home

Wally Wood creates a Daredevil plot J David Spurlock 18 September 2016 An example of Wallace Wood's plot & layouts for Daredevil #5, 1964, includes 2 notes from editor Stan Lee at bottom. Michael Hill: Wood wasn't getting layouts from Lee the way Kirby was? Sorry, I just re-read a 1999 Kirby-L thread that contained this nonsense... First poster: I was fascinated to read the Lieber interview. From the sound of it, at least SOMEONE was sending Kirby scripts (and maybe even thumbnails of the pages), despite Kirby's contention that he wrote it all. Second poster: Well, we know that Stan supplied Jack with page layouts for some of FF #3 (I think) at least. I suspect that this didn't go on for too long. Patrick Ford: The "layouts" that Lee supplied to Kirby for FF #3 are obviously Lee ordered redraws. This can clearly be seen by looking at the original art which was posted by Tom Kraft at the What If Kirby page. The idea that Lee was supplying Kirby with blank pages of art board with layouts on the back is one of the most idiotic claims I have ever run across. Chris Tolworthy: The FF 3 scan is a smoking gun against Stan's claim to have plotted this in any way. Stan's change - showing the villain describe his plan - is classic Stan. And without it we have classic Kirby. The two cannot be more different. ["show don't tell" versus "explain everything" - ed] And there is no way that Stan would have plotted what Kirby drew. [ the story is subtle: it is not what it appears (it all takes place in the mind, the villain wins by breaking up the team at the end, the story may be intended as a continuation of the missing fourth Skrull story, etc.)- ed] Kirby was building up a slow story, taking several pages before the depth of the villain's plan is revealed. But Stan interrupts the flow in a jarring way by forcing the villain to monolog. Even as a child I could see that this monolog broke the flow of the art. Now as an adult I can see that the monolog is unnecessary. Stan's approach is always for dialog that states the obvious and removes all subtlety. We see the same in all of Stan's most jarring edits. (I can only speak for the FF, but I am sure it is true in other titles as well). The best known edit is FF 108. The original story (reconstructed in "The Lost Adventure") had several pages of build up, but Stan had it cut up and partly redrawn in order to have action from page 1. The second best known edit is probably F 67, "Him", where Jack had a subtle story of well meaning scientists being judged by their creation, but Stan wanted them to be villains from the start. Another jarring example of Stan's jarring editing (not Kirby this time) is FF 124. This was almost certainly Gerry Conway's uncredited try-out issue, and Stan apparently rearranged some pages to put action near the start (there are various clues for this, the most obvious being the use of an old Kirby image to make the transition). Perhaps the clearest example of Stan versus Jack plotting is the month that Jack left the FF. The next FF story was a global war, and so was the next Kirby story (New Gods 1). Jack spend pages building up the characters, whereas Stan had a one dimensional villain rant from page one. (Incidentally, all of this puts paid to the idea that Stan added characterisation. Quite the opposite!) Is it possible that Stan had originally plotted FF3 with several pages of build up? Then he changed his mind? No. At this stage Stan's synopses would break the story into chapters, each one containing the heroes using their powers in a positive way. (See the synopses to FF1 and FF 8, interviews that mention how issues were broken down, and no doubt his "scripts" for other titles.) But without Stan's edit, chapter 1 of FF3 is entirely build up. (As was part 1 of FF 1: that part is not in Stan's synopsis at all). Whichever way we look at Stan's writing, it is always about simplicity: obvious heroes beating obvious villains from the start, men who win and women who are rescued, and so on. The only scenario that makes sense is that Jack plotted a slow build up, and Stan made him change it to make the villain more obvious. As with every other test case, Jack wrote (and drew) the story and Stan dumbed it down. Those were their roles in a nutshell. Patrick Ford: Sol Brodsky in agreement with Chris Tolworthy. Patrick Ford: Patrick Ford: It just so happens that the original art for FF #3 was in Marvel's possession up until the time 16 pages from it were returned to Kirby in 1986. Here is a link to several of those pages where the front and back of the pages can be seen. There were very few of these supposed "layouts" on the story pages Kirby sold to Lee. This makes it very obvious that what Lee was doing was ordering Kirby to redraw panels after the pages had been completed. There are people who have seen all 23 pages from that issue (16 went to Kirby and the remaining 7 went to Sol Brodsky) and it's known that there were four pages out of the 23 with some sort of scrawl on the back. Lee ordering four pages or partial pages redrawn is not nearly as many as what Joe Orlando said he was subjected to. https://whatifkirby.com/gallery/comic-art-listings?comic-book-title=Fantastic+Four&issnum=3&comic-art-type=All&period=All&inker=All&publisher=All&views_exposed_form_focused_field=edit-issnum=3 Patrick Ford: The back of page #1. No "layouts." Patrick Ford: The back of page eight has some sort of crude indication on it. Is it a layout? Michael Hill: Lee could convey the whole page in the germ of a layout. Patrick Ford: The back of page 11 contains what I guess could be called a layout, however unless a person believes that Lee supplied Kirby with art board containing layouts and instruction before Kirby began work I don't see how anyone could honestly think Lee's "layout" is anything more than an order for a redraw. Patrick Ford: Page 13 has nothing on the back except what looks like a crude drawing of a hand. Patrick Ford: Page 16 has some FF logo suggestions on the back. Patrick Ford: Page 17 has a four panel sequence on the back which does not fit anything on the front of the page. Patrick Ford: Page 19 has nothing on the back. Patrick Ford: These are not layouts supplied to Kirby. They are examples of Lee fiddling with Kirby's work after it has been finished by Kirby at his home and brought to the office. Michael Hill: Would love to see what Lee could do with Kirby layouts in a live demonstration of How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. Patrick Ford: Do Lee's fans really think that Kirby had to have Lee supply him with layouts for FF #3? Do they also think it's not surprising that Larry Lieber had to supply Kirby with full scripts? Then why did Lee have Kirby supplying layouts to Romita, Heck, Buscema, Roth, and others? Shouldn't Lee have been giving them layouts since Kirby needed Lee to supply them? Patrick Ford: As a side note. Chris mentioned FF #108 up above. Kirby story has the distinction of being the only one he sold to Lee which Lee ruined twice. As we know FF #108 is a complete mess. Later when "The Lost Adventure" was published it was promoted as a reconstruction. The fact is it was just another bastardization. Chris Tolworthy: IIRC, as soon as it was published another lost page or two emerged, too late for inclusion. Maybe one day when Stan is gone we can have a third version, based only on Jack's plot. Patrick Ford: Chris Tolworthy , That would be nice. Even nicer would be Kirby's Silver Surfer graphic novel for which Kirby sent Lee a typed script. Patrick Ford: Looking at Kirby's pencils for his Janus story based on Lee's notes it looks like Lee is trying to pick a fight with Kirby. Lee asks "Why should statue have been unearthed at this particular time?" What sort of ridiculous question is that? Obviously it was unearthed at that particular time because that's when it was unearthed just as every other dig unearths things when they are unearthed. The question makes no sense at all and comes across Lee looking for some justification to change the archeologist to an art dealer. Patrick Ford: As Kirby wrote the story an archeologist has unearthed a bust of Janus and has come to Reed Richards to have the date of the statue verified. Lee for some reason finds an archeologist unearthing a statue to be questionable and then decides that an art dealer wondering why Alicia would create the statue is more credible. Chris Tolworthy: I wonder if Stan wanted to distance it from the Funky Flashman splash? I can't help seeing a strong similarity: the focus, framing, etc. I like how Jack's last full story was about uncovering the truth about a two faced god. By this time Reed would be identified with Stan and Ben with Jack, right? Reed/Stan is looking unhappy, Ben/Jack is absent... I could go on... Patrick Ford: Lee is just the sort of person who Kirby targeted in his work. The cheap con man is such a common type that even without Lee there would have been "all his endless kind" to write about. I suppose it must have been uncomfortable for Lee to have to deal with Kirby, Ditko and Wood. All three are not the sort of person susceptible to Lee carny tricks and I'd guess that annoyed Lee tremendously. Chris Tolworthy: Notice how "menace of the mega-men" is about men, plural. The villain here represents a class of people, megalomaniacs. The story is resolved by placing a hidden camera to see what goes on when nobody is watching.

home