Stan Lee

[Flemmings]

If I come up with a idea, say for example. I wan't a sinister werewolf creature, long fangs, I want him to have orange stripes, with green glowing eyes. I then tell the artist I also wan't him to have one side of his head shaved, I also want him to have a shield with a skull and cross bow and I want him to have knuckle dusters.

 

The artists gives me the character from my descriptions, there are a few changes along the way with some things I don't like.

 

I then get the finished product, the look I finally wanted, the comic is a huge sucess.

 

Does that mean, we both created this? I mean, I could have got any other artist to have done the same thing, personaly I prefer the later Spidey drawings to the earlier ones ;-)

 

I would give credit to the artist for his work, but I created him.

 

herc

 

I agree, however without the artist. It's just an idea. The same can be said for an artist and a drawing. Batman comes to mind. Bob Kane gets all the credit, but the original drawing had Batman looking like a Superman rip-off.

 

So are you saying since Bill Finger (aka Batman uncreditated co-creator) recommended the cape and cowl instead of batwings, turning his costume from red to black, his name for Robert Bruce to Bruce Wayne. That he isn't the co-creator?

 

That Bob Kane should get all the credit. If so we wouldn't have the Batman that we have today. We would have Superman with a domino mask and wings instead of a cape.

[MedicAR]

If I come up with a idea, say for example. I wan't a sinister werewolf creature, long fangs, I want him to have orange stripes, with green glowing eyes. I then tell the artist I also wan't him to have one side of his head shaved, I also want him to have a shield with a skull and cross bow and I want him to have knuckle dusters.

 

The artists gives me the character from my descriptions, there are a few changes along the way with some things I don't like.

 

I then get the finished product, the look I finally wanted, the comic is a huge sucess.

 

Does that mean, we both created this? I mean, I could have got any other artist to have done the same thing, personaly I prefer the later Spidey drawings to the earlier ones ;-)

 

I would give credit to the artist for his work, but I created him.

 

herc

 

In your case, you're right. But what Stan has said before is that he came up with "an idea for a strip called Spider-Man" and asked Steve to come up with a few pages. He didn't say it needed to be red and blue tights and a mask that covers his head completely. He had a concept that was fleshed out by someone else. That's why I believe co-creator status is deserved by both.

 

Something that I keep seeing come up in the debate here, is that "any artist could have done it." While in the strictest technical sense, any artist certainly could have done it, would it have become the success that it did? Would it have resonated with the fans like it did? Would Spider-Man have been seen as the awkward geek he was if he looked like the version on the cover of AF #15? That's not the body of a shy teenager that Kirby drew, and it's worlds apart from what is inside the book.

 

[Senormac]

If I come up with a idea, say for example. I wan't a sinister werewolf creature, long fangs, I want him to have orange stripes, with green glowing eyes. I then tell the artist I also wan't him to have one side of his head shaved, I also want him to have a shield with a skull and cross bow and I want him to have knuckle dusters.

 

Does that mean, we both created this? I mean, I could have got any other artist to have done the same thing, personaly I prefer the later Spidey drawings to the earlier ones ;-)

herc

 

No....cuz if Frank Robbins did the work it would have been a complete failure

[s-man]

Isn't that mostly just one side of the story. Yes, Jack could have gotten more credit, but isn't that partly Jack's fault. Stan went from writer to editor to the driving force behind Marvel comics for a very long time. Basically, Jack was an artist. I don't know why he didn't rise in the ranks, perhaps it is because he really couldn't do anything but draw, as evidenced by the total garbage he produced for DC in the 1970s. Anything he tried to do storywise, failed miserably.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was great and the sheer amount of art he produced was phenomenal. Even though he is not my favorite artist, I still have a ton of respect for him. But in almost every situation, there is one person who rises to a position of preeminence, there are people that are on the lower rungs who felt they were just as deserving.

 

I also don't have any doubts that Stan is a master of self promotion, but I don't fault him for that. I personally have never read anything he ever said about Jack or Steve which was negative.

 

I think you are leaving out Jack's creative influence & just focusing on Kirby the Artist. Jack Kirby's influence was much greater than just his artwork (which was some of the finest during the 1960's). Remember, Stan was editor of Atlas during the lean years, and things starting clicking right when Ditko & Kirby came along. Where were all these great creations before this time. To hear Stan put it, he waited until things were in the krapper before going with his gut & producing comics he wanted to produce. I say it was Kirby & Ditko who came up with many, if not most of the ideas. Things took off shortly after their arrival.

 

Stan added the human element to the characters, including the villians, and was a really good writer & figure head for Marvel. He just enjoyed the limelight too much & forgot to give credit where credit was due. I don't dislike Stan, I just wish his memory would reflect an accurate picture of what happened back then. I would love to hear the real, factual story of Marvel Comics 60's revival.

 

So is the fault that Stan grabbed all the spotlight and DIDNT allow Kirby or Ditko any credit or is it that Kirby and Ditko didnt try and force Stan to give up more of the spotlight? I really dont know alot about the behind the scenes of 60s/70s comics and always wondered why Stan seemed to be doing everything (except the artwork).

[goldust40]

I got my info from talking to people in person, other message boards and random internet articles on Stan Lee. I am not a Stan Lee basher myself. Every CGC SS book that I own has his sig.

 

People have really said some negative things and I was wondering why.

 

It could possibly be to do with the conflict that existed (and still does) over who created what in the Marvel universe, coupled with the fact that Lee and Kirby didn't get on during their partnership (there are no pictures of the two of them together, ever). This schism has subtly forced fandom to take sides over the years, especially as both creators (not just Lee) have claimed that they were the lynchpins in the MU.

 

I myself like Stan, as he is, for so many non-comic fans, Mr. Comics. As a media avatar and relentless publicist and mouthpiece for the cause, he obviously has done more for the medium's profile than anyone else. And he's very good at what he does, not to mention a very genial guy at panels and signings.

 

If there's one quibble, it's his consistency over events in his career. In one interview he stated that it was AF 15 that kept him in comics, as he felt that he had completely stagnated as a writer after churning out those late '50s monster stories for Atlas. Then, several years later in another interview he claimed that he enjoyed doing those stories more than anything else in his time at Marvel.

[MedicAR]

 

It gets good around 2:00 and even better around 2:40. It really demonstrates the Marvel style of creating comics. Stan produced and idea, the artist fleshed it out, Stan approved or corrected it (had it corrected) and added dialogue. It was all very collaborative according to all involved, including Stan.

[MedicAR]

Stan added the human element to the characters, including the villians, and was a really good writer & figure head for Marvel. He just enjoyed the limelight too much & forgot to give credit where credit was due. I don't dislike Stan, I just wish his memory would reflect an accurate picture of what happened back then. I would love to hear the real, factual story of Marvel Comics 60's revival.

 

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Flemmings]

I got my info from talking to people in person, other message boards and random internet articles on Stan Lee. I am not a Stan Lee basher myself. Every CGC SS book that I own has his sig.

 

People have really said some negative things and I was wondering why.

 

It could possibly be to do with the conflict that existed (and still does) over who created what in the Marvel universe, coupled with the fact that Lee and Kirby didn't get on during their partnership (there are no pictures of the two of them together, ever). This schism has subtly forced fandom to take sides over the years, especially as both creators (not just Lee) have claimed that they were the lynchpins in the MU.

 

I myself like Stan, as he is, for so many non-comic fans, Mr. Comics. As a media avatar and relentless publicist and mouthpiece for the cause, he obviously has done more for the medium's profile than anyone else. And he's very good at what he does, not to mention a very genial guy at panels and signings.

 

If there's one quibble, it's his consistency over events in his career. In one interview he stated that it was AF 15 that kept him in comics, as he felt that he had completely stagnated as a writer after churning out those late '50s monster stories for Atlas. Then, several years later in another interview he claimed that he enjoyed doing those stories more than anything else in his time at Marvel.

 

Sad to say, but both of those could be true. As we all get older our memories tend to fade. While sometimes other memories tend to shine brightly.

 

For example the worst place in my life that I have ever lived would have to be Minot, North Dakota. I'm from southern Florida, so I do not like cold weather. However sometimes when I think back over my life, I realize I had a lot of great memories from there. At the same time I complained the whole time I was there though

[goldust40]

Sad to say, but both of those could be true. As we all get older our memories tend to fade. While sometimes other memories tend to shine brightly.

 

That's a good point, and perhaps I shouldn't have been too hard on Stan. Easy to gain rose-tinted specs as the decades roll by...

[Flemmings]

 

It gets good around 2:00 and even better around 2:40. It really demonstrates the Marvel style of creating comics. Stan produced and idea, the artist fleshed it out, Stan approved or corrected it (had it corrected) and added dialogue. It was all very collaborative according to all involved, including Stan.

 

This is a prime example of where I get the feeling that a lot of people didn't like him. These are some quotes from a response to the video Medicar posted. These are examples there are more.

 

 

fakestanlee (4 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply ... and Spider-Man is a perfect example. Stan took a character suggestion from Kirby (in turn an idea originating from Joe Simon), tweaked the character's premise, and handed it off to Ditko to design, draw, and later plot. Stan was a true talent when it came to art direction and story-editing, but Spider-man was a collaborative creation with many fathers... not just the one glib man that we all like in interviews.

 

 

fakestanlee (4 days ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply Was Stan a world-class editor, promoter, speaker and manager? Absolutely. Could he create characters or stories? His creations and works absent talented collaborators like Kirby and Ditko speak for themselves. Stan deserves all the credit in the world as the organizing force and the promotional machine behind Marvel's 60s resurgence. But creator? He's a co-creator at best, a credit-stealing editor and middling dialogue writer at worst.

 

 

youngace187 (4 weeks ago) Show Hide -4 Marked as spam Reply Stan is an asswhole! Stan would tell them about a idea and then ditko or kirby would draw out the whole story and how the characters would look and act. Then stan would draw only captions and dialogue. Be real people, Stan didn't create any thing! This pisses me off, stan and bob kane are the same. The real batman creator was the writer because he would talk about how the character would look and what was his orgin.

 

 

 

[marvelcollector]

Isn't that mostly just one side of the story. Yes, Jack could have gotten more credit, but isn't that partly Jack's fault. Stan went from writer to editor to the driving force behind Marvel comics for a very long time. Basically, Jack was an artist. I don't know why he didn't rise in the ranks, perhaps it is because he really couldn't do anything but draw, as evidenced by the total garbage he produced for DC in the 1970s. Anything he tried to do storywise, failed miserably.

 

I don't think that's entirely true. Jack likely had a large hand in creating most of the Marvel U. I think Stan would probably come along and say, "I want to do a group book, make 'em a family...." and Jack would come back with the FF or with the powers of the FF. I sincerely believe it was closer to a 50/50 share of creativity. I base this on interviews from both men and other people that were there at the time. No one has said this, but when you consider most of these folks have an agenda, be it for themselves or to support/discredit someone else, you can take the overlapping parts and get an idea of the truth.

 

 

As an example, from what I recall, Stan gave Jack the basic outline for FF 48, and Jack figured that Galactus should have scout (or herald), and drew the Silver Surfer. Stan was surprised to see this, Jack explained his reasoning.

So, one could say Jack was the true creator of the Silver Surfer.

[Flemmings]

Watch the youtube video. Within the first 50 seconds, that said Stan would joke that he would take any credit that isn't nailed down. Now taken out of context, people could take that the wrong way. I am also a firm believer that there is a little truth in every joke.

[MedicAR]

youngace187 (4 weeks ago) Show Hide -4 Marked as spam Reply Stan is an asswhole! Stan would tell them about a idea and then ditko or kirby would draw out the whole story and how the characters would look and act. Then stan would draw only captions and dialogue. Be real people, Stan didn't create any thing! This pisses me off, stan and bob kane are the same. The real batman creator was the writer because he would talk about how the character would look and what was his orgin.

 

I didn't read the responses, I was looking for a quote.....

 

The one above is hysterical, though. On the one hand he says the writer created it all using Bob Kane and Bill Finger as his example. On the other he say the artist created it using Kirby/Lee as the example.

 

This was the only one I came away feeling like it was truly negative though. I think a lot of fans just want equal credit for all parties involved.

[Senormac]

So is the fault that Stan grabbed all the spotlight and DIDNT allow Kirby or Ditko any credit or is it that Kirby and Ditko didnt try and force Stan to give up more of the spotlight? I really dont know alot about the behind the scenes of 60s/70s comics and always wondered why Stan seemed to be doing everything (except the artwork).

 

Its just a picture of the chain of command. You can't have two or three people in charge. It just won't work. So no matter how great and/or important Kirby and Ditko were......Stan was still the spearhead and the man in charge.....and ultimately ....the man who would take responsibility for failures and problems also.

 

I like Stan

[Speedy-D]

Isn't that mostly just one side of the story. Yes, Jack could have gotten more credit, but isn't that partly Jack's fault. Stan went from writer to editor to the driving force behind Marvel comics for a very long time. Basically, Jack was an artist. I don't know why he didn't rise in the ranks, perhaps it is because he really couldn't do anything but draw, as evidenced by the total garbage he produced for DC in the 1970s. Anything he tried to do storywise, failed miserably.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was great and the sheer amount of art he produced was phenomenal. Even though he is not my favorite artist, I still have a ton of respect for him. But in almost every situation, there is one person who rises to a position of preeminence, there are people that are on the lower rungs who felt they were just as deserving.

 

I also don't have any doubts that Stan is a master of self promotion, but I don't fault him for that. I personally have never read anything he ever said about Jack or Steve which was negative.

 

Carmine Infantino was just an artist too, no writer, but he went on to be publisher of DC. And lots of non-writers have moved to editing and management positions at Marvel over the years. I don't really know why Kirby didn't advance at Marvel, but I don't think it's cuz he couldn't do anything but draw. He's often considered the greatest comic artist of them all, so that doesn't seem like such a limitation.

[MedicAR]

As an example, from what I recall, Stan gave Jack the basic outline for FF 48, and Jack figured that Galactus should have scout (or herald), and drew the Silver Surfer. Stan was surprised to see this, Jack explained his reasoning.

So, one could say Jack was the true creator of the Silver Surfer.

 

That's fair, but would he have created him without the character of Galactus having been there first? So didn't Stan have a hand in it?

 

Just trying to play the devil's advocate....sort of.....I think this works both ways. If I want to credit Jack as the co-creator of the FF, then doesn't this make Stan the co-creator of the Surfer as well?

[Flemmings]

[MedicAR]

Isn't that mostly just one side of the story. Yes, Jack could have gotten more credit, but isn't that partly Jack's fault. Stan went from writer to editor to the driving force behind Marvel comics for a very long time. Basically, Jack was an artist. I don't know why he didn't rise in the ranks, perhaps it is because he really couldn't do anything but draw, as evidenced by the total garbage he produced for DC in the 1970s. Anything he tried to do storywise, failed miserably.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was great and the sheer amount of art he produced was phenomenal. Even though he is not my favorite artist, I still have a ton of respect for him. But in almost every situation, there is one person who rises to a position of preeminence, there are people that are on the lower rungs who felt they were just as deserving.

 

I also don't have any doubts that Stan is a master of self promotion, but I don't fault him for that. I personally have never read anything he ever said about Jack or Steve which was negative.

 

Carmine Infantino was just an artist too, no writer, but he went on to be publisher of DC. And lots of non-writers have moved to editing and management positions at Marvel over the years. I don't really know why Kirby didn't advance at Marvel, but I don't think it's cuz he couldn't do anything but draw. He's often considered the greatest comic artist of them all, so that doesn't seem like such a limitation.

 

I think it had to do with the rumored conflicts between Stan and Jack. Stan was in charge and if he didn't want Jack to move up, he wouldn't. Jack went on to DC to work and was less successful, without a proven track record at DC, they wouldn't let him move up there either.

 

Just imagine if he had though.....a whole generation of artists being guided directly by Jack Kirby.........

 

[Flemmings]

Isn't that mostly just one side of the story. Yes, Jack could have gotten more credit, but isn't that partly Jack's fault. Stan went from writer to editor to the driving force behind Marvel comics for a very long time. Basically, Jack was an artist. I don't know why he didn't rise in the ranks, perhaps it is because he really couldn't do anything but draw, as evidenced by the total garbage he produced for DC in the 1970s. Anything he tried to do storywise, failed miserably.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was great and the sheer amount of art he produced was phenomenal. Even though he is not my favorite artist, I still have a ton of respect for him. But in almost every situation, there is one person who rises to a position of preeminence, there are people that are on the lower rungs who felt they were just as deserving.

 

I also don't have any doubts that Stan is a master of self promotion, but I don't fault him for that. I personally have never read anything he ever said about Jack or Steve which was negative.

 

Carmine Infantino was just an artist too, no writer, but he went on to be publisher of DC. And lots of non-writers have moved to editing and management positions at Marvel over the years. I don't really know why Kirby didn't advance at Marvel, but I don't think it's cuz he couldn't do anything but draw. He's often considered the greatest comic artist of them all, so that doesn't seem like such a limitation.

 

I think it had to do with the rumored conflicts between Stan and Jack. Stan was in charge and if he didn't want Jack to move up, he wouldn't. Jack went on to DC to work and was less successful, without a proven track record at DC, they wouldn't let him move up there either.

 

Just imagine if he had though.....a whole generation of artists being guided directly by Jack Kirby.........

 

 

It would be no different then it is now. John Romita went on to become art director or some title like that. Everyone that worked on Spider-man after him tried to be him. They would have done the same thing with Kirby titles.

[s-man]

After watching Stan on the Youtube vid, i have to ask who is the actual creator..the one that comes up with the idea or the one who runs with the idea? Stan thought up Spider-man and Ditko drew up a kid in spider tights, but without Stan, Ditko wouldve probably never thought to put that kid in those tights. So I would say that Stan created the idea and Ditko expanded on it, but was not the creator.