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

[Inhuman Fiend]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:35 AM, comicwiz said:

This question was answered already. And followed-up with many good responses beyond what the author has already stated.

An obsessive vendetta that serves no useful purpose other than creating division among comic fans? 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 8:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

I need to start a new advertising campaign: 

So you paid for the Bleeding Cool coverage?

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:27 PM, sfcityduck said:

So you paid for the Bleeding Cool coverage?

No. Nice try though.

Again, keep aiming for ME instead of the topic.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

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???

 

Wait a minute. Is your position that S&K was a huge economic success in the 1940s and 1950s or not? Kirby consistently states he made more money than most artists during the GA because of Simon.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:29 AM, Prince Namor said:

No. Nice try though.

Again, keep aiming for ME instead of the topic.

Aiming at Bleeding cool. As I said up thread it is a smart play for you to get anyone talking about your book.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

So you are using Lee’s purported definition of creator that would give creator credit for CA to Simon as it was his initial concept (albeit derivative of the Sheild)?

And the S&K Spiderman is also Simon with the Marvel concept to Lee because he brought synopsis and teen character concept to Ditko?

Your vision of creation (which Lee and Marvel did not use) denies the concept of co-creators.

Is that what you really believe or not?

Was Lee a co-creator of Spider-Man or not?

Was Lee a co-creator of any SA Marvel superheroes?

Don’t dodge the questions

Edited 5 hours ago by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

So you are using Lee’s purported definition of creator that would give creator credit for CA to Simon as it was his initial concept (albeit derivative of the Sheild)?

And the S&K Spiderman is also Simon with the Marvel concept to Lee because he brought synopsis and teen character concept to Ditko?

Your vision o creation (which Lee and Marvel did not use) denies the concept of co-creators.

Is that what you really believe or not?

Was Lee a co-creator of Spider-Man or not?

Was Lee a co-creator of any SA Marvel superheroes.

Don’t dodge the questions

LOL

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

So you paid for the Bleeding Cool coverage?

It was bad enough that you brought it up already once, and I let that slide, but why would you repeat such a bald-headed statement like this in a baseless line of questioning?

Do you have any proof to back up such a wild claim?

I might not always agree with their coverage of the comic industry, but I feel you're advancing baseless claims of impropriety that no content provider deserves without some solid evidence to prove what you're stating publicly. Much less using these baseless claims to discredit the OP.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL

It is obvious you do not want to answer the questions.

Can there be co-creators or not? 

Or does the guy who first came up with idea deserve the credit? Kirby, Ditko, and Lee all recognized co-creation.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:57 AM, comicwiz said:

It was bad enough that you brought it up already once, and I let that slide, but why would you repeat such a bald-headed statement like this in a baseless line of questioning?

Do you have any proof to back up such a wild claim?

I might not always agree with their coverage of the comic industry, but I feel you're advancing baseless claims of impropriety that no content provider deserves without some solid evidence to prove what you're stating publicly. Much less using these baseless claims to discredit the OP.

I asked a question which has now been answered,

it is a matter of record Bleeding Cool accepted payment for coverage of the Promise Collection story.

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:16 AM, Inhuman Fiend said:

An obsessive vendetta that serves no useful purpose other than creating division among comic fans? 

I don't see it that way, and in fact, it's usefulness has been proven already, if you had taken a moment to actually read the entire thread.

In three years, Star Wars will turn 50. I'm no prognosticator, but the fact pattern is that an attempt will occur once again from the same play book. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and only time will tell.

And again, as was pointed out by the Forbes "award nominated comic journalist and author", he will be the last surviving person to opportunistically take credit for things. Who is around to object? You? Who can't even be bothered when the reciepts are thrown right in your face?

If a bad actor happened to be brought forward on these boards, for taking something undeservedly from a widow, whether it be a single book or an entire collection, that was originally accumulated to be bequethed to the family, only to be stolen or greedilyhoodwinked by someone's ill attempts at making a quick buck off someone else's misfortune, I would act in the same way to show them the door. What you see as lacking usefulness, I see as a philosophical rooting into the age old quote that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:29 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/21/2024 at 10:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

So you paid for the Bleeding Cool coverage?

No. Nice try though.

 

On 9/21/2024 at 10:59 AM, sfcityduck said:

I asked a question which has now been answered,

Was the above bolded not deemed a worthy response by you? 

Edited 5 hours ago by comicwiz

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:02 AM, comicwiz said:

 

Was the above bolded not deemed a worthy response by you? 

That was the answer to my question. What are you objecting to after that?

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 11:10 AM, sfcityduck said:

That was the answer to my question. What are you objecting to after that?

This might be hard for you, but it doesn't need to be. Why would you come up with the baseless line of questioning in the first place? Because you think, based on your assumptions relating to a completely different matter, that the same would apply in this instance?

And for what purpose, to baselessly deride, and discredit?

Which is essentially the entire working mechanism of the discourse eminating from this thread - a course correcting of unethical activities of people in charge, and the way they were able to get away with the lies as long as they did.

Why would you think I would let you, someone with a very clear axe to grind in this thread, get away with spreading lies and a faleshood, when I won't give Flashman and Houseroy an inch?

Edited 4 hours ago by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL

What benefit has this had at all throughout the entire conversation?

On 9/20/2024 at 11:03 PM, sfcityduck said:

Joe Simon was an institution who was editor of both Timely and Fox when Jack Kirby was a no one. Joe Simon could draw in diverse styles from Lou Fine to Jack Kirby. The man had career before Kirby did, and Jack recognized that. That's why Jack relied on Joe Simon to make the S&K career which was much much better than most comic artists but certainly not all. [Cue attacks on Joe Simon.]

 

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

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???

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.

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

The same reason as to why Lennon or McCartney weren't ever as successful without each other. 

 

Mark Evanier - assistant to Jack Kirby: "Joe handled the business relationships. He was a very good editor. He was very good at talking to publishers."

Steve Sherman - assistant to Jack Kirby: "Joe handled the business because he had a very different background than Jack did. Joe was from upstate New York. He had gone to college. He had a better grasp of business than Jack did because Jack never really had to get involved in business because of his environment."

Source - Jack Kirby: Storyteller documentary

 

Jack Kirby's output was his gift and it was also his shortcoming. Not everything he put out was hugely successful (Fourth World) even if it was appreciated by Kirby fans in much the same way that not everything Frank Miller put out was appreciated as much by non-Miller fans but still adored by people who had an emotional attachment to Miller.

Kirby's 40s and 50s success was based on a partnership with Simon and his 60's success was based on a partnership with Lee. The difference was that Simon was more forthcoming with Kirby's credit toward his work, but it always took someone to channel Kirby's visceral output of art to make him the most successful person he could be. That's all anyone disagreeing with you is trying to say and every time someone brings that point home it's dismissed, reduced or put on the backburner. I see Simon and Lee as having similar roles in Kirby's life.

Edited 4 hours ago by VintageComics

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:14 AM, comicwiz said:

This might be hard for you, but it doesn't need to be. Why would you come up with the baseless line of questioning in the first place? Because you think, based on your assumptions relating to a completely different matter, that the same would apply in this instance?

And for what purpose, to baselessly deride, and discredit?

I asked a question which the author did nort answer. So it was asked again. Then he answered which I have accepted. The question was reasonable for a number of reasons:

(1) The book was “independently published” which appears to be a euphemism for self-published and there without a publisher marketing campaign or support;

(2) Bleeding Cool has in the past accepted payment for articles reviewing/hyping;

(3) Even so Bleeding Cool called the book a “one-sided prosecution” which would be a remarkable statement (albeit accurate) if the article was paid for; and

(4) the author astutely recognizes rhat any discussion of his book could drive sales so it’s plausible he would pay for coverage - as I said up thread it would be a smart play.

 

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 11:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

Then he answered which I have accepted.

That's all I wanted to see

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:31 AM, comicwiz said:

That's all I wanted to see

Glad you now recognize it. The points in my above post explain why the question was reasonable - hope you see that too.

[Mmehdy]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:57 AM, Prince Namor said:

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. 

100% with you...without Kirby/Ditko there is an incredible drop of quality...some stories almost to junk status...some of those TTA are shocking in the  writing. In fact, it kind of bursted my bubble as I only remember EVERYTHING being great...and it was not. Spiderman writing/story change has always been there..but we just kind of shrugged it off. At the point of ASM39 the evidence is clear...Ditko at some point was just handing in issues completed by him.......

Edited 4 hours ago by Mmehdy

[Mmehdy]

On 9/21/2024 at 6:54 AM, Bookery said:

So now we've had all of this discussion.  With all of the data and the opinions and the back and forth, surely we can determine who actually created the concept of a Spider Man?  After all... it's pretty revolutionary.  A spider had always previously been tied to villainy, not heroism (the Spider-woman in the Sherlock Holmes movie, for example).  So can we just finally settle who it was...

Was it Stan Lee?

Was it Steve Ditko?

Was it Jack Kirby?

 

No, no and no.

 

In truth, it was Harry Steeger.

 

Back in the day, one of the major pulp heros...you could say the Doc Savage ad...had a superman effect on the comic book....so I get your point...EVERYONE WAS STEALING FROM EVERYONE.....makes sense