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

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:17 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 11:30 AM, VintageComics said:

If Julius Schwartz was involved in the creation of characters as editor, Stan must have been as well - Stan just chose to take more credit for them than Julius.

REALLY? 

Gee, welcome to the conversation.

Conclusion:

Julius choosing NOT to take credit for his contributions doesn't automatically fault Stan for taking credit for his contributions. 

Correct?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:48 PM, sfcityduck said:

Can you provide the quote in context?

 

The Amazing Spider-man #1 (March 1963) was the first all-S-m comic book from Marvel's Publisher, Martin Goodman, and Editor, Stan Lee.

That first issue was the best time, opportunity, to establish the groundwork, the nature of the teenage hero's story adventure world.

So what was presented? What kind of story foundation did we end up with?

The cover was penciled by Jack Kirby and inked by me. The cover featured the guest-starring Fantastic Four. The book contains two independent stories. They were both credited as "Script: Stan Lee Art: Steve Ditko". There was no Stan Lee script. I worked from two synopses.

And I provided a rough panel script – dialogue – for the penciled story panels plus whatever clarification needed when we went over the penciled panels.

The first thing that may be noticeable is the color on S-m's costume on the cover. My original color combination was a warm red orange on the webbing section and a cool blue on the body parts. These colors made a nice contrast, they emphasized the webbing and added to the mystery mood.

[jimjum12]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:47 PM, Prince Namor said:

The issue of creativity and who it was... is only held up by the uninformed or the indoctrinated. 

personally, I find that statement to be rather delusional. To each their own, it takes a village. For the record, I don't care how angry Stan makes you.  GOD BLESS ... 

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Prince Namor]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:49 PM, VintageComics said:

Conclusion:

Julius choosing NOT to take credit for his contributions doesn't automatically fault Stan for taking credit for his contributions. 

Correct?

Whatever you're trying to come up with here, I'm not interested.

[comicwiz]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

What is with the Houseroy name calling? I am not from the South but isn’t that a racially charged derogatory term?

From wictionary

 

Etymology

edit

From house +‎ boy (“young male; (historical or offensive) non-white male servant regardless of age”).

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

Duh.

On 10/19/2024 at 12:17 PM, Prince Namor said:

Keep up.

Get a clue.

You really need to stop with the color commentary. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:52 PM, VintageComics said:

You really need to stop with the color commentary. 

Stop making generalizations that are really just excuses to aim it at ME instead of the topic.

If you have something specific to debate - nest it and say it. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:51 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 12:49 PM, VintageComics said:

Conclusion:

Julius choosing NOT to take credit for his contributions doesn't automatically fault Stan for taking credit for his contributions. 

Correct?

Whatever you're trying to come up with here, I'm not interested.

Whether you're interested or not, the point stands. 

You've concluded that Julius as editor for DC chose NOT to take credit for his input in character creation, and have chosen to fault Stan as editor for Marvel for taking credit for his input in character creation. 

You can't deny that Stan had input, so instead you've stopped discussing it. 

Every time your logic is cornered into a final, unavoidable conclusion and there's no way out, you leave the discussion. You've done this more than once. 

And if we can't land on a point, you can never be wrong. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

From Ditko's 1990 essay that you posted here:

“Briefly, in regards to our working method, Stan provided the plot ideas. There would be a discussion to clear up anything, consider options, and so forth. I would then do the panel/page breakdowns, pencil the visual story continuity, and, on a separate paper, provide a very rough panel dialogue.”

- from Ditko's published essay “”An Insider’s Part of Comics History: Jack Kirby’s Spider-man” © 1990 S. Ditko.

 

We agree on the “very rough panel dialogue” or “rough panel script” offwhatever Ditko calls it. It was basically the equivalent of Kirby’s margin notes. Stan didn’t copy it. He wrote dialogue in his own voice adding what he wanted. Ditko acknowledges and, in fact, was critical of Stan’s lighter humorous tone — but Ditko also acknowledged the fans loved Lee’s dialogue. 
 

PS: Stan’s tone is a major factor that makes MCU movies so popular compared to DC’s dark unfunny tone.

Edited Saturday at 04:58 PM by sfcityduck

[jimjum12]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

We agree on the “very rough panel dialogue” or rough panel script” of whatever Ditko calls it. It was basically the equivalent of Kirby’s margin notes. Stan didn’t copy it. He wrote dialogue in his own voice adding what he wanted. Ditko acknowledges and, in fact, was critical of Stan’s lighter humorous tone — but Ditko also acknowledged the fans loved Lee’s dialogue. 
 

PS: Stan’s tone is a major factor that makes MCU movies so popular compared to DC’s dark unfunny tone.

Also, Steve never did the lettering OR coloring, so it was never entirely his solo effort. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Prince Namor]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

We agree on the “very rough panel dialogue” or rough panel script” of whatever Ditko calls it. It was basically the equivalent of Kirby’s margin notes. Stan didn’t copy it.

There are examples of him copying it. But according to some, Lee didn't want actual dialogue written in the margins.

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

He wrote dialogue in his own voice adding what he wanted. Ditko acknowledges and, in fact, was critical of Stan’s lighter humorous tone —

I think he was speaking more of his 'to the fans' voice and 'to the media' voice...

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

but Ditko also acknowledged the fans loved Lee’s dialogue. 

Ditko said 'the fans loved Lee's dialogue'? Where'd he say that?

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

PS: Stan’s tone is a major factor that makes MCU movies so popular compared to DC’s dark unfunny tone.

Wasn't discussing that. 

You said:

   On 10/18/2024 at 9:49 AM,  sfcityduck said:

Ditko has written that he did not provide dialogue to Stan.

 

I could find no record of that. In fact, I showed otherwise. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:17 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 11:30 AM, VintageComics said:

When Kirby says something off the cuff that's incorrect you say "well, Stan wrote a book about it and Kirby didn't have time to think about it" but when  Kirby DOES have time to think about it, like in a court record, in which great efforts are taken to be clear and accurate, and that record is questioned you give Kirby the benefit of the doubt and say "well he meant Fox even thought he stated Victor Fox".

You don't think there's a difference between someone in a conversation.... versus someone sitting down to carefully plan out what they're saying in a book?

You don't think there's a difference when someone misspeaks and it doesn't benefit them financially in any way vs someone straight up LYING so that they can make a fortune?

I think at some point you have to accept that Kirby contradicted himself and that is recollection was faulty at times.

There are now NUMEROUS cited examples where he contradicted himself, one where he perjured himself, and even had to be corrected by his own wife, and no matter how much you like the guy, the truth is somewhere between what he recollected and what Stan recollected. 

It can't always go in Kirby's favor, every time and against Stan, which is how your entire premise has been built. That's just not a reasonable interpretation of the body of evidence. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:50 AM, Prince Namor said:

The Amazing Spider-man #1 (March 1963) was the first all-S-m comic book from Marvel's Publisher, Martin Goodman, and Editor, Stan Lee.

That first issue was the best time, opportunity, to establish the groundwork, the nature of the teenage hero's story adventure world.

So what was presented? What kind of story foundation did we end up with?

The cover was penciled by Jack Kirby and inked by me. The cover featured the guest-starring Fantastic Four. The book contains two independent stories. They were both credited as "Script: Stan Lee Art: Steve Ditko". There was no Stan Lee script. I worked from two synopses.

And I provided a rough panel script – dialogue – for the penciled story panels plus whatever clarification needed when we went over the penciled panels.

The first thing that may be noticeable is the color on S-m's costume on the cover. My original color combination was a warm red orange on the webbing section and a cool blue on the body parts. These colors made a nice contrast, they emphasized the webbing and added to the mystery mood.

I think when this read in context of Ditko’s other comments on dialogue Ditko’s reference to “very roogh” or “rough” whatever is just the equivalent of a margin note and not true finished dialogue. Otherwise Ditko’s statements on the subject are wildly inconsistent. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:03 AM, Prince Namor said:

There are examples of him copying it. But according to some, Lee didn't want actual dialogue written in the margins.

I think he was speaking more of his 'to the fans' voice and 'to the media' voice...

Ditko said 'the fans loved Lee's dialogue'? Where'd he say that?

Wasn't discussing that. 

You said:

 

   On 10/18/2024 at 9:49 AM,  sfcityduck said:

Ditko has written that he did not provide dialogue to Stan.

 

I could find no record of that. In fact, I showed otherwise. 

The quote exists and probably is in the compilation of quotes I linked for you earlier.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, VintageComics said:

Whether you're interested or not, the point stands. 

You've concluded that Julius as editor for DC chose NOT to take credit for his input in character creation,

For some... deciding NOT to STEAL isn't really a choice. 

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, VintageComics said:

and have chosen to fault Stan as editor for Marvel for taking credit for his input in character creation. 

Fault him? I have pointed it out.

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, VintageComics said:

You can't deny that Stan had input, so instead you've stopped discussing it. 

Stan had input. Never said he didn't as a blanket statement.

Stop making up things up.

On 10/19/2024 at 11:57 PM, VintageComics said:

Every time your logic is cornered into a final, unavoidable conclusion and there's no way out, you leave the discussion. You've done this more than once. 

And if we can't land on a point, you can never be wrong. 

See, there you go making generalities as a disguise to attack me.

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:54 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 12:52 PM, VintageComics said:

You really need to stop with the color commentary. 

Stop making generalizations that are really just excuses to aim it at ME instead of the topic.

If you have something specific to debate - nest it and say it. 

They're not aimed at you. They're all discussing what you've said. 

If I were to aim at you I'd be saying "get a clue" or "start paying attention". 

All of the color commentary really is only coming from maybe 2 or 3 people, and they're the same people who keep trolling other's reasonable posts with laughing emojis. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 12:03 AM, VintageComics said:

I think at some point you have to accept that Kirby contradicted himself and that is recollection was faulty at times.

That's ALL human beings. 

On 10/20/2024 at 12:03 AM, VintageComics said:

There are now NUMEROUS cited examples where he contradicted himself, one where he perjured himself, and even had to be corrected by his own wife, and no matter how much you like the guy, the truth is somewhere between what he recollected and what Stan recollected. 

LOL. If you think it's comparable, you are entitled to that.

But you can't force that opinion on me.

On 10/20/2024 at 12:03 AM, VintageComics said:

It can't always go in Kirby's favor, every time and against Stan, which is how your entire premise has been built. That's just not a reasonable interpretation of the body of evidence. 

Body of evidence?

You have an interview and a one deposition where he says "Victor Fox" (not the only time he'd say that either) and you think that compares to the MOUNTAIN of evidence against Stan Lee as a LIAR????

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

From Ditko's 1990 essay that you posted here:

“Briefly, in regards to our working method, Stan provided the plot ideas. There would be a discussion to clear up anything, consider options, and so forth. I would then do the panel/page breakdowns, pencil the visual story continuity, and, on a separate paper, provide a very rough panel dialogue.”

- from Ditko's published essay “”An Insider’s Part of Comics History: Jack Kirby’s Spider-man” © 1990 S. Ditko.

 

Your quote is stops too early: 

 “In 1961 I was working with Stan Lee (writer/editor) at Marvel Comics in producing material (stories and art) for Amazing Adventures (which became Amazing Adult Fantasy). Briefly, in regards to our working method, Stan provided the plot ideas. There would be a discussion to clear up anything, consider options and so forth. I would then do the panel/page breakdowns, pencil the visual story continuity and, on a separate piece of paper, provide a very rough panel dialogue, merely as a guide for Stan.

Stan would provide the finished dialogue for the character, ideas and consistency.” –

— Steve Ditko “An Insider’s Part of Comics History: Jack Kirby’s Spider-Man” essay from Avenging World (2002)

Edited Saturday at 05:22 PM by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 1:06 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 12:57 PM, VintageComics said:

Whether you're interested or not, the point stands. 

You've concluded that Julius as editor for DC chose NOT to take credit for his input in character creation,

For some... deciding NOT to STEAL isn't really a choice. 

If Stan is a part of the editorial process as Julius was, and they changes someone's idea, that's not stealing. It's editors doing their job.

It's just that Julius and Stan chose how much credit they took for their contributions. 

As Zonker and I agreed yesterday, Stan was a conduit. 

Everything went through the editor, or Stan in this case.

Julius' business structure wasn't the Marvel method. Stan's business structure was the Marvel method.

So Stan was not only editor, but also writer. Different than Julius. 

It's UNREASONABLE to accept that Stan had no input before they went to print. 

It's REASONABLE to accept that Stan massaged ideas before they went to print and took credit for those ideas. 

So if Stan massaged ideas before they went to print, Stan's input was a part of the character. 

And people are arguing that it's this input that made Marvel the success they were. 

And they are also arguing that it's this input that was involved in co-creation - obviously to varying degrees. 

But you'd have to accept that Stan changed NOTHING to remove him from the creation of the Marvel universe, and him being the conduit makes it near impossible to reasonably prove that. 

Edited Saturday at 05:15 PM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 12:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

Your quote is tops too early: 

 “In 1961 I was working with Stan Lee (writer/editor) at Marvel Comics in producing material (stories and art) for Amazing Adventures (which became Amazing Adult Fantasy). Briefly, in regards to our working method, Stan provided the plot ideas. There would be a discussion to clear up anything, consider options and so forth. I would then do the panel/page breakdowns, pencil the visual story continuity and, on a separate piece of paper, provide a very rough panel dialogue, merely as a guide for Stan.

Stan would provide the finished dialogue for the character, ideas and consistency.” –

— Steve Ditko “An Insider’s Part of Comics History: Jack Kirby’s Spider-Man” essay from Avenging World (2002)

Ok. That was for the Amazing Adult Fantasy and the other was for the Amazing Spider-man.

So on two different books he provided rough dialogue