Lee versus Kirby and Ditko

[That Ron Dude]

Lee was important as a writer and editor.

 

To me the key was he did it not just with Kirby but with Ditko and a little later with Everett. His formula even worked with Ayers and Heck.

[Prince Namor]

Stan's contributions shouldn't be given short shrift. The outline of Fantastic Four #1 that Stan wrote should be evidence enough that he generated his share of the ideas. Even staunch Kirby supporters like Mark Evanier and John Morrow have called for an end to the Stan Bashing.

I love them all, and I don't need a score card telling me who did what. The evidence indicates that it was a true collaboration.

As to the question of compensation, there's no question that the artists should have been treated better, but I'd say the villain is Goodman.

 

I'd agree with all of this.

I want to be clear, my purpose isn't to bash Stan. I think he is very much as important to what happened as Ditko or Kirby.

[MedicAR]

TheWatcher hit it on the head. None of them were as successful before they collaborated and none of them were as successful after. However it happened, it was pure magic as the sum was clearly greater than its parts.

 

Kirby and Ditko did tons of work before they teamed with Lee. How many people talk about how great Kirby's run on Prize was? How many talk about Ditko's work on Crime and Justice? And Stan Lee was just rehashing about two dozen horror stories over and over. When they got together, though, it was amazing in every way! What has come since? Silver Star, Avenging World and Ravage 2099.

 

Whatever happened, it never happened again for any of them. Just share the credit and call it good.

 

Ditko was still somewhat of newer face in the business, but Kirby had experienced a great deal of success prior to the SA, most notably the creation of Captain America (with Joe Simon) which had nothing to do with Stan....

 

Ditko had been around for 8-10 years prior to the launch of the Marvel Age, Kirby had been at it for 20+ but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that regardless of their level of success, they were more successful with Lee than they were before him or after.

 

Kirby's greatest successes were always when he teamed with another creator. He may have generated the ideas but he seemed to need help to flesh them out and give them personality. Looking at Kirby's creations, you have Cap where he collaborated with Joe Simon. After that the pair moved on to DC and did Boy Commandos, Sandman and the like. Then there's a long dry spell where he kept working, but there didn't seem to be much in the way of new creations. Finally, he came up with the Challengers of the Unknown which were pretty one dimensional and are arguably the prototypes for the Fantastic Four. After Marvel we were left such gems as Don Rickles and Superman. New Gods turned out to be less than what was hoped for although it's seen as more now and finally Silver Star and Captain Victory.

 

Lee didn't fare much better. He kept churning out stories at Marvel but as successful as the "Marvel Method" was for sales, it made deciphering specific contributions near impossible. Stan moved on to editing and promotion and kept Marvel rolling for a long time. There is no doubt about it, the man can sell ice cubes to eskimos and leave them excited at the deal they got. He's that good and he has amazing caristhma, and has a way about him that makes readers feel like they are in on a big secret that he would never share with anyone else. I love the guy!

 

I'm not saying any of this to rip on any of them, I'm just pointing out examples of their work before the Marvel Age and after. Whatever happened at Marvel was incredibly special.

[MedicAR]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

[nmtg9]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

+1

 

Exactly why I started the thread. (thumbs u

 

[Prince Namor]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

I agree.

And you make my point somewhat for me in your last post.

For Kirby, the ideas are always there, he just had more success when he had someone to help flesh them out. (Though the argument has been made that New Gods was just fine, DC made the mistake of canceling it. Personally, I think the breakneck pace that Kirby created new ideas and characters during that series is absolutely amazing).

 

The success of any of it, isn't really the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just straight out ask it.

Was Stan a crafty opportunist with mediocre writing skills that aptly took advantage of work for hire artists to benefit the company he worked for and thus, himself?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nearly impossible to dislike the guy (unless your Kirby or Ditko, and I DO empathize with those guys), but I wonder about these things based on what we know.

Just a thought.

 

[Unca Ben]

Stan Lee's silver age collaboration with Don Heck yielded characters such as the Crimson Dynamo, the Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Swordsman, the Mandarin and the Titanium Man.

 

They may not be as noteworthy as Spidey or the FF, but they are proof that Stan could co-create long lasting characters in the silver age apart from Kirby or Ditko.

 

 

[MedicAR]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

I agree.

And you make my point somewhat for me in your last post.

For Kirby, the ideas are always there, he just had more success when he had someone to help flesh them out. (Though the argument has been made that New Gods was just fine, DC made the mistake of canceling it. Personally, I think the breakneck pace that Kirby created new ideas and characters during that series is absolutely amazing).

 

The success of any of it, isn't really the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just straight out ask it.

Was Stan a crafty opportunist with mediocre writing skills that aptly took advantage of work for hire artists to benefit the company he worked for and thus, himself?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nearly impossible to dislike the guy (unless your Kirby or Ditko, and I DO empathize with those guys), but I wonder about these things based on what we know.

Just a thought.

 

Ahhh....! That's where we were going off the rails. I was solely looking at their successes to make my point that they worked best as a team. They might not have actually needed each other but they were certainly at their best when collaborating.

 

As for your Stan question. Sort of. I think he had the talent all along, just like Kirby. I wonder if Kirby helped to mold him, in a way, using Kirby's ideas. Stan was a solid work horse prior to FF #1, but I doubt we will ever know if it was because his talent was limited internally or if it was limited by the publisher. The idea was to make what sold and if the mediocre horror stories sold, then they would have kept them coming.

 

Going back to the Challengers being the prototype of the FF, look at the similarities. Both groups are primarily explorers. One has a member named Rocky, the other has a member that is rocky. Both are lead by a scientific genius. Challengers had a sense of humor to it and FF just stepped it up a bit. One group was close friends the other took it a step farther and made the group a real family. The big difference is that the FF had a true nemesis in Dr. Doom while the Challs just drifted along. The Challengers had relative success while the FF became a cultural icon. In my mind, that is the difference Stan Lee made.

 

Prior to Kirby's influence, Lee did good work. During their time together, he did great work. Once they split up, he went back to good work. What's funny is that you can transpose those names and the statement remains true.

 

I do not believe Stan was a crafty opportunist or that he intentionally took advantage of anyone. I think Stan was a brilliant business man and did what we all try to do. He took care of himself and his family. Stan was given an opportunity and took it. Once he became editor-in-chief, he created the image of the bullpen and just kept expanding that. As it expanded, he just became the face of Marvel because he was the one doing the columns and that gave him the success that he still enjoys today. I don't think he ever said or even thought, "screw those guys, it was all me!" I think that with their departure, he was left to do what he had to do to remain in the good graces of the company and keep his job. If that meant he had to minimize the contributions of others, he did it, even if only to keep his job. The trouble is human nature and physiology kicked in. He eventually couldn't recall the way things really happened and believed the hype. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The thing is, Stan eventually came to believe his own lie, leading to the conflicts now. Just think, if you had to stick to a certain story, even if you knew it wasn't true, and kept telling that story for years or even decades, how well would you remember what really happened? Most people wind up with the memories melted and running together. I believe that is what happened with Stan.

[MedicAR]

Stan Lee's silver age collaboration with Don Heck yielded characters such as the Crimson Dynamo, the Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Swordsman, the Mandarin and the Titanium Man.

 

They may not be as noteworthy as Spidey or the FF, but they are proof that Stan could co-create long lasting characters in the silver age apart from Kirby or Ditko.

 

 

Absolutely, but they are all second tier characters. Just like Kirby's Fourth World and Ditko's Creeper and Hawk and Dove are all second tier characters at best. They were all very creative men but they were at their peak abilities when they worked together.

[bluechip]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

I agree.

And you make my point somewhat for me in your last post.

For Kirby, the ideas are always there, he just had more success when he had someone to help flesh them out. (Though the argument has been made that New Gods was just fine, DC made the mistake of canceling it. Personally, I think the breakneck pace that Kirby created new ideas and characters during that series is absolutely amazing).

 

The success of any of it, isn't really the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just straight out ask it.

Was Stan a crafty opportunist with mediocre writing skills that aptly took advantage of work for hire artists to benefit the company he worked for and thus, himself?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nearly impossible to dislike the guy (unless your Kirby or Ditko, and I DO empathize with those guys), but I wonder about these things based on what we know.

Just a thought.

 

Ahhh....! That's where we were going off the rails. I was solely looking at their successes to make my point that they worked best as a team. They might not have actually needed each other but they were certainly at their best when collaborating.

 

As for your Stan question. Sort of. I think he had the talent all along, just like Kirby. I wonder if Kirby helped to mold him, in a way, using Kirby's ideas. Stan was a solid work horse prior to FF #1, but I doubt we will ever know if it was because his talent was limited internally or if it was limited by the publisher. The idea was to make what sold and if the mediocre horror stories sold, then they would have kept them coming.

 

Going back to the Challengers being the prototype of the FF, look at the similarities. Both groups are primarily explorers. One has a member named Rocky, the other has a member that is rocky. Both are lead by a scientific genius. Challengers had a sense of humor to it and FF just stepped it up a bit. One group was close friends the other took it a step farther and made the group a real family. The big difference is that the FF had a true nemesis in Dr. Doom while the Challs just drifted along. The Challengers had relative success while the FF became a cultural icon. In my mind, that is the difference Stan Lee made.

 

Prior to Kirby's influence, Lee did good work. During their time together, he did great work. Once they split up, he went back to good work. What's funny is that you can transpose those names and the statement remains true.

 

I do not believe Stan was a crafty opportunist or that he intentionally took advantage of anyone. I think Stan was a brilliant business man and did what we all try to do. He took care of himself and his family. Stan was given an opportunity and took it. Once he became editor-in-chief, he created the image of the bullpen and just kept expanding that. As it expanded, he just became the face of Marvel because he was the one doing the columns and that gave him the success that he still enjoys today. I don't think he ever said or even thought, "screw those guys, it was all me!" I think that with their departure, he was left to do what he had to do to remain in the good graces of the company and keep his job. If that meant he had to minimize the contributions of others, he did it, even if only to keep his job. The trouble is human nature and physiology kicked in. He eventually couldn't recall the way things really happened and believed the hype. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The thing is, Stan eventually came to believe his own lie, leading to the conflicts now. Just think, if you had to stick to a certain story, even if you knew it wasn't true, and kept telling that story for years or even decades, how well would you remember what really happened? Most people wind up with the memories melted and running together. I believe that is what happened with Stan.

 

Stan bashing comes in two forms.

 

One is the out and out he was a hack; he did nothing, etc. It doesn't come close to holding up under scrutiny, but some people push it anyway.

 

The other has been adopted more recently by people who want to bash Stan by sounding more reasonable -- i.e.e he was a great salesman and a decent editor, etc. Or, strangely, that he was a great businessman, when all the indications are that he doesn't really understand business.

 

Anybody who's actually talked with Stan, way back when or recently, can tell you he's a fount ot ideas, good and bad. He had an amazing streak in the 60s when a very high percentage of it was good -- not just with Kirby but with many others as well. None of them, without Stan, ever did work as good before, or after. You may feel Captain America 1940s edition did, but in the 40s he never came close to seeming like a real person, as he did in the 60s.

 

Stan continues to come up with good ideas, but almost nobody he's collaborating has both of two essential things going for them which are 1) being as good as Kirby, Ditko, romita, et al and 2) not being intimidated by him because they grew up reading his stuff. That, plus the world has changed so much and Stan and his modern partners are not able to do things in an executive vaccuum, as Stan was able to do in the 60s. Goodman never gave notes the way modern entertainment execs do. Today it's much more about the deal and the glitter, and Stan loves both. (In the entertainment industry, with great power comes great distraction) Many of his partners in recent years have not been the most talented people in the world but businesspeople who see him as a commodity, and they come to him whth deals that sound fun and amazing, but really aren't. Stan admires these people because they've done things he hasn't -- in business -- and because it's fun to be feted. So he makes choices to go along because it's fun in the short run, even if it doesn't result in anything last. That alones make it difficult for the best ideas to prevail, even if age were not a factor.

 

Fact is the 60s at Marvel were a perfect storm of abilities, wherewithal and timing, with a handful of real geniuses and a good many others who were at least damn good. But Stan was the essential ingredient to it all.

 

(and please, don't show embarrassing bias by saying, yes he was... "because he was a great salesman")

[Prince Namor]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

I agree.

And you make my point somewhat for me in your last post.

For Kirby, the ideas are always there, he just had more success when he had someone to help flesh them out. (Though the argument has been made that New Gods was just fine, DC made the mistake of canceling it. Personally, I think the breakneck pace that Kirby created new ideas and characters during that series is absolutely amazing).

 

The success of any of it, isn't really the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just straight out ask it.

Was Stan a crafty opportunist with mediocre writing skills that aptly took advantage of work for hire artists to benefit the company he worked for and thus, himself?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nearly impossible to dislike the guy (unless your Kirby or Ditko, and I DO empathize with those guys), but I wonder about these things based on what we know.

Just a thought.

 

Ahhh....! That's where we were going off the rails. I was solely looking at their successes to make my point that they worked best as a team. They might not have actually needed each other but they were certainly at their best when collaborating.

 

As for your Stan question. Sort of. I think he had the talent all along, just like Kirby. I wonder if Kirby helped to mold him, in a way, using Kirby's ideas. Stan was a solid work horse prior to FF #1, but I doubt we will ever know if it was because his talent was limited internally or if it was limited by the publisher. The idea was to make what sold and if the mediocre horror stories sold, then they would have kept them coming.

 

Going back to the Challengers being the prototype of the FF, look at the similarities. Both groups are primarily explorers. One has a member named Rocky, the other has a member that is rocky. Both are lead by a scientific genius. Challengers had a sense of humor to it and FF just stepped it up a bit. One group was close friends the other took it a step farther and made the group a real family. The big difference is that the FF had a true nemesis in Dr. Doom while the Challs just drifted along. The Challengers had relative success while the FF became a cultural icon. In my mind, that is the difference Stan Lee made.

 

Prior to Kirby's influence, Lee did good work. During their time together, he did great work. Once they split up, he went back to good work. What's funny is that you can transpose those names and the statement remains true.

 

I do not believe Stan was a crafty opportunist or that he intentionally took advantage of anyone. I think Stan was a brilliant business man and did what we all try to do. He took care of himself and his family. Stan was given an opportunity and took it. Once he became editor-in-chief, he created the image of the bullpen and just kept expanding that. As it expanded, he just became the face of Marvel because he was the one doing the columns and that gave him the success that he still enjoys today. I don't think he ever said or even thought, "screw those guys, it was all me!" I think that with their departure, he was left to do what he had to do to remain in the good graces of the company and keep his job. If that meant he had to minimize the contributions of others, he did it, even if only to keep his job. The trouble is human nature and physiology kicked in. He eventually couldn't recall the way things really happened and believed the hype. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The thing is, Stan eventually came to believe his own lie, leading to the conflicts now. Just think, if you had to stick to a certain story, even if you knew it wasn't true, and kept telling that story for years or even decades, how well would you remember what really happened? Most people wind up with the memories melted and running together. I believe that is what happened with Stan.

 

I'm not sure anyone could've said it better than this. Really, a truly great understanding and relating of a time that occasionally makes me wonder sometimes when I feel bad for Jack.

I really wish he was here to experience the resurgence of interest in his greatest work. Instead he passed at a time when people were trading SA books for the hot new Valiant or Image book and making fun of his latest work. Sad.

I certainly don't hold it against Stan, that he IS here to enjoy the 'victory tour's' of the last couple of years (I've said before that I think Goodman was the villain in all of this) he deserves his recognition for his part in it.

I just wish Jack could've enjoyed something like that towards the end.

I'll never believe Stan was a 'great writer', but he WAS an exceptional ideal-man, a great PR guy and a true lightning rod - someone who can bring out the best in others. It brought out the best in many others, and it certainly brought out the best in Jack.

(Though I still say New Gods, if he could've finished it, could've been his masterpiece!)

Thanks for the insight I really appreciate it!

[Prince Namor]

This is one of my favorite unending arguments! It's fun to see how each side makes and defends their points. As long as it remains civil and doesn't turn into a lot of bashing, it's all good.

 

I agree.

And you make my point somewhat for me in your last post.

For Kirby, the ideas are always there, he just had more success when he had someone to help flesh them out. (Though the argument has been made that New Gods was just fine, DC made the mistake of canceling it. Personally, I think the breakneck pace that Kirby created new ideas and characters during that series is absolutely amazing).

 

The success of any of it, isn't really the point I'm trying to make, so I'll just straight out ask it.

Was Stan a crafty opportunist with mediocre writing skills that aptly took advantage of work for hire artists to benefit the company he worked for and thus, himself?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nearly impossible to dislike the guy (unless your Kirby or Ditko, and I DO empathize with those guys), but I wonder about these things based on what we know.

Just a thought.

 

Ahhh....! That's where we were going off the rails. I was solely looking at their successes to make my point that they worked best as a team. They might not have actually needed each other but they were certainly at their best when collaborating.

 

As for your Stan question. Sort of. I think he had the talent all along, just like Kirby. I wonder if Kirby helped to mold him, in a way, using Kirby's ideas. Stan was a solid work horse prior to FF #1, but I doubt we will ever know if it was because his talent was limited internally or if it was limited by the publisher. The idea was to make what sold and if the mediocre horror stories sold, then they would have kept them coming.

 

Going back to the Challengers being the prototype of the FF, look at the similarities. Both groups are primarily explorers. One has a member named Rocky, the other has a member that is rocky. Both are lead by a scientific genius. Challengers had a sense of humor to it and FF just stepped it up a bit. One group was close friends the other took it a step farther and made the group a real family. The big difference is that the FF had a true nemesis in Dr. Doom while the Challs just drifted along. The Challengers had relative success while the FF became a cultural icon. In my mind, that is the difference Stan Lee made.

 

Prior to Kirby's influence, Lee did good work. During their time together, he did great work. Once they split up, he went back to good work. What's funny is that you can transpose those names and the statement remains true.

 

I do not believe Stan was a crafty opportunist or that he intentionally took advantage of anyone. I think Stan was a brilliant business man and did what we all try to do. He took care of himself and his family. Stan was given an opportunity and took it. Once he became editor-in-chief, he created the image of the bullpen and just kept expanding that. As it expanded, he just became the face of Marvel because he was the one doing the columns and that gave him the success that he still enjoys today. I don't think he ever said or even thought, "screw those guys, it was all me!" I think that with their departure, he was left to do what he had to do to remain in the good graces of the company and keep his job. If that meant he had to minimize the contributions of others, he did it, even if only to keep his job. The trouble is human nature and physiology kicked in. He eventually couldn't recall the way things really happened and believed the hype. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The thing is, Stan eventually came to believe his own lie, leading to the conflicts now. Just think, if you had to stick to a certain story, even if you knew it wasn't true, and kept telling that story for years or even decades, how well would you remember what really happened? Most people wind up with the memories melted and running together. I believe that is what happened with Stan.

 

Stan bashing comes in two forms.

 

One is the out and out he was a hack; he did nothing, etc. It doesn't come close to holding up under scrutiny, but some people push it anyway.

 

The other has been adopted more recently by people who want to bash Stan by sounding more reasonable -- i.e.e he was a great salesman and a decent editor, etc. Or, strangely, that he was a great businessman, when all the indications are that he doesn't really understand business.

 

Anybody who's actually talked with Stan, way back when or recently, can tell you he's a fount ot ideas, good and bad. He had an amazing streak in the 60s when a very high percentage of it was good -- not just with Kirby but with many others as well. None of them, without Stan, ever did work as good before, or after. You may feel Captain America 1940s edition did, but in the 40s he never came close to seeming like a real person, as he did in the 60s.

 

Stan continues to come up with good ideas, but almost nobody he's collaborating has both of two essential things going for them which are 1) being as good as Kirby, Ditko, romita, et al and 2) not being intimidated by him because they grew up reading his stuff. That, plus the world has changed so much and Stan and his modern partners are not able to do things in an executive vaccuum, as Stan was able to do in the 60s. Goodman never gave notes the way modern entertainment execs do. Today it's much more about the deal and the glitter, and Stan loves both. (In the entertainment industry, with great power comes great distraction) Many of his partners in recent years have not been the most talented people in the world but businesspeople who see him as a commodity, and they come to him whth deals that sound fun and amazing, but really aren't. Stan admires these people because they've done things he hasn't -- in business -- and because it's fun to be feted. So he makes choices to go along because it's fun in the short run, even if it doesn't result in anything last. That alones make it difficult for the best ideas to prevail, even if age were not a factor.

 

Fact is the 60s at Marvel were a perfect storm of abilities, wherewithal and timing, with a handful of real geniuses and a good many others who were at least damn good. But Stan was the essential ingredient to it all.

 

(and please, don't show embarrassing bias by saying, yes he was... "because he was a great salesman")

 

When it comes to art vs commerce, I will always take the side of art. Thats why I love comics. For me it's about the creative process.

I AM biased towards Jack. He gave his life to the work and he didn't reap the rewards of it the way many publisher's did who gladly took advantage of many of the artists throughout the history of comics.

 

I'm not bashing Stan. I'm not a 'Stan basher'.

I appreciate the guy and his part in making some of the most remembered comics in the history of it all. I grew up reading those stories and getting caught up in the excitement of it all that he helped provide.

 

But the system as it was before, as it was then and as it was through the 80's pushed a great deal of creative talent away from mainstream comics or at the very least made them wary of what they were getting into.

And instead it brought opportunists.

I sometimes think that Liefeld, McFarlane and Jim Lee have more in common with Stan than they do the artists' of the past they've trumpeted the cause for. They seemed more concerned with taking advantage of opportunities, instead of creating the best comics of that era.

Which of course is a misunderstanding of the message from Stan, but nevertheless.

They may have praised Kirby (after his passing, anyway), but they saw how HE ended up being treated by an industry he gave so much to, and wanted to instead make sure that they didn't end up the same way.

Ultimately that doesn't make for the best comics.

[Prince Namor]

Stan Lee's silver age collaboration with Don Heck yielded characters such as the Crimson Dynamo, the Black Widow, Hawkeye, the Swordsman, the Mandarin and the Titanium Man.

 

They may not be as noteworthy as Spidey or the FF, but they are proof that Stan could co-create long lasting characters in the silver age apart from Kirby or Ditko.

 

 

Absolutely, but they are all second tier characters. Just like Kirby's Fourth World and Ditko's Creeper and Hawk and Dove are all second tier characters at best. They were all very creative men but they were at their peak abilities when they worked together.

 

Darkseid....

[ReverendDoyle]

Jack Kirby had Joe Simon before he ever had Stan Lee. I'd say they were pretty successful for their time. Ditko did do a lot of stuff before he worked with Stan Lee. I do agree that none of it was very memorable. Having said all that, what Lee and Kirby, and Lee and Ditko did was awesome but it will never be repeated. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Together they created something magical and none of them separately could catch lightning in a bottle again. I don't think they'd even be able to do it together again if they had wanted to. It was a magic time and that time is long gone.

[bluechip]

I find it odd that people who like comics often indicate that they think art and commerce are as different as art and writing. As if writing itself requires no creative talents.

 

Kirby was a genius, with a very particular style. So is Ditko. So is Romita. And so was Buscema. Colan, Ayers, Steranko, Trimpe, Mooney and others were also extremely good at what they did.

 

And Stan was not just a writer. He was a writer and editor who had worked on countless comic scripts, mastering all kinds of formats, for 20 years. To this day he can decontruct virtually any story or scene from any medium, because he's lived and breathed storytelling all his life. He was not just a "lightning rod" or a "huckster" or somebody who was "able to bring out the best in artists," and very often when people write that it's plain as day they're trying to imply that Marvel's magic wasn't as much about the writing as it was about the art. And that just ain't so.

 

 

 

 

 

Almost anybody can draw.

 

And almost anybody can write a sentence.

 

And almost anybody can come up with an idea for a superhero.

 

But not everybody can do any of the above in ways that make other people want to spend time and money looking at or reading what they've done.

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

I find it odd that people who like comics often indicate that they think art and commerce are as different as art and writing. As if writing itself requires no creative talents.

 

Just because I can draw, I don't think there is no difference between me and Kirby.

 

Almost anybody can draw.

 

And almost anybody can write a sentence.

 

And almost anybody can come up with an idea for a superhero.

 

But not everybody can do any of the above in ways that make other people want to spend time and money looking at or reading what they've done.

 

You'll have to explain this, as I have no clue what you're talking about here.

No one said writing requires no creative talent.

I'd be the last person to ever say that as the people I admire the most are in some form exceptionally gifted writers.

 

If you've somehow misunderstood me, and think that I believe Stan's only talent was promotion or that he couldn't write, well let me clarify and say that, no, that is not what I meant.

 

Do I believe Stan Lee is a great writer? Very debatable.

A great plotter, a great story idea man, a great planner, a great promoter, a great creator of comics, a great COMIC BOOK WRITER for the time.... absolutely. One of the most important one's, if not THE most well known one in the history of comics.

 

 

[MedicAR]

Stan bashing comes in two forms.

 

One is the out and out he was a hack; he did nothing, etc. It doesn't come close to holding up under scrutiny, but some people push it anyway.

 

The other has been adopted more recently by people who want to bash Stan by sounding more reasonable -- i.e.e he was a great salesman and a decent editor, etc. Or, strangely, that he was a great businessman, when all the indications are that he doesn't really understand business.

 

Anybody who's actually talked with Stan, way back when or recently, can tell you he's a fount ot ideas, good and bad. He had an amazing streak in the 60s when a very high percentage of it was good -- not just with Kirby but with many others as well. None of them, without Stan, ever did work as good before, or after. You may feel Captain America 1940s edition did, but in the 40s he never came close to seeming like a real person, as he did in the 60s.

 

Stan continues to come up with good ideas, but almost nobody he's collaborating has both of two essential things going for them which are 1) being as good as Kirby, Ditko, romita, et al and 2) not being intimidated by him because they grew up reading his stuff. That, plus the world has changed so much and Stan and his modern partners are not able to do things in an executive vaccuum, as Stan was able to do in the 60s. Goodman never gave notes the way modern entertainment execs do. Today it's much more about the deal and the glitter, and Stan loves both. (In the entertainment industry, with great power comes great distraction) Many of his partners in recent years have not been the most talented people in the world but businesspeople who see him as a commodity, and they come to him whth deals that sound fun and amazing, but really aren't. Stan admires these people because they've done things he hasn't -- in business -- and because it's fun to be feted. So he makes choices to go along because it's fun in the short run, even if it doesn't result in anything last. That alones make it difficult for the best ideas to prevail, even if age were not a factor.

 

Fact is the 60s at Marvel were a perfect storm of abilities, wherewithal and timing, with a handful of real geniuses and a good many others who were at least damn good. But Stan was the essential ingredient to it all.

 

(and please, don't show embarrassing bias by saying, yes he was... "because he was a great salesman")

 

So you're saying that we're bashing Stan? If I were bashing him, I would say that he was a hack, an editor that was overpowered by the talent he was supposed to guide, or that he was a salesman. I would say those things, but they're not true. Stan has (or had) a knack for dialogue, but dialogue alone isn't story-telling. He was a great editor and that shows through how tight knit the Marvel Universe used to be. Like it or not, he's an amazing salesman.

 

Stan was most certainly NOT the essential ingredient. If that were the case, his BOOM! books would be at the top of the sales charts. I know I keep picking on Ravage 2099, but he put it out at the peak of the comics boom and all it did was leave streaks on the sides of the bowl. What about the "Just Imagine..." books? He was teamed with some of the absolute best artists in the business and the books were mediocre at best.

 

Would you care to name the other successes Stan Lee has had since the Silver Age at Marvel? I did, I mentioned that he propelled Marvel into becoming the powerhouse it is today. He didn't do it by creating characters with other artists or telling stories, he did it by selling the brand. He did it by editing and putting his touches on other creators' work. He did it by making the readers feel like close friends or even family. Maybe he didn't understand business, but he knew what sold and how to sell it. If that's not being a good businessman, I don't know what is. People who have no idea about comics and their creators recognize Stan Lee's name. Is that because he is a NY Times best selling author or because he has marketed Marvel and himself for about 50 years? I've heard the same thing about Sam Walton (founded Wal-Mart), that he didn't understand business. Of course, that's said by people with business degrees who have ruined the empire he built. Sam knew that he wanted to do two things, sell American products and sell them as cheap as possible while still making a profit. He stood behind the products he sold with a no-questions-asked return policy. People loved that. Now we have professional business people running the stores that are full of Chinese products and I'd rather eat broken glass than have to visit one of them.

 

Stan is what he is. He's an energetic guy. He's one of the founders of an amazing company. What is not is a great writer. He can shape ideas and build on them, he may even come up with a lot of ideas. I love the guy and I'm dying to meet him and spend a few minutes with him.

 

All I'm saying is that Marvel wouldn't have been what it was or be what it has become without Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, or Stan Lee. Remove any one of them and the House of Ideas becomes a house of cards.

[MedicAR]

I'm not sure anyone could've said it better than this. Really, a truly great understanding and relating of a time that occasionally makes me wonder sometimes when I feel bad for Jack.

I really wish he was here to experience the resurgence of interest in his greatest work. Instead he passed at a time when people were trading SA books for the hot new Valiant or Image book and making fun of his latest work. Sad.

I certainly don't hold it against Stan, that he IS here to enjoy the 'victory tour's' of the last couple of years (I've said before that I think Goodman was the villain in all of this) he deserves his recognition for his part in it.

I just wish Jack could've enjoyed something like that towards the end.

I'll never believe Stan was a 'great writer', but he WAS an exceptional ideal-man, a great PR guy and a true lightning rod - someone who can bring out the best in others. It brought out the best in many others, and it certainly brought out the best in Jack.

(Though I still say New Gods, if he could've finished it, could've been his masterpiece!)

Thanks for the insight I really appreciate it!

 

Thanks! I've been either listening to debates about it or engaging in them since I was about 14. I almost always learn something, and I've take both sides of the argument at one time or another. It's fun, fascinating and frustrating because no matter how well constructed any argument, whether it is for or against any of the creators, someone has some nugget that casts doubt. I'm not talking opinions, but actual solid evidence. Stan was responsible for it all, so what happened with Ravage 2099? Jack was the sole creator and real genius that dreamed it all up, so what about Silver Star? All of this was before so many of the margin notes were available to be studied and debated. Until the last decade or so, both sides were so entrenched that they both always left bitter and bloody with no compromise.

 

I think that as more information and items become available, generally on the internet, both side are learning that the truth was likely in the middle all along.

 

As for Jack, I am really saddened that he didn't get to live long enough to see how big it all became, too. I learned early on that there was more to comics than just the new stuff on the shelf every week. Between some of the clerks in my LCS and the cheap SA books, I picked up on how great the old stuff was. I could pick up a new book for 60¢ or two old ones for 50¢-$1. I usually kept my buying balanced and learned to love the old Marvels. From there I learned to love Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, Larry Lieber, Gene Colan, Jim Steranko, Stan Lee, Wally Wood, and more. Then I found out about Kirby doing the stuff at Pacific and was really disappointed. It just wasn't the same and that was the consensus. I don't recall anyone making fun of him, outside of the "cinder block" head comments, but there was a lot of pity and sympathy. We all wanted him to do well and it just wasn't there.

 

Stan and Jack were both good creators, but as a team they were amazing!

[MedicAR]

Darkseid....

 

Will you give up on the New Gods?

 

[MedicAR]

Jack Kirby had Joe Simon before he ever had Stan Lee. I'd say they were pretty successful for their time. Ditko did do a lot of stuff before he worked with Stan Lee. I do agree that none of it was very memorable. Having said all that, what Lee and Kirby, and Lee and Ditko did was awesome but it will never be repeated. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Together they created something magical and none of them separately could catch lightning in a bottle again. I don't think they'd even be able to do it together again if they had wanted to. It was a magic time and that time is long gone.

 

That's where I was going, Kirby was always better with a regular collaborator, whether it was Lee or Simon. I can't imagine why, but he somehow needed that. It wasn't that his ideas were bad, they just weren't exceptional.

 

The same can be said for Stan Lee. In the early days there were Kirby and Ditko, later it was primarily Romita. Once he lost the consistent partner, it all went south.

 

Maybe that's where the idea that married people live longer comes from!