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

[namisgr]

"He didn't write the stories".  

Read Hulk 5 and 6, drawn by Kirby and Ditko, respectively, and tell me again if you believe Stan didn't write nearly all the narration boxes and dialog balloons.

Or read two early JIMs with Thor, like ish 87 or 93 that Kirby pencilled and ish 95 or 96 that he didn't.  Same writer for the narratives and word balloons there, too.

Finally, it's no coincidence that some of the greatest and most significant lines in Marvel comics, like the ones about 'with great power' and 'face it, tiger' were written by Stan.

Edited Tuesday at 10:46 AM by namisgr

[Prince Namor]

On 9/24/2024 at 5:22 PM, namisgr said:

"He didn't write the stories".  

Read Hulk 5 and 6, drawn by Kirby and Ditko, respectively, and tell me again if you believe Stan didn't write nearly all the narration boxes and dialog balloons.

He didn't write the stories.

He wrote dialogue. That includes the narration boxes and the dialog balloons. The story was already done.

On 9/24/2024 at 5:22 PM, namisgr said:

Or read two early JIMs with Thor, like ish 87 or 93 that Kirby pencilled and ish 95 or 96 that he didn't.  Same writer for the narratives and word balloons there, too.

He didn't write the stories. He wrote the dialogue. He did what an editor does. He made suggestions and then someone else actually wrote the stories. 

Of course the dialogue sounds the same. He WROTE the dialogue. He demanded the artists ddidn't because he wanted to be sneaky and make people THINK he wrote the stories. That's why he used the words 'Script' and 'Writer' in the credit boxes. He did neither. He gave suggestions and let the artist write the story, then he filled in the blanks.

Every artist in the Silver Age that he worked with basically said the same things: "He gave me very little to go on, and I had to come up with the story."

Not just Kirby. Not just Ditko. Wood, Orlando, Heck, Colan, Ayers, Goldberg, Hartley, Romita... they ALL did.

On 9/24/2024 at 5:22 PM, namisgr said:

Finally, it's no coincidence that some of the greatest and most significant lines in Marvel comics, like the ones about 'with great power' and 'face it, tiger' were written by Stan.

The first one isn't HIS, he took it from someone else. 

And really, I challenge you to come up with 10 great memorable lines that Stan Lee wrote.

They recently had the same quest on a Facebook site - a Stan Lee fan group - and no one could come up with anything. Except those two.

Because there isn't anything. Lee convinced a whole generation of followers that he was the 'Modern Day Shakespeare', when in reality - anyone who thought Lee's dialogue was GREAT, doesn't know the first thing about Shakespeare, other than how to name drop it.

Edited Tuesday at 11:01 AM by Prince Namor

[namisgr]

No spit, Sherlock.  But that someone else didn't place it in Amazing Fantasy #15, and neither did Ditko.  It's there because of Stan.  Same for the famous 'Face it, tiger' line, and so many others.

The rest of your browbeating 'response' is just that.  You conflate 'plotting' with 'writing', give Stan no credit whatsoever for his contributions to plotting, purposefully undervalue the importance of the narrative boxes, word balloons, cover hype, bullpen page, early letters page, etc., in effect smothering when a healthy thread gives breathing room for numerous takes and opinions to stand side by side.  

Later.

Edited Tuesday at 11:22 AM by namisgr

[Prince Namor]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:14 PM, namisgr said:

No spit, Sherlock.  But that someone else didn't place it in Amazing Fantasy #15, and neither did Ditko.  It's there because of Stan.  Same for the famous 'Face it, tiger' line, and so many others.

The rest of your browbeating 'response' is just that.  You conflate 'plotting' with 'writing', give Stan no credit whatsoever for his contributions to plotting, purposefully undervalue the importance of the narrative boxes, word balloons, cover hype, bullpen page, early letters page, etc., in effect smothering when a healthy thread gives breathing room for numerous takes and opinions to stand side by side.  

Later.

LOL. Your opinions shouldn't be questioned. Got it. 

[namisgr]

Mary Jane Watson.  Stan and John co-created for certain, with perhaps a hand from Steve, too.  

Mary Jane Watson is mentioned in The Amazing Spider-Man #15 (August 1964), and is initially used as a running joke of the series, as Peter Parker's Aunt May repeatedly attempts to set her unwilling nephew up on a date with her. Parker (also known as Spider-Man) consistently worms his way out of meeting Mary Jane who, aside from a brief appearance in #25 (June 1965) with her face obscured, is never actually seen until The Amazing Spider-Man #42 (November 1966). Peter David wrote in 2010 that artist John Romita Sr. "made the definitive statement of his arrival by pulling Mary Jane out from behind the oversized potted plant [that blocked the readers' view of her face in issue #25] and placing her on panel in what would instantly become an iconic moment". Romita has stated that in designing Mary Jane, he "used Ann-Margret from the movie Bye Bye Birdie as a guide, using her coloring, the shape of her face, her red hair and her form-fitting short skirts".

Edited Tuesday at 11:44 AM by namisgr

[Prince Namor]

Daniel Greenberg has done an amazing amount of research on Lee's dialogue writing and... some of you may take issue with his tone toward Lee, but his points and observations are no less valid. The lesser the writer an artist was, the lesser the story was in books where Lee called himself the writer. But he made plenty of errors on Kirby's story's as well. But we'll start with this example as it touches on many topics:

Daniel Greenberg 

12 June 2024

Stan Lee is a Terrible Writer # ST01

"𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑑𝑜𝑚-- 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔?"

--Stan Lee's message to women.

The ONLY Marvel property that Stan Lee clawed back ownership of was "Femizons," a cheesecake one-shot in the Mature Rated black-and-white Savage Tales #01, which was cancelled after the first issue. When ST was re-launched two years later, it was WITHOUT Lee's Femizons.

The Barry Windsor-Smith lead story in ST#01, The Frost Giant's Daughter, has been reprinted multiple times. For some reason, Stan Lee's Femizons story does not appear to have ever been reprinted-- except in Stan Lee's book full of self-hype lies, The Superhero Women-- in a terrible reproduction without the Mature Rating warning. Classy move, Sneaky Stan.

This future society is Lee's first ttempt at new IP worldbuilding without Jack Kirby, and it is utterly incoherent-- showing that Kirby did all the worldbuilding, because Stan Lee is objectively incompetent.

Some lowlights:

The Femizon creed is "sexuality, solidarity, superiority." Because feminism is about... superiority?

Of course, in Lee's world, sexuality is a female thing. However, the creed is utterly incoherent, as Lee completely contradicts the "sexuality" part.

Stan Lee does not understand what sexuality means. "The quality or state of being sexual," is entirely missing from the world of the Femizons, where love between men and women is "forbidden" and they reproduce only by "sperm bank." And even though this is a "mature" comic, Lee can't being himself to write a word even hinting at the Femizons loving each other (which makes sense as Stan Lee is on tape hurling homophobic slurs). So who exactly is all that sexuality for?

Why, it's all for the gaze of Sexist Stan. That's why these brutal warriors are dolled up like supermodels in skimpy armor, manicured nails, and tons of makeup. Just look at all that eye shadow.

"My BLADE-- the most FEARED thruout the alliance."

Superlative Stan can't simply say Lyra is great at fighting, has to say she is the BEST. Extremist hype is consistently a major flaw in Lee's writing, along with the usual Stan Lee misspelling here.

"Something is LACKING in my life-- in ALL our lives," she worries during the obligatory cheesecake bathing sequence while the slave waits to massage her. Gee, Subtle Stan, whatever could that be?

During the brief time of the bath, the slave has been able to find and enter her "secret room." (SYMBOLISM!)

She knows he's in the secret room, she's armed, and she's the "most feared" sword fighter. Yet, unarmed, he effortlessly overpowers her. Why? Because he's a man. Why does she lessly scratch at his arm. Because she's a woman. Where is the elbow to his gut? The body slam backwards? The flip? Even in a story about "Femizons", Lee can't even bring himself to let the "most feared" fighter be even a slightly a good fighter.

"The Princess Lyra will PROTECT me-- for I have found your SECRET."

She KNOWS he found her secret. That's why she wants to kill him, not protect him. So what possible motivation does she have to stop fighting when he reminds her he found her treasonous secret?

And what possible motivation does he have to actually release her in the next panel? And what possible motivation does she have to NOT kill him?

Either Stan Lee is simply an idiotic plotter, or Lee did no plot this story, John Romita did, and Lee simply filled in Romita's "crossword puzzle" with clueless Marvel Method dialogue disconnected from the story.

What could Romita have intended here? All the slave needed to say is the truth-- that he WON'T out her to the Queen, that he supports her having the secret tapes, and he'll put his life on the line to prove it. That's why he releases her, knowing she could kill him. Romita, who was not granted writing credits for his stories at Marvel, is clearly the writer here.

And what's up with the slave switching between calling her "The Princess Lyra" and "you" in a single sentence? More objectively bad dialogue.

"NO! You MUSTN'T!"

"It is TOO LATE to stop me now!"

As he fiddles with the brain tape headband, she scoops up her sword and chops him to pieces. Oh, wait, no! Instead, the "most feared" sword fighter stands there like a dope, completely out of character, doing nothing to the guy who can cause her to be executed for treason.

"...when it was ruled by men! A world of WAR-- POVERTY-- HATRED-- VIOLENCE-- and senseless, deadly POLLUTION! But we've CHANGED all that! It will NEVER happen again!"

More incoherence. The Femizons appear to have gotten rid of social ills like like poverty and pollution, but they are currently fighting a war with the "wild beast men" to completely wipe them all out, so how is it that war, hatred, and violence can't happen?

In the hands of a real writer this could be chance for fun dialogue with the slave pointing out her cognitive dissonance. But Stan Lee wrote the dialogue, so the cognitive dissonance does not come from the character, it comes from the writer. (This is a lot like Lee's execrable Silver Surfer, who whines about lesser beings and thier pointless violence while constantly being provoked to pointless violence.)

"... where the high priestesses guard the precious SPERM supply."

The less said about this dialogue the better, except that without Jack Kirby, Stan Lee's worldbuilding is incoherent. The slave's plan to overthrow the Femizons involves destroying their sperm banks. How will that accomplish anything other than inconveniencing them? Assuming the Femizons use genetic engineering to get only female babies (not stated) all the Femizons need to do is get sperm from the slaves they have or some captured wild men and then get rid of "ninety percent of the male children" that follow, as they did before. The Femizon way goes on. Easy.

Lyra quickly agrees to "BETRAY all that I was-- all that I AM-- and my heart answers-- YES!"

In a world without romantic love, what's with this "heart" cliche?

"But when we are SAFE from prying eyes-- we can be LADY and LOVER-- as it was in the forbidden days of old."

"For the first time, the WARRIOR becomes a WOMAN--- fulfilled."

So... women are not women? Until they have heterosexual sex? Women cannot be "fulfilled" without men? Got it, Stereotypin' Stan.

And how is the slave having sex at all? In a Femizon world where sex is forbidden, why would they allow a 10% population of male slaves who are not castrated? This is complete incompetence in running a misandrist society.

Lee's worldbuilding is also incoherent. Clearly heterosexuals sex is forbidden. Yet a the end of the story she demands two more slaves "for the night will be LONG."

"Was there REALLY once a time when men were ALL like you? A time of LOVE-- and VALOR?"

Stan Lee flatters himself that he, and ALL men before women took over were valorous. None were craven liars and thieves.

"What GOOD is a kingdom-- which has no KING?"

Here it is. Lee explicitly states that men are to rule over women.

This story is a sloppy, incoherent mess. So why was this is the property Lee fought to get back from Marvel? And why did he to do anything with the Femizons IP at his fraudulent businesses, like Stan Lee Media?

Could it be that everyone, even in his fraudulent companies, could see what trash this is?

[namisgr]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:24 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL. Your opinions shouldn't be questioned. Got it. 

I'm quite sure everyone reading this thread can see who it is whose opinions shouldn't be questioned. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:31 PM, namisgr said:

I'm quite sure everyone reading this thread can see who it is whose opinions shouldn't be questioned. 

Oh no. ALL of my opinions, including one's people have MADE UP, have been questioned. Not ONCE have I said, you CAN'T do that!

Never once did I berate Bookery for writing a large amount of text in response to something I said - I simply REPLIED.

YOU are the one who aimed it at ME:

"The rest of your browbeating 'response' is just that.  You conflate 'plotting' with 'writing', give Stan no credit whatsoever for his contributions to plotting, purposefully undervalue the importance of the narrative boxes, word balloons, cover hype, bullpen page, early letters page, etc., in effect smothering when a healthy thread gives breathing room for numerous takes and opinions to stand side by side. 

Bookery had PLENTY to say. No one here said, "Hey man, you're smothering the thread! Stop browbeating!"

But because I disagreed with something YOU have stated, suddenly I'm browbeating. Suddenly I'm smothering.

Got it.

It always becomes personal. 

[Zonker]

At least in this area, I think Mark Evanier was correct: inevitably this discussion converges towards a disagreement about what counts as “writing.”  I think Stan’s dialogue certainly counts as “writing.”  If I squint hard enough, I can even see that what Stan did could be interpreted as “scripting.”  Doing so requires us to use the term script similar to how a stage manager for a theatrical production would tell an actor to “Stick to the script!” i.e. the dialogue as-written, rather than ad-libbing something else.  Or a radio script being 90% dialogue and/or narration, and radio drama was certainly a medium all these guys during this period would have grown up with.  

[Prince Namor]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:53 PM, Zonker said:

At least in this area, I think Mark Evanier was correct: inevitably this discussion converges towards a disagreement about what counts as “writing.”  I think Stan’s dialogue certainly counts as “writing.”  If I squint hard enough, I can even see that what Stan did could be interpreted as “scripting.”  Doing so requires us to use the term script similar to how a stage manager for a theatrical production would tell an actor to “Stick to the script!” i.e. the dialogue as-written, rather than ad-libbing something else.  Or a radio script being 90% dialogue and/or narration, and radio drama was certainly a medium all these guys during this period would have grown up with.  

To me that's not writing. In Hollywood they call that a script doctor. They're not credited as 'the writer'. 

Every editor at DC Comics in the 60's suggested ideas to the writers. And every one of those Editors corrected dialogue, added and subtracted dialogue, put together covers and had word balloons moved around...

None of them took credit as the 'writer' and the 'scripter'.

[Zonker]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:01 AM, Prince Namor said:

To me that's not writing.

 

Quote

 inevitably this discussion converges towards a disagreement about what counts as “writing.” 

My work here is done.  

[Prince Namor]

Daniel Greenberg

 28 April 2024

 

Stan Lee is a terrible writer # SS4 (Sort by All Comments)

EVERY character in this story is an (dolt) for the plot to happen.

John Buscema tells us he had only a "very sketchy plot outline to work from," for Silver Surfer #4. He did a strong job, yet Lee tore him apart for his story. But that still did not motivate Lee to actually write scripts. Let's examine Lee's many OBJECTIVELY BAD writing errors:

1. "Unlike the humans-- who call you beast-- there is no violence in your heart."

Stan Lee does not know how lions work.

2. "no violence... Not a hint of avarice-- no smoldering hate. Yet man... is a stranger to peace-- a prisoner, caught in the web of his own nameless fears!"

A few pages later, Captain Judgemental is not only lashing out violently, full of smoldering hate, he is even full of avarice, since he is attacking to regain his lost love. Lee's hypocrisy on parade makes the Surfer a (dolt).

3. "No harm can come in combat when both hearts be truly pure."

 Wise Odin is a complete (dolt) when written by Stan Lee.

4. "I sense that I have been misled! --Betrayed by the one who brought me here! But right or wrong-- one fact remains-- no one calls me coward!"

Even though he's aware Loki has misled him, he's overreacting to being called a "coward" with pure VIOLENCE in his heart and a not-so "nameless fear." It's called wounded vanity, Silver Surfer. You are an (dolt) and you are everything you complain about.

5. Thor "must have suspected-- from the beginning-- that I was merely duped."

Yet Thor idiotically never bothered to mention it before or during all the fighting. Not even during that time that he agreed to "lend ear to thy complaint." Why was Thor a (dolt)?

So Lee's "plot" could happen.

Writing errors on EVERY PAGE below. Sort by All Comments to see each page in order.

Edited Tuesday at 12:07 PM by Prince Namor

[lostboys]

 

Does anyone think Kirby would have approved of this book?

 

I'm thinking he could've written it himself...no?

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/24/2024 at 12:14 PM, namisgr said:

The rest of your browbeating 'response' is just that.  

 

On 9/24/2024 at 12:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

But because I disagreed with something YOU have stated, suddenly I'm browbeating. Suddenly I'm smothering.

Got it.

It always becomes personal. 

 

On 9/15/2024 at 4:19 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

 because of the conduct of the author who persistently tries to bully, browbeat and corral his audience to his way of thinking, at any cost.

 

You are not 'suddenly' browbeating....you have been doing it from word one. I accused you of it 10 days ago and you are still doing it.

You are doing the kind of stuff that you are accusing Lee of, conveniently forgetting facts and twisting the narrative to suit yourself.

Your book is not the issue here. Doesn't matter if every word you have set to print is true, your responses to even the most mild criticism is to mock, pour scorn and to deflect...and then when all else fails you accuse people of attacking you and making it personal. YOU are making it personal and when people react you run for cover and play at being a victim, when in your own words earlier in the thread you are well able to defend yourself verbally.

Clearly you are not. At the very best your behaviour in this thread is disingenuous.

If your book becomes a million seller and you end up famous, this thread will always stand testimony to your personality, and who you really are.

Remember that. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:52 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

You are not 'suddenly' browbeating....you have been doing it from word one. I accused you of it 10 days ago and you are still doing it.

You are doing the kind of stuff that you are accusing Lee of, conveniently forgetting facts and twisting the narrative to suit yourself.

Example?

On 9/24/2024 at 7:52 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Your book is not the issue here. Doesn't matter if every word you have set to print is true, your responses to even the most mild criticism is to mock, pour scorn and to deflect...and then when all else fails you accuse people of attacking you and making it personal. YOU are making it personal and when people react you run for cover and play at being a victim, when in your own words earlier in the thread you are well able to defend yourself verbally.

Clearly you are not. At the very best your behaviour in this thread is disingenuous.

If your book becomes a million seller and you end up famous, this thread will always stand testimony to your personality, and who you really are.

Remember that. 

Not one item about the topic in your post. Just a screed against me. 

[Prince Namor]

In debate, or discussion... someone disagreeing with you and presenting a rebuttal isn't seen as offensive. THAT is how debate and discussion works. 

[comicwiz]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:53 AM, Zonker said:

inevitably this discussion converges towards a disagreement about what counts as “writing.”

Maybe. However I look at it slightly differently. I see what Stan Lee doing as far as touting his "writing" a lot like Rob Granito taking pictures of himself, with paint on his face, apron, shirt, arm, and holding a print he painted over. Often in horribly unconvincing ways, even though if he really wanted to look the part, all he had to do was embellish it slightly rather than the exaggerated way he chose. Granito, rightly, was deemed a fraud, and banned from conventions.

Where I have the most difficulty in the interpretation of how we've arrived at the determination of the limits and scope of Flashman's involvement are with the afterlife some of the original art itself reveals, particularly when it is acting as a relic or artifact that is being used to analyze and arrive at conclusions. Here, I'm not sure we can do this with enough consistency across the board to really understand where things start and stop every time. We do have artists testimonials, such as the post I made where Stan Goldberg explains why and how we was forced into doing the writing, and how Flashman instructs on the margins of Goldbergs work, where his signature needs to go on the page to achieve the prominance he feels his name recognition deserves, depsite doing nothing on the page to deserve it.

And as I own a fair bit of original art where the two collaborated (the latter, insofar as Flashman having his name on it), I can speak on things such as notes in the margins, behind paste-ups, and erasure of pencilling which appears to have once served as sort of a direction on the visual storytelling Goldberg did. In the latter instances, seeing Flashman's notes, sometimes berating Goldberg, like it or not, served more as a clearer role as editor than anything else.

I also have a pre-FF 1 page which has his pencilled notes on the writing to be used on the paste-up that covers it. The paste up is live-ink writing replicating the pencilled notes beneath, and the paste-up came off over time. In that instance, I'd imagine even most of that writing was derived by the letters from fans asking for a certain style/look to be used on the character, Goldberg drawing it based on the letter, and Flashman basically just reiterating the words from the letter and the guidance from a competently rendered drawing by the artist.

I'd also imagine a lot of the forensics that have been used when it comes to inspecting the OA is still holding some secrets/truths behind elements which are covering it, or have been erased. Time will tell the story here if people care enough to compile more condemning evidence to confirm what we already believe to be indisuptable.

All said, when I saw the doc, particularly those stills that were used to show him with a typewriter in the most unusual situations/settings, used to boast about his "writing", the first thing that entered into my view was Flashman and Granito must have been cast from the same mold.

Edited Tuesday at 02:30 PM by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

ESSAY’s and TALKING POINTS from ‘Stan Lee Lied: Your Handy Guide to All of the LIES in ‘The Origins of Marvel Comics’. (Available NOW on Amazon - The Book that Stan Lee Fans DON’T Want You to Read!)

Was Marvel as successful under Stan Lee as his fans THINK it was?

When you talk about Marvel Comics and what Stan Lee claims he did… How successful the company was under him is consistently brought up. 

I'm well aware it's a diversion tactic to take away from the overall topic that Lee, for over a decade, stole both credit and pay from the artists that actually wrote the comics, but I still find it to be an interesting topic.

Mainly because like most of the BS that Lee spouted in his life it's another questionable claim that bears a closer look at just how accurate it is. 

First and foremost, it's important to remember that Marvel Comics NEVER did sell more comics than their closest rival, DC Comics in the 60’s.That’s right. The era that Lee fans like to point to as the high point of Marvel Comics… never came close to DC in the 1960’s. 

It didn’t manage to surpass them in 1970 and 1971 either. 

And comparatively, their sales were… pretty average for the era.  

Realistically until DC starts to shoot themselves in the foot by pricing their Comics at more than Marvel in 1972 and…Marvel gluts the market with reprints (mostly because they were void of any creative talent since Kirby and Ditko had left), Marvel played second fiddle to DC for the entire time that Lee was in charge of it. 

In fact, Archie Comics outsold Marvel throughout the 60s.

Marvel Comics didn't become the number one publisher until late in 1972. And the main reason they did was because a) DC upped the price of all of their books to 25 cents, five cents higher than Marvel and b) Marvel flooded the market with about 45% of their output being reprint material.

Again, they didn’t have the creative people to come up with new books that actually sold, so… they reprinted a bunch of Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko stories.

Did it work?

Marvel would surpass DC comics in sales throughout the 70s despite all of their titles going down in sales numbers of average comics per month sold. DC comics just went down in sales at a faster rate than Marvel did. 

Let that sink in: Despite going down in sales almost every year in the 70’s, DC Comics managed to go down in sales even MORE than Marvel.

 

 

So what is it that makes people think sales at Marvel were so great?

Lee’s huckster BS mostly. The numbers don’t back it up.

Ultimately, the ‘Brand’ that Lee had ‘built’, had gone down in individual sales for each book for almost a decade straight and stood at the brink of going out of business late in the decade. 

 

“As previously mentioned, Marvel was a mess throughout the mid-1970’s and during my two years as “associate editor,” from the beginning of 1976 through the end of 1977.  Almost every book was late.  There were unscheduled reprints and fill-ins, and we still just plain missed issues here and there.  Many books, despite my best efforts to shore up the bottom were unreadable.  Not merely bad.  Unreadable.  Almost all were less than they ought to be… what can’t be debated is that sales were bad and falling.  It was almost all newsstand sales then, by the way.  This was before the Direct Market was a significant factor.  The comics overall were breakeven at best.  Upstairs, the cheesy non-comics magazine department was losing millions.  It seemed like the company as a whole was in a death spiral.”

- Jim Shooter, from his blog (jimshooter.com) July 5, 2011

 

Yes, by 1977 Marvel Comics was on the verge of bankruptcy. They were the number one publisher, but sales were way down and even worse, they were being poorly managed. It wasn’t profitable. And again, Lee was at the helm as Marvel was looking down the barrel of a grim future. It wasn't Martin Goodman's fault this time. Lee was the publisher now.

 

But let’s go back a decade first… where does this idea come from that Marvel Comics was so successful in the 60s?

Let's look at Some facts:

The growth of Marvel Comics from 1958 when they were preparing to shut down and Jack Kirby walked in the door and saved the company until 1969 was a huge growth in sales. 

And I mean HUGE.

We don't have all the numbers , but we know from Marvel advertisements that they used to entice newsstand distributors to buy their products, Marvel went from 16 million copies sold in 1960 to an astonishing jump of up to 40 million by 1966. 

That's an astounding increase of 150%

From closer inspection most of these growth spurts were smaller: 12.5%,  5% (the year everyone went to 12 cents), 14%,  23% (1964) 15%… and all coincided with Marvel expanding each year with more titles. As I’ve already shown, the ‘limited to 8 titles a month’ was a lie. Marvel averaged 8.5 a month in 1960, 10.2 in 1961, 11.1 in 1962 - you could make a graph and the increase in sales would line up with the increase in books.

In 1964 they averaged 12.8 books a month (up from 11.8 the year before)… but WHAT they expanded with played a huge part: Gone would be ‘Kathy’ and ‘Love Romances’ and ‘Gunsmoke Western’ - titles Lee was already getting paid to work Marvel Method on, but now he had ‘The Avengers’, ‘X-Men’, ‘Daredevil’, and a line of  Annuals…that Jack Kirby mainly wrote for him, and that would be so much more successful.

It’s not surprising that sales jumped in 1964.

Does Lee deserve credit for that?

He was there and he was a part of it. Why did none of sales jump before Kirby was around?

Why did Lee’s ‘huckster’ persona sell Kirby’s books, but not his own (Kathy, Love Romances, Gunsmoke Western)?

As you’ll see later… when Kirby LEFT Marvel part way through 1970… sales suddenly went back DOWN for the first time since he’d returned.

But we’ll get to that…

The second big increase was in 1966 when sales went up 48%!

What happened in 1966 that would explode their sales that much more than they already were ? Lee’s promotion? His clever marketing of the ‘brand’? His Bullpen Bulletins?

No. It was Batman. 

In 1966 DC Comics’ Batman debuted with a brand new live action TV show that aired in Primetime.  It was a huge hit that reached audiences that comic books had never experienced. Nielsen ratings showed that Batman was reaching anywhere from 35 to 50 million HOUSEHOLDS.

Marvel Comics and Stan Lee can say what they want about his ‘promotion’ talents… He never did anything that reached 35 to 50 million HOUSEHOLDS.

Batman the comic, felt the aftershock. It went from 453,000 avg copies sold per month to 898,000 in 1966, followed by 805,000 in 1967, and then consistently dropping after that. Meanwhile, Marvel's bestseller the Amazing Spider-Man sold Between 340,000 and 370,000 during this period of time. 

(Note: Comparatively, the 1967 Spider-man Cartoon, which started in September of 1967, would have an effect on sales that we wouldn’t see until the 1968 numbers came out… raising Amazing Spider-man’s sales from 361,000 to 373,000 - about 12,000 extra copies a month.)

 

 

 

Yes, the BIGGEST Media Promotion of Superheroes in the 60’s is overlooked, because Lee fans have convinced everyone that Lee made Marvel the best selling line of comics in the 60’s.

They weren’t. And it wasn’t even close.

In 1966, DC’s Top 8 titles (that we have Statement of Publications for), Superman, Batman, Action Comics, Adventure Comics, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, and World’s Finest sold 4.7 million avg copies per month.

Marvel’s Top 8 titles (that we have Statement of Publications for), Amazing Spider-man, Fantastic Four, Thor, Avengers, Strange Tales, Tales to Astonish, Tales of Suspense, X-Men and Sgt. Fury sold 2.2 million avg copies per month.

 

Did it get better?

It did.

 

1967 - DC - 4.2 Million to Marvel 2.3 Million

1968 - DC - 3.9 Million to Marvel 2.4 Million

1969 - DC - 3.0 Million to Marvel 2.2 Million

1970 - DC - 2.7 Million to Marvel 2.1 Million - Kirby leaves mid-1970

1971 - DC - 2.5 Million to Marvel 1.7 Million - Marvel’s first Kirby-less year

1972 - DC - 1.8 Million to Marvel 1.7 Million - DC goes to 25 cents

1973 - DC - 1.7 Million to Marvel 1.6 Million

1974 - DC - 1.8 Million to Marvel 1.78 Million

1975 - DC - 1.74 Million to Marvel 1.73 Million

1976 - DC - 1.7 Million to Marvel 1.6 Million

1977 - DC - 1.36 Million to Marvel 1.35 Million

1978 - DC - 1.17 Million to Marvel 1.28 Million

 

In 1971, DC is still ahead of Marvel by 800,000 copies a month on their Top 8 titles vs Marvel’s Top 8. Then… they make the switch to 25 cents and they drop 700,000 a month on those books, while Marvel holds steady, only 100,000 off.

But STILL Marvel can’t top DC on the Top 8. Somehow DC holds on until Marvel finally surpasses them in 1978. The Reprints helped Marvel become the overall #1 publisher in 1972 - but the core titles lagged behind DC almost through the whole decade.

WHY?

Mainly because Marvel went from 278 books published a year to 400 in 1972, again, mainly fueled by reprints.

Where was Stan Lee to create something new to save them? Wasn’t he the guy who created everything? Wasn’t he the magic man?

Suddenly, without Kirby, Lee’s creativity had completely dried up.

Lee fans can make every claim about New Gods and the Fourth World books they want - they were light years beyond anything Lee would ever do again. Hell, Kamandi is light years beyond anything Lee would ever do again.

So how did Marvel escape the falling sales of the 1970’s? How did they bridge that gap between then and Shooter being the one to actually maximize the ‘brand’?

Again, someone else's ideas saved the company.

And again, Marvel would try to claim THEY had the idea, though not quite in the same way.

 

Roy Thomas for a number of years liked to say that HE brought Star Wars to Marvel and it saved the company. Not true.

Charles Lippincott, a marketer for Star Wars brought it to Marvel.

 

“I went to New York for the Toy Fair in Feb. 1976 and tried to cold call Stan Lee at Marvel for a meeting. Failing, I met with Roy Thomas, who arranged a meeting. Stan Lee and I came to an agreement for MARVEL to do the STAR WARS COMICS which would come out before the film (5-25-77).”

- Charles Lippincott, from his blog, (therealcharleslippincott.blogspot.com), April 4, 2015

 

Lippincott was the one setting up the deal, giving Marvel a sweetheart package (free use of the Star Wars license for the first 5 issues) and making sure the process ran smoothly.

Roy Thomas again being called out for taking credit for something just because he was THERE.

Sales exploded right with the first issue and Marvel had a hit finally - again, not from Lee, but another outside source - and Marvel would live another day.

 

In the end, with Marvel barely surviving disaster, Lee did what was best for Marvel. He stepped down. As Publisher, he could SAY that he’d made Marvel the #1 Publisher - and he was right - but the business was a complete mess.

The guy who supposedly ‘ran everything’, had oversaw the business being run into the ground, had gone more than a decade without any new ideas, and despite a Hulk TV show and a syndicated Spider-man Newspaper strip… could only look on in jealousy as DC’s Superman movie was in production and set to be released the following year.

It would be 24 years before Marvel could claim to have a real big screen superhero movie, and that was under someone else’s control. It would be 30 years before Marvel would have their own movie in 2008’s Iron Man.

Meanwhile DC would get FOUR Superman Movies made, FOUR Batman movies made, and by the time Marvel finally realized Lee didn’t have the ability to make anything happen and brought in someone else to get Iron Man going - DC was already on it’s Reboot of the Batman movie franchise.

Lee had no direct involvement with the process for any of the movies, instead reduced to what would be a regular cameo - to help perpetuate the lie that he created it all.

The absolute best thing that had happened to Marvel was that he had finally stepped down and let OTHERS build the brand.

It’s not that Lee’s promotion throughout his time as Editor-in-Chief wasn’t necessary or didn’t help… it DID… it built an army of loyal followers, but… why didn’t it increase sales in the 70’s?

In looking at the numbers… Marvel’s sales rose during KIRBY’s time at the company. The were down when he first came back in 1958, went up every year he was there and then went down after he left in 1970.

Coincidence?

 

At the Annual Christmas Party in 1977 for the Marvel office, Lee announced that Jim Shooter would be the new Editor-in-Chief. The entire office went dead silent in shock.

Shooter would run off Roy Thomas, and Lee wouldn’t intervene to help him. Shooter would run off MANY people, but he’d also… luck into or strategically hire (Lee always got the benefit of the doubt)… the people who would bring the print run numbers UP for the first time since the 60’s.

And Lee… would no longer play a part in anything.

 

And what happened was Marvel Comics for the first time became a real powerhouse of publishing. Shooter got the books out on time. He also saw the potential of the Direct Market and started feeding into it about the time he ran Roy Thomas out. The Direct Market would end up playing a huge role in Marvel becoming more of an important brand than Lee had ever been able to make it.

By his own planning or through sheer happenstance, Shooter also helped Marvel grow by finding REAL creators. None of them were Kirby - there will probably never BE another Jack Kirby - but these guys proved to be exactly what the company needed - not fanboy writers, wanting to leech off of artists thru the Marvel Method - but writer/artists themselves who understood how comics worked and what made for entertaining books that sold.

John Byrne would take over writing and drawing the Fantastic Four after the numbers had dropped to as low as 177,000 average copies per month in 1978 (from Kirby’s last full year on the book in 1969 at 340,000 copies)*. Byrne would consistently run in the 250,000 copy a month range for the half a decade plus he wrote and drew the book, and upon his unceremonious departure, it would again fall below 200,000 average copies a month.

Frank Miller would take over a Daredevil Book that had fallen in numbers every single year it printed a Statement of Publication - NINE straight years. 1969 to 1978, and it now sat at 111,000 average copies per month.

Miller, a real creator with ideas beyond the fanboy hacks Marvel primarily had used in the 70’s, turned the books fortunes around and made it a viable force in the market.

Walt Simonson would do the same for Thor, after it had fallen to as low as 158,000 copies a month. It was like a breath of fresh air after the ‘House of Kirby’s Ideas’ had spent a decade simply trying to regurgitate Kirby’s ideas or reprint them to fill in the lack of creativity.

What kind of ‘Brand’ is that?

 

Marvel Comics would become far more successful than it had ever been under Stan Lee and would not only be the #1 Publisher, but the #1 Publisher with Rising Publication Numbers and a bottom line that was solid and profitable.

Jim Shooter would have his faults and make his mistakes as time went on… but his contribution to the ‘brand’ of Marvel Comics is often overlooked and not given as much consideration as it should.**

Especially since it’s sales and impact, are considerably more tha Lee ever managed.

 

 

 

 

*the Fantastic Four plummeted 55,000 copies a month down in 1970 and in 1971 was outsold by Kirby’s Jimmy Olsen run: 299,882 to the FF’s 275,330. The ‘Brand’ Lee built couldn’t beat Kirby with his own creation.

 

 

**Don’t get me wrong. I’m talking in terms of Corporate Profit and Mainstream Comics success… personally I HATED Secret Wars and those Damn Crossover Annuals and… Marvel Comics in general. This was during a period of time I got interested in Independent Comics, which I found much more interesting.

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/24/2024 at 4:48 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/24/2024 at 4:31 AM, namisgr said:

I'm quite sure everyone reading this thread can see who it is whose opinions shouldn't be questioned. 

Oh no. ALL of my opinions, including one's people have MADE UP, have been questioned.

On 9/24/2024 at 6:17 AM, Prince Namor said:

In debate, or discussion... someone disagreeing with you and presenting a rebuttal isn't seen as offensive. THAT is how debate and discussion works. 

 

[jimjum12]

On 9/23/2024 at 8:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

No one's questioning what he obviously wrote.

Actually, I wrote that, and once again, EVERYBODY lied. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)