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

[Prince Namor]

On 10/14/2024 at 12:23 PM, ttfitz said:

I find myself coming back to read more of this thread again and again, I don't know why (calgon take me away)....

Anyway, I'm still back on page 37, so maybe this has come up in the next 60 plus pages, but.

Not exactly what you are asking for, but I found this interesting - from Amazing Fantasy #15:

And Fantastic Four #1 (note: not my scan and I don't own a copy, so I can't be 100% sure this is how it was originally):

He changed it a bit by ASM #100.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/13/2024 at 10:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

He changed it a bit by ASM #100.

Was any comic company giving a creator credit to someone who had left the company or was not purportedly working on the book at that point in time?

Edited October 14 by sfcityduck

[PreHero]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:17 PM, Zonker said:

A couple of people here have gotten hung up on Stan's use of the word "recent."  Take a look again at the page in question. (below).  The way I read it, these are nested memories Stan is describing.

Step 1: Stan in 1974 is remembering for the reader how Thor came to be created in late 1961 or early 1962.
Step 2: Stan-1974 remembers Stan-1962 being stuck, until Stan-1962 remembered a then-recent radio interview that occurred between the host and Stan-1961.

So, Stan-1974 is telling us a story about what was going through Stan-1962's head, including a then-recent radio interview he participated in as Stan-1961.  

If anyone has a different way of reading it, please enlighten me.

I'm one of those that sees it as recent to 1974, not 1961.  If it was from 1961, why use the word recent, just leave it off.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.  Do you have any information on a 1961 radio interview?  Without that, no way to prove 1961/1974 nor disprove 1961/1974.

BTW, What was Stan first interview?

Edited October 14 by PreHero

[PreHero]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:01 PM, PreHero said:

Timeframe an artist is talking about is critical when using a Marvel Method quotes:

Wanted to give a fair and balanced view of Dick and John's comments from above, which relate to how Stan's method changed during different (later) timeframes:

Dick Ayers (referring to Sgt Fury #23): "Sometimes on Sgt Fury, well, a few times, why Stan would say, "Oh boy, I'm stuck this month.  You think up the plot!".  And I did."  CBM #98

John Romita Sr: "The only thing he used to do from 1966-72 was come in and leave a note on my drawing table saying "Next month, the Rhino." That's all; he wouldn't tell me anything; how to handle it. Then he would say "The Kingpin." I would then take it upon myself to put some kind of distinctive look to the guy. For instance, if it's the kingpin of crime, I don't want him to look like another guy in a suit who in silhouette looks like every other criminal. So I made him a 400-pound monster; that was my idea. I made him bald, I put the stickpin on him, I gave him that kind of tycoon look.".  CBA #6

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:01 PM, PreHero said:

Timeframe an artist is talking about is critical when using a Marvel Method quotes:

Dick Ayers discussing Marvel Method: "It worked good when it was with Stan.  There was some kind of simpatico thing going there.  I'd worked with Stan since 1951.  He wrote all of my Wyatt Earp stories, and then those little short stories that he wrote all the time.  But don't forget that, in the beginning, he too wrote his stories in the regular full script method.  But as the books got more popular and more numerous, and because he was doing most of the writing himself, he had to find short cuts.  First of all, I noticed I would get just the dialogue, and from what the dialogue was saying, I could gather what the scene was.  I had no problems.  And then he came up with the synopsis.  The first one I had came on the Two-Gun Kid, a story called "The Bronc Buster" or something, where the guy's at a rodeo.  It was a little short story.  He said, "Here try this", and he gave me a paragraph for a synopsis.  Bingo, it worked great!"  CBM #98.  

This story appeared in TGK #63 (5/63).  Later in same quote, Dick talks about a sleepless night where his wife suggests a story about a nun - that appeared in Sgt Fury #23 (10/65).

John Romita Sr discussing how Stan and Jack worked:  "You may have heard I used to drive home with them; whenever he was in for a story conference, Stan would drive Jack home. My house was on the way, so they'd drive me home, and then take Jack home. Sitting in the back seat of Stan's convertible with the top down, going up Queens Boulevard, listening to them plot stories, I felt like I was sitting behind Cecil B. DeMille's director's chair. It was the most wonderful thing; I felt like a kid back there."  "I knew that even when I heard them plotting in other instances! [laughter] Jack would say, "Stanley, I think I've got an idea. How 'bout this?" Stan would say, "That's not bad, Jack, but I'd rather see it this way." Jack would absolutely forget what Stan said, and Stan would forget what Jack said. [laughter] I would bet my house that Jack never read the books after Stan wrote them; that's why he could claim with a straight face that Stan never wrote anything except what Jack put in the notes. He was kidding himself; he never read them."  Comic Book Artist #6

Of course! 

That's why what Larry Hama was getting paid 20 years into the company's history is irrelevant to what Stan Lee's salary was in 1961. 

That's why context is important. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. 

That's why proper quoting of sources is important. 

That last Romita Sr. quote is an incredible insight into the friendship these guys all had at one point. It's a beautiful thing to see. 

Thanks for sharing those. They were great. 

Edited October 14 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 12:15 AM, PreHero said:

BTW, What was Stan first interview?

Great question.

[chrisco37]

My Top 5 Most Evil:

1. Nazis

2. Stan Lee

3. (TIE)  Osama Bin Laden / Dan Snyder 

4. Carole Baskin

5. OJ

[Zonker]

On 10/14/2024 at 3:15 AM, PreHero said:

I'm one of those that sees it as recent to 1974, not 1961.  If it was from 1961, why use the word recent, just leave it off.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.  Do you have any information on a 1961 radio interview?  Without that, no way to prove 1961/1974 nor disprove 1961/1974.

BTW, What was Stan first interview?

Well, let's try it this way: If Stan in 1974 was referencing a recent-to-1974 radio interview, what relevance would that have to the overall story of being stuck on deciding what should be the next Marvel super-hero to come out some time prior to JIM #83?  That's the larger narrative that has the radio interview anecdote embedded within it.

Edited October 14 by Zonker

[themagicrobot]

In March 1975 Stan was in the UK and was interviewed by Charles Murray for the next edition of the Fanzine Fantasy Advertiser. (Note the early artwok by Bryan Talbot).

Charles Murray: Would you mind discussing why Kirby left Marvel?

Stan Lee: Not at all. Go ahead.

Charles Murray: Could you tell me why he did his 'Fourth World' books for National? Wouldn't he have been able to do them for Marvel?

Stan Lee: He could have. I don't really know why he left. I think it was a personal thing. Jack never told me. I think it could be as simple as the fact that he got sick of everything he did saying "by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby".(Laughter) Maybe he just wanted to do his own thing and have the books saying "by Jack Kirby". But, as far as I was concerned, if he'd have told me he wanted to do his own book, I’d have said fine, and let him write it and draw it, but he never said it to me. I've heard that he was tired of doing things that he never owned, to copyright his characters, shares of the profits, and so on. I wish I'd had the same thing, I don't blame him. But what surprises me is that he doesn't have any copyright now at National, as far as I know. So, I really don’t know why he left. And I will say, in all honestly that I'd like Jack to come back, I want him to come back eventually. I sort of half—expect that he'll come back when his contract ends — I think he'd be making a mistake not to come back. I'd say he did his best work at Marvel, his style is pure Marvel. Also I must admit that he has had so many books at National that have failed, whereas if they'd been for Marvel, I think they would still be being published -- especially New Gods. The thing about Jack is that though he's a good story man, and good artist, I feel he needs some control, some editing. He tends to get too wrapped up in what he wants to do that he forgets what the readers might want. I think his material was a little better with us because we exercised some control. I remember on the very first issue of the Fantastic Four, I'd suggested in the synopsis a monster, and Jack drew a hundred red monsters. I said, "Jack, it's more dramatic to have one monster that the reader worries about, than a hundred monsters." The trouble with Jack is that he's so imaginative he tries to put every idea he can think of on every page. He tries to make every page a whole new original thought and action. That isn't good story. You have to build up a mood. You've got to take one idea and stretch it over a few pages and milk the utmost drama out of it. It's a matter of pacing, sack goes too fast, you don't have a chance to catch your breath reading his stories.

 

[comicwiz]

duplication (received error it didn't post, see below)

Edited October 14 by comicwiz

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 11:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's why Lee stopped working with newer artists... they couldn't do the work for him. 

Suddenly Lee's 'characterisation' and 'creativity' dried up. 

Second attempt at posting this here (first vapourized AGAIN)

Yep, and Chaykin touches on this in the video I posted earlier.

I found his views on Houseroy to be interesting. I wonder how he feels now after what happened with the Wolverine co-creator rights.

A bit off-thread, but I'd mentioned the kerfuffle that occurred when Charles Lippincott felt his involvement with bringing Star Wars to Marvel was being erased. Around that time, he had decided he wanted to pursue a 40 year anniversary or tribute to his earliest promotion of the Star Wars film in 1976, which he referred to as Mid America Con (MAC) 1976. Below are photos of the table at SD, and a photo Steve Sansweet shared of the set-up at MAC. Charlie was calling this MAC 2, and the third photo shows the original stack of SW 1 he was comped after the series was released. Unfortunately the MAC 2 show was beset with a lot of issues, ranging mainly from those on the ground not doing what they promised, and Charlie being left on the lurch with most of the expenses. The show did however provide he, Thomas and Chaykin to appear, and sign a bunch of books, and it's why you see so many Sig Series books triple signed by them. The appearance may also have relented some of the friction from the kerfuffle, and I feel, may have also given Houseroy a taste of what Star Wars fandom brings to organized events. It's not a stretch to believe this either, because Charlie would often be surprised and amazed with fan reactions and the extent they'd go to whenever new films/TV series were released, and he was one of the names inextricably tied to the franchise pretty much from the beginning.

 

Edited October 14 by comicwiz

[comicwiz]

On 10/14/2024 at 12:01 AM, PreHero said:

Timeframe an artist is talking about is critical when using a Marvel Method quotes

For posterity and for full context, click screenshot below to take you to the source:

[jjonahjameson11]

AAARRGGHH!

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:06 PM, themagicrobot said:

In March 1975 Stan was in the UK and was interviewed by Charles Murray for the next edition of the Fanzine Fantasy Advertiser. (Note the early artwok by Bryan Talbot).

Charles Murray: Would you mind discussing why Kirby left Marvel?

Stan Lee: Not at all. Go ahead.

Charles Murray: Could you tell me why he did his 'Fourth World' books for National? Wouldn't he have been able to do them for Marvel?

Stan Lee: He could have. I don't really know why he left. I think it was a personal thing. Jack never told me. I think it could be as simple as the fact that he got sick of everything he did saying "by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby".(Laughter) Maybe he just wanted to do his own thing and have the books saying "by Jack Kirby". But, as far as I was concerned, if he'd have told me he wanted to do his own book, I’d have said fine, and let him write it and draw it, but he never said it to me. I've heard that he was tired of doing things that he never owned, to copyright his characters, shares of the profits, and so on. I wish I'd had the same thing, I don't blame him. But what surprises me is that he doesn't have any copyright now at National, as far as I know. So, I really don’t know why he left. And I will say, in all honestly that I'd like Jack to come back, I want him to come back eventually. I sort of half—expect that he'll come back when his contract ends — I think he'd be making a mistake not to come back. I'd say he did his best work at Marvel, his style is pure Marvel. Also I must admit that he has had so many books at National that have failed, whereas if they'd been for Marvel, I think they would still be being published -- especially New Gods. The thing about Jack is that though he's a good story man, and good artist, I feel he needs some control, some editing. He tends to get too wrapped up in what he wants to do that he forgets what the readers might want. I think his material was a little better with us because we exercised some control. I remember on the very first issue of the Fantastic Four, I'd suggested in the synopsis a monster, and Jack drew a hundred red monsters. I said, "Jack, it's more dramatic to have one monster that the reader worries about, than a hundred monsters." The trouble with Jack is that he's so imaginative he tries to put every idea he can think of on every page. He tries to make every page a whole new original thought and action. That isn't good story. You have to build up a mood. You've got to take one idea and stretch it over a few pages and milk the utmost drama out of it. It's a matter of pacing, sack goes too fast, you don't have a chance to catch your breath reading his stories.

 

Fantasy Advertiser and BEM.  Remember them well.

Great fanzines.

Edited October 14 by Ken Aldred

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:49 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

AAARRGGHH!

You never know, there might be one in the middle that's survived in NM / M condition.

 

[comicwiz]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:04 AM, Ken Aldred said:

You never know, there might be one in the middle that's survived in NM / M condition.

 

There's a long'ish story on this, which I'll summarize for brevity. By the time Charlie asked for my opinion (which was to keep it intact), the bundle had already been untied. I was trying to have the pre-screening done for him by Steve B, but that never materialized. Most were eventually signed at MAC 2, and later he tried to sell a few as a fundraiser to recoup his expenses, but I don't know what developed from that point forward. I know somewhere in my PM's is a list of what grades he attained, but I don't think or recall any hitting nosebleed grades. This was more about the provenance and historical significance of the books rather than a contest of grade attainment. I personally would have loved to have been able to acquire this intact, as is.

Edited October 14 by comicwiz

[marvelcollector]

On 10/14/2024 at 3:15 AM, PreHero said:

I'm one of those that sees it as recent to 1974, not 1961.  If it was from 1961, why use the word recent, just leave it off.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.  Do you have any information on a 1961 radio interview?  Without that, no way to prove 1961/1974 nor disprove 1961/1974.

BTW, What was Stan first interview?

I think the last two sentences in the paragraph indicate he was referring to a 1961 timeframe.

"And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer."

Leading up to that he's talking about the conversation with the radio host and how it supposedly got him thinking.

He wouldn't have needed an answer in 1974; it was resolved in 1961.

[Zonker]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

Can anyone here post the details of how Stan got paid by Marvel at the various times under discussion here?

E.g. did he have a contract for a salary? Did he get a page rate? Was it a hybrid deal? The Marvel method was never a secret -- is the contention being made that his employe was ignorant of the Marvel method? What happened when they found out?  

I'm not seeing any evidence on this and I'm curious how you can assert Stan Lee was "stealing" other people's pay without providing such basic facts.

 

 

I've seen quotes from the Stan Lee deposition.  A quick Google search pulls up the below reference within the comment section of Jim Shooter's blog.  It's not the original source, but matches what I remember reading. Perhaps @Prince Namor has a link to the original.

 

Lee's deposition comments:
Q. How were you paid in connection with the work as Editor and as a writer?
STAN LEE: I received a salary which paid me as Editor and Art Director, but I got paid on a freelance basis for the stories that I wrote.
Q. And when you say you were paid on a freelance basis, how were you paid? On what basis?
STAN LEE: The same as every other writer. I was paid per page, so much money per page of script.

[Zonker]

Pay equity is such a tricky thing. Is it fair that the most talented senior engineer on the team is almost always paid less than the engineering manager?  Does it make a difference whether the manager is mostly hands-off technically, or instead gets deeply involved in troubleshooting and design reviews? What about if the hands-off manager’s team is wildly successful, while the hands-on manager is working with a struggling team?  Who should get compensated more?

Closer to the subject at hand, some pencilers provide very loose pencils, some quite detailed.  I don’t have a great example, as we don’t see too many un-inked penciled pages out there to compare.  But imagine the very detailed pencils by someone like Neal Adams versus very loose thumbnails by a fictitious Joe Sketcher. Is Joe Sketcher stealing pay from his inker, since he’s leaving the inker with more detail to add?  Or is that factored into the different page rates in place for different pencilers and inkers?

Speaking of inkers, there are some inkers like Wally Wood or John Severin who dominate whomever they are penciling.  Almost like they are completely redrawing the pencil artist’s work.  Then you have someone like Vince Colletta, who reportedly would erase penciled artwork he didn’t have the time to ink.  And would it surprise anyone if we learned that Colletta’s inking page rate was actually higher than his contemporaries, because he brought more value to his employer by making sure the books got out the door on time, no matter what it took?

It's a can of worms!  
 

[grendel013]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:04 AM, Ken Aldred said:

You never know, there might be one in the middle that's survived in NM / M condition.

 

Doubtful. That bundle got hammered.

On 10/14/2024 at 10:12 AM, comicwiz said:

There's a long'ish story on this, which I'll summarize for brevity. By the time Charlie asked for my opinion (which was to keep it intact), the bundle had already been untied. I was trying to have the pre-screening done for him by Steve B, but that never materialized. Most were eventually signed at MAC 2, and later he tried to sell a few as a fundraiser to recoup his expenses, but I don't know what developed from that point forward. I know somewhere in my PM's is a list of what grades he attained, but I don't think or recall any hitting nosebleed grades. This was more about the provenance and historical significance of the books rather than a contest of grade attainment. I personally would have loved to have been able to acquire this intact, as is.

Imagine the encapsulation process if they sent to grade as is.