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

[KCOComics]

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

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

Mike - not sure I follow why? I didn't think SFcity was being any more contentious than anyone else? 

I won't belabor the point... I'll start to feel like Roy if I question the moderation to much!! 

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 4:04 PM, 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.

It's ridiculous that you used all these words in an attempt to excuse what you did. And that you'd think anyone would be stupid to fall for this lame attempt at excusing it. What you are describing is very different from accusing someone of paying off Rich Johnston to write a review of their book.

If there's anyone owing an apology, it's you to the OP for insinuating what you did. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by comicwiz

[CGC Mike]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:13 PM, comicwiz said:

It's ridiculous that you used all these words in an attempt to excuse what you did. And that you'd think anyone would be stupid to fall for this lame attempt at excusing it. What you are describing is very different from accusing someone of paying off Rich Johnston to write a review of their book.

If there's anyone owing an apology, it's you to the OP for insinuating what you did. 

 

Seems @sfcityduck is not able to post in this thread and defend himself, please refrain from quoting him going forward.

[Mmehdy]

On 9/21/2024 at 5:35 PM, CGC Mike said:

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

I understand some type of control of content is necessary in the most controversial thread of the year… possibly in the last 5 years.

push back was expected as SM came on hard… guns blazing and course after years of believing Stan’s spinning while unfortunately the other Jack and Steve have passed .. finally SM does the right thing. Do a book by by detective analysis…. And expose the controversial real story.

and now … Sept 2024 this firecracker comes out on the greatest comic book forum in existence… the CGC boards with more collective comic book knowledge on this site then any other…

and here we are…..

  There is so much information… yet to be discussed… we have just hit the tip of the iceberg.
 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:20 PM, CGC Mike said:

Seems @sfcityduck is not able to post in this thread and defend himself, please refrain from quoting him going forward.

I did not get that far, I went from the notificaiton of the quoted comment he directed at me.

[JollyComics]

  Chaz.   Congrats on your book being published.

I noticed that Origins of Marvel Comics (Deluxe Edition) edited by other person that will come out on October 1st.   Chaz, do you think it will be the same story with some new changes?

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:03 PM, KCOComics said:

I'll start to feel like Roy if I question the moderation to much!! 

Mods notified. 

[comicwiz]

Popped-up in my memories, another example of the fun times artists had at Happy Time Comics

[JollyComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:01 PM, VintageComics said:

Mods notified. 

Your tiniest spark can.....

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:06 PM, comicwiz said:

Popped-up in my memories, another example of the fun times artists had at Happy Time Comics

Things like this happen in every industry, though. That's just corporate squeeze. It happened in mine, when they used to pay me $X for a job and then eventually just said "we can't pay you that anymore, we're now paying you less for the same job."

It's why I left the industry. 

Corporate profits trump anyone's feelings. 

[MAY1979]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:19 PM, Dr. Balls said:

 

William Randolph Hearst. He ran his media empire from 1887 to 1940 - at the end, he had a very different outcome than Stan. There may be others, but Hearst is the obvious first, with Lee being the second. At least in my opinion.

He did start one actual War in effect, but genuine kudos on his taste in mistresses..

Edited 4 hours ago by MAY1979

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 7:01 AM, VintageComics said:

This is so relevant.

"EVERYONE WAS STEALING FROM EVERYONE" 

"See it was ok for Stan to Lie!" LOL. 

On 9/22/2024 at 7:01 AM, VintageComics said:

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.

No one said everyone was copying Kirby.

On 9/22/2024 at 7:01 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

No one said that either. 

On 9/22/2024 at 7:01 AM, VintageComics said:

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? 

Based? No. Had similarities? Sure. They changed Cap's Shield. 

But the success of Captain America, based on what I've read from Golden Age creators who were there at the time have said in Interviews I've read over the last 30 YEARS - is a) He was punching Hitler on the cover of #1 and was going straight after the Nazi's (The Shield would copy that idea) and b) Kirby dynamic action artwork.

And Lee is the supposedly the one who came up with the name S.H.I.E.L.D. for Kirby's Nick Fury Spy idea.

On 9/22/2024 at 7:01 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

So what's your point? Kirby was influenced by the Shield? Not exactly anything we don't know.

If your point is: Because of that, it makes it ok for Lee to steal credit and pay from the people who wrote the stories, I disagree. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 7:09 AM, VintageComics said:

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.

 

But he WAS a Lennon and McCartney and WAS successful without Lee.

See, Kirby could write AND draw.

Stan could just edit and write a dialogue. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 7:21 AM, VintageComics said:

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

50/50???

Tell that to Lee and Marvel. They're the one's claiming Lee created everything and just assigned an artist. THEY are claiming 100%.

In 1974 Lee wrote the Origins of Marvel Comics and claimed... 50% of the creation? NO. He claimed he 100% came up with the ideas. Lee spent the last 20 years of his life saying HE created it all and then just assigned whatever artist he thought was best, including saying it UNDER OATH.

He claimed he was the WRITER and paid himself for it for over a DECADE, even though the artists wrote the stories. 

You're aiming this at Kirby??? LOL. 

Kirby came up with the ideas. Kirby wrote the stories. Kirby wrote the stories (layouts - that's writing the story) for OTHER artists. He was never paid for that writing. He was never rewarded for giving Marvel the IP property that would change the course of their companies LIFE. He was never even given a PLOT credit in the entire time we worked there in the 60's. 50/50 my Aunt Petunia. 

LEE was the one who got the benefit of all of that.

So don't give me this crud about 50-50 and aim it at KIRBY. That is just ridiculous. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:27 AM, JollyComics said:

  Chaz.   Congrats on your book being published.

I noticed that Origins of Marvel Comics (Deluxe Edition) edited by other person that will come out on October 1st.   Chaz, do you think it will be the same story with some new changes?

Thank you! My understanding is there will be added content. I still have my original, so I doubt I'll pick up the new one, but anyone who is a fan of the book or a collector may want to pick it up (it makes a great companion piece with MY book!).

Personally, when I read DisneyMarvel's Stan Lee propaganda, it makes me want to throw up. And at my age, that's never a good thing. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Prince Namor

[VintageComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

"EVERYONE WAS STEALING FROM EVERYONE" 

"See it was ok for Stan to Lie!" LOL. 

No one said everyone was copying Kirby.

No one said that either. 

Based? No. Had similarities? Sure. They changed Cap's Shield. 

But the success of Captain America, based on what I've read from Golden Age creators who were there at the time have said in Interviews I've read over the last 30 YEARS - is a) He was punching Hitler on the cover of #1 and was going straight after the Nazi's (The Shield would copy that idea) and b) Kirby dynamic action artwork.

And Lee is the supposedly the one who came up with the name S.H.I.E.L.D. for Kirby's Nick Fury Spy idea.

So what's your point? Kirby was influenced by the Shield? Not exactly anything we don't know.

If your point is: Because of that, it makes it ok for Lee to steal credit and pay from the people who wrote the stories, I disagree. 

Every time someone narrows a gap on a point you move the target to avoid narrowing in any further on the gap. It's impossible to have a discussion with a moving target like that.

Yes, everyone was essentially looking at what was selling on the newsstands and copying it in some way, with some derivative of what was successful. 

Yet, when you discuss Kirby you make him sound like he was pulling rabbits out of a hat by himself with no-one else capable of complementing him. In fact, he was complimenting everyone else just as much as they were complimenting him and you keep undermining everyone else's role diminishing the contributions of Simon and Kirby.  Your Kirby worldview is very one sided, and if that's not your intent, it's certainly how it's coming across, so you're not communicating in a way that offers anyone else any real credit. 

My point was that Kirby copied Shield down to almost the smallest details, and that it was much more of a copy than CM was of Superman. 

And none of that excuses stealing, but it does show that copying was an acceptable industry standard throughout the entire history of comics.

Something that wouldn't be tolerated today. 

On 9/21/2024 at 11:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

50/50???

Tell that to Lee and Marvel. They're the one's claiming Lee created everything and just assigned an artist. THEY are claiming 100%.

In 1974 Lee wrote the Origins of Marvel Comics and claimed... 50% of the creation? NO. He claimed he 100% came up with the ideas. Lee spent the last 20 years of his life saying HE created it all and then just assigned whatever artist he thought was best, including saying it UNDER OATH.

He claimed he was the WRITER and paid himself for it for over a DECADE, even though the artists wrote the stories. 

You're aiming this at Kirby??? LOL. 

Kirby came up with the ideas. Kirby wrote the stories. Kirby wrote the stories (layouts - that's writing the story) for OTHER artists. He was never paid for that writing. He was never rewarded for giving Marvel the IP property that would change the course of their companies LIFE. He was never even given a PLOT credit in the entire time we worked there in the 60's. 50/50 my Aunt Petunia. 

LEE was the one who got the benefit of all of that.

So don't give me this crud about 50-50 and aim it at KIRBY. That is just ridiculous. 

Every relationship everyone stays in is 50/50. 

50% of what you do and 50% of what you allow, and if you allow something to persist in a relationship, you don't get to complain about it for allowing it. 

That's real life. 

On 9/21/2024 at 10:59 PM, Prince Namor said:

But he WAS a Lennon and McCartney and WAS successful without Lee.

See, Kirby could write AND draw.

Stan could just edit and write a dialogue. 

I'm not going to go in circles anymore. It was a fun discussion but now it's just getting repetitive.