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

[jimjum12]

On 10/20/2024 at 2:15 AM, PreHero said:

Question was specific to paragraph in Origins about Thor.  Question was vague, should've said Do we least agree a 1961 radio interview "about Thor's creation" is unlikely?  You're right, a 1961 radio interview was very possible.

Never said Stan lied in that paragraph.  He never clearly indicated what interview he was referring to nor when it occurred.  Others in this thread were claiming it occurred in 1961.

Actually, it would be easily to figure out what Stan said and when from his papers - have no plans to travel to Laramie: https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv636387#idm6902

All I care about is the big picture in regard to a topic that I am passionate about. No spin doctoring, you know, like they used to say, "lust the facts jack". Contextual integrity is easy to disregard in the heat of passion. Sometimes I split hairs too much, and to be honest, while a radio interview in 1962 MAY have been possible, an interview in 1964 would have been MUCH more likely. There are many types of context; historical, cultural, factual, and a disregard of any may result in a flawed proof or interpretation. Context may be purposely ignored to intentionally produce a misperception. This occurs a LOT in Politics, and out of respect for the rules, I will not go further with that. Anyway, that's the ONLY reason I pointed out the historical context of Radio during those days. Nothing personal. It's just that a lack of contextual awareness can send a discussion off on quite the tangent. I mean, I'm sure Stan stayed up past his bedtime, didn't eat his vegetables, and possibly had the occasional Jack Daniels sammich at lunch. I doubt very seriously that he was a talentless bum who wore a propellor beanie while doing nothing all day, I mean, we're talking about a man in his 90's doing a 3 year nationwide autograph tour, KNOWING he was on death's bed, to replace the inheritance for his heirs that he had mismanaged. A week of hotel beds and food? GREAT. 3 years of it, *unnghh*.  Feet of clay? sure. Human? Sure. Nefarious? I don't think so. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

STAN, STAN,

HE'S OUR MAN!

IF HE CAN'T DO IT,

ROY CAN!

Edited Sunday at 05:07 PM by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 8:23 PM, VintageComics said:

It's impossible to refute someone who doesn't use rational logic and reason. 

I clearly showed that Stan's 'lie', the radio interview quote regarding the creation of Thor which you posted some 60 or 70 pages ago had taken Stan's words OUT OF CONTEXT and you EDITED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING to make your point. 

So a "Chuck Gower lied" exposé about Stan Lee's 'lie' was blatant and obvious to everyone, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge it. 

And then, you mischaracterize people as being "Stan Lee apologists" for pointing it out.

If you're 'not wrong' when you're CLEARY WRONG, then how can one have a reasonable debate?

Just start a poll and take a vote and see if people think that quote was taken out of context if you disagree. 

 

What was I wrong about? Lee took credit for creating Thor.  That's not wrong.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/19/2024 at 11:27 PM, PreHero said:

unfortunately the hero worship may've gone to his head in later years:

[Prince Namor]

On 10/20/2024 at 8:23 PM, VintageComics said:

It's impossible to refute someone who doesn't use rational logic and reason. 

I clearly showed that Stan's 'lie', the radio interview quote regarding the creation of Thor which you posted some 60 or 70 pages ago had taken Stan's words OUT OF CONTEXT and you EDITED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING to make your point. 

So a "Chuck Gower lied" exposé about Stan Lee's 'lie' was blatant and obvious to everyone, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge it. 

No. This is incorrect. I used a quote from Origins of Marvel Comics, not from any radio program, so you are clearly mistaken here.

Secondly, I didn't edit it or take it out of context at all.

You are making this up. You;re either mistaken or you are purposely telling a lie. 

On 10/20/2024 at 8:23 PM, VintageComics said:

And then, you mischaracterize people as being "Stan Lee apologists" for pointing it out.

If you're 'not wrong' when you're CLEARY WRONG, then how can one have a reasonable debate?

Just start a poll and take a vote and see if people think that quote was taken out of context if you disagree. 

I'll show you how I'm not...

[Prince Namor]

Here’s my history of speaking on Thor’s Hammer here:

 ———————————————————————

On 10/4/2024 at 3:38 PM, namisgr said:

Which of Kirby's two prior versions of Thor used a hammer for flying?  And which of the two could be turned into a cane which Thor used in human form?

 

ME: Which of any of Lee's characters used a hammer for flying before Thor? Which of Lee's characters used a cane that could turn them into human form?

Before Kirby, what action heroes did Stan Lee create? In fact... what characters did Stan Lee create at all?

 

Meaning: Kirby had the history of creating heroic action heroes - clearly more likely to come up with the idea. Lee had no history of it. Less likely.

I'm talking about the CREATION of Marvel's Thor.

———————————————————————

I THEN showed:

 

Unusual Tales #18 from 1959.

A magical cane with the power of Thor's Hammer in it...

NOT an original concept by either Lee or Kirby

———————————————————————

I then say:

ME: So if neither has a history of a character with a cane or a hammer that makes someone fly - it's assumed by you that Lee must have 'collaborated’.? Got it.

———————————————————————

Posted October 4

 

On 10/4/2024 at 7:52 PM, mrc said:

Facts are usually indisputable but depending on how you view the facts will determine your decision based on the facts. An interpretation does not negate the facts, but it does put it in context of more factors that have to be considered.................

 

ME - AGAIN, I’m talking about the CREATION of Marvel’s Thor:

 

Exactly. And when the facts add up it makes it easier to make a decision one way or the other.

 

FACT: Kirby says HE created Thor, Lee says HE created Thor.

FACT: Lee actually started saying he created all the concepts of Thor, and simply assigned Kirby to draw it. Pretty much everyone knows that's a lie.

FACT: Lee was a notorious liar (I have a whole book of those lies I just released), Kirby's story has remained consistent.

FACT: Stan Lee signed everything he wanted to take credit or pay for and there's no signature in JIM #83

FACT: Kirby had done a version of Thor twice before, both times with a magic hammer, Lee never had done Thor.

FACT: Kirby had done adventure heroes/stories for 20 years. Lee wasn't writing any adventure/hero stories. He went through an entire decade writing nothing but humor and genre westerns. 

FACT: When Kirby left Thor in 1964, the book sucked. When he returned, it became one of Marvel's Top 3 selling titles.

FACT: During his time at DC, Kirby is surely aware of Joe Kubert's Viking Prince in Brave and the Bold, with long blonde hair and a Viking helmet who seeks out the Hammer of Thor and takes on the Twelve Tasks of Thor...

 

Separately, none of these are probably enough to say anything close to definitive. Together... it's hard to make a case for Lee.  

THAT is my statement on it. NOTHING about flying.

———————————————————————

I then post on Oct 4:

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

Again: I’m talking about the creation of 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.

You take this last statement and try to turn it into a point.

———————————————————————

I even specifically POINT it out:

 

Oct 4

 

Words mean something.

Kirby: "I researched. I kind of did my version of it."

Lee: "I could solve"

 

———————————————————————

YOU:

Those two quotes are discussing two entirely different things and there is this vast ocean of possible interpretation between them. 

Stan isn't talking about Thor's look. he's talking about Thor's hammer and flight.

Meanwhile, Jack is talking about how Thor LOOKS. 

The two aren't connected. 

 

 

WHO CARES?

 

WE, not YOU, were talking about the creation of Thor. They’re both talking about the creation of Thor.

———————————————————————

That was how I addressed it on Oct 5th:

 

Uh, yes they are. Both are about the creation of Marvel's Thor character.

What confused you there?

One is how Kirby saw it, and the other is how Lee made up a lie.

 

and then I add:

“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!”

LOL. He IS literally saying he SOLVED the problem by giving him a special weapon - a HAMMER.

He IS saying it.

 

Which YOU think is somehow WRONG.

MY interpretation is Lee was trying to make it sound like he was saying exactly that. It’s my OPINION.

YOU can’t prove my opinion wrong. You can only have YOUR opinion.

Because neither of us can say for sure what Stan’s intent was there in book full of LIES about how he created everything, right?

———————————————————————

 

On 10/5/2024 at 6:45 AM, PreHero said:

Appears Marvel’s Thor is pretty much a direct copy of Fox's Thor in Weird Comics #1 (1940):

• Thor has hammer/helmet/cape/blonde hair
• Thor flies
• Thor allows a human to assume form and powers of Thor (Grant Farrel vs Don Blake)
• Grant has crush on a girl (Glenda vs Jane Nelson/Foster) who wants Grant/Don to be more “adventurous”.

Not sure if it was Stan and/or Jack who lifted Thor’s costume, powers, characters and love triangle from Weird Comics #1.

 

ME: No one's claiming ideas haven't been borrowed from other sources.

Stan Lee appears to be claiming he came up with those ideas himself.

 

AGAIN MY focus is on the creation of Thor.

———————————————————————

YOU then posted:

 

Posted October 5

Kirby is talking about how he envisioned Thor. No mention of hammer. No mention of flight. Just a vague recollection that he did it "his way".

Lee is talking about the Hammer and flight specifically. 

You're making the assumption that Kirby is alluding to hammer and flight in his quote without mentioning it, and you're making the assumption Stan Lee is taking credit for the vague things in Jack's quote, but neither is apparent from either quote.

 

This is a LIE.

I couldn’t care LESS about Lee’s specific hammer/flying quote and hadn’t been trying to explain it at all.

UNDERSTAND: This is about Lee claiming HE created the whole idea of Marvel’s Thor and simply assigned Kirby to draw it.

———————————————————————

YOU continue to belabor this point that I wasn't even interested in:

Posted October 5

You're calling Stan a liar in Origins because he said he gave Thor the power of flight through his hammer(?)

———————————————————————

I said NO SUCH THING. I’m talking about the CREATION of Marvel’s Thor.

THIS was my response:

 

Stan Lee says he created all of the characters and concepts HIMSELF and simply assigned an artist.

That means, he's claiming he created Thor and all that goes with the character. 

———————————————————————

See what you did there? You created your OWN idea and tried to pin it on me. I wasn’t even making that statement at all. I continued to not have an interest in it because…

And this is important...

a)  It can’t be PROVEN either way because you and I can only guess the intent of his statement.

and

b) I DON’T CARE

It was never my POINT. My point is the SAME as its always been here:

 

Stan Lee says he created all of the characters and concepts HIMSELF and simply assigned an artist.

That means, he's claiming he created Thor and all that goes with the character. 

That's one of roughly 75 lies or omissions he makes in the book. 

———————————————————————

I then gave you EIGHT reasons he most likely DIDN’T and you have refuted NONE of them.

———————————————————————

You didn't prove me WRONG. 

YOU don't know - and I don't know. We can only make an educated guess.

 

What we can do is say:

1. I didn't EDIT that quote as you said.

2. I didn't take it out of context as you said. 

3. I was not 'cleary wrong' as you said.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/20/2024 at 3:14 AM, mrc said:

Yawn

MRC read the book, or the preview or go to SA forum and read some of the many and I mean many pages on at least 4  Major different theads by timeline...pick a time I suggest later,  with maybe more read creating a  a better understanding ....Then come back and "Yawn"...you won't, your eyes will be open to the plain hard truth.....Jack Kirby on top with Steve and John R and John B and Bill and Wally and a whole host of other creator/writers were short changed for the job at the time they were hired (and stan got the $) and then credit wise...were eased out credit wise and historically wise for one man, one ego. one credit which grew over time bigger and bigger until 2024 with the "Stan Lee Lied" BOOK popped that balloon!

Read these and come back with your best  A game!

Edited Sunday at 07:03 PM by Mmehdy

[PreHero]

On 10/20/2024 at 4:48 AM, Zonker said:

On 10/19/2024 at 11:27 PM, PreHero said:

Agree context matters.  Should not have assumed folks would search out original source for themselves.

Stan appears to be mixing comments from different sources - unfortunately the hero worship may've gone to his head in later years:

From Esquire (Sept 1966) article: As one Ivy Leaguer told Stan Lee. "We think of Marvel Comics as the twentieth-century mythology and you as this generation's Homer."

I think you nailed it! 

For reference, the Esquire quote is from a March 1966 talk at Princeton.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:14 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

You shoot too low. Minds can be changed by debate because real debate requires listening, analysis, research, a willingness to follow the evidence, presentation of good faith argument, and ultimately a willingness to concede ground when good faith requires. 
 

What you are talking about is diualing speeches and preaching to the choir.

[Prince Namor]

And let's be clear: Lee DID have input on Thor from #86 and up. Not saying he didn't. How MUCH is debatable, but he DID have input. 

But he didn't sign Journey into Mystery #83, 84 and 85. 

A clear indication he wasn't involved.

He signed every FF. He signed every Hulk. And we wouldn't miss signing every Spider-man. 

 

And Remember: Fantastic Four was a hit for MARVEL. Comparatively to the rest of the comic book world, it was a mediocre seller. It's long term IMPACT would say otherwise - but at the time - the book sold.... 250,000 to 350,000 copies a month (an educated guesstimate), more than HALF to ONE FOURTH of what Superman sold. Hulk was floundering. That's all they had. 

Marvel was on the verge of shutting down again. The strength of the response to FF through letters and the blitz of ideas by Kirby were the two things that gave them a chance to keep going. Lee aligned with Ditko, who was willing to work with him. Kirby went forth with Ant-Man and Thor on his own - Lee signed NEITHER. Why would he? Kirby had been doing Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish for over two years without Lee' s input.

They all came out on the same DAY.

In Origins, Lee specifically talks about what he'd do 'for an encore' after creating FF, Hulk and Spider-man. He FORGETS in his lie that Spider-man came out the same day as Thor. He had no idea if Spider-man would be a hit. 

More lies.

[Prince Namor]

@Zonker

And in case you missed - here's a condensed version - of why Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor:

 

ONE: Lee didn’t write heroic adventure stories. He had no interest in it. He had 20 years to create any type of comic book he wanted and the closest he came was the Black Knight that he ran out of interest in after 1 issue.

I posted ALL of the stories Lee signed his name to as writer, back in my year-by-year threads on here - the people who followed it from start to finish SEE, exactly what type of stories Lee had his hands in for the 7 years leading up to the Marvel Silver Age. There was no Flying. There were no magical hammers. There were no superheroes. There was no Outer Space. Lee had no interest in those ideas.

 

Doc Vassallo: "Stan's "Origins" stories and the ridiculous "my wife told me to do superheroes 'my' way" narrative, for a person who had exactly no interest or experience with real heroic scientific fantasy, versus someone who had been doing it all his professional life, and would continue to do so well after leaving the company. The Marvel Comics of the 1960's were launched and created/plotted by Jack Kirby (and to a slightly lesser extent, Steve Ditko), with the editor grafting dialogue after the fact. Yes, that did produce a product different than it would have been if either Kirby or Ditko did it alone, and no one is arguing that it wasn't successful. It's always just been about the creator credit. Who likes or dislikes the finished product is not the issue.”

 

TWO: Stan Lee signed most everything that he put his hands on, because he wanted to claim rights to it. He wanted to claim that he was a part of it. He wanted to get paid for it. His career is basically about signing other people’s work.

And Journey Into Mystery #83, he did not sign. (Or 84 and 85. Never missed an issue after that) At the time that may not  have seemed like a big deal, because Kirby had worked on Journey Into Mystery for the last two years PLUS, and Lee didn't sign any of those stories either. That's because Jack wrote those stories himself with no editorial interference. Understand that Lee was lying about the monster stories in Origins, saying that he and Jack worked on them is a complete falsehood. Lee never signed a single Kirby monster story during that time. Not a single one. ZERO.

Which means he didn’t write them.

 

So Jack decided to do a Thor story in Journey Into Mystery and Lee probably didn’t pay much attention to it. How can I say that? Well, in fact it wasn't just 83 he didn't sign. He didn't sign 84 or 85. So what would suddenly make #86 so significant - the fourth issue of Thor - that would make him suddenly jump on board?

Well, comics take about three months to do from start to finish (on the stands). That would, here, give Journey Into Mystery, just enough time for the letters to start pouring in - while they’re working on #86.  Lee can see its got a hugely positive reaction.

He can’t just start signing it Lee & Kirby, because…

 

THREE: THERE’S BEEN NO COLLABORATION. For the FF and Hulk… two books that Lee very OBVIOUSLY added his thoughts to - he signed them ‘Lee & Kirby’. He did this through the first 8 issues of FF and the first 4 issues of the Hulk - guess WHEN he stopped doing that and the credit boxes first popped up?

Did you say the month Journey Into Mystery #86 came out?

If you DID then you’re paying attention.

No signature of collaboration on #83-85, then suddenly a credit box on #86.

With Lee as plot and Larry Lieber as script? Why?

Because there was no collaboration on those first three issues and Lee knew he couldn’t just sign his name to the story. He COULD however claim that he let Larry dialogue the stories and take his usual credit for the plot - which is what he did. Even that’s a lie though, most likely.

 

(Kirby almost quit over it - three months later when the first book hit the stands -  and he saw it Liebers’ script credit on it. More on this later…)

 

FOUR: Story differences. If you read Journey Into Mystery #83, 84 and 85, the untampered Jack Kirby stories in Thor (for the most part) and then read issue 90 - the first one that Larry Lieber was completely on his own to actually write a script with another artist (Al Hartley) you can see the extreme difference. EXTREME DIFFERENCE. That's not the same writer. Larry Lieber had nothing to do with Kirby’s stories BEFORE they were created. Stan Lee had nothing to do with #83-85. They began tampering with the stories in #86. When Kirby saw the credits for that book he quit - just after finishing most of #89 - reading #90, the book is finally in the hands of Lee and Lieber. And it SHOWS. One of the worst written stories of the Marvel Silver Age.

 

83-85 - Almost Pure Kirby.

86-88 - Diluted Kirby with Lee and Lieber.

89 - It’s getting worse.

90- No Kirby, all Lieber - Horrible mess.

 

FIVE: Kirby had done Thor twice before and stories like that throughout his career. He obviously was very familiar with the character. Lee had never done Thor before. Lee had never done Norse characters before. Again, Lee just didn't deal in heroic adventure type of characters. It just wasn't his forte.

 

SIX: Same thing happened with Ant-man. Kirby created that on his own out of a story he had previously done. He basically just put a superhero story hidden in a sci-fi story the same as with Thor. That's why Thor fights monsters in the first issue he appeared. This is the birth of the rest of the marvel universe. Three issues in and Lee suddenly has credit boxes for it, making claim to it. He didn’t sign the first three stories, because he had nothing to do with them - the same as he hadn’t signed ANY of Kirby’s Tales to Astonish stories (or Strange Tales) for the previous 2+ years. The exact same scenario as Thor…

 

AND… just like Thor, when he sees the Lieber script credit in this book as well…

 

SEVEN: The ORIGINAL ART from Journey Into Mystery #83 is currently being scanned by writer Michael Hill (‘According to Kirby’ and ‘Kirby at Marvel’) and what we see is Kirby’s handwriting in the word balloons. He was writing the script in for the letterer. There is absolutely no reason - if he was writing from a script, for him to dialogue the word balloons. That was the letterer’s job.

 

In later books - we see Lee’s writing - notes for Sol - or make the arm smaller or whatever. These pages are sorely lacking any Stan Lee notes (i.e. Kirby, as he’d done for the last 2+ years, turned his work in needing almost no editing). This artwork has been tucked away in a collection for decades (LOL)… but now we can see it. Kirby wrote that story on his own, using his own dialogue.

 

EIGHT: The REASONS behind both claiming to have created this version of Thor: Lee’s are simple: Protection of Intelectual property that he was trying to secure for Marvel and of course, his own fame and ego, which he’s famous for fanning the flames of.

The first: securing rights - he’d done since as far back as 1947 with ‘Secrets Behind the Comics’. In it, Lee makes the claim that Martin Goodman created Captain America, trying to erase the fact that Jack Kirby and Joe Simon created the idea while working for Goodman. That’s not a unique scenario. Goodman cheated Carl Burgos out of the Human Torch and cheated Bill Everett out of the Sub-Mariner. (The Sub-Mariner was even PRINTED elsewhere before it was brought to Goodman.)

So in 1974, this book, ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ wasn't anything new for Stan Lee. He was just doing it for HIMSELF now, instead of Martin Goodman. Stan Lee wanted to be thought of as the rightful ‘first sayer’ of all of these ideas.

This and the ‘ego’ are both selfish reasons, and ripe with the incentive to LIE in order to acheive those goals.

Kirby on the other hand would get nothing for his claims as to creating Thor. He wouldn’t get paid, or get residuals - nor was he trying to. Kirby never sued Marvel. Never asked for back pay, never asked for back credit… he was simply setting the record straight. Why go to all that trouble, when people are going to dispute his word, and gang up on him, and throw more hate at him?

The TRUTH.

It’s what it all comes down to.

 

That’s the ONE side of it…

 

The OPPOSING side claims that ‘because Stan said so’ and/or ‘because he was the editor’, as PROOF, that he created the idea of the Hammer for Thor flying, thus he should be credited as co-creator.

That’s all they have.

 

Because ‘Stan Lee said so’ and ‘Stan Lee was the editor’.

 

That’s it. 

 

Again, PROOF is not on the table here. No one was there. All we can do is look at all of the available information and make a reasonable guess. I could’ve made a number NINE, which would be Lee’s entire history of swindling, but I’d need a whole other book for that… (Hmmm....)

People can believe whatever they want, but…

Stan Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor.

Edited Monday at 04:40 AM by Prince Namor

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/21/2024 at 5:40 AM, Prince Namor said:

Stan Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor.

Correct.

These guys should get the credit.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/21/2024 at 5:40 AM, Prince Namor said:

@Zonker

And in case you missed - here's a condensed version - of why Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor:

 

ONE: Lee didn’t write heroic adventure stories. He had no interest in it. He had 20 years to create any type of comic book he wanted and the closest he came was the Black Knight that he ran out of interest in after 1 issue.

I posted ALL of the stories Lee signed his name to as writer, back in my year-by-year threads on here - the people who followed it from start to finish SEE, exactly what type of stories Lee had his hands in for the 7 years leading up to the Marvel Silver Age. There was no Flying. There were no magical hammers. There were no superheroes. There was no Outer Space. Lee had no interest in those ideas.

 

Doc Vassallo: "Stan's "Origins" stories and the ridiculous "my wife told me to do superheroes 'my' way" narrative, for a person who had exactly no interest or experience with real heroic scientific fantasy, versus someone who had been doing it all his professional life, and would continue to do so well after leaving the company. The Marvel Comics of the 1960's were launched and created/plotted by Jack Kirby (and to a slightly lesser extent, Steve Ditko), with the editor grafting dialogue after the fact. Yes, that did produce a product different than it would have been if either Kirby or Ditko did it alone, and no one is arguing that it wasn't successful. It's always just been about the creator credit. Who likes or dislikes the finished product is not the issue.”

 

TWO: Stan Lee signed most everything that he put his hands on, because he wanted to claim rights to it. He wanted to claim that he was a part of it. He wanted to get paid for it. His career is basically about signing other people’s work.

And Journey Into Mystery #83, he did not sign. (Or 84 and 85. Never missed an issue after that) At the time that may not  have seemed like a big deal, because Kirby had worked on Journey Into Mystery for the last two years PLUS, and Lee didn't sign any of those stories either. That's because Jack wrote those stories himself with no editorial interference. Understand that Lee was lying about the monster stories in Origins, saying that he and Jack worked on them is a complete falsehood. Lee never signed a single Kirby monster story during that time. Not a single one. ZERO.

Which means he didn’t write them.

 

So Jack decided to do a Thor story in Journey Into Mystery and Lee probably didn’t pay much attention to it. How can I say that? Well, in fact it wasn't just 83 he didn't sign. He didn't sign 84 or 85. So what would suddenly make #86 so significant - the fourth issue of Thor - that would make him suddenly jump on board?

Well, comics take about three months to do from start to finish (on the stands). That would, here, give Journey Into Mystery, just enough time for the letters to start pouring in - while they’re working on #86.  Lee can see its got a hugely positive reaction.

He can’t just start signing it Lee & Kirby, because…

 

THREE: THERE’S BEEN NO COLLABORATION. For the FF and Hulk… two books that Lee very OBVIOUSLY added his thoughts to - he signed them ‘Lee & Kirby’. He did this through the first 8 issues of FF and the first 4 issues of the Hulk - guess WHEN he stopped doing that and the credit boxes first popped up?

Did you say the month Journey Into Mystery #86 came out?

If you DID then you’re paying attention.

No signature of collaboration on #83-85, then suddenly a credit box on #86.

With Lee as plot and Larry Lieber as script? Why?

Because there was no collaboration on those first three issues and Lee knew he couldn’t just sign his name to the story. He COULD however claim that he let Larry dialogue the stories and take his usual credit for the plot - which is what he did. Even that’s a lie though, most likely.

 

(Kirby almost quit over it - three months later when the first book hit the stands -  and he saw it Liebers’ script credit on it. More on this later…)

 

FOUR: Story differences. If you read Journey Into Mystery #83, 84 and 85, the untampered Jack Kirby stories in Thor (for the most part) and then read issue 90 - the first one that Larry Lieber was completely on his own to actually write a script with another artist (Al Hartley) you can see the extreme difference. EXTREME DIFFERENCE. That's not the same writer. Larry Lieber had nothing to do with Kirby’s stories BEFORE they were created. Stan Lee had nothing to do with #83-85. They began tampering with the stories in #86. When Kirby saw the credits for that book he quit - just after finishing most of #89 - reading #90, the book is finally in the hands of Lee and Lieber. And it SHOWS. One of the worst written stories of the Marvel Silver Age.

 

83-85 - Almost Pure Kirby.

86-88 - Diluted Kirby with Lee and Lieber.

89 - It’s getting worse.

90- No Kirby, all Lieber - Horrible mess.

 

FIVE: Kirby had done Thor twice before and stories like that throughout his career. He obviously was very familiar with the character. Lee had never done Thor before. Lee had never done Norse characters before. Again, Lee just didn't deal in heroic adventure type of characters. It just wasn't his forte.

 

SIX: Same thing happened with Ant-man. Kirby created that on his own out of a story he had previously done. He basically just put a superhero story hidden in a sci-fi story the same as with Thor. That's why Thor fights monsters in the first issue he appeared. This is the birth of the rest of the marvel universe. Three issues in and Lee suddenly has credit boxes for it, making claim to it. He didn’t sign the first three stories, because he had nothing to do with them - the same as he hadn’t signed ANY of Kirby’s Tales to Astonish stories (or Strange Tales) for the previous 2+ years. The exact same scenario as Thor…

 

AND… just like Thor, when he sees the Lieber script credit in this book as well…

 

SEVEN: The ORIGINAL ART from Journey Into Mystery #83 is currently being scanned by writer Michael Hill (‘According to Kirby’ and ‘Kirby at Marvel’) and what we see is Kirby’s handwriting in the word balloons. He was writing the script in for the letterer. There is absolutely no reason - if he was writing from a script, for him to dialogue the word balloons. That was the letterer’s job.

 

In later books - we see Lee’s writing - notes for Sol - or make the arm smaller or whatever. These pages are sorely lacking any Stan Lee notes (i.e. Kirby, as he’d done for the last 2+ years, turned his work in needing almost no editing). This artwork has been tucked away in a collection for decades (LOL)… but now we can see it. Kirby wrote that story on his own, using his own dialogue.

 

EIGHT: The REASONS behind both claiming to have created this version of Thor: Lee’s are simple: Protection of Intelectual property that he was trying to secure for Marvel and of course, his own fame and ego, which he’s famous for fanning the flames of.

The first: securing rights - he’d done since as far back as 1947 with ‘Secrets Behind the Comics’. In it, Lee makes the claim that Martin Goodman created Captain America, trying to erase the fact that Jack Kirby and Joe Simon created the idea while working for Goodman. That’s not a unique scenario. Goodman cheated Carl Burgos out of the Human Torch and cheated Bill Everett out of the Sub-Mariner. (The Sub-Mariner was even PRINTED elsewhere before it was brought to Goodman.)

So in 1974, this book, ‘Origins of Marvel Comics’ wasn't anything new for Stan Lee. He was just doing it for HIMSELF now, instead of Martin Goodman. Stan Lee wanted to be thought of as the rightful ‘first sayer’ of all of these ideas.

This and the ‘ego’ are both selfish reasons, and ripe with the incentive to LIE in order to acheive those goals.

Kirby on the other hand would get nothing for his claims as to creating Thor. He wouldn’t get paid, or get residuals - nor was he trying to. Kirby never sued Marvel. Never asked for back pay, never asked for back credit… he was simply setting the record straight. Why go to all that trouble, when people are going to dispute his word, and gang up on him, and throw more hate at him?

The TRUTH.

It’s what it all comes down to.

 

That’s the ONE side of it…

 

The OPPOSING side claims that ‘because Stan said so’ and/or ‘because he was the editor’, as PROOF, that he created the idea of the Hammer for Thor flying, thus he should be credited as co-creator.

That’s all they have.

 

Because ‘Stan Lee said so’ and ‘Stan Lee was the editor’.

 

That’s it. 

 

Again, PROOF is not on the table here. No one was there. All we can do is look at all of the available information and make a reasonable guess. I could’ve made a number NINE, which would be Lee’s entire history of swindling, but I’d need a whole other book for that… (Hmmm....)

People can believe whatever they want, but…

Stan Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Thor.

The contents of this particular post alone should be sufficient to demolish the doubters, but, as we have seen, they do not reach for the white flag easily.

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

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

We're talking about the experience for the reader. 

Everyone, EVERYONE agrees that Marvel's stories were different than their competitors. 

Even Marvel's competitors agree and in some ways changed their approach to creating comics, as Zonker showed. 

Who or what was responsible for Marvel's difference in your opinion? 

On 10/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 1:00 PM, 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?

Successful from the POV of the reader, obviously, as this is the only type of success that matters when it comes to putting out a publication for reading. 

Are you going to argue that Marvel wasn't successful?

On 10/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 1:00 PM, 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?

Of course not.

I'm asking because this is the first time I've heard of this theory. 

So you're saying that the "Marvel Method" was always a planned theft scheme by Stan from the very beginning?

On 10/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/19/2024 at 1:00 PM, 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.

Can you point out what / where you give Stan credit for in regards to Marvel's success?

In 120 pages I don't recall you pointing it out once. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/20/2024 at 11:06 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/20/2024 at 7:23 AM, VintageComics said:

It's impossible to refute someone who doesn't use rational logic and reason. 

I clearly showed that Stan's 'lie', the radio interview quote regarding the creation of Thor which you posted some 60 or 70 pages ago had taken Stan's words OUT OF CONTEXT and you EDITED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING to make your point. 

So a "Chuck Gower lied" exposé about Stan Lee's 'lie' was blatant and obvious to everyone, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge it. 

No. This is incorrect. I used a quote from Origins of Marvel Comics, not from any radio program, so you are clearly mistaken here.

Secondly, I didn't edit it or take it out of context at all.

You are making this up. You;re either mistaken or you are purposely telling a lie. 

I used the word radio only as a reference. Do you seriously not know which quote I'm talking about?

It was the 'radio interview quote regarding the creation of Thor that was recollected in Origins' to be more precise. 

I think everyone except you understood which quote of Stan's we were talking about since we've been discussing it for three weeks, but I'll quote it and you in it's entirety for my rebuttal to make sure there's no misunderstandings. 

 

Edited Monday at 02:17 PM by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 4:53 PM, Prince Namor said:

So Roy ( @VintageComics ) is saying that... despite some who may find it to be a scam that took advantage of freelance talent... we must look at the SUCCESS of the system as to what is really important. If it produced results, it must be ok? Morally, who cares, as long as bg bucks are made?

I've heard this from Lee apologists over the years and it still BAFFLES me...

NOBODY has stated this.

NOBODY has agreed that moral or ethical compromise is acceptable throughout this entire discussion. 

Please provide a quote where someone, or where I have stated this.

[VintageComics]

On 10/3/2024 at 10:17 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.

This quote of yours above is the one in question.

The point of your post, as you explain, is to help people understand who "REALLY (most likely) influenced Kirby's look for Thor." [all your words]

You provide a Kirby quote where Kirby says this:

“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.”

 

Then, as a counterpoint to Kirby's quote, to 'prove' that Stan was "stealing" from Kirby, you offer this edited quote of Stan's from Origins:

“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!”

Then, you go on to state with your own words:

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

So you're clearly stating that Stan is taking credit for adding Thor's hammer as a part of Thor's look.

Is that correct?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any other way to understand or conclude what you stated here in your last sentence?

If I'm misunderstanding, please help me understand what you meant with that concluding sentence. 

Edited Monday at 02:16 PM by VintageComics

[Forbush-Man]

I can't help but notice the difference in the reactions by some to adverse remarks about Stan Lee's claims to creating characters, and the reactions and statements of others to the Roy Thomas claim of co-creating Wolverine.  Most of the responses by industry professionals is along the lines of "editors made a salary, they may have given guidance or suggestions, but the credit for creation should go to those who were actually involved"  On Roy Thomas's claims to co-creator of Wolverine.

[VintageComics]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

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

In your words, what did Lee say was the purpose of the Marvel Method or why was it created?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:28 PM, VintageComics said:

We're talking about the experience for the reader. 

Everyone, EVERYONE agrees that Marvel's stories were different than their competitors. 

Even Marvel's competitors agree and in some ways changed their approach to creating comics, as Zonker showed. 

Who or what was responsible for Marvel's difference in your opinion? 

Depends on the book. Not all Marvel Comics were created equal.

As a whole, Lee used manipulation propaganda techniques he learned in the military. Telling people over and over and over again, "This is the greatest thing you've ever read" while telling them that they are true 'Culture lovers", obviously can and did have an effect.

Not on the same books though.

Some sold better than others. Why do you think that is?

On 10/21/2024 at 8:28 PM, VintageComics said:

Successful from the POV of the reader, obviously, as this is the only type of success that matters when it comes to putting out a publication for reading. 

Are you going to argue that Marvel wasn't successful?

Successful when? And by what gauge?

Marvel was successful in that they grew every year in the 60's. They never sold as many comics as DC or Archie during that time though. 

If Marvel was so popular in the 60's, why did they not have the sales leaders EVER during that time period?

What success exactly do you mean? They WERE successful. But so was DC. So was Archie.

On 10/21/2024 at 8:28 PM, VintageComics said:

Of course not.

I'm asking because this is the first time I've heard of this theory. 

So you're saying that the "Marvel Method" was always a planned theft scheme by Stan from the very beginning?

Yeah, pretty much. It's a bit more complicated than that. Probably something I should do an essay on.

But it starts with Goodman wanting to keep IP for the company. 

On 10/21/2024 at 8:28 PM, VintageComics said:

Can you point out what / where you give Stan credit for in regards to Marvel's success?

In 120 pages I don't recall you pointing it out once. 

I just said something AGAIN, a few posts back:

"Lee DID have input on Thor from #86 and up."

[Prince Namor]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:36 PM, VintageComics said:

I used the word radio only as a reference. Do you seriously not know which quote I'm talking about?

It was the 'radio interview quote regarding the creation of Thor that was recollected in Origins' to be more precise. 

I think everyone except you understood which quote of Stan's we were talking about since we've been discussing it for three weeks, but I'll quote it and you in it's entirety for my rebuttal to make sure there's no misunderstandings. 

The radio quote had to do with WHEN he said it - another conversation that I didn't really get involved in.