• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by Prince Namor,

452 posts in this topic

  • Administrator
CGC Mike

CGC Mike

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted
On 9/17/2024 at 9:03 PM, Prince Namor said:
On 9/17/2024 at 9:01 PM, Terry JSA said:

This is why I disappear from the boards from time to time.

@CGC Mike 

I am following this thread.  No need to flag me on any posts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2024 at 9:03 PM, Funnybooks said:
On 9/17/2024 at 9:01 PM, Terry JSA said:

This is why I disappear from the boards from time to time.

it's really the same handful of members...the boards have turned into a mess

Some of us like detailed discussions.

Why don't you guys just ignore things you don't like rather than bring negativity into the discussion. 

Publicly complaining about what you don't like reading on the internet is like complaining the sky is blue. 

Ignoring what you don't like makes everyone's experience better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2024 at 9:05 PM, Prince Namor said:
On 9/17/2024 at 9:04 PM, VintageComics said:

One last constructive commentary. 

Your thread would go a lot better (in your favor) if you didn't reply to every comment.

He just did it again!

"I'm not telling you how to post, but this is how you should post."

LOL. Classic.

I'm genuinely trying to be helpful. :smile:

I've learned from experience that it's less frustrating and it gives people less to pick apart.

But you do you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/18/2024 at 8:01 AM, VintageComics said:

My questions were rhetorical. Everyone knows the answers but you won't say it. 

Stan Lee was the intangible glue that made the Marvel brand what it was. 

That's opinion, and I don't agree. 

Let's say after ASM #1, both Kirby and Ditko fall off the face of the Earth.

Having read, Lee's non-Kirby/Ditko work in that period, there's NO WAY Marvel becomes a powerhouse.

NO FREAKING WAY.

That's not opinion. That's educated, example based FACT.

On 9/18/2024 at 8:01 AM, VintageComics said:

You keep trying to surgically remove Stan from Marvel's success because your ideology is premised on the idea that Stan Lee didn't bring much to the table in regards to Marvel's success and this is where most disagree with you.

Never said that. Never said that. Never said that.

YOU are the on being disingenuous.

On 9/18/2024 at 8:01 AM, VintageComics said:

Were there unethical things? Possible. Even likely, judging by what we know, but that still doesn't negate the fact that without Stan Lee Marvel would likely not have been as unique or ultimately as popular.

Batman was my first love, but Marvel was the brand I grew to love and it was because of Stan Lee's hype machine. I fully bought into it and it was a large part of my life...if not one of the largest. 

Without the Stan Lee "ballyhoo" I wouldn't have bought into the hype and wouldn't have loved the brand as much. It's as simple as that. 

You mean it's easier to sell high dollar books to the 'Marvel Only' fans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/18/2024 at 8:07 AM, VintageComics said:

Some of us like detailed discussions.

Why don't you guys just ignore things you don't like rather than bring negativity into the discussion. 

Publicly complaining about what you don't like reading on the internet is like complaining the sky is blue. 

Ignoring what you don't like makes everyone's experience better. 

I'll worry about me. Just stick to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2024 at 9:05 PM, CGC Mike said:

I am following this thread.  No need to flag me on any posts.  

Can I just say that I miss the old days when long, civilized discussions were the norm on these boards and people could split hairs and discuss things for pages?

I for one appreciate you keeping this thread open. I think it's been a great learning experience for everyone involved and if people don't like seeing posts, they really shouldn't click on the threads. 

Repeated negative complaints are nothing more than thread crapping no different than if it appeared in a Marketplace sales thread. 

That's my 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/18/2024 at 8:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Can I just say that I miss the old days when long, civilized discussions were the norm on these boards and people could split hairs and discuss things for pages?

I for one appreciate you keeping this thread open. I think it's been a great learning experience for everyone involved and if people don't like seeing posts, they really shouldn't click on the threads. 

Repeated negative complaints are nothing more than thread crapping no different than if it appeared in a Marketplace sales thread. 

That's my 2c

Here we agree completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2024 at 9:18 PM, Funnybooks said:

does not make what i said less true

I came here to learn about this new publication and it's turned into a clown show

 

On 9/17/2024 at 9:20 PM, Terry JSA said:

Pretty much as to why I’m here as well. It’s just nonsense at this point.

You're both thread crapping now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Book Guy

Book Guy

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

I got the book and am about half way through. More comments later if the thread stays alive...

The main themes of the Book in simple form is that the author alleges STAN LEE LIED (OK, I had to do it...) about his part in the Origins of the Marvel Comic Era (notably post Kirby arrival, though likely through the entirety of his career). He was mostly uninvolved in the writing of the Comics and even the Concepts behind the characters, Plots etc. He did dialogue most or at least many of them. He did Story Conferences which might count as writing, but how often these occurred is unclear. He claimed writing and other credit for projects and issues he had very little or nothing to do with (though perhaps he dialogued the finished Book). He claimed credit for a variety of reasons, mostly all selfish (though they can be construed to have helped the company post facto) and took money and credit away from others who should have been paid and acknowledged for their writing and creative efforts. There's lots more than that, but these seem to be the center of gravity.

He marshals a lot of evidence from interviews, forensics etc to back himself up.

My question to the more knowledgeable than me is: can anyone turn up interviews from writers/artists etc who worked for Stan where they state the opposite of what the Author maintains? i.e. "I worked with Stan and he provided me a full script"...Or "I got a three page outline for the story and then we talked back-and-forth over the phone at least a dozen times over the next week to hammer out the plot"... etc etc  Evidence from the horse's mouth that would be considered exculpatory or a refutation. Not from Stan Lee's mouth but from the people he worked with back in the day, say the 1940's to 1970, Not his later endeavors. I'm not aware of any such statements from anybody but Stan, though it seems they should exist were Stan's take on events even more than a little bit true.

I think opinions about Stan's function as a Salesman/Company Voice/'Glue'/his Editorial abilities etc are important in a larger sense but go nowhere as far as refuting Prince Namor's main themes and bringing them up only causes much crankiness on both sides while not addressing the core issues. They are better considered apart from the accusations in the Book IMHO. Maybe a separate thread?

Thanks!

 

 

Edited by Book Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 9/18/2024 at 9:03 AM, Book Guy said:

I got the book and am about half way through. More comments later if the thread stays alive...

The main themes of the Book in simple form is that the author alleges STAN LEE LIED (OK, I had to do it...) about his part in the Origins of the Marvel Comic Era (notably post Kirby arrival, though likely through the entirety of his career). He was mostly uninvolved in the writing of the Comics and even the Concepts behind the characters, Plots etc. He did dialogue most or at least many of them. He did Story Conferences which might count as writing, but how often these occurred is unclear. He claimed writing and other credit for projects and issues he had very little or nothing to do with (though perhaps he dialogued the finished Book). He claimed credit for a variety of reasons, mostly all selfish (though they can be construed to have helped the company post facto) and took money and credit away from others who should have been paid and acknowledged for their writing and creative efforts. There's lots more than that, but these seem to be the center of gravity.

He marshals a lot of evidence from interviews, forensics etc to back himself up.

Thank you for reading the book and giving your honest opinion on it!

On 9/18/2024 at 9:03 AM, Book Guy said:

My question to the more knowledgeable than me is: can anyone turn up interviews from writers/artists etc who worked for Stan where they state the opposite of what the Author maintains? i.e. "I worked with Stan and he provided me a full script"...

From the Silver Age? No. 

On 9/18/2024 at 9:03 AM, Book Guy said:

Or "I got a three page outline for the story and then we talked back-and-forth over the phone at least a dozen times over the next week to hammer out the plot"... etc etc  Evidence from the horse's mouth that would be considered exculpatory or a refutation. Not from Stan Lee's mouth but from the people he worked with back in the day, say the 1940's to 1970, Not his later endeavors. I'm not aware of any such statements from anybody but Stan, though it seems they should exist were Stan's take on events even more than a little bit true.

Ditko talks about his own story conferences with Lee in his essay's from the late 90's/early 2000's, but it ends up more damning than anything because... its not just a single quote showing us Lee had no ideas, but rather LOTS of information showing us Lee had no ideas or... not very good ones. I think the one... credit he gives Lee is, when they sat and discussed what direction to take the Hulk in on his return to TTA, Lee said the romance angle in Spider-man is working, why don't we use that here as well?

Which... holy gee wilikers, he just copied an idea from a book that Ditko was basically writing, but... ya know, at least Ditko acknowleged agreeing with him on something. He also, after being critical of Lee for wanting to 'get rid of the creepy spider poses of the character', because he was worried how the Comics Code would view it,  he gives him the benefit of the doubt and says 'that's what an editor should do, is look out for mistakes that could get the book in trouble' or something like that. He didn't agree he was RIGHT, he stated 'good thing he fought him on it' - just that he understood where that came from. Oh and he gives him credit for the name 'Dr. Octopus' after Ditko brought in the design of the character. 

But his other ideas that Ditko fought him on, doesn't make Lee look so... creative: make the Vulture a heavy set character (eventually used for the Owl) - more guest stars from other books including repeating villains from other books - create a Spider-Girl - stop doing so much of Peter Parker's personal life (what???) - stop making JJJ look so happy when Spider-man fails (what???)... Green Goblin as an actual demon...

Most anyone else has said that when they sat in on a meeting with Lee for a story... he had nothing. Mostly, he just had short phone calls.

On 9/18/2024 at 9:03 AM, Book Guy said:

I think opinions about Stan's function as a Salesman/Company Voice/'Glue'/his Editorial abilities etc are important in a larger sense but go nowhere as far as refuting Prince Namor's main themes and bringing them up only causes much crankiness on both sides while not addressing the core issues. They are better considered apart from the accusations in the Book IMHO. Maybe a separate thread?

Thanks!

Agreed. I didn't really cover much of that in the book, and even though I don't mind discussing it, there's SO MUCH to talk about in terms of what's IN the book, that it just sort of distracts. Of course... that's the GOAL of bringing it up. Deflect away from 'Stan Lee Lies' and try and make the conversation about something they can champion Stan with.

Edited by Prince Namor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
9 9
Go to topic listing