Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[CGC Mike]

I am going to sock this thread until I have time to go through it.  There seems to be a pretty big stack of reports.

[CGC Mike]

I've removed some posts.  If you quoted someone's post that I have removed, yours will be removed as well.   No warnings were issued this time. This threads getting to be a lot of work.  I'll reopen it and see how things go...

[CGC Mike]

I have received reports from multiple people regarding religious posts.  Especially, if they drift to a political nature.  With respect to those people, going forward, I think we can do without the religion in this thread.  

[jdandns]

This is from Alan Moore's 2022 novella "What We Can Know About The Thunderman", a savage satire of the superhero comic industry.

In it, a fictional writer, Dan Wheems, reflects on his own well-received 90's comics that used a veiled version of the Avengers for Marvel Comics, here called Massive.

(Joe Gold is Jack Kirby and Sam Blatz is Stan Lee):

"He found that he still enjoyed them, couldn’t put them down, so it was nearly three o’clock before he got to bed. He remained proud of all his work, which in the early nineties had been so innovative. That scene where he’d had the original Vindictives meeting up again after some years, as older individuals. The atmosphere and the comparative realism of his dialogue, like the famous interchange between Ormazda and the Brute – nobody else had been attempting stuff like that back then. He could be justly satisfied with what he’d done, and yet…

 

Ad yet, the work, it wasn’t really his. He’d not created the beloved characters that everybody bought the book for, the established icons that lent all Dan’s knowing modern riffs their resonance. He hadn’t come up with the National Guard, the Brute, the Human Tank, Ormazda, Miniman and Minimaid, or the idea of sticking them together in one book called The Vindictives. That was all Sam Blatz and Joe Gold, which was just the same as saying it was all Joe Gold. A tough kid from the tenements, blessed with a comic book imagination more fertile than anyone had ever seen, who’d had everything taken from him by Sam Blatz and Massive Comics, and who, if you added up the billions that the Massive superhero films had made already out of his creations, was a victim of the single biggest theft from any individual in human history. Was this, then, all that Dan was proud of, his complicity in robbing someone genuinely talented of what was theirs? Was this the best that today’s industry professionals could say about themselves, about their work? He took these thoughts to bed with him, and, in the morning, saw he had no choice: he knew he couldn’t take it any more."

 

Later in the story, editor Denny Wellworth (a fictionalized version of Archie Goodwin) opines:

 

"The comics business made the same dum**** mistake that all industry made, which was assuming the resource they were exploiting to be infinite and inexhaustible. They figured that they could beat up and rob a Joe Gold with impunity, because there’d be another talent just as good and just as robbable along within a year or two. Now, you and I both know the sun will have grown old and dim and there still won’t have been another Gold, but management are not creative individuals and they have never understood the first thing about how creators work. So, when a new Joe Gold fails to show up, you give his books to artists who can do lame versions of Gold’s style, but can’t invent a single thing that’s new. And when there’s no replacement Sherman Glad, because he tried to form a union so they fired him, then they’re just left with the eager-beaver fans they hired to take the place of Sherman and Heinz Messner and the rest, people like Brandon Chuff. These people, they’re not artists, they’re not writers, they’re just fans of artists and of writers, and the generation that comes after them will be the fans of fans, and so on, to the directionless mess we’re in at present."

 

I still get a few superheroes comics in my monthly order, but usually just for cover art from artists' whose work I enjoy, so no need to read them. I still have a trove of Marvel & DC comics from my youth, even though I see now (and suspected then) that most of the stories were pretty bad. I'm glad to have mostly given them up as a "thing" roughly 25 years ago. What's left for superheroes to say about anything?

 

Somewhere in that alternate universe, a book named: Sam Blatz Fibbed: Your Useful Roadmap To Every Falsehood In "The Beginnings of Massive Comics" was just published, and conversation about it is raging at the VWA (Validated Warranty Agency) Forum.

 

[AJD]

On 10/1/2024 at 2:58 AM, Prince Namor said:

The people who aren't going to read it, knew they weren't going to read it before they knew a damn thing about it.

This is not true. I have shelves full of books about comics and would happily buy and read another about Marvel's silver age renaissance. But I already knew that Stan Lee hugely embellished his own role, and I think most people with a more than passing interest in the Silver Age know that too.

A parallel that comes to mind is Walt Disney, another figure who put his name on many, many creations that were largely the work of someone else. But it's fascinating to read accounts of what he did do, as well as what he didn't. Barks and Kelly both tell of Walt dropping into the production offices and sitting through discussions and making sometimes valuable suggestions. That's the sort of thing I'd read - I'd like to know what Lee did do as well as what he didn't do. Nothing in your posting here makes me think that's what I'd get. Once you said "You can cry all you want about your hero. I'm going to spend the rest of my life shoving the truth right down the throat of the world" I was out. Lee isn't my hero, so I don't need a polemic telling me why he shouldn't be. But he's still an interesting and important figure in a field I'm deeply interested in.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/1/2024 at 10:27 PM, jdandns said:

This is from Alan Moore's 2022 novella "What We Can Know About The Thunderman", a savage satire of the superhero comic industry.

In it, a fictional writer, Dan Wheems, reflects on his own well-received 90's comics that used a veiled version of the Avengers for Marvel Comics, here called Massive.

(Joe Gold is Jack Kirby and Sam Blatz is Stan Lee):

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out. But Dan is clearly Moore and the book being discussed is Watchmen. I didn't know that Alan Moore had guilt about ripping off Charlton heroes (was not the Avengers). In fact, Giordano would not let Moore use his beloved Charlton heroes the way he wanted to which is why Moore had to create a bunch of Charlton dopplegangers. But the guilt he apparently felt is really interesting. It's a very interesting way of expressing his thoughts. I'm going to have to read that.

Moore is an odd and eccentric guy and, of course, a brilliant writer. He is also a fanatic about certain issues, including creator rights. I'd certainly seek Moore out for a well-written story. I don't think I'd seek him out for a non-fiction history.

Edited October 2 by sfcityduck

[Buzzetta]

On 10/2/2024 at 1:33 AM, AJD said:

This is not true. I have shelves full of books about comics and would happily buy and read another about Marvel's silver age renaissance. But I already knew that Stan Lee hugely embellished his own role, and I think most people with a more than passing interest in the Silver Age know that too.

A parallel that comes to mind is Walt Disney, another figure who put his name on many, many creations that were largely the work of someone else. But it's fascinating to read accounts of what he did do, as well as what he didn't. Barks and Kelly both tell of Walt dropping into the production offices and sitting through discussions and making sometimes valuable suggestions. That's the sort of thing I'd read - I'd like to know what Lee did do as well as what he didn't do. Nothing in your posting here makes me think that's what I'd get. Once you said "You can cry all you want about your hero. I'm going to spend the rest of my life shoving the truth right down the throat of the world" I was out. Lee isn't my hero, so I don't need a polemic telling me why he shouldn't be. But he's still an interesting and important figure in a field I'm deeply interested in.

 

Walt in MANY cases was like Lucas where he gave others a task but was constantly tweaking things.  Even up to zero hour as Disneyland was opening, he was running around making sure things were as he had envisioned him.  It was well known though in many cases who did what.  Disney was the face of his company but even in the 50's no one believed that he was the songwriter for Cruella D'evil in 101 Dalmations.  As the company gets bigger, Walt cannot be everywhere, so they even had to have someone else voice Mickey, the character he helped create and voice since its inception.   Even though Walt gives a lot of responsibility to lead animators Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson, Walt is showing up at every single film to critique, shape, direct, and tweak things.    

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/2/2024 at 1:51 PM, sfcityduck said:

Thanks for pointing that out. But Dan is clearly Moore and the book being discussed is Watchmen. I didn't know that Alan Moore had guilt about ripping off Charlton heroes (was not the Avengers). In fact, Giordano would not let Moore use his beloved Charlton heroes the way he wanted to which is why Moore had to create a bunch of Charlton dopplegangers. But the guilt he apparently felt is really interesting. It's a very interesting way of expressing his thoughts. I'm going to have to read that.

Moore is an odd and eccentric guy and, of course, a brilliant writer. He is also a fanatic about certain issues, including creator rights. I'd certainly seek Moore out for a well-written story. I don't think I'd seek him out for a non-fiction history.

You really think he's a fanatic?

In the same way, I always found Ditko's rigid moral code to be a highly honorable thing, I see it the same way with Moore and Watchmen. Most people couldn't look at a movie version of something they've written and say, "I don't want a penny of your dirty money". 

That takes... that's just... honorable.

I know in a society like ours where conmen, and cheaters and wall street insiders are seen as heroes, I guess... maybe people think it's naive...but...

[Prince Namor]

On 10/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, AJD said:

This is not true. I have shelves full of books about comics and would happily buy and read another about Marvel's silver age renaissance. But I already knew that Stan Lee hugely embellished his own role, and I think most people with a more than passing interest in the Silver Age know that too.

That quote was directed toward a specific group of people here. 

And I believe you have no idea just HOW MUCH Stan Lee Lied. Even I was surprised at how much BS is in that Origins book.

"Embellished"? Yeah, the people with a passing interest have no idea.

On 10/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, AJD said:

A parallel that comes to mind is Walt Disney, another figure who put his name on many, many creations that were largely the work of someone else. But it's fascinating to read accounts of what he did do, as well as what he didn't. Barks and Kelly both tell of Walt dropping into the production offices and sitting through discussions and making sometimes valuable suggestions. That's the sort of thing I'd read -

So go read it. There's 20x more books out there that'll hold your hand and tell you how Lee was a magician with a word balloon.

That's the funny thing. You guys believe the placement of a word balloon makes that much of a difference - how come a Don Heck/Stan Lee comic never sold as many comics as a Jack Kirby/Stan Lee comic? If it came down to Lee's dialogue and Lee's word balloon placement and Lee's Bullpen Bulletins, why didn't all the comics sell the same?

Why..., after Kirby left the Fantastic Four... did it immediately drop 55,000 copies a month? Lee had Romita and John Buscema doing the art - why the big drop? Still his dialogue - still his word balloon placement - still his Bullpen Bulletins (actually those were already being ghost written by 1970 most likely)

On 10/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, AJD said:

I'd like to know what Lee did do as well as what he didn't do. Nothing in your posting here makes me think that's what I'd get.

LOL. Ok. 

On 10/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, AJD said:

Once you said "You can cry all you want about your hero. I'm going to spend the rest of my life shoving the truth right down the throat of the world" I was out. Lee isn't my hero, so I don't need a polemic telling me why he shouldn't be. But he's still an interesting and important figure in a field I'm deeply interested in.

At some point, if you're TRULY interested in the history of Marvel Comics... you're going to realize you MISSED something here.

Sorry. Not going to grovel for anyone's dollar. I KNOW what I put together here. What I put together here is IMPORTANT. 

Some of the conversations I've had with more important people than on the 'CGC forum' agree.

This book will outlive ME.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 12:12 AM, Prince Namor said:

You really think he's a fanatic?

In the same way, I always found Ditko's rigid moral code to be a highly honorable thing, I see it the same way with Moore and Watchmen. Most people couldn't look at a movie version of something they've written and say, "I don't want a penny of your dirty money". 

That takes... that's just... honorable.

I know in a society like ours where conmen, and cheaters and wall street insiders are seen as heroes, I guess... maybe people think it's naive...but...

As a fan, I don't view the term "fanatic" in the least bit negatively. I just think that Moore has stronger views and actions when it comes to creator rights than 99% of comic professionals. I assume from your comment on this what we agree on this.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, sfcityduck said:

As a fan, I don't view the term "fanatic" in the least bit negatively. I just think that Moore has stronger views and actions when it comes to creator rights than 99% of comic professionals. I assume from your comment on this what we agree on this.

Yep.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 10/2/2024 at 8:34 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Some of the conversations I've had with more important people than on the 'CGC forum' agree.

 

So why did you start a thread on the CGC forum promoting your book?

It's clear you don't care about what less important people think.

A so called author be creating a distinction between his audience....Wow!

Kudos on the PR. 

[fast eddie]

I have not read "Origins" or your book Prince Namor,,,,, but I would like to offer you my congratulations on your tenacity in your research and belief of your book. I find your view admirable in the face of Stan's "35 years of uncontested publicity",,,,, and I appreciate the energy it must take to untangle all the stories and static that has been archived through the years. I'm not sure I will purchase either book,,as I have my own "fuzzy warm" memories of the comic world,,, and I prefer them to what may or may not be the truth,, but thank you for your efforts,,, and thank you all for your spirited and sometimes intelligent back and forth banter on this prickly subject,,,,, it's hard to admit that we lie,,,,, I lie,,,,,sometimes,,,,,you lie,,,,,,sometimes,,,,we lie,,,,well I hope you understand,,,,,, I appreciate you all!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:41 AM, fast eddie said:

I have not read "Origins" or your book Prince Namor,,,,, but I would like to offer you my congratulations on your tenacity in your research and belief of your book. I find your view admirable in the face of Stan's "35 years of uncontested publicity",,,,, and I appreciate the energy it must take to untangle all the stories and static that has been archived through the years. I'm not sure I will purchase either book,,as I have my own "fuzzy warm" memories of the comic world,,, and I prefer them to what may or may not be the truth,, but thank you for your efforts,,, and thank you all for your spirited and sometimes intelligent back and forth banter on this prickly subject,,,,, it's hard to admit that we lie,,,,, I lie,,,,,sometimes,,,,,you lie,,,,,,sometimes,,,,we lie,,,,well I hope you understand,,,,,, I appreciate you all!

I think the quest to know how it happened in real time so to speak, does not burst your bubble but gives you an appreciation of how something extraordinary occurs...and this was so special. The reality is not that bubble bursting but more...Oh OK...I have gained more respect for everyone else...team effort..for sure....eye opener...for sure....should you read it or the preview...for sure

[KCOComics]

 

I've been reading the book. 

This is going to sound strange,  but I think its actually making me appreciate Stan more. 

It's an amazing collection of quotes and first hand knowledge from people who were there. And of course Chaz has his narrative. He is as colorful in the book as he is in this thread. 

But I just got done with a section disputing that Stan would have story conference and disputing an eye witness who wrote a book embelshing  how Stan acted out the stories (Michael Hill). 

I think it's hard to argue that Stan didn't at least sometimes have story conferences, but Chaz's point is well made. He couldn't act out the stories in production meetings because most of the production meetings were done over the phone.   

But it goes through artist after artist (Romita, Ayers, Buscema, Colan) describing their interactions with Stan and the creative process. And every artist (and Stan himself) basically confirm the same thing.

Stan would be on top of pretty much every title. He would call the artist and give them a plot. Sometimes that plot was a few paragraphs... and other times it was telling Romita to "make Rhino appear" in the next issue. 

Then the artist would plot and do the story Stan wanted and Stan would dialog.  Now I'll give you,  the artist did the heavy lift. 

But Stan was working what? 12 - 16 stories at once?  And doing dialog? And running a business. I mean - Chaz, even you gotta admit that's pretty incredible. 

I'm all for giving these artists tons of credit. But the tough sell for me since the beginning was saying Stan wasn't creative. Or panting pictures like he had no involvement.  

The crazy thing about words on paper is, we could all read the same quotes and have different interpretations of them. 

As I read quote after quote by Jack, I feel like he contradicts himself a lot... constantly. "I never really cared to talk to Stan", "I would send Stan my ideas for what should happen next",  "I never read the comics after I submitted" 

 

 

 

[KCOComics]

I'll just add - I am enjoying the book. It's a tremendous collection of quotes, research and first hand accounts. 

It's alot to digest. I've read through about 250 pages so far. 

It's unapologetically anti-Stan (as Bleeding Cool said and as Chaz is here).  But I do think many quotes are being framed and taken out of context. I also think it puts an over reliance on Kirby's narrative, which I believed is biased towards his agenda and did seem to shift over time. 

Here comes the shocker...  Stan did lie sometimes.  And Chaz captures it. 

[Forbush-Man]

On 10/1/2024 at 5:52 PM, CGC Mike said:

I've removed some posts.  If you quoted someone's post that I have removed, yours will be removed as well.   No warnings were issued this time. This threads getting to be a lot of work.  I'll reopen it and see how things go...

I can take over from here if you'd like... 

[comicwiz]

On 10/2/2024 at 1:18 PM, KCOComics said:

The crazy thing about words on paper is, we could all read the same quotes and have different interpretations of them. 

I see.

 

On 10/2/2024 at 1:18 PM, KCOComics said:

As I read quote after quote by Jack, I feel like he contradicts himself a lot... constantly. "I never really cared to talk to Stan", "I would send Stan my ideas for what should happen next",  "I never read the comics after I submitted" 

I'll see your quote with this one:

Cartoonist PROfiles #4 (December 1969) - Stan Lee Interviewed by Jud Hurd
Q: Are these sessions between writer and artist verbal or written?
Lee: They can be either way. I verbalize them myself. I don't have the time or the interest. I'm too bored to write the plot out and I have the kind of relationship with the artist where we sit and talk for five minutes about it. Later on, while the artist is making his drawings, he puts little notes on the side of the pages indicating what the hell he's drawing, just to help me know what he's doing in the various panels.

Did those words make you appreciate Stan more?

Because I'll tell you, any self-respecting "editor" or any similar role in a publishing context, whether it's the National Eqnuirer or NY Times, should never be quoted as saying they are "too bored" doing the job they're being paid to do.

It's one thing to say people will interpret a quote differently, but another thing altogether to cherry-pick a quote, to make it seem like Kirby was disinterested, while Stan gets quoted for saying he doesn't "have the time" AND that "he's too bored."

Sounds like a petulant child who needs to be put to work. Also, no two things can be true in the same sense or time.

You're either too busy. Or you're bored. I've never heard anyone saying their are so busy that they are bored out of their mind.

And yet, there you have Flashman in all his embarrassing nepotistic glory.

Edited October 2 by comicwiz

[comicwiz]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:03 PM, comicwiz said:

Later on, while the artist is making his drawings, he puts little notes on the side of the pages indicating what the hell he's drawing, just to help me know what he's doing in the various panels.

The second part of that quote is what clinches this as something closer to the truth, and at a time period where you can't really reach for him being too old to remember accurately, memory decline, etc.

This is 1969, 8 years after the creation of FF #1. And it's literally from the horses mouth.

In previous posts, I mention how there are ways to see this in the original art borders/margins of works where he's stuck his signature on, even though he didn't contribute in any meaningful way.

Where the storytelling was being entirely handled by the artist.

Flashman literally admits this, becuase he doesn't know 'what the hell he's drawing.' 

IF his involvement was as he has long claimed, there simply would be no way for him to not know.

Moreoever, he admits that the artists are providing details/description for him in each panel.

A plagiarist could reword something written by someone else to appear his own, but in actual substantive sense, he isn't doing anything more than parotting what the artists has rendered, both visually and in written dialogue. 

He's admitting it's all being done for him, and all he's doing is taking undeserved credit. 

This is what a bored Flashman does to pass time he doesn't apparently have.

Edited October 2 by comicwiz

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:03 AM, comicwiz said:

I see.

 

I'll see your quote with this one:

Cartoonist PROfiles #4 (December 1969) - Stan Lee Interviewed by Jud Hurd
Q: Are these sessions between writer and artist verbal or written?
Lee: They can be either way. I verbalize them myself. I don't have the time or the interest. I'm too bored to write the plot out and I have the kind of relationship with the artist where we sit and talk for five minutes about it. Later on, while the artist is making his drawings, he puts little notes on the side of the pages indicating what the hell he's drawing, just to help me know what he's doing in the various panels.

Did those words make you appreciate Stan more?

Because I'll tell you, any self-respecting "editor" or anything, whether it's the National Eqnuirer or NY Times, should never be quoted as saying they are "too bored" doing the job their being paid to do.

It's a flip but accurate description of what was happening in 1969. And by the end of the 1960s my personal view is that both Stan and Jack were on the decline. The only writing credit Stan had that year was Spider-Man according to GCD. It's not how Stan would and did describe 1961. 

It really doesn't impact my view of Stan. I evaluate his writing based on the words on the page. And I always enjoyed his dialogue and his editorial content. It was great for its time. And some has passed the test of time which few comics do.