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

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Kirby brought the original idea to Lee. There's no 'proof' he didn't give ideas to Lee that he used for other titles. IN FACT, based on substantial similarities, it most likely DID happen. Was it specific to Spider-man? No, because we also see it in Iron Man. 

You can deny it all you want - it happens multiple times, making it very likely.

Kirby created Iron Man. He didn't create or work on the Spider-Man book. There's no "proof" he gave Lee a single idea used in ASM. In fact, Kirby says he didn't do any work on the book. And yet think its "very likely"? That's just an assertion that is unsupported by anything other than your hunch -- which even Kirby would not support.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:14 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's amazing that Blue Chips calls me out as bullying through a constant barrage of posts, but no one does YOU.

 

Neither one of us is bullying by "a barrage of posts." 

[bronze_rules]

I mentioned before that at least one witness saw an image kirby drew of spider-man and it was nothing like the spider-man we came to know. He had boots, and a gun (with holster belt to boot) -- which make more sense to me given his work on the fly. I do not see that ever evolving into the spider-man we know. I'd give credit (by far) for creation to ditko and maybe Stan a very distant second. The fact we can find images that resemble Peter Parker in earlier Kirby work doesn't mean much.

Edited Friday at 07:13 AM by bronze_rules

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:48 PM, sfcityduck said:

I don't have time to go through 100+ pages of this thread. But I'm pretty sure I saw you reference the following statements by Kirby in the 1989 TCJ interview:

GROTH: How did you feel during the ’60s when Stan became a personality in the books and sort of became the official spokesman and figurehead for Marvel Comics?

KIRBY: Well, Stan became a personality through his relationship with the owner.

...

GROTH: Did you sort of see it coming in the ’60s when Stan was putting his name all over the place? Did you see this kind of— ?

KIRBY: Well, you don’t have to see a thing like that coming. It was happening, and I didn’t know what to do about it. Stan Lee was the editor, and Stan had a lot of influence at Marvel, and there was nothing you could do about it. Who are you going to talk to about it, see?

 

Of course, I've read your posts on the old TCJ message boards and maybe I'm thinking of something you posted there back around 2011. But are you really saying you don't agree with Kirby on his above statements?

I didn't even glance at it, much less comment on it.

Whatever you think I said in 2011, I have no idea, but the possibility exists that its evolved in the 13 years since then, and that's NOT what you said here.

So again, you seem to making stuff up.

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family.

Where'd I say THIS??? Why are you making up statements that you're not even sure I've made? Just to strengthen your own argument? That's a bit dishonest.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:33 PM, sfcityduck said:

Shooter says he found five pages or he says Ditko found five pages? Because apparently the pages were not all together. 

Ditko says it was 5 pages, where do you get 9?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

And yet, you've basically adopted what Kirby said below:

GROTH: Can you explain how you worked? I think according to Stan he would give you a plot, you would draw it, and he would write it. Now would you dispute —

ROZ KIRBY: [Stan] would say that he needs the story, and I think they talked two minutes on the phone, and then Jack would go off and write the story on the side of the art.

KIRBY: Stan didn’t know what the heck the stories were about.

With an attitude like that, are you really telling me that Kirby was feeding Stan plots for comics that Kirby didn't work on, in fact had been pulled off? That has zero plausibility. Stan and Kirby weren't hanging out talking plots for books that Jack didn't work on. Jack never claimed that, Stan never claimed that, and Ditko never claimed that. 

If you have some "proof," what it is? 

Because just making bald assertions is not "proof."

Proof is in the result.

And 1961 was different than 1969 for their relationship.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

At that time, it was about 1/3rd of the history of superheros. So, as a I said, from a GA perspective it was. I'm pretty sure that Kirby would have been impressed that MMC had already run 9 issues of superhero comics. 

But that's just an opinion we can agree to disagree.

Actually they would have begun on Red Raven #1, about February of 1940, when MMC was on #6. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:07 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby created Iron Man. He didn't create or work on the Spider-Man book. There's no "proof" he gave Lee a single idea used in ASM. In fact, Kirby says he didn't do any work on the book. And yet think its "very likely"? That's just an assertion that is unsupported by anything other than your hunch -- which even Kirby would not support.

The facts show otherwise.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Neither one of us is bullying by "a barrage of posts." 

Yes, but one of us has been accused of it.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 2:04 PM, bronze_rules said:

I mentioned before that at least one witness saw an image kirby drew of spider-man and it was nothing like the spider-man we came to know. He had boots, and a gun (with holster belt to boot) -- which make more sense to me given his work on the fly. I do not see that ever evolving into the spider-man we know.

No one is claiming that. 

On 10/18/2024 at 2:04 PM, bronze_rules said:

I'd give credit (by far) for creation to ditko and maybe Stan a very distant second.

Yes, I would say that.

On 10/18/2024 at 2:04 PM, bronze_rules said:

The fact we can find images that resemble Peter Parker in earlier Kirby work doesn't mean much.

In the conversation of Kirby not being able draw someone who isn't 'heroic' looking, yes. As far as what it has to do with his version of Spider-man, no.

Edited Friday at 08:47 AM by Prince Namor

[Zonker]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

Ditko has written that he did not provide dialogue to Stan. I have no real opinions on Dr. Strange never having been fan. I have a Masterworks around here so someday I could look. But if the dialogue was integral to the character (which it almost always was for Marvel characters), and Stan did the dialogue/captions then I'd say he was writer and deserved co-creation credit.

To me almost all comic book characters require both an artist and a writer (dialogue/captions) to be created, whether it is full script or Marvel method. Because a comic book is a combination of pictures and words and a character is a combination of look, sound, and feel (which may be a combo of the first two). 

I agree with you that Lee's words are an integral part of most of the Marvel Silver Age characters, including the alliterative incantations of Doctor Strange, and Thor speaking as if he is quoting the King James Bible (which is what brought this to mind in the context of the recent Thor discussion). 

But if Lee only added those flourishes later on, are they still part of the creation of the character, or instead only subsequent refinements of a character already "created?"  Because we don't see either in the first published appearances of Doctor Strange or Thor.  I'm trying to wrap my own mind around the question of whether a character creation happens all at once, or is actually an evolving thing over a period of time.  

Apparently Ditko did state that he provided dialogue in addition to the art for the first Doctor Strange.  According to a reference on the Wikipedia page for Doctor Strange, this quote originally came from one of Ditko's Avenging Mind essays (which I don't have)

On my own, I brought in to Lee a five-page, penciled story with a page/panel script of my idea of a new, different kind of character for variety in Marvel Comics. My character wound up being named Dr. Strange because he would appear in Strange Tales

[comicwiz]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:47 AM, Zonker said:

But if Lee only added those flourishes later on, are they still part of the creation of the character, or instead only subsequent refinements of a character already "created?

This topic is subject to further analysis in an FB group post from yesterday, particularly in relation to Bill Everett and Daredevil #1

"DAREDEVIL #1 original art has Bill Everett's border notes for Lee but also shows Everett's penciled lettering in the balloon and caption areas.  Odd because if Everett was working from a full script why would Everett include border notes? 

In addition Everett did the inked lettering as evidenced in places where a paste-up lettered by Sam Rosen has fallen off. 
Lee doesn't make any changes to Everett's text in this case. Lee simply has Rosen write out the same words in a different style. 

Everett's border notes, penciled lettering on the page and Everett being the original inked letterer suggests it's not unlikely Everett wrote DAREDEVIL #1. 
Other pages from the published story show considerable evidence of tampering with a number of whole panels having been pasted down over top of artwork which is now hidden beneath the new panel. Page 13 is a good example with five panels having been pasted over with new art."

"The fact Everett completed the story including the lettering tells us Lee blaming Everett being late is a lie. We know Everett lettered several of the pages because the paste-overs have fallen off. Since Everett also inked the story and inking is done after lettering that means Everett penciled, lettered, inked and probably wrote a complete story he turned in to Lee. The delay was caused by Lee not Everett. Lee blaming Everett also resulted in numerous fans and "historians" feeling the need to blame the lateness on Everett having a drinking problem.
My assumption is Everett left the title not because he blew a deadline and was replaced but because Lee wanted the writing money."

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

My take: I'll leave it for the board members to decide if this reveals more proof that Lee was only doing dialogue and nothing else. 

AND IF TRUE that Everett was unfairly blamed, then that's a pretty heinous thing to have done to blame Everett for being late due to having a drinking problem. Both inexusable, and indefensible IMO.

We learn of Bill Everett's career in the book Fire & Water, but also about Daredevil #1's "lateness" through a post in 2011 by Tom Brevoort

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

ESO Network April 13 2011:

"Tom Brevoort, currently Marvel’s senior vice president of publishing, has been answering fan questions over on formspring, and he recently revealed that the whole reason an Avengers comic had to be created was because Daredevil #1 was late."

According to Brevoort:

"Bill Everett, with whom Stan co-created Daredevil, had both a day job and a drinking problem. And so production on Daredevil #1 fell way behind. In those days, you booked print time way ahead of time--and if your book wasn't ready, you paid for the printing time anyway. So it was vital to get something to press on time. But Bill Everett was a favorite of Martin Goodman, stemming back to the 40s when he created the Sub-Mariner."

Edited Friday at 12:41 PM by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:03 PM, sfcityduck said:

While I get your point, I am pretty sure that Mike has made it very clear he doesn't want anyone veering to religion as some people are very sensitive on that subject. Talking about the history of the Bible is very interesting, but the chances of offending someone are very high given that there are so many different versions of the Bible and who made what selections necessarily becomes a sensitive topic.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to ruffle any feathers. I was trying to show how scholars on some of the most important subjects to mankind can't agree, mainly because people are emotionally invested. 

On 10/16/2024 at 2:44 PM, COI said:

I have no problem with people believing anything they want, and you know I have no problem with you Roy, but you're brow-beating everyone about proper logic while not employing it yourself. Biblical debates are not the place to employ formal logic.

I absolutely know you don't have a problem with me. 

And I'll disagree with you. 

If you don't get caught up on the subject matter, it's just a discussion about the rules for interpretation and translation of ancient literature. 

On 10/16/2024 at 7:09 PM, Sauce Dog said:

Technically yes, but I'll nit-pick that based on the modern academic census (and actual Hebrew temporal clauses) it is actually better interpreted as "In the beginning OF god creating the heavens and the earth". I would not go as far to say this 'aligns' it with science, rather it simply defeats the dogmatic concept of creation ex nihilo ;)

I  you.

[VintageComics]

On 10/16/2024 at 9:53 PM, Iconic1s said:

Is what you are trying to say is…

In “The” beginning of the Marvel Universe ”A” Stan Lee Lied.

Got it! 

That depends on which version you read. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:30 AM, Prince Namor said:

Julius Schwartz gave a LOT of input on things at DC that he edited and added dialogue to and made changes.

He didn't claim he created it.

I didn't realize DC employed the Marvel Method. 

It also doesn't mean Schwartz wasn't responsible for co-creating. It just means he chose not to take credit for those things. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:13 AM, Prince Namor said:

I didn't even glance at it, much less comment on it.

Whatever you think I said in 2011, I have no idea, but the possibility exists that its evolved in the 13 years since then, and that's NOT what you said here.

So again, you seem to making stuff up.

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family.

Where'd I say THIS??? Why are you making up statements that you're not even sure I've made? Just to strengthen your own argument? That's a bit dishonest.

No. I'm working off of memory of 60 some pages of comment. It is inevitable I might get one wrong (I have not gone back to confirm).

A recurring theme here is you over accuse someone making a misstatement or suffering a failure of recollection of dishonesty or lies.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:30 AM, Prince Namor said:

Actually they would have begun on Red Raven #1, about February of 1940, when MMC was on #6. 

Red Raven 1 and MMC 10 are both cover dated 8/9. You are comparing release dates to cover dates. You need to do apples to apples.

I'll admit I'm off by one month  -- it was 10 issues not 9.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:39 PM, VintageComics said:

I didn't realize DC employed the Marvel Method. 

It also doesn't mean Schwartz wasn't responsible for co-creating. It just means he chose not to take credit for those things. 

 

i.e. or steal the credit and pay from those doing the actual writing.

[Forbush-Man]

On 10/18/2024 at 5:25 AM, comicwiz said:

This topic is subject to further analysis in an FB group post from yesterday, particularly in relation to Bill Everett and Daredevil #1

"DAREDEVIL #1 original art has Bill Everett's border notes for Lee but also shows Everett's penciled lettering in the balloon and caption areas.  Odd because if Everett was working from a full script why would Everett include border notes? 

In addition Everett did the inked lettering as evidenced in places where a paste-up lettered by Sam Rosen has fallen off. 
Lee doesn't make any changes to Everett's text in this case. Lee simply has Rosen write out the same words in a different style. 

Everett's border notes, penciled lettering on the page and Everett being the original inked letterer suggests it's not unlikely Everett wrote DAREDEVIL #1. 
Other pages from the published story show considerable evidence of tampering with a number of whole panels having been pasted down over top of artwork which is now hidden beneath the new panel. Page 13 is a good example with five panels having been pasted over with new art."

"The fact Everett completed the story including the lettering tells us Lee blaming Everett being late is a lie. We know Everett lettered several of the pages because the paste-overs have fallen off. Since Everett also inked the story and inking is done after lettering that means Everett penciled, lettered, inked and probably wrote a complete story he turned in to Lee. The delay was caused by Lee not Everett. Lee blaming Everett also resulted in numerous fans and "historians" feeling the need to blame the lateness on Everett having a drinking problem.
My assumption is Everett left the title not because he blew a deadline and was replaced but because Lee wanted the writing money."

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

My take: I'll leave it for the board members to decide if this reveals more proof that Lee was only doing dialogue and nothing else. 

AND IF TRUE that Everett was unfairly blamed, then that's a pretty heinous thing to have done to blame Everett for being late due to having a drinking problem. Both inexusable, and indefensible IMO.

We learn of Bill Everett's career in the book Fire & Water, but also about Daredevil #1's "lateness" through a post in 2011 by Tom Brevoort

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

ESO Network April 13 2011:

"Tom Brevoort, currently Marvel’s senior vice president of publishing, has been answering fan questions over on formspring, and he recently revealed that the whole reason an Avengers comic had to be created was because Daredevil #1 was late."

According to Brevoort:

"Bill Everett, with whom Stan co-created Daredevil, had both a day job and a drinking problem. And so production on Daredevil #1 fell way behind. In those days, you booked print time way ahead of time--and if your book wasn't ready, you paid for the printing time anyway. So it was vital to get something to press on time. But Bill Everett was a favorite of Martin Goodman, stemming back to the 40s when he created the Sub-Mariner."

Excellent! 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:50 PM, sfcityduck said:

No. I'm working off of memory of 60 some pages of comment. It is inevitable I might get one wrong (I have not gone back to confirm).

A recurring theme here is you over accuse someone making a misstatement or suffering a failure of recollection of dishonesty or lies.

You make up something you claim I said that isn't true and I'M to blame? LOL