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

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:24 PM, Prince Namor said:

Most people who talk down New Gods - something taught to every True Believer - either haven't read it, haven't tried to read it, or just don't understand dialogue.

You logic takes so many twists and turns, that it's impossible to keep track of. It's like trying to follow one strand of spaghetti through a bowl of it. 

A few observations:

i) Who is teaching Marvel True Believers to dislike New Gods? Is there an "anti-New Gods" school I missed?

I've read portions of it, and it's entirely unappealing. It's clunky. It's boring. It's forgettable. There are some cool ideas shrouded in a bunch of dullness.

Sure, you can find a diamond in a pile of dung, but that doesn't make the entire pile of dung priceless. 

ii) Now all of a sudden we don't understand it. Everyone's ignorant if they don't agree that Fourth World is the bomb?   

Your subjective opinion becomes objective, just because you like something and others don't. This is actually the foundation of most of your "truths", except you shroud those faulty foundations with some scattered facts (some which even contradict themselves) to make it look like they support it. 

Keep digging. 

iii) Who are "Most people"? Just the ones who incorrectly disagree with you?

Are there any people whose talking down of New Gods are credible and correct? Are any of those people on this forum?

What makes someone's critique credible?

Your criticisms are utterly ridiculous at this point because there's literally no foundation left for them.

This is what is actually known as "reaching".

-------------------------------

Finally, there's a constant need to remind everyone that using numbers or popularity in a discussion is meaningless or "in bad faith".

Throughout history, the evolution of a movement has always been 

1) state your facts

2) if they disagree, try it before a few witnesses to judge their validity.

3) if that doesn't work, you put it before the entire group to judge their validity.

This isn't a group of Marvel Zombies. It's a group of Comic Zombies who love all comics, so at what point does the lone voice become wrong and the group become correct? 

At what point does the emperor have no clothes? Who finally decides that?

[Albert Tatlock]

Here is the letters page from Mystery In Space # 76, from June 1962, before the Marvel revolution had picked up much of a head of steam.

For a few months, editor Julius Schwartz had been rewarding contributors to his letter pages in this and the rest of his stable of titles with the original art from recent issues.

Now he went a stage further and began to award the original scripts.

A pity Marvel could not have done likewise, as it seems the Marvel Method did not produce formal scripts.

But there must have been something in writing. Do we know whether anything has survived (other than the disputed synopsis for FF # 1)?

Julius Schwartz was reaching out to his fan base in a way that the other DC editors were not.

Possibly Stan Lee took note.

Certainly he went up a couple of gears in fan involvement.

Marvel readers were bombarded with exhortations to get involved. There were already in-house ads in DC mags, but Stan took it to a whole new level.

Brand loyalty in comic books was an innovation before Stan's rebranding of Atlas as Marvel (except, briefly, for EC a decade earlier).

Was the change of name from Atlas to Marvel Stan's idea, or Goodman's? It has probably been covered in these threads, but I must not have seen it.

[Aman619]

what's cool about the DC giveaways is that Maggie Thompson was given the COVER to Flash 123!  pretty pretty sweet giveaway!

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:11 PM, Zonker said:

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!)

Yes!!

We're having a similar discussion about Kevin Feige and the creative group he disbanded after Feige earned a huge success in the MCU with a string of successful Marvel movies from around 2008 to 2016 or 2017...and any movies that were done solely by Feige just weren't as successful. He's missing that little something that made them special, that 'edits' his rough, raw ideas into highly successful ones.

Editors, producers (whether music or movies) all do the same thing. They fine tune the raw product and turn it into something that rises to the top. 

If you listen to some interviews with highly successful music producers, they get paid billions for their gift of knowing when to make small tweaks on the raw art they're working with. 

There's a reason producers get paid the big bucks!

Without these music editors, the songs are lost in the sea of forgetfulness. Just listen to big bands before and after their large producers worked with them. It's a night and day difference, in much the same way that New Gods is entirely different than the Marvel stuff Stan edited for Jack. 

Stan's contribution, no matter how big or small, must be attributed to 50% of their success at Marvel.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 7:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

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

If, after 40+ years he didn't create something bigger than comics or find the opportunity I'm not sure if it was coming at all...he obviously didn't have the management skills for it. 

 

On 10/6/2024 at 8:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

I liked Kirby's dialogue because it was to the point. I couldn't read a lot of those 70's Marvel writers and their exaggerated, hyperbolic, melodramatic dialogue. It's ironic that they make fun of Kirby's dialogue, when they wrote stuff like this.

But a lot of people didn't prefer Kirby's dialogue so you can't use your personal taste to make an objective point. 

 

On 10/6/2024 at 9:28 PM, KCOComics said:

I mean - this isn't really a discussion is it? 

What work is more highly regarded??? Kirby and Lee vs New Gods and Kamandi??? 

You can argue what you like better, that's preference. But when you look at Kirby's career,  the top of the tower is with Lee. A close second is with Simon. And 97% of everything else can be found in the $1 bin. 

 

Case in point,  6 years ago I walked into my local comic shop and bought the first 12 or so issues of New Gods, with 5 copies of #1 in VF to NM condition for $75.  Fantastic Four run fillers in low grade are more than that!  Because the market has spoken. FF is a 1000xs more desirable.

I did read the first 5 or 6 issues of New Gods... it's better than the first 5 issues of FF!  Have any of you read the first 5 issues of FF??? Making time machines to steal Black Beards Gold??? Really?? If I were the Kirby estate, I'd let Lee take the writing credit for that cr@p!  

But New Gods was pretty forgettable. The writing wasn't exactly Shakespeare. 

New Gods material may make it's way out of the dollar boxes if the IP gets used in movie properties (just like Jimmy Olsen #134 popped for many years until DC edited the film and cut out Darkseid ) but it won't change the fact that the comic product only had limited appeal. 

Kirby was absolutely at the top of the tower with Lee, and it's only been downhill since. 

Agree with a close 2nd with Simon.

 

 

On 10/6/2024 at 11:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

Now? Try ten years ago before there was a FF movie on the table. 

Most of the people in this discussion are in their 40's, 50's or even 60's.

I don't think an FF movie is swaying their opinion on New Gods.

What a ridiculous line of thinking. 

 

On 10/6/2024 at 11:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

I have everything. You're a lawyer. Lawyers serve their client, not the truth or the law. 

 

Kirby and Simon worked for Victor Fox. They went to work at Timely. Fact.

You can carve it up and number of ways how it was said, but that's the meaning of it. 

 

It's funny how you can see the evil intent behind simple words like that, but... Joe Simon owning multiple mansions while Kirby lived in a modest home at the end of their working relationship glosses right past you.

Blinders.

Saying you "have everything" but not being able to rebut with actual words and evidence means that you have nothing. 

You're implying that what they were thinking as opposed to what they actually said during a legal deposition matters?

Finally, and you've brought this sort of ideology up many times in my debates with you:

Joe Simon owning multiple mansions while Kirby is living in a modest home makes Joe Simon evil? 

Is this communist Russia?

Is the average working man a victim just because another working man is more successful?

This simply proves that Joe Simon was more successful than Jack Kirby and that he was a better businessperson and negotiatior. Nothing else. 

It's just as backwards as when you stated that holding a victim accountable for staying too long in a bad relationship enables the perpetrator. Wow.

If you remove accountability for bad decision making, whether in a relationship or in business, you basically have a breakdown of civilization. 

 

On 10/7/2024 at 7:58 AM, Prince Namor said:

That is correct. It is my opinion.

Also opinion, of course.

FTFY. You know, as kid... reading it after the fact, I certainly liked it better than some of the other titles I tried reading in the Bronze Age.

As an Adult, I find it embarrassing. I remember reading it to my son in the 90's, I'd just think, "This is really d@mb." All just opinions, of course.

And even the stories... I loved those Silver Age Amazing Spider-man's and some of the FF's, but I just couldn't understand how the same guy was writing those terrible Avengers and Daredevil and Iron Man stories... I just thought they were lame. I didn't find the 'characterization' in it that everyone talks about. Again, just my opinions. I found them boring.

Yeah, I never understood people's love for those guys. Engelhart, Gerber, etc.. Overwritten, self-important drivel. Again, my opinion.

I enjoyed Gerry Conway and Ross Andru's run on ASM (though some dislike Andru), and anything Starlin did. I quit Spidey at the end of that Clone storyline. Ugh.

And other than that... I think... it wasn't until Miller was doing DD and Byrne went to FF that I thought to even try again. 

And, as much as I liked that Byrne run when it came out... I'm tried to read that again a few years ago and... nope. Miller's DD still was good for me.

You are trying to defend your personal taste with selective 'facts' and this is why you can't give Stan Lee any credit for anything. 

You keep saying "you're not saying Stan did nothing" but you refuse to say he did anything or what he did. 

The beautify of having freedom to test everything in the marketplace of free ideas, is that eventually all the bad ideas get exposed. 

Edited October 7 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

You logic takes so many twists and turns, that it's impossible to keep track of. It's like trying to follow one strand of spaghetti through a bowl of it. 

Personal attack.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

A few observations:

i) Who is teaching Marvel True Believers to dislike New Gods?

If you don't know, then I guess you don't know.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

Is there an "anti-New Gods" school I missed?

I've read portions of it, and it's entirely unappealing. It's clunky. It's boring. It's forgettable. There are some cool ideas shrouded in a bunch of dullness.

Sure, you can find a diamond in a pile of dung, but that doesn't make the entire pile of dung priceless. 

Opinion.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

ii) Now all of a sudden we don't understand it. Everyone's ignorant if they don't agree that Fourth World is the bomb?   

Your subjective opinion becomes objective, just because you like something and others don't. This is actually the foundation of most of your "truths", except you shroud those faulty foundations with some scattered facts (some which even contradict themselves) to make it look like they support it. 

Keep digging. 

Some people say the Beatles are over rated. Are they right?

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

iii) Who are "Most people"? Just the ones who incorrectly disagree with you?

Are there any people whose talking down of New Gods are credible and correct? Are any of those people on this forum?

MY opinion is my opinion, the same as yours is yours. 

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

What makes someone's critique credible?

You tell me.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

Your criticisms are utterly ridiculous at this point because there's literally no foundation left for them.

This is what is actually known as "reaching".

Which one is that? All of them? Now THAT'S reaching. 

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

Finally, there's a constant need to remind everyone that using numbers or popularity in a discussion is meaningless or "in bad faith".

Throughout history, the evolution of a movement has always been 

1) state your facts

2) if they disagree, try it before a few witnesses to judge their validity.

3) if that doesn't work, you put it before the entire group to judge their validity.

LOL. Show me where that's 'history' and 'the evolution of the movement'.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:54 AM, VintageComics said:

This isn't a group of Marvel Zombies. It's a group of Comic Zombies who love all comics, so at what point does the lone voice become wrong and the group become correct? 

At what point does the emperor have no clothes? Who finally decides that?

You haven't proven anything I've said to be wrong. Name one thing that isn't opinion.

Who are YOU to decide the undecidable?

I've done 30 years of research and put my information out there, you couldn't take the time to READ THE BOOK, before you come into a discussion and believe you're suddenly an expert. You DEMAND to be heard and state your case. You believe there's a definitive answer for questions where only a reasonable conclusion can be made. You point the finger at me and make assumptions based on nothing I've said.

Puh-leeze. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Yes!!

No one is disputing Lee having some involvement.

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

We're having a similar discussion about Kevin Feige and the creative group he disbanded after Feige earned a huge success in the MCU with a string of successful Marvel movies from around 2008 to 2016 or 2017...and any movies that were done solely by Feige just weren't as successful. He's missing that little something that made them special, that 'edits' his rough, raw ideas into highly successful ones.

Editors, producers (whether music or movies) all do the same thing. They fine tune the raw product and turn it into something that rises to the top. 

If you listen to some interviews with highly successful music producers, they get paid billions for their gift of knowing when to make small tweaks on the raw art they're working with. 

There's a reason producers get paid the big bucks!

Without these music editors, the songs are lost in the sea of forgetfulness. Just listen to big bands before and after their large producers worked with them. It's a night and day difference, in much the same way that New Gods is entirely different than the Marvel stuff Stan edited for Jack. 

Stan's contribution, no matter how big or small, must be attributed to 50% of their success at Marvel.

No one's disputing any of that. 

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

If, after 40+ years he didn't create something bigger than comics or find the opportunity I'm not sure if it was coming at all...he obviously didn't have the management skills for it. 

 

But a lot of people didn't prefer Kirby's dialogue so you can't use your personal taste to make an objective point. 

There's a whole generation of people growing up who don't 'get' Shakespeare. Are they right?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

New Gods material may make it's way out of the dollar boxes

Bronze Age New Gods comics are in dollar bins?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

if the IP gets used in movie properties (just like Jimmy Olsen #134 popped for many years until DC edited the film and cut out Darkseid ) but it won't change the fact that the comic product only had limited appeal. 

Kirby was absolutely at the top of the tower with Lee, and it's only been downhill since. 

He created better comics than Lee did for the rest of his life. 

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Agree with a close 2nd with Simon.

Who?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Most of the people in this discussion are in their 40's, 50's or even 60's.

I don't think an FF movie is swaying their opinion on New Gods.

What a ridiculous line of thinking. 

Which word in my sentence confused you?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Saying you "have everything" but not being able to rebut with actual words and evidence means that you have nothing. 

You've rebutted nothing I've said with any facts.

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

You're implying that what they were thinking as opposed to what they actually said during a legal deposition matters?

When it's obvious yes. Duh.

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Finally, and you've brought this sort of ideology up many times in my debates with you:

Joe Simon owning multiple mansions while Kirby is living in a modest home makes Joe Simon evil? 

Is this communist Russia?

Is the average working man a victim just because another working man is more successful?

This simply proves that Joe Simon was more successful than Jack Kirby and that he was a better businessperson and negotiatior. Nothing else. 

It's just as backwards as when you stated that holding a victim accountable for staying too long in a bad relationship enables the perpetrator. Wow.

If you remove accountability for bad decision making, whether in a relationship or in business, you basically have a breakdown of civilization. 

They were 50/50 partners.

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

You are trying to defend your personal taste with selective 'facts' and this is why you can't give Stan Lee any credit for anything. 

Which selective facts are those? You talk in generalizations. Are you confused?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

You keep saying "you're not saying Stan did nothing" but you refuse to say he did anything or what he did. 

Which is not the same thing. You don't... understand that?

Who are you to tell ME what I should have to say?

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

The beautify of having freedom to test everything in the marketplace of free ideas, is that eventually all the bad ideas get exposed. 

The marketplace decides what's good?

So now you're saying Adams Green Lantern/Green Arrow WASN'T good?

You keep moving the goalposts.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

Yes!!

yes yes yes yes

What is the overall point you're making here?

What is it you think you've asserted in this discussion?

[sfcityduck]

On 10/7/2024 at 5:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

I've done 30 years of research and put my information out there....

 

30 years of research? So you started this effort back in 1994? 

Any prior articles or just message board postings?

[EdMann2]

I don’t post much on these forums, but I have been a reader (lurker?) for years…. I have been actively following this discussion.  When this was first posted I was intrigued, and bought the book - which I read it over a couple of days, hoping it would give me some insight into all of this.  
 

I am not speaking as any kind of expert here, only as a comics fan since the early 70s.  And I’m sure my low post count won’t hold any sway with many people that have thousands of posts in the same time I’ve been on this site.  But I wanted to share my thoughts anyhow.

I was gifted a copy of ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ as a kid in the mid/late 70s.  I had always been more of a DC fan - true confessions, and all - but I was thrilled to get that book, and poured over it a ton.  Not just the stories, but the intro by Stan Lee.  I didn’t give it a lot of analytical thought (what 10 year old does?) but accepted he’d created all these amazing characters that were so well known and exciting. 

But even then, I had comics by Kirby from the 70s, and some of the DC Giants/100 Page Super Spectaculars that reprinted Kirby’s older work - and it was just obvious how creative he was, and had been for decades.  And despite the “Stan Lee Presents!” banner on a lot of Marvel comics, I always thought of Jack Kirby as a creator, and workhorse - he was everywhere!  In Kamandi and OMAC and Forever People Devil Dinosaur and Eternals and whatever random issues I’d pick up in the 25c bins…

I’d never given a lot of thought to the idea that Stan Lee had ‘created the Marvel Universe!”, but once discussions started years ago about how much of a sham that was it just seemed obvious.  Jack Kirby was a ‘creator’.  If ‘create’ means to bring “something into existence”.  He created, and created constantly - for decades.  At Marvel, before Marvel and afterwards. Undisputed.  And I am not at all saying Stan Lee didn’t play a part in making Marvel Comics what they are today.  His dialogue resonated with readers, and still does.  But I think the argument can be strongly made - and is in Prince Namor’s book and elsewhere - that he didn’t ‘create’ most of what he claimed.  He obviously didn’t.  Did he enhance, or popularize, or augment these characters?  Certainly.  But that isn’t ‘creation’.  And yet he plainly stated - and for all intents and purposes in the public conscience - and has been awarded the status of CREATOR! of these characters.  And that’s just wrong, whether it means anything to the ‘general public’ or not.

I also don’t think it’s fair that he took credit (and pay!) for ‘writing’ these stories away from the creators (mainly Kirby and Ditko) who did.  I understand that he added dialogue to what had already been produced and handed to him, and maybe that constitutes ‘writing’, but it seems like that credit (which he gave himself) implies a lot more ‘generation of ideas’ than it does filling in words in captions and balloons once the story was already done.

So - I love reading this and all the arguments back and forth, but that’s my take - unsolicited and probably unhelpful.  But after 80+ pages I couldn’t bite my tongue anymore and had to weigh in.

 

[Mmehdy]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:05 PM, sfcityduck said:

30 years of research? So you started this effort back in 1994? 

Any prior articles or just message board postings?

if you read the book you will understand this was not written in a year....read the book

[Mmehdy]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:23 PM, EdMann2 said:

I don’t post much on these forums, but I have been a reader (lurker?) for years…. I have been actively following this discussion.  When this was first posted I was intrigued, and bought the book - which I read it over a couple of days, hoping it would give me some insight into all of this.  
 

I am not speaking as any kind of expert here, only as a comics fan since the early 70s.  And I’m sure my low post count won’t hold any sway with many people that have thousands of posts in the same time I’ve been on this site.  But I wanted to share my thoughts anyhow.

I was gifted a copy of ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ as a kid in the mid/late 70s.  I had always been more of a DC fan - true confessions, and all - but I was thrilled to get that book, and poured over it a ton.  Not just the stories, but the intro by Stan Lee.  I didn’t give it a lot of analytical thought (what 10 year old does?) but accepted he’d created all these amazing characters that were so well known and exciting. 

But even then, I had comics by Kirby from the 70s, and some of the DC Giants/100 Page Super Spectaculars that reprinted Kirby’s older work - and it was just obvious how creative he was, and had been for decades.  And despite the “Stan Lee Presents!” banner on a lot of Marvel comics, I always thought of Jack Kirby as a creator, and workhorse - he was everywhere!  In Kamandi and OMAC and Forever People Devil Dinosaur and Eternals and whatever random issues I’d pick up in the 25c bins…

I’d never given a lot of thought to the idea that Stan Lee had ‘created the Marvel Universe!”, but once discussions started years ago about how much of a sham that was it just seemed obvious.  Jack Kirby was a ‘creator’.  If ‘create’ means to bring “something into existence”.  He created, and created constantly - for decades.  At Marvel, before Marvel and afterwards. Undisputed.  And I am not at all saying Stan Lee didn’t play a part in making Marvel Comics what they are today.  His dialogue resonated with readers, and still does.  But I think the argument can be strongly made - and is in Prince Namor’s book and elsewhere - that he didn’t ‘create’ most of what he claimed.  He obviously didn’t.  Did he enhance, or popularize, or augment these characters?  Certainly.  But that isn’t ‘creation’.  And yet he plainly stated - and for all intents and purposes in the public conscience - and has been awarded the status of CREATOR! of these characters.  And that’s just wrong, whether it means anything to the ‘general public’ or not.

I also don’t think it’s fair that he took credit (and pay!) for ‘writing’ these stories away from the creators (mainly Kirby and Ditko) who did.  I understand that he added dialogue to what had already been produced and handed to him, and maybe that constitutes ‘writing’, but it seems like that credit (which he gave himself) implies a lot more ‘generation of ideas’ than it does filling in words in captions and balloons once the story was already done.

So - I love reading this and all the arguments back and forth, but that’s my take - unsolicited and probably unhelpful.  But after 80+ pages I couldn’t bite my tongue anymore and had to weigh in.

 

Great point...just because he popularized the characters creation does not precede!!!!!! 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 8:23 AM, EdMann2 said:

I don’t post much on these forums, but I have been a reader (lurker?) for years…. I have been actively following this discussion.  When this was first posted I was intrigued, and bought the book - which I read it over a couple of days, hoping it would give me some insight into all of this.  
 

I am not speaking as any kind of expert here, only as a comics fan since the early 70s.  And I’m sure my low post count won’t hold any sway with many people that have thousands of posts in the same time I’ve been on this site.  But I wanted to share my thoughts anyhow.

I was gifted a copy of ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ as a kid in the mid/late 70s.  I had always been more of a DC fan - true confessions, and all - but I was thrilled to get that book, and poured over it a ton.  Not just the stories, but the intro by Stan Lee.  I didn’t give it a lot of analytical thought (what 10 year old does?) but accepted he’d created all these amazing characters that were so well known and exciting. 

But even then, I had comics by Kirby from the 70s, and some of the DC Giants/100 Page Super Spectaculars that reprinted Kirby’s older work - and it was just obvious how creative he was, and had been for decades.  And despite the “Stan Lee Presents!” banner on a lot of Marvel comics, I always thought of Jack Kirby as a creator, and workhorse - he was everywhere!  In Kamandi and OMAC and Forever People Devil Dinosaur and Eternals and whatever random issues I’d pick up in the 25c bins…

I’d never given a lot of thought to the idea that Stan Lee had ‘created the Marvel Universe!”, but once discussions started years ago about how much of a sham that was it just seemed obvious.  Jack Kirby was a ‘creator’.  If ‘create’ means to bring “something into existence”.  He created, and created constantly - for decades.  At Marvel, before Marvel and afterwards. Undisputed.  And I am not at all saying Stan Lee didn’t play a part in making Marvel Comics what they are today.  His dialogue resonated with readers, and still does.  But I think the argument can be strongly made - and is in Prince Namor’s book and elsewhere - that he didn’t ‘create’ most of what he claimed.  He obviously didn’t.  Did he enhance, or popularize, or augment these characters?  Certainly.  But that isn’t ‘creation’.  And yet he plainly stated - and for all intents and purposes in the public conscience - and has been awarded the status of CREATOR! of these characters.  And that’s just wrong, whether it means anything to the ‘general public’ or not.

I also don’t think it’s fair that he took credit (and pay!) for ‘writing’ these stories away from the creators (mainly Kirby and Ditko) who did.  I understand that he added dialogue to what had already been produced and handed to him, and maybe that constitutes ‘writing’, but it seems like that credit (which he gave himself) implies a lot more ‘generation of ideas’ than it does filling in words in captions and balloons once the story was already done.

So - I love reading this and all the arguments back and forth, but that’s my take - unsolicited and probably unhelpful.  But after 80+ pages I couldn’t bite my tongue anymore and had to weigh in.

 

This is my feeling exactly. Thank you for sharing.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:23 PM, EdMann2 said:

I don’t post much on these forums, but I have been a reader (lurker?) for years…. I have been actively following this discussion.  When this was first posted I was intrigued, and bought the book - which I read it over a couple of days, hoping it would give me some insight into all of this.  
 

I am not speaking as any kind of expert here, only as a comics fan since the early 70s.  And I’m sure my low post count won’t hold any sway with many people that have thousands of posts in the same time I’ve been on this site.  But I wanted to share my thoughts anyhow.

I was gifted a copy of ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ as a kid in the mid/late 70s.  I had always been more of a DC fan - true confessions, and all - but I was thrilled to get that book, and poured over it a ton.  Not just the stories, but the intro by Stan Lee.  I didn’t give it a lot of analytical thought (what 10 year old does?) but accepted he’d created all these amazing characters that were so well known and exciting. 

But even then, I had comics by Kirby from the 70s, and some of the DC Giants/100 Page Super Spectaculars that reprinted Kirby’s older work - and it was just obvious how creative he was, and had been for decades.  And despite the “Stan Lee Presents!” banner on a lot of Marvel comics, I always thought of Jack Kirby as a creator, and workhorse - he was everywhere!  In Kamandi and OMAC and Forever People Devil Dinosaur and Eternals and whatever random issues I’d pick up in the 25c bins…

I’d never given a lot of thought to the idea that Stan Lee had ‘created the Marvel Universe!”, but once discussions started years ago about how much of a sham that was it just seemed obvious.  Jack Kirby was a ‘creator’.  If ‘create’ means to bring “something into existence”.  He created, and created constantly - for decades.  At Marvel, before Marvel and afterwards. Undisputed.  And I am not at all saying Stan Lee didn’t play a part in making Marvel Comics what they are today.  His dialogue resonated with readers, and still does.  But I think the argument can be strongly made - and is in Prince Namor’s book and elsewhere - that he didn’t ‘create’ most of what he claimed.  He obviously didn’t.  Did he enhance, or popularize, or augment these characters?  Certainly.  But that isn’t ‘creation’.  And yet he plainly stated - and for all intents and purposes in the public conscience - and has been awarded the status of CREATOR! of these characters.  And that’s just wrong, whether it means anything to the ‘general public’ or not.

I also don’t think it’s fair that he took credit (and pay!) for ‘writing’ these stories away from the creators (mainly Kirby and Ditko) who did.  I understand that he added dialogue to what had already been produced and handed to him, and maybe that constitutes ‘writing’, but it seems like that credit (which he gave himself) implies a lot more ‘generation of ideas’ than it does filling in words in captions and balloons once the story was already done.

So - I love reading this and all the arguments back and forth, but that’s my take - unsolicited and probably unhelpful.  But after 80+ pages I couldn’t bite my tongue anymore and had to weigh in.

 

Despite the framing, the argument here is not whether Stan Lied or whether Jack lied because they both made a lot of misstatements over the years,

The  issue is also not whether Jack and/or Stan and/or Joe and/or Steve etc. should own the rights to the Marvel characters because the law says what it says and the courts resolved that issue.

To me and most of us the issue is who contributed enough to warrant creator credit for major Marvel characters.

To take the easiest case first, Kirby claimed he and to a much less degree Joe Simon created Spider-Man, his costume, etc. Ditko says it was him and Lee. So does Joe Simon who faults Kirby for his poor memory. 

But Ditko does something more. He discussed what is  a sufficiently material contribution to warrant creator credit, something Jack did not do, and concludes that the creation of a character is more than a name and costume but also look, feel, and characterization. 

Which is why a lot of us who look at this issue conclude that Kirby, Ditko, Lee, and others who made material contributions to the creation of the early Marvel books deserve co-creation credit. 

The author of the book disagrees. He believes Stan Lee deserves no co-creation credit (although he attempts to mislead folks like you by saying “no one says Stan did nothing” when it his position is Stan created none of the major Marvel characters).

The author of Stan Lied takes a different and very deferential approach to Kirby. Even when confronted with the fact Jack  sided with Marvel  and against Joe Simon on the issue of rights to Captain America in 1966, despite the fact the Jack stated in an on the record interview he had been “cowardly” in not standing up to Marvel with regard to credit and rights back in the 1960s because he was getting too good a lifestyle from Marvel and didn’t want to lose it.

Stan deserves criticism also. 

But this topic deserves a more fact based, serious, and academic approach than the author of Stan Lied has put up on this thread. As Bleeding Cool stated, he is interested in a “one-sided prosecution.” He  will not even address facts which are devastating to his case preferring instead to look away and hope they disappear if he does not discuss them.

That’s not the way to approach history, 

So you are certainly free to form your opinions but you might want to consider whether you have the full picture and keep an open mind.

 

Edited October 8 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:34 PM, Mmehdy said:

if you read the book you will understand this was not written in a year....read the book

Mitch does the author footnote his sources for his information? His threads come across to me as predominantly as a collation of aerguments made in places like the Jack Kirby Collector, the Kirby Museum blog site, etc.

There is definitely value to collating information. And it does take effort but it is unhelpful if the original sources are not cited so the context can be checked.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:27 PM, sfcityduck said:

The author of the book disagrees.. He believes Stan Lee serves no co-creation credit.

Wrong.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

Mitch does the author footnote his sources for his information? His threads come across to me as predominantly as a collation of aerguments made in places like the Jack Kirby Collector, the Kirby Museum blog site, etc.

Wrong.

On 10/8/2024 at 1:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

There is definitely value to collating information. And it does take effort but it is unhelpful if the original sources are not cited so the context can be checked.

They're all cited.

Face it, True Believer. You're another critic who hasn't read the book.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/8/2024 at 2:36 AM, Prince Namor said:

Wrong.

They're all cited.

Face it, True Believer. You're another critic who hasn't read the book.

For reasons explained on this thread based on what you have and have not posted on message boards.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/8/2024 at 2:35 AM, Prince Namor said:

Wrong.

What major Marvel characters did Stan Lee co-create? We can start with FF and move forward.

Edited October 8 by sfcityduck

[Aman619]

On 10/8/2024 at 8:55 AM, sfcityduck said:

What major Marvel characters did Stacy Lee co-create? We can start with FF and move forward.

that question will not be answered ... but here are your choices for the pool:  "none"   "LOL"  "read the book"

[Prince Namor]

On 10/8/2024 at 7:53 PM, sfcityduck said:

For reasons explained on this thread based on what you have and have not posted on message boards.

Oh would THAT hold up in a court of law?