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

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

tIf Roy makes a statement about something and I make a statement back, how am I wrong?

To find a resolution to any given disagreement, you'd need to follow a chain or string of logic to it's final conclusion. 

A response with random quotes, personal comments about the messenger (like LOL), and conflating scattered other arguments that don't apply, which disperse the logical chain of discussion we were trying to establish does the opposite of getting to the truth of a matter.

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:23 PM, sfcityduck said:

I agree. But your comment points both ways. Several of your supporters should take your message here to heart. The personal attacks have got to stop.

And, in addition, a truly civil conversation should involve substantive responses not cryptic sarcasm.

I had a real problem with this, especially over the last few years when things became contentious over the pandemic, and one tool I used to resolve it was after typing my response, was I now take a breath, walk away and then come back and reread and edit it.

That method allows me to see how certain parts of my post are personal when I'm heated, and then realize I need to edit out the personal points once I've cooled off. 

Very different than when I used to type a heated comment and send right away, and I think people can see the difference. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 6:52 AM, VintageComics said:

I made the case earlier that Kirby was far more successful in business with a partner and those partners were Simon, Lee and ultimately Roz.

How'd Roz help him in his animation work? He made more money there than he ever did in comics, and for the first time had health insurance through an employer.

On 10/12/2024 at 6:52 AM, VintageComics said:

Not quite. 

sfcityduck's premise is that a court statement can and should be held to much more scrutiny and personal accountability than a press or a prepared release that Stan may not have even written himself, as Origins was discussed to have been a few days ago. 

Did you forget Lee's depositions in the Kirby vs Marvel case?

On 10/12/2024 at 6:52 AM, VintageComics said:

And both of these things above are different again from a personal interview. Each needs to be examined in it's own context. 

You can't hold every statement on the same ground because when, where, why, who and what was said are ALL important factors. 

The creed of every slippery salesman.

On 10/12/2024 at 6:52 AM, VintageComics said:

You seem to only apply value to 'what' was said, often removing context and applying full weight when it supports your thesis and brushing it off when it doesn't.

The Thor attributes discussion was a perfect example of taking two quotes and giving them as a counterpoint to each other when they actually weren't. They were just small pieces of a larger puzzle that didn't prove the point you were trying to make with them. 

You continue to bring up those two freakin' quotes.

What is it you want me to agree to on that Delic?? That they weren't laser-focused on the same thing? Jesus Manoli dude WHO CARES?

I posted 5 reasons Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor - there's a SIXTH.

All you came up with is 'Stan said so' and 'He was the editor'.

You keep going back to those quotes like they mean something. All I was showing is two people both talking about the creation of Marvel's Thor. You're the one who keeps giving them some kind of added significance. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 6:56 AM, VintageComics said:

To find a resolution to any given disagreement, you'd need to follow a chain or string of logic to it's final conclusion. 

A response with random quotes, personal comments about the messenger, and conflating scattered other arguments that don't apply, which disperse the logical chain of discussion we were trying to establish does the opposite of getting to the truth of a matter.

I've been trying to get the Thor Flying back on track for 50 posts, and YOU keep derailing it.

If you have a train of thought on something, bring it. Tell me what the overall premise is FIRST, and I'll stick to it. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 4:52 PM, VintageComics said:

And both of these things above are different again from a personal interview. Each needs to be examined in it's own context. 

You can't hold every statement on the same ground because when, where, why, who and what was said are ALL important factors. 

The creed of every slippery salesman.

How is keeping someone's words in their correct context the creed of a slippery salesman?

If anything, keeping someone's words in CONTEXT is the opposite of being slippery and trying to avoid said context is being slippery. 

You're inverting reason and logic, just like when you said that holding Kirby accountable for his decision to stay with Stan despite being wronged by Stan, and choosing to continue to remain a victim was empowering the one doing the wronging.

It doesn't make ANY SENSE.

Does this make sense to anyone? Am I missing something?

On 10/11/2024 at 5:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 4:52 PM, VintageComics said:

You seem to only apply value to 'what' was said, often removing context and applying full weight when it supports your thesis and brushing it off when it doesn't.

The Thor attributes discussion was a perfect example of taking two quotes and giving them as a counterpoint to each other when they actually weren't. They were just small pieces of a larger puzzle that didn't prove the point you were trying to make with them. 

You continue to bring up those two freakin' quotes.

What is it you want me to agree to on that Delic?? That they weren't laser-focused on the same thing? Jesus Manoli dude WHO CARES?

I posted 5 reasons Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor - there's a SIXTH.

All you came up with is 'Stan said so' and 'He was the editor'.

You keep going back to those quotes like they mean something. All I was showing is two people both talking about the creation of Marvel's Thor. You're the one who keeps giving them some kind of added significance. 

Because it's a clear example where you tried to provide "facts" that Stan lied about a claim, when in fact, they weren't "facts" proving that at all, and it didn't prove he lied. 

What I wrote elsewhere, in another discussion was that those two quotes didn't contradict each other at all and were more like Jenga or Tetris blocks, fitting neatly next to each other and actually supporting each other. 

Then you expanded the discussion to support your initial point and disprove mine, but those additional points STILL didn't prove Stan lied. 

And this string of discussion exemplifies how you build your points. They don't stand up to close scrutiny in my opinion.

[comicwiz]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:44 PM, VintageComics said:

How many times someone responds with a (or the same) point has nothing to do with the person and everything to do with the point. 

He responded on Monday. 

The admin requested no exchange. I abided.

Then for reasons which I attributed to failing memory, he responded to the same post again today right after Mike reopened the thread.

From my vantage point, It does matter when the admin of these boards specifically says not to engage, and the person goes and responds AGAIN to the same post, That same person was already once banned from this thread.

Did I miss the memo - who made you admin of the boards? Because it sounds like you're making false assertions on matters that have absolutely nothing to do with you, and worse, ignoring what an admin has requested.  

Edited October 12 by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:35 AM, VintageComics said:

How is keeping someone's words in their correct context the creed of a slippery salesman?

If anything, keeping someone's words in CONTEXT is the opposite of being slippery and trying to avoid said context is being slippery. 

You're inverting reason and logic, just like when you said that holding Kirby accountable for his decision to stay with Stan despite being wronged by Stan, and choosing to continue to remain a victim was empowering the one doing the wronging.

It doesn't make ANY SENSE.

Does this make sense to anyone? Am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing everything.

CONTEXT is important, but like anything else, can be manipulated. 

As an example - when people speak about - Jack could have left marvel, he didn't have to stay... well, he DID leave. Why'd he stay so long?

For the same reasons YOU stayed for how ever long you did at the car garage job - you BELIEVED for a while that you weren't taken advantage of - you BELIEVED for a while that maybe it would all work out - you BELIEVED that people couldn't be that selfish.... until you didn't belive any more and you quit.

Well Kirby BELIEVED Lee.

You may not have noticed but Stan could be a pretty good sales person.

When Kirby no longer believed - he left.

And unlike YOU, who didn't BUILD the car garage - Jack BUILT Marvel. Those were HIS ideas. Lee in a MILLION YEARS could've never come up with any of that on his own. Sure he added things or edited or ballyhooed or whatever - NONE OF IT would've BEEN, without Kirby's ideas. Lee had 20 years to do it BEFORE Kirby and 50+ years afterwards and never came up with ANYTHING.

Imagine Jack's final couple of years - Marvel won't give him a contract. They want him to remain freelance. After everything Jack gave them. They just ghosted him and figured he'd either stay and they'd continue to milk his ideas or... oh, well, I guess he'll leave.

People blame KIRBY for leaving Marvel. It was Lee/Marvel that made Jack leave. 

On 10/12/2024 at 7:35 AM, VintageComics said:

Because it's a clear example where you tried to provide "facts" that Stan lied about a claim, when in fact, they weren't "facts" proving that at all, and it didn't prove he lied. 

They are FACTS, that give us a reasonable determination that he didn't. If you want to believe myths based on NO FACTS, that's your choice. 

On 10/12/2024 at 7:35 AM, VintageComics said:

What I wrote elsewhere, in another discussion was that those two quotes didn't contradict each other at all and were more like Jenga or Tetris blocks, fitting neatly next to each other and actually supporting each other. 

Then you expanded the discussion to support your initial point and disprove mine, but those additional points STILL didn't prove Stan lied. 

And this string of discussion exemplifies how you build your points. They don't stand up to close scrutiny in my opinion.

I could care less about those quotes. They have nothing to do with my discussion here. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:59 PM, comicwiz said:

You already responded to this - argumentative at this point, unless it's spotty memory to blame.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

On 10/11/2024 at 3:09 PM, comicwiz said:

You responded again to it within hours of this thread reopening, I didn't really want to address it, but you continued to remark on Kirby's bad memory.

Don't like it, don't respond to the same post twice. Especially when you're harping on someone's bad memory, and you can't remember you responded a few days ago to the exact same post.

It's really that simple. 

I know I've never responded twice to the same post.

Especially when an admin has asked not to engage.

Also, don't bring up Kirby's bad memory when you seem to have an issue remembering you answered this already. 

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

He responded on Monday. 

The admin requested no exchange. I abided.

Then for reasons which I attributed to failing memory, he responded to the same post again today right after Mike reopened the thread.

From my vantage point, It does matter when the admin of these boards specifically says not to engage, and the person goes and responds AGAIN to the same post, That same person was already once banned from this thread.

Did I miss the memo - who made you admin of the boards?

There's nothing wrong with addressing a point, even more than once. 

sfcityduck is commenting on Kirby's poor memory and supporting it with historic facts of record to support his assertion. Kirby did contradict himself. It's a part of the historical record.

Commenting on sfcityduck's poor memory for addressing the same point twice is irrelevant because sfcityduck's memory isn't the point of the conversation, especially if sfcityduck doesn't contradict himself, which he doesn't. His logic has been consistent and laser focused...and then you started with insults like pot/kettle 

The two are points above are not he same. 

Your posts always contain some sort personal commentary about the people engaged in this discussion, probably more than any other single poster in this thread. That is the real problem. Not the repetition of discussion points. 

But I'm confused about what you're saying (in bold) that Mike didn't want sfcityduck to engage with.

What was he forbidden to exchange?

Addressing the same point about Kirby's memory more than once?

Or did Mike actually request the two of you not exchange words with each other? If so, I missed that. 

 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

I've been trying to get the Thor Flying back on track for 50 posts, and YOU keep derailing it.

If you have a train of thought on something, bring it. Tell me what the overall premise is FIRST, and I'll stick to it. 

 

On 10/11/2024 at 5:46 PM, Prince Namor said:

I could care less about those quotes. They have nothing to do with my discussion here. 

I'm confused and trying to understand how you reconcile these two posts about the same 2 quotes you provided with each other when they were made just minutes apart. 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[Iconic1s]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:46 PM, Prince Namor said:

NONE OF IT would've BEEN, without Kirby's ideas. Lee had 20 years to do it BEFORE Kirby and 50+ years afterwards and never came up with ANYTHING.

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:46 PM, Prince Namor said:

CONTEXT is important, but like anything else, can be manipulated. 

So because context can be manipulated, we shouldn't try to clarify it? 

How do you prevent the manipulation of context without actually trying to clarify what the context actually is?

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/4/2024 at 4:28 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

From my book:

 

Trivia question: How many issues did Larry Lieber, when actually credited at the time, get listed as a ‘scripter’ on a Jack Kirby story?

The answer: Only 3 titles and 10 stories, all ending the same month.

Cover dated November 1962 thru February 1963 - Journey Into Mystery #86-89... Cover dated December 1962 thru February 1963 - Tales to Astonish #38-40... Cover dated December 1962 thru February 1963 - Strange Tales #103-105.

Just enough time for Jack to see that CREDIT BOX, and say, "What the HELL?" and then immediately QUIT all 3 of those books, refusing to work on anything where a novice like Larry Lieber is credited with scripting HIS actual work. (It took about 3 months for each issue to be published from start to finish).

Consider:

Kirby’s page output was averaging over 100 pages a month through June - July - August - September - October- and November of 1962.

Then, he finds out Larry Lieber is getting ‘script’ credit on some of his work (Strange Tales, Journey Into Mystery, and Tales to Astonish) and at the same time has an argument with Lee about Hulk #4 and contemplates leaving Marvel. He quits those three titles (Four if you count the Hulk after #5) and begins to work on other ideas, with the understanding that - he HAS to put up with Lee claiming ‘script’ on his stories (he’s the publisher’s ‘family’) - he’s not going to stand for anyone else stealing that credit.

Uh ... Larry Lieber was also "the publisher's 'family'."

Did Kirby say he quit the books over the Lieber credit? Or is this supposition?

[sfcityduck]

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

 

From my vantage point, It does matter when the admin of these boards specifically says not to engage, and the person goes and responds AGAIN to the same post, That same person was already once banned from this thread.

 

When Mike reopened the Boards he said we should all engage with civility. I have done so.

I view your recent personal comments as violating Mike's directive when he reopened the Boards and his two prior specific warnings to you about not using abusive language. 

Having said that, why not just ditch the insults and join the conversation? Let bygones be bygones and join the debate.
 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

I've been trying to get the Thor Flying back on track for 50 posts, and YOU keep derailing it.

If you have a train of thought on something, bring it. Tell me what the overall premise is FIRST, and I'll stick to it. 

OK, I've dug up the quote:

On 10/3/2024 at 9:17 PM, Prince Namor said:

In my book, you'll find out who REALLY (most likely) influenced Kirby's look for Thor.

Jack Kirby did Thor TWICE before the version we now know. Lee never did. And Kirby never said he created Thor from out of thin air. He did say (from my book):

“I got a kick out of doing the Thor legend, which I researched.
I kind of did my version of it. They thought that Thor should have red hair and a beard, and that’s not my Thor. So I just went my own way.”

- Jack Kirby, August 1–3, 1970: San Diego’s Golden State Comic Con (San Diego, California)

 

Compare that to what Lee said:

“As all true devotees know, every superhero needs a special quality, a special weapon of some sort… and then I realized I could solve both problems (weapon and flying) at once - with a hammer!”

- Stan Lee, Origins of Marvel Comics, 1974

 

Thor having a hammer was certainly not Lee's idea. It was a part of the original Norse Mythology.

Point 1: So the first thing you say is in your book we'll "really find out who REALLY (most likely) influenced Kirby's look for Thor"

Point 2: You state that Kirby did Thor twice previously, and Lee never did and you support Kirby's creation of Thor's qualities with a quote from Kirby explaining part of how he came to 'create' Thor from his research, but there are no actual attributes specifically described outside of not having a beard and red hair.

Point 3: You state that Thor having a hammer was not Lee's idea, giving this quote by Lee as proof that Lee was claiming just that, and I believe you're implying that Lee is claiming this idea as his own.

Are these 3 points correct?

Anything you want to change about them before we proceed?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:05 AM, VintageComics said:

 

I'm confused and trying to understand how you reconcile these two posts about the same 2 quotes you provided with each other when they were made just minutes apart. 

I don't care. Whatever it is you're trying to talk about isn't clear to me. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:10 AM, VintageComics said:

So because context can be manipulated, we shouldn't try to clarify it? 

How do you prevent the manipulation of context without actually trying to clarify what the context actually is?

We shouldn't clarify it?

who said that?

why do you keep changing the subject. I thought this was about Thor flying. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:44 AM, VintageComics said:

OK, I've dug up the quote:

Point 1: So the first thing you say is in your book we'll "really find out who REALLY (most likely) influenced Kirby's look for Thor"

Point 2: You state that Kirby did Thor twice previously, and Lee never did and you support Kirby's creation of Thor's qualities with a quote from Kirby explaining part of how he came to 'create' Thor from his research, but there are no actual attributes specifically described outside of not having a beard and red hair.

Point 3: You state that Thor having a hammer was not Lee's idea, giving this quote by Lee as proof that Lee was claiming just that, and I believe you're implying that Lee is claiming this idea as his own.

Are these 3 points correct?

Anything you want to change about them before we proceed?

Have at it 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:45 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 6:10 PM, VintageComics said:

So because context can be manipulated, we shouldn't try to clarify it? 

How do you prevent the manipulation of context without actually trying to clarify what the context actually is?

We shouldn't clarify it?

who said that?

why do you keep changing the subject. I thought this was about Thor flying. 

We are specifically talking about context manipulation. 

I quoted one line of yours about context. Nothing else. I was very specific. 

I addressed only that one quote about context with another question about context. Very specific. 

I mentioned nothing about Thor's hammer. 

Did I make a wrong turn somewhere?

Based on what just happened, I think you are addressing what you think people are thinking, and not what they write. I think that's where the disconnect is. 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

Jack Kirby wasn't as clear as he could've been on a one paragraph statement to the court in 1966.   

 

Lee spent 50 years lying that he created all the concepts of the marvel universe and simply assigned an artist to draw it.    

 

Lee fans: See! They both lied!

 

LOL. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:49 AM, VintageComics said:

We are specifically talking about context manipulation. 

I quoted one line of yours about context. 

I addressed only that one quote about context with another question about context.

I mentioned nothing about Thor's hammer. 

Did I make a wrong turn somewhere?

Based on what just happened, I think you are addressing what you think people are thinking, and not what they write. I think that's where the disconnect is. 

If you expect people to pick a lane and stick to it you should do the same.