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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:14 PM, mrc said:

...............but, IMHO without Stan (and the emotional connection he created with the readers) the books would not have sold nor, made any money for literally decades to come.

Kirby sold comics in every decade he worked, including all of the one's without Lee.

Kirby would've sold comics in the 60's.

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby sold comics in every decade he worked, including all of the one's without Lee.

Kirby would've sold comics in the 60's.

Except that Kirby didn't sell any comics.  His publishers did.  He was a hired creative talent who was popular with various publishers over the years.  Talent can make a corporate product popular, but there still has to be a corporate structure to begin with.  Clark Gable's casting sold millions of tickets.  But he didn't make the movie... he was hired to do what he did best while a corporate structure paid him and a trainload of others to create a product, and then sold that product to the public via marketing specialists, distributors, and a lot of hype (when it came to hyping movie stars and Hollywood in general... almost all of it was lies too).  

Stephen King made a fortune for Doubleday followed by Viking followed by Scribner.  Because of that, should he have been put in charge of any of those companies?  Creative talent and business managers aren't the same thing.  A creator may be so good he can even make or break a company... but there still has to be a company there to begin with.  In rare cases a creator does form his own company (Edgar Rice Burroughs) and is in charge of marketing his own product.  But the operative word there is rare.

[Chip Cataldo]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Let me just say before my diatribe here that I don't agree with much of what Stan Lee did to creators. I'm just whipping out some thoughts:

I worked at an ad agency and in advertising for a lot of years (1996-2015), and I worked with some old school ad guys. During this time where new technology and attitudes started replacing a lot of the old ways of working - I was fascinated with the previous eras way of doing things. I dropped into my advertising profession right after things like private jets to see corporate clients, gigantic expense accounts to woo potential prospects and seemingly endless creative budgets to maximize the effect of ads across limited media platforms (TV, radio, print was all there was back then). I was a little dismayed to hear that I had missed a lot of the real action by a few years, but - I got a lot of stories about the "good ole days" where top end advertising people were treated like rock stars simply because they flew in from somewhere to have a meeting.

In advertising, you're not producing things like comics where success is measured in direct sales - you're producing effecting advertising that gains the attention of the trades, as well as other agencies and being talked about. While the ultimate benefit is to create something buzzworthy for the client, what benefits the agency were people/clients/customers/media talking about the ads, or landing awards (which were prestigious back then) and using that attention to draw new clients with your creative prowess, leading to more money earned for the agency.

Now, with that being said, there was also one general attitude that was adhered to in agencies large and small (I worked for a small one): the creative director gets the credit. Now, mind you, this was not comics - but it was a creative profession very similar. Back then, people were not lined up expecting to be put into the spotlight because they sat in on a creative meeting and suggested an idea that got implemented in the final concept. Much like comic books, advertising campaigns that spanned tv, radio and print had lots of moving parts - like a comic book - directors, talent, writers, and the production guys like illustrators, etc. One guy does not come up with the entire concept of an ad campaign, but he generally takes the credit for doing so.

I've sat in countless pitches, meetings and presentations where the agency I worked for, or the creative director himself got the credit, claimed the credit or alluded to masterminding an entire idea that was a success. That never bothered me. To be in a meeting or presentation and getting into the semantics of who-did-what is not the way to drive the meeting. And again, this is plain 'ol advertising. We weren't creating characters that went on to be marketable, profitable endeavors - so I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel. 

This is where my point about Stan Lee comes in. Now, I have no clue of his general attitude towards taking credit - but to me, it's not outlandish notion that he would take credit for everything. If you break down the purpose of a journalist talking to Stan Lee about Marvel Comics it's basically:

Investigating the Who, What, Where, When and Why of their story and identifying what the story is about and finding the angles that make this article unique and interesting.

Stan Lee's job - at that point - is to sell the success of Marvel Comics and let the journalist decide what parts of it are interesting. Much like the pitch meetings I attended, the job of the Creative Director was to convince the client that this was the agency that could fulfill their creative needs. That convincing took the form of anecdotal conversation mixed in with showing portfolio pieces, taking long stories about the creative process and paring it down to a few sentences for the purpose of brevity.

I always felt this is what Stan Lee did - at least in the beginning. Taking credit for successes simply because he was the guy talking to the media. Before mass marketing took hold, comics were just a different form of periodical with advertisements. Not only were publishers seeking to make money by increasing readership, they parlayed those distribution numbers to sell advertising. Aside from the creative aspect - back then - a comic book was seen as another form of revenue. I think Stan's view on this - at the time - was no different than other editors, or creative directors: push the company, make us money.

And with that, comes the statements - like Namor had in his books, specifically about Superboy (earlier in the thread) - where Stan Lee has to set aside facts to push his own agenda with Marvel.

Was it a premeditated lie he was pushing? Or was it promotional BSing to further the Marvel brand? Was he trying to butter his own bread to the media in case he ever lost his job? Or all three at the same time?

There never was, or ever will be - another guy at the head of a media conglomerate who saw the entire operation from soup to nuts for 70 years. I can't imagine story after story to different journalists over decades and decades of self-promotion. You'd have a bunch of half-truths mixed in with barely-remembered true scenarios, and this is what we get with Stan. I know there are infinite permutations to the Stan Lee story, but I think it's worth noting that Stan is a very unique individual - not because he's Stan, but because he's seen everything as one person. Unfortunately, the media took him at his word for decades, so there's a lot of the truth that can come out (which we have here with Namor's book) and I think that's interesting to hear about.

Best post in the thread. While I don't agree with a lot of what Stan did (or didn't) do, this at least seems to put a "face" on the "why" of it all. Great analogies.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/16/2024 at 3:53 PM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby would've sold comics in the 60's.

How do you know? Where is the cast-iron proof? It's pure conjecture, just like people can't prove a theory, it's a theory.

A Footballer may bang in goals for several seasons then one season he can't hit a barn door with a banjo.

Many of your statements are not factual but rely in your unshakeable belief that you are right, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about why you did not call Lee a thief in your book title, when you have called him a thief on these boards, time and again. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:47 PM, Bookery said:

Except that Kirby didn't sell any comics.  His publishers did.  He was a hired creative talent who was popular with various publishers over the years.  Talent can make a corporate product popular, but there still has to be a corporate structure to begin with.  Clark Gable's casting sold millions of tickets.  But he didn't make the movie... he was hired to do what he did best while a corporate structure paid him and a trainload of others to create a product, and then sold that product to the public via marketing specialists, distributors, and a lot of hype (when it came to hyping movie stars and Hollywood in general... almost all of it was lies too).  

Stephen King made a fortune for Doubleday followed by Viking followed by Scribner.  Because of that, should he have been put in charge of any of those companies?  Creative talent and business managers aren't the same thing.  A creator may be so good he can even make or break a company... but there still has to be a company there to begin with.  In rare cases a creator does form his own company (Edgar Rice Burroughs) and is in charge of marketing his own product.  But the operative word there is rare.

You're seriously making the claim that the corporation is more important than the creativity? Why doesn't each of them sell the same amount then?

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 11:56 AM, Prince Namor said:

You're seriously making the claim that the corporation is more important than the creativity? Why doesn't each of them sell the same amount then?

Huh?

[ThreeSeas]

Never being much of a Marvel reader until lately, my first introduction to who Stan Lee was, was on the "Who Wants to be a Superhero" TV show he did a few years ago. I thought that he was likable, and the showman.

When I was younger, I had thought that Walt Disney wrote all of those wonderful stories because his was the only name I saw on the comics. I later learned that he didn't have much to do with the stories and they were by others like Floyd Gottfredson and Carl Barks. I have lately thought of Mr. Lee being similar to Mr. Disney, the face of the company where many others did the actual work that I enjoy.

I might have grown up being more of a Marvel fan, had my brother and I not sold off our 60's Marvels (and other comics) for a dime each at our garage sale back in 1971. Well, after an old friend just gave me his 4500 Marvel comics (from the early 80's -90's), I'm now catching up a bit on the Marvel universe.

But back to Mr. Lee. It sounds like he has done what many managers do, and that is to take the credit, and limelight for the works of others.

Edited Monday at 05:05 PM by ThreeSeas
grammar

[Bookery]

I have an honest question here that probably others know, and I'm guessing Prince Namor does through his research... who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines (I know it started at Atlas, though not consistently).  Some previous publishers would occasionally allow artists to sign a page.  But for the most part they did not.  Marvel, when it became Marvel in the '60s, actually gave credit to the writer, the penciller, the inker, and even the letterer!  Even as a kid in the '60s I noticed that was different.  That was unheard of in comics up until then (publishers like Dell never gave credit to anyone).  Other comics, by the end of the '60s began doing it probably under pressure from creators who said "Marvel's doing it, why can't you?"

This seems really significant, so who authorized it?  Goodman?  Lee?  Some other executive?

[Ken Aldred]

On 9/16/2024 at 3:22 PM, Forbush-Man said:

I just ordered a copy, I'll start on it once I finish "Kirby & Lee: Stuf' Said!" 

I’ve read both of the Lee and Kirby comicbook style biographies.

Interesting stuff.

It will be fun to do a comparison with Chuck’s version.

Edited Monday at 05:51 PM by Ken Aldred

[Hschwartz]

Let's look at two things that helped Marvel's marketing and branding. Look at the cover difference between Spider-Man 1 and 2. If you are a first time reader of Spider-Man you don't get much information on who publishes it with Spider-Man 1. There is a little box with the letters Mc in it which could signify anything. Now look at Spider-Man 2 which clearly shows Spider-Man's picture on the left side with Marvel Comics Group underneath it. Steve Ditko created this box and soon it was on every Marvel Comic. Now you could place every comic you saw as a Marvel Comic and if you liked Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four you could pick up Tales To Astonish/Suspense etc. and know that the same company put them out. This was branding at it's best.

Another reason Marvel caught on was the letters pages. Stan took the time to write witty responses to all of the fans who wrote in. If you notice he really highlighted older readers and female readers when they wrote in because he was trying to make Marvel Comics appeal to everybody. As Marvel grew in stature he even took on some serious issues in the letters pages because fans were growing up and the sixties were starting to happen. He created a real family atmosphere and took on a parental role with kids and teenagers who wrote in. One of my favorites was when he wrote it's summertime get out of the house but of course take our mags with you when you do. 

Marvel Comics became beloved for many different reasons and the amazing talents of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, and Jack Kirby. You can argue who was most important but it can't be denied that combining these three talents with all of the other creators during this time period created something special which is why I'm writing this at the age of 63 even though I wasn't old enough to buy these comics till the mid sixties or old enough to really understand them till many years later.

[Jimmy Linguini]

$20 Canadian shipped to my door? How can you say no to that?

 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/16/2024 at 1:20 PM, Bookery said:

I have an honest question here that probably others know, and I'm guessing Prince Namor does through his research... who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines (I know it started at Atlas, though not consistently).  Some previous publishers would occasionally allow artists to sign a page.  But for the most part they did not.  Marvel, when it became Marvel in the '60s, actually gave credit to the writer, the penciller, the inker, and even the letterer!  Even as a kid in the '60s I noticed that was different.  That was unheard of in comics up until then (publishers like Dell never gave credit to anyone).  Other comics, by the end of the '60s began doing it probably under pressure from creators who said "Marvel's doing it, why can't you?"

This seems really significant, so who authorized it?  Goodman?  Lee?  Some other executive?

As far as credits: Simon and Kirby got their names on the splash page in the early 40s, both at Timely and DC. EC comics did writer and artist credits in the early 50s, as did Charles Biro’s group. Inking and lettering credits were rare until Marvel introduced them in late 1962. Ben Oda lettered in complete anonymity for over 30 years before DC finally instituted full credits in the 1980s.

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:42 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

As far as credits: Simon and Kirby got their names on the splash page in the early 40s, both at Timely and DC. EC comics did writer and artist credits in the early 50s, as did Charles Biro’s group. Inking and lettering credits were rare until Marvel introduced them in late 1962. Ben Oda lettered in complete anonymity for over 30 years before DC finally instituted full credits in the 1980s.

Ah yes... how could I forget about EC?  Of course, they were aiming for an older audience all along... probably an audience that was already reading books and magazines, so credits may have been a part of that?  As I said, there were occasional creator blurbs on issues prior to that... if you had some clout this probably derived from the newspaper comics, and the carryover of those credits into comics.  And not even everything at EC was signed.  But Marvel, the 1961 version, right out of the box, began crediting the writers and artists, regardless of fame, on pretty much every story, main or back-up.  This was somewhat perilous for a publisher... because it did make for the potential of creating stars before the public, and those stars could as a result negotiate bigger contracts.  Someone had to decide it was worth the gamble as a promotional gimmick.  So my question remains, is there any record of who instituted this?  Lee as editor?  Goodman as publisher?  Some sort of negotiating deal to get new writers and artists to come over to Marvel?  This was a pretty big departure from how other publishers were doing it in the early '60s.

[joeypost]

I see the contributions of all resulting in something greater than the sum of their individual parts. In reality, for me, I don’t care who gets or takes the credit as long as the product I am buying or consuming  satisfies a need/want or craving. 

[jimjum12]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:35 PM, Jimmy Linguini said:

$20 Canadian shipped to my door? How can you say no to that?

 

Just exactly what IS a $20 Canadian?

.... that may not be a good thing.  GOD BLESS... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[jsilverjanet]

congratulations @Prince Namor

[comicstock]

who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines

I seem to remember a couple of times Stan Lee stated that the Marvel offices got fan mail asking about artists work on their issues.  He then allowed the addition of artist and writers names.

[ttfitz]

On 9/12/2024 at 12:55 PM, Mmehdy said:

I am about one third thru....

 

On 9/14/2024 at 12:09 PM, Mmehdy said:

4/5 of the way though...

 

I will give you my full review sometime tonight....after each chapter, I go back and reread some of it....doing it right and its that good.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 7:31 PM, Mmehdy said:

7/8 done 

 

On 9/15/2024 at 2:26 PM, Mmehdy said:

I am down to the end....20 pages to go....

Mitch - since full disclosure seems to be a big thing with this book, your 5-star review on Amazon, posted before the first of these messages, was before you had actually read the book, is that right?

[ttfitz]

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

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.

@Domo Arigato

[Mmehdy]

FULL REVIEW:

One of the most amazing yet controversial books ever written about comic book history, and specifically Marvel's big bang creation which every serious Marvel fan wants to know: HOW DID THEY DO IT!

 FF1 started it all.... and as the book points out it is hard to ignore Challengers of the Unknown...the first page of FF1...vs Challengers with the circles over the heroes...very similar structure. I never really put it together as Challengers 1 was before my collecting time. I do not believe that Stan's outline existed UNTIL after FF was  a real hit. The book does not say that Stan had nothing to do with...but without Jack and Steve no way we would be talking about it today.

Could it be better...yes possibly for expanded words and more quotes, and use of images..but today I can say this: This book hits you face-front....like Thor's hammer...it cannot be ignored, forgotten, or lost in the crowd....It took a heck of a lot of guts to publish this...now it is up to you the board members to show how open you are to something other than the narrative of the Origins of Marvel comics.....after reading this book...95% of the board members will agree.... the Origin of Marvel comics it's a fairy tale book, albeit. a nice one...too perfect. A must-read for every serious comic book history board member.

***** of ***** stars.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:41 PM by Mmehdy