Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1964) The Slow Build 6 6

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 9/10/2024 at 7:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm proud to announce my latest book - Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics', available now on Amazon!

Just in time for the 50th anniversary of this infamous book!

In 1974, Stan Lee released the ‘Origins of Marvel Comics', laying claim to the creation of some of the greatest superheroes in the history of comic books. For 50 years, the lies and inaccuracies of this book have been not only overlooked or outright ignored by the mainstream media (and even many comic journalists), but repeated as FACT.

For the first time, an in depth look at just how inaccurate Lee's story is - fact-checked with modern updated means of information collection and later interviews with the people who were there.

Stan Lee Lied. A LOT.

And that's a fact.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGLQ6BXV/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.IZ32SYIO4ebverGnIqB3vePpXWwNEP4SPZ1DnE1Pnw1mnKJG3q6MdBw3JQBRZnMnEmRef_jEldN7DfXd46gHJIEv0cPKAmARxgwMpqNPyEek6gX4oHAIsWy6VRLh3tqj84p0xf2Pm5jr5crOGM8a3A.NIpq2aqv81RXdyWEMJvudLxuNYgPHvTPMNv4xy6BOPc&qid=1726009443&sr=8-3

I will be buying it on Amazon over the weekend. I heard good reviews about the book. 

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 9/12/2024 at 1:12 PM, Mmehdy said:

The book is fantastic I have learned more about this subject in the first third of the book than I can image. Of course it is controversial ....that what makes it such an entertaining read. Greg Theakston attempted to do it on the now classic  pure images magazine covering the birth of Spiderman, marvel etc and he was a true hero, and I told him so more than one time over a couple of years at SDCC.

 AS far as it being"....independently published" I thank God for that....you could never get the true story out with corporate editing and legal...cheers

Stan Lee is dead...I understand, I met him many times and was there when he signed the FF 12 page and noted his notes on the side...see my early posts....that does not negate the fact about the real...the true marvel story

SFDUCK.... read the book first...then make you judgement...and believe me it is worth every penny...will it change your mind 360 degrees. anything is possible.But here is my challenge to you......get and read it and tell me what your opinion is...it a challenge..open up and then if you say you do not like it...ok you can trash me......but do not trash this masterpiece before you read it.....the ball is in your court...the challenge has been made!!!!

 

What I like is Chaz is giving a voice to Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. That quote is so true "History is written by victors"  What a great life for Stan Lee. He is more well-known than Walt Disney, yet Kirby, Ditko and others are not even known to mainstream. So yeah I am happy Chaz wrote this to give Kirby, Ditko and other artists a voice. 

Edited Sunday at 01:58 PM by The humble Watcher lurking
grammar

[sfcityduck]

On 9/12/2024 at 10:12 AM, Mmehdy said:

The book is fantastic I have learned more about this subject in the first third of the book than I can image. Of course it is controversial ....that what makes it such an entertaining read. Greg Theakston attempted to do it on the now classic  pure images magazine covering the birth of Spiderman, marvel etc and he was a true hero, and I told him so more than one time over a couple of years at SDCC.

 AS far as it being"....independently published" I thank God for that....you could never get the true story out with corporate editing and legal...cheers

Stan Lee is dead...I understand, I met him many times and was there when he signed the FF 12 page and noted his notes on the side...see my early posts....that does not negate the fact about the real...the true marvel story

SFDUCK.... read the book first...then make you judgement...and believe me it is worth every penny...will it change your mind 360 degrees. anything is possible.But here is my challenge to you......get and read it and tell me what your opinion is...it a challenge..open up and then if you say you do not like it...ok you can trash me......but do not trash this masterpiece before you read it.....the ball is in your court...the challenge has been made!!!!

 

Mitch,

I certainly must admit I have not read the book. But I have read the author's threads on this site. I don't expect his book to be less biased than his threads based on its title. And while I know you are a fan of these threads, and I saw you were the first guy to recommend the book on Amazon even before I knew this thread author and "Chaz Gower" were the same individual, I'm pretty sure I won't be ordering up a copy.

Here's what I'll give both you and the author: Stan Lee was a hypester. He said a lot of things that were not entirely accurate in the cause of promoting Marvel Comics, himself, and his colleagues. This included his creation of the Jack "King" Kirby label. So I have no doubt that Lee is vulnerable to accusations of inaccuracy and lies. So is Kirby based on various things he said in interviews etc. (Obvious example: He created Spider-Man? No. He co-created "the Fly" and may have thought about doing a new version called "Spider-Man" but it was nothing like what ultimately was fashioned by Ditko and Lee.) 

While I definitely think there is a place for accurate history on Marvel, I don't think this thread is a place for an unbiased view. The author's assertions on various of his threads would not survive the scrutiny he gives some of Lee's assertions.

I'd prefer to read a more academic and accurate approach that that which I've seen here.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/12/2024 at 12:44 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

What I like is Chaz is giving a voice to Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. That quote is so true "History is written by victors" Like I said before all those artists drew and plotted the book and someone came by and copied and paste dialog. What a great life for Stan Lee. He is more well-known than Walt Disney, yet Kirby, Ditko and others are not even known to mainstream. So yeah I am happy Chaz wrote this to give Kirby, Ditko and other artists a voice. 

Kirby and Ditko never sought celebrity like Stan. Ditko especially. That probably reflects well on them, and it is not a reason to lament the fact they do not have Stan's level of celebrity. They made their choices. While Kirby and Ditko are given creator credit on the MCU movies, Stan appears in them. Again, I don't think Ditko wanted to appear in the movies. So the disparity in public awareness of Lee versus Kirby and Ditko is entirely explicable.

Kirby and Ditko are certainly not two peas in a pod. Kirby may have attempted to diminish Ditko more than anyone by claiming that he, Kirby, created Spider-Man - IMHO Ditko's greatest creation and the character more than any other that ushered in the "Marvel Age." Ditko made his views on that claim pretty well-known. Ditko did not agree. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/13/2024 at 2:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

So is Kirby based on various things he said in interviews etc. (Obvious example: He created Spider-Man? No. He co-created "the Fly" and may have thought about doing a new version called "Spider-Man" but it was nothing like what ultimately was fashioned by Ditko and Lee.) 

Talk about lacking accuracy. 

This is the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants bring up about what you call Kirby's 'inaccuracy', and you get it WRONG.

He brought the Fly to Joe Simon, based upon their Silver Spider idea. He brough Spider-man to Lee based upon their Silver Spider idea and somwwhat based upon the Fly. In other words he created it. 

ESPECIALY based on the conversation of how Lee was saying HE created everything as a 'first sayer'.

Despite that, argueable semantic, in the SAME Interview, Kirby says:

 

We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that….He (Ditko) was a wonderful artist, a wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is.”

- Jack Kirby, interviewed by Gary Groth, The Comics Journal #134, February 1990

And in an Interview about it just a few years earlier said:

But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect. Personality wise, he’s a bit withdrawn, but there are lots of people like that. But Steve Ditko, despite the fact that he doesn’t disco– although he may now; I haven’t seen him for a long time– Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it. There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it.”

- Jack Kirby, Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

But don't let the facts in get in the way of your 'academic' agenda.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/12/2024 at 3:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

Talk about lacking accuracy. 

This is the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants bring up about what you call Kirby's 'inaccuracy', and you get it WRONG.

 

I believe that if you re-read your own threads you will find that various folks holding the opinion that you are too partisan in favor of Kirby have brought up other examples of Jack Kirby "inaccuracies." 

Your assertion here betrays a fault that is not helpful in building academic credibility, and I'm not talking about the typo. No, it is that you grossly overclaim your positions on Stan Lee and those who feel compelled to speak up on his behalf. Do you really believe Kirby's claim he created Spider-Man is "the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants* bring up" about Kirby's inaccuracy?  Of course you don't. Yet you feel compelled to scream that out.

* I sort of like your invention of the word "syncophants." It causes me to think of a Greek choir all singing slogans in sync. Which sadly is too often a thing when arguments are reduced to black and white.

Edited Monday at 04:14 PM by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 9/12/2024 at 3:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that….He (Ditko) was a wonderful artist, a wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is.”

- Jack Kirby, interviewed by Gary Groth, The Comics Journal #134, February 1990

And in an Interview about it just a few years earlier said:

But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect. Personality wise, he’s a bit withdrawn, but there are lots of people like that. But Steve Ditko, despite the fact that he doesn’t disco– although he may now; I haven’t seen him for a long time– Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it. There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it.”

- Jack Kirby, Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

But don't let the facts in get in the way of your 'academic' agenda.

Compare and contrast your two quotes from Kirby:

(1) We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all.

vs.

(2) But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it.

This is not the kind of defense a defendant would appreciate from his lawyer. This defense just highlights Kirby's inconsistent and inaccurate claims regarding Spider-Man. You and I both know that Kirby addressed this issue more than twice. What you have cherry picked is what you view as the two most favorable quotes by Kirby ... and they make Kirby look horribly inconsistent and regretful about his earlier claim.

Other quotes make him look worse. In an interview taken and published in 1982 by Eisner, Kirby said:

Quote

 

EISNER: You mean Spider-Man was cooked up between you and Joe Simon, and you brought it to Stan.

KIRBY: That’s right. It was the last thing Joe and I had discussed. We had a strip called the, or a script called The Silver Spider. The Silver Spider was going into a magazine called Black Magic. Black Magic folded with Crestwood and we were left with the script. I believe I said this could become a thing called Spider-Man, see, a superhero character. I had a lot of faith in the superhero character, that they could be brought back, very, very vigorously. They weren’t being done at the time. I felt they could regenerate and I said Spider-Man would be a fine character to start with. But Joe had already moved on. So the idea was already there when I talked to Stan.

 

Joe Simon reacted to this story in The Comic Book Makers (1990) where he stated with specific reference to the creation of Spider-Man that "There were a few holes in Jack's never-dependable memory." Simon, who was familiar with the Silver Spider, the Fly, and Jack's version of a Spider-Man as a Captain America look alike, in the Comic Book Makers also credited Ditko "who ... ignored Kirby's pages, tossed the character's magic ring, web-pistol and goggles... and completely redesigned Spider-Man's costume and equipment. In this life, he became high-school student Peter Parker, who gets his spider powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. ... Lastly, the Spider-Man logo was redone and a dashing hyphen added."

Even the so called "Kirby Museum" online advocacy group, despite its biases, has published an article acknowledging:

Quote

Jack Kirby has stated clearly time and again that he created Spider-Man, most adamantly in an interview conducted by Will Eisner, and printed in issue #39 of Will Eisner’s Spirit Magazine. (Kitchen Sink Pub. Feb.1982). Kirby maintained his claim even when close friends and assistants advised him not to pursue it. Can he be believed? Well, his memory was spotty, and he has made other claims that have clearly been shown to be wrong. So as a witness, he leaves room for doubt."

(But they, as you would expect, did their best to paste up an argument that Spider-Man was indeed Kirby's creation.) 

In any event, Ditko has never denied Stan credit for involvement in the creative process. Ditko has made clear that he did not rely on Kirby's character design or ideas. Ditko clearly views himself and Lee as the co-creators of the Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 even though Kirby drew the cover (with the character in the costume Ditko designed).

So, as I said in the prior post, I think you always err in favor of Kirby. Another word for that: bias. Again, I'd prefer to read a history which can see the grey areas and not just black and white.

 

Edited September 13 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

Speaking of Kirby's reliability or lack thereof, can someone point me to the comic book story which Kirby is referencing in a 1990 interview wherein he states:

Quote

 

KIRBY: Well, I presaged the atomic bomb two years before it was built because a fellow named Nicola Tesla was working on it in Hungary and he was experimenting with atomics. He was a physicist. And so, I forget what story I put it in, but there it was, I saw it in the paper, and I used it. I used it in my own way, and I got a good story out of it. Two years later, we had the real thing.

Host: Did anyone come and pay you a visit after that came out, because some writers…

KIRBY: Yes, they sent me a letter from the FBI!

Host: What happened?

KIRBY: Nothing!

Host: What did the letter say?

KIRBY: It was just an inquiry, you know. I had to explain that it was all fictional. That it was my version of the thing. There was no mention of an atomic bomb in any newspaper or anything, except that this fellow Nicola Tesla, it was in a magazine, some obscure magazine that I read it in, was experimenting with atomic physics.

Host: But when the FBI paid you a call did you think something’s up somewhere, they’re making one of these things?

KIRBY: No! I was just annoyed! You know?

 

I know of only two stories that appear to have presaged the A-Bomb in comics and I don't believe Kirby was involved with either. Always wondered if this recollection is accurate or just another story. I'd love for the comic book to actually exist because I love that kind of stuff.

As context I should add that Nicola Tesla was living in NYC when he died in 1943 (he had immigrated to the US in the 1880s). I don't believe he had any involvement with the Atomic Bomb. It is possible that Jack's memory had again failed him and he was confusing Tesla with Leo Slizard a Hungarian physicist who was instrumental in the development of the A-Bomb. That detail and Jack's recollection of it is not important to me. Whether the comic exists is.

Edited September 13 by sfcityduck

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

Edited Saturday at 12:10 AM by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:06 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

Oh, and any signs of grieving over friends that you just had to lay off (except for the one who had just gotten torn to bits in a horrific subway accident) should be mocked and taken as proof the grieving person has no talent. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:22 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Oh, and any signs of grieving over friends that you just had to lay off (except for the one who had just gotten torn to bits in a horrific subway accident) should be mocked and taken as proof the grieving person has no talent. 

Bleeding Cooll’s admission the book is a “one-sided” presentation (aka biased) is really hard to reconcile with them running two articles with excerpts on it unless these “reviews” are paid for. BC attempts to defend the assertion in the book that Jack found Stan crying in his office b/c Marvel was going to fail. Their evidence is the opinon of Michael V that it was plausible Stan cried because a few days before Maneeley had died. This is one of the most illogical arguments I have ever seen. It proves the opposite by refuting the “one-sided” assertion in the book that Stan cried due to Marvel failing and instead posits that if Stan did cry it would have been over a close friend's death! But, even then, Michael V's opinion is not factual evidence. It's just speculation that does not support the assertion in the book anyway.

Edited Monday at 05:59 PM by sfcityduck

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 9/16/2024 at 6:20 AM, sfcityduck said:

Bleeding Cooll’s admission the book is a “one-sided” presentation (aka biased) is really hard to reconcile with them running two articles with excerpts on it unless these “reviews” are paid for. BC attempts to defend the assertion in the book that Jack found Stan crying in his office b/c Marvel was going to fail. Their evidence is the opinon of Michael V that it was plausible Stan cried because a few days before Maneeley had died. This is one of the most illogical arguments I have ever seen. It proves the opposite by refuting the “one-sided” assertion in the book that Stan cried due to Marvel failing and instead posits that if Stan did cry it would have been over a close friend's death! But, even then, Michael V's opinion is not factual evidence. It's just speculation that does not support the assertion in the book anyway.

Most likely Stan was not crying at all but visibly saddened.  Either way, he'd just had to lay off people he liked and a good friend had died horrifically. So, tears or no tears, for anybody (Kirby included) to characterize Stan's mood that day as proof that Lee was weak of mind and lacked talent, would be thoughtless at best and, more likely, a sign of weak character in the person making catty remarks about another person's sadness.

Edited Monday at 09:04 PM by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES