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

[VintageComics]

Just to simplify:

You're calling Stan a liar in Origins because he said he gave Thor the power of flight through his hammer. 

But you don't know what Kirby is and isn't responsible for in the creation of Thor (quote below because it's important)

On 10/4/2024 at 6:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/4/2024 at 6:18 PM, VintageComics said:

Or, to be more clear, can you clarify what Kirby is and isn't responsible for?

Don't know.

You're also saying that because Stan didn't sign the story in JIM #83 that he had no part in the story and by extension, this also means Stan had no part in the creation of Thor.

So you're saying that Stan Lee is a liar in Origins because he didn't sign the story in JIM #83. 

But if you can't prove what Kirby did do, you also can't prove what Stan didn't do. This is where it hinges. 

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and @sfcityduck is so he'll better know the appropriate legal terminology, but I'm fairly certain that this doesn't constitute proof that Stan Lee lied in that Origins quote. 

In fact, if you called Stan a liar based on those two quotes, and he was alive he'd probably have a good case for a legal case of Libel.

On 10/4/2024 at 6:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/4/2024 at 6:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Kirby is talking about how he envisioned Thor. No mention of hammer. No mention of flight. Just a vague recollection that he did it "his way".

Lee is talking about the Hammer and flight specifically. 

You're making the assumption that Kirby is alluding to hammer and flight in his quote without mentioning it, and you're making the assumption Stan Lee is taking credit for the vague things in Jack's quote, but neither is apparent from either quote.

You can't call this out as a contradiction because they don't contradict each other.

In a court of law, it wouldn't fly. 

What is confusing is that you're connecting two quotes that aren't objectively connected and picking one side as proof that the other is lying. 

That's not how logic works. 

You're just reaching.

"Reaching" is jumping to a conclusion for which you can't actually establish a connection between the two contradicting statements. 

You're tying them together with a belief rather than proof. 

I've already shown that the two statements aren't directly contradicting each other. 

It's really a matter of what you choose to believe in this instance, and you're choosing to believe that Stan Lee had NO part in the creation of Thor, because he didn't sign the story.

I personally believe, in absence of any other evidence, that it's FAR easier to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input in the story in the company he was running, and that he helped Kirby shape or mold it in some way because this was forever the pattern in the early days. 

On 10/4/2024 at 6:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

You're giving him the benefit of the doubt over a sentence in book filled with multiple lies. 

We've just proven that your "truth" is actually a subjective belief that's not based on definitive proof.

I'm not sure you actually understand what constitutes proof. 

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/4/2024 at 9:37 PM, sfcityduck said:

The creation of Thor was likely the result of 'another day at the office' years ago…not exactly a life-defining event…so it is hardly surprising that related memories may change, be contradictory or just plain wrong.

This sums up Marvel in the early 1960s for me. 

They would just brainstorm, throw things at a wall and see what sticks out in the real world. 

They probably hardly remember what they threw at the wall decades in the past. 

On 10/4/2024 at 9:37 PM, sfcityduck said:

Jane10 years ago

Consider this quote from Jack Kirby in 1969 (printed in Nostalgia Journal nov/dec 1976), when asked who was responsible for various aspects of the Thor strip, him or Lee:

"Both of us in a way. I researched it and gave my version of it, and Stan gave his version of it. Stan humanized it in a way where, for instance, I might be concerned about Thor's relation to the other gods. I might bring up a Ulik or I might bring something out of the wild blue yonder…And Stan would come down to Earth and find Thor's relationship with Earth people"

To these quotes from the early 1960s…from Jack Kirby Collector 54:
"An idea can come from me, it can come from Stan, it can come from a reader…"
"We'll build a plot around that type of story. I feel that Stan is very wise in looking over letters from readers and keeping tabs on the progress that the character is making."

Yes…they all correspond exactly with Lee's description of the Marvel method. 

[End Quote]

 

There you go. Kirby himself, in 1969 states that Stan had input. 

And Kirby even speaks to everything boardies on here have been saying about Stan Lee giving his character human attributes that make them more...HUMAN. 

And this is exactly what made Marvel special. 

That is far more reasonable to me than that Stan, the Editor, the dude running the company has ZERO input. 

I think there are two things happening that make Kirby sound like he's contradicting himself.

1) human memory is not 100% accurate. This is unequivocal. 

2) some quotes attributed to recollection are likely taken out of context, changing their intended meaning. 

 

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/4/2024 at 6:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/4/2024 at 6:27 PM, VintageComics said:

Again, Stan not signing the stories has no bearing on who gave Thor which attributes at his creation. 

That alone doesn't prove Stan didn't give Thor flight, and it doesn't disprove Stan's quote from Origins. 

They're two parallel discussions that don't intersect. 

If Lee had come up with the idea, he would have signed the story. FACT.

You've asserted multiple times that it was always Stan introducing the lame romance angle into stories.

So if Stan had nothing to do with JIM #83, but Stan was responsible for the lame romance angles in all of the early Marvel characters, who was responsible for Blake's crush on Jane?

Was it Kirby?

[VintageComics]

On 10/4/2024 at 7:45 PM, PreHero said:

Appears Marvel’s Thor is pretty much a direct copy of Fox's Thor in Weird Comics #1 (1940):

• Thor has hammer/helmet/cape/blonde hair
• Thor flies
• Thor allows a human to assume form and powers of Thor (Grant Farrel vs Don Blake)
• Grant has crush on a girl (Glenda vs Jane Nelson/Foster) who wants Grant/Don to be more “adventurous”.

Not sure if it was Stan and/or Jack who lifted Thor’s costume, powers, characters and love triangle from Weird Comics #1.

One thing that was unique to Kirby and Lee's Thor is the spinning hammer for flight. 

It was a BRILLIANT idea that itself is worthy of praise, making Marvel Thor special, visually different and I don't know of anything similar. 

[grendel013]

On 10/4/2024 at 11:24 PM, VintageComics said:

One thing that was unique to Kirby and Lee's Thor is the spinning hammer for flight. 

It was a BRILLIANT idea that itself is worthy of praise, making Marvel Thor special, visually different and I don't know of anything similar. 

Agreed. Otherwise you have Mary Poppins.

[Larryw7]

On 10/4/2024 at 12:54 PM, Zonker said:

But how would that have worked?  FF #1 went on sale in August 1961.  Kirby must have produced his penciled artwork months earlier. Hard to believe a B-movie would have the advertising budget to tease this so far in advance.

Then maybe the movie stole from Kirby.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Just to simplify:

You're calling Stan a liar in Origins because he said he gave Thor the power of flight through his hammer. 

Stan Lee says he created all of the characters and concepts HIMSELF and simply assigned an artist.

That means, he's claiming he created Thor and all that goes with the character. 

That's one of roughly 75 lies or omissions he makes in the book. 

On 10/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, VintageComics said:

But you don't know what Kirby is and isn't responsible for in the creation of Thor (quote below because it's important)

I know what I see on the printed page.

On 10/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, VintageComics said:

You're also saying that because Stan didn't sign the story in JIM #83 that he had no part in the story and by extension, this also means Stan had no part in the creation of Thor.

So you're saying that Stan Lee is a liar in Origins because he didn't sign the story in JIM #83. 

But if you can't prove what Kirby did do, you also can't prove what Stan didn't do. This is where it hinges. 

Wrong. 

Lee's consistent actions tell us information about what he did and did not do.

Kirby's actions, what he wrote and drew, SHOW us what he did.

On 10/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and @sfcityduck is so he'll better know the appropriate legal terminology, but I'm fairly certain that this doesn't constitute proof that Stan Lee lied in that Origins quote. 

In fact, if you called Stan a liar based on those two quotes, and he was alive he'd probably have a good case for a legal case of Libel.

LOL. I have more proof he DIDN'T, than he does that he did.

My whole book, and the information available, if taken by a literary scholar with no knowledge of the participants, reading the work they did up to the point of 1961 when the FF was created, would in no way think Lee was responsible for anything more than flippant dialogue. 99.9% would side that way.

It's a joke that anyone could even see it any other way.

On 10/5/2024 at 9:27 AM, VintageComics said:

"Reaching" is jumping to a conclusion for which you can't actually establish a connection between the two contradicting statements. 

You're tying them together with a belief rather than proof. 

I've already shown that the two statements aren't directly contradicting each other. 

It's really a matter of what you choose to believe in this instance, and you're choosing to believe that Stan Lee had NO part in the creation of Thor, because he didn't sign the story.

I personally believe, in absence of any other evidence, that it's FAR easier to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input in the story in the company he was running, and that he helped Kirby shape or mold it in some way because this was forever the pattern in the early days. 

We've just proven that your "truth" is actually a subjective belief that's not based on definitive proof.

I'm not sure you actually understand what constitutes proof. 

What's YOUR proof? That Lee was running Marvel Comics?

Lee wasn't running Marvel Comics in 1961 - Martin Goodman was. And Goodman's faith in LEE was about over with. Goodman's FAITH was in Jack Kirby.

Proof?

It was GOODMAN who made all of Kirby's books MONTHLY just before the summer of 1960, while Millie the Model and Lee's books and anyone else's at Marvel were all bi-monthly still. Pre-Hero, Goodman gave Kirby the first and only monthly books since before the implosion. This is important because it shows who was driving Marvel's sales - KIRBY.

It was Goodman who gave Kirby a FIFTH book to do (Amazing Adventures) - written, penciled and edited by Kirby (when it was taken over by Lee as part of the agreement to do the FF, Lee's 'Amazing Adult Fantasy' was canceled within less than a year).

It was Goodman who decided to finally give Superheroes a chance.

Where's your proof Lee had IDEAS at the time?

Want to hear what others say about Lee and his ideas around that time?

"It finally got to the point where I told him that if he was the writer, he’d have to come up with the plots. So, we just sat across the desk from one another in silence." - Wally Wood on Stan Lee from The Life and Legend of Wallace Wood Volume 1, edited by Bhob Stewart and Michael Catron, Fantagraphics, 2016.

“He really didn’t seem to have any ideas, but we worked out a plot, and he sent me the synopsis. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. In one line, Stan indicated that he wanted a three-page fight sequence, in a garage, or whatever. Nothing else. So I called and asked him what I should do. He said, “You know, throw some tires around, do something with some oil, make it up as you go.'”Well, that didn’t help…” - Joe Orlando from Daniel Best’s 20th Century Danny Boy Blog.

“Stan Lee didn’t come up with most of the ideas. He really gave me free rein. Actually, I’d just go ahead and write and draw the stories and then send them in. - Al Hartley (Alter Ego #61)

“One time I was in Stan’s office and told him, “I haven’t got another plot.” Stan got out of his chair, walked over to me, looked me in the face, and said very seriously, “I don’t ever want to hear you say you can’t think of another plot.” Then he walked back and sat in his chair. He didn’t think he needed to tell me anything more. After that, I could think of a plot in two seconds.” - Stan Goldberg, interviewed by Jim Amash, Alter Ego v3 #18, October 2002

"Then, at some point before issue #25 (where I am publicly credited with plotting Spider-man and Dr. Strange), Stan chose to break-off communicating with me. That initiated break-off means no Stan Lee synopses, no kind of Stan Lee input, no Stan Lee "ideas" of any kind on anything. And certainly no "lifting idea" for issue #33 (Feb.1966).I'm on my own in providing all the story ideas, story continuity, for Spider-man (Dr. Strange). - Steve Ditko, A Mini-Hostory "Some Background" 2011 (Yet, Stan still listed his name as the WRITER on those issues!)

 

Your idea that MY only proof is the non-signature couldn't be any MORE WRONG. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:39 AM, VintageComics said:

This sums up Marvel in the early 1960s for me. 

They would just brainstorm, throw things at a wall and see what sticks out in the real world. 

They probably hardly remember what they threw at the wall decades in the past. 

There you go. Kirby himself, in 1969 states that Stan had input. 

And Kirby even speaks to everything boardies on here have been saying about Stan Lee giving his character human attributes that make them more...HUMAN. 

And this is exactly what made Marvel special. 

That is far more reasonable to me than that Stan, the Editor, the dude running the company has ZERO input. 

I think there are two things happening that make Kirby sound like he's contradicting himself.

1) human memory is not 100% accurate. This is unequivocal. 

2) some quotes attributed to recollection are likely taken out of context, changing their intended meaning. 

 

Of course he had input, he SIGNED the stories. NO ONE is denying that. 

On Journey Into Mystery #83? He didn't sign it. He didn't contribute.

[ttfitz]

On 9/20/2024 at 9:52 PM, sfcityduck said:

As a result no one should take anything that Stan and Jack said about each other at face value. What is needed is an unbiased skeptical view that seeks objective truth. You won't necessarily get that from many of Stan and Jack's colleagues. So just quoting them is picking evidence.

I've been holding off posting here in hopes of getting thru the thread and see what everyone else is saying, but it seems to grow faster than my ability to read thru it, so this seemed a good point to latch onto.

I find myself holding pretty much with what I hear from Mark Evanier on the subject. For those unfamiliar, Mark was Jack Kirby's assistant starting in 1970, and a friend of his before that. He's pretty much the definition of a Kirby Defender, but having known most of the folks involved in all of this (he even worked for Stan for a short time), I think he's got a pretty reasonable view on the subject. I think the best I ran across when I searched thru his website (http://newsfromme.com - a great read for lots of different subjects, highly recommended) would be this one:

Having worked myself in collaborations where the participants could sometimes not honestly separate who'd contributed what, I have a limited enthusiasm for those debates. I also have my own theories on what each contributed and I expound on them in the big, exhaustive bio of Jack that I hope to finish soon. (Hint: I believe that when Stan says "I wrote that comic" and Jack said, "I wrote that comic," those two men are not using the same definition of the word "write" but they both made significant contributions.)

Similarly, for me, in the case of the book being discussed here, from some examples that I've read so far, I think the author and I have different definitions of "lied".

In case there is any doubt on which "side" Mark tends to lean toward, I give you this:

As I've said on countless occasions, I have had an enormous range of mixed feelings about Stan Lee since I first met him in person in 1970. I almost felt like I knew him even before that from reading those comics. Not all of these feelings were/are positive. Some are but a few are sadly quite negative. And yes, I am still working on my huge book about Jack Kirby and no, I don't know when I'll be done with it.

But my conclusion is that the comics we know to be created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, not necessarily as 50-50 efforts and certainly not with Jack supplying only the visuals. I think Jack did a lot more than Stan — at least on the pages — and until fairly recently, got a lot less credit; likewise, Stan and Steve Ditko, Stan and Don Heck, Stan and Bill Everett, etc. The disparity in financial reward was even greater.

But that doesn't mean Stan did nothing or did nothing well. I have witnessed way too many Stan/Jack debates in my life and I think all are dead wrong if they lead to the conclusion that either contributed zero. This view has occasionally made me feel unwelcome on Stan Lee forums and in Jack Kirby chat groups. And just as I reject that notion, I reject the argument that neither would have amounted to anything post-1961 without the other. They were two men of extraordinary skills…just not the same skills.

Anyway, I doubt that I will be reading Prince Namor's book, I'm much more interested in the one that Evanier mentions that he has been working on. In the meantime, I've started reading Mark's previous book, Kirby: King of Comics.

 

And because I pulled them out, I'll give you a couple other passages about the subject from Mark's website - I thought they were relevant, but not quite the best reflection of my thoughts):

 

I believe I am the only person alive — and one of the few who ever lived — who worked for both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. I liked both of them but I was sometimes disappointed in Stan for, to put it bluntly, taking credit for things that others did. Jack never disappointed me in any way and I believe he was the major creative force behind the Lee-Kirby creations. Even Stan would sometimes admit that, though not in print or anywhere it could be heard by those who might keep him employed or negotiate his future contracts.

With the exception of one ugly falling-out we had, Stan was very nice to me…as he was nice to almost everybody when his reputation and continued employment were not at stake. He could be a charming man and I absolutely understand why some people love(d) the guy. But I think that the notion that he was the primary creator of those properties is utter…what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, I know: wildly_fanciful_statement.

Note that I am not saying he did nothing. You could not be in his position and contribute nothing even if you tried. But I think the driving force behind those properties was Jack Kirby — in at least some cases by a wide margin — and I think Steve Ditko was the driving force behind Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

A couple of remarks about Ditko things (which also touches on the definition of words):

There are other accounts from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko of the character's inception.  Based on my discussions with all three and a few other folks who were lurking on the premises, I take none of them at full value, though I decided all three versions were honestly-remembered and, if one tosses out the more outrageous parts, they sorta fit together into a "here's what probably happened" scenario.  One of these days, for whatever it's worth, I'll publish what I believe transpired…but even if I'm right, it still leaves certain questions of semantics as to which man or men "created" the hero.  Depends a lot on your definition of "creation," which is a concept that has been defined in many ways by many people, some of whom have configured their definitions in odd and inconsistent ways. 

Three things I remember from it that I can write about: One is that it's long been part of The Official History that a rift developed between Ditko and Stan Lee that at some point led to Stan refusing to talk to Steve. That, in turn, led to Steve ultimately quitting because, as he put it in one of his much-later writings…

Why should I continue to do all these monthly issues, original story ideas, material, for a man who is too scared, too angry over something, to even see, talk to me?

Ditko had been handing his work in to production manager Sol Brodsky who, in turn, passed it on to Stan. And what he wrote may be true but…

1. Both Stan and Sol told me it was the other way around; that Ditko refused to talk to Stan and would deliver the work to the office on the days when Stan was not there. It was no secret that Stan worked at home on certain days of the week.
2.My pal Steve Sherman and I spent an afternoon with Ditko in 1970 — not all that long after he quit — and he didn't say anything about that. His stated reasons for leaving Marvel then were frustrations with Stan changing his stories, Stan being too often credited as the sole creator and writer of comics that Ditko largely plotted, and with the company heads not making good on promises that he would share in the merchandising and profitability of Spider-Man. And…
3.I met with Stan in that office. If he was in there and didn't want to talk with me but I wanted to talk with him, I would have just walked into his office and confronted him. I don't think he kept his door locked but if he did and Ditko tried to see him, I think Ditko would have mentioned that.

As I said, Ditko's version may be true. I'm not saying it isn't; just that maybe it shouldn't be accepted at face value.

Finally, something to keep in mind when you are talking about Stan Lee and his version of some things:

And of course, I asked Stan Lee and of course, his answer was, "I don't remember but probably." You got that answer a lot when you asked Stan a question about almost anything. He once said it when I asked him if he'd gone to lunch yet.

[Larryw7]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:14 AM, Larryw7 said:

Then maybe the movie stole from Kirby.

Or perhaps Forry Ackerman’s Famous Monsters had preview pictures in his mag. Ackerman did get a lot of scoops from movie producers in order to advertise the movie because FM was so popular.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:41 AM, VintageComics said:

You've asserted multiple times that it was always Stan introducing the lame romance angle into stories.

So if Stan had nothing to do with JIM #83, but Stan was responsible for the lame romance angles in all of the early Marvel characters, who was responsible for Blake's crush on Jane?

Was it Kirby?

Lee didn't sign the stories, so it must have been.

But you don't know the stories do you? Go back and read #83-85, the issues Lee didn't sign.

No Jane Foster in #83. The 'lame romance angle' is given 3 PANELS in #84. And it's not mentioned at all in #85.

3 Panels in 3 issues.

 

In #86, when first signs the story - no Jane Foster in Kirby's story.

In #87 - it's given a few panels at the start of the story and two at the end.

In #88 - she has a part in the story, but the romance angle isn't played up.

In #89 - they alter Kirby's story - this is the issue he quits afterwards - and this is the first issue a full PAGE+ is devoted to it. Lee's input is apparent at this point.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

I've been holding off posting here in hopes of getting thru the thread and see what everyone else is saying, but it seems to grow faster than my ability to read thru it, so this seemed a good point to latch onto.

I find myself holding pretty much with what I hear from Mark Evanier on the subject. For those unfamiliar, Mark was Jack Kirby's assistant starting in 1970, and a friend of his before that. He's pretty much the definition of a Kirby Defender, but having known most of the folks involved in all of this (he even worked for Stan for a short time), I think he's got a pretty reasonable view on the subject.

That's a fair evaluation, but... Evanier has contradicted himself numerous times. Especially under oath vs what he's said publicly. 

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

I think the best I ran across when I searched thru his website (http://newsfromme.com - a great read for lots of different subjects, highly recommended) would be this one:

Having worked myself in collaborations where the participants could sometimes not honestly separate who'd contributed what, I have a limited enthusiasm for those debates. I also have my own theories on what each contributed and I expound on them in the big, exhaustive bio of Jack that I hope to finish soon. (Hint: I believe that when Stan says "I wrote that comic" and Jack said, "I wrote that comic," those two men are not using the same definition of the word "write" but they both made significant contributions.)

Similarly, for me, in the case of the book being discussed here, from some examples that I've read so far, I think the author and I have different definitions of "lied".

In case there is any doubt on which "side" Mark tends to lean toward, I give you this:

As I've said on countless occasions, I have had an enormous range of mixed feelings about Stan Lee since I first met him in person in 1970. I almost felt like I knew him even before that from reading those comics. Not all of these feelings were/are positive. Some are but a few are sadly quite negative. And yes, I am still working on my huge book about Jack Kirby and no, I don't know when I'll be done with it.

But my conclusion is that the comics we know to be created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, not necessarily as 50-50 efforts and certainly not with Jack supplying only the visuals. I think Jack did a lot more than Stan — at least on the pages — and until fairly recently, got a lot less credit; likewise, Stan and Steve Ditko, Stan and Don Heck, Stan and Bill Everett, etc. The disparity in financial reward was even greater.

But that doesn't mean Stan did nothing or did nothing well. I have witnessed way too many Stan/Jack debates in my life and I think all are dead wrong if they lead to the conclusion that either contributed zero. This view has occasionally made me feel unwelcome on Stan Lee forums and in Jack Kirby chat groups. And just as I reject that notion, I reject the argument that neither would have amounted to anything post-1961 without the other. They were two men of extraordinary skills…just not the same skills.

 

Nobody is saying Stan Lee did nothing. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

Anyway, I doubt that I will be reading Prince Namor's book, I'm much more interested in the one that Evanier mentions that he has been working on. In the meantime, I've started reading Mark's previous book, Kirby: King of Comics.

 

And because I pulled them out, I'll give you a couple other passages about the subject from Mark's website - I thought they were relevant, but not quite the best reflection of my thoughts):

 

I believe I am the only person alive — and one of the few who ever lived — who worked for both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. I liked both of them but I was sometimes disappointed in Stan for, to put it bluntly, taking credit for things that others did. Jack never disappointed me in any way and I believe he was the major creative force behind the Lee-Kirby creations. Even Stan would sometimes admit that, though not in print or anywhere it could be heard by those who might keep him employed or negotiate his future contracts.

With the exception of one ugly falling-out we had, Stan was very nice to me…as he was nice to almost everybody when his reputation and continued employment were not at stake. He could be a charming man and I absolutely understand why some people love(d) the guy. But I think that the notion that he was the primary creator of those properties is utter…what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, I know: wildly_fanciful_statement.

Note that I am not saying he did nothing. You could not be in his position and contribute nothing even if you tried. But I think the driving force behind those properties was Jack Kirby — in at least some cases by a wide margin — and I think Steve Ditko was the driving force behind Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

Which... is... pretty much what I'M saying...

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

A couple of remarks about Ditko things (which also touches on the definition of words):

There are other accounts from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko of the character's inception.  Based on my discussions with all three and a few other folks who were lurking on the premises, I take none of them at full value, though I decided all three versions were honestly-remembered and, if one tosses out the more outrageous parts, they sorta fit together into a "here's what probably happened" scenario.  One of these days, for whatever it's worth, I'll publish what I believe transpired…but even if I'm right, it still leaves certain questions of semantics as to which man or men "created" the hero.  Depends a lot on your definition of "creation," which is a concept that has been defined in many ways by many people, some of whom have configured their definitions in odd and inconsistent ways. 

Three things I remember from it that I can write about: One is that it's long been part of The Official History that a rift developed between Ditko and Stan Lee that at some point led to Stan refusing to talk to Steve. That, in turn, led to Steve ultimately quitting because, as he put it in one of his much-later writings…

Why should I continue to do all these monthly issues, original story ideas, material, for a man who is too scared, too angry over something, to even see, talk to me?

Ditko had been handing his work in to production manager Sol Brodsky who, in turn, passed it on to Stan. And what he wrote may be true but…

1. Both Stan and Sol told me it was the other way around; that Ditko refused to talk to Stan and would deliver the work to the office on the days when Stan was not there. It was no secret that Stan worked at home on certain days of the week.

Roy Thomas was there at the end. He confirms it. Lee refused to see Ditko. Evanier is just plain wrong.

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

2.My pal Steve Sherman and I spent an afternoon with Ditko in 1970 — not all that long after he quit — and he didn't say anything about that. His stated reasons for leaving Marvel then were frustrations with Stan changing his stories, Stan being too often credited as the sole creator and writer of comics that Ditko largely plotted, and with the company heads not making good on promises that he would share in the merchandising and profitability of Spider-Man. And…

Not proof.

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

3.I met with Stan in that office. If he was in there and didn't want to talk with me but I wanted to talk with him, I would have just walked into his office and confronted him. I don't think he kept his door locked but if he did and Ditko tried to see him, I think Ditko would have mentioned that.

 

It's factually documented Lee's door locked. 

On 10/5/2024 at 11:46 AM, ttfitz said:

 

As I said, Ditko's version may be true. I'm not saying it isn't; just that maybe it shouldn't be accepted at face value.

Finally, something to keep in mind when you are talking about Stan Lee and his version of some things:

And of course, I asked Stan Lee and of course, his answer was, "I don't remember but probably." You got that answer a lot when you asked Stan a question about almost anything. He once said it when I asked him if he'd gone to lunch yet.

But Evanier takes what Stan says at face value.

My favorite Evanier quote about Lee:

“At some point in every Martin and Lewis movie, Dean says to somebody, ‘Hey, you can’t do that to my pal.’” And I said, “Stan, no matter what they do to Jack, it’s always somebody else. You dive under the desk: ‘I’m not responsible for him being screwed, because I didn’t screw him personally.’ “ I said, “When I work with people and I get credit for their work, I go out and write a letter and I try and correct the record.” And I finally said, “I don’t understand how you can write superheroes and say, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’” And he got furious at me and didn’t speak to me for a year and a half.”

- Mark Evanier, from Abraham Josephine Riesman for True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee (2021).

 

[bronze_rules]

I wanted to add this excerpt from Dennis O’Neil from the “Stan Lee universe,” put out by twomorrows publishing. I think anyone here would agree Dennis O’Neil is quite an accomplished writer of comics in his own right. The interview is quite flattering of Stan’s contributions and contradicts the notion PN seemed to project of him being a lazy hack sitting back and collecting the paychecks belonging to everyone under him.

 

and I should add there are several other glowing reviews from peers whom worked with him in the early days.

About  Stan insisting on taking credit on putting his signature on all his early monster stories. I came across an early 60s title without his signature, yet is has a caption on the cover saying another Lee ditko masterpiece inside. Yet no sig inside.

’

Edited October 5 by bronze_rules

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:03 PM, bronze_rules said:

About  Stan insisting on taking credit on putting his signature on all his early monster stories. I came across an early 60s title without his signature, yet is has a caption on the cover saying another Lee ditko masterpiece inside. Yet no sig inside.

Which one? 

[bronze_rules]

On 10/4/2024 at 11:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

Which one? 

Sig was inside! Supports your comments. I think I looked at a reprint that omitted it or I missed it before. Numerous other Lee ditko sigs as well. But all the Kirby’s have only Ayers. Are you saying Lee contributed nothing to kirby monster books? I’ve seen a lot written to suggest otherwise, though it is odd about the signature argument you made. I’ve never really noticed that before.

I added an excerpt from twomorrows publishing, “Marvel Comics in the early 60s”. I wonder if Stan was so adamant about plastering his name on anything he worked on, then what about Don Heck collaborations?

Edited October 5 by bronze_rules

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:55 PM, bronze_rules said:

Sig was inside! Supports your comments. I think I looked at a reprint that omitted it or I missed it before. Numerous other Lee ditko sigs as well. But all the Kirby’s have only Ayers. Are you saying Lee contributed nothing to kirby monster books? I’ve seen a lot written to suggest otherwise, though it is odd about the signature argument you made. I’ve never really noticed that before.

I added an excerpt from twomorrows publishing, “Marvel Comics in the early 60s”. I wonder if Stan was so adamant about plastering his name on anything he worked on, then what about Don Heck collaborations?

It means Don Heck worked from scripts purchased from inventory.

Throughout the 50's Marvel/Atlas solicited for writers' stories through a number of ways - you can still read ads in the older 'Writer's Digest' - building up an inventory of scripts. Once the implosion hit, Lee was only using both art and story inventory to put together the books.

Once Kirby showed up and starting writing and drawing stories for the new Tales of Suspense, and Tales to Astonish, we STILL didn't see Lee writing anything for those books. Lee showed no interest in Sci-Fi or Monster stories throughout the first 2 years.

UNTIL... Kirby got his 5th book from Goodman (Amazing Adventures). Kirby had FIVE books - the only monthly titles at Marvel. Lee suddenly realized THIS is what was selling. So he tested out a new relationship working with Ditko on a few backup stories (Once Kirby came back full time freelance in summer 1959, his books all featured his story as the cover and the lead), until he created the Amazing Adult Fantasy book which only lasted 9 issues.

He just didn't write much of the Sci-Fi.

Dr. Michael J. Vassollo pretty much lays out the same thing here:

"...when Stan was Goodman’s only employee in the comic book division, it was because his entire comic book line imploded due the loss of his distributor. This was April of 1957. He cut down from nearly 75 titles down to 16, and the 16 were filled with nothing but inventory for nearly an entire year. Everyone was fired. There was no production staff because there was no production. When the inventory began to run out, Goodman allowed the purchase of new teen humor and western material. Stan wrote the teen and the main western characters. This plodded on until June of 1958 when Joe Maneely died.

 

Within one or two days of Maneely’s death (and I know this because job number analysis puts it at 2 days at most) Jack was back and the line immediately expanded to include new science fantasy titles like Strange Worlds, Tales to Astonish and Tales of Suspense. Additionally, Strange Tales and a revived Journey Into Mystery converted from inventory to new science fantasy material. Now Martin Goodman hated science Fiction and it failed with him at every level since his pulp days. Evidence point to the fact that it was Jack Kirby who pushed this new direction because it was what he knew best. It was what he was doing elsewhere at DC until very recently, as well as his syndicated Sky Masters strip. He saw it as the way to go. So Goodman relented and the new titles were launched. Stan did not write any of these stories. He was busy writing Millie the Model, Patsy Walker and their ilk, as well as Two-Gun Kid and Kid Colt. (Only since 1958 did he write these western characters. From 1948 to 1957 they were written by other Timely/Atlas writers). The first year’s scripts came from re-tooled, undrawn inventory sitting in a pile since early 1957. I’ve identified some of these from Carl Wessler’s work records, and there were a ton of writers’ scripts piled up when the work stoppage went into effect in April/57.

 

After a year the inventoried scripts ran out and the line changed to the monster comics we all know in 1959-60. Again, Stan didn’t script any of them. He was too busy writing Millie the Model, Patsy Walker and the two western characters. Jack Kirby’s lead stories were mostly plotted by himself. Larry Lieber says he typed up scripts but my feeling is he was typing up scripts Jack had already plotted. Jack, had been turning out tons of sci-fi and monsters on his own for years. Why would he need a novice writer (which Larry was) to funnel him story ideas?? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

So this plods on until sales slip and Jack begins pushing for superheroes to return, as he said he was since 1958, and getting nowhere. He brought in a blitzkrieg of new characters, the first one which was a super powered take on a book he had done for DC, the Challengers of the Unknown. The rest, as we say, is history. After deep diving into the published history and careers of both creators for 30 years now, there’s no other way I can see this coming about. I do not believe the official version told since the Origins books in 1974. From a factual historical data perspective, they make no sense whatsoever. Neither does a side by side comparison of both creator’s entire careers. You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions."

[namisgr]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:50 AM, Prince Namor said:

Go back and read #83-85, the issues Lee didn't sign.

No Jane Foster in #83. The 'lame romance angle' is given 3 PANELS in #84. And it's not mentioned at all in #85.

3 Panels in 3 issues.

 

In #86, when first signs the story - no Jane Foster in Kirby's story.

In #87 - it's given a few panels at the start of the story and two at the end.

In #88 - she has a part in the story, but the romance angle isn't played up.

In #89 - they alter Kirby's story - this is the issue he quits afterwards - and this is the first issue a full PAGE+ is devoted to it. Lee's input is apparent at this point.

In #83, our hero fights a wave of aliens invading Earth.

In #84, our hero fights the Cuban-like south-central American communist threat.

In #86, our hero fights a time traveler from the future using a time machine.

In #87, our hero fights the eastern European communist threat.

In #88, Jane Foster was central to the plot, romance-tinged or not.

In #89, the conflict revolved around a Thug Thatcher and his mob.

So it was far, far from just the romance angle of the title that needed way more development than was given from the early issues you imply are written by Kirby.

Edited October 5 by namisgr

[jimjum12]

I did see a lot of Marvel concepts rehashed on TV and the big screen in those days. Stan and Jack both were purported to freelance for Hollywood after their popularity became transitional. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Buzzetta]

Question:

At what point is it common knowledge that Stan Lee becomes more of a branding than a creative name tag.  For example, as I stated pages ago, Walt Disney had a hand in everything up until his death with the Jungle Book being the last animated feature that he was involved in and on the business side he was trying to develop the future in Florida and had plans for Epcot.  After Walt's death, the "Walt Disney" name becomes a branding if you will, as in a quality of film or production that Walt would have been synonymous with.   

Eventually we see the phrase "Stan Lee Presents" included in the comics.  Now, at that point, I knew that Stan was not actually writing anything nor contributing anything.  I knew that it was more of a branding at that time.  At what point before that would anyone say that Stan had absolutely no input on things but Marvel was slapping the name on a comic as a brand? 

[jimjum12]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:29 AM, Buzzetta said:

Question:

At what point is it common knowledge that Stan Lee becomes more of a branding than a creative name tag.  For example, as I stated pages ago, Walt Disney had a hand in everything up until his death with the Jungle Book being the last animated feature that he was involved in and on the business side he was trying to develop the future in Florida and had plans for Epcot.  After Walt's death, the "Walt Disney" name becomes a branding if you will, as in a quality of film or production that Walt would have been synonymous with.   

Eventually we see the phrase "Stan Lee Presents" included in the comics.  Now, at that point, I knew that Stan was not actually writing anything nor contributing anything.  I knew that it was more of a branding at that time.  At what point before that would anyone say that Stan had absolutely no input on things but Marvel was slapping the name on a comic as a brand? 

I would say sometime around the Carnegie Hall period. Things got very big, very fast, and I believe it was then that the decision to promote was shifted into high gear. This also corresponds with the influx of all of the DC freelancers following Romita, using pseudonyms so they could keep their feet in both doors. Stan just couldn't do all of it anymore and handed off responsibility to his more competent freelancers like Kirby. By 1968 I'd say that Stan was managing some of the new titles closely, but brought on folks like Roy to groom as an aid to editorial direction, the honing of the brand. Roy always said he hated editing and much preferred.to simply write. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 5 by jimjum12