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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:24 PM, Buzzetta said:

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. 

I appreciate that. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it. 

[Bookery]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

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) 

I'll take you at your word on this.  Still -- it seems like Kirby has a lot of excuses for not working elsewhere, according to your statement.  And why did Ditko's style fit with Marvel, and not elsewhere?  Was it because Lee made it work there, or Goodman?  Or someone else?  I seriously don't know.  But these are pertinent questions.  Someone in charge... whether an editor, or a publisher, had to create an environment where the people who worked at Marvel could work.  At least in the beginning.  No doubt things frayed over time.  But as someone who's worked in both amateur theater and film productions... I can attest that even at that level the clash of egos and "visions" is intense.

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

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.

The Batman TV show and cartoons just further indicate that DC would have continued down the line of seeing super-heroes as kid's entertainment.  And by 1977 even DC was being heavily influenced by trends at Marvel (not that those movies weren't still at pretty much of a kid level).  Maybe there still would have been a Comic Book Hall of Fame dedicated to the history of kid's comics, I don't know.  

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

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. 

You're going off in a different direction here.  The brands I gave you... Buffalo Bill, Edison, Hughes, etc.... were the creators.  But as their brands grew, they brought in many others, others who often created their own work within the brand.  Yet, the one name is still what all of those creations are identified with.  Why?  Because the public prefers it that way (or they wouldn't do it).  So you're beef might lie more with the public than anything else.  The next time Campbell's puts out a new soup in their line, maybe the public should demand to know the name of the chef who came up with the specific recipe. 

Now... to be fair... Stan Lee is a little different.  He didn't create Marvel Comics.  He created a new direction for it.  Or--  if you say he didn't even do that, he at least promoted it to the point where it grabbed the public's attention.  Maybe it was a necessary evil to make the company successful? 

I do think you have a point, however, in that after he was retired from Marvel, he was no longer helping to establish a successful brand, and the continuing claims about his accomplishments would indeed be merely self-serving by that time.  But I think throughout history, we've seen numerous cases where successful, and even genuinely talented people, begin to be consumed into believing their own hype.  In fact, a case could be made that with very famous people, it happens almost every time.

[KCOComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

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) 

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.

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. 

Not to derail the thread from slinging mud at Stan.. but why didn't Jack want to work with Joe anymore? 

Did they have a falling out? 

[VintageComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 3:02 AM, Cat said:

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

It's not anyone's place to tell someone how to post. 

Edited Sunday at 06:15 PM by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:13 AM, KCOComics said:

Not to derail the thread from slinging mud at Stan

[Mmehdy]

I will say this...I am sad...I am down to the end....20 pages to go....this thead is just like this book...a firecracker....best thead of the year...great points on ALL sides but you must read this well researched look at the creation of the marvel big bang....If I was to pick the most important two consecutive years in COMIC BOOK HISTORY.....

1- 1938/1939 Sup, Bat(whose creation is disputed), marvel comics #1 etc. It changed everything...the big bang of super hero's 

But second would be

2-1961-1962 FF, Hulk Spiderman etc....

 The Big Bang of REAL super hero's with real world problems...comic books grew up

 That story...needs to be flushed out..and finally someone with the research and guts has done it.........I ask all board members to read the sample on Amazon...its free then make your own judgements....

 Again, great thead thank you

Edited Sunday at 06:27 PM by Mmehdy

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/15/2024 at 1:13 PM, KCOComics said:

Not to derail the thread from slinging mud at Stan.. but why didn't Jack want to work with Joe anymore? 

Did they have a falling out? 

 

According to Wikipedia's entry on Joe Simon:

The [Simon and Kirby] partnership ended in 1955 with the comic book industry beset by self-imposed censorship, negative publicity, and a slump in sales. Simon "wanted to do other things and I stuck with comics," Kirby recalled in 1971. "It was fine. There was no reason to continue the partnership and we parted friends."

(Also paraphrasing Wikipedia): It seems that Simon's return to Archie Comics (with Kirby and others) in 1959 was brief. After a few months, Simon left comics to work in commercial art.

[VintageComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:18 AM, Bookery said:

I'll take you at your word on this.  Still -- it seems like Kirby has a lot of excuses for not working elsewhere, according to your statement.  And why did Ditko's style fit with Marvel, and not elsewhere?  Was it because Lee made it work there, or Goodman?  Or someone else?  I seriously don't know.  But these are pertinent questions.  Someone in charge... whether an editor, or a publisher, had to create an environment where the people who worked at Marvel could work.  At least in the beginning.  No doubt things frayed over time.  But as someone who's worked in both amateur theater and film productions... I can attest that even at that level the clash of egos and "visions" is intense.

The Batman TV show and cartoons just further indicate that DC would have continued down the line of seeing super-heroes as kid's entertainment.  And by 1977 even DC was being heavily influenced by trends at Marvel (not that those movies weren't still at pretty much of a kid level).  Maybe there still would have been a Comic Book Hall of Fame dedicated to the history of kid's comics, I don't know.  

You're going off in a different direction here.  The brands I gave you... Buffalo Bill, Edison, Hughes, etc.... were the creators.  But as their brands grew, they brought in many others, others who often created their own work within the brand.  Yet, the one name is still what all of those creations are identified with.  Why?  Because the public prefers it that way (or they wouldn't do it).  So you're beef might lie more with the public than anything else.  The next time Campbell's puts out a new soup in their line, maybe the public should demand to know the name of the chef who came up with the specific recipe. 

Now... to be fair... Stan Lee is a little different.  He didn't create Marvel Comics.  He created a new direction for it.  Or--  if you say he didn't even do that, he at least promoted it to the point where it grabbed the public's attention.  Maybe it was a necessary evil to make the company successful? 

I do think you have a point, however, in that after he was retired from Marvel, he was no longer helping to establish a successful brand, and the continuing claims about his accomplishments would indeed be merely self-serving by that time.  But I think throughout history, we've seen numerous cases where successful, and even genuinely talented people, begin to be consumed into believing their own hype.  In fact, a case could be made that with very famous people, it happens almost every time.

Your eloquence, reason and metered balance in every discussion is a welcome breath of fresh air on the internet.

I've read many of Chuck's discussions about Stan Lee on the boards throughout my time here, but they had an ever increasing "anti Stan Lee" bent to them that was always one-sided and cult-like, with Stan being judged with a more harsh standard than anyone else as though there's a personal vendetta against him. 

Even if Stan did all of these things he's accused of, the way the discussion is presented makes it difficult to take seriously. Without balance in a topic, you're looking for a motive as to why there is no balance. 

Guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were social misfits.

I mean, just look at Ditko's inability, or better put, refusal to communicate with the public.

Look at Kirby's ability to lock himself up and pump out pages of art with a few hours of sleep a night for decades.

These aren't well rounded, socially adaptable people. Their art and creativity was leading edge, but they weren't leaders of people themselves. They needed a leader. 

I have musician friends like this, who are world class but struggle to earn $100 a gig because they don't know how to think big enough to expand their reach or the synergy to create relationships that will create something greater than themselves.

Look at Michael Jordan. The greatest basketball player of all time, arguably one of the greatest athletes of all time, but can't manage or coach to save his life.

This is a common topic in psych and self help circles, where people don't realize their own value and then also don't know how to make their value known to the world. It's an entirely different animal than just creativity. 

Each successful talent has someone with vision and aggression that drives them to greater heights with business savvy that they couldn't be as successful without. Sometimes, they may even become enemies but they would never have been successful without each other. 

Stan Lee's role was basically the manager of the brand and what I see coming as the end result of Chuck's unbalanced points and rants, is that Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee.

Good luck with that one. 

[VintageComics]

One of Marvel's hallmarks, if not their greatest Hallmark that made them so successful was how touching Marvel's stories were to common people.

The reason early Marvel was so successful was that their stories were humanly relatable. They took relatable human weaknesses (blindness, meekness, lameness, nerdiness, physical unattractiveness) and turned those qualities into strengths. 

Incidentally, and also slightly off topic, it's also why Captain Marvel outsold Superman in the GA.

Meanwhile, during the SA while Marvel was putting out this material with depth, DC was putting out mindless action, schlock and rainbow monsters that were so inferior I couldn't stand them. Not to mention how inferior the art was. DC was still doing stories in the style of Atlas pre-hero stuff (ony with superheroes) and hadn't caught onto Marvel's winning formula until later in the SA. 

These movements within Marvel stories were about human rights, respect, equality, goodness. It was an incredible strategic move of pure genius. These qualities were long term goals that drove all the stories, not just an afterthought and they were the fundamental difference between Marvel and everyone else at the time.

All the Kirby and Ditko art in the world couldn't manipulate people into loving the brand without that emotional factor of the underdog fighting for good.

So, who corralled together the world class talent AND cultivated that activist culture within the company, and drove those principles throughout Marvel's story telling?

Who motivated and drove the bullpen?

Who created that culture that was the brand that Marvel became?

Edited Sunday at 07:10 PM by VintageComics

[jjonahjameson11]

@CGC Mike

I have no skin in this game but I’m wondering why an announcement for the sale of a book is permitted to be included in the comics general thread rather than in the sales forum, where it belongs, along with all of the other sellers hawking their comics, books, TPB’s, mags, etc?

Edited Sunday at 07:38 PM by jjonahjameson11

[grendel013]

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

Guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were social misfits.

I mean, just look at Ditko's inability, or better put, refusal to communicate with the public.

Look at Kirby's ability to lock himself up and pump out pages of art with a few hours of sleep a night for decades.

These aren't well rounded, socially adaptable people. Their art and creativity was leading edge, but they weren't leaders of people themselves. They needed a leader. 

So relatable.

[grendel013]

On 9/15/2024 at 3:36 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

@CGC Mike

I have no skin in this game but I’m wondering why an announcement for the sale of a book is permitted to be included in the comics general thread rather than in the sales forum, where it belongs, along with all of the other sellers hawking their comics, books, TPB’s, mags, etc?

I feel ya but aren't we "discussing" the book. Any discussion could be considered advertisement right? Is it the link to Amazon link perhaps? That I leave to moderation.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:22 PM, grendel013 said:

I feel ya but aren't we "discussing" the book. Any discussion could be considered advertisement right? Is it the link to Amazon link perhaps? That I leave to moderation.

It is sales advertising and belongs in that thread, along with all of the other sales advertising topics

Edited Sunday at 08:26 PM by jjonahjameson11

[grendel013]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:26 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

It’s is sales advertising and belongs in that thread, along with all of the other sales advertising topics

We should do a poll. We need more polls. But crack has to be an option.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:27 PM, grendel013 said:

We should do a poll. We need more polls. But crack has to be an option.

We need Mike to be consistent.  I don’t understand why this sales advert is permitted to be in Comics General

[Bookery]

On 9/15/2024 at 3:36 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

@CGC Mike

I have no skin in this game but I’m wondering why an announcement for the sale of a book is permitted to be included in the comics general thread rather than in the sales forum, where it belongs, along with all of the other sellers hawking their comics, books, TPB’s, mags, etc?

I dunno... it's a little different, I think, in that this is a board member's own creation, and covers comics history that would hold interest here.  That's not quite the same as dealers hocking back-issues, or even if someone who was not already a member came here just to promote their book.  My take, anyway.

[grendel013]

On 9/15/2024 at 4:28 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

We need Mike to be consistent.  I don’t understand why this sales advert is permitted to be in Comics General

I figured there is some good knowledge to be gained so respect was given to the parties involved.

[Bookery]

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

Your eloquence, reason and metered balance in every discussion is a welcome breath of fresh air on the internet.

Oh yeah?  Well... stuff it!

 

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 10:18 PM, Bookery said:

I'll take you at your word on this.  Still -- it seems like Kirby has a lot of excuses for not working elsewhere, according to your statement.  And why did Ditko's style fit with Marvel, and not elsewhere?  Was it because Lee made it work there, or Goodman?  Or someone else?  I seriously don't know.  But these are pertinent questions.  Someone in charge... whether an editor, or a publisher, had to create an environment where the people who worked at Marvel could work.  At least in the beginning.  No doubt things frayed over time.  But as someone who's worked in both amateur theater and film productions... I can attest that even at that level the clash of egos and "visions" is intense.

Well... They didn't work AT Marvel. Ever. They were freelancers. They worked at home. There was no 'environment' to work at at Marvel. In 1959, Lee was down to a desk.  

For someone who has read everything Kirby did from 1954 to 1974, his work didn't change in the way he created stories. Lee had nothing to do with that. And Lee didn't even speak to Ditko for his last year and half working there and he still created the best issue of Spider-man ever (#33) with no input from him. 

Realistically, the 'Bullpen' was a fake concept. The only bullpen from the 60's was eventually Romita settled in there with Marie Severin and Herb Trimpe. And that was it. 

On 9/15/2024 at 10:18 PM, Bookery said:

The Batman TV show and cartoons just further indicate that DC would have continued down the line of seeing super-heroes as kid's entertainment.  And by 1977 even DC was being heavily influenced by trends at Marvel (not that those movies weren't still at pretty much of a kid level).  Maybe there still would have been a Comic Book Hall of Fame dedicated to the history of kid's comics, I don't know. 

Sales of Marvel Comics went down all through the 70's. Statement of Publication numbers are out there. There are no demographic numbers, just claims made by Lee. 

I would say more than 90% of adults I talk to have never read a comic book. It's still a childish thing to them.

WILL EISNER: Well, that was when Stan Lee developed a kind of connection with the “college market.” He produced the...
PHIL SEULING: ...Pseudo-intellectual market [chuckle]. Grant Stan Lee that he sounded his market and fed it properly. I can’t go along with a lot of the propaganda that it was for adults, the Einsteins, the future Nobel Prize winners of the world. No, no, this just isn’t true. The mass market was still the 10-year-olds that kept plunking down 12 cents for a comic book.

- from WILL EISNER'S QUARTERLY #3 (1984)

On 9/15/2024 at 10:18 PM, Bookery said:

You're going off in a different direction here.  The brands I gave you... Buffalo Bill, Edison, Hughes, etc.... were the creators.  But as their brands grew, they brought in many others, others who often created their own work within the brand.  Yet, the one name is still what all of those creations are identified with.  Why?  Because the public prefers it that way (or they wouldn't do it).  So you're beef might lie more with the public than anything else.  The next time Campbell's puts out a new soup in their line, maybe the public should demand to know the name of the chef who came up with the specific recipe. 

Now... to be fair... Stan Lee is a little different.  He didn't create Marvel Comics.  He created a new direction for it.  Or--  if you say he didn't even do that, he at least promoted it to the point where it grabbed the public's attention.  Maybe it was a necessary evil to make the company successful? 

Without Kirby coming back to Marvel to give them the work HE wrote and penciled in 1958, Lee would've never had anything to promote. 

Lee had the entire 50's to make Marvel great and an incredible stable of artists to do it. Why didn't he?

There's no question something magical happened in the convergence of Kirby, Ditko, and Lee together in 1961, but Kirby had been successful everywhere he'd been.

On 9/15/2024 at 10:18 PM, Bookery said:

I do think you have a point, however, in that after he was retired from Marvel, he was no longer helping to establish a successful brand, and the continuing claims about his accomplishments would indeed be merely self-serving by that time.  But I think throughout history, we've seen numerous cases where successful, and even genuinely talented people, begin to be consumed into believing their own hype.  In fact, a case could be made that with very famous people, it happens almost every time.

I think the brand Lee wanted to promote always was the 'Stan Lee' brand. 

Edited Sunday at 09:01 PM by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

I've read many of Chuck's discussions about Stan Lee on the boards throughout my time here, but they had an ever increasing "anti Stan Lee" bent to them that was always one-sided and cult-like, with Stan being judged with a more harsh standard than anyone else as though there's a personal vendetta against him. 

Again, nothing about the content, it's about ME. 

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

Even if Stan did all of these things he's accused of, the way the discussion is presented makes it difficult to take seriously. Without balance in a topic, you're looking for a motive as to why there is no balance. 

Two posts back, you said, "It's not anyone's place to tell someone how to post. " LOL. Classic. 

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

Guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were social misfits.

LOL. They were??? 

Ditko was his own man for sure, but Jack Kirby was married, had kids, worked his butt off everyday of his life for his family...

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

I mean, just look at Ditko's inability, or better put, refusal to communicate with the public.

You mean his refusal to comminicate with SOME Comic Book fans. It's an important distinction. 

There were Comic Book fans who DID communicate with Ditko over the years and actually had a good relationship and communication with him.

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

Look at Kirby's ability to lock himself up and pump out pages of art with a few hours of sleep a night for decades.

In American society, most men who work their butts off to make ends meet for their families, aren't seen as 'social misfits', but rather as working class heroes. 

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

These aren't well rounded, socially adaptable people. Their art and creativity was leading edge, but they weren't leaders of people themselves. They needed a leader. 

Why? They earned a living before 1961. They earned a living afterwards. Just because a group of people have idealized that era as something 'special' doesn't mean it was a necessity. 

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

I have musician friends like this, who are world class but struggle to earn $100 a gig because they don't know how to think big enough to expand their reach or the synergy to create relationships that will create something greater than themselves.

Look at Michael Jordan. The greatest basketball player of all time, arguably one of the greatest athletes of all time, but can't manage or coach to save his life.

This is a common topic in psych and self help circles, where people don't realize their own value and then also don't know how to make their value known to the world. It's an entirely different animal than just creativity. 

Each successful talent has someone with vision and aggression that drives them to greater heights with business savvy that they couldn't be as successful without. Sometimes, they may even become enemies but they would never have been successful without each other. 

There are people who work hard and manage their life extremely well who never 'create ssomething greater'. They earn a living, they save money, they live a life. If Lee was such a Svengali of success, why'd he go to Hollywood and do ZERO for the next 30 years?

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

Stan Lee's role was basically the manager of the brand and what I see coming as the end result of Chuck's unbalanced points and rants, is that Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee.

Good luck with that one. 

Again, aimed at ME.