Stan Lee

[MedicAR]

I do agree that in that mode he became increasingly uncareful about who did what, or even what actually happened (the revisionist thing).

 

But overall I think he's been more than willing to give credit where credit was due.

 

On the Kirby thing, I think Kirby got carried away and sometimes exaggerated his role. Yes, he was a great artist, and yes, he was a great idea man, but it was Stan who controlled the characterization and dialogue in the Marvel Age, and that was what made Marvel great.

 

So if it was Stan's writing that made Marvel what it is, why can't he do it again? How come nobody talks about Alexa, Just Imagine.., Nightcat, or Ravage 2099 in the same way as FF, Spidey, Hulk, or X-Men?

 

As for giving credit where it's due, watch Kevin Smith's videos with him. When asked about creating all those titles and characters, he takes sole credit for it, he never mentions Kirby or Ditko.

 

As I've said in this thread before, none of these three has since had the success they had at Marvel with each other. That's my strongest argument for co-creator status for all three. None of them ever generated such success before they got together or since. None of their characters were as real or endearing before or since. What they did and created, they created together.

[MedicAR]

IF Ditko is penniless (and I'm not saying he is) it would be of his own choosing.

His philosophy (Randian?) keeps him from the public eye and therefore from the accolades and riches he deserves.

 

I don't think Ditko is broke. I know he could do better, but his principles won't allow it.

[MedicAR]

Could we say the camera man on a film is as much the creator as the director then?

 

No, not the same at all. The writer of the -script is the creator, a director may be a co-creator depending on how fleshed out the -script is. The cameraman is only shooting what the director puts in front of him. He didn't select the actors, set, lighting, props or anything else.

[Silver Surfer]

Has anyone ever come close to Stan's endless enthusiasum for this industry? I doubt that in our lifetime we will ever see another editor that will have half the impact Stan did for comics. You can't expect that there wouldn't be artists who felt that they should be paid more, threaten to move to competitors or should get more credit for creating characters but as Editor Stan's first loyalty would have to be for the company as a whole. A very difficult task to manage especially when you consider how much time he must have spent writing all those stories in the early years.

[mica]

So if it was Stan's writing that made Marvel what it is, why can't he do it again? How come nobody talks about Alexa, Just Imagine.., Nightcat, or Ravage 2099 in the same way as FF, Spidey, Hulk, or X-Men?

Yep

 

As for giving credit where it's due, watch Kevin Smith's videos with him. When asked about creating all those titles and characters, he takes sole credit for it, he never mentions Kirby or Ditko.

Yep

 

As I've said in this thread before, none of these three has since had the success they had at Marvel with each other. That's my strongest argument for co-creator status for all three. None of them ever generated such success before they got together or since. None of their characters were as real or endearing before or since. What they did and created, they created together.

Yep (thumbs u

[MedicAR]

Has anyone ever come close to Stan's endless enthusiasum for this industry? I doubt that in our lifetime we will ever see another editor that will have half the impact Stan did for comics. You can't expect that there wouldn't be artists who felt that they should be paid more, threaten to move to competitors or should get more credit for creating characters but as Editor Stan's first loyalty would have to be for the company as a whole. A very difficult task to manage especially when you consider how much time he must have spent writing all those stories in the early years.

 

Stan has done a fantastic job of promotion, of both himself and the industry at large. He has been a great spokesman and honestly, I doubt anyone will ever be able to replace him.

 

It's even been pointed out in this thread that he heaped praise upon the artists at the time the books were coming out. The question is who actually came up with the characters in the first place. Credit at this point would really be just that. The characters were created as "work for hire" so there would not be any royalties to be paid. It's simply the principle of it.

[AtlasFan]

In the early days, Stan was very generous with sharing the credits on who created what...I believe in an very early issue of Roy Thomas' ALTER-EGO, Stan mentions a new character "dreamed up" by Steve Ditko that would appear in a forthcoming issue of Strange Tales...Doctor Strange.

 

In recent years, I believe Stan is more guarded as to what he says (or maybe he is more forgetful!) with regards to being co-creator with his artist. Could this be advise from his (Marvel) lawyers? I dont know anything about copyright law, but if Stan stated that Spider-man, the FF, the X-Men, etc. had co-creators, could this open Marvel up for lawsuits? Maybe. Joe Simon recently won a large decision over Captain America as did the decendents of Siegel & Shuster for Superman.

 

With regards to the creative process, I think the proof is in the pudding. Someone else here said that when Stan-Jack and Stan-Steve got together, they made magic...each alone...not so much.

 

 

[Unca Ben]

Could we say the camera man on a film is as much the creator as the director then?

 

No, not the same at all. The writer of the -script is the creator, a director may be a co-creator depending on how fleshed out the -script is. The cameraman is only shooting what the director puts in front of him. He didn't select the actors, set, lighting, props or anything else.

I believe it is the cinematographer that is behind the camera, and is responsible for lighting and the color palate and the artistic tone of the film. Great directors collaborate with great cinematographers.

[Unca Ben]

I like Stan. I like Kirby and Ditko. Stan certainly profited from Marvel more than Ditko and Kirby. It seems Kirby made a pretty good living from creating comic books; he bought a house in Southern California (with a pool?).

A nicer lifestyle than my Dad could afford during the 60’s and 70’s (he worked as an engineer for Lockheed and contributed to the Lunar Program).

From what I’ve read, Kirby suffered later in life from a lack of substantial retirement and health benefits. This is fairly common for individuals who do work-for-hire.

Marvel (not Stan Lee) certainly could have done a lot better by Kirby, giving creative credit and properly returning all of his original art when that became the legitimate procedure. There are a lot of stories of how Kirby’s art “walked away” from the Marvel offices. If Stan Lee was known to have walked out with an armful of Kirby art, that would change things; but anecdotal evidence seems to point to various office workers and at least one well known (and beloved) comic book artist. If anyone stole anything from Kirby it would be those individuals, not Stan.

 

[That Ron Dude]

I think it is at least two fold. He took too much credit for his co-creations. Also, now that I am an adult, it is hard to respect the hucksterism that he played upon guys like me when I was twelve.

 

I must also add though, that I met him at a convention at York University in 1972. I was eighteen. He was in his forties. He spoke to me as he would a peer, for close to an hour. How many people that age would show that level of respect for an eighteen year old? We talked mostly about university education, not about comics. He was a real gentleman.

[JohnT]

I do agree that in that mode he became increasingly uncareful about who did what, or even what actually happened (the revisionist thing).

 

But overall I think he's been more than willing to give credit where credit was due.

 

On the Kirby thing, I think Kirby got carried away and sometimes exaggerated his role. Yes, he was a great artist, and yes, he was a great idea man, but it was Stan who controlled the characterization and dialogue in the Marvel Age, and that was what made Marvel great.

 

So if it was Stan's writing that made Marvel what it is, why can't he do it again? How come nobody talks about Alexa, Just Imagine.., Nightcat, or Ravage 2099 in the same way as FF, Spidey, Hulk, or X-Men?

 

As for giving credit where it's due, watch Kevin Smith's videos with him. When asked about creating all those titles and characters, he takes sole credit for it, he never mentions Kirby or Ditko.

 

As I've said in this thread before, none of these three has since had the success they had at Marvel with each other. That's my strongest argument for co-creator status for all three. None of them ever generated such success before they got together or since. None of their characters were as real or endearing before or since. What they did and created, they created together.

 

I really don't know anything about what Stan actually tried to write after his peak in the 60's. About the only thing I ever saw was his last hurrah with Silver Surfer (and Jack), which appeared in a trade paperback sometime around 1980 and as I remember was pretty awesome. So I don't know what you're referring to, and have to plead ignorance.

 

At any rate, the lack of success of Ditko and Kirby and according to you, Stan, in later years doesn't necessarily tell the tale of what happened at Marvel in the early years. I still think that Kirby and Ditko were very creative, expressive artists who were important parts of the Marvel Age. But I also think that what made the Marvel Age revolutionary was Stan's dialogue and characterization.

 

 

[JohnT]

Has anyone ever come close to Stan's endless enthusiasum for this industry? I doubt that in our lifetime we will ever see another editor that will have half the impact Stan did for comics. You can't expect that there wouldn't be artists who felt that they should be paid more, threaten to move to competitors or should get more credit for creating characters but as Editor Stan's first loyalty would have to be for the company as a whole. A very difficult task to manage especially when you consider how much time he must have spent writing all those stories in the early years.

 

I totally agree with this. I love the old letter pages and Bullpen bulletins. Whenever I read an old Marvel I always read the letter page and the bulletins. The enthusiasm of Stan sucked you in and got you excited about the Marvel Age. You felt like you were a part of something big.

[JohnT]

In the early days, Stan was very generous with sharing the credits on who created what...I believe in an very early issue of Roy Thomas' ALTER-EGO, Stan mentions a new character "dreamed up" by Steve Ditko that would appear in a forthcoming issue of Strange Tales...Doctor Strange.

 

In recent years, I believe Stan is more guarded as to what he says (or maybe he is more forgetful!) with regards to being co-creator with his artist. Could this be advise from his (Marvel) lawyers? I dont know anything about copyright law, but if Stan stated that Spider-man, the FF, the X-Men, etc. had co-creators, could this open Marvel up for lawsuits? Maybe. Joe Simon recently won a large decision over Captain America as did the decendents of Siegel & Shuster for Superman.

 

With regards to the creative process, I think the proof is in the pudding. Someone else here said that when Stan-Jack and Stan-Steve got together, they made magic...each alone...not so much.

 

 

I think it is very likely that Stan has been given advice to be very careful of what he says about who created what.

[Flash105]

IF Ditko is penniless (and I'm not saying he is) it would be of his own choosing.

His philosophy (Randian?) keeps him from the public eye and therefore from the accolades and riches he deserves.

 

I don't think Ditko is broke. I know he could do better, but his principles won't allow it.

 

Ditko could make a living going to shows. He chooses not to. He does not complain about it. Stan Lee should not be blamed for any of his financial shortcomings at this point.

 

 

[Flash105]

I do agree that in that mode he became increasingly uncareful about who did what, or even what actually happened (the revisionist thing).

 

But overall I think he's been more than willing to give credit where credit was due.

 

On the Kirby thing, I think Kirby got carried away and sometimes exaggerated his role. Yes, he was a great artist, and yes, he was a great idea man, but it was Stan who controlled the characterization and dialogue in the Marvel Age, and that was what made Marvel great.

 

So if it was Stan's writing that made Marvel what it is, why can't he do it again? How come nobody talks about Alexa, Just Imagine.., Nightcat, or Ravage 2099 in the same way as FF, Spidey, Hulk, or X-Men?

 

 

This proves nothing. Many creative geniuses try to catch lightning in a bottle a second time and cannot. In fact you could put the three of them together and you are just as likely to get Spawn as you are Spiderman. Just ask Mario Puzo. Godfather great, everything else not so much.

[Flash105]

Has anyone ever come close to Stan's endless enthusiasum for this industry? I doubt that in our lifetime we will ever see another editor that will have half the impact Stan did for comics. You can't expect that there wouldn't be artists who felt that they should be paid more, threaten to move to competitors or should get more credit for creating characters but as Editor Stan's first loyalty would have to be for the company as a whole. A very difficult task to manage especially when you consider how much time he must have spent writing all those stories in the early years.

 

Stan Lee is a lot like Vitale. There is not a man in college basketball who has promoted the sport more than . Yet a lot of people think he is a self promoting loud mouth. Yet the results stand for both of them. The industry and hobby are better off because of Stan.

 

And you know managing a bunch of whiny artists with all their artsy picadillos has to be a nightmare for any editor. I can't think of a more needy group of people that need to have their hands held. Why do you think our comics are months late. Because they are unorganized, overcommitted, possibly lazy, irresponsible, unfocused, and the like. But damned if they don't have a talent that everyone of us would give our right arm for.

 

Long live Stan the Man.

[conditionfreak]

I can only judge the man by the two minutes I spent with him. He is a jerk, and uncaring about his fan base. He cares little about the comic books and believes those that take them serious in any manner whatsoever, are nuts. He believes that anyone who collects them, follows them, or likes them are silly.

 

He made this "VOOOOM" and "GOLUM" stuff up, mostly just being silly, and us silly peons loved it.

 

At least this was my impression of "The Man" from my two minutes with him in 1988. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he has changed, but I don't think so from what I have read.

[JohnT]

I can only judge the man by the two minutes I spent with him. He is a jerk, and uncaring about his fan base. He cares little about the comic books and believes those that take them serious in any manner whatsoever, are nuts. He believes that anyone who collects them, follows them, or likes them are silly.

 

He made this "VOOOOM" and "GOLUM" stuff up, mostly just being silly, and us silly peons loved it.

 

At least this was my impression of "The Man" from my two minutes with him in 1988. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he has changed, but I don't think so from what I have read.

 

Watch this short interview and see what you think. This is how I think Stan really views it...

 

[MedicAR]

And you know managing a bunch of whiny artists with all their artsy picadillos has to be a nightmare for any editor. I can't think of a more needy group of people that need to have their hands held. Why do you think our comics are months late. Because they are unorganized, overcommitted, possibly lazy, irresponsible, unfocused, and the like. But damned if they don't have a talent that everyone of us would give our right arm for.

 

Long live Stan the Man.

 

you're comparing the artists of today to the artists of the 1960s. The artists then didn't whine and pitched in to help each other when they fell behind. They knew they could be easily replaced as the books were more important than the personalities.

 

I'll have to look up Kirby's stats, but he turned out better art faster than any five modern artists.

 

So no, there were no late books. There were also no conventions, back issue dealers, original art dealers, weekly shipments, or shops devoted solely to comics. All of that came more than a decade later.

[herc2000]

In the 60's we needed these new characters so I think that is why they were so well accepted. Now there are so many good characters out there from Marvel, DC and other companies that for something to take off it has got to be quite unique.

 

If the FF were created today, I don't think they would be as much a success and quite a few other characters also.

 

Does Herbe Trimpe ever take credit for creating Wolverine?