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

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 6:49 PM, 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. 

When there are 16 lanes, it's impossible to drive all of them at the same time, so I picked one lane rather than drive across 16 lanes. 

The lane I picked is context.

That's clear from the quote I quoted you as saying because it was the only specific point I addressed. 

My question still stands:

You said this:

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

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

I asked this:

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?

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/11/2024 at 6:44 PM, VintageComics said:

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?

Expand  

Have at it 

Point 1 uses Point 2 for support, so I'll head there... 

Point 2: Kirby was obviously experienced in drawing Thor and had some specific ideas about what Thor was going to look like (no red hair or beard). 

But Kirby doesn't address anything else about Thor in that quote.

In fact, in your own reply to a question I posed shortly after we started that string of discussion a week ago, you stated you are not certain which attributes Kirby did and didn't give to Thor. 

Correct?

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:58 AM, VintageComics said:

Point 1 uses Point 2 for support, so I'll head there... 

Point 2: Kirby was obviously experienced in drawing Thor and had some specific ideas about what Thor was going to look like (no red hair or beard). 

But Kirby doesn't address anything else about Thor in that quote.

In fact, in your own reply to a question I posed shortly after we started that string of discussion a week ago, you stated you are not certain which attributes Kirby did and didn't give to Thor. 

Correct?

Yes, Kirby was less of a braggart than Lee.

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Yes, Kirby was less of a braggart than Lee.

Appreciate it. Will elaborate tomorrow.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

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

 

 

No, that's not correct at all. Jack Kirby's declaration goes seven pages long. The key substance relevant to us goes 4+ pages. 

We've only gone through two or three lines. As I said upthread, I could discuss that declaration for days. 

But, the big reason the declaration matters, a lot, is because in it (1) for the time, but not the last, Jack Kirby sided against a fellow creator regarding the creation of a superhero, (2) Jack Kirby specifically sided against of his best friends and co-creator Joe Simon regarding rights to Captain America - ironically, Kirby probably hurt himself; and (3) the declaration originated some very familiar points that Kirby would recycle later in his life when he delivered an embittered and inaccurate interview bashing Stan Lee. 

Don't worry, I'll get back to that declaration and you will have ample opportunity to attempt to develop arguments other than inaccurate summations of what the declaration contains and signifies. 

 

[jimjum12]

On 10/11/2024 at 9:09 PM, Iconic1s said:

 

 

On 10/11/2024 at 9:09 PM, Iconic1s said:

On 10/11/2024 at 8:46 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.

 

Actually, NONE OF "The Marvel Age" happened until Lee and Kirby were together. Not before, not after. Any other claims are just so much fantasy football.... and *ahem* opinion. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Dr. Balls]

"He's gone by Chuck for years on this board"

A slight aside to the conversation - but didn't Chuck go by a different username before the switchover years ago? I remember him as 'ChuckGower'  or something like that, but I was absent from these boards for many years in between the old ones and new ones. I did not realize Prince Namor was Chuck until this thread started - which is pretty cool, because I always enjoyed Namor's historic-themed posts since I came back a couple years ago and didn't know it was the same dude.

[comicwiz]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:16 AM, Dr. Balls said:

"He's gone by Chuck for years on this board"

A slight aside to the conversation - but didn't Chuck go by a different username before the switchover years ago? I remember him as 'ChuckGower'  or something like that, but I was absent from these boards for many years in between the old ones and new ones. I did not realize Prince Namor was Chuck until this thread started - which is pretty cool, because I always enjoyed Namor's historic-themed posts since I came back a couple years ago and didn't know it was the same dude.

You are right, and if it's not that exact name combination for his past alias, it was the old Montana drawn (IIRC) Jughead Jones profile pic I recall, and a banner in his sig. I think we saw a lot of new accounts pop-up after the boards upgraded, and older members got locked-out. 

As a lifelong Archie fan, I mention this mainly because I took note of forumites that were into Archie, or showed interest in it or MLJ, as CG tends to show more love to the other two big publishers.

Edited October 12 by comicwiz

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

Seems like a nitpick. Spider-Man certainly was "something different" which I think can fairly be said to "violate[d] all the conventions - break all the rules." Prior solo teen heroes, like Robin in Star Spangled and Superboy in Adventure did not act like Peter Parker. Spider-Man was a fresh take. Do you really disagree? If you don't, then maybe what Stan was trying to say was a lead character that acted like a real teenager. This is not earth shattering to me. Hardly appears to be an intentional lie denying Superboy's existence. Arguably a misstatement - absolutely.

 

Absolutely--Spider-man was "something different"--though not for the reasons that Stan stated in print. Peter Parker represented a teenage lead who was fallible (human, like his readers), and not an annoyance and a parody of teenage hipsters like his contemporary, Snapper Carr.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:40 AM, comicwiz said:

You are right, and if it's not that exact name combination for his past alias, it was the old Montana drawn (IIRC) Jughead Jones profile pic I recall, and a banner in his sig. I think we saw a lot of new accounts pop-up after the boards upgraded, and older members got locked-out. 

As a lifelong Archie fan, I mention this mainly because I took note of forumites that were into Archie, or showed interest in it or MLJ, as CG tends to show more love to the other two big publishers.

Ever in search of common ground, I applaud anyone who recognizes the creative merit of Archie comics.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:53 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

Absolutely--Spider-man was "something different"--though not for the reasons that Stan stated in print. Peter Parker represented a teenage lead who was fallible (human, like his readers), and not an annoyance and a parody of teenage hipsters like his contemporary, Snapper Carr.

It felt different at the time when I bought those issues...again in my collecting world the older collectors had the better collections...but when FF hit #4 that really caused an explosion and the came the classic 5/6 ( and 6 is my most read comic book ever)...that change was about in the comic book world, Hulk #1 proved they could it again, especially 1,2,3 But AF 15 was the biggest game changer along with ASM1....wow..Then Marvel collectors kind of took sides after ASM4/5.  my fav was FF...my best friend ASM....there was a who is the best contest ....Iron Man did not take off till issue #43...that was a game changer also( and also drawn by Kirby), But Thor was #3 for long time, especially with those Kirby covers looking at you on the rack. Great time to be a young collector! From a collector standpoint the JIM83 cover was one the best covers out there

Edited October 12 by Mmehdy

[jimjum12]

On 10/12/2024 at 1:13 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Ever in search of common ground, I applaud anyone who recognizes the creative merit of Archie comics.

One of my best bargains ever was Archie 2-20 in VGish shape for $300. The LCS saiid he couldn't give them away. I think Metro paid 300 for the 2. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:53 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

On 10/11/2024 at 2:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

Seems like a nitpick. Spider-Man certainly was "something different" which I think can fairly be said to "violate[d] all the conventions - break all the rules." Prior solo teen heroes, like Robin in Star Spangled and Superboy in Adventure did not act like Peter Parker. Spider-Man was a fresh take. Do you really disagree? If you don't, then maybe what Stan was trying to say was a lead character that acted like a real teenager. This is not earth shattering to me. Hardly appears to be an intentional lie denying Superboy's existence. Arguably a misstatement - absolutely.

 

Absolutely--Spider-man was "something different"--though not for the reasons that Stan stated in print. Peter Parker represented a teenage lead who was fallible (human, like his readers), and not an annoyance and a parody of teenage hipsters like his contemporary, Snapper Carr.

Correct on both parts (sfcityduck and Dr. Haydn).

Again, it was that humanistic, "wink at you", break the 4th wall vibe / connection that Stan brought that wasn't present elsewhere.

It's just dawned on me, after thinking about it in detail, that Stan did it purposefully on 2 separate levels, not just one. There were 2 emotional attachment vectors in Marvel's comics. 

He did it by making Parker human and deeply relatable on a personal level to the reader through the written fiction (I was brutally bullied as a teenager and could fully relate to being the nerd) but he ALSO found a way to connect with people, external to the story, through things like the Bullpen Bulletins, the side notes, comments and humor in the stories and the fan clubs, which ALSO served to draw the reader making them feel like a part of the community.

It really was a stroke of pure genius on Stan's part. 

Finally, saying Stan's Parker was "completely different" isn't a lie as much as it is marketing spin, which everyone is bombarded with, every day on every front. 

It's like saying The Stones, or Zeppelin were completely different when they were exactly the same blues songs they were raised on, rehashed with a twist for a new audience. 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:13 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Ever in search of common ground, I applaud anyone who recognizes the creative merit of Archie comics.

I don't think that people actually realize, or they easily forget how difficult it is to effectively communicate with each other. It's often difficult in person, and it's much more difficult on the internet.

I think back to disagreements I had with an ex or a friend, for example, and we would understand the same thing two entirely different ways. 

People think differently, so when you have a room full of people, let's say 5 people, and they all read the same sentence, they can interpret that sentence 5 different ways. Like, really - 5 completely different interpretations (in my best Jordan Peterson voice ) and then those responses cause even more distortion as those 5 responses are understood 5 more different ways, creating 25 possible interpretations or variations.

Language is not math. It's colored and flavored, and understood through our own separate perceptions and biases, and it's very important to make sure we're understanding each other before moving forward. Intent is the largest part of the conversation and I think most people don't even realize this when conversing. 

Their intent angles everything in either one direction or the other. 

Every person having a conversation on ANY topic, has to make a conscious decision when replying, on whether they are going to try to understand the other person's POV or NOT try to understand the other person's POV, and to try to understand the other person's POV there has to be some sort of common ground in a discussion. 

[Chip Cataldo]

Now people are arguing about how to argue? This thread is doomed.

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Yes, Kirby was less of a braggart than Lee.

I agree. Kirby was more soft spoken, but it's important to note that Lee's qualities that made him a braggart, and made him seem vile in some people's eyes, were the very personality traits that made Marvel successful. Most fans don't dig deep enough into their fans to care about who they really were. 

Lee reminds me of David Lee Roth, who is full of so much hot air and self pride that he makes me want to puke, even today in old age, and yet it was that personality that allowed Van Halen to become such a successful band.

Van Hagar, with Sammy Hagar, was very different, and likeable (and I actually love Hagar) but I don't think Van Hagar would have been nearly as successful if they came first and their timing was reversed.

It was Van Halen with DLR that paved the way for that future success, and I believe Van Hagar rode on DLR's Van Halen coattails. 

To me, that's a perfect parallel to Marvel. Kirby was Eddie and Lee was DLR, and although DLR never brought as much to the world musically again without VH, together they shook the industry. 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:53 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

Absolutely--Spider-man was "something different"--though not for the reasons that Stan stated in print. Peter Parker represented a teenage lead who was fallible (human, like his readers), and not an annoyance and a parody of teenage hipsters like his contemporary, Snapper Carr.

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:58 PM, VintageComics said:

Point 1 uses Point 2 for support, so I'll head there... 

Point 2: Kirby was obviously experienced in drawing Thor and had some specific ideas about what Thor was going to look like (no red hair or beard). 

But Kirby doesn't address anything else about Thor in that quote.

In fact, in your own reply to a question I posed shortly after we started that string of discussion a week ago, you stated you are not certain which attributes Kirby did and didn't give to Thor. 

Correct?

On 10/11/2024 at 7:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Yes, Kirby was less of a braggart than Lee.

OK, so now I'm going to my 3rd point, directly quoting myself (which point you have already agreed to):

On 10/11/2024 at 6:44 PM, VintageComics said:

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.

And for added reference, here's your quote from Oct 3rd below

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.

So 2 simple questions:

1st question: Can someone else provide the rest of the quote from Origins, 1974, because it seems to me that Stan's quote is mid thought and I want the full context (I don't have a copy with me). Anybody?

2nd question: Do you believe Stan Lee is saying here, he's responsible for giving Thor his hammer, even though it was evident to everyone that has ever heard of Thor, that Thor had a hammer since time immemorial?

 

[Zonker]

On 10/12/2024 at 2:16 PM, VintageComics said:

 

1st question: Can someone else provide the rest of the quote from Origins, 1974, because it seems to me that Stan's quote is mid thought and I want the full context (I don't have a copy with me). Anybody?

 

 

The story as recounted in the Origins book-- as mentioned before-- defies belief.  The summary is

1- Lee is interviewed on the radio, and the host remarks that Marvel Comics is depicting a new mythology for the 20th century (in 1961, really??)
2- So Lee decides to adapt a pre-existing mythology, and chooses the Norse pantheon.
3- He wants his hero to have a weapon.
4- He wants his hero to be able to fly.
5- He puts 3 & 4 together and that leads him to choose Thor & Thor's hammer out of all the Norse pantheon. (As if there were other candidates in Norse mythology that might have just as easily been chosen if not for 3 & 4??)

Here's the page the couple of Stan Lee quotes were pulled from.

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2024 at 11:53 AM, Zonker said:

The story as recounted in the Origins book-- as mentioned before-- defies belief.  The summary is

1- Lee is interviewed on the radio, and the host remarks that Marvel Comics is depicting a new mythology for the 20th century (in 1961, really??)
2- So Lee decides to adapt a pre-existing mythology, and chooses the Norse pantheon.
3- He wants his hero to have a weapon.
4- He wants his hero to be able to fly.
5- He puts 3 & 4 together and that leads him to choose Thor & Thor's hammer out of all the Norse pantheon. (As if there were other candidates in Norse mythology that might have just as easily been chosen if not for 3 & 4??)

Here's the page the couple of Stan Lee quotes were pulled from.

Pretty neat that it's on page 181 - the issue number of one of Marvel's most important comics ever published.

Thanks for that. 

To stay withing defined lanes, I do not want to dilute or distract from the conversation with Chuck, or to create a new tangent in my discussion with him, so I'm asking you directly, what do you find "defies belief" on this page?

Because to me everything I read on this page seems both entirely plausible, believable and accurate. I see lots of Stan spin which I don't take literally (like the fact that there are no R's in the month or "nothing can go wrong") but nothing really jumps out at me as defying belief, so I'm asking in case I'm missing something. 

Edited October 12 by VintageComics