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

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:51 AM, Prince Namor said:

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):

SPOT ON!!!!

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:16 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 2:08 PM, 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.

Why is asking for an exhaustive list of what Stan Lee did silly?

What's silly is that in a discussion between Stan Lee and Jack Kirby or Ditko, you never give Stan Lee credit for anything, so I'm asking you, from your extensive research (which apparently is vast) what Stan Lee can take credit for?

It's a fair question.

On 10/5/2024 at 6:16 PM, Prince Namor said:

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

You used selective quotes to paint the picture that it was Kirby alone, when even Kirby in other quotes gives credit to Stan. 

And you avoided using them because it contradicts your conclusions. That's junk science.

You have to use all the info to get to the truth. Not just the info that helps one side. 

On 10/5/2024 at 6:16 PM, Prince Namor said:

You really have nothing. 

There are a host people who disagree. Not that there is strength in numbers alone, but there is strength in a host of reasonable people, who are educated on the topic and who have a strong track record in the hobby of being knowledgeable on such topics.

Even people that have read your book are starting to disagree with your conclusions.

I really believe you don't understand the difference between circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, what constitutes proof and by extension, you don't understand how logic and reason work.

[Mmehdy]

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?

No power other than to walk away and not support themselves or feed their family....eventually they did!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 2:19 AM, 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

 

No one claimed that.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 2:28 AM, VintageComics said:

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

Uh... is this 4th grade debate? People can make statements that are factual and people can make statements that are not. Duh.

On 10/6/2024 at 2:28 AM, VintageComics said:

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). 

Where'd Kirby lie under oath?

On 10/6/2024 at 2:28 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

You haven't proven one thing wrong that I've actually claimed.

[vheflin]

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?

Kirby was making loads in the 1960s, $35-$50/page and doing almost 2 pages/day.

Say 500 pages/year then he was making $17,500-$25,000 per annum.

Median home price in 1960s was around $20,000, so, Kirby was making about a house per year.

Now median home price is $412,000.

I think he was happy with the status quo.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

Why is asking for an exhaustive list of what Stan Lee did silly?

Make me an exhaustive list of what Kirby did first and then I'll get right back to it.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

What's silly is that in a discussion between Stan Lee and Jack Kirby or Ditko, you never give Stan Lee credit for anything

Lie.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

, so I'm asking you, from your extensive research (which apparently is vast) what Stan Lee can take credit for?

It's a fair question.

That's NOT what you asked. 

You asked for an exhaustive list of everything he did. Which isn't the point of the conversation in the first place.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

You used selective quotes to paint the picture that it was Kirby alone, when even Kirby in other quotes gives credit to Stan. 

Show me where he gives Lee credit for creating Thor.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

And you avoided using them because it contradicts your conclusions. That's junk science.

You have to use all the info to get to the truth. Not just the info that helps one side. 

Show me where he gives Lee credit for creating Thor.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

There are a host people who disagree. Not that there is strength in numbers alone, but there is strength in a host of reasonable people, who are educated on the topic and who have a strong track record in the hobby of being knowledgeable on such topics.

You're so popular. Can you teach me how to be?

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

Even people that have read your book are starting to disagree with your conclusions.

Uh... no.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:41 AM, VintageComics said:

I really believe you don't understand the difference between circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, what constitutes proof and by extension, you don't understand how logic and reason work.

I gave you multiple reasons to show why Lee most likely had nothing to with the creation of Thor. YOU gave me, "because Stan said so", as your PROOF.

LOL.

Yeah. It's YOU who doesn't understand.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 4:10 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

Who's denying any of this?

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 6:41 PM, VintageComics said:

You used selective quotes to paint the picture that it was Kirby alone, when even Kirby in other quotes gives credit to Stan. 

Show me where he gives Lee credit for creating Thor.

On 10/5/2024 at 6:41 PM, VintageComics said:

And you avoided using them because it contradicts your conclusions. That's junk science.

You have to use all the info to get to the truth. Not just the info that helps one side. 

Show me where he gives Lee credit for creating Thor.

You may have missed this: The quote is rife with great information.

In short, in Kirby's own words, he states that they BOTH gave their input and formulated the character and more importantly, this part of the quote, in which Kirby agrees with the point that everyone has been driving home:

"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"

Now, when you finally plug this quote into our discussion, it's easy to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input in the creation of Thor - EVEN IF IT WAS JUST THE GIFT OF FLIGHT - and counters your belief that he didn't. 

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

"Jane says" - great song. Also a great poster on the old TCJ boards who observed:

[Begin Quote]

Jane10 years ago

There are numerous problems with trying to use the origin of Thor as an argument for Kirby being the sole creator. (And I'm not saying that Kirby wasn't…I'm just looking at the facts).

Firstly, I'm in my fifties now and – so far as I can remember – Thor has always been reasonably well known as a mythological figure. After all, as all schoolchildren know, Thursday is named after him. If you were going to choose a god as a super-hero there was a pretty reasonable chance you'd choose Thor.

In the quote above it mentions Stan as saying 'Norse mythology always turned me on." Nothing about this is suspect, since Norse mythology (along with Greek mythology) have traditionally been reasonably well-known over the generations (helped by the link to the naming of weekdays of course).

Another interesting observation…there is very little of Norse mythology in the early Thor stories. This only becomes more prominent later, correlating with various statements by Lee about Kirby becoming the dominant plotter as time went on.

As for "proof that Lee is lying"…well, failure to recall something accurately after several decades is no sin. 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.

[End Quote]

Jane also says:

[Begin Quote]

 

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]

 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 4:37 AM, 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.

Absolutely. And Kirby had just went through it with DC Comics, where he dared question his editor on a kick back - took him to court and lost - and got blacklisted. And Schiff was 100% in the WRONG.

Like Delic's silly 50/50 relationship nonsense, it's clear - NOW there are protections for employees/workers vs their employers because it's NOT a 50/50 relationship. Some people are clueless in believing that - ESPECIALLY in 1961 - a nepotism hire, working as the boss of a company has the same grounds and rights as a freelance worker... 

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 6:41 PM, VintageComics said:

Why is asking for an exhaustive list of what Stan Lee did silly?

Make me an exhaustive list of what Kirby did first and then I'll get right back to it.

On 10/5/2024 at 6:41 PM, VintageComics said:

What's silly is that in a discussion between Stan Lee and Jack Kirby or Ditko, you never give Stan Lee credit for anything

Lie.

On 10/5/2024 at 6:41 PM, VintageComics said:

, so I'm asking you, from your extensive research (which apparently is vast) what Stan Lee can take credit for?

It's a fair question.

That's NOT what you asked. 

You asked for an exhaustive list of everything he did. Which isn't the point of the conversation in the first place.

The point of the discussion is which credits Stan Lee lied about and every time someone asks what Lee did, you always reply with a general "I never said Stan Lee did nothing" but never state what he did. 

So I'll ask one last time:

In your opinion, what did Stan Lee do in the first decade at Marvel?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:05 AM, VintageComics said:

You may have missed this: The quote is rife with great information.

In short, in Kirby's own words, he states that they BOTH gave their input and formulated the character and more importantly, this part of the quote, in which Kirby agrees with the point that everyone has been driving home:

"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"

Now, when you finally plug this quote into our discussion, it's easy to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input in the creation of Thor - EVEN IF IT WAS JUST THE GIFT OF FLIGHT - and counters your belief that he didn't. 

 

He's not speaking specifically about the creation.

Of course Lee gave his input at some point. The point where he began signing the stories. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:07 AM, VintageComics said:

The point of the discussion is which credits Stan Lee lied about and every time someone asks what Lee did, you always reply with a general "I never said Stan Lee did nothing" but never state what he did. 

So I'll ask one last time:

In your opinion, what did Stan Lee do in the first decade at Marvel?

Available now at Amazon!

[Zonker]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:58 PM, vheflin said:

Kirby was making loads in the 1960s, $35-$50/page and doing almost 2 pages/day.

Say 500 pages/year then he was making $17,500-$25,000 per annum.

Median home price in 1960s was around $20,000, so, Kirby was making about a house per year.

Now median home price is $412,000.

I think he was happy with the status quo.

In the "Here Comes Captain Relevant" NYT article from 1971 it says

Kirby began to conceive his new comic books when he was still at Marvel, but felt he might not get enough editorial autonomy. He left his $35,000‐a‐year job at Marvel and took his new books to National. He also moved from New York to Southern California, where he edits, writes and draws the books.

One online inflation calculator I saw calculates $35K in 1969 dollars to be $310,000 today. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:08 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 7:07 PM, VintageComics said:

The point of the discussion is which credits Stan Lee lied about and every time someone asks what Lee did, you always reply with a general "I never said Stan Lee did nothing" but never state what he did. 

So I'll ask one last time:

In your opinion, what did Stan Lee do in the first decade at Marvel?

Available now at Amazon!

Avoiding the opposing side of a discussion just negates the entire discussion. 

I tried!

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:42 AM, VintageComics said:

Avoiding the opposing side of a discussion just negates the entire discussion. 

I tried!

I've told you what you need to know.

If Stan didn't put his name on it, he most likely had nothing to do with it.

If he DID, well, it's anyone's guess how much.

But considering his output before Kirby and his output AFTER Kirby... it doesn't look very good for him.

I hear he could arrange a mean word balloon though.

[Prince Namor]

Which brings up another point. If his ballyhoo was so great... why'd Marvel start crumbling to the point of near bankruptcy in the 70's with him as publisher?

Why'd the 'House of Ideas' suddenly have no ideas? Why'd it take, again, an outside creator (Star Wars) to come in and save the company?

Why'd Jim Shooter take over as EIC and turn Marvel into a REAL publishing juggernaut, far exceeding what Lee ever did? Even as DC got their act together and built back up, Marvel beat them in a competitive market - unlike the 70's where only DC's rapid decline enabled Marvel to claim #1, even with their own sales dwindling.

Asking for a friend.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 4:42 PM, VintageComics said:

Avoiding the opposing side of a discussion just negates the entire discussion. 

I tried!

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:17 AM, 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:

 

 

 

On 10/5/2024 at 9:51 AM, Prince Namor said:

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

 

 

 

To answer your question: Neither. I stated Stan said that in 1966.

I'm not going to respond to you by stating that you are "playing naive or just trying to cloud the discussion" when it instead appears that you were just sloppy in your reading. People make mistakes -- including you. No biggee.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/5/2024 at 4:05 PM, Prince Namor said:

Absolutely. And Kirby had just went through it with DC Comics, where he dared question his editor on a kick back - took him to court and lost - and got blacklisted. And Schiff was 100% in the WRONG.

 

If Schiff was 100% in the wrong why did Jack lose the lawsuit?

And didn't Joe Simon opine that Jack made a mistake on that one? I think he did. Maybe in that epic interview by Amash. Joe was friends with Jack at the time and likely knew the details.