WHAT IF: Stan Lee wasn't working at Marvel/Atlas Comics in 1961? 2 2

[Unca Ben]

On 2/21/2024 at 6:10 PM, gunsmokin said:

I’d start with this one. The other was given to another boardie. Both written by Michael Hill. I’d also read Dr. Michael Vassolo’s blog regarding Timely/Atlas/Marvel. I’d consider Doc to be the preeminent expert and still some unbiased.

Thanks!  I am familiar with Vassallo's blog.  but not the Kirby book (pamphlet?) pictured.  I will look it up.  Thanks again!

[gunsmokin]

On 2/21/2024 at 8:17 PM, Unca Ben said:

Thanks!  I am familiar with Vassallo's blog.  but not the Kirby book (pamphlet?) pictured.  I will look it up.  Thanks again!

I’ll be the first to say that Michael Hill is a hardcore Kirby enthusiast and there is plenty of sarcasm involved but it does have somewhat of an academic feel to it. It is a rather thick paperback.

[KCOComics]

 

I appreciate the pro Stan position. 

I'm often disappointed with all the venom thrown at Stan on these boards. And I feel like you can't defend him without the perception that your attacking Jack and Steve. 

 

The fact is,  none of these things happened in a vacuum.  A lot of great people and circumstances came together to create the Marvel Universe.  

I'll share one story that really formed my opinion on Stan. At a Boston ComicCon years ago I got to spend time with Allen Bellman. Allen would have worked with Stan in the early 40s during the Timely days.  

I asked Allen about everyone from those days. When we got to Stan he said that Stan was the hardest working person he ever met.   He worked tirelessly. He was on top of everything.  There earlier than everyone and staying all hours of the night! 

And I think that is what gets lost in the Stan debate.  Put the creative aside, he grew and marketed a business that turned funny books into multi billion dollar universe.  You can call him a narcissistic and an egomaniac, and maybe that's fair. But I also think it was necessary! Stanley Lieber was the chief editor for his Step Uncles fluttering funny book division.   Funky Flashman created a universe that we are all very grateful for! 

[shadroch]

On 2/21/2024 at 6:13 PM, gunsmokin said:

You didn’t answer my question. As far as weaving stories, he occasionally forgot characters actual first names. Characters he claimed he created. This whole argument really starts and ends with  Lee claiming sole ownership and creatorship or the characters in his fireside origin books. 

Where does Stan claim ownership in the Fireside series? Where does he claim he created these characters all by himself?

[Zonker]

On 2/21/2024 at 8:44 PM, Unca Ben said:

Like a start-up company competing with a well-established firm.  (which I've experienced). 

In a start-up, workers end up wearing many hats.  And they don't often get paid for all the hats they wear, but paid just for the job description under which they were brought on.  It's the way the company survives and competes - or else no one has a job.  If folks don't like it, then go work for Lockheed or Westinghouse or Cisco.  But when companies like Yahoo! or Google first started, workers whether they were permanent or temp had to do lots of tasks that they weren't being paid for.  Or else no one would have a job.

This has the ring of truth.  Back then, it was likely no one was as hung up about who-did-what when it came to getting the funny books out the door each month.  It's not like Kirby or Ditko had an employment contract saying "You will get paid $XX per page specifically to draw comics with (a specified number of panels per page) provided you are given a script with the following aspects defined: captions for each panel, dialogue balloons in each panel, camera angles to be employed, etc."  Instead Kirby had a page rate for whatever-it-was-Kirby-did, and it was certainly a higher rate than that of a Heck or a Colan or someone else who needed more input from Stan before proceeding. 

In one of Chuck's threads here I made the analogy to Stan as the production floor supervisor.  If the priority is getting the books out the door, the good supervisor can see that the Kirby and Ditko production lines are almost running themselves, they just need some QC attention and slick packaging.  The supervisor then can spend his time on the other lines that might be struggling.  

Latter-day Stan Lee creation claims though are problematic for me, starting with his Origins of Marvel Comics.  Seems to me he does start to believe his own hype after a while, and is probably motivated to burnish his legend, since it is really only his reputation that he has to trade for any financial security in his later years.  

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:07 AM, shadroch said:

Where does Stan claim ownership in the Fireside series? Where does he claim he created these characters all by himself?

In the introduction. 

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:43 AM, gunsmokin said:

In the introduction. 

Which book? 

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:43 AM, gunsmokin said:

In the introduction. 

the primary argument seems to be that Stan gave them the personality that made the characters so popular so therefore he created the characters. Kirby and Ditko created the visual and the origins and it seems that you think that is all they are entitled to but at a minimum, they were all plotted by Kirby and Ditko. They were paid as artists only while Lee got editor and writer pay which was grossly unfair.

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:48 AM, gunsmokin said:

the primary argument seems to be that Stan gave them the personality that made the characters so popular so therefore he created the characters. Kirby and Ditko created the visual and the origins and it seems that you think that is all they are entitled to but at a minimum, they were all plotted by Kirby and Ditko. They were paid as artists only while Lee got editor and writer pay which was grossly unfair.

You stated he claimed ownership and sole creator credit.  Where?

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:49 AM, shadroch said:

You stated he claimed ownership and sole creator credit.  Where?

I'll see if I can dig out one of the Origin fireside books. Feels like you already have your answer, so wondering why I should look up mine for you? You've been arguing to the contrary with Chuck and whoever else will listen for quite some time.

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:52 AM, gunsmokin said:

I'll see if I can dig out one of the Origin fireside books. Feels like you already have your answer, so wondering why I should look up mine for you? You've been arguing to the contrary with Chuck and whoever else will listen for quite some time.

I haven't wasted my time with chuckles in months.  I don't argue with people who hate.

You stated something. I asked where, and you gave a vague answer.  It's in the introduction.  I looked and didn't see it.  I'm hoping you'll clarify where Stan claimed ownership of Marvel characters in 1974-1977, the era of Fireside books.  

I know his writings in those books are hype and not very accurate. He talks of creating Thor long after Spider-Man, even though they came out the same week, but I don't recall him ever claiming he owned them. You seem to think he did, but don't want to show where. 

I'm curious, but does anyone know what plotting a Marvel story paid in the 1960s?  I believe Stan gave a plot credit to his neighbor's kids for a story, but I'm not sure he paid them.   Marvel had a schedule for what a writer got, what pencilers made, what an inker and letterer received, but I've never heard that comic plotting was a job or had a pay schedule. 

Edited February 22 by shadroch

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:59 AM, shadroch said:

I haven't wasted my time with chuckles in months.  I don't argue with people who hate.

You stated something. I asked where, and you gave a vague answer.  It's in the introduction.  I looked and didn't see it.  I'm hoping you'll clarify where Stan claimed ownership of Marvel characters in 1974-1977, the era of Fireside books.  

I know his writings in those books are hype and not very accurate. He talks of creating Thor long after Spider-Man, even though they came out the same week, but I don't recall him ever claiming he owned them. You seem to think he did, but don't want to show where. 

going to be a bit busy for the next few days but by Monday or Tuesday, I'll see what I can dig up. I know I have Son of Origins but not sure if I have the first book. I do recall seeing a brief documentary tied into the first Thor movie where Lee is on camera explaining how he came up with the name of Thor which was rather hilarious. He lists a few Greek gods and then pops up with Thor out of the blue.

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:03 AM, gunsmokin said:

going to be a bit busy for the next few days but by Monday or Tuesday, I'll see what I can dig up. I know I have Son of Origins but not sure if I have the first book. I do recall seeing a brief documentary tied into the first Thor movie where Lee is on camera explaining how he came up with the name of Thor which was rather hilarious. He lists a few Greek gods and then pops up with Thor out of the blue.

Did he claim to own Thor? 

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:08 AM, shadroch said:

Did he claim to own Thor? 

I don't recall. I was watching it on USA network or maybe disney and it was kind of a 2 minute snippet. Probably out there on youtube somewhere.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

I will say Stan Lee is the greatest promoter of comic books of all-time. There will never ever be a great promoter of comic books like him again. 

[Prince Namor]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:59 PM, shadroch said:

but I don't recall him ever claiming he owned them.

Of course he did. It's how he had a lifetime contract with Marvel.

In 1998, Marvel used bankruptcy procedures to void the $1 million-a-year lifetime-employment contract with Lee. That also voided Lee's exclusive assignment to Marvel of his rights to the Marvel characters.

Later that year Lee and his attorney Arthur Lieberman, along with their friend Peter Paul, formed a company called Stan Lee Media.

Paul put in $500,000, while Lee assigned the company all his intellectual property rights, including his hypothetical rights to the Marvel characters.

 

Strangely enough, this is when 'suddenly' the Fantastic Four #1 'outline' is suddenly discovered.

 

May 1998 "A Conversation between Stan Lee and Roy Thomas" is recorded which is later published in COMIC BOOK ARTIST #2 (Summer 1998). In an article by Roy Thomas the same issue (flip side ALTER-EGO V. 2 #2. ) publishes what is claimed to be Lee's original typed synopsis for FANTASTIC FOUR #1. There is no mention of Larry Lieber writing the "monster books." Thomas speaks as if Lee wrote them all and proposes that Lee must have been using the Marvel Method earlier than FF #1.

 

(BARRON'S) 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.

 

You get that? You can't GIVE UP your rights to the characters, unless you've made a CLAIM that they're yours - specifically having a deal in place that they WERE. 

 

And then suddenly:

 

Oct. 13 1999. ALTER-EGO Vol. 3 #2 publishes "A Conversation with Artist-Writer Larry Lieber"

Conducted & Edited by Roy Thomas - where for the first time Larry Lieber 'suddenly' says HE wrote all of the monster stories for Kirby. LOL.

 

Lee gave his brother a kick back, so that he always had someone to back up his BS if it ever went to a court of law (And it did, and he did). And they had Houseroy in place to publish anything they needed as 'history' in those Twomorrows mags. 

 

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.

Stan Lee's old "friend" Peter "The Fall Guy" Paul, was released from federal custody the day after Christmas 2014.

Again, according to an article in the respected business magazine BARRON'S.

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."

 

And why did Stan Lee Media fail?

 

Because Lee and Paul SOLD investment opportunities and made deals based upon OWNING the Marvel Characters being transferred to Stan Lee Media. Once that ended (in less than 3 months), there was nothing of value. (What? Stan was actually going to write something himself? LOL). Lee helped steal MILLIONS from investors and then had Peter Paul take the fall for it.

 

So yeah. There's a bit of a timeline of Lee claiming to own the characters and using that to monetarily reward himself. 

 

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:33 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I will say Stan Lee is the greatest promoter of comic books of all-time. There will never ever be a great promoter of comic books like him again. 

Imagine if Kirby or Ditko had been the public face of the company.  Can't you picture Steve Ditko at Carnegie Hall or Kirby sitting down for a long interview with reporters? I wonder how they would have handled young artists like BWS or Sterenko.  Would Roy Thomas, Chris Claremont, and others gravitate to Marvel, and would they have been hired?

From 1961 to 1972, Marvel rarely missed a deadline.  From 1972 to 1977, Marvel was plagued by missed deadlines and underwent five changes in editor-in-chief.  Maybe Stan did more than steal credit for the work he produced.

[shadroch]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:12 AM, Prince Namor said:

Of course he did. It's how he had a lifetime contract with Marvel.

In 1998, Marvel used bankruptcy procedures to void the $1 million-a-year lifetime-employment contract with Lee. That also voided Lee's exclusive assignment to Marvel of his rights to the Marvel characters.

Later that year Lee and his attorney Arthur Lieberman, along with their friend Peter Paul, formed a company called Stan Lee Media.

Paul put in $500,000, while Lee assigned the company all his intellectual property rights, including his hypothetical rights to the Marvel characters.

 

Strangely enough, this is when 'suddenly' the Fantastic Four #1 'outline' is suddenly discovered.

 

May 1998 "A Conversation between Stan Lee and Roy Thomas" is recorded which is later published in COMIC BOOK ARTIST #2 (Summer 1998). In an article by Roy Thomas the same issue (flip side ALTER-EGO V. 2 #2. ) publishes what is claimed to be Lee's original typed synopsis for FANTASTIC FOUR #1. There is no mention of Larry Lieber writing the "monster books." Thomas speaks as if Lee wrote them all and proposes that Lee must have been using the Marvel Method earlier than FF #1.

 

(BARRON'S) 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.

 

You get that? You can't GIVE UP your rights to the characters, unless you've made a CLAIM that they're yours - specifically having a deal in place that they WERE. 

 

And then suddenly:

 

Oct. 13 1999. ALTER-EGO Vol. 3 #2 publishes "A Conversation with Artist-Writer Larry Lieber"

Conducted & Edited by Roy Thomas - where for the first time Larry Lieber 'suddenly' says HE wrote all of the monster stories for Kirby. LOL.

 

Lee gave his brother a kick back, so that he always had someone to back up his BS if it ever went to a court of law (And it did, and he did). And they had Houseroy in place to publish anything they needed as 'history' in those Twomorrows mags. 

 

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.

Stan Lee's old "friend" Peter "The Fall Guy" Paul, was released from federal custody the day after Christmas 2014.

Again, according to an article in the respected business magazine BARRON'S.

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."

 

And why did Stan Lee Media fail?

 

Because Lee and Paul SOLD investment opportunities and made deals based upon OWNING the Marvel Characters being transferred to Stan Lee Media. Once that ended (in less than 3 months), there was nothing of value. (What? Stan was actually going to write something himself? LOL). Lee helped steal MILLIONS from investors and then had Peter Paul take the fall for it.

 

So yeah. There's a bit of a timeline of Lee claiming to own the characters and using that to monetarily reward himself. 

 

As usual for this guy, a lot of words that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

The claim was that Stan claimed ownership and sole creator status in the fireside book era, not what he felt he was entitled to after multiple contracts were signed two decades later.  Lee and his people thought the contracts signed in the 1990s gave him an ownership stake.

I've done you the courtesy of ignoring your version of "facts".  I'd appreciate you doing the same.  You have at least two threads to spread your opinions.  Why not leave it at that?

[Dr. Haydn]

On 2/22/2024 at 10:18 AM, shadroch said:

From 1961 to 1972, Marvel rarely missed a deadline.  From 1972 to 1977, Marvel was plagued by missed deadlines and underwent five changes in editor-in-chief.  Maybe Stan did more than steal credit for the work he produced.

Stan had a couple of speed demons in Kirby and Ditko. (Later, Gene Colan and John Buscema were just as fast, turning out as much as 60 pages a month). He had the good sense to stay out of everyone's way, more or less. (Plus, he could dialogue a story in a couple of days, if necessary.)

Later editors at Marvel, it seems to me, meddled a lot more, causing ruffled feelings and a lot of departures to rival DC.

[gunsmokin]

On 2/22/2024 at 10:26 AM, shadroch said:

As usual for this guy, a lot of words that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

The claim was that Stan claimed ownership and sole creator status in the fireside book era, not what he felt he was entitled to after multiple contracts were signed two decades later.  Lee and his people thought the contracts signed in the 1990s gave him an ownership stake.

I've done you the courtesy of ignoring your version of "facts".  I'd appreciate you doing the same.  You have at least two threads to spread your opinions.  Why not leave it at that?

that came off a lot like, "hey kid, get off my lawn". It sounds like what you are saying is that those multiple contracts gave Lee the idea that he did indeed own the characters. The ownership of the characters seems like a central theme to start up of Stan Lee media I would think. Sounds like a claim of ownership to me at least. Lee filed a lawsuit against Marvel over ownership, what more proof do you need that he felt like he owned the characters. Proof of the legalities seems pretty easy to track down. Is Barron's no longer to be trusted in the Lee camp?