Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:26 PM, Mmehdy said:

Here is my conclusions after reading "Stan Lee lies" and the other 50 years of counter programing BS.

Stan had control of the Letters page and his soapbox etc...

Back in 1962...this had an enormous impact on the early comic book collecting field. Heck, there were other fans of Marvel comics like us..... But the letter pages were part comedy and part very informative. This was a critical step of success in carrying Marvel forward.. as well as the monthly title list...that really tied it together for collectors to do a watch out on the newsstand/supermarket/drug store  I have to give credit where credit is deserved...it probably was Stan's baby although he probably had a bunch of help and heck maybe he wrote a letter or two. But to say he wrote every story early on.is just an amazing fantasy.....for stan's benefit.

It is clear Stan did not create Spider-Man...it was Joe, Jack, Steve and then maybe Stan putting it together. The same with Thor and the Hulk etc.

Board members to keep defending the undefendable is just not right.....the truth has come out....please accept it ! Read the book...it is in black and white!!!!

Stan Lee as the titles say: Lied" upon Lies upon lies to the point of absurdity...we were in the dark for so many years and of course, the story was a great sell to the public for commercial gain. But as true comic book collectors, we are held to a higher standing knowledge-wise...we should have known better. There are no more excuses, Stan Lee deserves a * at best for the creation of the marvel universe. The real deal will be uncovered in 2024. for some of us on the board, it will take time to sink in...accept it, and I understand that

 The Mount Rushmore of the Marvel Universe is Jack, Steve, John R or John B.........for 2024 now.

I believe you probably came to this discussion without bias.  But I also think you came to it without a real understanding of what goes on in a creative bullpen. The person in charge determines what is and what is not developed and produced. If you haven't worked extensively in a creative room, it is hard to appreciate (as I believe you don't, at least not fully) that thoughts can come from one person and go around the room getting revised and revamped and when the system works -- when the person in charge is exceptionally creative and talented -- the result ends up exceeding the sum of its creative parts.  And every person in that room believes truly and deeply that they contributed the lion's share of the pieces of that idea, whether or not they did.

When things become successful and people later stake claims to credit, in the vast majority of situations the creatives will dispute each other somewhat but will save the most complaints for the boss, saying they took more credit then they deserved.  And very often it will be that the boss gave more credit early in the process and then, as time goes on and they are lauded by their peers and in the press, and by the financiers, they lean toward taking more credit than they gave out in the past.  It would easier to count the times things didn't go that way, presuming you can find many, or any.

The Marvel lore is full of remembrances of the creative room, and often those anecdotes involve Lee acting things out and making voices, etc.  It simply is not possible to conclude or reasonable to suggest that all you must give the man credit for is the hype and the letters pages and soapbox, etc.  I am not even sure I would call it good faith to do so.  But I know that when you've been subjected to endless raging screeds, it can be difficult to keep an unbiased eye.  

The people who "run the room" nearly always come up with many ideas ideas and often say they came up with more of the ideas than they actually did; but that doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side and say they came up with nothing.  

 

 

Edited October 17 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:04 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I believe you probably came to this discussion without bias. 

 

 

No one comes into anything without bias. The question is whether we can keep our bias in check enough to listen to the arguments of others, find actual evidence to support or rebut the views in the conversation, and have the ability to change views if the evidence warrants. Astute readers of this thread probably have noticed I'm open to changing my opinion to conclude that Kirby had no hand in creating Thor. Not because of opinions as to whether Stan did the dialogue, but based on the possible establishment of the fact that Kirby dialogued JIM 83 based on his writing of the dialogue into the balloons. PN asserts we will be able to see pics of the OA which show that. If those pics ever emerge they may close the debate on whether Stan was involved in creating Thor. 

In contrast, I'm not seeing much engagement with the extensive evidence put up on this thread establishing that Spider-Man was a Lee and Ditko creation. Instead, I see the continued assertion that Kirby created nearly everything, including Spider-Man. Ditko and Simon (and of course Lee) disagree.  Ditko says it was a Lee and Ditko creation. Simon says it wasn't him and Kirby. Yet this goes ignored. That's the cognitive weakness called confirmation bias - a flaw in reasoning that causes people to ignore evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:04 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I believe you probably came to this discussion without bias.  But I also think you came to it without a real understanding of what goes on in a creative bullpen. The person in charge determines what is and what is not developed and produced. If you haven't worked extensively in a creative room, it is hard to appreciate (as I believe you don't, at least not fully) that thoughts can come from one person and go around the room getting revised and revamped and when the system works -- when the person in charge is exceptionally creative and talented -- the result ends up exceeding the sum of its creative parts.  And every person in that room believes truly and deeply that they contributed the lion's share of the pieces of that idea, whether or not they did.

Julius Schwartz gave a LOT of input on things at DC that he edited and added dialogue to and made changes.

He didn't claim he created it.

And he didn't steal pay from the people who did. 

On 10/17/2024 at 9:04 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

When things become successful and people later stake claims to credit, in the vast majority of situations the creatives will dispute each other somewhat but will save the most complaints for the boss, saying they took more credit then they deserved.  And very often it will be that the boss gave more credit early in the process and then, as time goes on and they are lauded by their peers and in the press, and by the financiers, they lean toward taking more credit than they gave out in the past.  It would easier to count the times things didn't go that way, presuming you can find many, or any.

Or you could just look at the quality of work the two people did outside of each other and see the difference.

Not based upon how Stan Lee fans view it - just in terms of how creative it is.

Lee before Kirby and Lee after Kirby... didn't have any creativity. He didn't do anything. 

On 10/17/2024 at 9:04 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

The Marvel lore is full of remembrances of the creative room, and often those anecdotes involve Lee acting things out and making voices, etc. 

Which all the regular artists said is BS. 

On 10/17/2024 at 9:04 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

It simply is not possible to conclude or reasonable to suggest that all you must give the man credit for is the hype and the letters pages and soapbox, etc.  I am not even sure I would call it good faith to do so.  But I know that when you've been subjected to endless raging screeds, it can be difficult to keep an unbiased eye.  

The people who "run the room" nearly always come up with many ideas ideas and often say they came up with more of the ideas than they actually did; but that doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side and say they came up with nothing.  

Lee added to the stories. He made changes. He was the publisher's relative by law, he was the boss. Who is disputing that?

His LEVEL of creativity? Yeah... HE says he created it ALL and simply assigned an artist. 

Sorry, but I'll call BS on that all day long.

NO ONE IS SAYING HE DID NOTHING.

Edited October 17 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:53 AM, sfcityduck said:

No one comes into anything without bias. The question is whether we can keep our bias in check enough to listen to the arguments of others, find actual evidence to support or rebut the views in the conversation, and have the ability to change views if the evidence warrants. Astute readers of this thread probably have noticed I'm open to changing my opinion to conclude that Kirby had no hand in creating Thor. Not because of opinions as to whether Stan did the dialogue, but based on the possible establishment of the fact that Kirby dialogued JIM 83 based on his writing of the dialogue into the balloons. PN asserts we will be able to see pics of the OA which show that. If those pics ever emerge they may close the debate on whether Stan was involved in creating Thor. 

In contrast, I'm not seeing much engagement with the extensive evidence put up on this thread establishing that Spider-Man was a Lee and Ditko creation. Instead, I see the continued assertion that Kirby created nearly everything, including Spider-Man. Ditko and Simon (and of course Lee) disagree.  Ditko says it was a Lee and Ditko creation. Simon says it wasn't him and Kirby. Yet this goes ignored. That's the cognitive weakness called confirmation bias - a flaw in reasoning that causes people to ignore evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

Lee and Ditko had story conferences, so its very likely Lee said SOMETHING that added to the origin of Spider-man. THAT has not been MY bone of contention. MINE has been that Stan Lee says he created ALL of it and simply assigned an artist.

As to WHAT he offered up on Spider-man... Its hard to tell what because of how much BS he slings - Lee said Kirby was unable to draw someone unheroic  (yet he uses Kirby's cover of a heroic-looking Spider-man?)

Two months prior to AF#15, Kirby drew this:

Who does THAT look like?

Edited October 17 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

And people argue for Lee to have co-credit for Spider-man - I mean ok - but what did he bring to it that Kirby didn't?

Let's take a look (most of this is from my book):

“The very last costumed super-hero book that Kirby produced, prior to Marvel, featured an insect hero able to climb walls and ceilings; had super strength, the agility of a bug, and, amazingly, an extra sense that warned him of danger. In The Adventures of the Fly, (Archie Publications 1959,) Simon and Kirby introduced The Fly, a hero with the exact same insect derived powers that show up in Spidey. In fact, the only physical difference is that the Fly can fly. The most interesting aspect for me is the match-up of a “sixth sense” to warn of danger. While the other powers (wall climbing, etc.) might be considered generic to any insect, this warning sense is, as far as I know, something totally unique and beyond the norm of the natural attributes of insects. The addition of this unnatural extra sense showing up in both creations is just too coincidental.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

‘Proportionate Strength of a Spider’

In Black Cat Mystic #60 (on newsstands September 1957), Kirby has a character who gains the proportionate strength of an Ant. He’s a nerdy scientist who drinks an extract he’s created. He throws out some gangsters who’ve come to steal it and then walking the streets he gets hit by a car - damaging the car but not feeling a thing himself (In Amazing Fantasy #15, Peter Parker while walking the streets, almost gets hit by a car, but instinctively jumps to safety up a building).

Neither Lee or Ditko ever had a character previous to Spider-Man who did anything like this.

 

‘Peter Parker the Bookworm’

Earlier I pointed out how similar Henry Fuller from Jack Kirby’s story ‘Bully Boy’ (Tales to Astonish #32 on newsstands March 1962) looks to Ditko’s Peter Parker, created just 3 months later. He's even bullied by a character who resembles Flash Thompson.

But a YEAR earlier than that was Walter Carter in Tales to Astonish #22 (on newsstands May 1961), a nerdy High School student (in yellow sweater vest and blue suit, ala later Peter Parker) getting picked on by his jock classmates and made fun of. He’d go on to save the world, in an interesting way - by OUT THINKING - his much more powerful foe - a concept we’d see through much of the Silver Age and Spider-Man in particular.

These two characters are wedged in between when we first see Henry Pym in Tales to Astonish #27 (on newsstands September 1961). That story, ’The Man in the Ant Hill’ along with these two others is Kirby molding the Marvel Universe right before our eyes.

 

There is NOTHING in the past storytelling of Lee or Ditko that show us anything even close to this.

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING FANTASY #15’

“In The Double Life of Private Strong, (Archie Publications 1959) (not coincidentally the companion title to The Fly) the hero, Lancelot Strong, aka The Shield, is an orphaned high school senior, and like Spider-Man, his surrogate parents were gentle, compassionate, and supportive. His powers were the result of a scientific experiment.

Around this same time, Kirby was also working on the proposed newspaper strip, Chip Hardy, with a teen-aged science whiz hero. In fact, from about 1959 on, just about all of Kirby’s youthful heroes would be older teenagers, and most orphaned. Johnny Storm, Rick Jones (both predating Peter Parker) and the X-Men all fit into this mold.

I could find nothing that matched in Ditko’s, or Lee’s, (sans Kirby) recent past.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The next element is very important: After gaining his powers, the hero loses a loved one due to his inaction, thus providing the impetus for becoming a hero. This may be the critical element that separates Spider-Man from almost all other heroes- and it’s right there in The Double Life of Private Strong. While rushing off to test his newfound powers against a rampaging alien monster, The Shield, (Lancelot Strong), in his teen exuberance, ignores and leaves his best friend Spud in harms way. After defeating the brute, the Shield returns to celebrate his triumph only to learn that the monster has killed Spud. The distraught Shield blames himself, and vows that it will never happen again. Similarly, Spider-Man, in a moment of conceit and arrogance, ignores a thief, only to learn that that same thief would go on to kill his Uncle, which in turn, spurs him into action. He then vows that it will never happen again”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

These are CRITICAL PLOT ELEMENTS that mirror each other in the two books. If you take Kirby and Simon’s The Fly and mix it with their reimagining of The Shield… you get almost all of the basic elements of Spider-Man before Ditko put his creative touches to it.

Is it possible that Lee and Ditko rejected the ideas for Kirby’s Spider-Man, that were based on The Fly, but then accepted his plot ideas taken directly from the Shield stories? I suspect Marvel Comics would prefer not to talk about it.

 

“Is this use of a Kirby plot, in a book not drawn by Kirby, unusual for Marvel at the time? No! Iron Man’s origin, from Tales Of Suspense #39, uses a Kirby plot, first seen in a Green Arrow story from 1959. (“The War That Never Ended”, Adventure Comics 255) In both stories the hero is captured by an oriental army, and because of his specialty in weaponry, is forced to manufacture a weapon. The hero tricks his captors and creates a weapon that backfires on the enemy and foils their plans.) Yet Don Heck provided the artwork for Iron Man’s first adventure (based on the Iron Man from Kirby’s cover).”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And later in this book, we’ll see the reworking of Kirby’s Dr. Droom used in the origin of Doctor Strange.

None of this meant to downgrade what Ditko did on the Amazing Spider-man. He MADE that title the original, unique masterpiece that it was. But he openly speaks about Lee and him discussing ideas for the story (though he rejects much of it for his own ideas) and we SEE where Lee got some of the ideas that he MAY have used, because… well because Kirby had previously used them.

 

And there’s more:

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1'

“The second Shield story involves the hero tracking down a Communist spy attempting to steal scientific secrets; the villain tries to escape in a submarine that the hero has to put out of action. This is also the plot of the Chameleon story, in Amazing Spider-Man #1

The villain as a master of disguise was used by Jack Kirby in the first, second, or third story of just about every series he did between 1956 and 1963. (I mentioned he was predictable) It is found in his first Green Arrow story, (Green Arrows of the World, Adventure Comics #250, DC Pub.1958) the second Yellow Claw story, (The Mystery of Cabin 361, Yellow Claw #2, Marvel 1958) the third Dr. Droom tale,(Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #2, Marvel 1961), the second Fantastic Four story, the second Ant-Man story, and the third Thor story, all preceding AS#1. The specific element of a villain impersonating a hero in order to infiltrate, and/or incriminate him in a crime is one that Kirby used often. Prior to Amazing Spider-Man #1, it can be found in Fighting American, (Three Coins in the Pushcart, Fighting American #7, Prize Comics, 1954) Green Arrow, (Adventure Comics #250) and most recently in Fantastic Four #2. This theme would also be used in the test appearance of Captain America in Strange Tales #114.

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The problem of a story idea far outside a teenager's world, such as a space capsule, could also be said about PP/S-m's encounter with a Soviet submarine. It's like elevating a local issue onto the international level, a forced "realism”. The idea is more fitting for Captain America.”

- Steve Ditko, A MINI-HISTORY 3. “The Amazing Spider-Man #1“ © 2001 S. Ditko

 

Archie’s ‘The Shield’ was of course THEIR version of Captain America (before there was one).

“In the third Shield, and Spider-Man stories, we are introduced to the recurring pain-in-the- authority figure/ nemesis – the one who always gets hoisted on his own petard. A Kirby icon, dating back to Captain America. In both stories the adult child of that authority figure gets into a jam and needs the costumed hero to save him or her. In the Shield’s case, it’s the daughter of the general in charge of the base he is assigned to after being drafted. After she gets trapped in a runaway tank, the Shield must save her. In Spider-Man’s story, it’s the son of the editor of the newspaper who hires Peter Parker, and he is trapped in a runaway space capsule that Spider-Man must rescue. Even after saving their offspring, neither of the authoritarian figures considers the hero a particularly positive force, and both think the alter ego character is a bumbling insufficiently_thoughtful_person. In between the Shield, and Spider-Man, Kirby also used this gimmick in the Hulk.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

Jack Kirby also does the COVER for Amazing Spider-Man #1 based upon the 2nd story inside of Spider-Man meeting the Fantastic Four. Later we would see Jack’s version of the story in Fantastic Four Annual #1 (6 pages vs 2)

So which came first?

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2'

“The Vulture story from AS#2 is interesting because not only does it have plot elements from an earlier Kirby story, the bad guy is an exact duplicate of the villain from that same Kirby story. In the first Manhunter story, (Adventure Comics #73, DC Pub. 1942) Kirby introduced The Buzzard, who, in an uncanny parallel to the Vulture, is a skinny, stoop shouldered, hump-backed, beak nosed maniac, dressed in a green body suit with a feathered collar that encircles the neck. Both men have the power of flight, the Buzzard by flapping his cape, and the Vulture via mechanical wings, and a magnetic unit.

Both men’s schtick is to openly challenge the authorities and the media by boasting of their evil plans before they commit them. The Buzzard goes so far as to actually kill a reporter to deliver his message; the Vulture (in post code times) simply throws a rock through J. Jonahs’s window.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And…

“The Tinkerer story in AS#2, has a very interesting hook, a plot element where a radio is doctored and infiltrated into scientists and government officials’ houses in order to spy and/or control them. This is not some generic scheme, but a very detailed and specific plot element used by Jack Kirby several times. The earliest use is in Captain America #7, (Marvel Pub. Oct.1941) in a story titled “Horror Plays the Scales”. Kirby again used this element in a crime story from Headline Comics#24, (Prize Pub. May 1947) titled “Murder on a Wavelength”.

The alien aspect of this Spidey story appears adapted from a Kirby, Dr. Droom story. In his third story, (Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #3, Marvel 1961) Droom is following a suspicious character and overhears a plan by aliens in which one will infiltrate humanity and lay the groundwork for an alien invasion. Spider-Man’s capture and escape method seem to be lifted from a Challengers of the Unknown story. (The Human Pets, Challengers of the Unknown #3, DC Pub.1958)”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“This similar plotting sequence is a lot like DNA testing, one or two match-ups doesn’t mean a thing, but the odds increase exponentially with each added matched item.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

[comicwiz]

In the context of whether a radio interview in 1961 was possible at a point when Marvel was still in it's infancy - I think a few members have already provided some great responses. However, consider this as well.

Dr. Michael J Vassallo's Timely/Atlast blog provides us some insights as to the early days of "fan mail" - but specifically, Lee's staged letter stunts

Edited October 17 by comicwiz

[jimjum12]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:54 AM, Prince Namor said:

And people argue for Lee to have co-credit for Spider-man - I mean ok - but what did he bring to it that Kirby didn't?

Let's take a look (most of this is from my book):

“The very last costumed super-hero book that Kirby produced, prior to Marvel, featured an insect hero able to climb walls and ceilings; had super strength, the agility of a bug, and, amazingly, an extra sense that warned him of danger. In The Adventures of the Fly, (Archie Publications 1959,) Simon and Kirby introduced The Fly, a hero with the exact same insect derived powers that show up in Spidey. In fact, the only physical difference is that the Fly can fly. The most interesting aspect for me is the match-up of a “sixth sense” to warn of danger. While the other powers (wall climbing, etc.) might be considered generic to any insect, this warning sense is, as far as I know, something totally unique and beyond the norm of the natural attributes of insects. The addition of this unnatural extra sense showing up in both creations is just too coincidental.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

‘Proportionate Strength of a Spider’

In Black Cat Mystic #60 (on newsstands September 1957), Kirby has a character who gains the proportionate strength of an Ant. He’s a nerdy scientist who drinks an extract he’s created. He throws out some gangsters who’ve come to steal it and then walking the streets he gets hit by a car - damaging the car but not feeling a thing himself (In Amazing Fantasy #15, Peter Parker while walking the streets, almost gets hit by a car, but instinctively jumps to safety up a building).

Neither Lee or Ditko ever had a character previous to Spider-Man who did anything like this.

 

‘Peter Parker the Bookworm’

Earlier I pointed out how similar Henry Fuller from Jack Kirby’s story ‘Bully Boy’ (Tales to Astonish #32 on newsstands March 1962) looks to Ditko’s Peter Parker, created just 3 months later. He's even bullied by a character who resembles Flash Thompson.

But a YEAR earlier than that was Walter Carter in Tales to Astonish #22 (on newsstands May 1961), a nerdy High School student (in yellow sweater vest and blue suit, ala later Peter Parker) getting picked on by his jock classmates and made fun of. He’d go on to save the world, in an interesting way - by OUT THINKING - his much more powerful foe - a concept we’d see through much of the Silver Age and Spider-Man in particular.

These two characters are wedged in between when we first see Henry Pym in Tales to Astonish #27 (on newsstands September 1961). That story, ’The Man in the Ant Hill’ along with these two others is Kirby molding the Marvel Universe right before our eyes.

 

There is NOTHING in the past storytelling of Lee or Ditko that show us anything even close to this.

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING FANTASY #15’

“In The Double Life of Private Strong, (Archie Publications 1959) (not coincidentally the companion title to The Fly) the hero, Lancelot Strong, aka The Shield, is an orphaned high school senior, and like Spider-Man, his surrogate parents were gentle, compassionate, and supportive. His powers were the result of a scientific experiment.

Around this same time, Kirby was also working on the proposed newspaper strip, Chip Hardy, with a teen-aged science whiz hero. In fact, from about 1959 on, just about all of Kirby’s youthful heroes would be older teenagers, and most orphaned. Johnny Storm, Rick Jones (both predating Peter Parker) and the X-Men all fit into this mold.

I could find nothing that matched in Ditko’s, or Lee’s, (sans Kirby) recent past.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The next element is very important: After gaining his powers, the hero loses a loved one due to his inaction, thus providing the impetus for becoming a hero. This may be the critical element that separates Spider-Man from almost all other heroes- and it’s right there in The Double Life of Private Strong. While rushing off to test his newfound powers against a rampaging alien monster, The Shield, (Lancelot Strong), in his teen exuberance, ignores and leaves his best friend Spud in harms way. After defeating the brute, the Shield returns to celebrate his triumph only to learn that the monster has killed Spud. The distraught Shield blames himself, and vows that it will never happen again. Similarly, Spider-Man, in a moment of conceit and arrogance, ignores a thief, only to learn that that same thief would go on to kill his Uncle, which in turn, spurs him into action. He then vows that it will never happen again”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

These are CRITICAL PLOT ELEMENTS that mirror each other in the two books. If you take Kirby and Simon’s The Fly and mix it with their reimagining of The Shield… you get almost all of the basic elements of Spider-Man before Ditko put his creative touches to it.

Is it possible that Lee and Ditko rejected the ideas for Kirby’s Spider-Man, that were based on The Fly, but then accepted his plot ideas taken directly from the Shield stories? I suspect Marvel Comics would prefer not to talk about it.

 

“Is this use of a Kirby plot, in a book not drawn by Kirby, unusual for Marvel at the time? No! Iron Man’s origin, from Tales Of Suspense #39, uses a Kirby plot, first seen in a Green Arrow story from 1959. (“The War That Never Ended”, Adventure Comics 255) In both stories the hero is captured by an oriental army, and because of his specialty in weaponry, is forced to manufacture a weapon. The hero tricks his captors and creates a weapon that backfires on the enemy and foils their plans.) Yet Don Heck provided the artwork for Iron Man’s first adventure (based on the Iron Man from Kirby’s cover).”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And later in this book, we’ll see the reworking of Kirby’s Dr. Droom used in the origin of Doctor Strange.

None of this meant to downgrade what Ditko did on the Amazing Spider-man. He MADE that title the original, unique masterpiece that it was. But he openly speaks about Lee and him discussing ideas for the story (though he rejects much of it for his own ideas) and we SEE where Lee got some of the ideas that he MAY have used, because… well because Kirby had previously used them.

 

And there’s more:

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1'

“The second Shield story involves the hero tracking down a Communist spy attempting to steal scientific secrets; the villain tries to escape in a submarine that the hero has to put out of action. This is also the plot of the Chameleon story, in Amazing Spider-Man #1

The villain as a master of disguise was used by Jack Kirby in the first, second, or third story of just about every series he did between 1956 and 1963. (I mentioned he was predictable) It is found in his first Green Arrow story, (Green Arrows of the World, Adventure Comics #250, DC Pub.1958) the second Yellow Claw story, (The Mystery of Cabin 361, Yellow Claw #2, Marvel 1958) the third Dr. Droom tale,(Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #2, Marvel 1961), the second Fantastic Four story, the second Ant-Man story, and the third Thor story, all preceding AS#1. The specific element of a villain impersonating a hero in order to infiltrate, and/or incriminate him in a crime is one that Kirby used often. Prior to Amazing Spider-Man #1, it can be found in Fighting American, (Three Coins in the Pushcart, Fighting American #7, Prize Comics, 1954) Green Arrow, (Adventure Comics #250) and most recently in Fantastic Four #2. This theme would also be used in the test appearance of Captain America in Strange Tales #114.

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The problem of a story idea far outside a teenager's world, such as a space capsule, could also be said about PP/S-m's encounter with a Soviet submarine. It's like elevating a local issue onto the international level, a forced "realism”. The idea is more fitting for Captain America.”

- Steve Ditko, A MINI-HISTORY 3. “The Amazing Spider-Man #1“ © 2001 S. Ditko

 

Archie’s ‘The Shield’ was of course THEIR version of Captain America (before there was one).

“In the third Shield, and Spider-Man stories, we are introduced to the recurring pain-in-the- authority figure/ nemesis – the one who always gets hoisted on his own petard. A Kirby icon, dating back to Captain America. In both stories the adult child of that authority figure gets into a jam and needs the costumed hero to save him or her. In the Shield’s case, it’s the daughter of the general in charge of the base he is assigned to after being drafted. After she gets trapped in a runaway tank, the Shield must save her. In Spider-Man’s story, it’s the son of the editor of the newspaper who hires Peter Parker, and he is trapped in a runaway space capsule that Spider-Man must rescue. Even after saving their offspring, neither of the authoritarian figures considers the hero a particularly positive force, and both think the alter ego character is a bumbling insufficiently_thoughtful_person. In between the Shield, and Spider-Man, Kirby also used this gimmick in the Hulk.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

Jack Kirby also does the COVER for Amazing Spider-Man #1 based upon the 2nd story inside of Spider-Man meeting the Fantastic Four. Later we would see Jack’s version of the story in Fantastic Four Annual #1 (6 pages vs 2)

So which came first?

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2'

“The Vulture story from AS#2 is interesting because not only does it have plot elements from an earlier Kirby story, the bad guy is an exact duplicate of the villain from that same Kirby story. In the first Manhunter story, (Adventure Comics #73, DC Pub. 1942) Kirby introduced The Buzzard, who, in an uncanny parallel to the Vulture, is a skinny, stoop shouldered, hump-backed, beak nosed maniac, dressed in a green body suit with a feathered collar that encircles the neck. Both men have the power of flight, the Buzzard by flapping his cape, and the Vulture via mechanical wings, and a magnetic unit.

Both men’s schtick is to openly challenge the authorities and the media by boasting of their evil plans before they commit them. The Buzzard goes so far as to actually kill a reporter to deliver his message; the Vulture (in post code times) simply throws a rock through J. Jonahs’s window.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And…

“The Tinkerer story in AS#2, has a very interesting hook, a plot element where a radio is doctored and infiltrated into scientists and government officials’ houses in order to spy and/or control them. This is not some generic scheme, but a very detailed and specific plot element used by Jack Kirby several times. The earliest use is in Captain America #7, (Marvel Pub. Oct.1941) in a story titled “Horror Plays the Scales”. Kirby again used this element in a crime story from Headline Comics#24, (Prize Pub. May 1947) titled “Murder on a Wavelength”.

The alien aspect of this Spidey story appears adapted from a Kirby, Dr. Droom story. In his third story, (Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #3, Marvel 1961) Droom is following a suspicious character and overhears a plan by aliens in which one will infiltrate humanity and lay the groundwork for an alien invasion. Spider-Man’s capture and escape method seem to be lifted from a Challengers of the Unknown story. (The Human Pets, Challengers of the Unknown #3, DC Pub.1958)”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“This similar plotting sequence is a lot like DNA testing, one or two match-ups doesn’t mean a thing, but the odds increase exponentially with each added matched item.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

Damn, Chuck, ...how's about a spoiler alert next time ? GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[sfcityduck]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:54 PM, Prince Namor said:

And people argue for Lee to have co-credit for Spider-man - I mean ok - but what did he bring to it that Kirby didn't?

Let's take a look (most of this is from my book):

“The very last costumed super-hero book that Kirby produced, prior to Marvel, featured an insect hero able to climb walls and ceilings; had super strength, the agility of a bug, and, amazingly, an extra sense that warned him of danger. In The Adventures of the Fly, (Archie Publications 1959,) Simon and Kirby introduced The Fly, a hero with the exact same insect derived powers that show up in Spidey. In fact, the only physical difference is that the Fly can fly. The most interesting aspect for me is the match-up of a “sixth sense” to warn of danger. While the other powers (wall climbing, etc.) might be considered generic to any insect, this warning sense is, as far as I know, something totally unique and beyond the norm of the natural attributes of insects. The addition of this unnatural extra sense showing up in both creations is just too coincidental.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

‘Proportionate Strength of a Spider’

In Black Cat Mystic #60 (on newsstands September 1957), Kirby has a character who gains the proportionate strength of an Ant. He’s a nerdy scientist who drinks an extract he’s created. He throws out some gangsters who’ve come to steal it and then walking the streets he gets hit by a car - damaging the car but not feeling a thing himself (In Amazing Fantasy #15, Peter Parker while walking the streets, almost gets hit by a car, but instinctively jumps to safety up a building).

Neither Lee or Ditko ever had a character previous to Spider-Man who did anything like this.

 

‘Peter Parker the Bookworm’

Earlier I pointed out how similar Henry Fuller from Jack Kirby’s story ‘Bully Boy’ (Tales to Astonish #32 on newsstands March 1962) looks to Ditko’s Peter Parker, created just 3 months later. He's even bullied by a character who resembles Flash Thompson.

But a YEAR earlier than that was Walter Carter in Tales to Astonish #22 (on newsstands May 1961), a nerdy High School student (in yellow sweater vest and blue suit, ala later Peter Parker) getting picked on by his jock classmates and made fun of. He’d go on to save the world, in an interesting way - by OUT THINKING - his much more powerful foe - a concept we’d see through much of the Silver Age and Spider-Man in particular.

These two characters are wedged in between when we first see Henry Pym in Tales to Astonish #27 (on newsstands September 1961). That story, ’The Man in the Ant Hill’ along with these two others is Kirby molding the Marvel Universe right before our eyes.

 

There is NOTHING in the past storytelling of Lee or Ditko that show us anything even close to this.

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING FANTASY #15’

“In The Double Life of Private Strong, (Archie Publications 1959) (not coincidentally the companion title to The Fly) the hero, Lancelot Strong, aka The Shield, is an orphaned high school senior, and like Spider-Man, his surrogate parents were gentle, compassionate, and supportive. His powers were the result of a scientific experiment.

Around this same time, Kirby was also working on the proposed newspaper strip, Chip Hardy, with a teen-aged science whiz hero. In fact, from about 1959 on, just about all of Kirby’s youthful heroes would be older teenagers, and most orphaned. Johnny Storm, Rick Jones (both predating Peter Parker) and the X-Men all fit into this mold.

I could find nothing that matched in Ditko’s, or Lee’s, (sans Kirby) recent past.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The next element is very important: After gaining his powers, the hero loses a loved one due to his inaction, thus providing the impetus for becoming a hero. This may be the critical element that separates Spider-Man from almost all other heroes- and it’s right there in The Double Life of Private Strong. While rushing off to test his newfound powers against a rampaging alien monster, The Shield, (Lancelot Strong), in his teen exuberance, ignores and leaves his best friend Spud in harms way. After defeating the brute, the Shield returns to celebrate his triumph only to learn that the monster has killed Spud. The distraught Shield blames himself, and vows that it will never happen again. Similarly, Spider-Man, in a moment of conceit and arrogance, ignores a thief, only to learn that that same thief would go on to kill his Uncle, which in turn, spurs him into action. He then vows that it will never happen again”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

These are CRITICAL PLOT ELEMENTS that mirror each other in the two books. If you take Kirby and Simon’s The Fly and mix it with their reimagining of The Shield… you get almost all of the basic elements of Spider-Man before Ditko put his creative touches to it.

Is it possible that Lee and Ditko rejected the ideas for Kirby’s Spider-Man, that were based on The Fly, but then accepted his plot ideas taken directly from the Shield stories? I suspect Marvel Comics would prefer not to talk about it.

 

“Is this use of a Kirby plot, in a book not drawn by Kirby, unusual for Marvel at the time? No! Iron Man’s origin, from Tales Of Suspense #39, uses a Kirby plot, first seen in a Green Arrow story from 1959. (“The War That Never Ended”, Adventure Comics 255) In both stories the hero is captured by an oriental army, and because of his specialty in weaponry, is forced to manufacture a weapon. The hero tricks his captors and creates a weapon that backfires on the enemy and foils their plans.) Yet Don Heck provided the artwork for Iron Man’s first adventure (based on the Iron Man from Kirby’s cover).”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And later in this book, we’ll see the reworking of Kirby’s Dr. Droom used in the origin of Doctor Strange.

None of this meant to downgrade what Ditko did on the Amazing Spider-man. He MADE that title the original, unique masterpiece that it was. But he openly speaks about Lee and him discussing ideas for the story (though he rejects much of it for his own ideas) and we SEE where Lee got some of the ideas that he MAY have used, because… well because Kirby had previously used them.

 

And there’s more:

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1'

“The second Shield story involves the hero tracking down a Communist spy attempting to steal scientific secrets; the villain tries to escape in a submarine that the hero has to put out of action. This is also the plot of the Chameleon story, in Amazing Spider-Man #1

The villain as a master of disguise was used by Jack Kirby in the first, second, or third story of just about every series he did between 1956 and 1963. (I mentioned he was predictable) It is found in his first Green Arrow story, (Green Arrows of the World, Adventure Comics #250, DC Pub.1958) the second Yellow Claw story, (The Mystery of Cabin 361, Yellow Claw #2, Marvel 1958) the third Dr. Droom tale,(Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #2, Marvel 1961), the second Fantastic Four story, the second Ant-Man story, and the third Thor story, all preceding AS#1. The specific element of a villain impersonating a hero in order to infiltrate, and/or incriminate him in a crime is one that Kirby used often. Prior to Amazing Spider-Man #1, it can be found in Fighting American, (Three Coins in the Pushcart, Fighting American #7, Prize Comics, 1954) Green Arrow, (Adventure Comics #250) and most recently in Fantastic Four #2. This theme would also be used in the test appearance of Captain America in Strange Tales #114.

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“The problem of a story idea far outside a teenager's world, such as a space capsule, could also be said about PP/S-m's encounter with a Soviet submarine. It's like elevating a local issue onto the international level, a forced "realism”. The idea is more fitting for Captain America.”

- Steve Ditko, A MINI-HISTORY 3. “The Amazing Spider-Man #1“ © 2001 S. Ditko

 

Archie’s ‘The Shield’ was of course THEIR version of Captain America (before there was one).

“In the third Shield, and Spider-Man stories, we are introduced to the recurring pain-in-the- authority figure/ nemesis – the one who always gets hoisted on his own petard. A Kirby icon, dating back to Captain America. In both stories the adult child of that authority figure gets into a jam and needs the costumed hero to save him or her. In the Shield’s case, it’s the daughter of the general in charge of the base he is assigned to after being drafted. After she gets trapped in a runaway tank, the Shield must save her. In Spider-Man’s story, it’s the son of the editor of the newspaper who hires Peter Parker, and he is trapped in a runaway space capsule that Spider-Man must rescue. Even after saving their offspring, neither of the authoritarian figures considers the hero a particularly positive force, and both think the alter ego character is a bumbling insufficiently_thoughtful_person. In between the Shield, and Spider-Man, Kirby also used this gimmick in the Hulk.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

Jack Kirby also does the COVER for Amazing Spider-Man #1 based upon the 2nd story inside of Spider-Man meeting the Fantastic Four. Later we would see Jack’s version of the story in Fantastic Four Annual #1 (6 pages vs 2)

So which came first?

 

‘PLOT OF AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2'

“The Vulture story from AS#2 is interesting because not only does it have plot elements from an earlier Kirby story, the bad guy is an exact duplicate of the villain from that same Kirby story. In the first Manhunter story, (Adventure Comics #73, DC Pub. 1942) Kirby introduced The Buzzard, who, in an uncanny parallel to the Vulture, is a skinny, stoop shouldered, hump-backed, beak nosed maniac, dressed in a green body suit with a feathered collar that encircles the neck. Both men have the power of flight, the Buzzard by flapping his cape, and the Vulture via mechanical wings, and a magnetic unit.

Both men’s schtick is to openly challenge the authorities and the media by boasting of their evil plans before they commit them. The Buzzard goes so far as to actually kill a reporter to deliver his message; the Vulture (in post code times) simply throws a rock through J. Jonahs’s window.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

And…

“The Tinkerer story in AS#2, has a very interesting hook, a plot element where a radio is doctored and infiltrated into scientists and government officials’ houses in order to spy and/or control them. This is not some generic scheme, but a very detailed and specific plot element used by Jack Kirby several times. The earliest use is in Captain America #7, (Marvel Pub. Oct.1941) in a story titled “Horror Plays the Scales”. Kirby again used this element in a crime story from Headline Comics#24, (Prize Pub. May 1947) titled “Murder on a Wavelength”.

The alien aspect of this Spidey story appears adapted from a Kirby, Dr. Droom story. In his third story, (Doctor Droom Meets Zemu, Amazing Adventures #3, Marvel 1961) Droom is following a suspicious character and overhears a plan by aliens in which one will infiltrate humanity and lay the groundwork for an alien invasion. Spider-Man’s capture and escape method seem to be lifted from a Challengers of the Unknown story. (The Human Pets, Challengers of the Unknown #3, DC Pub.1958)”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

 

“This similar plotting sequence is a lot like DNA testing, one or two match-ups doesn’t mean a thing, but the odds increase exponentially with each added matched item.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

You are now arguing that “Steve Ditko Lied” and everything is plagiarized from Kirby? Absurd.

Obvious problems with Mr. Taylor’s argument; 

(1) What happened in issues of ASM have zero relevance to the creation of Spider-Man because Kirby admits he was not involved in any issues of ASM;

(2) There is no evidence, for example, that Steve or Stan read any Manhunter stories back in the early 1940s or owned the comics such that they could have plagiarized them 20 or so years later — ditto for the rest of the examples as there is no evidence Lee and Ditko had Kirby comic collections;

(3) The argument that Kirby used the same plot as was used in an early issue of ASM in a LATER story about SHIELD would only support Kirby’s plagiarism of Lee and Ditko not the reverse;

(4) The “Kirby ideas” Mr. Taylor focuses upon as evidencing Kirby involvement are all generally unoriginal — like using a villain that is a master of disguise — which is why it is no surprise that Mr. Taylor says these are are a staple of Kirby’s work;

(5) Mr. Taylor’s “case” is unsupported by any statements from Kirby — it is a fantasy case based on his opinions regarding the similarities of comic book stories which is a flawed argument given that comics are a formulaic field;

(6) The statements of Ditko and Simon rebut his general thesis — it does not escape notice that you and Mr. Taylor ignore everything Ditko has written about AF 15 in a stunning example of the cognitive flaw of “confirmation bias”; and 

(7) your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of What Ifism or the “false hypothetical” in arguing that because Kirby had once drawn a stereotypical skinny nerd character he “could have” drawn Peter Parker” as a skinny nerd. Problem is the evidence is all that he did not and instead drew him as a Captain America type;

(8) The argument that Stan used the AF 15 cover with a heroic athletic Spider-Man evidences that Stan didn’t want a geeky SM but Kirby did, is not only self-rebutting and counter intuitive, but ignores  the actual evidence on the cover  change — including Ditko’s rejected AF 15 cover which just was not very good.

(9) Joe Simon does not support the notion that S&K invented Spider-Man. And the reality is that the idea of superheroes having proportionate strength like insects goes all the way back to Superman. It's an unoriginal thought by the late 50s and early 60s.

I could go into much greater detail but there is no need. Mr.Taylor’s flimsy argument does not reveal anything other than where you get your weak arguments.

why not address what Ditko and Simon say about the creation of SM instead of trying to change the focus to issues of ASM that came out months later?

(Edited to correct many typos from trying to use phone)

Edited Thursday at 04:27 PM by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:00 AM, comicwiz said:

In the context of whether a radio interview in 1961 was possible at a point when Marvel was still in it's infancy - I think a few members have already provided some great responses. However, consider this as well.

Dr. Michael J Vassallo's Timely/Atlast blog provides us some insights as to the early days of "fan mail" - but specifically, Lee's staged letter stunts

The use of "planted letters" was not, I think, a Stan Lee invention. But reading those letter pages sure makes it clear that Stan had a gift of gab and promotion. Thanks for posting them!

[jimjum12]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

as there is no evidence Lee and Ditko had Kirby comic collections;

I guarantee Ditko didn't unless they were his file copies.  Anyone who read Atlas Shrugged wouldn't have time to read anything else in a normal lifespan.  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited Thursday at 02:59 PM by jimjum12

[Zonker]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

What happened in issues of ASM have zero relevance to the creation of Spider-Man because Kirby admits he was not involved in any issues of ASM;

Here I think you're not doing justice to the Stan Taylor / Chuck Gower argument.  As far as we know, Kirby never spoke directly to Ditko about his Spiderman concept or the eventual Amazing Spider-Man, and from what I've read of Ditko's writings, his only contact was Stan.  So it is possible that some of what wound up in early issues of ASM was the result of either Kirby's original pitch to Stan, or a pre-ASM plotting conference Stan & Jack had before the concept was ever brought to Ditko.  I believe the argument is it was Kirby's ideas that were transmitted to Ditko via one or more of the Stan synopses.  We can argue the strength of the evidence for making that claim, but the claim doesn't require Kirby to be knowingly feeding Ditko with ideas, or for Ditko to maintain his own comic collection. I'm not entirely convinced that Kirby is the source of most of what Stan brought to Ditko's Amazing Spider-Man, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

(3) The argument that Kirby used the same plot as was used in an early issue of ASM in a LATER story about SHIELD would only support Kirby’s plagiarism of Lee and Ditko not the reverse;

Here I think you're confusing a claim made about Archie's The Double Life of Private Strong (featuring a Shield character) with Marvel's later Nick Fury series. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

You are now arguing that “Steve Ditko Lied” and everything is plagiarized from Kirby? Absurd.

No. Lee gave his input on story ideas. Ditko has no idea where the story ideas came from. 

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

Obvious problems with Mr. Taylor’s argument; 

(1) What happened in issues of ASM have zero relevance to the creation of Spider-Man because Kirby admits he was not involved in any issues of ASM;

No but Kirby reused ideas over and over, especially on early issues of a new character. In talking to Lee about ideas he could've shared those ideas. 

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(2) There is no evidence, for example, that Steve or Stan read any Manhunter stories back in the early 1940s or owned the comics such that they could have plagiarized them 20 or so years later — ditto for the rest of the examples as there is no evidence Lee and Ditko had Kirby comic collections;

No one is making that claim.

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(3) The argument that Kirby used the same plot as was used in an early issue of ASM in a LATER story about SHIELD would only support Kirby’s plagiarism of Lee and Ditko not the reverse;

The Shield as in the Double Life of Private Strong at Archie Comics. Done at the same time as the Fly.

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(4) The “Kirby ideas” Mr. Taylor focuses upon as evidencing Kirby involvement are all generally unoriginal — like using a villain that is a master of disguise — which is why it is no surprise that Mr. Taylor says these are are a staple of Kirby’s work;

But NOT a staple of Lee or Ditko's previous work. Or AT ALL. 

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(5) Mr. Taylor’s “case” is unsupported by any statements from Kirby — it is a fantasy case based on his opinions regarding the similarities of comic book stories which is a flawed argument given that comics are a formulaic field;

He agrees. BUT “This similar plotting sequence is a lot like DNA testing, one or two match-ups doesn’t mean a thing, but the odds increase exponentially with each added matched item.”

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(6) The statements of Ditko and Simon rebut his general thesis — it does not escape notice that you and Mr. Taylor ignore everything Ditko has written about AF 15 in a stunning example of the cognitive flaw of “confirmation bias”; and 

Again, Ditko only knew what Lee told him.

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(7) your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of What Ifism or the “false hypothetical” in arguing that because Kirby had once drawn a stereotypical skinny nerd character he “could have” drawn Peter Parker” as a skinny nerd. Problem is the evidence is all that he did not and instead drew him as a Captain America type;

Because "Stan said so?"

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(8) The argument that Stan used the AF 15 cover with a heroic athletic Spider-Man evidences that Stan didn’t want a geeky SM but Kirby did, is not only self-rebutting and counter intuitive, but ignores  the actual evidence on the cover  change — including Ditko’s rejected AF 15 cover which just was not very good.

No, it's simply showing that Lee's STATEMENT that he didn't want an overly heroic Spider-man is somewhat bizarre in that he put one of the first cover.

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

I could go into much greater detail but there is no need. Mr.Taylor’s flimsy argument does not reveal anything other than where you get your weak arguments.

why not address what Ditko and Simon say about the creation of SM instead of trying to change the focus to issues of ASM that came out months later?

(Edited to correct many typos from trying to use phone)

What the hell would Simon know? 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:32 PM, Zonker said:

Here I think you're not doing justice to the Stan Taylor / Chuck Gower argument.  As far as we know, Kirby never spoke directly to Ditko about his Spiderman concept or the eventual Amazing Spider-Man, and from what I've read of Ditko's writings, his only contact was Stan.  So it is possible that some of what wound up in early issues of ASM was the result of either Kirby's original pitch to Stan, or a pre-ASM plotting conference Stan & Jack had before the concept was ever brought to Ditko.  I believe the argument is it was Kirby's ideas that were transmitted to Ditko via one or more of the Stan synopses.  We can argue the strength of the evidence for making that claim, but the claim doesn't require Kirby to be knowingly feeding Ditko with ideas, or for Ditko to maintain his own comic collection. I'm not entirely convinced that Kirby is the source of most of what Stan brought to Ditko's Amazing Spider-Man, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Yep. Kirby for all of these characters claimed to have ideas for where they would go, so it would be natural for him to talk about it. 

Even Iron Man's origin, which he jumped the gun on to leave Kirby out of, even though Don Heck has said he used Kirby's cover as his guide for TOS#39. With ZERO mention of Larry Lieber or a script. He went straight from 'Lee's synopsis' which could've easily come from Kirby - who'd used that same story before.

I wonder if people think the 'hero trapped on a deserted island who is forced to build a weapon but then uses it against his captors' is an over used storyline?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, sfcityduck said:

(7) your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy of What Ifism or the “false hypothetical” in arguing that because Kirby had once drawn a stereotypical skinny nerd character he “could have” drawn Peter Parker” as a skinny nerd. Problem is the evidence is all that he did not and instead drew him as a Captain America type;

When Ditko left the book, how did Lee direct Romita how to draw Spidey? LOL. Looks pretty Captain America heroic to me. He beefed up Peter Parker too. 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:46 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yep. Kirby for all of these characters claimed to have ideas for where they would go, so it would be natural for him to talk about it. 

Even Iron Man's origin, which he jumped the gun on to leave Kirby out of, even though Don Heck has said he used Kirby's cover as his guide for TOS#39. With ZERO mention of Larry Lieber or a script. He went straight from 'Lee's synopsis' which could've easily come from Kirby - who'd used that same story before.

I wonder if people think the 'hero trapped on a deserted island who is forced to build a weapon but then uses it against his captors' is an over used storyline?

Lee had a history of soliciting other people (including readers) for plot ideas, which (as editor) he then passed along to his creative people. Didn't Charles Biro complain about this in the early 1950s?

[Prince Namor]

Kirby's Fly looks smaller than Romita's Spider-man. And about the same as Ditko's. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:01 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

Lee had a history of soliciting other people (including readers) for plot ideas, which (as editor) he then passed along to his creative people. Didn't Charles Biro complain about this in the early 1950s?

Yep.

Hell, he promised a prize for whoever came up with an origin for the Silver Surfer, then declared it a tie as everyone's idea was good (thus not having to give anything away), then used -  that horrible origin story in issue #1.

And... I have that quote about Biro handy of course... BOTH times Fujitani told the story....

FUJITANI: [laughs] Stan Lee always got his ideas from someone else. He used to call up Charlie Biro all the time for ideas. I know, because I was there a couple of times when he called Charlie. Biro’d hang up the phone and say, “Gee, this guy wants me to do everything for him. Give him ideas for this, give him ideas for that.” This was when Crime Does Not Pay was really riding high.
JA: But Stan was at Timely! And he’s calling the competition for ideas?

FUJITANI: Oh, yeah. He was very friendly with Charlie Biro.
JA: Would Biro help Stan?
FUJITANI: Oh, yeah. Charlie was full of ideas. He really believed he had the pulse of the readers and knew what the kids liked.

—Bob Fujitani interviewed by Jim Amash, Alter Ego #23, April 2003.

---------------------------------------------------------

“I was sitting in Charlie (Biro)’s office one day and the phone rang, and he said, “Hi Stan. what’s up?” Then he holds his hand over the speaker. “it’s Stan Lee. He’s asking if I have any good stories for him.” That always stuck in my mind. When I hear all these stories about what a great guy he was, I remember Charlie Biro saying, “That f*&$#@!g Stan Lee, he’s always calling me for stories. One of these days I’m going to tell him I want a cut on these things.”

- Bob Fujitani - Hogan’s Alley #23 (2022)

Edited Thursday at 03:09 PM by Prince Namor

[jimjum12]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:32 AM, Zonker said:

Here I think you're not doing justice to the Stan Taylor / Chuck Gower argument.  As far as we know, Kirby never spoke directly to Ditko about his Spiderman concept or the eventual Amazing Spider-Man, and from what I've read of Ditko's writings, his only contact was Stan.  So it is possible that some of what wound up in early issues of ASM was the result of either Kirby's original pitch to Stan, or a pre-ASM plotting conference Stan & Jack had before the concept was ever brought to Ditko.  I believe the argument is it was Kirby's ideas that were transmitted to Ditko via one or more of the Stan synopses.  We can argue the strength of the evidence for making that claim, but the claim doesn't require Kirby to be knowingly feeding Ditko with ideas, or for Ditko to maintain his own comic collection. I'm not entirely convinced that Kirby is the source of most of what Stan brought to Ditko's Amazing Spider-Man, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Ditko is on record for claiming that it was he who pointed out the GLARING similarities between The Fly and Kirby's SM, so that he saw it, and that it existed seems likely. I wish II had a copy of the comment saved. 

Since so very much of this is going to be hearsay, conjecture, and hyperbole, I may as well add my own hypothesis. Bear in mind that I am smarter than 3 circus donkeys, and almost always right. 

Stan trusted Jack with at least the specifics at one point, and Jack plagiarized one of his own recent efforts at another publisher. The similarity was deemed too recent and identical,  so back to the drawing board with Ditko. I see no reason to discount Stan's claim to have suggested "Spider" after being clued in to The Fly, and the popularity of The Spider pulp fits the timelines for Stan OR Jack's exposure to that source. I don't for a minute think Stan had much if any input on costume design, other than final approval, which in itself should not be assessed in a dismissive fashion. It's definitely something, as is editorial direction and public perceptions of a franchise. GOD BLESS ...

-jmbo(a frend of jesus)

 

Edited Thursday at 03:43 PM by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:26 PM, jimjum12 said:

Ditko is on record for claiming that it was he who pointed out the GLARING similarities between The Fly and Kirby's SM, so that he saw it, and that it existed seems likely. I wish II had a copy of the comment saved. 

“I told Stan it sounded like Joe Simon's character, The Fly (1959), that Kirby had some hand in, for Archie Comics…Stan called Jack about The Fly. I don't know what was said in that call. Day(s) later, Stan told me we would be doing (Spider-Man). I would be penciling the story panel breakdowns from Stan's synopsis and doing the inking.

- Steve Ditko, in ‘A Mini-History - 13. ‘Speculation’ © 2003 S. Ditko

[Prince Namor]

Let's look at the full quote and take notice to what Ditko specifically points out... nothing about 'too heroic looking'...

“For me, the [Spider- Man] saga began when Stan called me into his office and told me I would be inking Jack Kirby’s pencils on a new Marvel hero, [Spider-Man]... Stan never told me who came up with the idea for [Spider-Man] or for the story Kirby was penciling. Stan did tell me [he] was a teenager who had a magic ring that transformed him into an adult hero... I told Stan it sounded like Joe Simon’s character, The Fly, that Kirby had some hand in, for Archie Comics [in 1959].

“Stan called Jack about The Fly. I don’t know what was said in that call. Day(s) later, Stan told me we would be doing [Spider-Man]. I would be penciling the story panel breakdowns from Stan’s synopsis and doing the inking.

“Kirby’s five penciled [Spider-Man] story/art pages were rejected. Out went the magic ring, adult [hero] and whatever legend ideas that story would have contained.

“Now we can speculate: What if I never said anything about the Simon Fly, and Kirby had completed penciling that magic ring- teenager-into-an-adult-SM-legend story? ...There would be lots of nots: Not my web-designed costume, not a full mask, web-shooters, no spider-senses, no spider-like action, poses, fighting style, and page breakdowns, etc.

“There is not even a credible resemblance [to Joe Simon’s never-realized Silver Spider], not any valid point of comparison, between the non-Marvel Fly, unused [Spider-Man] pages, and the published Marvel [Spider-Man].”

- Steve Ditko, in ‘A Mini-History - 13. ‘Speculation’ © 2003 S. Ditko