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

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:54 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

https://jeetheer.substack.com/p/podcast-steve-ditko-spider-man-and

As this podcast explains, the heirs and successors of Kirby, Ditko and others still hope to obtain something of what Lee and Goodman promised them.

History repeats itself, as Siegel and Shuster can attest.

Old news and already settled. Did not involve Kirby. Was Ditko, Heck, Colan, Lieber, and Rico. Not a threat to Marvel. Problem for all these guys is the law. So hope for earth shattering payouts is futile these days.

Which is a different issue than co-creation credit. Whether they make anything or not, creators deserve IMHO historical credit. Denying Lee any creator credit is just wrong.

[jimjum12]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:22 PM, KCOComics said:

I bet Kirby actually wrote it and Stan put his name on it!! 

 

 

You just made me spray Diet Mt. Dew out of my nostril's, dawg!  GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Mmehdy]

On 9/21/2024 at 11:57 AM, Bookery said:

As for the Fantastic Four... which kicked off all of Marvel... it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what, because it's pretty obvious everything about it was a cobbling together of other people's ideas.

The core concept was no doubt inspired by The Cosmic Monsters which came out just 3 years prior, and was about a scientist whose accident with cosmic rays creates mutations in animals surrounding the lab.  The Invisible Girl goes back to H.G. Wells, and probably more directly from 1940's The Invisible Woman.  Mr. Fantastic is a rip-off of Plastic Man.  The Human Torch revisits Marvel's own golden-age Human Torch (created by Carl Burgos before Simon & Kirby ever arrived at Marvel) obviously, and The Thing looks almost exactly like The Hideous Sun Demon from the 1958 movie.  Besides a long litany of pulp "borrowings", it appears that Marvel itself would never have existed without more than a few trips to the Drive-In!

Amazing… Book… I forgot about the cosmic monster movie… correct me if I am wrong but the movie titles… had a similar look to fantastic four…. 
 Absolutely brilliant… for sure had the impact on FF… in fact I would love to see a paper done on it.

now the real question…..who saw it… Jack or Stan….

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 2:01 PM, Mmehdy said:

Amazing… Book… I forgot about the cosmic monster movie… correct me if I am wrong but the movie titles… had a similar look to fantastic four…. 
 Absolutely brilliant… for sure had the impact on FF… in fact I would love to see a paper done on it.

now the real question…..who saw it… Jack or Stan….

I really don't think it matters who plagiarized what source material.

What matters is whether Kirby came to Stan with a fully formed creation or Stan came to Kirby with a fully formed creation or if they collaborated to come up with the full form of a creation.

And its really indisputable it was the last of the three options. Jack and Stan both probably had input on the plot, Jack indisputably did the pencils, and Stan indisputably wrote the dialogue. Jack is responsible for the visual "look" of the characters (sans costumes) through his art and Stan is responsible for the "feel" of the characters through his dialogue. And between the two, you have the creation.

Fans can argue which is more important - art or dialogue - to the success of the storytelling. But that argument doesn't matter. They are both essential. You don't have a fully formed creation until you have the visual "look" of the characters and the written "feel" of the characters as expressed in the way they talk. Ideas don't matter, it is execution. And the work was indisputably executed by both. And the law says that Marvel owns the FF no matter what Jack or Stan feels. That's true for the copyright and for the trademarks.

So assertions that it was all Jack or all Stan are really not defensible. 

And given the poor memories and lack of definitive records by the participants, how to slice the amount of co-credit to each participant in the creation is just going to be a matter of opinion.

So at the end of the day, probably the right conclusion is that Stan and Jack both lied when they attempted to take full credit for their mutual creations.

[jimjum12]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:01 PM, Mmehdy said:

now the real question…..who saw it… Jack or Stan….

Both, holding hands and sharing popcorn. They still liked each other then. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[bc]

Think Kirby was a regular at the monster movies of the late '50's.

Was watching some Halloween monster fest several years ago when "From Hell It Came" (1957) showed.

Almost had beer go thru my nose when the monster "Tabonga" appeared

Immediately reminded me of the original Groot from TTA13 (Nov 1960)

Many other of the Pre-Hero Monsters can be traced back to similar classics.

-bc

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the topics under discussion before you wrongly imply I or anyone else has committed defamation or should be "answering" to Bleeding Cool.

Bleeding Cool has a whole archive of articles under the heading "Sponsored by Heritage." They are all articles about auction items being sold by Heritage. They include articles about the Promise Collection which appear to be news articles unless you look at the tags and see the "Heritage Sponsored" tag at the top of the article. 

Here's a link to the archive: https://bleedingcool.com/sponsored/heritage-sponsored/

Here's a link to a "Heritage Sponsored" article on the Promise Collection: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/the-promise-collection-one-of-the-greatest-comic-finds-of-all-time/

Feel free to apologize. We all make mistakes and admitting them is always a good idea. I certainly have done so repeatedly on this site. So no shame.

The fact is you still felt the need to ask me if I did the same thing based on you not liking the idea of my book.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 1:57 AM, Bookery said:

As for the Fantastic Four... which kicked off all of Marvel... it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what, because it's pretty obvious everything about it was a cobbling together of other people's ideas.

The core concept was no doubt inspired by The Cosmic Monsters which came out just 3 years prior, and was about a scientist whose accident with cosmic rays creates mutations in animals surrounding the lab.  The Invisible Girl goes back to H.G. Wells, and probably more directly from 1940's The Invisible Woman.  Mr. Fantastic is a rip-off of Plastic Man.  The Human Torch revisits Marvel's own golden-age Human Torch (created by Carl Burgos before Simon & Kirby ever arrived at Marvel) obviously, and The Thing looks almost exactly like The Hideous Sun Demon from the 1958 movie.  Besides a long litany of pulp "borrowings", it appears that Marvel itself would never have existed without more than a few trips to the Drive-In!

With all due respect - 'it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what' - is nonsense.

First of all, Lee spent his 50+ years of his life lying about the 'nitty gritty of who came up with what' and I'll bet not once did you question it. Because deep down you know WHY he did.

Secondly, the WHY he did it, IS the reason it's in question - to steal credit and pay from the real creators to acheive fame and fortune without having to actually have the creative talent to succeed.

Bob Kane? I've NEVER in 30+ years of cussing and discussing this topic EVER heard anyone say, "it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what" when it comes to HIS villification of taking credit for the creation of Batman. I've never heard anyone say, "It's not like it's an original idea' or make excuses for him. Even now when people talk about it, no one says, "But he created a BRAND!" or "Leave the guy alone, he's dead!"

But bring up Stan Lee and people crawl out of the woodwork to defend the guy. 

[bronze_rules]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

With all due respect - 'it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what' - is nonsense.

First of all, Lee spent his 50+ years of his life lying about the 'nitty gritty of who came up with what' and I'll bet not once did you question it. Because deep down you know WHY he did.

Secondly, the WHY he did it, IS the reason it's in question - to steal credit and pay from the real creators to acheive fame and fortune without having to actually have the creative talent to succeed.

Bob Kane? I've NEVER in 30+ years of cussing and discussing this topic EVER heard anyone say, "it seems a bit silly to worry about the nitty gritty of who came up with what" when it comes to HIS villification of taking credit for the creation of Batman. I've never heard anyone say, "It's not like it's an original idea' or make excuses for him. Even now when people talk about it, no one says, "But he created a BRAND!" or "Leave the guy alone, he's dead!"

But bring up Stan Lee and people crawl out of the woodwork to defend the guy. 

Curious. Were you aware of the two-page synopsis of FF1 that Stan said he created before approaching Jack? I've read it, and it's pretty darn close to the story. Now, it is possible Roy Thomas went to the trouble to completely fabricate that synopsis or Stan (who sent it to him years later). Nevertheless, I haven't seen anyone debunk it, either. 

From an early Alter Ego.

"Incidentally, I didn’t discuss it with Jack first. I wrote it first, after
telling Jack it was for him because I knew he was the best guy to draw
it. ...P.S.: As you are probably aware, the biggest change that was made
after the synopsis was written, was— I decided to make the Thing more sympathetic than originally
intended. After seeing the way Jack drew him, I felt it was too obvious
for such an ugly, monstrous-looking guy to act in a typically monstrous,
menacing way.  Jack totally agreed, and the Thing ended up adding more comedy
than menace to the strip. (He’d prove to be menacing only to the bad
guys—not to our heroes.)" Roy Thomas

And I've started to go back and see what Stan's peers and artists had to say about him, and most were genuinely flattering of him as a person. Hard to hate someone after seeing all of that.

I truly think they were immensely creative talents who were bitter about their compensations and lack of credit, after seeing the tremendous success and riches that their co-creations brought over the years. It's like I've been saying - most successful creative fields are like that (including music, engineering development, movies etc...). You have the sales persona that typically uses hyperbole and exaggerations to promote the company and talent (and subsequently hoards the lion's share of profits when successful) and the bitter, hungry talent that sees a fraction of the (esp. monetary) benefits they created. Most deeply creative people are not sales promoters and are typically repulsed by or afraid to engage in what makes many sales leaders successful. That's pretty much capitalism in nutshell - but that leads to a much larger argument that's probably better discussed elsewhere.

 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by bronze_rules

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 4:29 AM, sfcityduck said:

I really don't think it matters who plagiarized what source material.

What matters is whether Kirby came to Stan with a fully formed creation or Stan came to Kirby with a fully formed creation or if they collaborated to come up with the full form of a creation.

And its really indisputable it was the last of the three options. Jack and Stan both probably had input on the plot, Jack indisputably did the pencils, and Stan indisputably wrote the dialogue. Jack is responsible for the visual "look" of the characters (sans costumes) through his art and Stan is responsible for the "feel" of the characters through his dialogue. And between the two, you have the creation.

LOL. 

Post- Marvel, where are Stan's fully formed creations? Oh my God, that's hilarious. 

Kirby of course had plenty of fully formed creations in both comic books and in animation.

Lee was the publisher of Marvel Comics - he could've made whatever he wanted to the entire time he was in that position. NOTHING.

He had all of Hollywood at his disposal to take one of his fully formed creations and.... NOTHING. He had none.

We've never see a fully formed Stan Lee creation. So the idea that out of the blue, the Fanatstic Four was one HE came up with is laughable.

On 9/22/2024 at 4:29 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fans can argue which is more important - art or dialogue - to the success of the storytelling. But that argument doesn't matter. They are both essential. You don't have a fully formed creation until you have the visual "look" of the characters and the written "feel" of the characters as expressed in the way they talk. Ideas don't matter, it is execution. And the work was indisputably executed by both. And the law says that Marvel owns the FF no matter what Jack or Stan feels. That's true for the copyright and for the trademarks.

It's sequential storytelling through art. To say the dialogue is JUST as important is incorrect. You CAN tell a story through just art. Marvel even did it in Two Gun Kid #61 -'And Not a Word was Spoken'. Lee still lists himself as SCRIPT. LOL.

On 9/22/2024 at 4:29 AM, sfcityduck said:

So assertions that it was all Jack or all Stan are really not defensible. 

Except, no one is making that assertion EXCEPT Marvel Comics and Stan Lee. According to them, Lee came up with everything and then just assigned an artist to draw it. But coming at it from THAT angle doesn't advance your agenda, does it?

On 9/22/2024 at 4:29 AM, sfcityduck said:

And given the poor memories and lack of definitive records by the participants, how to slice the amount of co-credit to each participant in the creation is just going to be a matter of opinion.

So at the end of the day, probably the right conclusion is that Stan and Jack both lied when they attempted to take full credit for their mutual creations.

LOL

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:57 AM, bronze_rules said:

Curious. Were you aware of the two-page synopsis of FF1 that Stan said he created before approaching Jack? I've read it, and it's pretty darn close to the story. Now, it is possible Roy Thomas went to the trouble to completely fabricate that synopsis or Stan (who sent it to him years later). Nevertheless, I haven't seen anyone debunk it, either. 

From an early Alter Ego.

"Incidentally, I didn’t discuss it with Jack first. I wrote it first, after
telling Jack it was for him because I knew he was the best guy to draw
it. ...P.S.: As you are probably aware, the biggest change that was made
after the synopsis was written, was— I decided to make the Thing more sympathetic than originally
intended. After seeing the way Jack drew him, I felt it was too obvious
for such an ugly, monstrous-looking guy to act in a typically monstrous,
menacing way.  Jack totally agreed, and the Thing ended up adding more comedy
than menace to the strip. (He’d prove to be menacing only to the bad
guys—not to our heroes.)" Roy Thomas

Again, the idea that Lee had a fully formed idea all laid out for Jack Kirby to just draw is... not just inconsistent to what we've seen throughout Stan's entire career, but suspiciously convienient to the topic FOR Lee.

I don't think I've ever weighed in on that document because... well because the IDEA that Lee had a fully formed concept all laid out for Jack Kirby to just draw is just not possible. Lee wasn't a writer. Lee's 'concepts' were very limited - "Let's have the Human Torch Guest Star!", "What if Spider-man quit?" "Let's bring back Dr. Doom again!"

The dude just did not have the juice. And NONE of the artists he worked with in the 60's ever say he DID. NONE of them ever say the things aboyt Lee that they said about Kirby and his seemingly endless mind full of concepts and ideas. They NEVER say that about Lee. They all mainly say he had NO ideas.

But... the document itself...

In READING it, the one time I did read it, I came to the conclusion that based on the way that it's written, it's NOTES from a meeting, where Lee is trying to add HIS ideas to what Kirby has brought him. That's how it read to me, and I've dismissed it ever since - even most Lee fans who've read it realize it's NOT the smoking gun that some try to portray it. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

The fact is you still felt the need to ask me if I did the same thing based on you not liking the idea of my book.

No. It was that the fact your book is not associated with a publisher suggests that you paid for its publication and would therefore be funding your publicity. 

[Prince Namor]

According to Comic Book Historian Michael J Vassallo, Ayers asked for writing credit on that Two Gun Kid story, because... well because HE wrote it and Lee was annoyed by it. Ayers wouldn't let up and Lee eventually paid him for 'lettering'.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/22/2024 at 12:42 AM, sfcityduck said:

No. It was that the fact your book is not associated with a publisher suggests that you paid for its publication and would therefore be funding your publicity. 

I assumed it was self-published because of the title. I didn't think a respected publishing house would risk going with that particular title.  

[Prince Namor]

Frequently bought together! Nice!

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 11:38 AM, Mmehdy said:

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

This is so relevant.

Reading this thread, one would get the notion that Kirby was creating everything and everyone was copying him, when in fact in many cases (Shield / Captain America for the most obvious one) Kirby's ideas were great but he was often borrowing other people's ideas.

Kirby didn't bring life to all of creation in 7 days from scratch. There was an organic growth to the industry, with many branches of growth happening along parallel lines. 

Captain America was lauded as a million issue selling success in the discussion because it was created by Kirby and Simon, but Captain America was clearly based on SHIELD, created by Irv Novick...more specifically spelled S.H.I.E.L.D. Now where have we seen that acronym? 

Digging deeper into SHIELD's origin, SHIELD was created when he found a chemical formula that enhances his physical skills, giving him super strength, speed and invulnerability. He was also an employee of the FBI. 

So Captain America was almost an exact copy of this character, only making Steve Rogers a military man formed using Secret Soldier serum.

I mean, frankly, Simon and Kirby copied MLJ almost to the smallest detail from what it seems. 

And for some perspective, DC in the late 1940's completely shut down publisher Fawcett with a lawsuit, accusing Captain Marvel was a copy of Superman, but CM bore less similarity to Superman than Captain America did to SHIELD! 

Now, I can see why Cap sold well. Kirby's art was much better than Novick's but Captain America wasn't an original creation in the purest sense. It was a copy of a previous character, albeit with better art.

How well did Shield sell compared to Cap?

It was a tough time to be a publisher and people were doing anything they could to stay alive, including stealing ideas from each other to compete and Kirby was no different at times. 

Edited 18 minutes ago by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/21/2024 at 11:20 AM, VintageComics said:

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

Lennon and McCartney were both extremely successful outside of the Beatles.

That's another subtle shift to the central point. 

Of course they were successful individually. They just weren't as successful separately because together they were greater than the sum of their parts. 

The same for members of Zeppelin or the Eagles or Abba. 

How silly. 

The point being that Kirby was a Lennon but not a Lennon and McCartney.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:29 PM, sfcityduck said:

I really don't think it matters who plagiarized what source material.

What matters is whether Kirby came to Stan with a fully formed creation or Stan came to Kirby with a fully formed creation or if they collaborated to come up with the full form of a creation.

And its really indisputable it was the last of the three options. Jack and Stan both probably had input on the plot, Jack indisputably did the pencils, and Stan indisputably wrote the dialogue. Jack is responsible for the visual "look" of the characters (sans costumes) through his art and Stan is responsible for the "feel" of the characters through his dialogue. And between the two, you have the creation.

Fans can argue which is more important - art or dialogue - to the success of the storytelling. But that argument doesn't matter. They are both essential. You don't have a fully formed creation until you have the visual "look" of the characters and the written "feel" of the characters as expressed in the way they talk. Ideas don't matter, it is execution. And the work was indisputably executed by both. And the law says that Marvel owns the FF no matter what Jack or Stan feels. That's true for the copyright and for the trademarks.

So assertions that it was all Jack or all Stan are really not defensible. 

And given the poor memories and lack of definitive records by the participants, how to slice the amount of co-credit to each participant in the creation is just going to be a matter of opinion.

So at the end of the day, probably the right conclusion is that Stan and Jack both lied when they attempted to take full credit for their mutual creations.

Their own memories are not going to be 100% accurate. 

It's entirely subjective how those memories are interpreted. 

One didn't do it without the other.

This is the most important part IMO: EVERY RELATIONSHIP IS 50/50

50% of what you do and 50% of what you allow. 

As far as I'm concerned, Marvel's greatness should be credited 50/50

Edited 1 hour ago by VintageComics

[CGC Mike]

@sfcityduck asked me to post that he was banned from this topic.

[PopKulture]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:35 PM, CGC Mike said:

@sfcityduck asked me to post that he was banned from this topic.

Thanks for your patience regarding this thread. It’s an important topic. I think eventually the thread will be populated with more pointed conversation once people who ordered the book already have a chance to read it and post their thoughts and comments.