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

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 1:49 PM, Zonker said:

Google "Marvel Method" "kickback scheme" There is a whole cottage industry devoted to making that claim. It's not a hidden agenda, instead a very common opinion among Stan's critics.  

Ah, so there's an entire cult devoted to this.

I genuinely had no idea but could feel it's presence the entire time.

Well I certainly hope they're better at presenting their arguments than the OP is, because all I see is a few disgruntled, emotional people, a bunch of poorly formed arguments and blind faith to bridge gaps based on an unreasonable dislike of a historic figure. 

After 120 pages what is clear is that some people care more about what Stan said than what they say themselves.

I've dealt with this my entire life with my religious background and even had to confront myself about it growing up. No amount of facts change anyone's mind if they're not actually OPEN to discussion.

And people who HAVE had their minds changed, who have genuinely switched sides or changed their beliefs, have a very different take on life, realizing that they struggled with their decisions and so they actually enable people's questions and discussion. They don't lead with the cart, they let the horse lead. 

This discussion has felt like a no-go from the beginning. 

Edited Saturday at 06:24 PM by VintageComics

[jimjum12]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko provided rough notes Nd Stan did the dialogue - in a way that Ditko did not approve of.

Imagine, if you will, a World where opinion and hypothesis become real, a world where Steve Ditko goes over Stan Lee's head, and complains to Martin Goodman about Mo' Money, a World where Lee then suspends interaction with Ditko, hoping he will quit, which he does. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 9:34 AM, Prince Namor said:

Prove Ditko 'wanted' the meetings.

I am going to satisfy your need for immediate gratification and my scheduling needs. Read the compiled quotes by Ditko about why heft Marvel. Ditko not only harps over and over about Stan not meeting with him, he also effectively states it was what caused him to make the decision. Here they are:

https://comicbookhistorians.com/the-ditko-version-exploring-steve-ditkos-recollections-of-marvel-in-the-1960s-by-rosco-m-copyright-rosco-m-2023/

 

[Zonker]

On 10/19/2024 at 1:26 PM, Prince Namor said:

If the Marvel Method was such a great way to create comics... why'd it not gain popularity and continue on?

Just for the record, I think the plot-first / pencils-next / dialogue-followed-by-inking is a perfectly valid way of producing comics, provided everyone understands and agrees to their roles, and the compensation due those roles. 

It certainly outlived Stan's time as a regular contributor to comics, even over at DC, which had traditionally been about as full-script / writer-centric as possible. 

Archie Goodwin talking about the Manhunter strip that ran in Detective Comics #437-443

George Perez as co-plotter for JLA & New Teen Titans

Levitz & Giffen collaborating on the Legion

Howie Chaykin subcontracting out dialogue to Denny O'Neil (also the book's editor.... )

[comicwiz]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:37 PM, Zonker said:

Just for the record, I think the plot-first / pencils-next / dialogue-followed-by-inking is a perfectly valid way of producing comics, provided everyone understands and agrees to their roles, and the compensation due those roles. 

It certainly outlived Stan's time as a regular contributor to comics, even over at DC, which had traditionally been about as full-script / writer-centric as possible. 

Archie Goodwin talking about the Manhunter strip that ran in Detective Comics #437-443

George Perez as co-plotter for JLA & New Teen Titans

Levitz & Giffen collaborating on the Legion

Howie Chaykin subcontracting out dialogue to Denny O'Neil (also the book's editor.... )

For those two years (76-78), in my opinion, Archie Goodwin was the best EIC Marvel ever had.

Edited Saturday at 06:42 PM by comicwiz

[EastEnd1]

So has anyone's mind been changed yet?

[jimjum12]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:43 PM, EastEnd1 said:

So has anyone's mind been changed yet?

No minds were harmed during this production. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friiend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:37 PM, Zonker said:

Just for the record, I think the plot-first / pencils-next / dialogue-followed-by-inking is a perfectly valid way of producing comics, provided everyone understands and agrees to their roles, and the compensation due those roles. 

It certainly outlived Stan's time as a regular contributor to comics, even over at DC, which had traditionally been about as full-script / writer-centric as possible. 

Archie Goodwin talking about the Manhunter strip that ran in Detective Comics #437-443

 

George Perez as co-plotter for JLA & New Teen Titans

 

Levitz & Giffen collaborating on the Legion

Howie Chaykin subcontracting out dialogue to Denny O'Neil (also the book's editor.... )

It's only natural that as readers evolved that creators evolved in order to continue to exceed reader's expectations. 

Full script, writer-centric comics have their limitations. Wooden. Disconnected. 

The "Marvel Method" was inevitable. Stan just got there first. It allows for a more intricate relationship between script / visual therefore allowing for a better reading experience. 

Whether the monies were taken advantage of later or not is a completely different discussion. 

Saying the "Marvel Method" was a theft scheme from the start, as is the premise if this thread, you would have to dismiss how successful the comics were BECAUSE of the method...and this is exactly why the OP attacks and undermines the success of Marvel consistently with such zeal throughout the entire discussion. If the books actually WERE successful, and they were, then this would support the Marvel Method as a successful means of comic book production. 

That's why all or MOST of the success has to be due to Kirby, for the premise to stand. 

And this in turn explains why Stan can't receive ANY credit, or must receive such a small percentage of the credit that it's irrelevant, because if Stan is in any way responsible for Marvel's success, it undermines the fundamental premise to this entire argument that the Marvel Method was a ploy to steal money.

As goes with all belief systems, I'm sure that would I read up on it, these arguments would be consistently slanted in such a manner throughout the entire belief system.  

I love the free market of ideas. Their entanglement allows you to uncover all the angles and really get to the heart of a matter. 

Glad we got all that straightened out. 

Edited Saturday at 07:09 PM by VintageComics

[Zonker]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:41 PM, comicwiz said:

For those two years (76-78), in my opinion, Archie Goodwin was the best EIC Marvel ever had.

Goodwin is one of my favorites as well.  It is worth noting that the piece pictured here was part of his good-bye note in the lettercol of Detective Comics #443, the final chapter of the Manhunter series he did with Simonson.  It was the first time I as a reader had any clue the series was done in any way different than 

1. The scripter writes everything down;
2. Then the artist draws what the words tell the artist to draw.

Because in most of the 7 chapters the credits read: "Writer: Archie Goodwin. Artist: Walt Simonson."  In one case it became "Words: Archie Goodwin. Pictures: Walt Simonson."  In another case "Script: Archie Goodwin. Drawing: Walt Simonson."

Maybe not coincidentally, Detective Comics #443 was published in the 2nd half of 1974, the same year Stan's book came out.  If nothing else, perhaps Origins of Marvel Comics prompted people to be more careful in how they wrote the credits for such collaborations. 

Edited Saturday at 09:10 PM by Zonker
than/then

[Zonker]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:56 PM, jimjum12 said:

No minds were harmed during this production. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friiend of jesus)

Would you swear to that under oath?  

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:43 AM, EastEnd1 said:

So has anyone's mind been changed yet?

[jimjum12]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:09 PM, Zonker said:

Would you swear to that under oath?  

Actually, truth be told, we're still trying to verify that any actual minds are even involved. It's a much thornier theorem than it would seem. GOD BLESS ... 

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:07 PM, Zonker said:

Goodwin is one of my favorites as well.

 

Edited Saturday at 11:38 PM by RockMyAmadeus

[jimjum12]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:19 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Goodwin, too, was blessed to be surrounded by especially creative and talented craftsmen.

Zeitgeist, to me, is the tangible intangible ... often identified in retrospect, if at all. Manhunter was so refreshing, albeit abrupt. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:15 AM, Zonker said:

It's a reference to Kirby's satire of Stan and Roy in Mister Miracle #6.  There a Stan-like character is Funky Flashman and Roy is House-Roy.  

Being British, I didn’t understand there was anything problematic with House-Roy.  Marvel has, modestly, referred to itself as ‘The House of Ideas’.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

Yes it was. Ditko acknowledged the readers enjoyed and were more entertained by Stan’s tone than the tone Ditko would have preferred, Which is very strong evidence that Stan was doing the dialogue for the books despite whatever was in Ditko’s “very rough” notes.

Honestly, we aren’t talking about weeds here. You can give an inch. The refusal to accept what is in front of you is not credibility enhancing.

I questioned Lee doing the dialogue? Where do you get that?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 1:17 AM, VintageComics said:

Ah, so there's an entire cult devoted to this.

I genuinely had no idea but could feel it's presence the entire time.

Well I certainly hope they're better at presenting their arguments than the OP is, because all I see is a few disgruntled, emotional people, a bunch of poorly formed arguments and blind faith to bridge gaps based on an unreasonable dislike of a historic figure. 

After 120 pages what is clear is that some people care more about what Stan said than what they say themselves.

I've dealt with this my entire life with my religious background and even had to confront myself about it growing up. No amount of facts change anyone's mind if they're not actually OPEN to discussion.

And people who HAVE had their minds changed, who have genuinely switched sides or changed their beliefs, have a very different take on life, realizing that they struggled with their decisions and so they actually enable people's questions and discussion. They don't lead with the cart, they let the horse lead. 

This discussion has felt like a no-go from the beginning. 

And yet you've refuted not a single one of my points.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 1:15 AM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko provided rough notes Nd Stan did the dialogue - in a way that Ditko did not approve of.

Yeah... and? When did I say they didn't?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 1:24 AM, sfcityduck said:

I am going to satisfy your need for immediate gratification and my scheduling needs. Read the compiled quotes by Ditko about why heft Marvel. Ditko not only harps over and over about Stan not meeting with him, he also effectively states it was what caused him to make the decision. Here they are:

https://comicbookhistorians.com/the-ditko-version-exploring-steve-ditkos-recollections-of-marvel-in-the-1960s-by-rosco-m-copyright-rosco-m-2023/

 

Sorry. Not what I got. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

It's only natural that as readers evolved that creators evolved in order to continue to exceed reader's expectations. 

Full script, writer-centric comics have their limitations. Wooden. Disconnected. 

The "Marvel Method" was inevitable. Stan just got there first. It allows for a more intricate relationship between script / visual therefore allowing for a better reading experience. 

That's not why Lee says he created it then or later. OR what its purpose actually was. 

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

Whether the monies were taken advantage of later or not is a completely different discussion. 

To YOU. And where do you get 'later' from?

The work was done THEN. The money for it went to Lee THEN. 

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

Saying the "Marvel Method" was a theft scheme from the start, as is the premise if this thread, you would have to dismiss how successful the comics

Uh, no. You don't. Slavery is wrong and yet it made many people rich and successful. Sweat shops are wrong, but they make many people rich and successful.

If someone, like a comic book dealer, lies and swindles people, and misinforms them - they can make a lot of money that way - is it good? Is it right? Because it was successful?

THAT is what you believe?

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

were BECAUSE of the method...and this is exactly why the OP attacks and undermines the success of Marvel consistently with such zeal throughout the entire discussion. If the books actually WERE successful, and they were, then this would support the Marvel Method as a successful means of comic book production.

Successful for who?

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

That's why all or MOST of the success has to be due to Kirby, for the premise to stand. 

And this in turn explains why Stan can't receive ANY credit,

Who said Stan gets no credit?

Do you have to keep making things up in order to have a discussion?

Very dishonest.

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

or must receive such a small percentage of the credit that it's irrelevant, because if Stan is in any way responsible for Marvel's success, it undermines the fundamental premise to this entire argument that the Marvel Method was a ploy to steal money.

I'll say it again for the umpteenth time... and I'll go slow for you  this time:

The Marvel Universe as we know it - would never have existed without Stan Lee.

(but without Jack Kirby - and thus Steve Ditko - it wouldn't have existed at all).

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

As goes with all belief systems, I'm sure that would I read up on it, these arguments would be consistently slanted in such a manner throughout the entire belief system. 

You're right. The Lee belief systems are extremely slanted. 

On 10/20/2024 at 2:00 AM, VintageComics said:

I love the free market of ideas. Their entanglement allows you to uncover all the angles and really get to the heart of a matter. 

Glad we got all that straightened out. 

It's scary to watch such delusion. 

Edited Saturday at 10:00 PM by Prince Namor