Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1963) Butting Heads, Unexpected Success and Not Expected Failures! 3 3

[Steven Valdez]

The FF was clearly based on Kirby's own Challengers of the Unknown. I really wish someone had put that to S. Lee in an interview.

Even so, the Thing was the only truly original character in the FF, the only one whose combination of powers and appearance had not been done before.

Does the fact that the other three all had derivative powers (direct from Plastic Man, the Golden Age Human Torch and the Invisible Man) suggest that perhaps S. Lee WAS involved in their creation?

[midlife crisis comics]

There's no way Lee did anything other than, at most, rewrite some dialogue. You can be damn sure Kirby turned in a finished product. It's truly astonishing that anyone is left who believes the nonsense surrounding Lee. There are multiple examples of Stan himself explaining the "Marvel Method" and stating outright that Kirby, more so than any other creator, needed nothing more from Lee than a thumbs up for what Jack was planning for a story. And, as Lee also recounts, in the case of the Silver Surfer, Jack really didn't need the thumbs up either.

Like most, as a kid, I bought the fiction that Stan wrote all those comics. But anyone--to paraphrase George Carlin--past the age of reason who still believes that is ridiculous.

Lee also admits, in multiple places, that Ditko would turn in completed stories/art for Spider-Man. Nearly every artist Lee stole credit from is on record somewhere talking about--let's be more clear--the Stan Lee Method: A two minute "story conference" with writer/artists that did not need his help at all, and then changing dialogue on the completed work.

The ironic thing is that, at least by the mid-60s, Lee was really good at writing dialogue. He contributed to making those comics better. He was an asset and that should have been enough. But he wanted more money and credit than he was entitled to. A is A. And Lee was a terrible person.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:32 PM, Steven Valdez said:

The FF was clearly based on Kirby's own Challengers of the Unknown. I really wish someone had put that to S. Lee in an interview.

Even so, the Thing was the only truly original character in the FF, the only one whose combination of powers and appearance had not been done before.

Does the fact that the other three all had derivative powers (direct from Plastic Man, the Golden Age Human Torch and the Invisible Man) suggest that perhaps S. Lee WAS involved in their creation?

And one could argue that the Thing was based on the "Monster of the Month" characters for Marvel ca. 1960. His characterization, granted, was rather unique for the time.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:02 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Well, as both of S.Lee's accounts on the matter contradict each other, he's proven to be lying.

While Stan Lee (and everyone else at Marvel mentioned here) did contradict himself sometimes, it is not a contradiction to retell a story without including mention of a golf game, or to say it might've been the JLA.  People do that kind of stuff all the time. Seizing on minor discrepancies like that and declaring them proof of a lie is to show an extreme bias and working backward from a conclusion -- especially if all minor discrepancies and contradictions are ignored when they're made by the people you're supporting.  Kirby's work is amazing and he got too little credit, but the leaps that people take are sometimes astonishing.  And if you want to hear bizarre comments one creator made about another, Kirby gives you perhaps the best examples of extreme insults when he claims Stan was somebody who had no interest in mythology and "never read" anything, let alone wrote.  He's talking about a guy who devoured as many books as he could and could quote long passages off the cuff from epic poems like the Bhagavad Gita.  There's no way Kirby wasn't exposed to some of that, but his hurt feelings led him to ignore what he'd seen and pepper his genuine complaints with nonsense.  I see similar thought patterns in arguments on his behalf and I read them in passing when I am procrastinating.  But even now I am not thinking this or anything I say will influence people.  I'm not saying this in any hope of influencing the argument because I know there's no way I will ever spend one percent of one percent as much of my life arguing this as some people here have demonstrated they are willing to spend.  But I am interested in the patterns of thinking people engage in when they start with a conclusion and work backwards from that, refusing any details that challenge the pre-conceived conclusion in even the very slightest way.  That's especially so when the conclusion seems to be that one person is 100% perfect and the other is 100% evil.   

[Dr. Haydn]

I like what Jack Kirby said in the Comics Journal interview. "Stan was an editor." 

Yes, Stan Lee made a contribution to the finished product--many would say a positive one. But it was not a creative contribution: it was an editorial one. That is, he revised and refined the stories after the conceptual and creative work was largely complete.

 

[midlife crisis comics]

On 6/21/2023 at 3:28 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

I like what Jack Kirby said in the Comics Journal interview. "Stan was an editor." 

Yes, Stan Lee made a contribution to the finished product--many would say a positive one. But it was not a creative contribution: it was an editorial one. That is, he revised and refined the stories after the conceptual and creative work was largely complete.

 

Exactly. Believing anything else indicates a level of either ignorance or denial that's hard to comprehend. Stan has admitted to this in multiple places--in print--during the 60s and 70s. And no one is saying anyone or their memories are 100% reliable. But any human being with a sense of justice and fairness should be outraged by Stan Lee stealing credit from the real creators. It's despicable. And I'm speaking as someone who used to have great esteem for Lee before I learned the truth.

[Steven Valdez]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:24 AM, midlife crisis comics said:

Exactly. Believing anything else indicates a level of either ignorance or denial that's hard to comprehend. Stan has admitted to this in multiple places--in print--during the 60s and 70s. And no one is saying anyone or their memories are 100% reliable. But any human being with a sense of justice and fairness should be outraged by Stan Lee stealing credit from the real creators. It's despicable. And I'm speaking as someone who used to have great esteem for Lee before I learned the truth.

It's been established that Stan was, in fact, a proofreader.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:44 AM, Steven Valdez said:

It's been established that Stan was, in fact, a proofreader.

...albeit a proofreader who missed a lot of errors!

[sfcityduck]

Stan was a plotter, a dialogue writer, and a marketing genius.  And the thing that set Marvel apart in the SA was largely Stan's dialogue and his unceasing hype.

The mythos of Jack "King" Kirby was a Stan Lee creation. One that slighted Joe Simon.  Far from not giving Jack enough credit, he gave him an outsized reputation! At least he didn't say Jack created Spiderman - that was Jack himself slighting Ditko, right? 

 

[Steven Valdez]

On 6/23/2023 at 5:54 AM, sfcityduck said:

Stan was a plotter, a dialogue writer, and a marketing genius.  And the thing that set Marvel apart in the SA was largely Stan's dialogue and his unceasing hype.

The mythos of Jack "King" Kirby was a Stan Lee creation. One that slighted Joe Simon.  Far from not giving Jack enough credit, he gave him an outsized reputation! At least he didn't say Jack created Spiderman - that was Jack himself slighting Ditko, right? 

 

Now imagine that Kirby and Ditko were not working for Marvel in the '60s. Larry Lieber inked by Don Heck on Fantastic Four and Bob Powell inked by Mr Ayers on Spider-Man... but with snappy dialogue and hype by S. Lee. Sound good?

Edited June 23, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[midlife crisis comics]

On 6/22/2023 at 3:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

Stan was a plotter, a dialogue writer, and a marketing genius.  And the thing that set Marvel apart in the SA was largely Stan's dialogue and his unceasing hype.

The mythos of Jack "King" Kirby was a Stan Lee creation. One that slighted Joe Simon.  Far from not giving Jack enough credit, he gave him an outsized reputation! At least he didn't say Jack created Spiderman - that was Jack himself slighting Ditko, right? 

 

There's no evidence anywhere to suggest Stan plotted anything. And where was his "marketing genius" as Goodman reduced the comic division to barely nothing? 

[sfcityduck]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:57 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Now imagine that Kirby and Ditko were not working for Marvel in the '60s. Larry Lieber inked by Don Heck on Fantastic Four and Bob Powell inked by Mr Ayers on Spider-Man... but with snappy dialogue and hype by S. Lee. Sound good?

You need art and dialogue.  I have read Kirby and Ditko written material and the dialogue universally sucks.  The sum is greater than the parts.  As for what ifs, I quite enjoyed Atlas era superhero art.

[Steven Valdez]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:28 PM, sfcityduck said:

You need art and dialogue.  I have read Kirby and Ditko written material and the dialogue universally sucks.  The sum is greater than the parts.  As for what ifs, I quite enjoyed Atlas era superhero art.

Kirby was dialoguing his own stories, and Stan did a pretty good job of proofreading it. It's hard to say what Kirby's dialogue skills were like in the '60s, as all of it was filtered through Stan. I understand Kirby dialogued his Inhumans work in Amazing Adventures just before quitting Marvel, and that read just fine. 

Ditko was a very strange writer, and thinker for that matter.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[sfcityduck]

On 6/22/2023 at 8:32 PM, Steven Valdez said:

I understand Kirby dialogued his Inhumans work in Amazing Adventures just before quitting Marvel, and that read just fine. 

 

 

Classic stuff.

Edited June 23, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Dr. Haydn]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

Classic stuff.

Hardly different from a late 1960s FF.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:32 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

Hardly different from a late 1960s FF.

It's all a matter of taste.  And not an emotional issue for me.  But I prefer the Stan and Jack combo to Jack with anyone else or on his own. It's not unusual for collaborations to be stronger than individuals. Jack benefitted from working with some good collaborators during the course of his career. So did Stan.

Edited June 23, 2023 by sfcityduck

[midlife crisis comics]

Nearly everyone agrees that Stan contributed to Marvel's success. His dialogue changes were a definite asset. But that has nothing to do with the despicable things he did.

There is no world where editing and/or changing dialogue makes you the writer of a story. He stole money and credit from the people who actually wrote (and drew) those comics. He didn't create anything. And he certainly didn't create Marvel's characters. 
 

And let's be clear--Jack Kirby was the greatest creative force to ever work in comics--prolific, brilliant, and a great person. The idea that Stan Lee created the "mythos" of King Kirby is ridiculous. Kirby's talent spoke for itself--before, during and after he was paired with Lee.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:31 PM, midlife crisis comics said:

And let's be clear--Jack Kirby was the greatest creative force to ever work in comics--prolific, brilliant, and a great person. The idea that Stan Lee created the "mythos" of King Kirby is ridiculous. Kirby's talent spoke for itself--before, during and after he was paired with Lee.

Jack Kirby was the King of the Silver Age.  No doubt. Deserves his spot on the Mt. Rushmore for comic artists because of his SA run. 

Prior to that?  I'd say no.  Despite what Stan said about Jack "King" Kirby.

Frankly, I'd not say Jack was the "King" of Timely. (Simon blew that relationship up with the CA debacle).

Nor was Jack the "King" of GA DC. (Simon proved his business and marketing/hype acumen with the deal he got from DC, but I don't think DC felt it was worth it).

Simon & Kirby had high and low points to their partnership and it eventually split up. They just couldn't make it on their own.

 

 

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:43 PM, sfcityduck said:

Jack Kirby was the King of the Silver Age.  No doubt. Deserves his spot on the Mt. Rushmore for comic artists because of his SA run. 

Prior to that?  I'd say no.  Despite what Stan said about Jack "King" Kirby.

Frankly, I'd not say Jack was the "King" of Timely. (Simon blew that relationship up with the CA debacle).

Captain America was the best selling book Timely Comics ever had. Nothing else matched its numbers. After Burgos' Human Torch, Everett's Sub-Mariner, and then Kirby and Simon's Cap, Timely never really ever had anything else in superheroes that did anything. 

On 6/23/2023 at 7:43 PM, sfcityduck said:

Nor was Jack the "King" of GA DC. (Simon proved his business and marketing/hype acumen with the deal he got from DC, but I don't think DC felt it was worth it).

Boy Commandos was a million copy seller at DC, and so important to them they had Kirby do covers, splash pages and layouts for multiple stories before he went away to war. They appeared in 150 comics between 1942 and 1946. 

Besides that the Newsboy Legion ran for 5 years and 57 issues in Star Spangled Comics, and DC was even using the Kirby & Simon names on the cover to promote the two of them, which was pretty unheard of at the time.

On 6/23/2023 at 7:43 PM, sfcityduck said:

Simon & Kirby had high and low points to their partnership and it eventually split up. They just couldn't make it on their own.

After the war, Kirby and Simon had a blockbuster with Young Romance, and teamed with Young Love they sold two million copies a month, kickstarting the Romance Genre in Comics and bringing on endless copycats.

They did all of this before 1950 even began. 

If comics ended right then and there, they would've been in the Hall of Fame. 

[Prince Namor]

On 6/21/2023 at 2:46 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

While Stan Lee (and everyone else at Marvel mentioned here) did contradict himself sometimes, it is not a contradiction to retell a story without including mention of a golf game, or to say it might've been the JLA.  People do that kind of stuff all the time. Seizing on minor discrepancies like that and declaring them proof of a lie is to show an extreme bias and working backward from a conclusion -- especially if all minor discrepancies and contradictions are ignored when they're made by the people you're supporting. 

One of the ways you can tell if someone is lying, is when they get details in their story wrong, and then change it. As Stan did. That's why people point it out. Stan changed his story on MANY things over the years, when caught in lies.

Stan created the whole JLA numbers story to misdirect attention away from the obvious Challengers of the Unknown connection, which he says he'd never been aware of. Because that would give Kirby more credit than Lee would've wanted. 

On 6/21/2023 at 2:46 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Kirby's work is amazing and he got too little credit,

Credit AND pay. Stan stole both.

On 6/21/2023 at 2:46 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

but the leaps that people take are sometimes astonishing.  And if you want to hear bizarre comments one creator made about another, Kirby gives you perhaps the best examples of extreme insults when he claims Stan was somebody who had no interest in mythology and "never read" anything, let alone wrote.  He's talking about a guy who devoured as many books as he could and could quote long passages off the cuff from epic poems like the Bhagavad Gita. 

Stan Lee quote: "My biggest regret is that I don't have time to read."

"who devoured as many books as he could and could quote long passages off the cuff from epic poems like the Bhagavad Gita."   

I've never seen Stan Lee quote any such thing. In fact, I've never seen him quote anything other jingoistic catch phrases. 

On 6/21/2023 at 2:46 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There's no way Kirby wasn't exposed to some of that, but his hurt feelings led him to ignore what he'd seen and pepper his genuine complaints with nonsense.  I see similar thought patterns in arguments on his behalf and I read them in passing when I am procrastinating.  But even now I am not thinking this or anything I say will influence people.  I'm not saying this in any hope of influencing the argument because I know there's no way I will ever spend one percent of one percent as much of my life arguing this as some people here have demonstrated they are willing to spend.  But I am interested in the patterns of thinking people engage in when they start with a conclusion and work backwards from that,

The conclusion is: Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from his artists. There's no conclusion there to work backwards from. It's FACT. 

On 6/21/2023 at 2:46 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

refusing any details that challenge the pre-conceived conclusion in even the very slightest way.  That's especially so when the conclusion seems to be that one person is 100% perfect and the other is 100% evil.   

Straw man. No one is saying that. That seems to be 'one percent' of your time, giving a 'pre-conceived conclusion'. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Prince Namor