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

[Prince Namor]

"Economical with the truth" Said no one about Bob Kane ever.

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:34 PM, Prince Namor said:

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 one hand, you deny saying Stan did nothing, on the other hand, every single time someone brings up Stan, you state that Stan didn't do any of what's being discussed, so you're either contradicting yourself or you're not very good at forming your arguments in a way where they sound clear. 

So, again, in your own words, what was Stan responsible for in creating the Marvel brand, which includes character creation?

What exactly did Stan do at Marvel from 1961 to say, 1969 or so when Marvel was still a budding company?

Can you give us an exhaustive list of what Stan actually did?

On 10/5/2024 at 12:34 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 11:30 AM, 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.

We already covered this. The two quotes are addressing ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS so they don't actually contradict each other.

Kirby is speaking broadly and generally about how he came up with the attributes he worked into the Marvel Thor. 

Stan is addressing FLIGHT for Thor. Not broad at all. Very specific.

Kirby does NOT address FLIGHT for Thor, because Kirby's previous iterations of Thor didn't include flight, yet you conflate by inferring something they don't say at face value, and by doing so reach a conclusion than different than everyone else who takes them at face value.

 

I studied biblical contradictions for years, and once you fully understand the entire picture, you realize that the context of things like how, what, when, where and why  removes most contradictions. So the 4 gospel writers seem like they contradict each other, but when you put everything in its proper context, the contradictions are removed.

You're simply quoting apparent contradictions that are not being discussed properly in the correct context. That's not a proper way to construct an argument.

And based on the way you consistently construct your arguments to create a point, as I've already proven on two separate points now regarding Thor's attributes and the bullpen discussion, by drawing a strict, logical vector through the important, central parts of each discussion,  you're not using logic in a clear, connected, reasonable manner.

You're jumping to conclusions between points that aren't clear to everyone, and connecting dots that don't actually connect.

In fact,  not only do your arguments often use points taken out of context, your arguments also rely HEAVILY on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence rather than DIRECT evidence and yet you treat and weight circumstantial evidence as direct evidence.

So you're either reaching that conclusion based on what's invisible to others which you don't articulate because there's not enough direct evidence to make the point, OR you're actually reaching a conclusion you want to see because the circumstantial evidence gets more weight than direct evidence.

A pile of circumstantial evidence is not an automatic guilty verdict even though you may want it to be.

That's why they use juries to weigh evidence and make decisions, and this is not dissimilar to a jury deliberation. 

 

On 10/5/2024 at 1:06 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 12:59 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Expand  

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

I know you think people are making this personal in a negative way. I'm genuinely trying to be helpful with my posts, but no worries. You do you, and I'll stop trying to be helpful and just keep it on point. 

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:08 AM, VintageComics said:

That's why they use juries to weigh evidence and make decisions, and this is not dissimilar to a jury deliberation. 

[ttfitz]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:20 AM, Prince Namor said:

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

Perhaps until you give some acknowledgement of his being more than a lying credit stealing hype machine? But maybe you have, I'm only on page 27 of the thread.

On 10/5/2024 at 1:20 AM, Prince Namor said:

Roy Thomas was there at the end. He confirms it.

So you are taking that Stan toadie Houseroy as a reliable source now? Okay

On 10/5/2024 at 1:20 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 12:46 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. 

You say that like it contradicts something you were responding to - read the bolded part again. Sounds like you think the notoriously anti-social Ditko wanted to talk to the famously gregarious Lee, but Stan had barricaded himself behind a locked door to his office and refused to see Ditko. Okay.

On 10/5/2024 at 1:20 AM, Prince Namor said:

But Evanier takes what Stan says at face value.

Yeah, he really doesn't, but okay.

[Zonker]

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

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.

This.  Many arguing with Prince Namor here are quite open about having not read his book.  But I wonder how many have actually read (as an adult) the Origins of Marvel Comics book?  I finally got around to reading the Origins book last year, and based on the creation descriptions included there for Thor and Doctor Strange, since those were unbelievable, I felt safe in concluding it was very likely the entire book was similarly a work of fiction.

Why unbelievable?

• For Doctor Strange, Stan's 1974 explanation (he loved an old radio drama about a magician, etc.) is directly contradicted by Stan's contemporaneous note to fan Jerry Bails back in 1963 (" 'Twas Steve's idea"). Statements in real time are more likely to be true than a decade-later memory.  And, the fact that Dr. Strange was buried in the back of Strange Tales and given minimal cover exposure in the first couple of years makes it even more clear that Stan felt little ownership of the character at the beginning.
• For Thor, Stan claims the idea came to him when he was being interviewed on the radio, and the host likened the Marvel characters to a 20th century mythology.  First, it defies belief that anyone was interviewing Stan on the radio back in 1961 or early 1962.  And second, at that time, the published "mythology" would have been limited to Reed, Sue, Ben, Johnny, Sub-Mariner and Ant Man.  Maybe the first appearances of Dr. Doom and the Hulk, but that's really stretching it.  Some pantheon, right?

It almost makes one wonder if Simon & Shuster assigned a ghost-writer to produce this book, who then interviewed Stan in his "performance mode," and wound up transcribing what were a bunch of tall tales into print.  

 

[Aman619]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:06 PM, Zonker said:

It almost makes one wonder if Simon & Shuster assigned a ghost-writer to produce this book, who then interviewed Stan in his "performance mode," and wound up transcribing what were a bunch of tall tales into print.  

That’s what I said 40 pages ago.  If Stan never wrote anything in the beginning of Marvel early 60s origin period; and nothing from then on, why is the author so certain Stan sat down and wrote the intros in the book?

Can’t selectively go with whatever works for the authors intended purposes and viewpoint  using whatever fits   
 

but, I’ll save time and add the reply you’ll get:

“LOL”

 

[Zonker]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:19 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s what I said 40 pages ago.

 

 Zonker stole @Aman619's idea!  Somebody write a book!! 

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:19 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s what I said 40 pages ago.  If Stan never wrote anything in the beginning of Marvel early 60s origin period; and nothing from then on, why is the author so certain Stan sat down and wrote the intros in the book?

Can’t selectively go with whatever works for the authors intended purposes and viewpoint  using whatever fits   
 

but, I’ll save time and add the reply you’ll get:

“LOL”

 

Correct. 

Roy Thomas is supposed to be unreliable unless his statements corroborate with the conclusion that Stan Lee lied. 

Additionally, if there's a contradiction between Lee and Kirby, it's assumed Stan Lee lied automatically - even though Kirby was himself caught lying (under oath IIRC acc to sfcityduck's post somewhere a week ago). 

It's a subjective cherry picking of sources.

And the LOL and mocking of the posts of people replying doesn't help the discussion one iota. In fact, it takes away from the OPs points rather than solidifies them. 

[VintageComics]

This is a letter's page from FF #7 that I took a photo of (10/1962)

This letters page is a time capsule that shows the Marvel brand of camaraderie that was already being formed through Stan's influence within the 1st year of the company's run. 

In particular, look at the answers to the letters, which are in that "wink, wink" vibe that Denny O'Neil wrote about, and also read the last letter and Stan's reply to the letter, as well as the blurb at the bottom right of the page. In fact, could these fans from Forest Hill be the "for-Bush" predecessors or prototypes?

This is the stuff that made me bond with the brand.

People were already using the term "ECHH" and jousting with the editor - who was clearly Stan Lee and Stan was already teasing fans with retaliation. 

That comedy and camaraderie is something entirely absent from Kirby's and Ditko's creations alone.

This is, in combination with the artist's creations what made Marvel successful and entirely different than any other brand. 

In fact, now that I think of it, that funky dialogue with fans is actually what makes the Deadpool movies so appealing to people today. 

Ryan Reynolds is using Stan Lee's 60 year old shtick and people are still buying it. 

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[lostboys]

On 10/4/2024 at 6:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Why did Kirby an Ditko allow themselves to be bullied by Stan Lee?

Why did they sit back while Stan stole their ideas and their money?

[bronze_rules]

On 10/5/2024 at 2:33 PM, lostboys said:

Why did Kirby an Ditko allow themselves to be bullied by Stan Lee?

Why did they sit back while Stan stole their ideas and their money?

This is an age old complaint in general. Why didn't x,y,z complain about their job, go to police, etc??? baffling.

Well, there's fear of reprisal, immediate firing, retaliation, black-listing.. all those nasty things that happen when introverts speak up about bullying, being unfairly exploited, or being taken advantage of by (particularly powerful) others.

There's always the ability to stand up and ask for more and walk, but that's especially terrifying for timid, creative types. Especially when they have families to support and not a lot of savings to weather any potential backlash.

Edited October 5 by bronze_rules

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:33 PM, lostboys said:

Why did Kirby an Ditko allow themselves to be bullied by Stan Lee?

Why did they sit back while Stan stole their ideas and their money?

“You sign an agreement; you make a contract, you live up to it. You never get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate. You got a right to say yay or nay.”

Quote from Don King, an even bigger bully than Stan.

Edited October 5 by Albert Tatlock
correct typo.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/5/2024 at 10:33 PM, lostboys said:

Why did Kirby an Ditko allow themselves to be bullied by Stan Lee?

Why did they sit back while Stan stole their ideas and their money?

Look what happened to this kid when he asked for more.

Edited October 5 by Albert Tatlock
correct typo.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:24 AM, Prince Namor said:

No one's claiming ideas haven't been borrowed from other sources.

Stan Lee appears to be claiming he came up with those ideas himself.

Fresh in Stan and Jack's minds at the time might have been the undisputed heavyweight boxing champion of 1960, Ingemar Johansson.

He named his knockout punch 'The Hammer of Thor'.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

On one hand, you deny saying Stan did nothing, on the other hand, every single time someone brings up Stan, you state that Stan didn't do any of what's being discussed, so you're either contradicting yourself or you're not very good at forming your arguments in a way where they sound clear.\

This makes no sense. 

Our conversation was about the creation of Thor.

I gave you a number of reasons Lee didn't have anything to do with it, and you gave me "Because he said so."

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

So, again, in your own words, what was Stan responsible for in creating the Marvel brand, which includes character creation?

Again? When did you ask for this the first time? We were discussing Thor's creation.

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

What exactly did Stan do at Marvel from 1961 to say, 1969 or so when Marvel was still a budding company?

Can you give us an exhaustive list of what Stan actually did?

Now you're just being silly.

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

We already covered this. The two quotes are addressing ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS so they don't actually contradict each other.

Kirby is speaking broadly and generally about how he came up with the attributes he worked into the Marvel Thor. 

Stan is addressing FLIGHT for Thor. Not broad at all. Very specific.

Kirby does NOT address FLIGHT for Thor, because Kirby's previous iterations of Thor didn't include flight, yet you conflate by inferring something they don't say at face value, and by doing so reach a conclusion than different than everyone else who takes them at face value.

You really have nothing. 

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

I studied biblical contradictions for years, and once you fully understand the entire picture, you realize that the context of things like how, what, when, where and why  removes most contradictions. So the 4 gospel writers seem like they contradict each other, but when you put everything in its proper context, the contradictions are removed.

You're simply quoting apparent contradictions that are not being discussed properly in the correct context. That's not a proper way to construct an argument.

And based on the way you consistently construct your arguments to create a point, as I've already proven on two separate points now regarding Thor's attributes and the bullpen discussion, by drawing a strict, logical vector through the important, central parts of each discussion,  you're not using logic in a clear, connected, reasonable manner.

You're jumping to conclusions between points that aren't clear to everyone, and connecting dots that don't actually connect.

In fact,  not only do your arguments often use points taken out of context, your arguments also rely HEAVILY on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence rather than DIRECT evidence and yet you treat and weight circumstantial evidence as direct evidence.

So you're either reaching that conclusion based on what's invisible to others which you don't articulate because there's not enough direct evidence to make the point, OR you're actually reaching a conclusion you want to see because the circumstantial evidence gets more weight than direct evidence.

LOL. You said a lot of nothing. 

I gave you a number of reasons Lee didn't have anything to do with it, and you gave me "Because he said so."

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

A pile of circumstantial evidence is not an automatic guilty verdict even though you may want it to be.

That's why they use juries to weigh evidence and make decisions, and this is not dissimilar to a jury deliberation. 

I gave you a number of reasons Lee didn't have anything to do with it, and you gave me "Because he said so."

On 10/6/2024 at 1:08 AM, VintageComics said:

I know you think people are making this personal in a negative way. 

Now THAT is funny.

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:38 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

On 10/5/2024 at 5:33 PM, lostboys said:

Why did Kirby an Ditko allow themselves to be bullied by Stan Lee?

Why did they sit back while Stan stole their ideas and their money?

“You sign an agreement; you make a contract, you live up to it. You never get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate. You got a right to say yay or nay.”

Quote from Don King, an even bigger bully than Stan.

This is why I say every relationship is 50/50 - 50% WHAT YOU DO AND 50% WHAT YOU ALLOW. 

There is no logical way around that rule. If you stay after you're sure you've been abused, you allow yourself to continue to be abused. 

It seems that the more this conversation progresses, the more it becomes clear that Kirby constantly allowed people to take advantage of him - or at least, that's the logical conclusion of this convo that the thread discusses. 

On 10/5/2024 at 5:37 PM, bronze_rules said:

This is an age old complaint in general. Why didn't x,y,z complain about their job, go to police, etc??? baffling.

Well, there's fear of reprisal, immediate firing, retaliation, black-listing.. all those nasty things that happen when introverts speak up about bullying, being unfairly exploited, or being taken advantage of by (particularly powerful) others.

There's always the ability to stand up and ask for more and walk, but that's especially terrifying for timid, creative types. Especially when they have families to support and not a lot of savings to weather any potential backlash.

Unfortunately, every artistic industry from music, to comics to fine art, is rife with business managers who abuse this creator / manager relationship for their own gain. 

So why did Kirby stick with Stan for a decade and not jump ship to DC sooner when/if he knew he was so successful at any comic company he worked at? 

What was enticing about staying at Marvel?

Was it that Lee was feeding him 100 pages a month to draw and DC wouldn't?

Or was Lee promising him something as a carrot stick to keep Kirby in place?

Edited October 5 by VintageComics

[namisgr]

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

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. 

 

On 10/5/2024 at 3:06 PM, Zonker said:

This.  Many arguing with Prince Namor here are quite open about having not read his book.  But I wonder how many have actually read (as an adult) the Origins of Marvel Comics book?  I finally got around to reading the Origins book last year, and based on the creation descriptions included there for Thor and Doctor Strange, since those were unbelievable, I felt safe in concluding it was very likely the entire book was similarly a work of fiction.

I'm old enough to have bought and read the 'Origins' book when it was first released.  It's not unlike reading a Bullpen page - promotional material plain and simple.

Edited October 5 by namisgr

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:22 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. 

Stans marvel method is he gives a charity handout to the real creators...I do not buy that!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/4/2024 at 8:24 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. 

Kirby drew it...I am sure Stan did not tell Jack Kirby how to draw that!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:24 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

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?

It is degree...and to the point of absolute absurdity on Stan's claims.