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

[Readcomix]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:05 PM, mrc said:

Is it true that Carmine Infantino once remarked he thought kids loved Marvel's stuff because it looked like it could have been drawn by the kids themselves?    

 

Pot calls kettle black there. Sheesh Carm. 

[CGC Mike]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/24/2024 at 2:29 PM, VintageComics said:

History is uncovered through open discussion of those facts, and there is absolutely no open discussion allowed in this thread unless everyone agrees with your conclusion from the outset.

No one has been censored from stating their views.

Are you saying that @CGC Mike has allowed ME to be disrespectful, while being much more harsh to everyone else?

For the record, moderation only steps in if the terms of use are being broken, or a bunch of off topic posts are posted that distract or take away from the topic at hand. In either case, the posts will be removed.  For off topic posts, there may be no action other than the post removal.  If it happens a second time, a ban from topic will be issued.  If the terms of use are violated, a warning will be issued.  For the first time either 0 or 1 point.  If it happens a second time, a 3 point warning will be issued, which will restrict postings for a minimum of 2 days.  

Other than that, posts from either side are allowed.  They have been left up despite either side asking me to step in.  So far, 2 people are banned from the topic.  1 for a string of contentious posts, and 1 for someone that has a long history of attacking the messenger. (second or third post in the thread)  I do not believe I have issued any warnings.  So, I do not think that is very many actions for this thread.     

[Buzzetta]

One thing I never knew is the level to which people are so passionate about this topic for either side.  

Edited Wednesday at 12:57 AM by Buzzetta

[Ken Aldred]

As much as I like Carmine Infantino’s work, particularly at DC, his own style was quite simplistic, and became even more so at Marvel from the Bronze Age onwards. Also, a lot of slightly disorienting camera angles as well.

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:00 AM by Ken Aldred

[Stefan_W]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:57 PM, Buzzetta said:

One thing I never knew is the level to which people are so passionate about this topic for either side.  

I wasnt all that aware of there being sides. Who knew.

[Ken Aldred]

On 9/25/2024 at 1:57 AM, Buzzetta said:

One thing I never knew is the level to which people are so passionate about this topic.  

Yup. The angst, the sheer, overwhelming emotional pain is intensely palpable.

It’s an exhausting read.

Edited Wednesday at 01:03 AM by Ken Aldred

[grendel013]

Pick your side! Wrong answers only!

[comicwiz]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

Lee betrayed Martin Goodman who gave him a high paying job for 40 years, Goodman's son Chip who he snaked out of the Publisher's job, all the artists that he stole credit and pay from throuhout the 60's, including Jack Kirby who saved his job and gave him the means with which to make himself rich and famous

Though Flashman denied it, he also snitched on Kirby and Simon when Goodman fired them.

[CGC Mike]

On 9/24/2024 at 9:03 PM, grendel013 said:

Pick your side! Wrong answers only!

Perhaps, side was the wrong word in my post but, I think everyone will get my point.

[Buzzetta]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:59 PM, Stefan_W said:

I wasnt all that aware of there being sides. Who knew.

 

On 9/24/2024 at 9:02 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Yup. The angst, the sheer, overwhelming emotional pain is intensely palpable.

It’s an exhausting read.

I am reminded of this... 

 

[VintageComics]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:46 PM, CGC Mike said:

For the record, moderation only steps in if the terms of use are being broken, or a bunch of off topic posts are posted that distract or take away from the topic at hand. In either case, the posts will be removed.  For off topic posts, there may be no action other than the post removal.  If it happens a second time, a ban from topic will be issued.  If the terms of use are violated, a warning will be issued.  For the first time either 0 or 1 point.  If it happens a second time, a 3 point warning will be issued, which will restrict postings for a minimum of 2 days.  

Love this! 

[CGC Mike]

On 9/24/2024 at 9:46 PM, VintageComics said:

On 9/24/2024 at 8:46 PM, CGC Mike said:

For the record, moderation only steps in if the terms of use are being broken, or a bunch of off topic posts are posted that distract or take away from the topic at hand. In either case, the posts will be removed.  For off topic posts, there may be no action other than the post removal.  If it happens a second time, a ban from topic will be issued.  If the terms of use are violated, a warning will be issued.  For the first time either 0 or 1 point.  If it happens a second time, a 3 point warning will be issued, which will restrict postings for a minimum of 2 days.  

Love this! 

I should add that I have just removed the ban from one of the above mentioned people.  

[sfcityduck]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:48 PM, CGC Mike said:

I should add that I have just removed the ban from one of the above mentioned people.  

[Inhuman Fiend]

On 9/24/2024 at 9:03 PM, grendel013 said:

Pick your side! Wrong answers only!

Stan Lee is actually responsible for inflation, acne, all flat tires and headaches. Jack Kirby actually wrote and drew a chemical equation that cures cancer but Stan buried it in an issue of Not Brand Ecch. Jack is also responsible for the invention of fire, the wheel and the i-Phone. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/24/2024 at 11:48 AM, comicwiz said:

If you have a way to reach out to them, perhaps you can also make them aware there's people in the community who would like to know how their estate ended-up with "a whole bunch of Kirby artwork being sold", as per the following post.

BTW - this isn't the first post I've seen on this matter, just fortuitous timing that one popped-up again today so close to your statement about the family reading this thread:

 

Joe's grandson is on this site right now. He's probably read your post. But before anyone rushes out to compare the Joe Simon Estate or heirs selling Kirby art to Marvel refusing to return Kirby art they should probably get the opinion of some lawyers. Here's why:

* The legal relationship between Jack Kirby and Marvel was not at all analogous to the legal relationship between Jack Kirby and Joe Simon during the S&K business. All of the "Marvel stole Jack's art" arguments hinge on the nature of the legal relationship between Kirby and Marvel.

* And there's one thing we know for certain: The relationship between Kirby and Marvel was not a partnership. 

* In contrast, S&K had what Jack Kirby once went on the record as stating was a "legitimate partnership" which was formalized with legal documents. Again, S&K was a partnership. This matters. A lot.

* As a partner in that partnership, the work that Jack Kirby did was subject to the partnership agreement and partnership law. And the basic law is that the fruits of labor of partners and the partnership's property is jointly owned by the partners according to their partnership share. Which in the post-WWII years was likely 50/50. 

* So what's that mean? It means that S&K owned any art or other creative workproduct by Jack or Joe. And Jack and Joe as the partners in S&K each owned a 50% interest in that property. How they divided that property, whether by trading off one category for property for another or just splitting each category of property down the middle or something else was their choice.

* What's likely is that when the partnership dissolved they just divided up what they had. Each getting what they wanted. And its perfectly understandable that Joe Simon may have kept some unused art by Kirby and Kirby kept unused art or scripts by Joe. Jack and Joe had a good relationship. I believe Jack would cringe at the abuse that Joe Simon has at times gotten on this site.

* There's nothing legally or ethically improper about the S&K partnership's joint ownership of the partners' work product. Because they were partners. This is not the Kirby/Marvel legal relationship.

Which brings us to these questions:

(1) Why are you implying that the Simon Estate or his heirs are acting improperly? Do you have any reason to believe that Joe did something that contrary to the partnership agreement?

(2) Are you aware that implying that the Simon's heirs, like his grandson who has been on this site today, stole Jack's art is potentially defamatory? Those heirs aren't public figures. And they aren't dead. So when you imply that they have sold stolen art you are making a heavy accusation against parties who actually can file their own defamation claims.

So if you don't know the law in this area and have a cogent theory as to why there was some impropriety, I'd suggest you take a step back. We're all better than this. I assume you didn't know the legal nuances. So let's be nice to the Simon family unless you really have a very strong case.

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:14 AM by sfcityduck

[thehumantorch]

On 9/24/2024 at 4:59 AM, Prince Namor said:

He didn't write the stories.

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

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.

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.

'He wrote dialogue'.  Writing dialogue is writing and an essential part of a comic book.  The story isn't done until the dialogue is written and what is said and how it is said is very important.  And to me Stan's writing was different and better than anything coming out of DC or any other comic company.

Stan Lee absolutely should have given the artists credit for their contributions to plotting, character development and writing.  We clearly disagree about the value of Stan Lee's contributions because I consider him essential to the creation of the SA Marvel universe and as important as Kirby's contributions to the SA Marvel Universe. 

[thehumantorch]

On 9/24/2024 at 6:46 PM, CGC Mike said:

or a bunch of off topic posts are posted that distract or take away from the topic at hand.

I love  hairy squirrels.

 

(testing testing)

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/25/2024 at 3:21 AM, thehumantorch said:

I love  hairy squirrels.

 

(testing testing)

I prefer bald beavers.

[KCOComics]

On 9/24/2024 at 10:12 PM, sfcityduck said:

Joe's grandson is on this site right now. He's probably read your post. But before anyone rushes out to compare the Joe Simon Estate or heirs selling Kirby art to Marvel refusing to return Kirby art they should probably get the opinion of some lawyers. Here's why:

* The legal relationship between Jack Kirby and Marvel was not at all analogous to the legal relationship between Jack Kirby and Joe Simon during the S&K business. All of the "Marvel stole Jack's art" arguments hinge on the nature of the legal relationship between Kirby and Marvel.

* And there's one thing we know for certain: The relationship between Kirby and Marvel was not a partnership. 

* In contrast, S&K had what Jack Kirby once went on the record as stating was a "legitimate partnership" which was formalized with legal documents. Again, S&K was a partnership. This matters. A lot.

* As a partner in that partnership, the work that Jack Kirby did was subject to the partnership agreement and partnership law. And the basic law is that the fruits of labor of partners and the partnership's property is jointly owned by the partners according to their partnership share. Which in the post-WWII years was likely 50/50. 

* So what's that mean? It means that S&K owned any art or other creative workproduct by Jack or Joe. And Jack and Joe as the partners in S&K each owned a 50% interest in that property. How they divided that property, whether by trading off on category for property for another or just splitting each category of property down the middle or something else was their choice.

* What's likely is that when the partnership dissolved they just divided up what they had. Each getting what they wanted. And its perfectly understandable that Joe Simon may have kept some unused art by Kirby and Kirby kept unused art or scripts by Joe. Jack and Joe had a good relationship. I believe Jack would cringe at the abuse that Joe Simon has at times gotten on this site.

* There's nothing legally or ethically improper about the S&K partnerships joint ownership of the partners work product. Because they were partners. This is not the Kirby/Marvel legal relationship.

Which brings us to these questions:

(1) Why are you implying that the Simon Estate or his heirs are acting improperly? Do you have any reason to believe that Joe did something that contrary to the partnership agreement?

(2) Are you aware that implying that the Simon's heirs, like his grandson who has been on this site today, stole Jack's art is potentially defamatory? Those heirs aren't public figures. And they aren't dead. So when you imply that they have sold stolen art you are making a heavy accusation against parties who actually can file their own defamation claims.

So if you don't know the law in this area and have a cogent theory as to why there was some impropriety, I'd suggest you take a step back. We're all better than this. I assume you didn't know the legal nuances. So let's be nice to the Simon family unless you really have a very strong case.

 

I get the venom towards Stan. I don't agree with it all,  but I understand where its coming from. 

The venom towards Joe, I don't understand. 

 I love Jack Kirby. But loving Jack doesn't mean having to tear down everyone around him.  If Jack were alive,  I don't think he would tolerate attacking Joe and his family. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:16 PM, thehumantorch said:

'He wrote dialogue'.  Writing dialogue is writing and an essential part of a comic book.  The story isn't done until the dialogue is written and what is said and how it is said is very important.  And to me Stan's writing was different and better than anything coming out of DC or any other comic company.

Stan Lee absolutely should have given the artists credit for their contributions to plotting, character development and writing.  We clearly disagree about the value of Stan Lee's contributions because I consider him essential to the creation of the SA Marvel universe and as important as Kirby's contributions to the SA Marvel Universe. 

In the movie business, writing dialogue is called "scripting." And people win Oscars for doing it. Why, because what a character says is essential to this thing called "characterization." In a movie, the director generally plots out the visuals, in some cases using comic book artists to provide illustrations of what the director thinks the visuals should look like. But the script writers select the dialogue. And when you have a movie, like Easy Rider, where the script itself is improvised after the director has picked a location for the visuals and turned on the cameras, then the actors who are improvising most of the dialogue get a -- you guessed it -- scripting credit. Because a script does not need to predate the development of the visuals. 

It's really analogous to the Marvel Method. And you know what, Peter Fonda got an Oscar nomination for just coming up with dialogue on the spot in that movie.