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

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 9:49 AM, MattTheDuck said:

I'm no lawyer, but this strikes me as odd.  Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to petition the trial Judge to redact parts of the trial transcript to be released publicly, and the Judge agree?  If that were the case, it seems like you could at least find the filings on the redacting matter.

I doubt Toberoff cared, as long as the judge sees the information, it doesn't matter in the end. 

Toberoff even used portions of it that we can't read - in the court - (like the Marvel/Lee strongarming Larry Lieber for testimony in helping them).

[BlowUpTheMoon]

[MattTheDuck]

 

On 10/14/2024 at 7:49 PM, MattTheDuck said:

Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to PETITION THE TRAIL JUDGE TO REDACT PARTS OF THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT to be released publicly,

On 10/14/2024 at 8:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

You petition to keep information from the public

I apologize for belaboring this, but I'm pretty sure petitioning to redact information to be released publicly is precisely the same thing as petitioning to keep information from the public.  Unless "redact" does not mean "keep from."

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:12 PM, MattTheDuck said:

 

I apologize for belaboring this, but I'm pretty sure petitioning to redact information to be released publicly is precisely the same thing as petitioning to keep information from the public.  Unless "redact" does not mean "keep from."

Oh, I get it. I was reading your sentence to mean you petition to "be released publicly." So, yeah, I guess we are both saying that attorneys must petition to keep portions of a depo transcript, by means of redaction, from being available to the public when the attorneys are going to voluntarily attach that transcript to a public filing. Obviously, the public is not entitled to a transcript or portions of a transcript unless it is to be publicly disclosed during the proceeding.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

Oh, I get it. I was reading your sentence to mean you petition to "be released publicly." So, yeah, I guess we are both saying that attorneys must petition to keep portions of a depo transcript, by means of redaction, from being available to the public when the attorneys are going to voluntarily attach that transcript to a public filing. Obviously, the public is not entitled to a transcript or portions of a transcript unless it is to be publicly disclosed during the proceeding.

I should also add that a motion to redact is generally filed with unredacted material presented to the Court under seal. "Redact" usually means that confidential material is blacked out. If you want to keep a whole document out of the public eye, there's no need to redact you just ask that it be accepted under seal. These days federal judges don't like keeping information from the public.

Edited October 15 by sfcityduck

[MattTheDuck]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

Oh, I get it. I was reading your sentence to mean you petition to "be released publicly." So, yeah, I guess we are both saying that attorneys must petition to keep portions of a depo transcript, by means of redaction, from being available to the public when the attorneys are going to voluntarily attach that transcript to a public filing. Obviously, the public is not entitled to a transcript or portions of a transcript unless it is to be publicly disclosed during the proceeding.

Thanks - the other point was whether those filings asking for redactions might be available publicly, even if the transcripts (or transcripts with redactions anyway) are not, but I see you've noted they would be under seal.

Edited October 15 by MattTheDuck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:23 PM, MattTheDuck said:

Thanks - the other point was whether those filings asking for redactions might be available publicly, even if the transcripts (or transcripts with redactions anyway) are not, and whether those filings might give some idea of the kinds of things the Parties wanted redacted.  Perhaps those aren't public either.

See one post above.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

How many times do I have to say it. YEAH, Stan Lee made a difference in how it turned out. You can LIKE it or NOT like it - that's subjective - but OBJECTIVELY he had a hand in what was done.

Do I have an obligation to tell THAT side of the story? 

Somewhat.

And I DID. I quoted Lee DIRECTLY from his book the Origins of Marvel Comics throughout MY book. How much MORE do I need to do?

Give him the benefit of the doubt on some things?

LOL. He's had people like Roy Thomas and Danny Fingeroth and Peter David and Mark Evanier to do that for him over the last 50 years.

Stan was DUE to be taken to task.

You get to write your book. You get to make your choices. No one doubts that. But we can question your decisions.

I think it would be taken much more seriously if you'd acknowledged the following:

(1) Stan Lee and Jack Kirby co-created the major title leading characters of the Marvel Universe with the exception of Spider-Man (Lee and Ditko), Captain America (Simon and Kirby), Sub-Mariner (Everett), Doctor Strange (Lee and Ditko) and possibly, I'll grant you, Thor (Kirby assuming that the JIM 83 OA shows what you claim it shows - that Kirby dialogued that issue). In addition, it is worth noting that Human Torch was originally created by Burgos and the second successful version of Hulk was a Lee and Ditko creation.

(2) Thus, the idea that either Kirby or Lee created all those characters is false.

(3) That Kirby and Lee recognized each other as co-creators many times publicly during the 1960s.

(4) But sometime in the late 60s the public vitriol towards Lee got ratcheted up with increasing claims he had zero role in the character creation, and Kirby became increasingly unhappy and embittered towards Marvel leading to his departure to DC (where he also had some bad experiences that he found humiliating - Superman face redraws for example).

(5) And both Lee and Kirby stopped crediting each other as co-creators, probably because they had each become embittered/unhappy due to their respective situations, and they each made unsupportable claims of creating all of the Marvel Universe's major characters (including in Kirby's case Spider-Man and, in 1966 at least, Captain America).

(6) The tragedy ultimately being that even when Kirby returned to Marvel the relationship could not be healed and was not healed before Kirby died.

(7) Ditko, meanwhile, had a fairly healthy mental outlook on the situation and never denied co-creation credit. Simon, likewise, did not become embittered against Kirby for his siding with Marvel against him regarding Captain America. Both Ditko and Simon were not part of the central tragedy.

(8) As to issue of rights, all of the co-creators of the Marvel Universe were denied such rights. None became billionaires and laughed to the bank like J.K. Rowling. But, this was not a product of any of their actions towards each other but really just the laws in the United States. Ditko and Simon seemed to have largely accepted that fact.

This story could be a great movie if the characters are portrayed as humans not caricatures. Stan Lee Lied is not the book I would license to make the movie. (Not that any book would need to be licensed.) A more rounded telling of the story that not motivated by a desire to prove Kirby "created all those characters" (as he put it) would be really interesting. Telling one side just turns the story into a polemic.

Edited October 15 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:23 PM, MattTheDuck said:

Thanks - the other point was whether those filings asking for redactions might be available publicly, even if the transcripts (or transcripts with redactions anyway) are not, but I see you've noted they would be under seal.

The portions of the motion saying anything interesting would be under seal. Presumably the publicly stated basis for the redactions would confidential financial information, tax information, attorney-client privilege or some other general explanation.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:51 PM, thehumantorch said:

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

 

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

It doesn't have to be.

 

No. It didn't. 

And the last four or more pages prove that. I don't know if that's due to Mike's behind the curtain moderating or what, but the tone has changed for the better.

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

I think he was mis-recollecting when the interview occurred. Conflating 1967 with 1961. But, to me, its really pretty immaterial. We're talking about Thor -- a public domain character.

There are probably 2 or 3 ways to interpret that bit, and all seem to be valid. 

The main reason I lean towards my interpretation is the way the page, and even the relevant paragraph is structured. 

In paragraphs 2 and 3, Stan is talking about how he is leaning towards using a "Super-god" to top the others...

And then in paragraph 4, the relevant paragraph, he goes onto an entirely different train of thought, recollecting the 1967 interview...

And then as soon as he's done recollecting it (and agreeing with the interviewer) he goes back into paragraph 5, right where he left off paragraph 3, talking about how he can't and won't use a God but would use a god. 

Paragraph 4 is like an intermission. 

And yes, I agree it could also be interpreted as a mis-recollection. 

It reads both ways...

On 10/14/2024 at 8:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

LOL. Yep.

To me, I think it sounds more like excuses being made for Stan.

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions.

On 10/14/2024 at 8:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

And I DID. I quoted Lee DIRECTLY from his book the Origins of Marvel Comics throughout MY book. How much MORE do I need to do?

We've already proven that with Stan's words on page 162 in the Thor discussion that you edited his words to change their meaning. 

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

Why on earth do Kirby fanatics attack Mark Evanier of all people? I assume because he does not subscribe to the present orthodoxy that "Kirby wrote everything he ever did." Which is strange, because Mark Evanier worked with Kirby, had a relationship with Kirby and his family, wrote a flattering book about Kirby, chairs panels in tribute to Kirby, and was hired as an expert witness by Kirby's own family to testify for Kirby's heirs (but the purported expert testimony was tossed for both sides because the matters for which the testimony was offered were not a proper subject for true expert testimony). Yet, for the most fanatical Kirby fans he's an enemy. Why? Because he is honest enough to give Stan some credit for what he did and he is realistic about what Kirby did not do.

Eggs-ackly!

 

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:52 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 10/14/2024 at 7:51 PM, thehumantorch said:

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

 

No. It didn't. 

And the last four or more pages prove that. I don't know if that's due to Mike's behind the curtain moderating or what, but the tone has changed for the better.

Correct.

This thread only becomes toxic when people bring their emotions (or emotional attachments) into the discussion and as long as those things are checked at the door it's GREAT.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:11 AM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Thank you!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:23 AM, MattTheDuck said:

Thanks - the other point was whether those filings asking for redactions might be available publicly, even if the transcripts (or transcripts with redactions anyway) are not, but I see you've noted they would be under seal.

There's nothing I've seen blacked out. There are entire sections of PAGES missing.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:56 AM, VintageComics said:

We've already proven that with Stan's words on page 162 in the Thor discussion that you edited his words to change their meaning. 

Lee most likely had nothing to do with the first three appearances of Marvel's Thor.

I'm not aware of anything you've presented to disprove that. 

Whatever else you think I'm saying, based on cherry picking quotes is on you.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:05 PM, Prince Namor said:

There's nothing I've seen blacked out. There are entire sections of PAGES missing.

That happens all the time. The courts don't want to see 300 pages of transcript. The only want to see the pages upon which the attorneys rely. 

On a motion, there's usually an opening brief, an opposition in response, and a final reply by the party that filed the opening brief. So if the opening brief is supported by 20 pages of transcript, its up to the opposing party to put into evidence any other pages that add context or rebut the pages offered by the opening party, and on reply the moving party may attempt to add additional pages. 

But, these days no court wants to see a full transcript. Nothings being hidden, its just not deemed relevant by either side.

[JollyComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:18 PM, VintageComics said:

6. Vintage Comics

In CGC Mike's eyes.

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:09 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/14/2024 at 9:56 PM, VintageComics said:

We've already proven that with Stan's words on page 162 in the Thor discussion that you edited his words to change their meaning. 

Lee most likely had nothing to do with the first three appearances of Marvel's Thor.

Just to be clear, the discussion initially started with the two of us disagreeing whether Stan had ANY input on Thor pre JIM #83 and you, based on an edited quote you provided of Stan's from Origins, maintained that Stan was crediting himself with giving Thor his hammer, which I thought was near impossible, since everyone knew Thor had a hammer.

I also put more emphasis on Stan possibly taking credit for flight and not the weapon.

Upon examining the quote in it's entirety as well as other evidence, it became clear that Stan wasn't taking credit for Thor's hammer, because everyone knew Thor had a hammer.

In fact, in Origins, Stan was taking credit for tying the hammer to flight, something Jack hadn't done previously even though he drew Thor more than once in prior books.

Additionally, I maintained the reasonable position that since there is no direct evidence proving Kirby came up with everything (your words), that it's hard to believe the editor had NO input in the direction of the character, and that Stan must have had SOME input in some way and very possible that Stan's offering of flight for Thor was reasonable, especially since flight had become an almost necessary super-hero trait by the 1960s.

The discussion has since morphed to Stan having no input in the 1st 3 issues. 

That's how I recollect it. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:23 PM, JollyComics said:

On 10/14/2024 at 6:18 PM, VintageComics said:

6. Vintage Comics

In CGC Mike's eyes.

Mods notified. 

[JollyComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:58 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)

Jack Kirby worked for Ben Copper briefly before he started working at Timely Comics AKA Marvel Comics.