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

[namisgr]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:43 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Surely not even Stan would have had the brass neck to sign it at the time.

Right.  And I bet the owner is happy Stan didn't sign over the artwork.  

[namisgr]

On 10/6/2024 at 10:01 AM, jimjum12 said:

Because of this topic, I actually did pick up a Kamandi 1 and a New Gods 3 to see how they stacked up from those days, when I liked Kamandi and Demon (a little) and was very underwhelmed by the rest. The NG 3 is the issue where Jack recycled his Silver Surfer idea, along with many other ideas used previously at Marvel. I still wasn't wowed by the Fourth World stuff, and still enjoyed Kamandi, despite it's lack of originality. 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

I also enjoyed Kamandi, buying the first 40 issues off the rack, and enjoyed Demon, too, while it lasted, as something alternative and different.  On the other hand, I generally didn't think that much of the Fourth World titles, Darkseid excepted, and that's held over the years with re-reading.  But my favorite Kirby work from that early Bronze Age stint at DC was his start on Jimmy Olsen.  He took a largely dead title intended for children and revitalized it, introducing reader-grabbing conflict, mystery, and tremendous characters (Darkseid) and very good ones like Morgan Edge within the first few issues.  Unfortunately, for me Kirby's run lost steam along the way, and in none of the titles did the dialog have easy flow, lyricism, or poetry - it was mostly awkward.  It certainly seems from the collective and confirmed Kirby dialog and narration that it didn't measure up to those of his SA Marvel titles with Stan credited as writer, despite Jack's continuing knack for creating characters and building grand multi-issue story lines.

Edited October 6 by namisgr
sp

[jimjum12]

On 10/6/2024 at 1:42 PM, namisgr said:

I also enjoyed Kamandi, buying the first 40 issues off the rack, and enjoyed Demon, too, while it lasted as something alternative and different.  On the other hand, I didn't think that much of the Fourth World titles, and that's held over the years with re-reading.  But my favorite Kirby work from that early Bronze Age stint at DC was his start on Jimmy Olsen.  He took a largely dead title intended for children and revitalized it, introducing reader-grabbing conflict, mystery, and tremendous characters (Darkseid) and very good ones like Morgan Edge within the first few issues.  Unfortunately, for me Kirby's run lost steam along the way, and in none of the titles was the dialog an easy flow or something lyrical and poetic.

I also liked the Born Losers ... Kirby had War down. In The Days Of The Mob and Spirit World were good. GOD BLESS ... 

-jmbo(a friend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:38 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 11:37 PM, VintageComics said:

You're moving the goalposts again. 

I didn't say he wasn't successful. He wasn't AS successful without Lee or Simon.

And I said: Jack Kirby wrote and drew comics until the day he died. He WAS successful.

That's not moving the goalposts - Kirby did what he always did regardless of who he worked for.

And success is subjective term.

 

Wasn't as successful financially? Wrong. He made more money in animation than he ever did in comics.

Wasn't as successful spiritually? Wrong. He was much happier not having those two... to share credit with.

As far as sales? We don't have all the numbers.

As far as cultural significance - movies made of the characters - Marvel's stock price, etc. CORRECT.

Which did he benefit the least from? 

Success can be measured in a lot of different ways.

In the way YOU are measuring it - you are RIGHT. As a FAN, you're happy to be able to constantly enjoy the adventures of Captain America on the big screen or as a SELLER be able to sell the first appearance of Thor and make a lot of money from it. I get that. Money = Success to you.

It's really simple but let me restate it since you're unclear on what I mean.

The level of success he had with Joe Simon and Stan Lee IN COMICS was not repeated alone, for all the reasons I've already explained.

He wasn't as successful in the GA without Simon.

He wasn't as successful in the SA or BA without Lee.

He never created characters as memorable or as lasting. 

His New Gods writing wasn't as memorable without the human touch of Stan Lee. This is a permeating theme throughout all 81 pages of discussion, but since it's intangible and it's hard to criticize intangibles, you refuse to give it any value.

Stan's human touch, which permeates all of Marvel, and permeates all criticisms of him, from the beginning to the day he died, from his groovy, funky vibe which he started in the 50's to the corny cameos in the MCU is what gave Kirby's work the life it didn't have without Lee. 

Marvel would have been another 4th World run without Stan Lee. It would have been wildly creative, but wildly wooden and dull no different than any surrounding comics. It wouldn't have been a force that changed the industry. 

The only people who have trouble admitting that are people who can't stand Stan Lee so much, that they'd rather erase him from history than discuss him or accredit him for something.

On 10/6/2024 at 12:38 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 11:37 PM, VintageComics said:

You're moving the goalposts again. 

Every time I used my 50/50 quote, which stated every relationship is 50% what you do, and 50% what you allow, and it was directly referencing what sort of treatment Kirby allowed to himself, during his career in the same way an abused person allows their abuser to continue abusing them. 

It wasn't referencing their success.

I've worked with a lot of abused women in my life who wouldn't see it the same.

And I've watched EEOC handle many employee cases over the years who wouldn't see it the same either.

What you've done here is empower the abuser. You're leaving out important details in abusive relationships like promises made, manipulation, fear of losing your job, intimidation, etc. 

What sort of ridiculous logic is this, that LEAVING AN ABUSER EMPOWERS THE ABUSER?

Kirby wasn't some abused woman. He was a grown man who stood down gangster in the offices.

That doesn't make any sense, but it's definitely the new ideology taking over the West, that takes accountability from the very person who holds all the cards - the person who decides whether they stay or leave. 

The person being abused chooses to keep accepting lies rather than draw their boundaries. And Kirby was apparently the greatest force in comics, so he had ALL the talent and ALL the leverage to leave. 

He JUST CHOSE NOT TO. You can't blame anyone but Kirby for that. 

What empowers the abuser is if you stay. I speak from experience on many fronts including personal and professional. 

Back in 2007, in my industry, we found out that my boss, the owner of the dealership I worked in, who was a chartered accountant no less, was underpaying us.

We were on a piecework contract, meaning we got paid by the job and not by the hour, so each job had a set amount of pay that we were supposed to get whether we did it in more or less time than the job allowance, but according to Canadian law, he was supposed to be paying us time and a half for overtime, so if we worked over 8 hours, he was supposed to multiple the wages we got over 8 hours , meaning the piece work, by 1.5. 

Most of us, because we learned to get more efficient with experience, earned over 8 hours a day in pay. So if we earned 10 hours in an 8 hour work day, that was a decent day's pay, but if we earned 12 hours in a 9 hour day, what we earned in that extra hour was supposed to be multiplied by 1.5.

When we realized that and tried to bring it up, he immediately cut off all overtime, put foot down and stated he won't be paying anyone, anything extra. Not even backpay that was legally owed to us. 

In fact, one Saturday afternoon, while I was working, he had the gall to walk up to me and whisper in my ear "You're never going to see that money from me. You've already earned enough." his reasoning being that I was already earning over 8 hours in an 8 hour day and he didn't owe me anything, even if the law said differently.

I calculated that he owed me something like $95,000 in unpaid overtime. 

Now, keep in mind, I had 4 young kids in 2007. They were ages 5 - 11. That was life changing money for me as a young dad.

That flipped a switch in my brain. For me, it was unfair that this rich, smug plick, who owned million dollar cottages and would ski with his millionaire friends for a month each year in the Alps was stiffing this young dad and I decided I was going to fight it.

Every lawyer in town I called either knew him or did business with him and told me it was a conflict of interest and that none would represent me. 

So the next logical step for me was to leave my job...and I did. 

Every relationship you are in is 50% what you choose to do, and 50% what you choose to allow. And there is no other reasonable, logical, honest way to view a relationship. 

Kirby had the entire industry as his resume. If he was so great, he had all the cards and the fact that he chose to stay and continue to allow himself to be abused is nobody else's fault but his own. 

Anyone that says different is just trying to bend the rules of reality, reason and logic and are a liar. 

On 10/6/2024 at 12:38 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/5/2024 at 11:37 PM, VintageComics said:

But on that tangent, as far as their success goes, clearly it must be split 50/50. That's an entirely different discussion though, so you can't conflate between the two. 

It's these subtle movements of the goal posts that remove all credibility. 

You have ZERO credibility in this. You still can't answer the Thor question.

You've proven NOTHING I've claimed as wrong.

These are facts that are irrefutable:

Stan Lee was deeply involved with what was happening at Marvel in the 1960s, because he was the editor. He had his fingers in everything because he was responsible for the content. He quite literally had to approve every jot and tittle.

 Human memory is fallible and not reliable. Stan and Kirby constantly contradicted each other and also themselves. The truth is somewhere in the middle, not out at one end of reality. 

What happened 60 years ago, regarding an unimportant conversation about Thor at the time, in a dingy office is likely lost to the wind forever.

There are quotes where Kirby gives credit to Stan regarding Thor making it sound like they both had a hand in the creation of the character. 

The only piece of circumstantial evidence as your lone pillar to build on - you state that because Stan didn't sign it he had no input. Well, how many pieces of work are there out there in comics that Stan had a hand in that Stan didn't sign? How could you even begin to prove such a thing? 

You can't. You can only prove what he did sign. You can't build a case on one omission. 

The sig could have been left off for a zillion reasons. Maybe Stan was hung over, or he forgot to hit that piece before it went to print. Maybe Kirby forgot to ask him to sign it. Maybe it was an April fool's joke. Who knows?

It's FAR easier to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input into the company output, since he was responsible for every aspect of it, than to believe that he had NO INPUT AT ALL. 

Anybody that believes Stan did NOT have some sort of a discussion with Kirby about Thor before JIM #83 was created, and had SOME input, is willing to believe it blindly with no actual evidence that proves it.

And so that statement in Origins, where Stan says he gave Thor flight through his hammer, is entirely believable and does not contradict, in any way the fossil record we have left behind. 

And in light of all of this entire body of evidence, it is most reasonable to believe that it's true. 

Edited October 6 by VintageComics

[Zonker]

On 10/6/2024 at 1:42 PM, namisgr said:

 But my favorite Kirby work from that early Bronze Age stint at DC was his start on Jimmy Olsen.  He took a largely dead title intended for children and revitalized it, introducing reader-grabbing conflict, mystery, and tremendous characters (Darkseid) and very good ones like Morgan Edge within the first few issues.  Unfortunately, for me Kirby's run lost steam along the way, 

Stan likely would have had the savvy to play out the Wild Area and the Outsiders for a couple more issues, then tease the mystery of the Hairies for a while before introducing Kirby's DNA Project.  He might also have been the one to whisper in Jack's ear that maybe Goody Rickles wasn't the very best idea the King had that particular month...

I think most on this thread would probably agree Stan was-- if nothing else-- an invaluable editor.  And I think most solo comics creators benefit from having someone, either a collaborator or a strong editor to bounce ideas off. (Frank Miller's Dark Knight Strikes Again and Neal Adams' Batman Odyssey come to mind as unfortunate negative examples of this!)

 

[Mmehdy]

VC...I just cannot agree with the statement ..."he never created characters as lasting"...alone....

Gotta disagree, lets look at Kamadi Omnibus review...on You Tube which flips thru that book......the art work is stunning on those 40 issues he did....and the story line holds up....Not the FF not CA....but look at that video and tell me his artwork on that or on Marvels Eternals big book (also on youtube) was not the best he ever did.....I challenge you!

Edited October 6 by Mmehdy

[Mmehdy]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:11 PM, Zonker said:

Stan likely would have had the savvy to play out the Wild Area and the Outsiders for a couple more issues, then tease the mystery of the Hairies for a while before introducing Kirby's DNA Project.  He might also have been the one to whisper in Jack's ear that maybe Goody Rickles wasn't the very best idea the King had that particular month...

I think most on this thread would probably agree Stan was-- if nothing else-- an invaluable editor.  And I think most solo comics creators benefit from having someone, either a collaborator or a strong editor to bounce ideas off. (Frank Miller's Dark Knight Strikes Again and Neal Adams' Batman Odyssey come to mind as unfortunate negative examples of this!)

 

Editor..because early on there was no one else...but as he got staff, he took full credit and had someone else do the work....

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 9:28 AM, jimjum12 said:

The social atmosphere of the 60's and 70's lent itself well to heroic fiction. The 80's, sometimes called "The Me, Me, Me Generation" spawned the anti-hero, and the working man's mythology was slowly crowded out. Stan "got" Carpe Diem, but then, his princess was in Junior High and High School in the 60's, so he had his finger on the pulse. JC was one of the "cool kids". GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

I didn't know that about Stan.

Stan's pulse on society and his fluid way of being able to adapt to society is what made Marvel feel different. 

I'd even imagine if the Neal Adams / Denny O'Neil GL/GA story arc was done with Marvel characters instead, it would have been better accepted, as it was in the vein of Marvel's direction. It was very un-DC like but very Marvel like. 

[Zonker]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:16 PM, Mmehdy said:

Editor..because early on there was no one else...but as he got staff, he took full credit and had someone else do the work....

Not arguing against that, just trying to find a small point of general agreement after 82 pages here.  

[bronze_rules]

On 10/6/2024 at 7:01 AM, jimjum12 said:

Because of this topic, I actually did pick up a Kamandi 1 and a New Gods 3 to see how they stacked up from those days, when I liked Kamandi and Demon (a little) and was very underwhelmed by the rest. The NG 3 is the issue where Jack recycled his Silver Surfer idea, along with many other ideas used previously at Marvel. I still wasn't wowed by the Fourth World stuff, and still enjoyed Kamandi, despite it's lack of originality. By the way, Kirby received EVERY penny that his contract stipulated. Sometimes Contract Law isn't always "warm and fuzzy". GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

 

 

 

speaking of the Demon.( see attached for yet another twomorrow's clip...)

I read most if not all of 4th world, and I get bored almost every time I try to force myself to understand the greatness. Kamandi was one of the cooler ones for art and concept (the AE art and pencils with Moyer is fantastic), IMO.

 

Edited October 6 by bronze_rules

[jimjum12]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:15 PM, Mmehdy said:

VC...I just cannot agree with the statement ..."he never created characters as lasting"...alone....

Gotta disagree, lets look at Kamadi Omnibus review...on You Tube which flips thru that book......the art work is stunning on those 40 issues he did....and the story line holds up....Not the FF not CA....but look at that video and tell me his artwork on that or on Marvels Eternals big book was not the best he ever did.....I challenge you!

None of that stuff were his original ideas. Very little of his was, even at Marvel. His conceptual work was almost exclusively homage related with a little tweaking. His art was his hook. Storytelling? He wasn't robbed at all in that area, it was all influenced from somewhere else. The industry would have been poorer without him, but he certainly was never the lynchpin, other than in the occasional opinion of a few fans. We can sit on the curb with a Hostess Twinkie and sob until the cows come in, but the reality will remain, despite the court of opinion. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 6 by jimjum12

[sfcityduck]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:07 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.

 

On 10/5/2024 at 8:11 PM, Prince Namor said:

Wait... what is the lie there?

Here's how attorneys would approach that declaration if you insist on using the "lie" terminology:

Lie 1: "I met Joe at a place called Victor Fox just before I came here [Timely]."

• Truth 1.a: There was no "place" called Victor Fox. Victor Fox was a person. The name of his publishing house was Fox Publications Inc. and Fox Feature Syndicate, Inc.
• Analysis 1.a: Kirby should have remembered that. Kirby's first work at Fox in 1940, according to the GCD, was on the below comic featuring a Joe Simon cover (cover date 5/40). Joe Simon was instrumental to Kirby's career. Joe Simon was drawing superhero stories and covers before he gave Jack his first break into the superhero genre, and got him his first cover assignment in comics. So these were memorable moments in an artists life. Yet Kirby can't remember the name of the publisher? I'd argue that misrecollection is reason enough to doubt Kirby's recollections of the 1940-1941 time period. A more vicious opinion would be to call Kirby a liar.

• Truth 1.b: Kirby didn't meet Joe "just before he came to" Timely. He didn't do any Timely work until three months after he met Simon - on Red Raven 1 (cover date 8/40). And he did not join Timely as a full time employee at that time. Accordingly to GCD he didn't start doing significant amounts of Marvel work on a steady basis until after Captain America 1 came out (cover date 3/41). For example, according to GCD for cover date 2/41 he did just one seven page story for Timely, while doing 27 pages of stories for other publishers, including Fox. For cover date 1/41, GCD says he did one seven page story and two one page ads for Timely, while doing 27 pages for other publishers, including Fox. GCD does not reflect him really becoming "full time" for Timely until cover date April 1940.
• Analysis 1.b: Why would Kirby get so wrong when he "came over to" Timely full time? Because in order to beat Joe Simon's claim to Captain America (a claim Kirby would not join in 1966 at his height with Marvel), it was real helpful to Marvel's attorney's case to establish S&K as "employees" of Timely. So Jack lied and said what the attorneys wanted him to say. Probably because, as Jack would later admit, he was a "coward" who did not stand up to Marvel because he wanted the money and comfort that working for Marvel brought him. From Groth's interview of Kirby talking about that Marvel heyday and why he didn't stand up for his own rights (which creation of Captain America was one of): "Actually, my own fears probably prodded me into an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cowardice. I should have told Stan to go to hell and found some other way to make a living, but I couldn’t do it. I had my family. I had an apartment. I just couldn’t give all that up."

Do you really want me to continue? I'm not out to destroy Kirby. I have no desire to write a book titled "Jack Kirby Lied!" 

But I could. I could certainly construct a case that Kirby had a lousy recollection, and if I were feeling vicious I also could certainly make the case that Kirby repeatedly lied about the scope of his creative endeavors. I'm a little shocked you didn't notice the problems in the excerpt of his declaration. But I assume you are not a GA guy because you don't post much if at all in that forum. But this comment by Kirby should have struck you as obviously untrue:

Lie 2: "There were no set comic characters as such at Timely at the time I was hired."

• Truth 2: It should be obvious to any serious comic collector.

• Analysis 2: This likely didn't come from the attorneys. That Sub-Mariner and Human Torch predated Captain America was either irrelevant to or helpful to their case. Irrelevant because what Timely was publishing before Captain America didn't bear on Joe Simon's claim or helpful because it would show that Timely was in superheroes long before S&K showed up on the scene - making it more likely that they were hired to continue a trend Marvel had joined very early. (Marvel was doing superheroes long before Jack was, and even before Joe was.) So this is a lie that Jack probably created. Did he know what he said was untrue? Yes. Because Jack must have known it was untrue. Jack knew his first work at Timely, Red Raven 1 was not popular, and was never followed by Red Raven 2 because Timely instead decided to give the book to one of their three original characters, Human Torch. Jack must have  known it was untrue because Jack had revived Human Torch in FF 1 and Sub-Mariner a few issues later also in FF.  Then why did he say it? Because Jack "King" Kirby had by 1966 probably let the fan fame and adulation or his bitterness with Marvel get to his head and was convincing himself that he really was the person who had made Marvel. He was devaluing the contributions of others to Marvel's success - Joe Simon, Bill Everett, Carl Burgos etc. - to make himself feel better about himself and probably about stabbing Joe in the declaration. He could say to himself - everything was my creation. We'd see that later when he claimed S&K created Spider-Man, something Joe Simon thought was absurd.

Lie 2 should have leapt out at you, PN. It's exactly the type of lie which has caused your 11 year campaign (at least) against Stan. Instead, you've got blinders about Kirby even when he acts the way you accuse Stan of acting.

Do I really need to go through the whole declaration to make the point? I don't think so. Feel free to explain why you think the above two statements by Kirby are true.

 

Edited October 6 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:15 PM, Mmehdy said:

VC...I just cannot agree with the statement ..."he never created characters as lasting"...alone....

Gotta disagree, lets look at Kamadi Omnibus review...on You Tube which flips thru that book......the art work is stunning on those 40 issues he did....and the story line holds up....Not the FF not CA....but look at that video and tell me his artwork on that or on Marvels Eternals big book (also on youtube) was not the best he ever did.....I challenge you!

Its a matter of taste, Mitch. 

I'll take Kirby FF in the mid-60s over Kamandi any day. And, yes, I own the collected editions (no Kirby hater me). 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:25 PM, bronze_rules said:

speaking of the Demon.( see attached for yet another twomorrow's clip...)

I read most if not all of 4th world, and I get bored almost every time I try to force myself to understand the greatness. Kamandi was one of the cooler ones for art and concept (the AE art and pencils with Moyer is fantastic), IMO.

 

That page was not only swiped by Kirby for the Demon (he might have called it a homage) but was also swiped by Kane for D27. In my book, Foster was the greatest of all artist to work in the adventure (including superheros) genre. So many tried to achieve his heights but none could and only Frazetta and maybe Wood came close. Raymond circa Flash Gordon, was much easier to emulate and most early superhero artists did. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/6/2024 at 9:16 AM, comicwiz said:

Posted on FB, art on display in Atlanta - close-up of bottom margin of Thor #129 splash. Always intriguing when the artist has to explain to the credited writer the plot he thought up up, along with pacing, characterizations, and even suggesting dialogue. Followed by the most vapid placement possible for his signature.

Once again, if you are familiar with the Marvel Method, and had seen 60s original art created based on that method, you'd be familiar with margin notes and their purpose. When the artist works off of a synopsis or plot, they have to explain any action that is ambiguous. This is one of the longer margin notes by Kirby. What it says is:

"Opening shot: Thor returns to New York after fracas in Hollywood .. helping Hercules fight off Plutos minions. But Herc remains behind  [unreadable] to replace Pluto in Netherworld."

And no part of that note made it into the Splash:

And if you compare the margin note on page 4 of the OA of the same story to the dialogue, you'll see the dialogue and captions are entirely different. Consistent with the Marvel Method, the margin note by the artist (Kirby) is just a small amount of descriptive info to clarify what may be amibiguous in the image. The dialogue is advancing the story in ways that are not mentioned in or hinted at in the margin note. There's no way that Kirby deserves sole "writer's credit" (which is what he claimed) or any credit for the dialogue (which is a main part of writing a comic) based on that margin note for this page:

Edited October 6 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

It's really simple but let me restate it since you're unclear on what I mean.

The level of success he had with Joe Simon and Stan Lee IN COMICS was not repeated alone, for all the reasons I've already explained.

He wasn't as successful in the GA without Simon.

He wasn't as successful in the SA or BA without Lee.

He never created characters as memorable or as lasting.

New Gods is still in print. Kamandi is still in print. 

Even Challengers of the Unknown gets a regular collection reprinting. 

But lets take it as what you say... what does it mean?

What is it you're trying to prove?

That without someone to 'help' him, he couldn't make as much money?

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

His New Gods writing wasn't as memorable without the human touch of Stan Lee. This is a permeating theme throughout all 81 pages of discussion, but since it's intangible and it's hard to criticize intangibles, you refuse to give it any value.

Opinion. 

And from someone who's never read New Gods at that.

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Stan's human touch, which permeates all of Marvel, and permeates all criticisms of him, from the beginning to the day he died, from his groovy, funky vibe which he started in the 50's to the corny cameos in the MCU is what gave Kirby's work the life it didn't have without Lee. 

Opinion.

And a BAD one. You've never read his Golden Age work, so you don't know. 

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Marvel would have been another 4th World run without Stan Lee. It would have been wildly creative, but wildly wooden and dull no different than any surrounding comics. It wouldn't have been a force that changed the industry. 

The only people who have trouble admitting that are people who can't stand Stan Lee so much, that they'd rather erase him from history than discuss him or accredit him for something.

No one's trying to erase Stan Lee from history. That'd be impossible. 

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

What sort of ridiculous logic is this, that LEAVING AN ABUSER EMPOWERS THE ABUSER?

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Kirby wasn't some abused woman. He was a grown man who stood down gangster in the offices.

That doesn't make any sense, but it's definitely the new ideology taking over the West, that takes accountability from the very person who holds all the cards - the person who decides whether they stay or leave. 

The person being abused chooses to keep accepting lies rather than draw their boundaries. And Kirby was apparently the greatest force in comics, so he had ALL the talent and ALL the leverage to leave. 

He JUST CHOSE NOT TO. You can't blame anyone but Kirby for that. 

Uh... he DID leave. 

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

What empowers the abuser is if you stay. I speak from experience on many fronts including personal and professional. 

Back in 2007, in my industry, we found out that my boss, the owner of the dealership I worked in, who was a chartered accountant no less, was underpaying us.

We were on a piecework contract, meaning we got paid by the job and not by the hour, so each job had a set amount of pay that we were supposed to get whether we did it in more or less time than the job allowance, but according to Canadian law, he was supposed to be paying us time and a half for overtime, so if we worked over 8 hours, he was supposed to multiple the wages we got over 8 hours , meaning the piece work, by 1.5. 

Most of us, because we learned to get more efficient with experience, earned over 8 hours a day in pay. So if we earned 10 hours in an 8 hour work day, that was a decent day's pay, but if we earned 12 hours in a 9 hour day, what we earned in that extra hour was supposed to be multiplied by 1.5.

When we realized that and tried to bring it up, he immediately cut off all overtime, put foot down and stated he won't be paying anyone, anything extra. Not even backpay that was legally owed to us. 

In fact, one Saturday afternoon, while I was working, he had the gall to walk up to me and whisper in my ear "You're never going to see that money from me. You've already earned enough." his reasoning being that I was already earning over 8 hours in an 8 hour day and he didn't owe me anything, even if the law said differently.

I calculated that he owed me something like $95,000 in unpaid overtime. 

Now, keep in mind, I had 4 young kids in 2007. They were ages 5 - 11. That was life changing money for me as a young dad.

That flipped a switch in my brain. For me, it was unfair that this rich, smug plick, who owned million dollar cottages and would ski with his millionaire friends for a month each year in the Alps was stiffing this young dad and I decided I was going to fight it.

Every lawyer in town I called either knew him or did business with him and told me it was a conflict of interest and that none would represent me. 

So the next logical step for me was to leave my job...and I did. 

So why did you put up iwth it as long as you did?

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Every relationship you are in is 50% what you choose to do, and 50% what you choose to allow. And there is no other reasonable, logical, honest way to view a relationship. 

Kirby had the entire industry as his resume. If he was so great, he had all the cards and the fact that he chose to stay and continue to allow himself to be abused is nobody else's fault but his own. 

Anyone that says different is just trying to bend the rules of reality, reason and logic and are a liar. 

These are facts that are irrefutable:

Stan Lee was deeply involved with what was happening at Marvel in the 1960s, because he was the editor. He had his fingers in everything because he was responsible for the content. He quite literally had to approve every jot and tittle.

 Human memory is fallible and not reliable. Stan and Kirby constantly contradicted each other and also themselves. The truth is somewhere in the middle, not out at one end of reality. 

What happened 60 years ago, regarding an unimportant conversation about Thor at the time, in a dingy office is likely lost to the wind forever.

There are quotes where Kirby gives credit to Stan regarding Thor making it sound like they both had a hand in the creation of the character. 

No, not the creation.

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

The only piece of circumstantial evidence as your lone pillar to build on - you state that because Stan didn't sign it he had no input. Well, how many pieces of work are there out there in comics that Stan had a hand in that Stan didn't sign? How could you even begin to prove such a thing? 

You can't. You can only prove what he did sign. You can't build a case on one omission. 

The sig could have been left off for a zillion reasons. Maybe Stan was hung over, or he forgot to hit that piece before it went to print. Maybe Kirby forgot to ask him to sign it. Maybe it was an April fool's joke. Who knows?

Uh... he didn't sign the first THREE issues of Thor's Journey Into Mystery.

And it's not the ONLY piece of evidence.

there's also:

2. Lee had no experience creating action heroes. Kirby had spent his life doing it.

3. Kirby was simply doing on Journey Into Mystery what he had done for the last couple of years. Writing, Drawing, and doing the cover, without interference. 

4. Kirby had done Thor before, Lee had never done Norse characters before

 

YOU'RE only piece of evidence is Lee saying, "I created it all".

LOL

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

It's FAR easier to believe that Stan Lee had SOME input into the company output, since he was responsible for every aspect of it, than to believe that he had NO INPUT AT ALL. 

Anybody that believes Stan did NOT have some sort of a discussion with Kirby about Thor before JIM #83 was created, and had SOME input, is willing to believe it blindly with no actual evidence that proves it.

Says the conspiracy guy.

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

And so that statement in Origins, where Stan says he gave Thor flight through his hammer, is entirely believable and does not contradict, in any way the fossil record we have left behind. 

It COMPLETELY contradiicts that.

There's ZERO in Lee's writing history to believe he came up with it. 

Michael J Vassollo, who I'll take in HIS lifetime of research vs you're Wikipedia study:

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."

On 10/7/2024 at 1:27 AM, VintageComics said:

And in light of all of this entire body of evidence, it is most reasonable to believe that it's true. 

You can keep reading wikipedia and believing the True Believers. I'll take the real reserach.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 3:22 AM, sfcityduck said:

We'd see that later when he claimed S&K created Spider-Man, something Joe Simon thought was absurd.

Joe's the one who owns the LOGO that was created for it, DUH.

With a hyphen!

On 10/7/2024 at 3:22 AM, sfcityduck said:

Lie 2 should have leapt out at you, PN. It's exactly the type of lie which has caused your 11 year campaign (at least) against Stan. Instead, you've got blinders about Kirby even when he acts the way you accuse Stan of acting.

Do I really need to go through the whole declaration to make the point? I don't think so. Feel free to explain why you think the above two statements by Kirby are true.

He worked at Fox. He went with Joe to work at Timely.

Lawyers, lol.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 2:11 AM, Zonker said:

Stan likely would have had the savvy to play out the Wild Area and the Outsiders for a couple more issues, then tease the mystery of the Hairies for a while before introducing Kirby's DNA Project.  He might also have been the one to whisper in Jack's ear that maybe Goody Rickles wasn't the very best idea the King had that particular month...

I think most on this thread would probably agree Stan was-- if nothing else-- an invaluable editor.  And I think most solo comics creators benefit from having someone, either a collaborator or a strong editor to bounce ideas off. (Frank Miller's Dark Knight Strikes Again and Neal Adams' Batman Odyssey come to mind as unfortunate negative examples of this!)

It's possible.

It's also possible Kirby would've, if given the opportunity created something bigger than comics altogether. 

As a storyteller, he didn't always think in terms of a specific co-ordination of the stories that works within a monthly published schedule, as rigid framework that everyone should work in.

In the small minded - month to month setting of comics, especially in 1970 when no one was creating comics with a vast universe of charcters like New Gods, it made it seem as if his ideas needed containing, instead of bigger (or longer) stage with which to tell them.

Think of it as, George RR Martin, getting cut off after the first novel. The teasing of the Others (White Walkers) would be viewed as a waste - that Martin would create ideas and not follow through on them - when in reality he saw things on a much bigger scale. He had a much bigger story to tell.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/6/2024 at 10:28 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

 

Edited October 6 by RockMyAmadeus

[Ken Aldred]

I've always liked Kirby's dialogue in his solo work after leaving Marvel the first time, because it's so over-the-top. I find it quite entertaining.

Edited October 6 by Ken Aldred