Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 9 9

[grendel013]

On 9/27/2024 at 2:36 PM, VintageComics said:

I also have become more aware of Kirby's personality and my comments about being able to relate to a fellow Virgo were genuine. We're very good at being the pitbulls and workhorses, and happy to carry the share of the workload as long as we feel we're being respected or appreciated. But we also complain a lot when we feel things aren't fair, and I can say for myself, we're not the best at articulating our complaints when we feel slighted. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/27/2024 at 1:35 PM, Mmehdy said:

On 9/27/2024 at 1:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

It's a comic in a magazine format. Same thing goes for EC and Warren. A difference without a distinction except maybe the maturity of the audience.

I have to disagree. Let's take Mad comic and Mag as an example. Clearly when Mad hit 24...it was not a comic book....sorry..No Way

The distinction between comic book and magazine came later, didn't it? Even in the 60's they were all still mags. 

Some old people still call comic books magazines. They're ALL mags technically. 

Comic book culture segregated comics later...but this is silly. 

It's a discussion about Simon's creativity and success, and trying to minimize it is just not going to happen by labelling Sick as a magazine. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/27/2024 at 5:22 PM, Zonker said:

But I'll take the word of @sfcityduck that Lucas' Force isn't technologically accessed, as I kind of lost interest in the movies after the second installment.  

The Force was originally accessed by belief. 

Later came the "Midi-chlorians" which were organisms.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian

This discussion is very similar to one I follow elsewhere on consciousness, the point being that there has to be some sort of a physical bridge or connection between thought and the physical body, and so there has to be some sort of physical bridge or connection between belief, or faith and the person doing the believing. 

Even though there's some physical path (technology or organism) it still necessarily originates with a belief or a thought.

And that concept is as old as time itself. 

[mrc]

On 9/27/2024 at 9:43 PM, VintageComics said:

I don't understand this obsession to make Kirby the Godfather of everything. Influences are fluid, myriad and often even sub-conscious and not obvious. 

Me neither........................

On 9/27/2024 at 9:31 PM, VintageComics said:

There is definitely a tendency to understate the achievements of Simon (and Lee) and to overstate the achievements of Kirby.

You don't have to understate Simon or Lee, or overstate Kirby either. You can give each their credit due. It doesn't take away form Kirby's greatness in the slightest. 

I agree......

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 12:48 AM, sfcityduck said:

I agree. But to me characterization is more important than character creation. 

You can't have characterization without characters.

And Lee had no ideas.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 1:16 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

But are not comic books a subset of magazines?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

All comic books are magazines, but not all magazines are comic books.

True or false?

The real test would be if Kirby had a magazine. Then they would definitely say it was NOT a comic book.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, techtre2003 said:

Just wanted to pop in and say congrats on the book Chaz! 

This is definitely one of the best threads on here in quite some time. I've learned a lot from several of you here and appreciate the conversation.

Thank you!

[jimjum12]

On 9/27/2024 at 5:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

The real test would be if Kirby had a magazine. Then they would definitely say it was NOT a comic book.

Actually, he had two, "InThe Days Of The Mob" and "Spirit World". GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 1:36 AM, VintageComics said:

I think it's wrong to say that minds haven't changed, or that people aren't paying attention. People are paying attention even if they're not posting - and that really is the strongest part of the internet. 

People are most definitely listening. It's just the vocal minority that we get to hear.

Glad you could learn some things from it. People who've read the book have all agreed on the same thing: There's a lot they didn't know about it that goes against the much repeated false story.

Edited 11 hours ago by Prince Namor

[sfcityduck]

On 9/27/2024 at 2:46 PM, Prince Namor said:

You can't have characterization without characters.

And Lee had no ideas.

As I said above, he had Captain America, Human Torch, and Sub-Mariner -- two of which were in the first five issues of FF, and the other appeared by issue 4 of CA (really earlier).

There were other characters useable as well. Timely could have pulled a DC and just revived or updated old characters. 

And if Neal Adams was the artist, I firmly believe it would have been great.

As for, "And Lee had no ideas," I know that's a mantra for you. But history shows us that Lee had ideas, and even his non-character creation ideas help change the comic industry. Your are again overclaiming the insignificance of those you view as Kirby's rivals or enemies.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/27/2024 at 2:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

The real test would be if Kirby had a magazine. Then they would definitely say it was NOT a comic book.

What a strange assertion. In what publication was Kirby's first comic work?

[sfcityduck]

On 9/27/2024 at 2:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

People are most definitely listening. It's just the vocal minority that we get to hear.

Did you take a poll? And how do you define this "vocal minority"? 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

As Bookery state, the Pulps were already deep into this stuff. I don't know them well enough to use them as sources, but I have a hard time believing Kirby just came up with everyone, like a rabbit out of a hat, especially based on the fact that arguably his most important creation, Captain America was a copy of someone else's character and that his most popular characters in the SA were rehashes of previous characters from the GA and late SA.

The Pulps were gone by 1970.

Kirby was heavily influenced by the Sci-Fi writers and and Science magazine's. He was a voracious reader.

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

This is eye opening, but for more context I think it would be great to see a chart of what all of these top sellers were doing, relative to each other before Kirby left Marvel and after Kirby arrived at DC. 

Like maybe, monthly sales from 1969-1972 or so. 

See attached

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm actually very surprised at how popular Challengers was. 

And influential. 

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

Viet Nam, the music scene (Doors / Hendrix and the entire drug fueled movement) and other international concerns were all factors in rising concerns made people more aware of what was going on around them socially. 

The GL/GA run was just ahead of it's time in pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable to talk about.

This is one of those cases where it is truly legendary, and considered great, and yet commercially unsuccessful at the time.

Yep. Adams art played big part in presenting that story. At the same time Wonder Woman was also trying to be new and hip and somewhat topical (Dennis O'Neil was also writing it), but I guess Mike Sekowsky's art didn't draw enough attention to it. (Though I thought his covers were pretty well done during that run...)

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

And frankly, I don't believe the BA becomes as great as it was without Neal Adams there, which is what we were discussing (his importance).

Adams will always be a Legend of that era. 

On 9/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

The entire rebirth of horror in the BA used more complex story lines, and was a move away from just simple action heroes and there was some of that deeper, darker characterization across the board in superhero stories. 

The Bronze Age was just more complex than the SA, it just had more of everything in each storyline but there was a definite pivot to darker storylines, from Neal Adam's Batman to the horror stories to ASM stories. It was everywhere. 

I was honestly curious about it and asking for an example.

When I look BACK at Marvel's mainstream titles in the Bronze Age when I started reading superhero comics, 1973-75, I get... Avengers (same old thing), Captain America (same old thing), FF and Thor (regurgitation of Kirby stories), Daredevil (nothing new), Hulk (same old thing)... only in the ASM did we get, what I saw as a more solid realism, which to me, was no different than it had in the 60's when, Uncle Ben, Betty Brandt's brother Bennett, Fred Foswell, Captain Stacy all were killed.

Horror ramped up again because of the loosening of the Code involving being able to use Vampires, Zombies, etc. again, but... most of that was used for the comic magazines.

I'm just curious what some of the more complex storylines were during the BA, not including ASM, because this is actually a part of a project I'm working on and I'd like to read some of them.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

I have to agree with sfcityduck that Sick has to be considered a success for Simon, if it was created by him, published for more than a decade, and went on for decade(s)...and this doesn't even touch on Simon's success before Kirby. 

It's unequivocal. Simon may not have been as successful as Kirby, but to argue he wasn't successful is disingenuous. 

And if you argue Simon's Sick wasn't a success because it didn't top Mad's or Cracked's numbers, then you also have to conceded that Kirby's Marvel output wasn't a success, because DC was madly outselling Kirby's Marvel in the 1960's by leaps and bounds.

Fair is fair. 

There is definitely a tendency to understate the achievements of Simon (and Lee) and to overstate the achievements of Kirby.

You don't have to understate Simon or Lee, or overstate Kirby either. You can give each their credit due. It doesn't take away form Kirby's greatness in the slightest. 

No one is arguing he wasn't successful outside of comics.

[Prince Namor]

 

On 9/28/2024 at 3:43 AM, VintageComics said:

I always saw Star Wars as a lineage from the John Carter, which preceded New Gods by 60 years, and I can see Kirby borrowing from it as well.

I don't understand this obsession to make Kirby the Godfather of everything. Influences are fluid, myriad and often even sub-conscious and not obvious. 

Kirby was a cog in the wheel of science fiction lore. A big one, but he wasn't the only cog. 

No one is saying Kirby is the godfather of everything.

But who in COMIC BOOKS was doing anything remotely close to the concepts of NEW GODS?

Literature? Sure, of course. Pulps from 40 years earlier? Yep. Movies? Magazines? Of course.

But we're talking Mainstream Comic Books.

You know, that are now High Brow Entertainment! (Sarcasm)

 

Everyone has the idea that LEE brought a higher level of characterization and ideas to comic books, made them for adults! - where did his ideas go without Kirby???

Lee did SQUAT after Kirby left. 

HERE, within New Gods, Kirby is presenting ideas and concepts in a MAINSTREAM COMIC BOOK, in the BRONZE AGE - ya know, when things supposedly ramped up current events and ideas and horror, etc. - and Lee fans have downplayed it for decades... because....

They KNOW, it shows who had the ideas and who didn't.

Kirby created a whole new UNIVERSE of characters - Gods battling throughout the Universe - that no one in Mainstream Funny Books was doing.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 4:55 AM, sfcityduck said:

As I said above, he had Captain America, Human Torch, and Sub-Mariner -- two of which were in the first five issues of FF, and the other appeared by issue 4 of CA (really earlier).

There were other characters useable as well. Timely could have pulled a DC and just revived or updated old characters. 

And if Neal Adams was the artist, I firmly believe it would have been great.

As for, "And Lee had no ideas," I know that's a mantra for you. But history shows us that Lee had ideas, and even his non-character creation ideas help change the comic industry. Your are again overclaiming the insignificance of those you view as Kirby's rivals or enemies.

His track record speaks for itself.

1940-1960 1/2 nothing.

In fact... after 1964, what did Lee create that was so great - minus what Kirby did in FF and Thor? The Kingpin? Ok. What else.

So 1964 to 2018?

His track record speaks for itself.

Kamandi was a better concept and comic than anything Lee did for 100% of his career without Kirby. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 4:55 AM, sfcityduck said:

As I said above, he had Captain America, Human Torch, and Sub-Mariner -- two of which were in the first five issues of FF, and the other appeared by issue 4 of CA (really earlier).

There were other characters useable as well. Timely could have pulled a DC and just revived or updated old characters. 

Goodman said no.

He'd already tried to bring them back and they failed.

That's why they had to wait until 1961. Kirby was ready in 1958, but had to settle for the Monster books.

It's all moot. Without Kirby, Marvel shuts down in 1958.

On 9/28/2024 at 4:55 AM, sfcityduck said:

And if Neal Adams was the artist, I firmly believe it would have been great.

Adams wanted to get paid for his work and Marvel has some of the lowest page rates in the business. I doubt he would've wasted his time. 

When he finally DID do work for Marvel, he was paid a higher rate than Marvel usually paid (per him).

[sfcityduck]

On 9/27/2024 at 3:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

Goodman said no.

He'd already tried to bring them back and they failed.

That's why they had to wait until 1961. Kirby was ready in 1958, but had to settle for the Monster books.

It's all moot. Without Kirby, Marvel shuts down in 1958.

Adams wanted to get paid for his work and Marvel has some of the lowest page rates in the business. I doubt he would've wasted his time. 

When he finally DID do work for Marvel, he was paid a higher rate than Marvel usually paid (per him).

This is exactly why "What If?" argument is foolish. We don't know what would have happened in 1958 or or 1961 because Kirby did go to Marvel and Adams didn't. But we do know that Adams first worked at MLJ and then was doing promo comics in 1960. If offered the opportunity to work at Marvel, I'd think he'd have leaped at the chance because he seemed to enjoy that kind of work and it was the beginning of his comic career not after he'd been a successful newspaper strip artist (a category higher on the pecking order than comic book artist). Both our posts are just hot air. There was no "push comes to shove" and we'll never what the "What If's" really would have been. It's just like the politicians forecasting gloom and doom if they don't get elected - hot air.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

I have to agree with sfcityduck that Sick has to be considered a success for Simon, if it was created by him, published for more than a decade, and went on for decade(s)...

Who's saying it wasn't? No one is actually trying to argue that he wasn't successful outside of writing and drawing comics.

Joe Simon gets a lot of credit for the ART of the S&K era and yet... boy that sure went away fast without Kirby.

And why is the finger pointed at Kirby as copying this and copying that, when... Sick is just a copy of Mad magazine?

Simon used many great artists and writers to put together those issues and what I've personally read of it, it was entertaining. NO ONE is trying to claim Siomon want successful. 

But where is his great COMIC BOOK work minus Kirby?

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

and this doesn't even touch on Simon's success before Kirby. 

No one cares.

Where is his great COMIC BOOK work minus Kirby?

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

It's unequivocal. Simon may not have been as successful as Kirby, but to argue he wasn't successful is disingenuous. 

No one is making that argument. 

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

And if you argue Simon's Sick wasn't a success because it didn't top Mad's or Cracked's numbers, then you also have to conceded that Kirby's Marvel output wasn't a success, because DC was madly outselling Kirby's Marvel in the 1960's by leaps and bounds.

Fair is fair. 

No one is making that argument. 

On 9/28/2024 at 3:31 AM, VintageComics said:

There is definitely a tendency to understate the achievements of Simon (and Lee) and to overstate the achievements of Kirby.

You don't have to understate Simon or Lee, or overstate Kirby either. You can give each their credit due. It doesn't take away form Kirby's greatness in the slightest. 

Where is his great COMIC BOOK work minus Kirby?

[Prince Namor]

On 9/28/2024 at 5:47 AM, sfcityduck said:

This is exactly why "What If?" argument is foolish. We don't know what would have happened in 1958 or or 1961 because Kirby did go to Marvel and Adams didn't. But we do know that Adams first worked at MLJ and then was doing promo comics in 1960. If offered the opportunity to work at Marvel, I'd think he'd have leaped at the chance because he seemed to enjoy that kind of work and it was the beginning of his comic career not after he'd been a successful newspaper strip artist (a category higher on the pecking order than comic book artist). Both our posts are just hot air. There was no "push comes to shove" and we'll never what the "What If's" really would have been. It's just like the politicians forecasting gloom and doom if they don't get elected - hot air.

Goodman was going to shut down. It's fact.

Stan Lee did nothing to save the business for a year after the Implosion. Maneely dies and Goodman makes arrangements.

Then Jack Kirby walks in the door.

There's no What If.