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

[KCOComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:03 PM, 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?

 

Yes! I think everyone, from Stan to each artist has confirmed this is exactly how it happened. 

Stan calls and gives them a brief synopsis. The artists draws it out and adds notes. 

Stan fills in the dialog.  Everyone agrees. And it's pretty incredible that Stan was doing that for 12 - 16 stories at once, while running a business and doing marketing and being Funky Flashman.  

 

You all can dispute his impact all you want. I think that's extraordinary. 

 

And if you want the truth,  it's a lot more than I thought he was doing. I figured in 1961 and 62 he was pretty involved. But I always imagined as the titles grew and his marketing endeavors picked up,  he couldn't possibly be that involved in the stories.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:22 AM, comicwiz said:

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.

 

There's a lot of articles on the margin notes. I've seen OA with notes. But The notes came later as the Marvel method was slowly implemented, probably starting with Kirby then Ditko, across the line for all artists. In fact, the earliest notes are by Lee, reflecting that when the art was dropped off he'd have a conversation with the artist to clarify what unclear action might have been about. Margin notes by Lee, Kirby, Ditko, etc. survive on OA. What they show is that they were just literally "notes." Often just a few words sketch to guide the dialogue - not dialogue at all - even for Lee's notes.

The dialogue is a full blown painting compared to the sketch provided by the notes. It really makes you appreciate what Stan was doing when you look at those notes. An Example: 

[comicwiz]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:44 PM, KCOComics said:

Stan fills in the dialog.  Everyone agrees. And it's pretty incredible that Stan was doing that for 12 - 16 stories at once, while running a business and doing marketing and being Funky Flashman.  

Larry Hama
"I was an editor at Marvel, and I always understood that if I created stuff as a staff employee, it belonged to the company. No editor should get further renumeration for coming up with material for their freelancers to work on. That is part of the job. They got a salary for that."

[KCOComics]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:50 PM, comicwiz said:

Larry Hama
"I was an editor at Marvel, and I always understood that if I created stuff as a staff employee, it belonged to the company. No editor should get further renumeration for coming up with material for their freelancers to work on. That is part of the job. They got a salary for that."

 

What is the argument? Jack's family shouldn't have gotten anything for Jack helping to create these characters? Because they belonged to the company? 

That is the argument Jack used against Joe Simon in 1966.  

I disagree with Jack on that. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:50 AM, comicwiz said:

Larry Hama
"I was an editor at Marvel, and I always understood that if I created stuff as a staff employee, it belonged to the company. No editor should get further renumeration for coming up with material for their freelancers to work on. That is part of the job. They got a salary for that."

With all due respect to Larry, who was twelve years old in 1961 and not working at Marvel, the scope of Stan's work for Marvel and the deal he had was between him and Marvel and probably unique to him for a lot of reasons. The issue is not what Stan got paid or why. Neither Stan nor Marvel ever complained about that. 

Not sure what Hama's opinion can add to the analysis given that he didn't start work at Marvel until into the 1970s when Marvel was owned and run by different people.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:55 AM, KCOComics said:

 

What is the argument? Jack's family shouldn't have gotten anything for Jack helping to create these characters? Because they belonged to the company? 

That is the argument Jack used against Joe Simon in 1966.  

I disagree with Jack on that. 

Sadly, legally, Jack was right in 1966 and wrong thereafter when he changed his position. And that was not the doing of Jack Kirby or Stan Lee. It was the courts.

[comicwiz]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:55 PM, KCOComics said:

What is the argument? Jack's family shouldn't have gotten anything for Jack helping to create these characters? Because they belonged to the company? 

Jack Kirby was a freelancer. Big difference.

I posted that quote in the context of Flashman doing his job as an editor, he didn't need to take anything other than his salary as editor. No credit or pay for writing, which he didn't even do.

That quote has context here, even though it was said at the time Houseroy was trying to take co-creator rights for Wolverine. It's the same tactic being reused over and over again.

Edited October 2 by comicwiz

[KCOComics]

This is why I've been so silent on this thread. 

Everyone digs into their position and it turns into - you can't support Stan without disparaging Jack. Or you can't support Jack without disparaging Stan (and Joe Simon apparently).  

 

I'm going to humbly bow back out. I love Jack.  Love everything he's done for comics and fully acknowledge he is the king and all collectors owe him a debt of gratitude. 

I also love Joe. He's drawn many of my favorite covers. I don't buy signature series comics as a rule, but Joe is one of 2 artists I really wanted to own a signature of. The other being Bernie Wrightson. 

And I love Stan. Whatever credit you want to give him as a writer, he is a cultural icon.  I've talked to creators who have told me about how incredibly hard he worked. Around the clock.  No one worked like Stan. And I really admire those people who move mountains to achieve something.  

For what it's worth,  I really love all the arguments both ways. I can read Chaz's book and appreciate it,  even without agreeing.  I have no mud to sling. I'm just really appreciative people like Stan, Jack and Joe existed,  so we can have these silly little arguments. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 12:02 PM, comicwiz said:

Jack Kirby was a freelancer. Big difference.

 

That's not the way the legal issue turned out. The Kirby's will never wrest control of FF or anyone else from Marvel. That ship sailed. I hope that's not news to you, but the statutes and case law came out unfavorable to creators in Kirby's position. 

[comicwiz]

@Prince Namor

In your research endeavours, do you remember a quote from JC where she describes either being or wanting to be an artist, but she was afraid someone was going to steal her ideas and or art? I remember it being in an article on Stan Lee and/or their family. It was the weirdest thing I think I'd ever read, and I couldn't actually believe how oddly out of place it was for the time, because of all the controversy over Stan stealing credit from artists. 

This probably could have been something timed to a tell-all book being written on Marvel or Stan Lee, or something of this nature. Just wondering as that's one article that I knew I'd jotted down for reference and my own research, but kind of got lost in the shuffle.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/2/2024 at 12:06 PM, KCOComics said:

This is why I've been so silent on this thread. 

Everyone digs into their position and it turns into - you can't support Stan without disparaging Jack. Or you can't support Jack without disparaging Stan (and Joe Simon apparently).  

 

I'm going to humbly bow back out. I love Jack.  Love everything he's done for comics and fully acknowledge he is the king and all collectors owe him a debt of gratitude. 

I also love Joe. He's drawn many of my favorite covers. I don't buy signature series comics as a rule, but Joe is one of 2 artists I really wanted to own a signature of. The other being Bernie Wrightson. 

And I love Stan. Whatever credit you want to give him as a writer, he is a cultural icon.  I've talked to creators who have told me about how incredibly hard he worked. Around the clock.  No one worked like Stan. And I really admire those people who move mountains to achieve something.  

For what it's worth,  I really love all the arguments both ways. I can read Chaz's book and appreciate it,  even without agreeing.  I have no mud to sling. I'm just really appreciative people like Stan, Jack and Joe existed,  so we can have these silly little arguments. 

 

Reading it is the key...even if you agree to disagree...still there is a great value in reading it an can change your opinion over time....after digesting it fully!

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:12 PM, Mmehdy said:

...after digesting it fully!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/3/2024 at 12:18 AM, KCOComics said:

 

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" 

First off, let me say: Thank you for buying the book, reading it and actually having thoughts and opinions on it. I really, really, really appreciate that, as opening the conversation of this topic (from the book) is very important to me, and... not something any of the critics of it have yet done.

The topics you address, I'll speak about in a separate post, but I just wanted to say Thank You! 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/3/2024 at 1:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Stan had more than one 'writing' credit in 1969.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/3/2024 at 2:33 AM, comicwiz said:

@Prince Namor

In your research endeavours, do you remember a quote from JC where she describes either being or wanting to be an artist, but she was afraid someone was going to steal her ideas and or art? I remember it being in an article on Stan Lee and/or their family. It was the weirdest thing I think I'd ever read, and I couldn't actually believe how oddly out of place it was for the time, because of all the controversy over Stan stealing credit from artists. 

This probably could have been something timed to a tell-all book being written on Marvel or Stan Lee, or something of this nature. Just wondering as that's one article that I knew I'd jotted down for reference and my own research, but kind of got lost in the shuffle.

LOL yeah I remember. I'm not sure where I read but... I know someone who will...

[grendel013]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:03 PM, 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 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.

A problem I have with the quoted interview is I can't tell if Stan is "performing" his schtick here. There are several interviews I've seen where he pokes fun at himself. I often use the term "in between my naps" as a tongue in cheek reference regarding me be "lazy" and having a bad sense in prioritizing work. That of course is the joke. There is nothing further than the truth.

[Prince Namor]

Stan's workload:

But Stan was working what? 12 - 16 stories at once? 

Let's look at that 'working' part.

First... editors for DC worked on multiple stories at once in their departments. That's what editors do... 

Stan's role wasn't that different - talk to an artist for 5 minutes - go over a rough idea of what the story will be.

Let's take a random month, February 1966:

 

Amazing Spider-man #36 - No conversation with Ditko, he just turns in the completed work.

Avengers #27 - 5 minute conversation "Let's have the Beetle and Attuma as villains" (Stan Lee usual trope - use a villain from some other comic) I'm not sure what else could be said about that issue.

Daredevil #15 - 5 minute conversation - Have the Ox show up! (from ASM. Again, the same trope)

Fantastic Four #49 - No conversation needed. The same guy who did those previous two issues this month... wrote THIS? No. In fact, it's a great comparison to look at THIS book and contrast it with DD and Avengers in the same month.

Fantasy Masterpieces #12 - Reprint Book.

Kid Colt Outlaw #128 - Larry Lieber 17 pg story and a reprint.

Millie the Model #137 - per Stan Goldberg, he basically did these. If not... how much imput was needed for these?

Modeling with Millie #49 - Roy Thomas/Stan Goldberg.

Sgt. Fury #29 - Roy Thomas/Dick Ayers

Strange Tales #144 - Ditko turns in his work with no contact. Kirby pencils/Purcell finishes - maybe a 5 minute conversation?

Tales of Suspense #77 - Mandarin (repeat villain) with Colan (5 minute conversation) - Kirby layouts (i.e. story) for Romita on Cap

Tales to Astonish #79 - Subby, 5 minute conversation with Colan (Puppet Master from FF, LOL) - Hulk, Kirby layouts - may have been Lee idea (Hercules from Thor)

Thor #127 - mostly Kirby

Two Gun Kid #81 - Larry Lieber + a reprint

X-Men #19 - Two issues into Kirby not longer doing layouts, and Lee quits this title and gives it to Roy Thomas. A new villain! 10 minute call?

 

That’s a half a days work for Lee. MAYBE.

 

Within a year, the books that Kirby was no longer doing the art for (and had even stopped doing layouts), Lee would quit and give to someone else.

He’d abandoned all the Westerns which Kirby no longer did - He’d abandon the Avengers and the X-Men - too many characters to keep up with…

 

Really by 1967, he had Kirby to do FF, Thor, and Cap - Romita to do ASM - Steranko on Nick Fury, Everett on Subby…. he really only had to look out for Colan on Iron Man (10 pages) and Gil Kane on Hulk (10 pages).

The one full book he had was DD, again with Colan who pretty much handled the story from a thin plot (and it showed).

Juggling a lot?

For a guy who was already collecting Rolls Royce’s on what he was making and coming into work two days a week… not really.

 

 

And doing dialog? And running a business. I mean - Chaz, even you gotta admit that's pretty incredible. 

Keep in mind, Sol Brodsky ran the office. Not Stan Lee. Stan COULDN’T run the office, he was only there 2-3 days a week (per Roy Thomas).

So Lee’s big day of the month would be writing dialogue, following the notes in the margins. And according to Denny O’Neil, Lee was already using ghostwriters in the late 60’s.

Was it a lot of work? That quote by comicwiz didn’t sound like someone overworked…

“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. “

We APPRECIATE the books that were published at an exciting time in the history of comics… but… shouldn’t it be the art and the artist’s stories we appreciate? Isn’t it really Lee’s presentation of the stories that excited people?

Thanks, Stan, for overseeing it all, but… as someone once said about Kirby… weren’t you well-paid to do the job?

 

 

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.  

And that’s good! The artists DO deserve more praise and credit for what they did.

And to be clear, I never said Stan had no involvement. The 'creative' part….

No, I don't believe he was 'creative' in the sense that he came up with interesting ideas. He repeated a handful of ideas over and over - villains from another book, guest star, hero quits, etc.

DD, the Avengers, Iron Man, Giant Man… these books were all average compared to what Kirby or Ditko was doing on the books they worked on. WITHOUT those Kirby/Ditko books, Marvel would have been pretty bland.

 

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

For sure.

There’s no question in my mind that Lee did ’something’.

Is it overblown? Maybe.

Ultimately I still feel the same way:

Without Stan Lee, the Marvel Universe wouldn’t have been the same.

Without Jack Kirby, it wouldn’t have existed at all.

 

One was compensated well enough to own multiple Rolls Royce’s by 1970.

The other had to draw every day for the rest of his life to earn a living.

 

Stan Lee got more than enough praise and money for the ‘work’ he did and even more for the work OTHERS did.

I don’t think pointing it out discounts the positive things he brought to it.

 

Really, a lot of what this is for Lee fans is a feeling of slowly losing a grip on their memory of their childhood reading and being excited by a world they felt that Lee created for THEM.

It’s been a slow gradual loss:

Lee wrote all the stories… No, this shows he didn’t.

Lee co-wrote all the stories… No, not always.

Lee acted out the stories for his artists… No…

Lee’s dialogue is so realistic how people talk…. Uh….

 

It scares them to think how he’s being squeezed out of the process more and more to the point now where they’re left to fight with… his office schedule?

He’s not going to win out THERE either…

The important thing is:

NOTHING can change how Lee made those people feel as kids or how they remember it now as adults. THAT is what they should focus on. Because no one can ever take that part of it away.

 

Nor would I want to.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 3:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

Stan had more than one 'writing' credit in 1969.

What books was he writing in 1969? GCD has failed me in the past. Could be my mistake.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/2/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

.

Avengers #27 - 5 minute conversation "Let's have the Beetle and Attuma as villains" (Stan Lee usual trope - use a villain from some other comic) I'm not sure what else could be said about that issue.

Daredevil #15 - 5 minute conversation - Have the Ox show up! (from ASM. Again, the same trope)

 

 

These are the kind of statements that destroy credibility. One of the key differences between the "Marvel Universe" and its competitors was that the books were not siloed. Not only did heroes cross-over to other heroes books, but so did villans. In SA DC, you didn't see Joker in Superman or Lex Luthor in Batman - you only, at most, see both in World's Finest. Stan's genius included seeing that building a universe not only led readers to reader more than just their favorite title or titles, but also truly created a coherent universe where characters all living in NYC could stumble across each other's villains. This isn't a trope. This was genius.

I'm sorry you can't see that. You are missing out on a big thing that made Marvel special.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/3/2024 at 7:43 AM, sfcityduck said:

These are the kind of statements that destroy credibility. One of the key differences between the "Marvel Universe" and its competitors was that the books were not siloed. Not only did heroes cross-over to other heroes books, but so did villans. In SA DC, you didn't see Joker in Superman or Lex Luthor in Batman - you only, at most, see both in World's Finest. Stan's genius included seeing that building a universe not only led readers to reader more than just their favorite title or titles, but also truly created a coherent universe where characters all living in NYC could stumble across each other's villains. This isn't a trope. This was genius.

I'm sorry you can't see that. You are missing out on a big thing that made Marvel special.

I have no doubt that Stan's short comings in creativity led to this, and it certainly made things interesting at times... but genius?

You think the Ox appearing in DD was genius? Or Doctor Doom in Spider-man? (Easily my least favorite, and least inspiring of the first 30 issues of the book).

I guess this is one way you can tell Lee DID have input...

I'm sure along the way SOME villain crossover turned out to be classic... which ones would that be? Which of the those issues were the special ones with a crossover villain? And I'm asking that seriously, because I'm curious.

Amazing Spider-man was one of the only Marvel books I read, consistently throughout the years and Marvel's BEST-selling superhero book.... 

Pop-Quiz 1: What was the 2nd crossover villain in ASM after Dr. Doom?

(And if crossover villains were a big part of what made Marvel special... how was ASM their best selling book without much of it?)

Pop-Quiz 2: What was the 1st crossover villain in the Fantastic Four?

(And if crossover villains were a big part of what made Marvel special... how was FF their 2nd best selling book without it?)

Pop-Quiz 3: What was the 1st crossover villain in Thor?

(And if crossover villains were a big part of what made Marvel special... how was Thor their 3rd best selling book without it?)

Dr. Strange? Not really much of a crossover villain checklist...

 

It's weird how it only applied to the lesser selling books that Kirby and Ditko didn't work on...

Edited October 3 by Prince Namor