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

[jimjum12]

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.

This reminds me of the rumors of a bundle of Hulk 1's that came into a DC area show years ago. The sources were reputable. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 14 by jimjum12

[vheflin]

[jimjum12]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:14 AM, marvelcollector said:

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.

My only problem is in the automatic assignation of malevolent intent that seems a bit too pervasive. I mean, everyone knows that Stan was never the same after that 1967 speaking engagement at UCLA where he asked for 4 sugar cubes in his coffee. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:24 AM, Zonker said:

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.

That's helpful information. Typically, what was meant by "per page of script" was the "per the page lengnth of the story." E.g. a five page story earned you less than an 8 page story. You weren't paid by the number of pages you turned in. And what was meant by "script" under the Marvel method was essentially the dialoguing because there was no formal script. The artists all knew this.

I've seen no evidence that Marvel ever objected to this arrangement. It was certainly no secret how the Marvel method worked. Lee explained the method in the pages of Marvel comics. So it appears that Marvel recognized that Stan's dialogue had enough value to warrant the extra pay on top of his editor salary. As we saw in the Ditko quotes upthread that Ditko acknowledged that readers loved Lee's dialogue despite that Ditko found it not in keeping with his vision of the book. And the history of Marvel comics fandom seems to confirm that Stan's dialogue was appreciated by fandom.

Which pushes the emphasis over to the artists' contracts. All the evidence seems to indicate that the artists also knew what the Marvel menthod was and negotiated their page rates with Marvel based on a full understanding of what their obligations would be. Jack Kirby stated even late in his lime that he was happy with his page rate at Marvel. Ditko says he got paid for what he did on Spiderman -- the book where he took formal control of all plotting. 

So I really think there's no validity to this "stealing" charge. I do agree that a wordless story could have been an issue for Lee's employer if they objected to him taking a payment when he did no dialogue -- but there's no evidence that Marvel had any objection. Stan Lee wasn't stealing from Marvel.

As for the artist of the wordless story, under the Marvel method the amount of work done on a wordless story is no greater than for a story with words. The artists turned in pencilled pages and got paid based on the number of pages in the story. Still, to satisfy the artist, Lee also did agree to give the artist extra compensation in form of the letterer's cut (a bonus since the artist did no lettering). So that example seems to be much ado about nothing.

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

 

[jimjum12]

On 10/14/2024 at 4:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

That's helpful information. Typically, what was meant by "per page of script" was the "per the page lengnth of the story." E.g. a five page story earned you less than an 8 page story. You weren't paid by the number of pages you turned in. And what was meant by "script" under the Marvel method was essentially the dialoguing because there was no formal script. The artists all knew this.

I've seen no evidence that Marvel ever objected to this arrangement. It was certainly no secret how the Marvel method worked. Lee explained the method in the pages of Marvel comics. So it appears that Marvel recognized that Stan's dialogue had enough value to warrant the extra pay on top of his editor salary. As we saw in the Ditko quotes upthread that Ditko acknowledged that readers loved Lee's dialogue despite that Ditko found it not in keeping with his vision of the book. And the history of Marvel comics fandom seems to confirm that Stan's dialogue was appreciated by fandom.

Which pushes the emphasis over to the artists' contracts. All the evidence seems to indicate that the artists also knew what the Marvel menthod was and negotiated their page rates with Marvel based on a full understanding of what their obligations would be. Jack Kirby stated even late in his lime that he was happy with his page rate at Marvel. Ditko says he got paid for what he did on Spiderman -- the book where he took formal control of all plotting. 

So I really think there's no validity to this "stealing" charge. I do agree that a wordless story could have been an issue for Lee's employer if they objected to him taking a payment when he did no dialogue -- but there's no evidence that Marvel had any objection. Stan Lee wasn't stealing from Marvel.

As for the artist of the wordless story, under the Marvel method the amount of work done on a wordless story is no greater than for a story with words. The artists turned in pencilled pages and got paid based on the number of pages in the story. Still, to satisfy the artist, Lee also did agree to give the artist extra compensation in form of the letterer's cut (a bonus since the artist did no lettering). So that example seems to be much ado about nothing.

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

 

This reminds me of the CA month, Attack of the Assistant Editors, or some such. The whole month had books that were wordless. John Byrne, being the cut up that he was, did an Alpha Flight issue titled "Snow Blind." ...it was not only without lettering, but being in a blizzard, each panel was artless, just white.  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Prince Namor]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:24 PM, Zonker said:

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.

Of note...

Lee did two depositions - the one by Marvel's attorney's and then the one by Toberoff for the other side. 

The Toberoff deposition is heavily redacted. There's around 300 pages of Lee's deposition under lock and key. 

(Romita's only had like 51 of the 274 pages available)

All of the comic book sites reported the depositions as COMPLETE, despite many of us SHOWING them it wasn't true. Guys like Dan Best just lied, saying it was all there. The lengths that people will go to to protect Marvel Comics and Stan Lee is astounding.

Anyone can read this stuff and SEE it's missing almost 75% of testimony.

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00141/356975/102/10.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawF6c9xleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbM3BhkqFLz8Lw5U3E6Zz5jhSv63aLS2FYnVjWk3RHRYo2laM6h-Tbd2yA_aem_fjatj-HRwZIIvZvtZR30Uw

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

Of note...

Lee did two depositions - the one by Marvel's attorney's and then the one by Toberoff for the other side. 

The Toberoff deposition is heavily redacted. There's around 300 pages of Lee's deposition under lock and key. 

(Romita's only had like 51 of the 274 pages available)

All of the comic book sites reported the depositions as COMPLETE, despite many of us SHOWING them it wasn't true. Guys like Dan Best just lied, saying it was all there. The lengths that people will go to to protect Marvel Comics and Stan Lee is astounding.

Anyone can read this stuff and SEE it's missing almost 75% of testimony.

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00141/356975/102/10.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawF6c9xleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbM3BhkqFLz8Lw5U3E6Zz5jhSv63aLS2FYnVjWk3RHRYo2laM6h-Tbd2yA_aem_fjatj-HRwZIIvZvtZR30Uw

Why do you think there were redactions? A party can't force a redaction just because it views the testimony as damaging. There has to be a valid reasons. And Toberoff had no reason to agree to redactions to save Stan's reputation. Quite the opposite.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:27 PM, Zonker said:

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!  
 

Well... that's why certain levels of pay scale were different for who was doing the work. Neal Adams was going to get a higher page rate than Joe Sketcher, depending on popularity, assignment and negotiation.

I don't think pay equity is what is at question here.

Nor what anyone would 'agree' to in terms of what is or isn't work.

If I talk my employees into kneeling and kissing the top of my feet upon entering the job site every day and they even sign a contract saying, "Yeah, I'm fine with that", it doesn't protect me in any way from a judge saying, "Uh, no, that's abusive".

Acceptance of behavior isn't necessarily protection from the law.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 7:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

Why do you think there were redactions? A party can't force a redaction just because it views the testimony as damaging. There has to be a valid reasons. And Toberoff had no reason to agree to redactions to save Stan's reputation. Quite the opposite.

They were available during the trial. Redacted for the public.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

Earliest comic book character named Spider-man was in a Centaur/AKA Marvel comic in 1938 (reprinting a newspaper strip from 1930).  The name and versions of a costume appeared in numerous places in the 1950s  (include Atlas/AKA Marvel)

Edited October 15 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[sfcityduck]

On 10/13/2024 at 8:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Remember "Defenders of Earth #1 (Jan, 1987)? It says, "Written by Lee with an assist by Harris". This series was an adaptation of an animated TV series by Marvel that I guess Lee wanted a part of thinking it might be the next Star Wars or something. 

 

--Michael Higgins (speaking about the series): " Stan never plotted anything. I was his editor on an issue of DEFENDERS OF THE EARTH. I asked if he wanted to write the book. He agreed. I called him several weeks later... wondering when I was getting the plot... and Stan began by asking me where the pages were! AS the "writer" it never crossed his mind that he should be providing a plot. I had to have someone else do the plot (He means 'story'. It was Bob Harras. Stan never put a story together for it) . When the art was done, I sent it to Stan with a copy proof of the plot.

Stan complained.

He told me that next time... he wanted me to copy the plot onto the pages in the borders next to each panel.

100% true story. 

Oh, when issue #1 was published,Stan also called up and was livid (he reached Shooter's secretary) about the fact that I credited the person who actually DID the plot (he means 'story', Stan had nothing to do with the 'story') with a "Writing Assist." I didn't return the call."

 

 

Speaking of context: Who made the parenthetical inserts above after the word "plot" in some of the Higgins quotes as follows ""(He means 'story'. It was Bob Harras. Stan never put a story together for it)" and "(he means 'story', Stan had nothing to do with the 'story')"?

Because it doesn't look like from the quotes that Higgins meant the word "plot" to mean "story" based on this quote from Higgins: "When the art was done, I sent it to Stan with a copy proof of the plot. Stan complained. He told me that next time... he wanted me to copy the plot onto the pages in the borders next to each panel."  That quote is entirely consistent with "plot" meaning plot. After all, under the Marvel method Stan would be adding dialogue with reference to margin notes adding a few words of context as to what the action signified and clarifying any ambiguity in the art. 

In fact, all six of the uses of the word "plot" are consistent with "plot" meaning plot. Not sure why two of the uses of "plot" are altered to "story," which changes the meaning considerably. Did you make that change?

Based on the use of the word "plot," which Higgins clearly understood to mean "plot" and not "story" as he was a comic editor, it sure looks like Stan thought this comic being done using the Marvel method. Maybe it wasn't. But it looks like Stan thought it was and his job was to do the dialogue. And given that the dialogue is the words that go into the book, it's pretty reasonable for Stan to have thought that maybe Harras should have a plotting credit of a writing credit since he did not assist Stan with the dialogue.

And this highlights the elephant in the room that you are ignoring. When Kirby says "write" he doesn't mean write the words that appear in the comic. He means draws the action of a story that he came up with in his head one page at a time without any preconceived detailed "full script" or even a detailed "plot." Which is why Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's plotting sessions were pretty short. Shorter probably then what he had with Ditko until plotting was handed over to him. Because after a while, the plot was an agreed upon scenario which Jack Kirby would then take and flesh out as he drew it. Then he'd hand it over to Stan, and Stan would supply the words which defined the characterizations. Ditko got this right when he called him and Stan co-creators even when Ditko was plotting - because the story was a collaboration with three parts (1) plot, (2) art and (3) writing the words that appeared in the comic (dialogue/captions/sound effects).

From the 1989 TCJ interview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Edited October 15 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:45 PM, Prince Namor said:

They were available during the trial. Redacted for the public.

Exactly. But they were in federal court. You can't get things redacted in federal court unless you have a valid reason. So why were they redacted?

You seem to be implying it was wrongdoing. That's not how it works.

Edited October 15 by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

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

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?

You know, the more I read this, the more I hear it in the tense that Stan is talking in the "present" time, closer to circa 1974 than 1961, and that Stan is referencing his 1967 interview.

His thoughts are very "stream of consciousness" and he could very well have been saying "And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer." in agreement with the 1967 interviewer, as to how he concluded the same thing in 1961 as the interviewer concluded in 1967, so in essence is saying "And that was what grabbed me [as well - that we were building a 20th century mythology]. That was the answer."

The section is not very well written, and this interpretation does make sense literally, and analytically. It is a realistic, possible interpretation. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

If I talk my employees into kneeling and kissing the top of my feet upon entering the job site every day and they even sign a contract saying, "Yeah, I'm fine with that", it doesn't protect me in any way from a judge saying, "Uh, no, that's abusive".

 

Actually, if the contract called for that, and it was freely entered into, it probably does protect you. Might be different if the contract was against public policy (e.g. sexual services etc.) but that's not what you are talking about.

[Dave2739]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:58 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Earliest comic book character named Spider-man was in a Centaur/AKA Marvel comic in 1938 (reprinting a newspaper strip from 1930).  The name and versions of a costume appeared in numerous places in the 1950s  (include Atlas/AKA Marvel)

Alex Ross did this Ben Cooper inspired design for the "real" Spidey. I think it's neat. Sorry to interrupt.

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 3:38 AM, chrisco37 said:

My Top 5 Most Evil:

1. Nazis

2. Stan Lee

3. (TIE)  Osama Bin Laden / Dan Snyder 

4. Carole Baskin

5. OJ

6. Vintage Comics

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 12:26 AM, PreHero said:

 

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

The Kingpin looks a lot like Sydney Greenstreet. And upthread I point out that Ditko has written that Stan had told Ditko he wanted Spider-Man villains to be big guys like Sydney Greenstreet. Not a stretch to conclude that Stan told Romita that also, and whether it was (1) subconscious or (2) intentional and subsequently forgotten, JR S. chose to draw the Kingpin to look like Sydney Greenstreet.

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:06 AM, 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.

 

This part below in particular rings true to me, because it jives with EVERYTHING we've discussed about Kirby for 100 pages, and how his work was always better when he was managed, or better put paired with someone such as Simon, or Kirby (or Roz).

This is why weeks ago I called his output "visceral". It's pure energy, but it needs to be tamed to be more digestible for a larger population, and Stan confirms just this here. 

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.

[marvelcollector]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:14 PM, VintageComics said:

You know, the more I read this, the more I hear it in the tense that Stan is talking in the "present" time, closer to circa 1974 than 1961, and that Stan is referencing his 1967 interview.

His thoughts are very "stream of consciousness" and he could very well have been saying "And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer." in agreement with the 1967 interviewer, as to how he concluded the same thing in 1961 as the interviewer concluded in 1967, so in essence is saying "And that was what grabbed me [as well - that we were building a 20th century mythology]. That was the answer."

The section is not very well written, and this interpretation does make sense literally, and analytically. It is a realistic, possible interpretation. 

I really don't have an axe to grind for or against Stan, but if he was explaining in 1974 how he agreed with a previous interviewer that they were creating a mythology and that that was how he first came up with the idea of Thor in 1961/62, it's poorly writtten.

Which, considering the question of his writing ability, is kind of ironic.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 6:27 PM, marvelcollector said:

I really don't have an axe to grind for or against Stan, but if he was explaining in 1974 how he agreed with a previous interviewer that they were creating a mythology and that that was how he first came up with the idea of Thor in 1961/62, it's poorly writtten.

Which, considering the question of his writing ability, is kind of ironic.

Poorly edited is another choice. But still ironic. 

Or he just conflated two disparate events and mis-recollected.