amazing Fantasy and Ditko with that promo style.....did we ever come up with who named the FF "the worlds greatest comic magazine" which gave it a step up from comic book by way!!! that could be Stan also. Editor-wise, what little he did, it o helped a few things, look at for example FF Ann#1 cover, look at reject and the final, I like the final better, also on FF3 reject and FFF52 etc Those were positive changes I would give Stan 25% credit 

Kirby/Ditko: 75% is fair......too many great things to even list

Thoughts?

 

 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 6/5/2024 at 3:16 PM, Mmehdy said:

are we done here?.....

if so, I would like to thank everyone involved, I learned a lot going step by step, I hope someday a book will come out in more detail explaining all of these threads and expanding on that, and count me in as a preorder.

 History as written is always different when you use a microscope....as evidenced here. My opinion:

Stan: excellent promotor and I liked what he did pre FF with Amazing Fantasy and Ditko with that promo style.....did we ever come up with who named the FF "the worlds greatest comic magazine" which gave it a step up from comic book by way!!! that could be Stan also. Editor-wise, what little he did, it o helped a few things, look at for example FF Ann#1 cover, look at reject and the final, I like the final better, also on FF3 reject and FFF52 etc Those were positive changes I would give Stan 25% credit 

Kirby/Ditko: 75% is fair......too many great things to even list

Thoughts?

 

 

Stan dialogued 2-3 books a week. Kirby drew 2-3 books a month. Based on the time spent on each title, 75% Kirby/25% Lee seems fair. (Kudos of course to the fine inkers who finished Kirby's pencils.)

Ditko drew fewer pages a month, but he generally inked his own work, so his time outlay was comparable to Kirby's.

One could (perhaps should) give Kirby and Ditko extra credit for plotting, character creation, continuity, and dialogue suggestions. They laid out the sequence of events, which comprises the bulk of what many would consider writing.

Lee added the promotion, some editorial flourishes, sound effects, captions, and dialogue.

 

 

Edited June 11 by Dr. Haydn
deleted "per title"

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 6/5/2024 at 4:16 PM, Mmehdy said:

are we done here?.....

if so, I would like to thank everyone involved, I learned a lot going step by step, I hope someday a book will come out in more detail explaining all of these threads and expanding on that, and count me in as a preorder.

 History as written is always different when you use a microscope....as evidenced here. My opinion:

Stan: excellent promotor and I liked what he did pre FF with Amazing Fantasy and Ditko with that promo style.....did we ever come up with who named the FF "the worlds greatest comic magazine" which gave it a step up from comic book by way!!! that could be Stan also. Editor-wise, what little he did, it o helped a few things, look at for example FF Ann#1 cover, look at reject and the final, I like the final better, also on FF3 reject and FFF52 etc Those were positive changes I would give Stan 25% credit 

Kirby/Ditko: 75% is fair......too many great things to even list

Thoughts?

 

 

I love this thread it is must read. I hope we can keep it going until Kirby leaves Marvel for DC in 1970? 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:21 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Stan dialogued 2-3 books a week. Kirby drew 2-3 books a month. Based on the time spent on each title, 75% Kirby/25% Lee seems fair. (Kudos of course to the fine inkers who finished Kirby's pencils.)

Ditko drew fewer pages a month, but he generally inked his own work, so his time outlay was comparable to Kirby's.

One could (perhaps should) give Kirby and Ditko extra credit for plotting, character creation, continuity, and dialogue suggestions. They laid out the sequence of events, which comprises the bulk of what many would consider writing.

Lee added the promotion, some editorial flourishes, sound effects, captions, and dialogue.

 

 

Kirby and Ditko were very involved in the development of the comics characters and series they worked on by all accounts (including Lee's), and eventually got to the point where they were either allowed to even to embark on individual stories with little and sometimes no input ("sometimes" with Kirby and with Ditko, he ultimately demanded and was given the ability to do so all the time,

But to dismiss the writer who co-developed the original characters and concepts and was the editor who had final say as to what got published is to misunderstand not only the individuals involved but also the process. 

Many a successful TV series or movie franchise was created or co-created by a person who had final say and did much or most of the work in the early stages, then gave up day to day responsibilities later on, as they came to trust other writers and/or producers and/or directors.    But the fact that some person takes over a show in the fifth season or a movie franchise after the first several films does not justify a retcon of their percentage of contribution to the OG concept and characters. 

[Mmehdy]

I relooked over  multiple  Stan Lee interviews on youtube...I can agree with him on Stans soapbox creation, letter pages, FF costumes and why they did not have them in the first two issues. I noticed some contradictions as time went on.  Especially the explanations of the creations of the characters. if you get a chance watch 3 different stan interviews over various years....towards the end, it was like a Hollywood script........hope to see some type of breakdown of the Stan's creative role over time.... 

[Hepcat]

On 5/12/2024 at 4:26 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

Imagine telling this to Marvel Zombie fan in the 1970s? They will say people lie or they are foolish.

Huh? What would Marvel zombies say was a lie?

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 7/12/2024 at 12:24 PM, Hepcat said:

Huh? What would Marvel zombies say was a lie?

Archie Comics ruling. They had higher sales than Marvel in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Many Marvel fans of that era might not believe it. 

[sfcityduck]

I just don't get the the OP's constant criticism of Joe Simon on his various threads. Simon deserves a LOT of credit for his place in GA comic history both before and after he took on Kirby as a partner. Yet this OP seems to believe that to elevate Kirby he needs to "push down" Kirby's major collaborators. Many instances of that being unjustly done on his threads. So if he's writing a book about comic history, I'll be taking a pass. I prefer comic history that takes into account the documents and is not one-sided. 

Not a recreation - Simon's original design:

Don't know who owns it, but this may have been the first time it was published:

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 7/12/2024 at 9:16 AM, Mmehdy said:

I relooked over  multiple  Stan Lee interviews on youtube...I can agree with him on Stans soapbox creation, letter pages, FF costumes and why they did not have them in the first two issues. I noticed some contradictions as time went on.  Especially the explanations of the creations of the characters. if you get a chance watch 3 different stan interviews over various years....towards the end, it was like a Hollywood script........hope to see some type of breakdown of the Stan's creative role over time.... 

You make a good point: Both Kirby and Stan had imperfect recollections. Stories changed dramatically at times. Some extraordinarily crazy claims were made. Which is why taking one or the other's statements on "faith", as some fans (more accurately "fanatics" do) is always a mistake. Most folks writing on these topics are driven by an agenda and tend to pick and choose and ignore contrary evidence. For example, on this OP's thread, he only addresses information which contradicts his views when its brought up to him. My subjective view is that we  don't see this kind of thing in writings about Toth, Wolverton, Krigstein, and many others, even when written by sympathetic authors, because the authors largely keep their biases in check and are open to following the evidence. Indeed, most major "comic historians" writing about Caniff always address ghosting by Noel Sickles and how that improved Terry. Yet, with Kirby, outrageous claims are made with no real reality check. That's just not good history. I don't get why that is, but it seems like there are some peopel and groups (such as the Kirby "Museum") which view their mission of promoting Kirby as a requiring an "if you give them an inch they'll take a yard" mentality. I don't view that as scholarship.

Jack Kirby was undoubtedly the "King" of 1960s super-hero artists. He absolutely peaked in that decade and that work makes him worthy of my comic book Mount Rushmore. But his myth has been unduly extended, in my opinion, due to the influence of Stan's "Jack 'King' Kirby" hype. Which to me is ironic.

Edited July 14 by sfcityduck

[Hepcat]

On 7/14/2024 at 2:22 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

Archie Comics ruling. They had higher sales than Marvel in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Many Marvel fans of that era might not believe it. 

Doesn't surprise me at all. Archie Comics were fabulous in the 1970's and had a much broader appeal than Marvels.

 

[Hepcat]

On 7/14/2024 at 5:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

I just don't get the the OP's constant criticism of Joe Simon on his various threads. Simon deserves a LOT of credit for his place in GA comic history both before and after he took on Kirby as a partner.

I agree! Joe Simon was among the creative greats. I'm a particular fan of the Fly.

On 7/14/2024 at 5:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

Yet this OP seems to believe that to elevate Kirby he needs to "push down" Kirby's major collaborators. Many instances of that being unjustly done on his threads.

That though is a common trait among hardcore Jack Kirby fans. They're so determined to aggrandize Jack Kirby's achievements and his role in comic history that they deliberately try to minimize the creative contributions of his co-creators over the years. This really annoys me and certainly doesn't add to any admiration or respect I might have for Kirby or his work.

Edited July 15 by Hepcat

[Hepcat]

On 7/14/2024 at 5:34 PM, sfcityduck said:

Jack Kirby was undoubtedly the "King" of 1960s super-hero artists. He absolutely peaked in that decade and that work makes him worthy of my comic book Mount Rushmore. 

Kirby was a very good story teller indeed, but he needed to work on his anatomy. His human figures, particularly the women, were all too often difficult on the eye.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 7/15/2024 at 12:14 AM, Hepcat said:

Doesn't surprise me at all. Archie Comics were fabulous in the 1970's and had a much broader appeal than Marvels.

 

I thought this was a cool Archie Comic cover from the 1970s.