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

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

There's 12.

In the interests of bringing harmony -- you are both wrong. There are 7 lettered notes (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) with five sharps or flats in between the notes: 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

Point 1) Ironically, in the same video, earlier in the video they talked about Simon, whose extensive experience in business helped pave the way for Jack Kirby's GA success as Simon and Kirby. Simon understood the business side of the industry and how to navigate it much better than Jack did. 

They got ripped off by Goodman - didn't go back to DC after the war, despite how much success they'd had there - got ripped of by Crestwood - and went out of business pretty quickly with their own comic imprint. Where was Simon's business success???

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

Point 2) In much the same way, Lee understood the business side of the industry much better than Kirby did.

These two examples, Simon and Kirby in the GA and Lee and Kirby in the SA show me that Jack was great as a creator, but he wasn't as great as just "Lennon" without a "McCartney" to to shape his raw talent and market it, and it took a Simon or a Lee for Jack to get to the heights he did. 

Lennon and McCartney wrote their own songs during the majority of their time in the Beatles. They would give each other 'middle eigths', but would NOT generally change the others song.

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

Jack was a grunt. A bulldog. He got the physical job done and carried the industry on his back creatively (literally), but alone, without fine tuning and some direction, he was incapable of being as great without someone who could harness that energy and direct it. That's what both Simon and Lee were capable of doing. 

Both Simon / Kirby + Lee / Kirby were greater than the sum of their parts creatively and commercially. 

So why wasn't Lee successful creating comics without Kirby?

Why wasn't Simon successful creating comics without Kirby?

You think Brother Power the Geek and Prez in ANYWAY compare to New Gods??? LOL

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

 

Point 3) Finally, the New Gods / Fourth World stuff.

It has it's followers, and some people swear by it, but it didn't revolutionize the industry the way Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil did, did it?

Did it? By most Lee worshippers logic, Adams and O'Neil's GL/GA failed because it was canceled. 

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

I mean, I've never been compelled to read it. To me, it was lacking something to invite me to it. 

It was missing the Simon or Lee "touch".

Subjective.

On 9/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, VintageComics said:

Side note: A bit of a personal 'Roy' touch, and this is going to sound funny, and some may not understand it, and some might even say I'm making it about myself, but if that's the case, you're missing my point because that's not my intent.

I learned watching those videos last night was that Kirby was a Virgo, born Aug 28th.

I'm a Virgo and Virgos have certain tendencies in my experience. 

Once I learned that, I understood Kirby's worldview and is motivations much better and in a strange way could relate to his strengths and his weaknesses. We can be tenacious and strong willed, which is great when you're battling a war of attrition to outlast competition, which Kirby obviously did, because we literally have endless drive when we love or believe in something (believe me, it's truly endless), but I've also learned that I'm personally much better when someone helps take the rough edges and smooths them out a bit for me, or helps fill in the blind spots as a partner or a manager might.

As I got to know Kirby better through my research, I got to understand more about Kirby and could relate to it because I'd seen it in my own life. 

It's undeniable that Kirby was always greatest when tethered to a partner who could use his raw, primal strengths and either refine, market or direct them in the best possible way. 

Kirby was at his peak(s) when working with Simon, or with Lee, or with his wife Roz.

Subjective.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

Did Stan co-create with Jack Kirby or not?

Does the person who dialogues a story deserve credit for co-creation of that story or not?

According to LEE, whoever comes up with the CONCEPT is the creator.

Kirby brought those concepts to Lee, not the other way around.

Does Lee deserve credit for adding his ideas to things, regardless of what myself or anyone else thinks about them?

Yes.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:48 PM, sfcityduck said:

In the interests of bringing harmony -- you are both wrong. There are 7 lettered notes (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) with five sharps or flats in between the notes: 

That's 12 notes!

An A# is a NOTE. A semitone is a NOTE.

[bronze_rules]

What I always tell people (who aren't really into comics) about Stan Lee is that he changed the field dramatically by putting together a universe of continuous soap operas of interacting characters we cared about. Now, I could be wrong about his contribution there, but I can say that looking back at other publishers like DC and others, they mostly had independent storylines, whereas Marvel had cliffhangers and characters with problems that felt real and had great character growth and challenges. And I don't really think Timely or Atlas had that kind of appeal either. When I look back at the Golden Age stories, I don't care that much about the characters, nor see much of connected, continuous, and greater storylines developed. I remember reading Daredevil and really, really, wanting to know what would happen next in his life. 

Supposing that Stan didn't write or contribute much at all, how was it that all of the independent creators would have had the same direction or innovation to create these continuous and interconnected soap opera stories without some kind of guidance from a leading editor (Stan). Would it be agreeable to say that without Stan the Marvel Universe would have been far less coherent and continuous like DC was? I can't see Jack being solely responsible for all the strong characters like Daredevil, Iron Fist, etc. being part of a much larger universe that was put together in a magical way - and for that, I tend to credit Stan. That's why I tend to agree with some here, that Jack would not have been the same legendary creator without Stan being there. I also have a lot of memories of creators relishing the tales of Stan jumping up and down and excitedly motivating them with poses, or artists who would say Stan would reject numerous covers that didn't carry the vision he wanted. Even if he didn't write all of those stories, he was incredibly important to shaping Marvel's success as we know it today. 

I know very well the feeling of not getting credit because the sales guy minimizes creator's contributions and hoards the benefits. But I don't think Kirby would have ever been the legend he was, nor would he have had the same magic without Stan and being in the right place at the right time (same vice versa, I don't think Joe Maneely would have taken Kirby's place either). One thing about being in any kind of startup is you have a lot more ability to contribute than you would in a large established company. Had Kirby landed directly at DC instead of Marvel, I doubt they would have allowed him the same level of input as he had in Marvel's early days.

Edited 4 hours ago by bronze_rules

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:48 AM, sfcityduck said:

On 9/21/2024 at 1:43 AM, Prince Namor said:

There's 12.

In the interests of bringing harmony -- you are both wrong. There are 7 lettered notes (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) with five sharps or flats in between the notes: 

As someone who actually plays music...I was using the do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do scale, dammit. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:52 AM, Prince Namor said:

Subjective.

Personal recollections are subjective, and trying to decipher them is even more so.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

What I always tell people (who aren't really into comics) about Stan Lee is that he changed the field dramatically by putting together a universe of continuous soap operas of interacting characters we cared about. Now, I could be wrong about his contribution there, but I can say that looking back at other publishers like DC and others, they mostly had independent storylines, whereas Marvel had cliffhangers and characters with problems that felt real and had great character growth and challenges. And I don't really think Timely or Atlas had that kind of appeal either. When I look back at the Golden Age stories, I don't care that much about the characters, nor see much of connected, continuous, and greater storylines developed.

Let me start off with saying... I agree with your overall premise of what you're trying to say here, as you state much later:  "Even if Lee didn't write all of those stories, he was incredibly important to shaping Marvel's success as we know it today." Even though I'm going to point out how I see things differently, THAT overall premise is NOT one I disagree with or EVER have!

BUT...

The shared universe in Marvel is a little over rated in Lee's Silver Age. It mostly began under Thomas, as the fanboy writers came in and started to keep track of these things. 

I mean... the Galactus Saga in no way overlapped into a Spider-man story or did we see any residual effects of those events in other Marvel Comics. Lee DID try and put the heroes in each others books - something that was going on at DC as well - but that originally grew out his lack of new ideas. It WORKED though as Marvel ramped that up with books that couldn't perform as well, while DC seemed to kind of back away from it.

Remember though... as Ditko and Kirby took more control of their specific books - those crossovers went away. The more THEY wrote, the BETTER the book got on it's own without the crossovers. You can read the FF from #41 to #72 and there's no crossover or interaction with the rest of the Marvel Universe and it's... well subjectively of course... just as good if not better than any 30 issue run of the book ever.

Once Lee stopped talking to Ditko, the crossovers stopped and from Amazing Spider-man #24 through even Romita taking over, we went through an easy 30 issues before Ka-Zar showed up. That run is ALSO one of the best in the history of that book.

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

I remember reading Daredevil and really, really, wanting to know what would happen next in his life.

What ever happened next in his life?

Under Lee, nothing. He pined for the girl and didn't get her. Not much different from what we saw in other comics from other publishers. (And please don't say Mike Murdoch.... oh god...)... and the worst Rogues Gallery of any Marvel superhero from the 60's other than Iron Man and Ant-Man...

Daredevil as a comic went down in sales for every year it was in print under Lee, then Thomas and on, until Frank Miller took it over and actually gave it some much needed life and background. Again, subjectively, some people liked it. But I just NEVER saw what people enjoyed about it other than Colan's art. Those stories are as vapid as anything I've ever read in comics. Subjectively. 

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

Supposing that Stan didn't write or contribute much at all, how was it that all of the independent creators would have had the same direction or innovation to create these continuous and interconnected soap opera stories without some kind of guidance from a leading editor (Stan). Would it be agreeable to say that without Stan the Marvel Universe would have been far less coherent and continuous like DC was?

I think most of this is really more brought together by Lee's communication with the fans through the letters pages and the Bullpen Bulletins. The artists DID have the innovations to create these continuous and interconnected soap opera stories... Lee was NOT a writer. He really didn't write stories. Like an editor, he'd give suggestions and make small changes - again, subjectively, some good and some unnecessary. 

But I didn't... in originally reading Iron Man or Daredevil, feel any kind of connection with the rest of the Marvel Universe. Those books always seemed on their own - it was only through the letters/bulletins that I sensed any kind of 'shared universe'. I'm not saying Lee didn't present it this way, or that it wasn't SOLD this way - people BELIEVE it WAS that way. Having gone back and read those stories... I just didn't see it there.

A good example of the way Lee worked: Romita talks about the Stone Tablet Saga in the ASM... a cool run of stories that were totaly unplanned, Romita had to kind of play by ear, because Lee wouldn't give him much of anything to go on and it just sort of evolved into what it became out of... negligence and happenstance. Romita is totaly under valued as a story teller... he had a great sense of what should happen, and it's kind of cool it turned out the way it did, but... 

I'm not saying Lee didn't give suggestions to connect characters - he was an editor - that's what editors DO - but I'm always puzzled by the idea that his characters had great depth and were more like real people. To me, his women, especially were one diminsional. Who was the strong woman in the Marvel Universe. PLEASE don't say Sue Storm, as I have MANY examples of him dumbing her character down and undermining Kirby's attempts to make her stronger.

He didn't. There's no Wonder Woman in the Marvel Universe of the 60's. There's no Lois Lane. Lois Lane could get into trouble and have to be bailed out by Superman, but she could also hold her own - was incredible head strong and SMART. Read the early Marvel books when Lee had more of a hand in things... his women always fainted or had to be saved or saying the dumbest things...

Look at it like this... Ditko's Spider-man was a loner

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

I can't see Jack being solely responsible for all the strong characters like Daredevil, Iron Fist, etc. being part of a much larger universe that was put together in a magical way - and for that, I tend to credit Stan. That's why I tend to agree with some here, that Jack would not have been the same legendary creator without Stan being there. I also have a lot of memories of creators relishing the tales of Stan jumping up and down and excitedly motivating them with poses,

That's mostly a myth. Lee didn't do that to Kirby (other than as a show for the Herald Times story), certainly not for Ditko (who wrote 1/3rd of the ASM/Dr. Strange stories while Lee wasnt talking to him), Romita (“The only thing he used to do from 1966-72 was come in and leave a note on my drawing table saying “Next Month, the Rhino.” That’s all; he wouldn’t tell me anything; how to handle it.” - John Romita, Comic Book Artist #6, Fall 1999), Don Heck (they worked by phone), John Buscema (they worked by phone), Dick Ayers (said Lee had no ideas), Stan Goldberg (said Lee had no ideas), or Al Hartley (said he wrote his own stories). Who'd I miss?

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

or artists who would say Stan would reject numerous covers that didn't carry the vision he wanted.

I think 9 out of every 10 covers that I've seen from the Silver Age that were rejected, I liked the rejected cover better. 

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

Even if he didn't write all of those stories, he was incredibly important to shaping Marvel's success as we know it today. 

That I agree with. Which I think is your overall point.

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

I know very well the feeling of not getting credit because the sales guy minimizes creator's contributions and hoards the benefits.

Not just credit. Imagine also having the pay taken away as well. 

On 9/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, bronze_rules said:

But I don't think Kirby would have ever been the legend he was, nor would he have had the same magic without Stan and being in the right place at the right time (same vice versa, I don't think Joe Maneely would have taken Kirby's place either). One thing about being in any kind of startup is you have a lot more ability to contribute than you would in a large established company. Had Kirby landed directly at DC instead of Marvel, I doubt they would have allowed him the same level of input as he had in Marvel's early days.

Kirby would've been in the Comic Book Hall of Fame anyway, but it's impossible to know just how popular it could've been without Lee. Most likely NOT. I've never had an issue with saying that. Lee's drive to make as much money as he could, really worked in the company's favor and even though Marvel never was the #1 publisher throughout the entire time Lee ran the actual physical act of putting the books together, it is remembered as a pretty special period of time.

DC gets short changed quite a bit in what THEY did during the 60's because they didn't have a Lee to cheerlead and TELL people how great they were - and I'm surprised no DC fans have come in here to remind us about it...

But overall I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying: "Even if he didn't write all of those stories, he was incredibly important to shaping Marvel's success as we know it today."

It's just everyone seems to think they have to remind me of it...

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

Mitch can attest to this...

One of the things we saw in the Silver Age thread I had on reading ALL of Lee, Kirby, and Ditko's work from 1954 to 1964.... and I posted those comics so you could read them too... is... in 1964 the VERY noticeable difference in villains, in characterization, and in general storytelling in the books Lee 'wrote' with Ayers or Heck vs the one's put out with Kirby and Ditko.

If Lee was the 'mastermind' behind the characterization or creativity, there shouldn't have been any difference. 

There IS and it's EXTREMELY noticeable. Very few people have probably read those books back to back to back like that and... 

Another is the difference in Peter Parker under Steve Ditko vs John Romita. Why would the character change so much it's the same writer?

Ditko's Peter Parker was a loner - an individualist - driven to make up for his error that cost his Uncle Ben his life. He never really had a girlfriend (I mean, Betty Brandt kinda for a minute) - he never really had a social life...

Almost over night, he was handsome, rode a motorcycle - had MJ trying to jump his bones, started dating the hotest blonde in college - hung out with the gang - lived in a swank apartment in Manhatten with his best friend, who's dad was rich... just like that Peter Parker was cool.

That's two different writers. 

[Ken Aldred]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:45 AM, Prince Namor said:

Martin Luther King, Jr: "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter."

Confirmation bias.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/20/2024 at 9:25 PM, Inhuman Fiend said:

OP: I've read numerous, but of course not all, of your nearly countless posts on this subject over the years. The words obsessed and vendetta come to mind.

On 9/20/2024 at 9:25 PM, Inhuman Fiend said:

No I haven't (and won't) read the book or all the posts in this thread.

On 9/20/2024 at 9:25 PM, Inhuman Fiend said:

So I ask again, who does your book help? 

[namisgr]

I became a Marvel zombie at the dawn of the Bronze age, buying books off the rack for a couple of four year periods, and a back issue Silver Age collector as well.  For me, Stan's contributions were an essential part of the joy of reading and collecting Marvels.  Stan wrote nearly all the dialogue.  He wrote most of the narration boxes.  He wrote the bullpen page.  He created/co-created the Marvel fan clubs.  He wrote most of the cover hype blurbs.  In these roles, Stan helped create the personalities of the main characters, and made them more appealing to me than most of the DC main characters.

Sure, he was Funky Flashman, but every teenager and up knew it, and many of us enjoyed the schtick, found fun in it, and thought it a vital part of what made Marvel the company that produced the titles that were, with few exceptions, more enjoyable.

My take in no way, shape, or form excuses Stan from matters relating to credits and wages owed.  But it lies largely outside of it. Stan, Jack, and Steve and later other artists and writers who took over their reins were the collective that made Marvel what it was to me, and started my path over five decades ago to involvement, appreciation, and love for the comic book medium.

Posthumous debates about creator credits have a longstanding history in many fields of endeavor.  It's now more than 70 years since Watson and Crick published their study solving the double helical structure of DNA and winning the Nobel Prize for it a few years later, yet discussions still revolve around the important, and some would note essential, role that Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystal structure played in the prize-winning discovery.  It's a nuanced issue that is unlikely to ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  Such as it will continue to be with the creations involving numerous people working at various levels and receiving credits both great, small, and in between for their roles.

My    which will serve as my only contribution here.

Edited 13 minutes ago by namisgr

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/20/2024 at 11:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

That's 12 notes!

An A# is a NOTE. A semitone is a NOTE.

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:25 AM, Inhuman Fiend said:

OP: I've read numerous, but of course not all, of your nearly countless posts on this subject over the years. The words obsessed and vendetta come to mind. No I haven't (and won't) read the book or all the posts in this thread. Is it because I disagree with you? No, not at all. Jack and Steve were founding fathers, legendary innovators and titans of the industry...and Marvel as we know it would not exist without them. Stan was mostly a manager or coach. What I would ask is this...what is your goal in publishing this book? Really...what do you hope to accomplish? Who does it help? Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Stan Lee were the core creators and promoters of a series of characters, and a brand, that is world famous. Were Jack and Steve the driving creative forces with minimal input from Coach Stan? Probably. Actually let's just say yes, absolutely. And let's also say that yes, Stan absolutely lied, exaggerated, etc...about his involvement and input into the creation of these characters. Stan's role was far less creative, but no less critical. Would Jack, Steve et all have had even a tiny fraction of the success and fame they enjoyed as creators...or that the characters and Marvel brand enjoyed...if Stan Lee wasn't involved? Hell no. Even if you think the success of the Marvel Universe is 99.99% Jack, Steve and everybody else...and .01% Stan...still, NOBODY would have ever heard of any of their creations, or even Marvel...WITHOUT Stan. Period. All early Marvel creators, and their families, are objectively better off with Stan's contributions, whether you think those contributions are good, bad, fake or evil. They needed him, and he needed them. So I ask again, who does your book help?