Impressive. This has got to have the highest degree of difficulty of any of your running features.

The more that I think about it, Stan Lee was a pretty amazing manager. Very few of his creations debuted in their most iconic state. They consistently improved because Lee was perfectly happy to tinker with them, or (more to the point) let his bullpen do the tinkering. By contrast, DC strips of the same period debuted in a much more finished state.

As a result, the Silver Age Marvel mid-listers have had happier print runs than the DCs. They have also had much more embarrassing side journeys.

Okay, that explains the physical change, but what about the name change? Tony calls her Kitty in panel three of the first page you include, was that just Stan forgetting a name again? If not, what was her last name when her first name was Kitty?

Pepper doesn’t really come off all that well in those scenen.

Her name was always Pepper Potts (it was even on the cover of her first appearance) and she is called Pepper early in the issue.

So either it is a screw-up by Lee (very believable) or just a pet-name for her (less believable but sadly still believable). I dunno which one.

Stan seemed to have problems keeping his names straight, even with the added help of alliteration. We got Peter Palmer, Bob Banner, and apparently Virginia Potts had more than one nickname.

Every time someone criticizes Favreau for giving himself the Happy role in the Iron Man films, he should pull out an issue from this era to show what unavoidably perfect casting it is.

Wow, going from Ann B. Davis to Gwynneth Paltrow is quite a transformation.

You know, it’s no wonder Pepper was so unsuccessfull with romance if she was looking for a Rock Hudson-type.

Dean’s observation about how Marvel’s characters fluctuated before finding their iconic foms reminds me of Betty Brant’s first appearance as an ultra-glamourous type with an elaborate coiffure and false eyelashes, before she quickly morphed into the moderately attractive girl-next-door that she’s been ever since (and which Ditko was far more suited for).

Yeah, I wonder how they would have pulled off the unveiling of Mary Jane with Ditko still on the book.

@Ed, it was the 1960s and Stark’s character was womanizing and condescending. “Kitten” was something you often heard from that archetype in the fiction of the day directed towards a woman.

Interesting. I don’t know much about the early days of Iron Man, so it looks to me like Kitty and Pepper are supposed to be two different people.

This is a fun column Brian. There are tons of comics from 1985 or earlier with references that a good chunk of younger readers would have no context for.

Another early re-imagining was Gwen Stacy. She was an arrogant vixen in the early issues, before becoming the sweet innocent most people know her as.

Wow! Who knew Pepper was such a prissy bitch? I mean she’s introduced to a new co-worker and her first reaction is “Geez you are ugly!” ??

Yeah, I know, it a) was the 60′s, and b) it’s played for humor (probably inspired by the romance and humor comics popular in those days- Didn’t Stan write some of those?) But it was terribly set-up; maybe if Happy had made his dumb attempt at coming-on FIRST, it might be justified.
Of course the second scene with Potts annoyed because the guys didn’t notice her new looks doesn’t speak well of her either. Yeesh, it’s no wonder Stark remained single!

Still, it’s always neat to find out these historical trivia bits. Thanks, Brian!

(And for those who don’t know, Pepper and Happy ended up married to each other in the end. Poetic Justice! )

“Okay, that explains the physical change, but what about the name change? Tony calls her Kitty in panel three of the first page you include, was that just Stan forgetting a name again? If not, what was her last name when her first name was Kitty?”

The answer ought to be obvious to the continuity-minded. Stark has always been a notorious womanizer. He simply got Pepper mixed up with someone he called “Kitty”–with whom he was probably with the night before.
Do you guys give out no-prizes?

I assume the reason Kurt Busiek had Happy and Pepper divorce during Heroes Return was so that he could get back to this sort of love-hate dynamic, albeit as the sexual tension of exes instead of as people who just get on each other’s nerves. This kind of edge to the character has been lost since, with Pepper being more level-headed and polite ( if extremely co-dependent towards her boss ).

@Jack Norris: Never realized that was Favreau playing Happy in the movie! I couldn’t believe what an incredible job they did casting that part – more dead-on true to the old comics than anything else in the film.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Lee claimed it was the artists decision to make Pepper more attractive and that Lee stated he was against it. His reasoning was that if she’s good looking and Stark goes out with her, it’s no big deal. If she’s not all that, and he goes out with her, it’s a big dramatic moment.

Although it’s hard to imagine an artist being able to overrule the EIC of the whole line. . .but that was the reason he gave.