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

[sfcityduck]

On 10/5/2024 at 4:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

 

That's not an argument. That's an assertion. You make a lot of assertions without citing supporting evidence other than the opinions of people who have no personal knowledge. As has been pointed out elsewhere -- that's not "proof." In fact, that's not admissible evidence. 

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:58 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.

That was gross pay not net… taxes were high back then even if you had a home mortgage 

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 4:08 PM, Zonker said:

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. 

Again income is not bottom line after fed , state and SS and possibly city tax’s on income …he was not getting rich for sure!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:06 PM, sfcityduck said:

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.

 

Winning or losing or settling in  court has sometimes nothing to do with the facts

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 4:05 PM, 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. 

 

 I do not think the book says Stan never had ideas ….. but it’s 95% jack on everything in my opinion and everyone stole from everyone else….Jack did it better… much better

Edited October 6 by Mmehdy

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

For the same reason that Kirby ultimately wasn't as successful alone as he was with Simon and Lee. 

Nobody has made the case that Stan Lee is the only reason that Marvel was successful and so this point is another Gower sidestep to the actual, germane points of the conversation.

Every single person that disagrees with your conclusions still believes that Marvel was better with Stan and Jack together than apart. 

So this post is not really addressing anything in the convo. 

But Marvel did become great again, and it was built on BOTH Stan and Kirby's initial achievements. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:13 PM, Mmehdy said:

On 10/5/2024 at 5:06 PM, sfcityduck said:

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.

 

Winning or losing or settling in  court has sometimes nothing to do with the facts

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 10/5/2024 at 7:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

 

That's not an argument. That's an assertion. You make a lot of assertions without citing supporting evidence other than the opinions of people who have no personal knowledge. As has been pointed out elsewhere -- that's not "proof." In fact, that's not admissible evidence. 

Thank you! 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:18 PM, VintageComics said:

Every single person that disagrees with your conclusions still believes that Marvel was better with Stan and Jack together than apart. 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 10/5/2024 at 4:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

 

That's not an argument. That's an assertion. You make a lot of assertions without citing supporting evidence other than the opinions of people who have no personal knowledge. As has been pointed out elsewhere -- that's not "proof." In fact, that's not admissible evidence. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:53 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Where'd Kirby lie under oath?

 

The 1966 declaration he signed under penalty of perjury, which was notarized, was absurd.

Do you really want me to got through it in detail. It would take a long while. Why don't we just agree that Kirby said a lot of things, many contradictory, and many not supported by the true fact, even under oath, and leave the word "lies" out of it. Can you agree to that? Or do you really want your hero's declaration scrutinized line by line? Me, I'd have loved to have cross-examined Kirby. He was a terrible witness.

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/5/2024 at 9:07 PM, sfcityduck said:

The 1966 declaration he signed under penalty of perjury, which was notarized, was absurd.

Do you really want me to got through it in detail. It would take a long while. Why don't we just agree that Kirby said a lot of things, many contradictory, and many not supported by the true fact, even under oath, and leave the word "lies" out of it. Can you agree to that? Or do you really want your hero's declaration scrutinized line by line? Me, I'd have loved to have cross-examined Kirby. He was a terrible witness.

It's established fact that eyewitness testimony and / or recollection of the past is not 100% accurate, which explains why these guys were contradicting themselves A LOT.

What was possibly a 5 minute, forgettable, random conversation 60 years ago, about something unimportant at the time (like who gave Thor which attributes) all of a sudden becomes a literal million dollar question and then everyone struggles to recollect the details and everyone, inevitably gets them wrong, or at the very least nobody gets them all correct.

Kirby and Lee both constantly contradicted themselves on public record, and for this reason you can't build a gospel out of one fallible person's testimony. You certainly can't extrapolate one quote and build a thesis from it. 

This is why it takes collective input, corroboration, and open discussion to get to the truth of a complex matter like who said what, in a 5 minute convo, 60 years ago.

Finally, when a one sided ideology refuses to subject itself to logic and reason, whether it's an oppressive regime, or just an unreasonable discussion, then, whether it's a jury, or a sanhedrin, or just a collection of people knowledgeable on a given topic, numbers of people who are knowledge on the matter begin to matter. 

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."

As Thor would say, "Aye, verily!"

If only.

Edited October 6 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

[Mmehdy]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:18 PM, VintageComics said:

For the same reason that Kirby ultimately wasn't as successful alone as he was with Simon and Lee. 

Nobody has made the case that Stan Lee is the only reason that Marvel was successful and so this point is another Gower sidestep to the actual, germane points of the conversation.

Every single person that disagrees with your conclusions still believes that Marvel was better with Stan and Jack together than apart. 

So this post is not really addressing anything in the convo. 

But Marvel did become great again, and it was built on BOTH Stan and Kirby's initial achievements. 

I disagree, his DC work was great....however compared to marvel I understand...but look at the credits on his DC work...it was about time!!!!!!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 7:06 AM, sfcityduck said:

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

Yeah, no one in the wrong ever wins a lawsuit.

On 10/6/2024 at 7:06 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Everyone's vision is 20/20 after the fact.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 7:02 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Which isn't the point. You know what you were doing. You know damn good and well Lee spent more than half his life claiming he created it all. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 7:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

That's not an argument. That's an assertion. You make a lot of assertions without citing supporting evidence other than the opinions of people who have no personal knowledge. As has been pointed out elsewhere -- that's not "proof." In fact, that's not admissible evidence. 

LOL. Coming from the side that claims Lee is correct, because "he said so."

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 7:18 AM, VintageComics said:

For the same reason that Kirby ultimately wasn't as successful alone as he was with Simon and Lee.

What? Jack Kirby wrote and drew comics until the day he died. He WAS successful.

Maybe not by whatever standards YOU think. He supported his family and earned a living and had a good life. When comics eventually became frustrating he went into animation, where he made more money than he ever did in comics, and even for the first time had health insurance and vacation pay through a job.

Stan Lee lived off the creations of Kirby and Ditko his whole life and never came up with anything worth anything. Kirby's OMAC is light years more interesting, well-written, and thought-provoking than anything Lee did after Kirby left.

On 10/6/2024 at 7:18 AM, VintageComics said:

Nobody has made the case that Stan Lee is the only reason that Marvel was successful and so this point is another Gower sidestep to the actual, germane points of the conversation.

Who is talking about that? When did I say that? You're just making stuff up.

On 10/6/2024 at 7:18 AM, VintageComics said:

Every single person that disagrees with your conclusions still believes that Marvel was better with Stan and Jack together than apart. 

That's their opinion. They're entitled to it. When did I deny anyone that?

On 10/6/2024 at 7:18 AM, VintageComics said:

So this post is not really addressing anything in the convo. 

But Marvel did become great again, and it was built on BOTH Stan and Kirby's initial achievements. 

But I thought it was 50/50? Didn't you say that?

All relationships are 50/50?

Seems the pay and the credit fell a bit short of that. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

The 1966 declaration he signed under penalty of perjury, which was notarized, was absurd.

Do you really want me to got through it in detail. It would take a long while. Why don't we just agree that Kirby said a lot of things, many contradictory, and many not supported by the true fact, even under oath, and leave the word "lies" out of it. Can you agree to that? Or do you really want your hero's declaration scrutinized line by line? Me, I'd have loved to have cross-examined Kirby. He was a terrible witness.

 

Wait... what is the lie there?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Why don't we just agree that Kirby said a lot of things, many contradictory, and many not supported by the true fact, even under oath, and leave the word "lies" out of it. Can you agree to that? Or do you really want your hero's declaration scrutinized line by line? Me, I'd have loved to have cross-examined Kirby. He was a terrible witness.

Bring it on, skippy.