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

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:18 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

It is now accepted that others collaborated with Shakespeare, although he was the prime mover.

 

But not on most of his plays, and the relatively small universe of asserted collaborations include plays which were never attributed to Shakespeare. The asserted collaborators were his contemporary colleagues (playwriters), not the nobility. 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/17/2024 at 6:26 PM, sfcityduck said:

The charge of "stealing" is really unsupported, and a prosecutor of that charge would find it pretty much impossible to meet the burden of proof.

Agreed.

But did Stan abuse his position?

The world is full of asymmetric struggles, financial as well as military.

The task of the people at the top is to prevent institutional corruption., and I cannot see them ever dismantling the system to the degree required.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

But, by and large, the comic book industry of the time delivered the goods to the consumer.

[thehumantorch]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:07 PM, JollyComics said:

The dinosaurs survived and thrived for 165 million years much far longer than roughly 300,000 years of modern humans so far have roamed the planet.

Wonder if there was a Stan Lee dinosaur?

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:40 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

Agreed.

But did Stan abuse his position?

The world is full of asymmetric struggles, financial as well as military.

The task of the people at the top is to prevent institutional corruption., and I cannot see them ever dismantling the system to the degree required.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

But, by and large, the comic book industry of the time delivered the goods to the consumer.

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family. So much so, that Goodman allegedly would only agree to keep Marvel's doors open because Kirby had more sway over Goodman than Stan. Which is surprising because Goodman's first hand knowledge of Kirby was as Joe Simon's partner who worked at Timely for over a year and then decided to leave with Simon over a dispute about Captain America resulting in Goodman's firing of the two when he learned of their departure plans. 

On the other hand, PN argues and quotes Kirby to support the concept that Kirby was powerless to change his lot in life because Stan was favored by Goodman. If Goodman really valued Kirby enough to keep the doors open, why wouldn't Goodman have valued Kirby enough to compensate him for his "writing"? Well, maybe he did because Goodman got a higher page rate than other artists. Or maybe he didn't because Kirby's interviews show that he never marched into Goodman's office and said I should be paid more and Stan less. It appears that Kirby didn't trust that his relationship with Goodman was all that good.

Which was it? I don't think we'll ever know. I suspect that Goodman didn't really hold Kirby or Lee in all that high of regard. Goodman valued himself over everyone and wasn't doing favors for either of them.

Edited Thursday at 05:51 PM by sfcityduck

[royaluglydudes]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:45 PM, thehumantorch said:

Wonder if there was a Stan Lee dinosaur?

If there was he's responsible for either everything or nothing dinosaurs ever accomplished.

[jimjum12]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:40 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Agreed.

But did Stan abuse his position?

The world is full of asymmetric struggles, financial as well as military.

The task of the people at the top is to prevent institutional corruption., and I cannot see them ever dismantling the system to the degree required.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

But, by and large, the comic book industry of the time delivered the goods to the consumer.

'twas an imperfect system that was perfectly imperfect. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friiend of jesus)

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, royaluglydudes said:

If there was he's responsible for either everything or nothing dinosaurs ever accomplished.

I'm a little disappointed that more folks aren't looking at the evidence and the middle ground it shows. Of the characters shown on the cover of Origins, my thoughts are that Lee didn't create any of them alone. And that the only one that Kirby might have created alone is Thor. Based on what PN says the JIM 83 original art will show regarding whether Kirby dialogued that issue (he states it shows that Kirby handwrote the dialogue into the word balloons so the letters could letter over it), I'm now very open to the conclusion the Kirby created the Marvel character Thor as seen in JIM 83, 84, and 85. So both Lee and Kirby were out of line for claiming that they created all of those characters on their own. That was a big change in the 1970s from what each said in the 1960s about being co-creators.

Kirby was also way out of line for trying to claim creation credit for Spider-Man starting in the early 80s, and even trying to claim he created all of the Timely characters in the mid-60s. No doubt in my mind or Ditko's that Spider-Man was a Ditko Lee creation. Human Torch was obviously heavily based on Carl Burgos's original GA character creation and Sub-Mariner was created by Bill Everett, both long before Kirby worked at Timely. 

I don't think there's any good faith argument for ignoring the middle ground.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:59 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I agree that everybody has some bias. Just trying to give credit where I think it's due for an unreasonable amount of bias, as opposed to the virtually monomaniacal obsession I see elsewhere, which is exhausting and ultimately pointless to engage with, because no adjustment of the obsession will be made, however minor. So getting into it with them is about a good a use of your time as arguing with a barking dog. What you say or how you say it or what compromises you try to make are all meaningless. He will always outlast you and you will simply waste a great deal of time and accomplish nothing

And I feel exactly the same about talking to Stan Lee fans.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Kirby was not involved in any plotting sessions for ASM issues.

No way that anyone can know. 

We DO know that Lee solicited ideas from OTHERS on a regular basis though.

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Ditko says Kirby's ideas for Spider-Man were "failed ideas" and he had no influence on the version of Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15, including Peter Parker's appearance.

He only knows what Lee showed or told him. 

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Ditko says he worked off of Stan's 1.5 page synopsis for AF 15. 

Fact: Ditko who read the synopsis and saw Kirby's OA for the failed attempt at Spider-Man says the only similarities were a kindly Aunt May, the use of Uncle Ben as the name of an overbearing Uncle/former police office in the Thunderbolt Ross mold, and the name.

Ok.

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Unlike Ditko who created a long-term plan for his characters, Kirby stated he plotted panel by panel and page by page without ever creating any written scripts or plots:

So Ditko primarily wrote Spider-man and Lee gave editorial advice? Yes, I agree. 

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Amazing Fantasy 15 covered date 8/62 was a tryout for Spider-Man. Amazing Spider-Man 1 covered dated 3/63 came out SEVEN MONTHS LATERmaking it highly unlikely that Jack and Stan were having plotting sessions for ASM issues.

Pretty sure we can assume they had conversations in between that time. 

On 10/17/2024 at 11:41 PM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Jack Kirby never claimed to have plotted any issue of ASM or to have created any villains that first appeared in ASM. To the contrary, he just claimed he created Spider-Man and the idea was handed over to Ditko to actually implement. A claim is being made here that even Jack Kirby never put forward.

Because its most likely that Kirby never even read those issues. It's known he didn't go back and read his own work very often, so certainly doubt he read ASM. 

“This similar plotting sequence is a lot like DNA testing, one or two match-ups doesn’t mean a thing, but the odds increase exponentially with each added matched item.”

- Stan Taylor, Spider-Man: The Case For Kirby (2003), reprinted in the Jack Kirby Collector #70 (Winter 2017)

Edited Thursday at 11:21 PM by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:03 AM, sfcityduck said:

What exactly are you trying to argue here?  Because Ditko is arguing opposite your position by stating that Kirby's ideas had no influence on the Ditko and Lee version. The fuller publications that Ditko issued on this topic make that even more clear. That "Stan never told me who came up with the idea" for the original Lee and Kirby attempt is irrelevant since the "idea" Ditko was referencing was never used.

Not trying to 'argue' anything. Just pointing out what research has shown. You can make your own mind up. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

Julius Schwartz was an editor of full scripts. He wasn't acting as the writer working under the Marvel method. So its no surprise that he made no claim to creation.

He discussed the idea with the writers previous to them writing the script. That's how editors worked.

On 10/18/2024 at 12:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

You have yet to prove that Stan stole a penny from anyone. This was all addressed in posts above to which you have not made any response.

The artists wrote the stories. At the very least, they should've been paid for plotting. Lee claimed that money. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family.

Where'd I claim that?

On 10/18/2024 at 12:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

So much so, that Goodman allegedly would only agree to keep Marvel's doors open because Kirby had more sway over Goodman than Stan. Which is surprising because Goodman's first hand knowledge of Kirby was as Joe Simon's partner who worked at Timely for over a year and then decided to leave with Simon over a dispute about Captain America resulting in Goodman's firing of the two when he learned of their departure plans.

Which benefitted Goodman. The 'good businessman' that Joe Simon was, went and left all that money on the table for Goodman to just keep. Or did he? Who knows what actually happened, as the story mainly comes from Joe Simon. 

On 10/18/2024 at 12:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

On the other hand, PN argues and quotes Kirby to support the concept that Kirby was powerless to change his lot in life because Stan was favored by Goodman.

Where'd I claim that?

On 10/18/2024 at 12:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

If Goodman really valued Kirby enough to keep the doors open, why wouldn't Goodman have valued Kirby enough to compensate him for his "writing"? Well, maybe he did because Goodman got a higher page rate than other artists. Or maybe he didn't because Kirby's interviews show that he never marched into Goodman's office and said I should be paid more and Stan less. It appears that Kirby didn't trust that his relationship with Goodman was all that good.

Kirby when he did get paid for writing, made more than Lee out of volume. Goodman most likely allowed the change when the process turned to superheroes out of his natural instinct to steal IP from people - something he'd lost in court over three times already (see; The Secret History of Marvel Comics by Michael Vassallo)

On 10/18/2024 at 12:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

Which was it? I don't think we'll ever know. I suspect that Goodman didn't really hold Kirby or Lee in all that high of regard. Goodman valued himself over everyone and wasn't doing favors for either of them.

Most likely. And since I didn't say half the stuff you claim I did there, the agreement on the end here isn't that strange. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Kirby was not involved in any plotting sessions for ASM issues.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

No way that anyone can know. 

We DO know that Lee solicited ideas from OTHERS on a regular basis though.

Ditko says that the plotting sessions involved back and forth between Stan and him. Jack never claimed that Jack had any role in Spider-Man stories and there's every reason to believe if he had he would have said so. So the lack of that claim by Jack is pretty much the end of your case on that. Ditko has said Jack's "failed ideas" had no role in the Lee and Ditko Spider-Man. So the reality is that all the evidence supports that Kirby was not involved and there's no evidence at all that Kirby was involved.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Ditko says Kirby's ideas for Spider-Man were "failed ideas" and he had no influence on the version of Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15, including Peter Parker's appearance.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

He only knows what Lee showed or told him.

Ditko says that Stan showed him all of Kirby's original art (9 pages) for the failed attempt at the AF 15 story. You state Kirby made margin notes. If so, Ditko read those also. In any event, Ditko knew what the original story idea for Spider-Man was because Stan told him when he had recruited Ditko to be the inker. Ditko was the one who pointed out to Stan that it sounded like Joe Simon's Fly. That prompted Stan to go back to Jack. So yeah, Ditko only knew what Stan showed and told him, but what Stan showed and told him was the OA and the plot. And Kirby has never denied that the Lee and Ditko take on Spider-Man was different than his. When pressed he admitted it was.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Ditko says he worked off of Stan's 1.5 page synopsis for AF 15. 

Fact: Ditko who read the synopsis and saw Kirby's OA for the failed attempt at Spider-Man says the only similarities were a kindly Aunt May, the use of Uncle Ben as the name of an overbearing Uncle/former police office in the Thunderbolt Ross mold, and the name.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Ok.

Those facts pretty much establish that the Lee and Ditko version of Sjpider-Man was not created by Jack Kirby.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Unlike Ditko who created a long-term plan for his characters, Kirby stated he plotted panel by panel and page by page without ever creating any written scripts or plots:

From the 1989 TCJ interview:

GROTH: I think you were drawing much of the time three books a month, and those books must have been about 24 pages — so you were turning out roughly 75 pages a month. Was that a strain?

KIRBY: No, I like working hard. Not only that, but if you look at some of my old pages, notice the expressions on the people — they’re very real expressions. I was totally immersed in the characters. I penciled fast, I wrote fast. Nobody could have written it for me because they couldn’t have understood the situation or what to do.

ROZ KIRBY: He never wrote the story ahead of time, he wrote while he was drawing.

KIRBY: In other words, I’d never planned a story —

GROTH: That’s my next question. When you were doing a story, say, the first Dragon Man story in Fantastic Four that took place on a campus — would you plot that out in your mind?

KIRBY: No, no, I’d take it from the beginning, then say, what would he do? Here he is, he’s a dragon — this guy is in a mess! He’s really a human being, but he’s a dragon— what would a human being trapped in those circumstances do? Then I’d come up with an answer. I didn’t plan out the entire story. I had to do it panel by panel because I had to think for each individual. Sometime even after I thought it out, the story would come out different because on the way something would happen and this guy would have to make other plans.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

So Ditko primarily wrote Spider-man and Lee gave editorial advice? Yes, I agree. 

No. You miss the point. It was not until Ditko took over all plotting half-way through the Lee and Ditko run that Ditko got to formulate and implement a long-term plan. But Kirby never had a long-term plan for the character. Kirby never claimed to have one. Lee and Ditko certainly did not implement something that did not exist.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Amazing Fantasy 15 covered date 8/62 was a tryout for Spider-Man. Amazing Spider-Man 1 covered dated 3/63 came out SEVEN MONTHS LATER making it highly unlikely that Jack and Stan were having plotting sessions for ASM issues.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Pretty sure we can assume they had conversations in between that time. 

Not about Spider-Man. It wasn't Jack's book. He didn't care about it. He wasn't doing the art. Jack never contributed ideas to a book he wasn't drawing. Jack never claimed once that he came up with plots for ASM issues. If he had, he would have said so. You are making this up.

On 10/17/2024 at 9:41 AM, sfcityduck said:

Fact: Jack Kirby never claimed to have plotted any issue of ASM or to have created any villains that first appeared in ASM. To the contrary, he just claimed he created Spider-Man and the idea was handed over to Ditko to actually implement. A claim is being made here that even Jack Kirby never put forward.

 

On 10/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

Because its most likely that Kirby never even read those issues. It's known he didn't go back and read his own work very often, so certainly doubt he read ASM. 

 

No. It's most likely because Jack never talked to Stan about plotting ASM. Why would he. He was fired off of the character before AF 15. Why would he have discussed plots with Stan for a title that probably was not even conceived yet? Jack never talked to Stan about plots until it was time to draw the book. Everything you are asserting runs against every interview Jack ever gave about his methods.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

I'm a little disappointed that more folks aren't looking at the evidence and the middle ground it shows. Of the characters shown on the cover of Origins, my thoughts are that Lee didn't create any of them alone. And that the only one that Kirby might have created alone is Thor. Based on what PN says the JIM 83 original art will show regarding whether Kirby dialogued that issue (he states it shows that Kirby handwrote the dialogue into the word balloons so the letters could letter over it), I'm now very open to the conclusion the Kirby created the Marvel character Thor as seen in JIM 83, 84, and 85. So both Lee and Kirby were out of line for claiming that they created all of those characters on their own. That was a big change in the 1970s from what each said in the 1960s about being co-creators.

Ok.

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby was also way out of line for trying to claim creation credit for Spider-Man starting in the early 80s,

Kirby's CLAIM came from bringing the genesis of an idea for a 'Spider-man' to Marvel. No one is claiming Kirby actually created the Spider-man that we came to know, including Kirby, who in both interviews specifically cited Ditko for that.

In the TCJ Interview:

KIRBY: He was a wonderful artist, a wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is.

And in the Leonard Pitts Interview, a few years earlier:

“My initial concept was practically the same. But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect…. Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it. There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it.”

- Jack Kirby, Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

 

Unlike LEE who wrote a BOOK, where he sat and down and had time to think about how his wrods would be contrued, Kirby said these things in the course of an Interview.

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

and even trying to claim he created all of the Timely characters in the mid-60s.

He never claimed that.

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

No doubt in my mind or Ditko's that Spider-Man was a Ditko Lee creation.

Yes, most likely

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

 Human Torch was obviously heavily based on Carl Burgos's original GA character creation and Sub-Mariner was created by Bill Everett, both long before Kirby worked at Timely. 

Long?

On 10/18/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

I don't think there's any good faith argument for ignoring the middle ground.

Depends on what you believe the middle ground is.

[PreHero]

Want to clarify my previously comments on 1961 radio interview.  I responded in context of that specific paragraph in Origins about Thor.  Think the questions were “could Stan have been interviewed on the radio in 1961” - absolutely!

The 1967 WBAI is just an option, which seems to have similar words/concepts used that specific paragraph in Thor section of Origins.  Could be different interview that occurred closer to 1974 (or earlier).  Looking forward to seeing other options!

Here’s a more complete versions of applicable quotes from 1967 interview:

Hodel: All these superheroes are, not all of them, but many of them have, uh, hangups. You have one superhero who is blind, uh, named Daredevil, otherwise known as Matt Murdock. You have Spider-man, Peter Parker, who is perhaps the most guilt-ridden teenager I have ever run across. And there are, uh, many others. How did you decide that these were gonna be something more than superheros, that they were gonna have problems of their own?

Lee: Well, it was just the idea of trying to make them realistic, as we mentioned before, trying to write them a little bit better. It seems to me that the best type of story is the type of story a reader can relate to. The average superhero published by some of the other companies, you can’t really relate to them because they’re living in a vacuum. They just have a super power. They can fly through the air or whatever and that’s it, but other than that, they are two dimensional.

Now in order to make a person three dimensional, he has to have a family life, he has to have personal problems and so forth. The thing, I’ve said this so often that it’s almost becoming a cliché with me, but what we try to do is we know that these superhero stories are really fairy tales. They are fairy tales for older people. We think of them that way. We don’t really write them for young kids. And, uh, what we ask the reader to do, and hope he will do, is accept the basic premise, the basic fairy-tale quality, such as the fact that Spider-man does have the proportionate strength of a spider, if a spider were his size and that Spider-man does have the ability to cling to walls, which obviously nobody does.

However, once we accept that basic premise, that fairy-tale quality, we try to make everything else very realistic. The idea being, what would a real person do? How would he react? How would his life be if he had the strength, proportionate strength of a spider and could cling to walls? Wouldn’t he still have sinus trouble? Possibly trouble with girls? A- a- a sick relative that he was worried about? Have to worry about his school marks and so forth?

So once we get beyond the fairy-tale quality, we try to write realistic stories. We try to have the character speaking in a realistic way. To me, I- I feel that this gives it a great deal of interest. You have the combination of the fantasy, mixed with the most realistic story you can get and, uh … Well, we found sort of a winning combination.

….

Hodel: Well, I think you’ve also pioneered the use of mythological superheroes. I’m talking about Thor, which you two-

Lee: Oh.

Hodel: … come up with every month.

Lee: Well, you’ve got the right guy here ’cause I would say that Jack is the greatest mythological creator in the world. Well, we- we kicked Thor around and we came out with him. And I thought he would just be another book. And I think that Jack has turned him into one of the greatest, uh, fictional characters there are.

In fact, I should let Jack say this, but just on the chance that he won’t. He was … Somebody was asking him how he gets his authenticity in the costumes and everything. And I think a priceless answer Jack said was, “They’re not authentic. If they were authentic, they wouldn’t be authentic enough.” But he draws them the way they should be, not the way they were.

Hodel: Did you do a lot of homework on that, a lot of, uh, Norse myths and so forth?

Kirby: Well, uh- uh, not homework in the sense that I- I went home one night and I really concentrated on it. All through the years, certainly I’ve had uh- uh, a kind of affection for any mythological type of character and, uh, my conception of what they should look like and, uh, here Stan gave me the opportunity to draw one and I wasn’t gonna draw back from really letting myself go, so I did. And, uh, like, uh- uh, the world became a stage for me there and, uh, I had a costume department that really went to work. And, uh, I gave the Norse, uh, characters twists that they never had in anybody’s imagination.

Lee: (laughs)

Kirby: And, uh, somehow it- it turned out to be a lot of fun and I- I really enjoyed doing it.

Hodel: Isn’t it rather tough to come up with villains that, uh, are a suitable match for a Norse god?

Kirby: Well, not if they’re Norse gods.

Lee: (laughs).

Hodel: Well, you’ve also dragged in some Greeks. I remember one epic battle with Hercules.

Kirby: Well, Hercules had, uh, Olympian powers, which certainly are, uh, considered, uh, on an equal basis with old powers of the Norse gods and, uh, therefore we, uh, we felt that, uh, they were an equal match for each other, and by rights, they should contend with each other.

Lee: These college kids, who are so hooked on these stories, and they like Thor also, and not long ago I was speaking at Princeton, and one of the questions that I was asked was, “How do we reconcile the idea of Norse gods and Greek gods in the same story?” Now, obviously, Zeus and Odin are really the same god, but, uh, in different mythologies. And it occurred to us, what we do is we create our own mythology and we create our own universes and in our minds, there is an Olympus and there is an Asgard and Odin is the boss of his little god- god-dom and Olympus is the chief of his and we may someday bring in the Roman gods or whoever else.

And we figure that we don’t have, as Jack said, we don’t have to be that accurate because we think we can do better. After all, mythology is mythology and who’s to say we can’t make up our own myths, which is what we’re doing, just basing them on other past ones and having a heck of a good time doing it.

Edited Thursday at 11:52 PM by PreHero

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

Julius Schwartz was an editor of full scripts. He wasn't acting as the writer working under the Marvel method. So its no surprise that he made no claim to creation.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

He discussed the idea with the writers previous to them writing the script. That's how editors worked.

He gave general assignments and the writers went and wrote full scripts. It's not even analogous. The difference between the Marvel method and DC full scripts is profound. Your attempt to equate the two is unsupportable.

On 10/17/2024 at 10:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

You have yet to prove that Stan stole a penny from anyone. This was all addressed in posts above to which you have not made any response.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

The artists wrote the stories. At the very least, they should've been paid for plotting. Lee claimed that money. 

The artists drew the stories. They got paid by the page. The artists understood the Marvel method and they individually negotiated page rates based on what they thought was fair. Ditko, to his credit, acknowledges he was paid for everything he did on the strip. Kirby admitted he was happy with his page rate. The notion that Stan "stole" pay from artists ignores what the artist's contracted to get knowing what they were to do. It's just a sour grapes attempt to re-write a contract long after both sides agreed to it, worked under it, and got paid without complaint pursuant to it.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko says that the plotting sessions involved back and forth between Stan and him. Jack never claimed that Jack had any role in Spider-Man stories and there's every reason to believe if he had he would have said so. So the lack of that claim by Jack is pretty much the end of your case on that. Ditko has said Jack's "failed ideas" had no role in the Lee and Ditko Spider-Man. So the reality is that all the evidence supports that Kirby was not involved and there's no evidence at all that Kirby was involved.

We have no way of knowing what Lee and Kirby spoke about prior to any of the issues coming out. We do know that Lee solicted ideas from others. And Ditko regularly exposed Lee as being clueless in those plotting sessions between the two.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko says that Stan showed him all of Kirby's original art (9 pages) for the failed attempt at the AF 15 story.

5 pages.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

You state Kirby made margin notes.

I have no idea if he did on those or not. You're making that up.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

If so, Ditko read those also. In any event, Ditko knew what the original story idea for Spider-Man was because Stan told him when he had recruited Ditko to be the inker.

Ditko said he had no idea whose story it was. I posted the quote. 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko was the one who pointed out to Stan that it sounded like Joe Simon's Fly. That prompted Stan to go back to Jack. So yeah, Ditko only knew what Stan showed and told him, but what Stan showed and told him was the OA and the plot. And Kirby has never denied that the Lee and Ditko take on Spider-Man was different than his. When pressed he admitted it was.

And?

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Those facts pretty much establish that the Lee and Ditko version of Sjpider-Man was not created by Jack Kirby.

I never disputed that. 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

No. You miss the point. It was not until Ditko took over all plotting half-way through the Lee and Ditko run that Ditko got to formulate and implement a long-term plan. But Kirby never had a long-term plan for the character. Kirby never claimed to have one. Lee and Ditko certainly did not implement something that did not exist.

Long term isn't two or three issues. 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not about Spider-Man. It wasn't Jack's book. He didn't care about it. He wasn't doing the art. Jack never contributed ideas to a book he wasn't drawing. Jack never claimed once that he came up with plots for ASM issues. If he had, he would have said so. You are making this up.

He didn't have to. People said Jack was ALWAYS bursting with ideas. Constantly telling them to people. 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

No. It's most likely because Jack never talked to Stan about plotting ASM. Why would he. He was fired off of the character before AF 15.

The only reason he didn't do Spider-man is because Ditko noticed the similarities with the Fly. Ditko was originally called in to ink the story. PER Ditko.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Why would he have discussed plots with Stan for a title that probably was not even conceived yet?

It was conceived. 

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Jack never talked to Stan about plots until it was time to draw the book.

Jack always talked ideas.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Everything you are asserting runs against every interview Jack ever gave about his methods.

Interviews are an incomplete story of anyone life. 

 

“Now surely, at some early point, Stan and Jack would get fan letters about the relationship, similarities, between Marvel's SM and Archie's Fly, originally produced by Simon. Both SM and the Fly would be based on the same magic ring, boy-into-adult theme and there is the possibility that more of the Fly legend might also be used in the SM legend.  More surely, Joe Simon would have entered in with his claim to the ideas because of his involvement with The Fly and the earlier, undeveloped Silver Spider or the (no hyphen) Spiderman. He would have a valid claim since he and Kirby had worked on a few of the early Fly stories and as a team on many other projects at different companies. The Silver Spider and The Fly precede Spider-Man.

Where does this leave Stan "the creator", that Spider-Man was his "idea", that he was "the first sayer"?

With the rejected five pages of Kirby's SM, Kirby and Simon have no valid claim to the ideas of Marvel's SM. That specific hero and story world are the ideas of Lee and Ditko. But it also does not prove that the name SM came from Stan as his original name and idea.”

- Steve Ditko, A MINI-HISTORY 13. "Speculation" © 2003 S. Ditko

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:56 AM, sfcityduck said:

He gave general assignments and the writers went and wrote full scripts. It's not even analogous. The difference between the Marvel method and DC full scripts is profound. Your attempt to equate the two is unsupportable.

Writers asked for ideas and he gave them. Probably more so than Lee gave the artists. 

It's exactly the same: They go to the editor and discuss the idea for next month - he approves and assigns it - they go an write the story based on that.

The difference is that Lee didn't need to give Kirby anything, he could and mostly DID write on his own. And we know that Ditko went through a large strtch of his time on ASM (and DS) where he wrote it on his own.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:56 AM, sfcityduck said:

The artists drew the stories. They got paid by the page. The artists understood the Marvel method and they individually negotiated page rates based on what they thought was fair. Ditko, to his credit, acknowledges he was paid for everything he did on the strip. Kirby admitted he was happy with his page rate. The notion that Stan "stole" pay from artists ignores what the artist's contracted to get knowing what they were to do. It's just a sour grapes attempt to re-write a contract long after both sides agreed to it, worked under it, and got paid without complaint pursuant to it.

Stan Lee stole credit AND pay from his artists. He was a IP thief. You can lawyer-splain it all you want.

His goal was to take credit for that work - to protect it from someone claiming it or wanting to be paid for it. Goodman had a history with this. Lee continued it at an accelerated level to bring himself money and fame. 

There's a growing percentage of people who see it that way based on more and more information that becomes available. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family.

 

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

Where'd I claim that?

Up thread.

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

So much so, that Goodman allegedly would only agree to keep Marvel's doors open because Kirby had more sway over Goodman than Stan. Which is surprising because Goodman's first hand knowledge of Kirby was as Joe Simon's partner who worked at Timely for over a year and then decided to leave with Simon over a dispute about Captain America resulting in Goodman's firing of the two when he learned of their departure plans. 

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

Which benefitted Goodman. The 'good businessman' that Joe Simon was, went and left all that money on the table for Goodman to just keep. Or did he? Who knows what actually happened, as the story mainly comes from Joe Simon. 

That's a non-response which is just an unfounded smear on Joe Simon. Jack Kirby remained friends with Joe Simon and never once claimed that Joe did anything other than forward the S&K's partnership's interest. He didn't blame Joe for the situation with Goodman back in 1942. You are not offering any support for the claim that Goodman trusted Kirby so much he decided to keep Marvel's doors open because Kirby asked him to.

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

On the other hand, PN argues and quotes Kirby to support the concept that Kirby was powerless to change his lot in life because Stan was favored by Goodman. 

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

Where'd I claim that?

 

Up thread. You can verify it.

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

If Goodman really valued Kirby enough to keep the doors open, why wouldn't Goodman have valued Kirby enough to compensate him for his "writing"? Well, maybe he did because Goodman got a higher page rate than other artists. Or maybe he didn't because Kirby's interviews show that he never marched into Goodman's office and said I should be paid more and Stan less. It appears that Kirby didn't trust that his relationship with Goodman was all that good.

 

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby when he did get paid for writing, made more than Lee out of volume. Goodman most likely allowed the change when the process turned to superheroes out of his natural instinct to steal IP from people - something he'd lost in court over three times already (see; The Secret History of Marvel Comics by Michael Vassallo)

 

You miss the point. Kirby got a higher page rate than other artists. This is not about Kirby's income versus Lee's. The question is whether Kirby got compensated for the work he did. He apparently did because he got a page rate he was happy with.

On 10/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

Which was it? I don't think we'll ever know. I suspect that Goodman didn't really hold Kirby or Lee in all that high of regard. Goodman valued himself over everyone and wasn't doing favors for either of them.

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Most likely. And since I didn't say half the stuff you claim I did there, the agreement on the end here isn't that strange. 

We agree on one thing. What we all say on these threads is memorialized so everything is verifiable if you want to take the time.

[Iconic1s]

On 10/17/2024 at 12:51 PM, royaluglydudes said:

If there was he's responsible for either everything or nothing dinosaurs ever accomplished.

Definitely nothing…