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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:42 PM, gunsmokin said:

You are the last person I’d resent but I do think you’ve let 40-50 years of Marvel’s indoctrination cloud the possibility that critical thinking could prove Stan and Roy weren’t everything they claimed to be either. I’m sure you’ve met them all as have I with Jack Kirby being the lone exception for me. I think Michael Vassollo have proven beyond a doubt that Lee wasn’t nearly as talented or as creative as he claimed to be.

What Stan did was create the idea of Marvel as HIS. He connected with the lonely fanboy nerd and turned them into loyal zombies to buy, buy, buy. This concept led to a company that created so little, but published so much. It wasn't about stories and good writing - it was about events that could be promoted and sold and MARKETED as great stories and good writing.

When Marvel was reeling from Kirby leaving to go to DC, their Stan Lee led content of the early 70's consisted of up to 40% of reprint material in a given month - all while Jack was creating an entire New Universe of characters at DC. It didn't matter to the Zombies, they were loyal. I fell for it too at first. I loved picking up those Giant Size Spider-man issues. But for me, it wore off really quick. At least it was NEW material. It just wasn't... that great. (At least Roy as editor returned NEW material to those books, even if it was average - Stan Lee, after Jack left continued printing nothing but reprints in the annuals. Because HE had NOTHING.)

Marvel was driven by sales, as cheaply as they could get it. Kirby was always driven by STORIES.

Secret Wars is the perfect example - all flash and no substance, but high sales. And Marvel repeated it over and over and over.

Look at where it's got them.

Fanboys complained about Annuals with crossovers and variant covers and all the tricks Marvel would pull - even TODAY - but still BOUGHT them. What was Marvel supposed to do? They put out JUNK and people still lap it up.

This hobby gets what they deserve.

They've turned the mainstream comic book industry into a joke today.

See the movie! Buy the t-shirt! Collect the Toys!.... when was the last great Spider-man comic you read?

Well... it's not about that in the Stan Lee Universe. They just TELL you it is. 

That's what Stan Lee created. 

 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/20/2023 at 6:51 AM, Prince Namor said:

What Stan did was create the idea of Marvel as HIS. He connected with the lonely fanboy nerd and turned them into loyal zombies to buy, buy, buy. This concept led to a company that created so little, but published so much. It wasn't about stories and good writing - it was about events that could be promoted and sold and MARKETED as great stories and good writing.

When Marvel was reeling from Kirby leaving to go to DC, their Stan Lee led content of the early 70's consisted of up to 40% of reprint material in a given month - all while Jack was creating an entire New Universe of characters at DC. It didn't matter to the Zombies, they were loyal. I fell for it too at first. I loved picking up those Giant Size Spider-man issues. But for me, it wore off really quick. At least it was NEW material. It just wasn't... that great. (At least Roy as editor returned NEW material to those books, even if it was average - Stan Lee, after Jack left continued printing nothing but reprints in the annuals. Because HE had NOTHING.)

Marvel was driven by sales, as cheaply as they could get it. Kirby was always driven by STORIES.

Secret Wars is the perfect example - all flash and no substance, but high sales. And Marvel repeated it over and over and over.

Look at where it's got them.

Fanboys complained about Annuals with crossovers and variant covers and all the tricks Marvel would pull - even TODAY - but still BOUGHT them. What was Marvel supposed to do? They put out JUNK and people still lap it up.

This hobby gets what they deserve.

They've turned the mainstream comic book industry into a joke today.

See the movie! Buy the t-shirt! Collect the Toys!.... when was the last great Spider-man comic you read?

Well... it's not about that in the Stan Lee Universe. They just TELL you it is. 

That's what Stan Lee created. 

 

When I was focusing on Marvel's main titles in the 70s (probably due to the hype), I missed out on some great stuff in the second-line books (Starlin's Captain Marvel, Gerber's Howard the Duck, McGregor/Buckler's Black Panther, etc.)

I guess it was like DC in the 1960s: the Superman books carried the company, but most of the truly creative stuff appeared elsewhere in the "lesser" titles.

[shadroch]

Someone at Marvel saw the growing demand for back issues and realized they had a market.  A fan could buy a reprint for twenty cents rather than paying a few dollars for a copy of ASM 67.  Instead of outsiders making money off the demand for back issues, the company created a new revenue stream. You can be sure that if DC felt reprints of old Superman books would have sold 100,000 or more issues each month, they'd have done so.  Instead, they added old stories to their new books and expanded to 100-page books. 

Flooding the newsstands with an expanded Marvel line meant less exposure for the distinguished competition's books. Maybe this Stan guy knew a bit about the business after all.   Stan's job wasn't to put out a superior product, and it was to put up superior numbers.

DC put all their chips in that Kirby would come over and work magic. His books didn't last eighteen months, setting the company back for years afterward.  It wasn't until others picked up the characters Kirby created that their potential was reached. Heck, in the 1980s, Kirby and Darkseid were devices for promoting a toy line that was a distant second to the Secret Wars books and toys. Pacific Comics thought a new Kirby book would sell great and nearly choked on the unsold product.

I missed most of the Fourth World books because I tried to buy one-and-done books, as I didn't have regular store access.  Return of the New Gods got me interested in the mythology behind it, and I tried to track down the originals. Between the stupid names and the inane dialog, it wasn't for me.   Marvel made a big deal of The Return Of The King, but fan reaction was mixed.   After an issue of two of Kirby's run on Captain America, I yearned for the days of Frank Robbins. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by shadroch

[Prince Namor]

After Kirby stopped creating new characters for Marvel, suddenly the creative output of the company went to ZERO. Where was Stan Lee and Roy Thomas, the creative genius' behind everything?

Think about it: From Daredevil in early 1964 until Stan quit 'writing' in 1972 - EIGHT YEARS - what was Stan's output of creativity?

No New titles for Stanley. 

(In late November of 1972, Roy brought out... Tomb of Dracula! Based on Dracula, a character that had been around for almost 100 years!)

We saw what Kirby's creativity was - he saved it for when he went to DC and created a whole New Universe of characters. Fourth World. Kamandi. The Demon. Characters DC STILL uses to this day. Darkseid isn't any different - he wants to eliminate life in the Universe - same character. 

Stan Lee, without Kirby doing the work for him, pitched a creative shut out for EIGHT YEARS.

All Marvel had was REPRINTS. How'd those reprints do for Marvel? The company was nearly bankrupt by 1977 and only the success of Star Wars saved them. Reprints didn't save Marvel - they made easy money for them because they didn't have to pay for the the production of new material. They were a product for a creatively bankrupt company that was headed for financial bankruptcy. 

In 1978, Daredevil was at 111,769 average sold per month (93,774 single issue nearest filing date) - Captain America at 116,146 (with Sal Buscema drawing it - more than HALF of what Kirby's numbers had been just two years earlier) - Hulk at 172,136 - Avengers at 163,246 - (X-men didn't have a Statement of Publication in 1978 - they were at 123,725 in 1977)...

Amazing Spider-man, their NAME book was at 248,000

Was Marvel growing or was the market for comics just SHRINKING down to their size?

 

So what saved Marvel? Stan Lee? Jim Shooter? Reprints? Ha ha ha ha ha.

Star Wars gave them some life. Then Claremont, first with Byrne and then with other artists, slowly built a following on X-Men. Frank Miller on Daredevil took a character who had struggled to be anything other than a third tier nobody for 157 issues and suddenly gave him some new blood. Walt Simonsen regrew an audience on Thor. Byrne went to the Fantastic Four and gave it new life.

REAL CREATORS.

Not gimmicks. Or crossovers. Or REPRINTS. 

People could finally spend their money on a NEW comic and enjoy a creative story. An enjoyable story. 

Not the same old regurgitated nonsense from guys like Lee and Thomas who had to leech off others to have a career. 

The STORIES are what saved it. Not the hype.

 

And then Marvel would go and ruin it all again. 

[Dr. Haydn]

I caught the tail end of Marvel's resurgence in 1985. Fortunately, the direct market had made it to my city, so I was able to pick up a lot of what I missed from the back issues bin, for a modest surcharge. The Claremont-Byrne X-men was great; Miller's stuff, Michelinie and O'Neil on Iron Man, Roger Stern's solid Avengers run...

Then, most of the good writers were scared away, and I turned to DC. The British Invasion writers (Moore, Gaiman, Morrison, etc.) were doing some great stuff! Stan always CLAIMED he was writing for adults. Those gentlemen actually did it!

...and all of this without overwritten dialogue and captions. Alan Moore writes three words--"Just say uncle!" and I'll bet anyone who read his Swamp Thing run will immediately remember the story and the context.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Dr. Haydn
rewording

[gunsmokin]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:53 AM, shadroch said:

Someone at Marvel saw the growing demand for back issues and realized they had a market.  A fan could buy a reprint for twenty cents rather than paying a few dollars for a copy of ASM 67.  Instead of outsiders making money off the demand for back issues, the company created a new revenue stream. You can be sure that if DC felt reprints of old Superman books would have sold 100,000 or more issues each month, they'd have done so.  Instead, they added old stories to their new books and expanded to 100-page books. 

Flooding the newsstands with an expanded Marvel line meant less exposure for the distinguished competition's books. Maybe this Stan guy knew a bit about the business after all.   Stan's job wasn't to put out a superior product, and it was to put up superior numbers.

DC put all their chips in that Kirby would come over and work magic. His books didn't last eighteen months, setting the company back for years afterward.  It wasn't until others picked up the characters Kirby created that their potential was reached. Heck, in the 1980s, Kirby and Darkseid were devices for promoting a toy line that was a distant second to the Secret Wars books and toys. Pacific Comics thought a new Kirby book would sell great and nearly choked on the unsold product.

I missed most of the Fourth World books because I tried to buy one-and-done books, as I didn't have regular store access.  Return of the New Gods got me interested in the mythology behind it, and I tried to track down the originals. Between the stupid names and the inane dialog, it wasn't for me.   Marvel made a big deal of The Return Of The King, but fan reaction was mixed.   After an issue of two of Kirby's run on Captain America, I yearned for the days of Frank Robbins. 

 

 

Marvel/Atlas flooded the racks with drek in the mid-50's and look how that turned out. It nearly ended the company in 1957. I doubt they were trying to corner the after-market with reprints.

 

[shadroch]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:15 PM, gunsmokin said:

Marvel/Atlas flooded the racks with drek in the mid-50's and look how that turned out. It nearly ended the company in 1957. I doubt they were trying to corner the after-market with reprints.

 

They went from following trends to creating trends. Every title they put out took up a competitor's book slot, so they were trying to corner the market. They were offering display allowances that DC and Charlton didn't.

The company got into trouble, as did the whole magazine industry, at least partially, because the government cracked down on the mob-controlled distribution system. Half the distributors went out of business shortly after Congress looked into where organized crime hid their money. That wasn't Stan's fault; Kirby's short-lived company suffered the same fate.

After Jack left Marvel for their competition and failed so spectacularly, Stan Lee brought him back to Marvel and gave him a hero's welcome.   If the roles were reversed, would Jack have been so generous? Marvel didn't need Kirby, and most of the staff wasn't thrilled with his return.

I don't know anyone who thinks Stan Lee created the Marvel Universe alone. There is plenty of room on the pedestal for all of them. Just don't replace one false idol with another. 

It's not the Stan Lee Universe

It's not the Kirby Universe

It's the Marvel Universe.

Kirby was a visionary and had a legendary career, but he was at his best when he worked with a partner. 

I wonder if Kirby ever thought about what The Fourth World would have looked like done in the Marvel Method he thrived in.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by shadroch

[Prince Namor]

For 1970's numbers, Jimmy Olsen averaged 333,361 copies sold per issue.

For 1971's Statement of Publication, it showed it had went down to 299,810, or (-33,551).

These were the Kirby issues.

(Keep in mind, Marvel's best seller Amazing Spider-man did 307,550, so Kirby was doing just slightly less than ASM numbers)

But still... did Jack's work turn people off to Jimmy Olsen???

 

Consider:

Lois Lane from 1970 to 1971 - down 42,000 copies. Bigger drop. (397,000 to 355,253)

Superman from 1970 to 1971 - down 25,000 copies. Drop. (446,678 to 421,948)

Batman from 1970 to 1971 - down 62,000 copies! Huge drop! (355,000 to 293,384)

Seems to me DC was experiencing a drop across the line of some of their biggest books.

But wait...

 

Kirby's Jimmy Olsen outsold Batman?? (And very nearly equaled ASM)

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

For 1970's numbers, Jimmy Olsen averaged 333,361 copies sold per issue.

For 1971's Statement of Publication, it showed it had went down to 299,810, or (-33,551).

These were the Kirby issues.

(Keep in mind, Marvel's best seller Amazing Spider-man did 307,550, so Kirby was doing just slightly less than ASM numbers)

But still... did Jack's work turn people off to Jimmy Olsen???

 

Consider:

Lois Lane from 1970 to 1971 - down 42,000 copies. Bigger drop. (397,000 to 355,253)

Superman from 1970 to 1971 - down 25,000 copies. Drop. (446,678 to 421,948)

Batman from 1970 to 1971 - down 62,000 copies! Huge drop! (355,000 to 293,384)

Seems to me DC was experiencing a drop across the line of some of their biggest books.

But wait...

 

Kirby's Jimmy Olsen outsold Batman?? (And very nearly equaled ASM)

I mentioned this on another site, but to reiterate for this group: DC's ill-fated experiment with 25 cent oversized books began in the summer of 1971, and the consensus was that they took a major financial hit from this decision. It doesn't surprise me that their sales were down across the line. I know that in the 1970s, I cut back on comics every time the price went up.

The sales figures do beg the question: if DC had multiple titles that outsold Marvel's best as late as 1970, why did they think they needed Kirby?

[jimjum12]

The DC titles certainly weren't selling like those numbers suggest around here. The spinners were stuffed so full of unsold DC product one could barely find the few decent comics that WERE available. It would almost seem that DC may have still had their hands in a bit of that money laundering that was so popular back in the day. Now the 80's were DC's decade, talk about some stellar output  Marv Wolfman was putting out some of the best work of his career , as were Barr, Wein, Moench, and Conway. That was those pesky words, but the art was very serviceable too. I spent more on DC in the 80's than on Marvel. Shooter's Marvel was underwhelming for me. Different strokes I suppose. I suppose every dog has their day. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... I remember one Saturday in the early 70's, I was sitting in my friend's room waiting on his Mom to come back from the store with a new comic for him. She tossed a Kirby Jimmy Olsen in the room upon her arrival. My friend took one look at it and started bawling like a little girl. I was so embarrassed I had to leave. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by jimjum12

[shadroch]

I was an Army Brat, so we moved all over the place.  After the Batman show, it seemed DC ruled everywhere, but by 1972, most of my friends were Marvel collectors. I quit DC when they went to 25 cents.  I did like their 100-page era and wish they'd return to it.

[jimjum12]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:56 PM, shadroch said:

I was an Army Brat, so we moved all over the place.  After the Batman show, it seemed DC ruled everywhere, but by 1972, most of my friends were Marvel collectors. I quit DC when they went to 25 cents.  I did like their 100-page era and wish they'd return to it.

I think they financially shot themselves in the foot with those half reprint giants, Disposable income wasn't really going up, but our buying power at the newsstand was suddenly halved. But I liked some of them a great deal ... especially if they had GA Batman, Superman, JSA, or Kirby stuff. I have to confess that I am grateful to Jimmy Olsen for introducing me to The Newsboy Legion  GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Steven Valdez]

I remember around 1977, a friend remarked about the then-current Captain America art that 'everything looks as if it's made out of metal'. He then pointed to a reprint of a an early '60s monster story, complaining that 'everything THIS artist draws looks like it's made of wood!' I explained that this was the same artist in both cases -- Jack Kirby.

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/21/2023 at 2:08 PM, jimjum12 said:

I think they financially shot themselves in the foot with those half reprint giants, Disposable income wasn't really going up, but our buying power at the newsstand was suddenly halved. But I liked some of them a great deal ... especially if they had GA Batman, Superman, JSA, or Kirby stuff. I have to confess that I am grateful to Jimmy Olsen for introducing me to The Newsboy Legion  GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

A lot of '70s kids hated that Golden Age material. I certainly was not partial to it. Loved the Marvel Silver Age reprints though, and wondered why comics had gone so terribly downhill since then.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

Never liked DC comics. They were like the kind of comics your math teacher would put out.

[Zonker]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:08 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

 

The sales figures do beg the question: if DC had multiple titles that outsold Marvel's best as late as 1970, why did they think they needed Kirby?

I think it was about momentum.  DC could see Marvel's trendline, and wanted to try to blunt it before they got overwhelmed.

Also, we now know DC had fired many of its old-guard writers in retaliation for them starting to organize a bit for better terms.  At that point DC was probably worried about betting their future on all those fan-turned-pro kids then wandering the halls.  Kirby was dependable, and generally could be counted on to not rock the boat.  Perhaps he would bring with him some of Marvel's audience, or if he didn't, at least his absence might slow down Marvel's ascent, right? 

[Zonker]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:56 PM, shadroch said:

I was an Army Brat, so we moved all over the place.  After the Batman show, it seemed DC ruled everywhere, but by 1972, most of my friends were Marvel collectors. I quit DC when they went to 25 cents.  I did like their 100-page era and wish they'd return to it.

One of the ongoing mysteries is why DC kept repeating the same failed experiment over and over in the 1970s?

• 25 cents Bigger and Better?  Nope, that allowed Marvel to eat their lunch by undercutting DC by 5 cents per issue.
• 100 page Super Spectaculars? Abandoned after a year or so.
• Dollar Comics? Lasted a bit longer, but by the early 80s all those comics either reverted back to the smaller size, or were cancelled outright.

I guess it is one of those ideas that is sound in theory, but never really worked in practice.  Raise your cover price, make the product more valuable for the retailers to carry, and everyone becomes more successful.  Except, as long as comics were being bought by kids, they couldn't be bothered to do the cost/page math to decide which was the best bargain.  And for parents buying comics for their kids, they certainly didn't want to spend any more time than glancing at the cover price to decide what to buy for them.  

 

[gunsmokin]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

For 1970's numbers, Jimmy Olsen averaged 333,361 copies sold per issue.

For 1971's Statement of Publication, it showed it had went down to 299,810, or (-33,551).

These were the Kirby issues.

(Keep in mind, Marvel's best seller Amazing Spider-man did 307,550, so Kirby was doing just slightly less than ASM numbers)

But still... did Jack's work turn people off to Jimmy Olsen???

 

Consider:

Lois Lane from 1970 to 1971 - down 42,000 copies. Bigger drop. (397,000 to 355,253)

Superman from 1970 to 1971 - down 25,000 copies. Drop. (446,678 to 421,948)

Batman from 1970 to 1971 - down 62,000 copies! Huge drop! (355,000 to 293,384)

Seems to me DC was experiencing a drop across the line of some of their biggest books.

But wait...

 

Kirby's Jimmy Olsen outsold Batman?? (And very nearly equaled ASM)

gee, maybe Kirby didn't "fail so spectacularly"

[Math Teacher]

On 9/21/2023 at 4:23 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Never liked DC comics. They were like the kind of comics your math teacher would put out.

Did any of those comics mention the Quadratic Formula, the Pythagorean Theorem, or the Law of Sines? If they had, I might have been more interested in them. 

[gunsmokin]

On 9/21/2023 at 8:09 AM, Math Teacher said:

Did any of those comics mention the Quadratic Formula, the Pythagorean Theorem, or the Law of Sines? If they had, I might have been more interested in them. 

who you callin' a hypotenuse?