Jack Kirby's Son Comments On New Stan Lee Documentary 3 3

[Aman619]

Look again at the dates on those court documents.  This monumental deal involving Stan Lees ownership rights to all the Marvel Character was settled amicably and signed in a few months!?  Peter Paul used Stan’s leverage with the characters.  Not Stan.  That’s the wording in the contract.  Peter and Ike both got the deal they wanted.  Ike secured a freedom from any future threat of litigation with Stan over the characters.  Peter Paul got Stan to front his new company, free and clear to use Stan’s involvement with marvel characters in the marketing of Stan and SLM.  
 

Stan relinquished any ownership right that he MAY have had to the Marvel characters for a handful of beans: to go into business with Peter Paul.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Aman619

[Prince Namor]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:03 PM, Aman619 said:

somehow you missed the part about Peter Paul pulling Stan's strings during this time in this negotiation with Marvel.  I may have forgotten the legal ins and outs that led to the deal they made, but the spirit of it was as I wrote it in a simplified way. Certainly it wasn't as cut and dried as I described it with all the lawyers involved and Ike and Avi seeking to ensure that Stan would never be a legal problem for them.

Stan did not CREATE Stan Lee Media.  It was all Peter Paul's doing. Stan was just the public face of it. trust me on this.  You know lots about Stan Lee, so you know business acumen was not his forte. I dont say that Peter Paul was the mastermind with Stan as his puppet as a point in Stans favor. If you saw them together in these days you'd see it was obvious Stan was a sheep in Peter Paul's grasp and control.  Stan was in his 70s and out at Marvel. The same instincts that used to trust his handlers 20 years later were there in his dealings with Peter Paul.  Putty in his hands.

I have no doubt that Peter Paul was a slime ball, and I have no doubt he sought to benefit from his relationship with Stan Lee, BUT...

The wording of those documents is CLEAR. Stan used those characters to get his original lifetime contract, and he used the threat of claiming ownership of them after he got fired, to get his $1 Million a year* for the rest of his life. 

Peter Paul may've put SLM together, but Stan clearly understood the why behind it.

You said:

And NONE OF THEM ended up owning ANY of it!  Stans later wealth came from his relationship to the fans etc, he was deemed necessary to maintain Marvel in the public's eye to the tune of a mil a year.  It was money well spent.  Avi and Ike initially wanted to let Stan go but soon relented with his 1M deal. 

Which clearly untrue.

 

*The contract was actually worth quite a bit more than that. As an example, Legal documents show that he was paid an additional $125,000 a year for the Spider-man newspaper comic strip, that he never wrote - he farmed it out from the beginning. Roy Thomas was one of his ghostwriter's on it for 20 years, who he paid $15,000 a year....

[Prince Namor]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:33 PM, Aman619 said:

Look again at the dates on those court documents.  This monumental deal involving Stan Lees ownership rights to all the Marvel Character was settled amicably and signed in a few months!?  Peter Paul used Stan’s leverage with the characters.  Not Stan.  That’s the wording in the contract.  Peter and Ike both got the deal they wanted.  Ike secured a freedom from any future threat of litigation with Stan over the characters.  Peter Paul got Stan to front his new company, free and clear to use Stan’s involvement with marvel characters in the marketing of Stan and SLM.  
 

Stan relinquished any ownership right that he MAY have had to the Marvel characters for a handful of beans: to go into business with Peter Paul.

LOL. Yeah, ok. 

Are you not familiar with the full terms of the deal?

[Prince Namor]

A few other notes about the Peter Paul/Stan Lee SLM deal... Peter Paul put $500,000 of his own money in, under the impression that the Marvel characters were going to be a part of the deal - because that's ALL that Stan put into the business was his IP rights including the Marvel characters (which would've made it a GREAT deal).

Why would Stan do that, unless... 

Well, I'm no lawyer, but its pretty transparent to see that Marvel wasn't going to let go of those characters. Lee knew EXACTLY what he was doing. 

Stan Lee Media sought bankruptcy protection in 2001.

Lee testified against his friend Peter Paul.

"I was set-up as the fall guy," Paul tells a reporter by phone.

"But if the legal process works as it should...I will be vindicated."

 

BARRON'S: "In 2002, Stan Lee sued Marvel Entertainment on a previously undisclosed contract. It turned out that in November 1998 -- a month after assigning his intellectual property to Stan Lee Media -- Lee had gone to Marvel claiming half-ownership of Spider-Man, the X-Men and other characters, since Marvel had cancelled his previous rights assignment in its bankruptcy. Lee got a new contract for up to $1 million in annual salary and 10% of movie and TV profits, assigning Marvel his rights in those characters. So, come 2002, Spider-Man: The Movie had grossed more than $1 billion and Lee invoked that contract and sued. Their 2005 settlement was sealed, but Marvel later reported a $10 million charge for it."

[comicwiz]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:59 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s the Peter Paul era. Do you know much about him?  Besides the financial crimes with SLM that caused him to flee the country to Brazil?

he was a guy in LA political and business circles. Stan’s office at Saban had pics of him with with famous pols. These photo op meetings were set up PPaul.  He latched onto Stan and saw potential in Stan for himself. After the marvel bankruptcy with Ike and Avi getting Marvel, PP got his chance when Ike said  “what do we need you for Stan?” (They wanted to cut him off from his deal)

PP got Stan to go into business with him as Stan Lee Media to create an online (the hot new thing in town) comics universe. Stan went to Ike and said okay, I’ll go, but I have a new gig and I want to be allowed to use Marvel characters in my promotion with this company. Ike said sure — happy to not have to pay Stan all that dough.  

Funny thing though — SLM worked! It was a public company and pretty quickly, with Stan onboard as Creative figurehead, the stock was worth more than Marvel!  Press pieces said they could buy Marvel at one point (Marvel was still a penny stock re-emerging from bankruptcy…)
 

…and they probably should have bought Marvel because SLM soon imploded along with many many Web 1.0 startups. Plus PP was playing financial games with the stock running afoul of the SEC after it crashed. Like Bankman Fried and others since then. 
 

Stan had no part in all that - given his poor business sense - he was along for the ride as PP looked like a genius at first. They never created any characters of any notoriety. But in fairness, very few hit long lasting comics characters were created around then. Or all that often ever, really. 
 

So the SLM mess has no bearing on Stan as success or failure. It was a pump and dump by PP that succeeded briefly due to the internet connection and Stan’s rep as a comic genius. All fluff. At this stage of Stan’s career, he was all marketing front man for characters created by committee. That description may sound just like his stint at Marvel on the surface. But Stan was infinitely more involved creatively building Marvel than he was cashing in on “Stan Lee” being used as a piece in Peter Paul’s shenanigans. 

Agree to disagree. I didn't even get into other failed ventures. I might have seen your side IF they had chosen to call it anything other than Stan Lee Media.

Imagine using your own name - not the brightest thing to be doing unless it's an extension of your spotlight stealing shtick - only this time, it backfires badly. Reminds me of when I read an interview and he mentioned J.C. not wanting to pursue her career as an artist out of fear someone would benefit from her work. That's some family karma boomerang mess right there, and so I find it ironic and rich to hear about Stan being bamboozled as any excuse to say it's not on him. 

What did become apparent is he had terrible advice from people around him, and that included no one telling him that people offering him spotlight stealing gigs after his stealing of writer pay dried-up, and which he must have seen as a boom to his appearance gig hustle, would be used on him like a popular scam, only in Lee"s case, he falls for it every time and becomes his own true believer.

Edited June 30, 2023 by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

Yep. Stan agreed to sign on to a deal featuring his IP, that without the Marvel characters would amount to about $0 in value. 

 

Kirby IP's that are still in print from 1970 on:

New Gods, Mister Miracle, Kamandi, Omac, and even Captain America Madbomb.

Still being read today. 

 

[Aman619]

On 6/29/2023 at 9:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

A few other notes about the Peter Paul/Stan Lee SLM deal... Peter Paul put $500,000 of his own money in, under the impression that the Marvel characters were going to be a part of the deal - because that's ALL that Stan put into the business was his IP rights including the Marvel characters (which would've made it a GREAT deal).

Why would Stan do that, unless... 

Well, I'm no lawyer, but its pretty transparent to see that Marvel wasn't going to let go of those characters. Lee knew EXACTLY what he was doing. 

Stan Lee Media sought bankruptcy protection in 2001.

Lee testified against his friend Peter Paul.

"I was set-up as the fall guy," Paul tells a reporter by phone.

"But if the legal process works as it should...I will be vindicated."

 

BARRON'S: "In 2002, Stan Lee sued Marvel Entertainment on a previously undisclosed contract. It turned out that in November 1998 -- a month after assigning his intellectual property to Stan Lee Media -- Lee had gone to Marvel claiming half-ownership of Spider-Man, the X-Men and other characters, since Marvel had cancelled his previous rights assignment in its bankruptcy. Lee got a new contract for up to $1 million in annual salary and 10% of movie and TV profits, assigning Marvel his rights in those characters. So, come 2002, Spider-Man: The Movie had grossed more than $1 billion and Lee invoked that contract and sued. Their 2005 settlement was sealed, but Marvel later reported a $10 million charge for it."

Im beginning to think you really believe Stan was the mastermind in these dealings! Thats goes against your Stan did nothing shtick. I always say you cant have it both ways. A politician cant be a know-nothing dope and a shrewd mastermind in global conspiracies.   Same for Stan here:  the financial genius who cant create and manipulates his way to the top, while losing at every turn to Goodman, Ike, Peter Paul and to his latter days handlers.  Stan did this and Stan did that.  You realize that he went running to his lawyers and Peter Paul saying WHAT DO I DO NOW, and THEY say let me read your contracts, and then they come up with the threat of his ownership of the characters. It was a tenuous but plausible nuisance lawsuit that yielded his new deal including freedom to become Pauls NEW MEDIA pipedream Stan Lee Media.  and, what would you have named the company whose only asset was Stan's involvement and the gimmick of Stan re inventing comics for the online age? Somehow Paul almost pulled it off until the online bust wiped them out after he had played fast and loose with the cash too.

Peter Paul saying he was setup and would be vindicated is what the crooks always say "I didn't do it, they did this to me."  I dont really recall, isn't he still in prison in Brazil? or was he sent back to stand trial?

Finally you seem to be upset that Stan got 10M plus the 1M a year for his involvement in Marvels and the creation of the characters.  But not that Jack got 50M years later using the same threat.  Im sure you believe that Stan's "ownership" threat to Marvel was weaker than Kirby's. so your man won in the end. Financially.  But I always felt he took home more than Stan in the 60s.  Then again, you tell me Im sure you have their 1099s.  (actually that woud be interesting, right?)

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Aman619

[Prince Namor]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

Im beginning to think you really believe Stan was the mastermind in these dealings!

If there's one thing Stan did consistently from the time Goodman sold Marvel, it was to protect his OWN interest in those characters.

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

Thats goes against your Stan did nothing shtick.

I've never said that. Ever. 

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

I always say you cant have it both ways. A politician cant be a know-nothing dope and a shrewd mastermind in global conspiracies.   Same for Stan here:  the financial genius who cant create and manipulates his way to the top, while losing at every turn to Goodman, Ike, Peter Paul and to his latter days handlers.  Stan did this and Stan did that.  You realize that he went running to his lawyers and Peter Paul saying WHAT DO I DO NOW, and THEY say let me read your contracts, and then they come up with the threat of his ownership of the characters. It was a tenuous but plausible nuisance lawsuit that yielded his new deal including freedom to become Pauls NEW MEDIA pipedream Stan Lee Media.  and, what would you have named the company whose only asset was Stan's involvement and the gimmick of Stan re inventing comics for the online age? Somehow Paul almost pulled it off until the online bust wiped them out after he had played fast and loose with the cash too.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but Stan benefited from the deal put together using HIS name, and HIS IP. Because of THAT deal, SLM was never really ever going to be anything. Was there more to it than just that? I'm sure there was. I'm positive there was. So was the law. But ultimately THIS was situation that would've never happened without Stan Lee's involvement. 

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

Peter Paul saying he was setup and would be vindicated is what the crooks always say "I didn't do it, they did this to me."  I dont really recall, isn't he still in prison in Brazil? or was he sent back to stand trial?

He broke the law. He was brought back and under house arrest for 4 years. He later went to jail on some other charge. He had a long history of shady deals. People question why Stan was involved with the guy in the first place.

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

Finally you seem to be upset that Stan got 10M plus the 1M a year for his involvement in Marvels and the creation of the characters.  

I'm just stating facts - it could be $10,000 or $10 Million - the part of it that's important to me is that he used the characters as leverage to make his deal. It's an important fact to be able to show people when they write things like 'Stan never cared about owning the characters' and 'Marvel needed him for the fans'. 

On 6/29/2023 at 11:13 PM, Aman619 said:

But not that Jack got 50M years later using the same threat.  Im sure you believe that Stan's "ownership" threat to Marvel was weaker than Kirby's. so your man won in the end. Financially.  But I always felt he took home more than Stan in the 60s.  Then again, you tell me Im sure you have their 1099s.  (actually that woud be interesting, right?)

I'm happy the Kirby estate was able to settle with Marvel, though no one seems to know what the settlement is, so I'm not sure where you get this 50M number. And Kirby did NOT make more than Lee did in the 60's, that's just didn't happen. Stan had a Rolls Royce COLLECTION by the late 60's...

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 3:01 PM, Aman619 said:

Statements by Jack supporters like yours above always -- at some point -- reverse course and allow a little praise for Stan.

You dont have to attack Stan to win your case, or belittle his contributions or his creativity or storytelling skills. 

I'm going to ask you respectfully not to put words in my mouth, rope me in with TCJ supporters of an interview I haven't referenced, or outright lie and say that I have "attacked" Stan (I haven't- once), or belittle.

I've done none of those things but I suspect you know this. You also claimed Prince Namor said Stan did nothing.

I can't make it clearer. You guys are off discussing Peter Paul and all this other stuff- I'm not concerned with that. Again- all I'm saying is Stan gets too much credit. Stan deserves credit. Whether I think so or not. That has never been my point- I'm not speaking for other people.

The fact that one man can say "Stan got too much credit, got credit for things he didn't do" makes so many other grown men fragile and triggered to the point where they'll get sassy and insulting from behind a computer screen... wow. At least Jimbo is willing to meet face to face and discuss these things. (And even offered me dinner- thanks Jim!)

I could care less about these other discussions. My point is simple and doesn't require passive aggressive barbs or personal comments. If you want to say Kirby had no talent for dialogue or Hunger Dogs sucks or Peter Paul did this- that's not what I've been commenting on. I've said that Stan gets too much credit for being the sole creator and he isn't the sole creator.

Saying he's not the sole creator does not diminish Stan's significant contributions, skills or talent. Don't put words in someone's mouth or bunch them in a group because fans in the past were either for or against and couldn't not take sides. I'm not taking sides. I liked Stan. As I said, I got to spend a little time with him albeit via my job and POW! at the time and there was nothing phony about his enthusiasm. But that's not what I've commented on. All I've said is that he's getting too much credit. And this documentary was not valid or fair to his collaborators- not his selected artists- which, apparently, many of you agree with. I'd have said this regardless of whether Neal Kirby spoke up or not. Neal Kirby has an understandable bias that I can't share.

 

[Aman619]

At this point I just want to see the Rolls Royce collection!  Sheesh 

[jimjum12]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:00 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

I'm going to ask you respectfully not to put words in my mouth, rope me in with TCJ supporters of an interview I haven't referenced, or outright lie and say that I have "attacked" Stan (I haven't- once), or belittle.

I've done none of those things but I suspect you know this. You also claimed Prince Namor said Stan did nothing.

I can't make it clearer. You guys are off discussing Peter Paul and all this other stuff- I'm not concerned with that. Again- all I'm saying is Stan gets too much credit. Stan deserves credit. Whether I think so or not. That has never been my point- I'm not speaking for other people.

The fact that one man can say "Stan got too much credit, got credit for things he didn't do" makes so many other grown men fragile and triggered to the point where they'll get sassy and insulting from behind a computer screen... wow. At least Jimbo is willing to meet face to face and discuss these things. (And even offered me dinner- thanks Jim!)

I could care less about these other discussions. My point is simple and doesn't require passive aggressive barbs or personal comments. If you want to say Kirby had no talent for dialogue or Hunger Dogs sucks or Peter Paul did this- that's not what I've been commenting on. I've said that Stan gets too much credit for being the sole creator and he isn't the sole creator.

Saying he's not the sole creator does not diminish Stan's significant contributions, skills or talent. Don't put words in someone's mouth or bunch them in a group because fans in the past were either for or against and couldn't not take sides. I'm not taking sides. I liked Stan. As I said, I got to spend a little time with him albeit via my job and POW! at the time and there was nothing phony about his enthusiasm. But that's not what I've commented on. All I've said is that he's getting too much credit. And this documentary was not valid or fair to his collaborators- not his selected artists- which, apparently, many of you agree with. I'd have said this regardless of whether Neal Kirby spoke up or not. Neal Kirby has an understandable bias that I can't share.

 

It's a good thing Weisinger didn't get wind of all that copyright infringement Jack was doing ... I heard he liked tossing freelancers off of rooftops. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[jimjum12]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:05 AM, Aman619 said:

At this point I just want to see the Rolls Royce collection!  Sheesh 

Stan was probably lying about that too.  GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[jsilverjanet]

Stan Lee is the daddy issue for some of the comic book collectors

 

[NewWorldOrder]

[comicwiz]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:22 AM, jsilverjanet said:

Stan Lee is the ̵d̵a̵d̵d̵y̵ ̵i̵s̵s̵u̵e̵ Millie Vanilli for some of the comic book collectors

 

Fixed that for ya 

[shadroch]

Stan Lee is crucified for supposedly claiming more credit than he deserves for some comics.  Kirby claimed to have been in Normandy in June of 1944, while in reality, he arrived in late August.   Strange how some people prioritize things.

[NewWorldOrder]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:24 AM, shadroch said:

Stan Lee is crucified for supposedly claiming more credit than he deserves for some comics.  Kirby claimed to have been in Normandy in June of 1944, while in reality, he arrived in late August.   Strange how some people prioritize things.

Not taking sides here, but I did recently watch an old interview of Kirby from his house (Thousand Oaks, CA) saying he did in fact arrive after the 1st wave on Normandy.  I never heard him say he was there in June, but well after in Aug/Sept.  However, I did hear him say a German soldier had his gun pointed at him when he did get into battle (Metz, France), and his friend shot the German right before he was going to finish a already wounded Kirby off.  Assuming that is true we were one bullet away from never having all that comic magic.  Crazy!

[Prince Namor]

The post you nested is very unfortunate and... sick.

Anyone who wants to learn about what it was like can watch Jean Depelley's "Kirby at War" documentary online.

The film was extremely eye opening in terms of the trauma it inflicted on Jack. He nearly lost his feet. Being constantly pounded by artillery... seeing his fellow soldiers die and worst of all, having to kill another human being. Roz said it was what he dreamed about.

What a pathetic thing to nit pick someone about. 

Meanwhile, Stan Lee was stateside making VD films. Priorities, indeed.  

Edited July 10, 2023 by Prince Namor

[comicwiz]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

The post you nested is very unfortunate and... sick.

Kirby likened to the Brian Williams' of the world. 

 

On 6/30/2023 at 1:24 PM, shadroch said:

Stan Lee is crucified for supposedly claiming more credit than he deserves for some comics.  Kirby claimed to have been in Normandy in June of 1944, while in reality, he arrived in late August.   Strange how some people prioritize things.

 

 

This is exactly what Kirby claimed:

"I was in the combat infantry. I went to Liverpool first. Then they shipped us to Southampton, which is the port of embarkation for Normandy. I got to Normandy 10 days after the invasion."

Edited June 30, 2023 by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

On 6/30/2023 at 3:57 PM, comicwiz said:

Kirby likened to the Brian Williams' of the world. 

 

 

 

This is exactly what Kirby claimed:

"I was in the combat infantry. I went to Liverpool first. Then they shipped us to Southampton, which is the port of embarkation for Normandy. I got to Normandy 10 days after the invasion."

And later added: