Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 9 9

[VintageComics]

On 9/16/2024 at 4:01 PM, Mmehdy said:

FF1 started it all.... and as the book points out it is hard to ignore Challengers of the Unknown...the first page of FF1...vs Challengers with the circles over the heroes...very similar structure. I never really put it together as Challengers 1 was before my collecting time.

I'm shocked that you didn't know about the connection between Challengers of the Unknown and the Fantastic Four. There are many parallels. 

Even the alien on the cover of COTU #1 looks like a Skrull. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 12:05 AM, ThreeSeas said:

Never being much of a Marvel reader until lately, my first introduction to who Stan Lee was, was on the "Who Wants to be a Superhero" TV show he did a few years ago. I thought that he was likable, and the showman.

When I was younger, I had thought that Walt Disney wrote all of those wonderful stories because his was the only name I saw on the comics. I later learned that he didn't have much to do with the stories and they were by others like Floyd Gottfredson and Carl Barks. I have lately thought of Mr. Lee being similar to Mr. Disney, the face of the company where many others did the actual work that I enjoy.

I might have grown up being more of a Marvel fan, had my brother and I not sold off our 60's Marvels (and other comics) for a dime each at our garage sale back in 1971. Well, after an old friend just gave me his 4500 Marvel comics (from the early 80's -90's), I'm now catching up a bit on the Marvel universe.

But back to Mr. Lee. It sounds like he has done what many managers do, and that is to take the credit, and limelight for the works of others.

He didn't just take credit. He also stole the pay from people who did the writing. 

The artists wrote the stories, and Lee listed himself as the 'writer' and took the pay. 

Edited Monday at 09:51 PM by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 12:20 AM, Bookery said:

I have an honest question here that probably others know, and I'm guessing Prince Namor does through his research... who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines (I know it started at Atlas, though not consistently).  Some previous publishers would occasionally allow artists to sign a page.  But for the most part they did not.  Marvel, when it became Marvel in the '60s, actually gave credit to the writer, the penciller, the inker, and even the letterer!  Even as a kid in the '60s I noticed that was different.  That was unheard of in comics up until then (publishers like Dell never gave credit to anyone).  Other comics, by the end of the '60s began doing it probably under pressure from creators who said "Marvel's doing it, why can't you?"

This seems really significant, so who authorized it?  Goodman?  Lee?  Some other executive?

Stan surrendered his part of the writer's division of labor, as a writer of a full script, to the artist. He also incorrectly identified the true roles and function of each person in the way he wrote credits.”

- Steve Ditko, in ‘A Mini-History - 1. ‘The Green Goblin’ © 2001 S. Ditko

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

Jack Kirby: I’ll tell you from a professional point of view. I was writing them. I was drawing them.

        Will Eisner: But you do not necessarily subscribe to the idea of someone else, regardless of who it is, putting balloons in on a completely penciled page. I have a prejudice on it but I want to get your opinion.

Jack Kirby: My opinion is this: Stan Lee wrote the credits. I never wrote the credits.

- Jack Kirby, interviewed by Will Eisner, Will Eisner‘s Spirit Magazine 39, July 1982.

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

From my book:

Mark Gruenwald, had written a letter to Kirby that had been printed in Mister Miracle #4, saying,"...“The Source”,”The Mountain of Judgement”, “The Boom Tube”, “The Mobius Chair” and the rest…. A volcano of new ideas spewing forth from Kirby’s mind. Now I sit back and wonder, knowing how closely writer and artist collaborate at Marvel, how many of the ideas behind the Lee/Kirby masterpieces usually attributed to Lee came from the mind of his one-time partner.”

Kirby’s response is classic: "As to Marvel, more imagination is used in the credits than in any given story.”

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

“Jack Kirby never received

a plot credit at Marvel Comics.”

…Michael Hill from his book

Kirby at Marvel (2022)

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 3:01 AM, Mmehdy said:

FULL REVIEW:

One of the most amazing yet controversial books ever written about comic book history, and specifically Marvel's big bang creation which every serious Marvel fan wants to know: HOW DID THEY DO IT!

 FF1 started it all.... and as the book points out it is hard to ignore Challengers of the Unknown...the first page of FF1...vs Challengers with the circles over the heroes...very similar structure. I never really put it together as Challengers 1 was before my collecting time. I do not believe that Stan's outline existed UNTIL after FF was real hit. The book does not say that Stan had nothing to do with...but without Jack and Steve no way we would be talking about it today.

Could it be better...yes possibly for expanded words and more quotes, and use of images..but today I can say this: This book hits you face-front....like Thor's hammer...it cannot be ignored, forgotten, or lost in the crowd....It took a heck of a lot of guts to publish this...now it is up to you the board members to show how open you are to something other than the narrative of the Origins of Marvel comics.....after reading this book...95% of the board members will agree.... the Origin of Marvel comics it's a fairy tale book, albeit. a nice one...too perfect. A must-read.

***** of ***** stars.

 

Thanks Mitch!

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:47 PM, Bookery said:

Except that Kirby didn't sell any comics.  His publishers did. 

Kirby made comics that they sold. Without Kirby, sales at Marvel were so low, that Marvel was going to close. 

The comics HE made, sold well enough to keep the doors open.

On 9/16/2024 at 10:47 PM, Bookery said:

Talent can make a corporate product popular, but there still has to be a corporate structure to begin with. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a huge seller. No corpoarte structure at the start.

On 9/16/2024 at 10:47 PM, Bookery said:

 Stephen King made a fortune for Doubleday followed by Viking followed by Scribner.  Because of that, should he have been put in charge of any of those companies? 

Who's saying Kirby should be put in charge of the company??? You're making up your own argument. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 1:57 AM, Bookery said:

Ah yes... how could I forget about EC?  Of course, they were aiming for an older audience all along... probably an audience that was already reading books and magazines, so credits may have been a part of that?  As I said, there were occasional creator blurbs on issues prior to that... if you had some clout this probably derived from the newspaper comics, and the carryover of those credits into comics.  And not even everything at EC was signed.  But Marvel, the 1961 version, right out of the box, began crediting the writers and artists, regardless of fame, on pretty much every story, main or back-up.  This was somewhat perilous for a publisher... because it did make for the potential of creating stars before the public, and those stars could as a result negotiate bigger contracts.  Someone had to decide it was worth the gamble as a promotional gimmick.  So my question remains, is there any record of who instituted this?  Lee as editor?  Goodman as publisher?  Some sort of negotiating deal to get new writers and artists to come over to Marvel?  This was a pretty big departure from how other publishers were doing it in the early '60s.

Most likely Lee did. He wanted to make people think he was the writer, and he wanted to get paid for the writing. Even though he wasn't the writer.

It's possible Goodman conspired to it, as stealing stories and creators work was something he had done in the past.*

 

*Human Torch, Sub-Mariner. Goodman even went to court and lost three times over the years by using someone's story - changing the title and all the names of the characters and then printing it as his company's own work, during his Pulp days (source: The Secret History Of Marvel Comics: Jack Kirby and the Moonlighting Artists at Martin Goodman's Empire by Blake Bell and Michale J Vassallo - 2013)

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 1:25 AM, Hschwartz said:

Let's look at two things that helped Marvel's marketing and branding. This was branding at it's best.

No one is denying that.

On 9/17/2024 at 1:25 AM, Hschwartz said:

Marvel Comics became beloved for many different reasons and the amazing talents of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, and Jack Kirby.

No one is denying that.

On 9/17/2024 at 1:25 AM, Hschwartz said:

You can argue who was most important but it can't be denied that combining these three talents with all of the other creators during this time period created something special

No one is argueing that. 

 

Stan Lee Lied ALOT in The Origins of Marvel Comics. It must REALLY be true because no one has brought up any specific claim in the book or my research in showing it's a lie and been able to dispute it.

Instead, it's been about 'Stan Lee was important!'

I never said Stan wasn't 'important'.

'But Stan Lee wrote the credits!'

You bet your life he did!

Roy claimed that I was trying to say 'Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee!'

I never said any such thing. 

 

I DID write that he Lied alot in the Origins of Marvel Comics. I guess everyone has just accepted that. 

[DC#]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:34 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Let me just say before my diatribe here that I don't agree with much of what Stan Lee did to creators. I'm just whipping out some thoughts:

I worked at an ad agency and in advertising for a lot of years (1996-2015), and I worked with some old school ad guys. During this time where new technology and attitudes started replacing a lot of the old ways of working - I was fascinated with the previous eras way of doing things. I dropped into my advertising profession right after things like private jets to see corporate clients, gigantic expense accounts to woo potential prospects and seemingly endless creative budgets to maximize the effect of ads across limited media platforms (TV, radio, print was all there was back then). I was a little dismayed to hear that I had missed a lot of the real action by a few years, but - I got a lot of stories about the "good ole days" where top end advertising people were treated like rock stars simply because they flew in from somewhere to have a meeting.

In advertising, you're not producing things like comics where success is measured in direct sales - you're producing effecting advertising that gains the attention of the trades, as well as other agencies and being talked about. While the ultimate benefit is to create something buzzworthy for the client, what benefits the agency were people/clients/customers/media talking about the ads, or landing awards (which were prestigious back then) and using that attention to draw new clients with your creative prowess, leading to more money earned for the agency.

Now, with that being said, there was also one general attitude that was adhered to in agencies large and small (I worked for a small one): the creative director gets the credit. Now, mind you, this was not comics - but it was a creative profession very similar. Back then, people were not lined up expecting to be put into the spotlight because they sat in on a creative meeting and suggested an idea that got implemented in the final concept. Much like comic books, advertising campaigns that spanned tv, radio and print had lots of moving parts - like a comic book - directors, talent, writers, and the production guys like illustrators, etc. One guy does not come up with the entire concept of an ad campaign, but he generally takes the credit for doing so.

I've sat in countless pitches, meetings and presentations where the agency I worked for, or the creative director himself got the credit, claimed the credit or alluded to masterminding an entire idea that was a success. That never bothered me. To be in a meeting or presentation and getting into the semantics of who-did-what is not the way to drive the meeting. And again, this is plain 'ol advertising. We weren't creating characters that went on to be marketable, profitable endeavors - so I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel. 

This is where my point about Stan Lee comes in. Now, I have no clue of his general attitude towards taking credit - but to me, it's not outlandish notion that he would take credit for everything. If you break down the purpose of a journalist talking to Stan Lee about Marvel Comics it's basically:

Investigating the Who, What, Where, When and Why of their story and identifying what the story is about and finding the angles that make this article unique and interesting.

Stan Lee's job - at that point - is to sell the success of Marvel Comics and let the journalist decide what parts of it are interesting. Much like the pitch meetings I attended, the job of the Creative Director was to convince the client that this was the agency that could fulfill their creative needs. That convincing took the form of anecdotal conversation mixed in with showing portfolio pieces, taking long stories about the creative process and paring it down to a few sentences for the purpose of brevity.

I always felt this is what Stan Lee did - at least in the beginning. Taking credit for successes simply because he was the guy talking to the media. Before mass marketing took hold, comics were just a different form of periodical with advertisements. Not only were publishers seeking to make money by increasing readership, they parlayed those distribution numbers to sell advertising. Aside from the creative aspect - back then - a comic book was seen as another form of revenue. I think Stan's view on this - at the time - was no different than other editors, or creative directors: push the company, make us money.

And with that, comes the statements - like Namor had in his books, specifically about Superboy (earlier in the thread) - where Stan Lee has to set aside facts to push his own agenda with Marvel.

Was it a premeditated lie he was pushing? Or was it promotional BSing to further the Marvel brand? Was he trying to butter his own bread to the media in case he ever lost his job? Or all three at the same time?

There never was, or ever will be - another guy at the head of a media conglomerate who saw the entire operation from soup to nuts for 70 years. I can't imagine story after story to different journalists over decades and decades of self-promotion. You'd have a bunch of half-truths mixed in with barely-remembered true scenarios, and this is what we get with Stan. I know there are infinite permutations to the Stan Lee story, but I think it's worth noting that Stan is a very unique individual - not because he's Stan, but because he's seen everything as one person. Unfortunately, the media took him at his word for decades, so there's a lot of the truth that can come out (which we have here with Namor's book) and I think that's interesting to hear about.

 

 

 

One of my favorite scenes in the entirety of Mad Men....I quote this scene constantly.     The core of the message is in the first 2:15   

 

Edited Monday at 10:17 PM by DC#

[catman76]

Stan Lee lied? Stan Lee was a huge a-hole? That's like asking, Is Water wet?

Ever see any marvel comic from the 40s and 50s? Stan Lee signs his name on like every page, even pages with no writing whatsoever, like paper doll cut out pages. He was a a-hole and took credit for everything he had no part in or barely a part in and was a genius at rewriting history and marketing an image and everyone bought it.

[comicwiz]

On 9/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Let me just say before my diatribe here that I don't agree with much of what Stan Lee did to creators. I'm just whipping out some thoughts:

I worked at an ad agency and in advertising for a lot of years (1996-2015), and I worked with some old school ad guys. During this time where new technology and attitudes started replacing a lot of the old ways of working - I was fascinated with the previous eras way of doing things. I dropped into my advertising profession right after things like private jets to see corporate clients, gigantic expense accounts to woo potential prospects and seemingly endless creative budgets to maximize the effect of ads across limited media platforms (TV, radio, print was all there was back then). I was a little dismayed to hear that I had missed a lot of the real action by a few years, but - I got a lot of stories about the "good ole days" where top end advertising people were treated like rock stars simply because they flew in from somewhere to have a meeting.

In advertising, you're not producing things like comics where success is measured in direct sales - you're producing effecting advertising that gains the attention of the trades, as well as other agencies and being talked about. While the ultimate benefit is to create something buzzworthy for the client, what benefits the agency were people/clients/customers/media talking about the ads, or landing awards (which were prestigious back then) and using that attention to draw new clients with your creative prowess, leading to more money earned for the agency.

Now, with that being said, there was also one general attitude that was adhered to in agencies large and small (I worked for a small one): the creative director gets the credit. Now, mind you, this was not comics - but it was a creative profession very similar. Back then, people were not lined up expecting to be put into the spotlight because they sat in on a creative meeting and suggested an idea that got implemented in the final concept. Much like comic books, advertising campaigns that spanned tv, radio and print had lots of moving parts - like a comic book - directors, talent, writers, and the production guys like illustrators, etc. One guy does not come up with the entire concept of an ad campaign, but he generally takes the credit for doing so.

I've sat in countless pitches, meetings and presentations where the agency I worked for, or the creative director himself got the credit, claimed the credit or alluded to masterminding an entire idea that was a success. That never bothered me. To be in a meeting or presentation and getting into the semantics of who-did-what is not the way to drive the meeting. And again, this is plain 'ol advertising. We weren't creating characters that went on to be marketable, profitable endeavors - so I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel. 

This is where my point about Stan Lee comes in. Now, I have no clue of his general attitude towards taking credit - but to me, it's not outlandish notion that he would take credit for everything. If you break down the purpose of a journalist talking to Stan Lee about Marvel Comics it's basically:

Investigating the Who, What, Where, When and Why of their story and identifying what the story is about and finding the angles that make this article unique and interesting.

Stan Lee's job - at that point - is to sell the success of Marvel Comics and let the journalist decide what parts of it are interesting. Much like the pitch meetings I attended, the job of the Creative Director was to convince the client that this was the agency that could fulfill their creative needs. That convincing took the form of anecdotal conversation mixed in with showing portfolio pieces, taking long stories about the creative process and paring it down to a few sentences for the purpose of brevity.

I always felt this is what Stan Lee did - at least in the beginning. Taking credit for successes simply because he was the guy talking to the media. Before mass marketing took hold, comics were just a different form of periodical with advertisements. Not only were publishers seeking to make money by increasing readership, they parlayed those distribution numbers to sell advertising. Aside from the creative aspect - back then - a comic book was seen as another form of revenue. I think Stan's view on this - at the time - was no different than other editors, or creative directors: push the company, make us money.

And with that, comes the statements - like Namor had in his books, specifically about Superboy (earlier in the thread) - where Stan Lee has to set aside facts to push his own agenda with Marvel.

Was it a premeditated lie he was pushing? Or was it promotional BSing to further the Marvel brand? Was he trying to butter his own bread to the media in case he ever lost his job? Or all three at the same time?

There never was, or ever will be - another guy at the head of a media conglomerate who saw the entire operation from soup to nuts for 70 years. I can't imagine story after story to different journalists over decades and decades of self-promotion. You'd have a bunch of half-truths mixed in with barely-remembered true scenarios, and this is what we get with Stan. I know there are infinite permutations to the Stan Lee story, but I think it's worth noting that Stan is a very unique individual - not because he's Stan, but because he's seen everything as one person. Unfortunately, the media took him at his word for decades, so there's a lot of the truth that can come out (which we have here with Namor's book) and I think that's interesting to hear about.

 

 

 

The way agency's operate is not the greatest parallel to describe what went on at Marvel, and at the risk of seeming like I'm punching down, there are a number of differences in the way credit is still acknolwedged within the agency framework. I worked within that environment as a web developer and technical support person, but later as well, with a software I had developed that a PR agency wanted to white label as theirs. Imagine my software, being used by a PR company, who was managing some of the biggest tech companies in Silcon Valley. I didn't mind in either situation because ultimately the business model in both situations meant I was being compensated fairly, and in the latter, it was my technology and IP, and none of that changed by allowing a third-party to use it and slap their logo on it. Oddly enough, when one of their PR people resigned or was fired, I had one of the tech companies contact me directly because they were having trouble accessing the software, the PR agency for some reason agreed to give them my information, and I was fine with it, but not so bright on their part, because I ended-up landing that account, instead of using an intermediary to access it. 

When Kenner was creating the original Star Wars toy line, they had relied on a handful of agency's, but one in particular had handled most of the work. It wasn't until much later that collectors began trying to trace back to the original creators/sculptors involved with making which figural sculpts, and to this day, if you contact that agency (the right person, and within reason of course), they won't have any issue telling you who worked on which figure if it's to understand the historical connection to the actual sculptor, and not just the agency name associated to it. I've worked in graphic design also long enough to see ads that were using actors that were friends of mine - no mention of their name anywhere on that ad, or the photographer who shot it. There's a pretty big difference when the actual product being published has the credits of the people involved with making it right on the first page. And while a great deal of the original sculpts from the Kenner toys (mostly) remained with the designers/creators, and they were compensated not only for their work, but also could attain significant financial gain by selling their work in the collector market themselves because they had the right to have their work returned to them, this wasn't always the case with Marvel. Stan Lee in particular was behind the coercive gesture of holding hostage all of Jack Kirby's original art until he agreed to sign a special release form that was required of no other Marvel freelancer. Kirby refused to sign the document, and Stan Lee, in turn, refused to return his original art.

None of these things needed to happen to advance any "brand." They happened because it benefited Stan Lee, and Stan Lee alone. When Will Eisner wrote his open letter, he warned: "a whole new generation of creative people are watching your conduct. Don't fail them!" It's too late for warnings, Stan Lee failed miserably, and you're either of the generation that refuses to parrot the narrative advanced until now, or accept it for what it was. I'd rather see it, describe it, and call it, for the tarnished legacy it is.

Edited Monday at 10:14 PM by comicwiz

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/16/2024 at 3:31 PM, DC# said:

One of my favorite scenes in the entirely of Mad Men....I quote this scene constantly.     The core of the message is in the first 2:15   

 

Holy COW - that's great! I never saw the extended version of that (only the 'That's what the money is for!" clip on social media). I can relate - when I was a younger designer, you do count your ideas. It's how you measure yourself against those who have been around longer, won more awards, work elsewhere or have better job positions. The hard part is not letting it get to your head, but enjoying the fact you were part of the process of something special. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/16/2024 at 3:57 PM, comicwiz said:

The way agency's operate is not the greatest parallel to describe what went on at Marvel, and at the risk of seeming like I'm punching down, there are a number of differences in the way credit is still acknolwedged within the agency framework. I worked within that environment as a web developer and technical support person, but later as well, with a software I had developed that a PR agency wanted to white label as theirs. Imagine my software, being used by a PR company, who was managing some of the biggest tech companies in Silcon Valley. I didn't mind in either situation because ultimately the business model in both situations meant I was being compensated fairly, and in the latter, it was my technology and IP, and none of that changed by allowing a third-party to use it and slap their logo on it. Oddly enough, when one of their PR people resigned or was fired, I had one of the tech companies contact me directly because they were having trouble accessing the software, the PR agency for some reason agreed to give them my information, and I was fine with it, but not so bright on their part, because I ended-up landing that account, instead of using an intermediary to access it.

True - I was mostly just waxing about how Stan Lee likely approached justifying him taking credit - at least in the beginning - based on my experience. Not necessarily for Marvel as a whole, but the mindset of Stan Lee as being the Editor or "Face" of the company. And your experience is a great one to show how it does work in your favor, as you do get credit for your contributions and development. I'm guessing that your development contract was something that was formed before your program was implemented - giving you those rights while they used the software?

Back in the early days - even with Siegel and Shuster's documented attempts at getting credit for Superman - it seemed that the philosophy of doing the job (i.e., creating characters, marketing, writing and illustrating) was all part of the job, and the excess of money it generated wasn't your business. Did Stan Lee purposefully take advantage of that mindset with the artists and writers? Or was he just floating around trying to adapt to the changing conditions of what was going on in the comic industry?

On 9/16/2024 at 3:57 PM, comicwiz said:

When Will Eisner wrote his open letter, he warned: "a whole new generation of creative people are watching your conduct. Don't fail them!" It's too late for warnings, Stan Lee failed miserably, and you're either of the generation that refuses to parrot the narrative advanced until now, or accept it as what it is. I'd rather see it, describe it, and call it, for the tarnished legacy it is.

I 100% agree. Stan Lee had a lot of opportunity over the years to fix things as creator rights became more important. I think it's wrong that he did so little about it. But, I also think that when that all started for him, his mindset was not that far off from how other like-industries treated their creative endeavors. I don't blame him for that in the beginning, but it's definitely a tarnished legacy when he expounds the importance of "doing what's right" and "great responsibility" yet he didn't do either of those things when it really mattered to someone else's life.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 4:57 AM, comicwiz said:

The way agency's operate is not the greatest parallel to describe what went on at Marvel, and at the risk of seeming like I'm punching down, there are a number of differences in the way credit is still acknolwedged within the agency framework. I worked within that environment as a web developer and technical support person, but later as well, with a software I had developed that a PR agency wanted to white label as theirs. Imagine my software, being used by a PR company, who was managing some of the biggest tech companies in Silcon Valley? I didn't mind in either situation because ultimately the business model in both situations meant I was being compensated in both situations, and in the latter, it was my technology and IP, and none of that changed by allowing a third-party to use it and slap their logo on it. Oddly enough, when one of their PR people resigned or was fired, I had one of the tech companies contact me directly because they were having trouble accessing the software, the PR agency for some reason agreed to give them my information, and I was fine with it, but not so bright on their part, because I ended-up landing that account, instead of using an intermediary to access it. 

When Kenner was creating the original Star Wars toy line, they had relied on a handful of agency's, but one in particular had handled most of the work. It wasn't until much later that collectors began trying to trace back to the original creators/sculptors involved with making which figural sculpts, and to this day, if you contact that agency (the right person, and within reason of course), they won't have any issue telling you who worked on which figure if it's to understand the historical connection to the actual sculptor, and not just the agency name associated to it. I've worked in graphic design also long enough to see ads that were using actors that were friends of mine - no mention of their name anywhere on that ad, or the photographer who shot it. There's a pretty big difference when the actual product being published has the credits of the people involved with making it right on the first page. And while a great deal of the original sculpts from the toys remained with the designers/creators, and they were compensated not only for their work, but also could attain significant financial gain by selling their work in the collector market themselves because they had the right to have their work returned to them, this wasn't always the case with Marvel. Stan Lee in particular played was behind the coercive gesture of holding hostage all of Jack Kirby's original art until he agreed to sign a special release form that was required of no other Marvel freelancer. Kirby refused to sign the document, and Stan Lee, in turn, refused to return his original art.

None of these things needed to happen to advance any "brand." They happened because it benefited Stan Lee, and Stan Lee alone. When Will Eisner wrote his open letter, he warned: "a whole new generation of cretive people are watching your conduct. Don't fail them!" It's too late for warnings, Stan Lee failed miserably, and you're either of the generation that refuses to parrot the narrative advanced until now, or accept it as what it is. I'd rather see it, describe it, and call it, for the tarnished legacy it is.

Most people aren't aware, or don't know because... well, they just never saw comics beyond what they read or collected or sold or whatever... and never saw the creators as PEOPLE, but rather just idealized caricatures to sign their books, but... they were REAL people. And a part of the comic book business pre-1970 was the kick back to the editor, that these very real people had to deal with.

That could come in many forms - money, original artwork, sports tickets, etc - but it was a very real thing. And if you wanted work, you played the game.

Stan Lee took it to another level. He was getting credit as the writer and the PAY for the writing, all while having his artists do the work. Lee was doing little more than what any other editor did, but reaping a huge benefit from it.*

Imagine that - Jack Kirby actually saves Marvel from closing down, and a few years later Lee pays him back by forcing him to accept the idea of losing his pay for the writing of the stories, IF he wants to do superheroes. Lee didn't sign a single Kirby monster story - meaning he didn't WRITE a single Kirby monster story - this began with superheroes - though Lee tested it out a few months earlier with a couple of Westerns. 

It was the most elaborate and predatory form of kickback in the history of comics, all while stealing CREDIT for the writing as well.

 

*Yeah, I know, "but his dialogue!" Well, the movies aren't copying his dialogue - they're copying the STORIES that the artists wrote. 

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 5:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

I DID write that he Lied alot in the Origins of Marvel Comics. I guess everyone has just accepted that. 

I started my business 40 years ago.  To be fair... I'm pretty sure every comic collector I knew accepted that a lot of it was just hype even then.  

[bc]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:26 AM, Prince Namor said:

TALKING POINTS FROM: 'Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the Origins of Marvel Comics’ by Chaz Gower (available now on Amazon!)

The MYTH of DC Comics Restricting Marvel to Eight Titles a Month.

First off, let me just say: I’m not saying it ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAPPEN… Just that, there’s no proof and… what we do know, sure doesn’t make it look like it’s true.

First some history: In 1956, Martin Goodman was talked into switching distribution of his product to American News Co. (the ANC on the covers of so many comics in the early Fifties). What he didn’t know was that they were under investigation by the Federal Government for some Mafia related business. They shut down 6 months later, and Goodman was without distribution of his comics/magazines and books.

Goodman had to lay off the whole staff.

DC-owned Independent News Co. agreed to distribute for them, which got them up and running, but instead of hiring everyone back, Goodman instructed Stan Lee to use the remaining inventory of work, with an occasional freelance fill in.

So…. DID DC comics impose an 8 book a month maximum on Goodman as Lee claimed (followed by others who simply repeated his statement) or… did GOODMAN put a restriction on Lee for the number of titles based on budget/staff?

 

Reasons to believe the 8 titles a month myth:

 

1) Stan Lee said so. Everyone else just repeated it.

 

So that’s ONE reason. One Zip.

 

Reasons NOT to believe the 8 titles a month myth:

 

1. There’s ZERO evidence. No paperwork. Nothing.

Now that COULD change. But as of now, no one has even SAID they’ve seen proof of it and nothing has ever been brought forward as paper evidence that such a thing was in place. It IS also possible, I guess, that Goodman, trying to be nice, told Lee that this was happening as a way of NOT saying, “Look kid, I have no faith in you to do more than 8 books a month.” But right now, there’s no physical evidence of an agreement.

 

2. There was NEVER a time when Marvel printed 16 bi-monthly books and rotated them every other month as claimed. We can see (mikesamazingworld.com) and count, and clearly show, it’s not true.

Even John Morrow in his ‘Stuff Said Book, repeats:

“In late May-June, Goodman signs with Independent News (IND), the distributor that is a subsidiary of comics rival DC Comics. IND only agrees to carry eight Atlas comic books per month, so Goodman switches to 16 bi-monthly titles…”

Marvel DID have some sort of bi-monthly books during this time - their longest running and most trusted titles - Kid Colt Outlaw, Millie the Model, Miss America, Patsy Walker, Strange Tales… but Kid Colt wasn’t monthly prior to the Implosion anyway. It went from 10 issues over 12 months to 7 over the first 12 months of the new agreement. That’s one more than bi-monthly. Millie the Model went from 9 issues over 12 months to 7 over the first 12 of the new agreement. That’s again one more than bi-monthly and not monthly before then. Miss America, Patsy Walker, and Homer the Happy Ghost went from 6 issues over the previous 12 months to 7 over the first 12 of the agreement! They went UP! Strange Tales and Patsy & Hedy went from 9 to 7.

We’d get 6 issues of Battle over the first 12 months of the agreement, but it was already bi-monthly the year before. Gunsmoke Western, My Own Romance, Marines in Battle, Wyatt Earp were already bi-monthly or close (7 to 5, or 5 to 6, etc.)

The only book you could ALMOST say went from monthly to bi-monthly would be Love Romances which went from 11 the previous year to 7 in the first year of the DC agreement.

I don’t see any evidence of a book going from monthly to bi-monthly after the Implosion.

Somebody made that up and just repeated it over the years.

 

Marvel Propaganda Mouthpiece Tom Brevhoort likes to repeat this lie, but now adds, “from our point of view, they limited him to only 8 comic book releases a month.” (From his December 28, 2019 blog). It’s amazing how their stories change as more proof against them comes out!

But there’s more:

“So Martin got 8 slots, which he used to put out 16 bimonthly books.”

FALSE. As we’ve shown.

“This is how things stood at the start of Marvel, where FANTASTIC FOUR became a 17th title in the mix–either because Goodman got permission or because he didn’t and simply tried to sneak one more series through the pipeline.”

We’re jumping ahead a few years, but FALSE. The month the Fantastic Four came out, Marvel released 17 books THAT month. 10 the month before, and 17 the month after. That’s 44 books between July 5th and September 28th. You know, the MONEY months. 14.66 a MONTH.

Marvel would go on to release another 79 books for the year of 1961, or 8.77 per month in the off season, but TOTAL, average 10.25 a month for 1961.

So the question has to be asked… if this restriction was originally done to limit Marvel’s success, why would DC allow them to bunch the titles up in the busy months of the year? That makes no sense.

Th truth is most likely, that they didn’t limit them at all - Goodman did, and loosened it up whenever, a) he had staff - Kirby was freelancing full-time - and b) when the time of the year dictated. Marvel was in charge of their own production.

NOTE: When Kirby returned in summer of 1959 as a full-time freelancer, his books - Tales of Suspense, Tales to Astonish, Strange Tales, and Journey Into Mystery would all go MONTHLY by spring of the following year. AGAIN, showing what Brevhoort says here is false.

In order to launch a new book, Goodman had to kill an existing series.

What series was killed to add the Fantastic Four? Let’s have a look at the evidence!

The new added 1961 title, Amazing Adventures? Nope, that became Amazing Adult Fantasy. The newly added Linda Carter, Student Nurse? Nope, another title just added two months before FF#1, that would run 9 issues. Kathy? Life With Millie? Nope. Those had been added in 1959.

My Girl Pearl ended in January of 1961, 8 MONTHS prior to FF#1 - is he trying to claim THAT was it???

Marvel was ADDING titles, dude. Not subtracting.

"This tended to make him quick on the trigger, and is one reason why INCREDIBLE HULK was cancelled so swiftly. (In point of fact, Jack Kirby related at one point that INCREDIBLE HULK had been cancelled by Goodman even earlier, with #3, but the book got a short-lived reprieve thanks to fan letters from college students.)”

This is just silly. The Hulk was canceled because it wasn’t selling. (And it wasn’t selling because Lee was imposing his will so strongly on Kirby regarding the stories it just became a mess). It had nothing to do with scheduling that we can see. This is just made up.

"In any event, with his sales booming, Goodman sought and received permission to expand his line by two releases."

More nonsense. By the time X-Men and Daredevil came out (which is what he’s talking about here), Marvel was already averaging 12 titles a month - 4 OVER this mythological restriction.

Why did they expand? Well, sales of course, but also because… of EXPANDED staff.

Joe Orlando, Bill Everett returning, Robert Bernstein, Lee now had Flo Steinburg as a secretary…

 

3. Marvel didn’t follow the supposed restriction. By 1961 they were publishing 10 books a month. It went up every year after that. By 1966 they were publishing 16 books a month - DOUBLE what the claimed restriction was. Marvel apologists say that as Marvel got more successful, DC eased up the restrictions. What??? If DC originally did it as a way to keep Marvel from competing, WHY would they ease the restrictions as they GOT MORE SUCCESSFUL? That makes no sense.

 

4. When asked throughout the 60’s why they didn’t give each character their own book - instead of splitting stories in Strange Tales/Tales to Astonish/Tales of Suspense - Lee’s answer was always, “We don’t have the staff to do it.’ Which is true. As his staff grew, so did the number of books published.

BINGO. There’s your real answer. I need to find more of these college campus transcripts or recordings and transcribe them - Lee had a habit in the 60’s of telling the truth sometimes at these things.

“We’d love to give everybody a magazine of his own, (?) we get requests for these things all the time, we mention in the books and I’m sure nobody believes it, we don’t have the time and we don’t have the staff…” - Stan Lee, Speaking Engagement at Princeton, 1966

 

5. They actually grew more under DC than they did originally switching to Cadence. From 1960 to 1968, Marvel went from 8 books a month to almost 20 books a month - an increase of 12 books per month. From 1969 (Cadence took over publishing of Marvel’s books in July of 1969) to 1971, Marvel increased to only 23 books a month. They only went up 3 books a month with Cadence in the first three years of having their own Distribution? Why? One can only suspect it would be limitations in staff to produce more. If DC HAD been holding them back, wouldn’t they’ve had a bigger increase once they went to their own distributor?

Of course. It was, as it always was, a matter of staff.

 

NOTE: And despite the growth they DID have under Cadence early, in the 2nd half of 1970, 49.3% of Marvel’s output was reprint books. In all of 1971, 43.5% of Marvel’s output was reprint books. The reason? Well, Jack Kirby was no longer there, so… lack of staff (and creative talent to make anything new).

 

6. It was Goodman’s philosophy to run the superheroes together in one book. He was still talking about this in 1971: “(On the erosion of sales) That’s why we have so many superhero characters, and run superheroes together. Even if you take two characters that are weak sellers and run them together in the same book, somehow, psychologically, the reader feels he’s getting more. You get the Avenger follower and the Sub-Mariner follower.” (- Martin Goodman, interviewed by Saul Braun, ‘Shazam! Here Comes Captain Relevant’, New York Times, May 2nd, 1971)

THIS would fall in line with his lack of faith he had in Lee (in the EARLY 60’s) as well as his lack of faith in superheroes, as well as his lack of STAFF to produce enough books.

 

Six to One. Pretty lopsided score.

 

So why would Marvel go to all the trouble to say this? Why come up with this lie that really only surfaced in the 70’s? Why then ADD to it with things like ‘so Goodman switches to 16 bi-monthly titles’ (which actually helps give away the intent)?

Simple.

We KNOW it was Kirby who saved Marvel. (See the previous Essay)

We KNOW Lee did NOTHING to save the company in the year he had before Maneely tragically died and Kirby returned to save the day.

But MARVEL doesn’t want you to know that. Marvel wants you to think it was STAN with the plan that saved Marvel in the late 50’s. That’s why, DC putting the screws to Marvel with that restriction of only 8 titles a month makes it sound so much like Lee overcame all odds to WIN! Marvel’s clever bi-monthly plan - “only 8 a month? Fine! We’ll do 16 bi-monthly then!’ - shows just how smart they are.

No.

Jack Kirby SAVED your . When you had nothing. And Goodman held the paper in his hands to END Marvel Comics… because Lee couldn’t do anything to save it…. Jack Kirby walked in the door and said, “I’ll put you some books together that’ll sell.”

Marvel Comics would’ve ended in August of 1958, if not for Jack Kirby.

 

I often have to say “Without Stan Lee, obviously, Marvel Comics wouldn’t have been the same.”

But I always add, “But without Jack Kirby, it would’ve never existed at all.”

 

On the newsstands in September of 1958? Three new Kirby Sci-Fi books - Strange Worlds #1, Tales of Suspense #1 and Tales to Astonish #1. A genre that had NEVER been successful for Goodman. Kirby had talked him into it.

And the rest is history.

 

Chaz Gower’s new book ‘Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics’', available now on Amazon!

 

 

 

From your post:

"So…. DID DC comics impose an 8 book a month maximum on Goodman as Lee claimed (followed by others who simply repeated his statement) or… did GOODMAN put a restriction on Lee for the number of titles based on budget/staff?"

What if both are true?

ANC shut its operation on May 17, 1957 - prior to that, Goodman halted all new work on Atlas titles around April 27, 1957 (about the same time Dell pulled out of ANC). Think the last Atlas logo had a cover date of Aug 1957. Atlas was putting out dozens of titles a month so there was likely a backlog of completed stories ready to be published to feed the post Implosion titles until artists were brought back.

The contract with IND was signed (likely in late May of '57). The first book with the IND logo on the cover was November 1957 (which means it had to be at the publishers in the June-July 1957 timeframe).

IND knew Goodman was in deep trouble financially and as a direct competitor, likely didn't want to lose a dime on the contract. Goodman knew he was limited financially but had a small pile of ready to go material from the prior staff. During contract negotiations, both parties likely had restrictions that would have placed limits until proper credit rating was built over time. If it was me, I'd make Goodman pay a hefty % up front and then monitor his monthly payment history over time. If Goodman succeeds to rebuild Atlas, IND/DC gets a sliver. If Goodman fails, IND could cut them off fast.

Like yourself, I have searched extensively for any of the original contracts, but have nothing. If it's like common business contracts its good for X number of years. Original contract signed in May '57.

So Goodman/Lee survive a year or two and make timely payments to IND. Now it's time to renew the contract, Goodman asks to increase his service levels with IND, IND considers this a profitable risk to take and the amount of titles/work increases. Same thing happens a few years later until Marvel Comics changes ownership in 1968 (as does DC) and publisher (Curtis Circulations in 1969).

A business contract signed in 1957 is very likely to be amended every few years until they cancel it in 1968. Highly unlikely that any of the original terms maintained thru the final version.

-bc

Edited Monday at 11:48 PM by bc
fix bad grammar

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 5:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Stan Lee Lied ALOT in The Origins of Marvel Comics. It must REALLY be true because no one has brought up any specific claim in the book or my research in showing it's a lie and been able to dispute it.

To be honest... I have never read the book, nor would I. 

I majored in film in college.  Yet I never had any interest in reading those old Hollywood star biographies.  Why would I want to read a glorified glossy Hollywood-agent constructed biography of Joan Crawford?  By the same token, I have no interest in reading the deconstructing axe-grinding biography of a "Mommie Dearest" either.  I can't trust either one to tell me the real undoubtedly complex truth so why bother?  Almost every famous person has had both types of books written about them.  You aren't going to get an accurate accounting while the person is alive (or they'll sue you over what they feel defames them); and shortly after they are dead the knives often come out from those who held back their attacks while the subject was living.  Sometimes it takes time and distance from emotion to get to the real truth of things, if such a thing is even possible.

It does seem, from your own comments here, that a slightly more appropriate title might have been "Marvel Lied..." (though I understand it not being a good idea to go up against Disney's lawyers on that one).  By your own statements you say that both Lee and Goodman lied, and that in instances it's unclear who lied to whom.  Stan Lee isn't promoting the 50th Anniversary of "Origins"... Disney-Marvel is, even though by now they know most of the facts and are choosing to ignore them.  Stan Lee had no say in the making of the Marvel movies... it was up to Marvel to decide how to promote them, and how much to emphasize the creative input of Kirby and Ditko (not to mention, since you haven't, John Severin, Don Heck, "R"ick Ayers, John Buscema, Marie Severin, Gene Colan, John Romita, John Buscema, Bill Everett, Wally Wood, Joe Sinnott, Jim Steranko, etc., etc.).

Certainly Lee lied about his involvement as a writer... it simply isn't humanly possible for one man to have penned all of those stories with his name on them while undertaking the job as editor and promoter as well.  Yet, surely the writers and artists complained to higher-ups about it.  Lee didn't run Marvel.  He was an employee, just like the others.  So obviously, the executives didn't care, or actively pushed the concept of a singe creative face to the Marvel brand.  (Now... what Lee did in his retirement is all on him.  But I've never talked about that.)  My interest is always seeing history in its own context... an art that is sadly all but missing in today's education approach.  Lee lied, the company lied, and they all treated their creators like hired help (which they were).  Every company at the time did the same thing, and most didn't even give any of their talent any credit at all.   much less give them box credits, though certainly incomplete, and hype them in letters columns, etc.  Marvel was at least ahead of its time in that regard, however imperfectly. 

[Bookery]

On 9/16/2024 at 6:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

*Yeah, I know, "but his dialogue!" Well, the movies aren't copying his dialogue - they're copying the STORIES that the artists wrote. 

Yes, but now the movie-makers know the truth.  I'm pretty sure they aren't building a multi-billion dollar franchise around what they were told in "Origins".  If they choose to ignore the truth, that's on Disney now.  And unless I'm wrong, Stan Lee wasn't paid anything by the movies other than for his cameo appearances, was he?  (If I am wrong, then someone please correct me, but I thought that was the case).  

[bc]

Something I posted back in 2021....

US Postal Data for Individual Titles

https://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/postaldata/1960.html

1960 was the first year that the U.S. Postal Service required that publishers actually include circulation information in the Statements of Ownership that appeared in their comic books. At this point, only the print run and paid circulations were reported by all; some also included subscription sales.

Uncle Scrooge and Walt Disney's Comics & Stories both topped 1 million copies, and it was the last time to date that any Statement of Ownership for any title (apart from Mad, a magazine) would top that figure. Star Wars #1 in 1977 would be the next comic book to exceed 1 million copies, although that was across multiple printings. While several issues in the early 1990s would have sales exceeding 1 million copies, none of the year-long averages for those series topped that figure.

Note that DC rounded all figures to the nearest thousand, whereas other publishers went into greater detail. Such variation among publishers was common.

Data from 1960 - Let's see where a Marvel title shows up:

(not yet, keep going...)

(almost there, keep scrollin')

 

First Marvel title in the Top 50 list for 1960 is TTA at #43 selling an average of 163,156 books per issue, followed by TOS at #45. Both of these titles were published bi-monthly until late in 1960.

Notice that the legacy titles Strange Tales and Journey into Mystery don't crack the top 50, TTA & TOS are the "new" guys on the block. JIM & ST don't hit the Top 50 until 1962!

 

To keep the length of this post reasonable, I summarized the other top 50 charts for the PHM titles:

   

   

Even though there is no data for ST & JIM in '60 & '61, the charts for TTA & TOS likely are indicative of their performance as well.

 

As usual, I'll show my raw data:

-bc

[bc]

Another post from that same time frame:

Marvel vs DC Sales Data from 1950 to 1987

https://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/comic_sales.html

Some Notes on the Marvel (Atlas) numbers:

• Atlas Implosion was early 1957
• Mid 1957 - Signed a deal with Independent News
• Nov 1961 - FF1 comes out
• Mid 1962 - IH1, AF15 arrive
• 1963 - More heroes appear
• It took a decade to get back to pre-Implosion sales levels (1956 to 1966) 

Looking at the raw data from this graph, Marvel Total Copies Sold for the years 1957 thru 1963 are:

The drop from '57 to '58 is due to the Atlas Implosion.

'58 and '59 are basically flat years. We see a slight bump in 1960 and a bigger increase in 1961 with continued acceleration from there when the superheroes take over.

-bc

[KCOComics]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:42 PM, bc said:

Another post from that same time frame:

Marvel vs DC Sales Data from 1950 to 1987

https://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/comic_sales.html

Some Notes on the Marvel (Atlas) numbers:

• Atlas Implosion was early 1957
• Mid 1957 - Signed a deal with Independent News
• Nov 1961 - FF1 comes out
• Mid 1962 - IH1, AF15 arrive
• 1963 - More heroes appear
• It took a decade to get back to pre-Implosion sales levels (1956 to 1966) 

Looking at the raw data from this graph, Marvel Total Copies Sold for the years 1957 thru 1963 are:

The drop from '57 to '58 is due to the Atlas Implosion.

'58 and '59 are basically flat years. We see a slight bump in 1960 and a bigger increase in 1961 with continued acceleration from there when the superheroes take over.

-bc

That's kind of crazy. 

 

I've always been under the impression that the Senate trials and comic code hurt the publishers pretty badly. I thought by 57 when Atlas imploded, Sales were on a downward trajectory, only to be saved 4 years later by the Fantastic Four and the super heros to follow. 

But it's petty incredible that it took until 63 or 64 for sales to even get back to the mid 50s levels. 

 

Out of curiosity, in 1957 how many titles were they selling?  And by 1961, they only had 8? 

Edited Tuesday at 01:20 AM by KCOComics