Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 9 9

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:19 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I very rarely agree with Roy if ever. Hell we can't stand each other BUT his posts on this subject are measured, considered and impartial. However he is clearly talking against a tsunami of anti-Lee hatred, which has been evident from the same quarter on these boards for years. This is a book I would be interested to read but have absolutely no interest in doing so, mainly because of the conduct of the author who persistently tries to bully, browbeat and corral his audience to his way of thinking, at any cost.

Not the way to plug a book.

1. I've just written a book, why don't you guys read it and tell me what you think?

No, the author goes for  

2. I've just written a book and what I say goes, and if you disagree or challenge me, you are all brainwashed sheep.

That is exactly what is coming across.

You have a lot to learn about marketing Chaz.  

@CGC Mike You mean like this?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:29 AM, Prince Namor said:

@CGC Mike You mean like this?

Please grow up. You have accused people in your posts of being brainwashed, that is a fact.

If you can't accept criticism then why make a thread? Or do you just want it to be a back-patting exercise?

I have not hurled any insults, I am giving an honest opinion.    

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Please grow up. You have accused people in your posts of being brainwashed, that is a fact.

"Please grow up". Yeah. That's an insult. At least it would be for the rest of us to say

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

If you can't accept criticism then why make a thread? Or do you just want it to be a back-patting exercise?

And what criticism? No one here has criticised anything in the book. I'm not responding to anything other than the points THEY are making, about whatever they THINK its about.

If anyone here wants to discus what's IN the book, I'd be more than happy to. 

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I have not hurled any insults, I am giving an honest opinion.    

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:54 AM, Prince Namor said:

"Please grow up". Yeah. That's an insult. At least it would be for the rest of us to say

And what criticism? No one here has criticised anything in the book. I'm not responding to anything other than the points THEY are making, about whatever they THINK its about.

If anyone here wants to discus what's IN the book, I'd be more than happy to. 

There's plenty of critical comments on the 'Bleeding Cool' site on the book, plenty, just sayin'      I just had a look over there now.

But I'm not being critical of it per se, more of your attitude which dismisses everyone else's opinion which is different from yours, and that everyone else is wrong except you.

You can't really believe that, surely?

[Book Guy]

The subject interests me and I bought the Book. I'm looking forward to reading it when it gets here. It would be a shame if this thread was shut down before a discussion between people who have actually READ the book could ensue! At this point it seems only one person on the boards other than the Author has read it, so the acrimony seems premature. There's many people on these boards with a lot of comic book knowledge and perhaps they will be able to refute the author's thesis. Or back it up as it were.

[PopKulture]

I’m curious as to what degree the book is illustrated, if at all. I’m guessing you’re not able to use example pages and panels from the comics themselves like in various threads here on the Boards, right? 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:31 AM, PopKulture said:

I’m curious as to what degree the book is illustrated, if at all. I’m guessing you’re not able to use example pages and panels from the comics themselves like in various threads here on the Boards, right? 

Very minimal. Believe me, someday someone is going to do a whole book on what the original art tells us... including where all those Stan Lee white outs of the Kirby/Ayers sigs were (Ayers did the signature... Kirby never signed his work at Marvel in the 60's).

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:02 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

But I'm not being critical of it per se, more of your attitude which dismisses everyone else's opinion which is different from yours, and that everyone else is wrong except you.

You can't really believe that, surely?

What opinion did I dismiss? No one has given an opinion on what's in the book. 

If someone gives a wrong opinion of what is or isn't in the book and I correct them, how is that dismissing them? They haven't read it. I HAVE. I think I'm in a position to correct them.

Showing Roy what he posted after he denies it is dismissive?

"Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant. " THAT sounds dismissive.

"I wonder if Stan's family will sue based on the title alone??" THAT sounds dismissive.

Another regular troll made a comment that CGC Mike deleted. THAT was very dismissive.

This is what I immediately faced when I posted this thread.

Bookery took the time to put together a well thought out post, NOT dismissive - and I THANKED him. When he made a point I didn't agree with, I said, "Debatable..." and made my points. It was what I thought was a respectful exchange of imformation. He didn't approach it with a dismissive angle, and I certainly didn't dismiss his ideas.

It wasn't like THIS, that I saw from others: "from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack. The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive."

Commenting on something you haven't even read and DISMISSING it out of hand based on speculation IS dismissive.

I'm not going to apologize because I know how to defend myself in verbal debate. But I'm not sure what it is you think I'VE dismissed.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/14/2024 at 9:09 PM, Book Guy said:

The subject interests me and I bought the Book. I'm looking forward to reading it when it gets here. It would be a shame if this thread was shut down before a discussion between people who have actually READ the book could ensue! At this point it seems only one person on the boards other than the Author has read it, so the acrimony seems premature. There's many people on these boards with a lot of comic book knowledge and perhaps they will be able to refute the author's thesis. Or back it up as it were.

[Cat]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:05 AM, VintageComics said:

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.

What changed?

I'm all in agreement for this. 

Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.

The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 

 

 Come on. For once, don't make something about you. We're enjoying the back and forth, let's leave it at that, non? 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/14/2024 at 11:09 PM, Book Guy said:

The subject interests me and I bought the Book. I'm looking forward to reading it when it gets here. It would be a shame if this thread was shut down before a discussion between people who have actually READ the book could ensue! 

Absolutely.

I ordered the book a couple of days ago. Looking forward to reading it and adding my two cents afterward.

[CGC Mike]

On 9/14/2024 at 11:19 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I very rarely agree with Roy if ever. Hell we can't stand each other BUT his posts on this subject are measured, considered and impartial. However he is clearly talking against a tsunami of anti-Lee hatred, which has been evident from the same quarter on these boards for years. This is a book I would be interested to read but have absolutely no interest in doing so, mainly because of the conduct of the author who persistently tries to bully, browbeat and corral his audience to his way of thinking, at any cost.

Not the way to plug a book.

1. I've just written a book, why don't you guys read it and tell me what you think?

No, the author goes for  

2. I've just written a book and what I say goes, and if you disagree or challenge me, you are all brainwashed sheep.

That is exactly what is coming across.

You have a lot to learn about marketing Chaz.  

 

On 9/14/2024 at 11:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

@CGC Mike You mean like this?

Not quite.  However, I would like both sides to tone it down.  I believe everyone here is an adult.  Please act like one.  If we were all sitting at a forum dinner discussing this, would this kind of behavior exist.  The answer is no.  You all need to remember that there is a person behind each of these id's.  I have posted a brief set of rules on how this thread will be moderated.  If I have to issue a warning, it will be a minimum of 3 points, and a permanent ban from this thread.  Keep this in mind before hitting that submit button.  

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 1:01 PM, CGC Mike said:

 

Not quite.  However, I would like both sides to tone it down.  I believe everyone here is an adult.  Please act like one.  If we were all sitting at a forum dinner discussing this, would this kind of behavior exist.  The answer is no.  You all need to remember that there is a person behind each of these id's.  I have posted a brief set of rules on how this thread will be moderated.  If I have to issue a warning, it will be a minimum of 3 points, and a permanent ban from this thread.  Keep this in mind before hitting that submit button.  

Thanks Mike.

I can't disagree with your judgement because it's absolutely correct.  

I apologise if I offended anyone's sensibilities or dented anyone's ego, so for my part I will let it go. It's a thoroughly divisive subject, and people's opinions inc. my own are likely to be set in stone.....to some degree.

[DC#]

If all book tours were like this the local Barnes and Noble would be set up like UFC matches.   Wonder what women fighting over Jane Austen would look like…..

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:41 PM, DC# said:

Wonder what women fighting over Jane Austen would look like…..

I'd pay to see that.  

[Bookery]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

Because I knew... the first line of defense for Lee fans would be to start telling me all the things he was/did.

I didn't give a line of defense.  I'm in sales.  I discussed a man's historical position as a salesman.

On 9/14/2024 at 7:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

He was more fortunate to get the creators he did during the early 60's.

I don't know and I don't really care... but you are simply getting into the opinion arena here.  You're chalking up the bullpen to simple "good fortune".  If the pay was so bad, then why didn't these folks go work for Charlton, ACG, Harvey, DC, Fawcett?  Something must have made them choose to work at Marvel.  And if they couldn't get work elsewhere, why?  I'm seriously asking, because I'm not an expert on this part of comic history.  I'm just a little uncomfortable with chalking up the gathering of dozens of talented people into one workplace as simply "good fortune", though I suppose it's possible.

On 9/14/2024 at 7:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby would've been in the Comic Book Hall of Fame even if the Marvel Silver Age never happened. 

I don't think the public at large cares about the Comic Book Hall of Fame, or even knows it exists.  If the Marvel Silver Age never happened, it's likely comics wouldn't even still be published today.  Maybe there wouldn't even be a Comic Book Hall of Fame.  The point's kind of moot.

On 9/14/2024 at 7:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

What about the Beatles? John, Paul, George, and Ringo? The Stones? Mick and Keith? Most any BAND...

The Three Stooges? The Seinfeld Cast? The Big Bang Theory Cast? The Cohen Brothers? A LOT of entertainment productions...

The Wright Brothers? Ben & Jerry? Hewlett-Packard? Proctor & Gamble? 

Hair-splitting.  These are still single-name branding... fine... I could have tossed in a band as an example too.  I'm not sure how successful it would have been if early posters in Liverpool had announced "Tonight!  Another great show!  Come see the "Paul McCartney-John Lennon-George Harrison-Ringo Starr Band" live in concert!  And then you make my point for me.  The show was called "Seinfeld", not "The Seinfeld-Alexander-Louis-Dreyfuss-Richards Show".  

 

 

[Bookery]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:41 AM, DC# said:

If all book tours were like this the local Barnes and Noble would be set up like UFC matches.   Wonder what women fighting over Jane Austen would look like…..

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:49 PM, Bookery said:

I didn't give a line of defense.  I'm in sales.  I discussed a man's historical position as a salesman.

I don't know and I don't really care... but you are simply getting into the opinion arena here.  You're chalking up the bullpen to simple "good fortune".  If the pay was so bad, then why didn't these folks go work for Charlton, ACG, Harvey, DC, Fawcett?  Something must have made them choose to work at Marvel.  And if they couldn't get work elsewhere, why?  I'm seriously asking, because I'm not an expert on this part of comic history.  I'm just a little uncomfortable with chalking up the gathering of dozens of talented people into one workplace as simply "good fortune", though I suppose it's possible.

I don't think the public at large cares about the Comic Book Hall of Fame, or even knows it exists.  If the Marvel Silver Age never happened, it's likely comics wouldn't even still be published today.  Maybe there wouldn't even be a Comic Book Hall of Fame.  The point's kind of moot.

Hair-splitting.  These are still single-name branding... fine... I could have tossed in a band as an example too.  I'm not sure how successful it would have been if early posters in Liverpool had announced "Tonight!  Another great show!  Come see the "Paul McCartney-John Lennon-George Harrison-Ringo Starr Band" live in concert!  And then you make my point for me.  The show was called "Seinfeld", not "The Seinfeld-Alexander-Louis-Dreyfuss-Richards Show".  

 

 

Excellent points again.

[Buzzetta]

First... I will start reading it once the book arrives. 

 

Chuck and I have disagreed numerous times on a couple of related issues such as the issue of credit or financial remediation toward artists who worked at Marvel (or DC) who were paid for creations that went on to earn much more money for the parent company.  So this is not a jumping in line purchase.  

With that said, I have watched Hulk Hogan in interviews claim things with such blatant absurdity that there are articles and websites devoted to pointing out his outright lies.  So yes, I have seen people who could be considered the biggest in their field lie with reckless abandon.  Lee though?  Well, let's see. 

Here is my take going into it.  Lee exaggerated for promotional sense and perhaps with some things he eventually began to claim some things as fact especially after repetition of his exaggerations.   Again though, anything is possible.  The issue will be whether or not that it is a promotional convenience or something of another nature. 

Either way, @Prince Namor, congratulations on your publication, and you can put me down as having contributing toward your sales.  

If the thread gets locked I will PM you my thoughts once I am done. 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:49 PM, Bookery said:

I don't know and I don't really care... but you are simply getting into the opinion arena here.  You're chalking up the bullpen to simple "good fortune".  If the pay was so bad, then why didn't these folks go work for Charlton, ACG, Harvey, DC, Fawcett?  Something must have made them choose to work at Marvel.  And if they couldn't get work elsewhere, why?  I'm seriously asking, because I'm not an expert on this part of comic history.  I'm just a little uncomfortable with chalking up the gathering of dozens of talented people into one workplace as simply "good fortune", though I suppose it's possible.

For Kirby - he couldn't go to DC because Jack Schiff wouldn't allow it - Charlton paid even less than Marvel - Harvey, he could have, they had a good relationship, but the publisher was leaning toward the kid books more and more - Fawcett was closed down - Archie, he DID go to work at, but he didn't want to work with Joe Simon anymore - ACG was a pretty small operation - Dell didn't fit his type of art - and... he saw an opportunity to help Marvel stay on their feet.

For Ditko... his style wasn't suited for DC or Harvey in 1958 - He DID work for Charlton through his time at Marvel in the late 50's (they paid less than Marvel, but he had a good relationship with them) 

On 9/15/2024 at 8:49 PM, Bookery said:

I don't think the public at large cares about the Comic Book Hall of Fame, or even knows it exists.  If the Marvel Silver Age never happened, it's likely comics wouldn't even still be published today.  Maybe there wouldn't even be a Comic Book Hall of Fame.  The point's kind of moot.

I don't believe that to be true.

Marvel certainly had an effect on things, but DC outsold Marvel every single year through 1972. Not ONCE did Marvel outsell DC all through the years Stan Lee dialogued those books. Fact.

DC on their own got along just fine. Superman had just finished a TV run in 1958 and the Adventures of Superman ran in syndication for two decades. There'd be 4 Superman movies that started in 1977. There was a Batman TV Show from 1966 to 1968. Super Hero Fandom and Fanzine's started BEFORE FF#1. Jerry Bails was in contact with Editors at DC Comics for a couple of years before FF #1 (in fact, I think it was Julius Schwartz who connected Bails and Roy Thomas)

DC Comics had Cartoons of Superman and Superboy from 1966-70, the Batman/Superman Hour in 1968-69 and even more all throughout the 70's. Archie had cartoons on TV starting in 1968-69 that would evolve in some form for the next 10 years. NONE of this stuff was because of Marvel Comics. If anything, the Batman TV Show helped raise sales of ALL comic books.

The fans were already there. Fandom was already there. The Silver Age began in 1956, 5 years before the FF ever showed up.

On 9/15/2024 at 8:49 PM, Bookery said:

Hair-splitting.  These are still single-name branding... fine... I could have tossed in a band as an example too.  I'm not sure how successful it would have been if early posters in Liverpool had announced "Tonight!  Another great show!  Come see the "Paul McCartney-John Lennon-George Harrison-Ringo Starr Band" live in concert!  And then you make my point for me.  The show was called "Seinfeld", not "The Seinfeld-Alexander-Louis-Dreyfuss-Richards Show".  

Believe what you like. 

To me, Branding is a corporate concept that's more about control and ownership than it is creativity. I followed creators throughout my collecting days, not Brands. Not saying I'm right or wrong, just what I preferred. 

Edited Sunday at 02:36 PM by Prince Namor