[phabox]

That Spider Queen was quite a gal, to bad she did'nt last longer.

H'mmm, I wonder is a young Stan Lee ever read this comic book ?

-Nigel

[Yoc]

A shame the last page is missing...

[dhfh]

That Spider Queen was quite a gal, to bad she did'nt last longer.

H'mmm, I wonder is a young Stan Lee ever read this comic book ?

-Nigel

Actually, it was probably a young Joe Simon....

http://www.mightycrusaders.net/handbook/spiderman.htm

...and maybe a young Steve Ditko, too?      Wait a minute, anyone ever see the GA version of DC's Tarantula?

OK.  My head's swimming now.

DHFH

[phabox]

Given that he worked at Fox Features for a short time in the early 40's its MORE then likely that Joe Simon saw that Spider Queen origin.

Who knows he might have even had a hand in it, now THERES a thought !!!

-Nigel

[John C]

Maybe this is the sort of thing that I shouldn't go around saying in public, but...I've never really given a whole lot of credence to the "Spider-Man was stolen" story.

I mean, yes, the Silver Spider part of the story is well-documented (I think), but that character looks nothing like the Marvel character.  Remove the coloring (which Simon didn't have) and is there even a strong resemblance between the two Spider-Men?  Not to me, certainly not enough to give Simon credit for Marvel's success.

It reminds me too much of this:

http://originalbatman.com/

where you just need to assume too many dots connect for the story to work.

I could more easily believe that Lee, Kirby, or Ditko had remembered Spider Queen's origin, but I'm guessing that dhfh is closer to the mark on Tarantula.  The story is memorable, the costume outline is similar (and just requires a shift toward Superman's color scheme), he has the wall-crawling bit, and the writer makes a point of calling him Spider-Man.  Ditch the gun--almost certainly because the Comics Code would never allow such a thing--and turn John Law into a teen romance character, and you've got yourself Peter Parker.

On the other hand, Marvel also duplicated Fox's Thor in almost every important respect, so maybe there's something more to the Spider Queen connection.

[phabox]

I doubt we will ever know the truth now after so many years unless there are any answers to be found in Stan Lee's forthcoming book " How I created everything and why I am great"    .

-Nigel

[dhfh]

I think if anyone wants to continue this discussion after this message we should move it to Comic Talk and give Freddy back his thread, but before that...

I have it on good authority that documents proving the complete creation history of Spider-Man, Batman, Thor, and several other characters in question are stored in a locker in Hanger 18, Roswell, NM   

Seriously, though, for me personally, I can find the "who-did-what-when" questions amusing to ponder from time to time, but--and I'm sure many of you will agree with me, here--as a reader it doesn't really make much of a difference.  I love reading the Spider Queen, Tarantula, the Fly, and Spider-Man stories as they are, and no amount of speculation that a character was really just a rip-off of another character is going to change that.  I don't necessarily feel like I'm reading a cheap immitation (or vast improvement, either) when reading one or the other.

I realize that for the parties involved it's a matter of credit where credit is due--something I'm generally a strong advocate for--but even IF say, Joe Simon's basic idea was lifted for Spider-Man, that by itself doesn't mean the character would have been as successful if his original concept was the one that was used.  A lot of different things go into making up a character/storyline and the real truth of the matter probably depends on many factors, of which co-incidence and mutual experience would be only two.  The Joe Simon Spider-Man/Silver Spider concept as it's come down to us is already a collection of a number of elements from eariler characters. (Think Captain Marvel meets the Tarantula.) Would that mean he stole them, then?  Of course not.  A line must be drawn somewhere.

So, interesting: Yes.  Scandalous: .

DHFH

PS: JohnC, the Fly did have his buzz gun during the comics code, so that may not have been the reason for the gun-to-web-shooter bit, if there ever really was a change. 

[JVJ]

I doubt we will ever know the truth now after so many years unless there are any answers to be found in Stan Lee's forthcoming book " How I created everything and why I am great"    .

-Nigel

IF he still remembers that.

[John C]

I'm not sure why Stan would need to remember why.  It's axiomatic.  I think, therefore I am.  The sun rises in the east.  Blondes have more fun  We all scream for ice cream.  Stan Lee is great.  See?  Easy.

And yeah, normally I don't much care when creators bicker over who "created the character," but this one has always bothered me just a tiny bit more than the rest.  There's less of a paper trail than "here's a discarded sketch with a name, so of course X totally created Y," and yet it's taken as gospel.

You're probably right about the gun, but different companies might've interpreted the Code differently.  A company like Harvey or Archie might've figured it was safe because they're otherwise squeaky-clean, whereas Atlas/Marvel had been pushing against the boundaries with horror and romance books.  In theory.

I have some thoughts about Batman separately, but I'll keep that for another time.

[tbdeinc]

Spider Queen??? Silver Spider???

Dramatic scene: (On my knees, pouring rain, thunder and lighting, ground is muddy and it is night time AND I'M WEARING SUNGLASSES!)

Dialogue: Links, for God sakes, WHERE ARE THE LINKS!!?? Oh the humanity...


Thank you. Thankyouverymuch... hu-huh...


George

[Yoc]

A link was posted above George -
http://tinyurl.com/llw2q3

And from the sounds of it there Simon has plans for something on the subject down the road.

[JonTheScanner]

Since trademarks have to be used and defended, I think Simon has not chance at all in claiming a trademark on Spiderman even if Marvel's is Spider-Man

[tbdeinc]

What I love about the posting of Simon's Spiderman is:

"Note that the sketch you are viewing has been dithered and altered so as not to be reproduced. The original is in our library."

HA!!!

I can HIREZ that image in a couple of hours... I love how people still think in realworld terms when it comes to the internet...

And thanks for the link... I was myself earlier when I was reading the post... it would seem I was not able to read links with my eye balls... I was... un-link-able.... (yes I know this joke was a stretch)

G

[Yoc]

Hi Jon,
Oh I'm sure Simon knows he's screwed on getting anything for the property but fans are thrilled by the back story and I can see him selling the story in a book or poster or whatever.  Much like he does with Capt. America who's history reads much the same as Superman - ie 'never trust a publisher!'

-Yoc

[phabox]

I think that Simon and Kirby learned a lesson from Siegel and Shuster as they knew Captain America was going to be BIG before they handed him over to Timely and Simon the buseness man of the team cut what at the time was a very good deal with Martin Goodman as regards a share of the profits.

Having said that it seems that maybe Goodman tried holding out on them which may be one of the reasons they quit after ten issues and moved over to DC.

-Nigel

[Yoc]

I believe they quit because that's exactly what happened Nigel.

-YOc

[phabox]

There is another story that S&K had been 'moonlighting' over at DC while still working for Timely and 'someone' reported the fact to Goodman who is then said to have fired the duo.

Interesting to note that the 'snitch' then went on to take over the editors chair !!!

This came from Greg Theakston and can be found in 'The Complete Jack Kirby 1940-1941" (1997) so take your pick.

-Nigel

[John C]

I can HIREZ that image in a couple of hours... I love how people still think in realworld terms when it comes to the internet...

I think what the "editor" meant to say was "don't steal this because we can prove this was your source."

And Jon, I'm guessing that, if it appears at all, it'll be under a banner like "unpublished works of Joe Simon," so that there's no need to risk a Spiderman trademark.  The same sort of thing would apply to any Shield work, since Archie owns that trademark.

[JonTheScanner]

And Jon, I'm guessing that, if it appears at all, it'll be under a banner like "unpublished works of Joe Simon," so that there's no need to risk a Spiderman trademark.  The same sort of thing would apply to any Shield work, since Archie owns that trademark.

I was only referring specifically to the literal statement made on the page: "Spiderman Copyright and Trademark Joe Simon. All Rights Reserved.
Spiderman

[John C]

Ah.  Well, then, yeah, whoever wrote that has the same grasp of Intellectual Property rights as the guy who "dithered" the picture to make it uncopyable...

[darkmark]

Well, let's face it:  Timely did have a character (whom I'm reluctant to call a "heroine") known as the Black Widow.

[phabox]

Yep, while the Spectre's boss appeared to be God The Golden Age Black Widow worked for the 'other' guy  .

-Nigel