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

[Chip Cataldo]

Arguing, arguing and more arguing.

Isn't the only point of the book, this thread and all this arguing that Stan didn't give Jack & Steve enough (or any) credit throughout the decades?

I mean, when Stan is being interviewed (it gets worse as he gets older) and people assign the sole creation of the Marvel Universe to him, the fact that he doesn't immediately say, "Wait a minute, I didn't SOLELY create the Marvel Universe. Jack Kirby deserves AT LEAST HALF the credit for everything in the 1960s except Steve Ditko who deserves AT LEAST HALF the credit on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange" is the one thing this issue revolves around?

The fact that Lee continued to perpetuate the lie by not stressing Jack & Steve's contributions, that he solely created everything and never corrected that point whenever he could is the main gist of this, yes?

Can't everyone agree on that?

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:00 AM, Prince Namor said:

"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."

The above was Michael (Doc) Vassallo's conclusion about the endless "who created what" debate. I see it as a model for how we should proceed.

Edited October 5 by Dr. Haydn
added "Michael"

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:31 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

The above was Michael (Doc) Vassallo's conclusion about the endless "who created what" debate. I see it as a model for how we should proceed.

Stans version has no credibility in Origins...issue by issue is the only way to ascertain the truth....output!

, the step

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 2:03 AM, bronze_rules said:

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.

’

Denny nails what made Marvel unique and caused the rest of the industry to change and it wasn't JUST Kirby and JUST Ditko. 

It was Stan Lee that made Marvel unique. 

That "breaking the fourth wall, wink at you" feel that Marvel had took Marvel off the charts for me. That communal pull that drew the reader into feeling they were a part of that world. It's what made me a Marvel zombie. It made comics so cool to me that I was willing to get bullied for them, and did. I literally got beat up in school because I was a comic nerd because of Stan. 

I didn't care what anyone else thought of them because Stan's vibe was my vibe. I used his language (like "No Prize", "Make Mine Marvel", "True Believer" and "Excelsior") in my daily language - more as a joke that nobody got, but I used those words in my daily life.

And this is something Jack Kirby and Ditko NEVER HAD to bring to the table. 

Their stories were wooden and dull by comparison. In fact, if I had to do a thorough analysis, I'd bet that any story Kirby did most of the work on without Lee (like the ending to Surfer #18 which is entirely different than the rest of the run - I can't stand that Kirby story telling feel at the end of that book), I didn't enjoy as much because it felt DULL when compared to the Lee vibe. 

New Gods was this sort of dull, which is why it never appealed to me. It felt like a rehashed GA story. Sure it was dynamic and exciting and fantastical, but it was also so out there that it was almost abstract. It was unappealing in every way to me. 

It takes that humanity that Stan brought to make it appealing. In smaller part, that's probably what Simon also brought to the Kirby's table.

Kirby alone is dull to me in that it's pure fantasy without the human connection. 

Thank you for posting that. It articulates in a clear way what Marvel zombies were feeling but couldn't explain themselves in such a clear manner.

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[sfcityduck]

On 10/4/2024 at 9:34 PM, Prince Namor said:

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. 

 

 

No. That is not what it means. Stan Lee was very up front the context of his comics was the Marvel Method. He did not claim he was doing full scripts, let alone a panel breakdown. (Jack Kirby would not have worked under a full script or panel breakdown.) In a February 1966 Bullpen Bulletin Stan told his readers what the Marvel method was:

“It isn’t generally known, but many of our merry Marvel artists are also talented story men in their own right! For example, all Stan has to do with the pros like JACK ‘KING’ KIRBY, dazzling DON HECK, and darlin’ DICK AYERS is give them the germ of an idea, and they make up all the details as they go along, drawing and plotting out the story.  Then, our leader simply takes the finished drawings and adds all the dialogue and captions!  Sounds complicated?  Maybe it is, but it’s another reason why no one else can bring you that old Marvel magic!”

Stan was claiming collaboration.

[mrc]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:24 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

The fact that Lee continued to perpetuate the lie by not stressing Jack & Steve's contributions, that he solely created everything and never corrected that point whenever he could is the main gist of this, yes?

Can't everyone agree on that?

No, because as previously mentioned...............

"In the ‘60s or even the ‘70s, the idea that two people had come up with something was thought by reporters, and some editors, to be too complicated for a general interest story. Stan would very often be credited as the creator of X, Y and Z, but he was pretty careful generally about crediting his artists, even at the times where he said that he himself had created the idea, he would still say “But I couldn’t have done it without Kirby or Ditko.” I think he was partly a victim of the oversimplification the media did. I think there were probably times when he also preempted that simplification and figured that this story would be too complicated, and so just regarded himself as the creator. There was no one way he talked about stuff. I think if he was talking to a comic audience convention that would be more knowledgeable, he readily acknowledged it. There’s the extreme view that Stan didn’t do anything, which I don’t think is true. And there’s the other extreme view that he did everything, which is also not true."

Sure, Stan was 'economical with the truth' but a liar? It was the Marvel Method, like it or not. The 'method' that made Marvel popular worldwide and, added value (IMHO) to the work of every creator that worked for Marvel. Why anyone takes any notice of the 'Origins' book is beyond me. I see that merely as a kind of publicity pamphlet, nothing more. However, as a 10 yr old, back in the day I would have loved to have had that book if I'd seen it for sale, anywhere in the UK. 

Edited October 5 by mrc
edit

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:14 AM, namisgr said:

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.

Since there is no actual proof of who created what in Thor and Gower has even admitted that's the case, it's far easier to believe that the guy in charge of all content at Marvel had some sort of input into the creation of Thor than that Kirby did it unilaterally. 

On 10/5/2024 at 9:00 AM, Prince Namor said:

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."

Then your public discourse on the subject material should be that way. 

You can't come into a group of people who don't have the same wealth and breadth of material under their belt, attack their beliefs with harsh oppressive truths and just hit them over the head with your conclusions, which is what this thread has been. It's more of a battering ram than a discussion. 

That's the main reason you're receiving such opposition to the subject and why accomplished authors use publicists etc to spread the word. 

That and you sometimes contradict yourself like you did with the Thor Kirby / Lee quotes I addressed last night or don't really speak to the discussion but redirect back to your conclusion rather than have the discussion in an objective fashion.

If you're going to do all the legwork yourself, it needs to be in a way that's instructive, not forceful. 

Personally, I've come to accept from this conversation that Stan has taken more credit than he probably deserved regarding stories, but from the same discussion I've also come to realize Stan did a lot of things for which he probably didn't receive credit for, or better said, added intangibles as an 'editor' (and let's face it, he was more - he was a fill in man, the glue of Marvel) that would be akin to a producer adding something vital to a hit song that he received no direct credit for but the producer was also involved in distribution, management and a few other things.

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:22 AM, mrc said:

Sure, Stan was 'economical with the truth' but a liar?

Stan may have been liberal with the truth on some fronts, but he was generous with his efforts on others. 

The reason Kirby or Ditko couldn't have done it alone, is because they were artists and not businesspeople.

Artists and creative types think differently, psychologically - artists are generally "agreeable" psychologically and "liberal" with their ideas - they are the fantasizers, but terrible business people. They're "just" creators and generally "yes" types.

Managers are are far LESS "agreeable" and far more "conservative" in the way they approach things. The correct psychological term is "disagreeable" personality wise. The reason they make good managers is BECAUSE THEY SAY NO far more easily than "agreeable" creator types whose psychological "yes" makeup makes them open to creating and breaking boundaries. 

They are fundamentally at opposite ends of the spectrum. 

I'm friends with dozens if not HUNDREDS of artists in various industries. Most of them are world class talents but unsuccessful. Why? Because they don't know how to manage and promote themselves. The two psychological types are at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other and therefore their business senses are as well. 

It's very rare for people to be able to be creative and structured enough to be able to manage effectively. 

Stan seemed to be both. 

Stan was the glue that held the company together and directed all of it - creators, staff (bullpen whether virtual or physical), the vibe, the concepts, the over-arcing direction - all of it. 

Stan was Marvel the Marvel Branding that no other company had, and as this discussion progresses, that becomes more clear. 

 

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:00 AM, Prince Namor said:

(Michael Vassollo): "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."

Edited October 5 by RockMyAmadeus

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Since there is no actual proof of who created what in Thor and Gower has even admitted that's the case, it's far easier to believe that the guy in charge of all content at Marvel had some sort of input into the creation of Thor than that Kirby did it unilaterally. 

What?

The guy who had no experience writing adventure stories? 

Again, Dr. Michale J Vassollo: "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."

Everything in Jack's career shows him to be the type of creator to come up with an updated vesion of Thor. Nothing in Lee's history shows him to be that person.

On 10/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Then your public discourse on the subject material should be that way. 

You can't come into a group of people who don't have the same wealth and breadth of material under their belt, attack their beliefs with harsh oppressive truths and just hit them over the head with your conclusions, which is what this thread has been. It's more of a battering ram than a discussion. 

That's the main reason you're receiving such opposition to the subject and why accomplished authors use publicists etc to spread the word. 

Right. I'M the oppressive one.

On 10/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, VintageComics said:

That and you sometimes contradict yourself like you did with the Thor Kirby / Lee quotes I addressed last night or don't really speak to the discussion but redirect back to your conclusion rather than have the discussion in an objective fashion.

I didn't contradict myself at all. Both quotes are an approach to how they SAY they created the character.

On 10/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, VintageComics said:

If you're going to do all the legwork yourself, it needs to be in a way that's instructive, not forceful. 

Personally, I've come to accept from this conversation that Stan has taken more credit than he probably deserved regarding stories, but from the same discussion I've also come to realize Stan did a lot of things for which he probably didn't receive credit for,

What??? What did Stan do that he didn't get credit for?

On 10/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, VintageComics said:

or better said, added intangibles as an 'editor' (and let's face it, he was more - he was a fill in man, the glue of Marvel) that would be akin to a producer adding something vital to a hit song that he received no direct credit for but the producer was also involved in distribution, management and a few other things.

Yeah, ok. Lack of credit was never Stan's shortcoming. He gave himself plenty of credit.

[Chip Cataldo]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:22 AM, mrc said:

No, because as previously mentioned...............

"In the ‘60s or even the ‘70s, the idea that two people had come up with something was thought by reporters, and some editors, to be too complicated for a general interest story. Stan would very often be credited as the creator of X, Y and Z, but he was pretty careful generally about crediting his artists, even at the times where he said that he himself had created the idea, he would still say “But I couldn’t have done it without Kirby or Ditko.” I think he was partly a victim of the oversimplification the media did. I think there were probably times when he also preempted that simplification and figured that this story would be too complicated, and so just regarded himself as the creator. There was no one way he talked about stuff. I think if he was talking to a comic audience convention that would be more knowledgeable, he readily acknowledged it. There’s the extreme view that Stan didn’t do anything, which I don’t think is true. And there’s the other extreme view that he did everything, which is also not true."

Sure, Stan was 'economical with the truth' but a liar? It was the Marvel Method, like it or not. The 'method' that made Marvel popular worldwide and, added value (IMHO) to the work of every creator that worked for Marvel. Why anyone takes any notice of the 'Origins' book is beyond me. I see that as merely as a kind of publicity pamphlet, nothing more. However, as a 10 yr old, back in the day I would have loved to have had that book if I'd seen it for sale, anywhere in the UK. 

"Economical with the truth" is just double-talk for lying. Sheesh.

Plus, just because people were too stupid to wrap their heads around two individuals creating one thing doesn't mean it was the right thing to present publicly.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, VintageComics said:

Stan may have been liberal with the truth on some fronts, but he was generous with his efforts.

He stole credit and pay from his artists for the entire Silver Age.

On 10/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, VintageComics said:

The reason Kirby or Ditko couldn't have done it alone, is because they were artists and not businesspeople. Artists and creative types think differently, psychologically - they are generally "agreeable" psychologically and "liberal" with their ideas - they are the fantasizers, but terrible business people. They're "just" creators.

On 10/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, VintageComics said:

Managers are are far LESS "agreeable" and far more "conservative" in the way they approach things. The correct psychological term is "disagreeable" personality wise. The reason they make good managers is BECAUSE THEY SAY NO far more easily than "agreeable" creator types whose psychological "yes" makeup makes them open to creating and breaking boundaries. 

They are fundamentally at opposite ends of the spectrum. 

I'm friends with dozens if not HUNDREDS of artists in various industries. Most of them are world class talents but unsuccessful. Why? Because they don't know how to manage and promote themselves. The two psychological types are usually at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. 

It's very rare for people to be able to be creative and structured enough to be able to manage effectively. 

Stan seemed to be both.

LOL. Without artists writing the stories, it's LEE who would've had nothing. 

The writer/artist can always create on his own. His reward isn't FAME and GLORY. It's creating art. So he can be successful regardless of being managed or not. Ditko earned a living the rest of his life drawing and writing stories. Kirby earned a living the rest of his life creating, drawing and writing. Lee sucked the teet of Kirby/Ditko creations the rest of his life because he had no ability to manage anyone else and certainly couldn't create anything on his own.

How did his business ventures work out the rest of his life without a Kirby or Ditko?

On 10/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, VintageComics said:

Stan was the glue that held the company together and directed all of it - creators, staff (bullpen whether virtual or physical), the vibe, the concepts, the over-arcing direction - all of it. 

Stan was Marvel the Marvel Branding that no other company had, and as this discussion progresses, that becomes more clear. 

None of it would've happened without Jack Kirby. He saved the company.

Stan Lee before Kirby: 1957, at the point of going out of Business.

Stan Lee after Kirby: 1977, on the verge of bankruptcy.

FACT.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:17 PM, sfcityduck said:

No. That is not what it means. Stan Lee was very up front the context of his comics was the Marvel Method. He did not claim he was doing full scripts, let alone a panel breakdown. (Jack Kirby would not have worked under a full script or panel breakdown.) In a February 1966 Bullpen Bulletin Stan told his readers what the Marvel method was:

“It isn’t generally known, but many of our merry Marvel artists are also talented story men in their own right! For example, all Stan has to do with the pros like JACK ‘KING’ KIRBY, dazzling DON HECK, and darlin’ DICK AYERS is give them the germ of an idea, and they make up all the details as they go along, drawing and plotting out the story.  Then, our leader simply takes the finished drawings and adds all the dialogue and captions!  Sounds complicated?  Maybe it is, but it’s another reason why no one else can bring you that old Marvel magic!”

Stan was claiming collaboration.

Are you playing naive or just trying to cloud the discussion or what? He said that in 1966.

By 1974 he was saying in Origins of Marvel Comics that HE created the characters and concepts. He gives credit that the artists would occasionally take HIS ideas and expand on them. But he still took FULL CREDIT for the creation.

From 1998 to the time of his death, and even UNDER OATH, Lee claimed HE created all the concepts and all the characters and simply assigned an artist.

 

From June 1971, Amazing Spider-man #100 (no mention of Steve Ditko):

Edited October 5 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

Speaking of Gil Kane, I should've quoted him more in my book:

"The difference was that Roy (Thomas) was, for me, a perfect collaborator.  He was a contributor, but he also was an accommodator.  If you had a notion that he liked, and I always had notions, we would collaborate on them.  Generally I would have the basic notion of a story, and there would be a lot of kicking it around.

Stan, on the other hand, would give you very little.  I remember in this particular sequence that I think had to do with Gwen Stacy, he told me, "I'd like you to draw a character like Broderick Crawford as the villain."  But that was about it. So I put together what I could from the material we had done before.  I mean, there's kind of continuity that gives you at least a direction for the material, from what preceded it.  I'd build it up and bring it in, and he'd take a look at it: "Yeah, yeah, yeah..Oh geez, I don't like this at all."  And although I didn't say it to him, I'd think in my mind, "Well why the %$#@ don't you write it yourself?!  You're getting paid for it!" [laughter]. But we all went through that.  Including Jack [Kirby].

Jack made up all those stories, and I'm positive he'd made up practically all the characters, with very few exceptions.  I'm sure the Silver Surfer and Galactus and all those characters are Jack's."

- Gil Kane, The Comics Journal #168, 1994

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:30 AM, VintageComics said:

TYou can't come into a group of people who don't have the same wealth and breadth of material under their belt, attack their beliefs with harsh oppressive truths and just hit them over the head with your conclusions, which is what this thread has been. It's more of a battering ram than a discussion. 

On 10/5/2024 at 8:30 AM, VintageComics said:

If you're going to do all the legwork yourself, it needs to be in a way that's instructive, not forceful. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:29 PM, 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? 

Based on Joe Simon's cartoon I posted here, most people in the industry knew at least as early as 1966 that he was just signing his name to other people's work. As far as FANS... even when Jim Shooter was running the company, there were still people who believed that Stan oversaw every issue that came out, based upon the 'Stan Lee Presents' heading.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:35 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

"Economical with the truth" is just double-talk for lying.

Winston Churchill, forbidden by Parliamentary rules from applying the word 'lie' to what another member had said, coined the phrase 'terminological inexactitude'.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:59 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

I know. Getting scolded by Delic on Forum Decorum. Ah, the irony. Oy Vey!

[DanJD]

[mrc]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:35 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

"Economical with the truth" is just double-talk for lying. Sheesh.

"To be economical with the truth literally means to avoid revealing too much of the truth. The idea may have an approbatory sense of prudence or diplomacy, and is often either used euphemistically to denote dissimulation".