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

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 8:27 AM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - He's only the MAIN character in the story...

Well, all doctors are either strange or doomy.

[N e r V]

On 9/27/2023 at 3:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - He's only the MAIN character in the story...

 

On 9/27/2023 at 4:05 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Well, all doctors are either strange or doomy.

Face it, villains are just stupid. It’s why they always got caught. They just didn’t know half the time who they were even fighting let alone on how to beat them…

 

[N e r V]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:39 PM, shadroch said:

If Kirby was upset about not getting proper credit, why did he stay at a company that paid such low rates?  Why was The King Of Comics working for a fourth-rate company?

Lack of options. Charlton paid nothing and he wasn’t Archie material. He left DC in the 1950’s over a contract dispute with Jack Schiff I believe. Also like his return to DC in the 1970’s some of the editors gave him grief over his art and details. The infamous Superman touch ups, etc. later in the 1970’s return. He had one of his best periods at Marvel in the 1960’s because for awhile there he could show off his skills. Despite everything Stan loved and appreciated Kirby’s art skills and he got that better than anyone else. DC just never got Kirby right (mostly) and at the time he just didn’t fit. It was a different Marvel when he finally came back in the mid 70’s with Lee off to bigger things at Marvel.

After years of hearing all the back and forth over the Marvel/Lee/Kirby/Ditko warring I have come to the one conclusion on all of it. As many, many Kirby fans and/or Ditko or Lee fans will say you needed all 3 to make what happened happen. Take away any of the 3 and most if not all of it would not happen. Only debate is who did how much in percentages. Lee lied over the years to varying degrees. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentional and sometimes by simply not countering false information when asked. If I was going to believe any of the 3 for most accurate information outside of other Marvel staffers it would be Ditko. Both Lee and Kirby had awful memories at times. Remember Kirby once mistakenly claimed to have created Superman. Lee was Lee in that area. Ditko took both Lee and Kirby to task in their claims to creating Spider-Man. Ditko unlike both Lee and Kirby wasn’t a fame seeker but very much disliked both their “claims” on the subject. Based on Ditkos remarks over the years he called them both out as liars on the subject. So yeah, I believe Ditkos version of Spider-Man’s creation far more than Lee or Kirby’s.

Finally none of them and countless others were treated well by publishers or editors, etc.

Stan Lee made it very clear what kind of person Martin Goodman was by his regular sarcastic remarks of him. Was DC better? Look how they treated the creators of Superman until Neal Adams and others publicly shamed them into offering a bone to both before they died.

In perspective the bigger problem to me wasn’t the Lee/Kirby/Ditko flame wars with each other but the companies like Marvel and like DC made money on their backs without paying them their worth to the company. Even if you got paid decent for a book you never saw profits from cartoons, movies, toys, etc… that the company made off your ideas.

OK, that’s my rant for the day….

Edited September 28, 2023 by N e r V

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/27/2023 at 5:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - If I'd have been old enough to read in 1964, this might've made me quit - the threat of this guy showing up again...

A classic "captured villain" pose! Can anyone else imagine Plantman saying: "I would have gotten away with it too--if it weren't for you meddling kids"?

Edited September 27, 2023 by Dr. Haydn
added classic villain pose

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/27/2023 at 5:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - The work Ditko is doing on ASM and Dr. Strange is getting better every issue. His story's are good as well, but there's so much better on the way...

Stan's Doctor Doom gaffe notwithstanding, this was one of their best efforts so far. 

 

On 9/27/2023 at 5:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - DC Comics just couldn't understand it... the world was ready for new, and creative ways to present sequential story telling, and Ditko had a great style...

Stan's still going back and forth between "black magic" and "mystic arts," it seems. I suppose "black magic" might have drawn the ire of the Comics Code (though wasn't there a Harvey title with that name in the late 50s?)

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/27/2023 at 5:20 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS MARCH 1964

Strange Tales #121 - This goofy Plantman story might be one of my favorites for how silly and bad it is. Johnny Storm, the Human Torch, helpless from a pail of water! Why didn't Doctor Doom think of that?

"So bad, it's good" can still be an entertaining read. I rank some of Siegel's Mighty Comics scripts from the mid-60s in this category--not fine literature by any means, but definitely a guilty pleasure.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:13 PM, N e r V said:

 

Face it, villains are just stupid. It’s why they always got caught. They just didn’t know half the time who they were even fighting let alone on how to beat them…

 

What's additionally funny is he put the hyphen in there! Stan had a habit of not using it at times in the early years, but... there he remembered it for the wrong name!

[Prince Namor]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, N e r V said:

Lack of options. Charlton paid nothing and he wasn’t Archie material.

Actually Archie had the Superhero thing going and he could've stayed there with Joe Simon. But once Kirby chose Marvel, Simon didn't stick around either. Most people don't give those series their due... the Fly 'stuck around' for seven years, 1959-1966, and in 1964 was still selling close to 200,000 copies a month (just slightly less than Journey Into Mystery, Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish were). If Kirby had been given free reign there... no telling what he would've come up with...

On 9/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, N e r V said:

After years of hearing all the back and forth over the Marvel/Lee/Kirby/Ditko warring I have come to the one conclusion on all of it. As many, many Kirby fans and/or Ditko or Lee fans will say you needed all 3 to make what happened happen. Take away any of the 3 and most if not all of it would not happen. Only debate is who did how much in percentages. Lee lied over the years to varying degrees. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentional and sometimes by simply not countering false information when asked. If I was going to believe any of the 3 for most accurate information outside of other Marvel staffers it would be Ditko.

Whatever Kirby would've done at Archie, it wouldn't have been what Marvel became. I agree.

However, again, without Kirby, Marvel would've never happened at all. 

On 9/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, N e r V said:

Remember Kirby once mistakenly claimed to have created Superman.

When was this???

On 9/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, N e r V said:

Lee was Lee in that area. Ditko took both Lee and Kirby to task in their claims to creating Spider-Man. Ditko unlike both Lee and Kirby wasn’t a fame seeker but very much disliked both their “claims” on the subject. Based on Ditkos remarks over the years he called them both out as liars on the subject. So yeah, I believe Ditkos version of Spider-Man’s creation far more than Lee or Kirby’s.

Yeah, Ditko seems to have the best memory. A very specific to details memory. Then again, he left fairly early and didn't have as much resentment as Kirby did in the end. 

One thing about when Ditko DID speak... Lee/Houseroy/Marvel waited until Kirby died to start in with the 'Lee created everything and then just assigned an artist' nonsense and the "Larry Lieber wrote the monster stories for Kirby BS" (Who that actually reads Marvel's from then even believes that?)... THAT was when Ditko decided to FINALLY write about his thoughts on that time period.

And Houseroy and John Morrow pretty much completely ignored it in their magazine. The mainstream media completely overlooked it and continued on with repeating nonsense about Stan winning 3 straight writing contests when he was teenager, blah, blah, blah, BS, BS, BS... a

On 9/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, N e r V said:

In perspective the bigger problem to me wasn’t the Lee/Kirby/Ditko flame wars with each other but the companies like Marvel and like DC made money on their backs without paying them their worth to the company. Even if you got paid decent for a book you never saw profits from cartoons, movies, toys, etc… that the company made off your ideals.

Yep.

[N e r V]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

Actually Archie had the Superhero thing going and he could've stayed there with Joe Simon. But once Kirby chose Marvel, Simon didn't stick around either. Most people don't give those series their due... the Fly 'stuck around' for seven years, 1959-1966, and in 1964 was still selling close to 200,000 copies a month (just slightly less than Journey Into Mystery, Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish were). If Kirby had been given free reign there... no telling what he would've come up with...

Whatever Kirby would've done at Archie, it wouldn't have been what Marvel became. I agree.

However, again, without Kirby, Marvel would've never happened at all. 

When was this???

Yeah, Ditko seems to have the best memory. A very specific to details memory. Then again, he left fairly early and didn't have as much resentment as Kirby did in the end. 

One thing about when Ditko DID speak... Lee/Houseroy/Marvel waited until Kirby died to start in with the 'Lee created everything and then just assigned an artist' nonsense and the "Larry Lieber wrote the monster stories for Kirby BS" (Who that actually reads Marvel's from then even believes that?)... THAT was when Ditko decided to FINALLY write about his thoughts on that time period.

And Houseroy and John Morrow pretty much completely ignored it in their magazine. The mainstream media completely overlooked it and continued on with repeating nonsense about Stan winning 3 straight writing contests when he was teenager, blah, blah, blah, BS, BS, BS... a

Yep.

Don’t ask me the original source but I want to say the interview where he said it might have appeared in the Jack Kirby collector. Might have. It was posted on Mark Evaniers web site and before the Kirby lawsuit was settled with Disney I believe he pulled it for a bit because it might have been entered in the court case. It’s back there again so I’m posting it from his site. It’s a bit problematic because it does show he like Lee had memory issues so some (not me) tend to use it to justify their case against Kirby. From the context you can clearly see it’s a one off and not something to hold against him but more of a funny story with his memory.

 

 

[N e r V]

Here’s another comment from his site about both Kirby and Lee’s memory challenges.

 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/27/2023 at 8:56 PM, N e r V said:

Don’t ask me the original source but I want to say the interview where he said it might have appeared in the Jack Kirby collector. Might have. It was posted on Mark Evaniers web site and before the Kirby lawsuit was settled with Disney I believe he pulled it for a bit because it might have been entered in the court case. It’s back there again so I’m posting it from his site. It’s a bit problematic because it does show he like Lee had memory issues so some (not me) tend to use it to justify their case against Kirby. From the context you can clearly see it’s a one off and not something to hold against him but more of a funny story with his memory.

 

 

Jack did create a costume for Spider-man (complete with Captain America-style trunks and a web gun), as has been debated here and elsewhere, but it was discarded in favor of Ditko's version. Might that have been what he was remembering?

Edited September 28, 2023 by Dr. Haydn
Added sentence at bottom

[Prince Namor]

In the 60's Mark Evanier hated Kirby's work. Wrote about it in fanzine's in his early days.

Then in the 70's he met Jack and kissed his butt so much Kirby took him on as a helper.

Bragged about saying something to Houseroy about how 'bad' Ayers inking was on a book and then bragged about how he got him kicked off the assignment.

Has constantly talked about typed plots he has of Stan Lee (without ever showing a single one) and other artifacts that supposedly backs up some of the questionable stuff he says, but... never has come up with ANY proof.

Became the President of Stan Lee Media for a short time and suddenly started taking Stan's side of the story.

He pulled that column about Kirby claiming he created Superman because he couldn't lie under oath about it and he'd be exposed for making it up. No one, nowhere has ever seen the interview he's speaking of. It's made up. But that doesn't stop people from repeating it, because Evanier has put it out there as 'fact', to help benefit the Stan Lee Brigade.

(And I'm not saying that's what YOU were doing... you were just repeating what's been repeated over and over and over... Lee/Houseroy/Marvel know how effective propaganda works - repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.)

The guy changes his story to whatever it is that will benefit him then and now.

Example. Evanier once wrote: "Jack kept tons of Stan's old plot outlines, so I have a pretty good picture of how they worked together.  I have some of Stan's old plots and notes." 

Yet under oath on November 4, 2010, Evanier wrote in his official declaration in the Marvel v Kirby court case:
"I want to emphasise that Kirby worked on his own, and supervised himself, and did not create under the direction of supervision of Stan Lee or anyone else at Marvel."

Stan had a lousy memory, and Jack could get specifics wrong, so what does that make Evanier?

[N e r V]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Jack did create a costume for Spider-man (complete with Captain America-style trunks and a web gun), as has been debated here and elsewhere, but it was discarded in favor of Ditko's version. Might that have been what he was remembering?

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.

 

[N e r V]

On 9/27/2023 at 8:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

In the 60's Mark Evanier hated Kirby's work. Wrote about it in fanzine's in his early days.

Then in the 70's he met Jack and kissed his butt so much Kirby took him on as a helper.

Bragged about saying something to Houseroy about how 'bad' Ayers inking was on a book and then bragged about how he got him kicked off the assignment.

Has constantly talked about typed plots he has of Stan Lee (without ever showing a single one) and other artifacts that supposedly backs up some of the questionable stuff he says, but... never has come up with ANY proof.

Became the President of Stan Lee Media for a short time and suddenly started taking Stan's side of the story.

He pulled that column about Kirby claiming he created Superman because he couldn't lie under oath about it and he'd be exposed for making it up. No one, nowhere has ever seen the interview he's speaking of. It's made up. But that doesn't stop people from repeating it, because Evanier has put it out there as 'fact', to help benefit the Stan Lee Brigade.

(And I'm not saying that's what YOU were doing... you were just repeating what's been repeated over and over and over... Lee/Houseroy/Marvel know how effective propaganda works - repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.)

The guy changes his story to whatever it is that will benefit him then and now.

Example. Evanier once wrote: "Jack kept tons of Stan's old plot outlines, so I have a pretty good picture of how they worked together.  I have some of Stan's old plots and notes." 

Yet under oath on November 4, 2010, Evanier wrote in his official declaration in the Marvel v Kirby court case:
"I want to emphasise that Kirby worked on his own, and supervised himself, and did not create under the direction of supervision of Stan Lee or anyone else at Marvel."

Stan had a lousy memory, and Jack could get specifics wrong, so what does that make Evanier?

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

 

It is a fact though he was very close to Jack Kirby and the family and as far as I know still is to the family.  He’s also very close to a number of comic pros and animation, etc. having actually worked in the industry himself.

 

I certainly don’t agree with a lot of what he says which often is opinion vs provable facts but he usually leaves it as such.

The interview is quoted by other sources too at times but since i don’t have a print copy I won’t argue the point. If it’s made up as you say it’s probably one of the more bizarre stories to make up for a Kirby die hard friend/fan.

I own a large selection of fanzines myself including a number that Mark Evanier did. Marvelmania, Inkling, Fan Focus, Guts, etc. I never got any impression he hated Kirby. He was critical in his reviews of a lot of artists though including Kirby. 
 

Marvel Mirror #8 circa 1968

 

Which ones did you read where he hated Kirby???

Edited September 28, 2023 by N e r V

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 9:47 AM, N e r V said:

If I was going to believe any of the 3 for most accurate information outside of other Marvel staffers it would be Ditko. Both Lee and Kirby had awful memories at times. Remember Kirby once mistakenly claimed to have created Superman. Lee was Lee in that area. Ditko took both Lee and Kirby to task in their claims to creating Spider-Man. Ditko unlike both Lee and Kirby wasn’t a fame seeker but very much disliked both their “claims” on the subject. Based on Ditkos remarks over the years he called them both out as liars on the subject. So yeah, I believe Ditkos version of Spider-Man’s creation far more than Lee or Kirby’s.

When Ditko was asked if he was at all aware of the Ben Cooper Spiderman costume before the Spidey comic series began, he gave a somewhat overly defensive reply, I feel: “The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion, claim, charge,”

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

Well... Stan Lee did... for the last 20 years of his life, his position (and one he spoke under oath in a court of law) became, "I created it all, and then assigned an artist."

Yes, I lost any sympathy I might have had for Stan when he perjured himself and threw his artist/writers under the bus like that. Unless he was totally senile and was being led by the defense.

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:24 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Jack did create a costume for Spider-man (complete with Captain America-style trunks and a web gun), as has been debated here and elsewhere, but it was discarded in favor of Ditko's version. Might that have been what he was remembering?

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?

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 9:51 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

A classic "captured villain" pose! Can anyone else imagine Plantman saying: "I would have gotten away with it too--if it weren't for you meddling kids"?

Indeed, that was the first thing that came to mind.

[Steven Valdez]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:56 AM, N e r V said:

Don’t ask me the original source but I want to say the interview where he said it might have appeared in the Jack Kirby collector. Might have. It was posted on Mark Evaniers web site and before the Kirby lawsuit was settled with Disney I believe he pulled it for a bit because it might have been entered in the court case. It’s back there again so I’m posting it from his site. It’s a bit problematic because it does show he like Lee had memory issues so some (not me) tend to use it to justify their case against Kirby. From the context you can clearly see it’s a one off and not something to hold against him but more of a funny story with his memory.

 

 

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. Evanier's very prone to exaggeration as a narrative technique.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[Steven Valdez]

Evanier made disparaging remarks about Kirby's art in the old Marvelmania zine. I have PDFs of them, will see if I can find an example.