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

[VintageComics]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:04 AM, Zonker said:

Silver Surfer might be worth its own book some day!

For the early 1960s Marvel comics, Stan's wisecracking dialogue certainly was part of the appeal.  Spider-Man's quips in the middle of tackling his latest bad guy were a lot of fun for many readers (as Ditko mentioned in one of his quotes we saw earlier).  And as the Fantastic Four were traveling through the worlds of Kirby's imagination, you could always count on the Thing to have some kind of a quip to keep the mood from remaining overly-serious.  So, when Stan launches the Silver Surfer solo book, he abandons this trademarked light touch, and instead makes the proceedings oh-so-solemn.  There wasn't a regular counterpoint in the comic like a Ben Grimm or a Johnny Storm to act as the Surfer's foil and lighten up the mood.   Apparently, the older fans loved it, as it won best story of the year in  fandom's Alley Awards during each of the two years it was eligible. But the comic seemed to not find a wide enough audience to keep it going beyond those couple of years.  Did it fail partly because it was missing that winking, in-on-the-joke aspect of many of the more successful Marvel comics? 

Or was it just a case of the higher 25 cent cover price during its first year pricing it out of the reach of its potential mass audience? 

It was likely both. 

the 25 cent cover price reduced the audience dramatically, and also the somber timbre of the stories alienated readers looking for that distinct, fun, Marvel style. 

Your point about the Surfer stories missing a foil, or some comedic relief is very important. 

On 10/22/2024 at 9:53 AM, Ken Aldred said:

I always felt that the Silver Age book ended up sounding one-note and repetitive quite quickly, and had run its course anyway past those 25c issues.

It descended into mediocrity quite quickly, despite some nice artwork. And, Norrin was incessantly whiny, under the pretence of being philosophical and intellectually insightful.

 

On 10/22/2024 at 10:13 AM, Zonker said:

Could be Stan had spent too much time on 1960s college campuses, and catered this series to where he thought his audience was by then.  Forgetting about his core demographic perhaps.  Alley-awarding winning material as it turned out, but a snoozefest for the mainstream?

That's exactly it, IMO. 

Lee tried to go highbrow (great American novel and all that) and it missed the mainstream.

I don't know for sure, but was his editorial decision to go highbrow possibly one of the reasons he kept Kirby off the title?

I've mentioned this many times, but if you read issue #18 when he hands it back to Kirby, Kirby immediately goes back to his old shtick of "good guy, bad guy" with a vengeful Surfer. 

Incidentally, the Surfer run is one of my favorite all time Marvel runs specifically because of the tone of the series. I love the melodrama because it was so unique to comics. 

Edited 9 hours ago by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:23 PM, Zonker said:

On 10/21/2024 at 5:54 PM, VintageComics said:

So the only thing you credit Stan Lee with towards Marvel's success is his input on Thor from JIM #86 up?

No credit for his input on Fantastic Four?

No credit for his co-creation of Spider-man?

No credit for his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letter's page or Marvel's unique style of story telling?

If I can butt in here, people who haven't read the book, and also haven't read the threads in question, risk getting hyper-focused on tiny bits of the argument, and assume that is the entire argument.  I confessed pages ago I haven't read the book, but that's because I followed the various threads and participated along the way, so I feel like maybe I did read an early draft version of the book. 

Similarly, anyone who wants the full blow-by-blow account, please check out these threads in the Silver Age forum here.  There are more, but the 1961 and 1962 threads are probably the most meaningful for the questions regarding the first appearances of these characters. 

Thanks, and I genuinely appreciate that but I've followed Chuck's discussions for years and have debated him for many of those years.

The point I'm specifically trying to make here right now is not about what he wrote in those threads or in his book, but about how he consistently forms his "evidence" and "facts" in a general sense, using one specific example in this thread. 

I've shown that it was done by being intellectually dishonest, and I contend that it's a repeating pattern. 

In fact, even if Stan Lee did lie or steal (allegedly) the point I'm building my case is on is still a clear example of this intellectual dishonesty.  

Edited 9 hours ago by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:06 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 5:54 PM, VintageComics said:

We're not discussing individual titles. We're discussing publishers.

We're specifically talking about Marvel's success as a company, and we were discussing the Marvel Method as it relates to the reader, and so I'm making the point as related to the string of discussion that the Marvel Method is the primary reason for Marvel's success,

That's absurd.

If that was the case then Millie the Model (or even Ant-Man) would've never been canceled.

Having a few 'bad' titles doesn't negate this fact:

On 10/21/2024 at 10:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

Marvel was successful in that they grew every year in the 60's. They never sold as many comics as DC or Archie during that time though. 

Not everything can always be gold.

Marvel was successful because as a fledgling company, their readership continued to grow year after year.

In fact, you said "they grew every year in the 60's."

Those are your words. 

If that's not unequivocally successful, then nothing is. 

And I contend that it was "The Marvel Method" that was one key to this success (year after year growth) along with the combination of Lee / Kirby / Ditko.

The reason I state that, is that every single Marvel zombie loves the Stan Lee hip, wink at you vibe that came out of that Marvel Method as the company's greatest appeal. In fact, I have yet to hear of anyone complain about the Marvel "style".

Is there anyone who dislike's Marvel's 'hip' 60's style?

Edited 9 hours ago by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:06 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 5:54 PM, VintageComics said:

So the only thing you credit Stan Lee with towards Marvel's success is his input on Thor from JIM #86 up?

No credit for his input on Fantastic Four?

No credit for his co-creation of Spider-man?

No credit for his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letter's page or Marvel's unique style of story telling?

See, I try and have this conversation in good faith and then... here you go with something like this.

I'm not going to be snarky in my response - I'm just going to say - if you want to have a conversation about this, please stop projecting nonsense into it. I never said any of those things. IN FACT, on most of them I've said the opposite. 

Let me rephrase for clarity since we're misunderstanding each other:

Marvel Zombies associate the success of Marvel with many of (but not only) Stan's contributions to the co-creation of Spider-man, his zippy and unique language, his input on the Fantastic four, his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letters page or Marvel's unique style of story telling. 

I understand you believe Stan was responsible for his input from JIM #86 up, which I think you offer as a sarcastic contribution anyway. 

I'm looking for a summary of things you personally give Stan Lee credit for towards Marvel's SUCCESS besides his input on JIM #86 up.

[VintageComics]

Edited my post at the bottom of page 127 to add more details. 

[Mmehdy]

On 10/22/2024 at 5:04 AM, Zonker said:

Silver Surfer might be worth its own book some day!

For the early 1960s Marvel comics, Stan's wisecracking dialogue certainly was part of the appeal.  Spider-Man's quips in the middle of tackling his latest bad guy were a lot of fun for many readers (as Ditko mentioned in one of his quotes we saw earlier).  And as the Fantastic Four were traveling through the worlds of Kirby's imagination, you could always count on the Thing to have some kind of a quip to keep the mood from remaining overly-serious.  So, when Stan launches the Silver Surfer solo book, he abandons this trademarked light touch, and instead makes the proceedings oh-so-solemn.  There wasn't a regular counterpoint in the comic like a Ben Grimm or a Johnny Storm to act as the Surfer's foil and lighten up the mood.   Apparently, the older fans loved it, as it won best story of the year in  fandom's Alley Awards during each of the two years it was eligible. But the comic seemed to not find a wide enough audience to keep it going beyond those couple of years.  Did it fail partly because it was missing that winking, in-on-the-joke aspect of many of the more successful Marvel comics? 

Or was it just a case of the higher 25 cent cover price during its first year pricing it out of the reach of its potential mass audience? 

I bought them all, 25 cents was a factor after issue #1...which is why they lowered the price to15Cents. Still at the time I agree, a different feel....issue #1 is one of my top 10 Marvels of all time....what a deal back them!

Edited 11 hours ago by Mmehdy

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

I'm a big believer in research and citation, but it ceases to be laudable or worth your time reading when a person subverts their own research by coming to it with a predetermined conclusion, disputes all evidence that doesn't lead to that conclusion and accepts all evidence that supports that conclusion even if the supporting evidence is questionable and contradictory, sums it up with hyperbolic accusations in all caps and resorts to name-calling ("apologists", "zombies") of anybody who doesn't agree with 100% of his conclusions.      

Edited 10 hours ago by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[themagicrobot]

You have to give credit to Stan for picking up on the feedback from fans in the early Fantastic Four letters pages and making them feel that just by reading the comics they were part of a select Marvel "club". Writing in the Bullpen Bulletin in FF 56 he says "We never wanted any of our treasured readers to lose a contest - consequently we would award nothing but "no-prizes", because if there were no winners, then there couldn't be any losers".

[Mmehdy]

On 10/22/2024 at 10:28 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I'm a big believer in research and citation, but it ceases to be laudable or worth your time reading when a person subverts their own research by coming to it with a predetermined conclusion, disputes all evidence that doesn't lead to that conclusion and accepts all evidence that supports that conclusion even if the supporting evidence is questionable and contradictory, sums it up with hyperbolic accusations in all caps and resorts to name-calling ("apologists", "zombies") of anybody who doesn't agree with 100% of his conclusions.      

If you look at the theads on the board, if you read the book, you cannot come to that conclusion in anyway...the facts are the facts...A book by book examination on a month by month basis point to one conclusion...Stan Lee DID lie.....I went in thinking that Stan was the Man, the man who should be given 80/90 of the credit in creating and writing some the comic book stories ever created, my bubble burst when those "pure images" issues came...the first of their kind and after 2 discussions with Greg, my outlook changed forever. I went in to these  SA theads and this book hoping to get a better understanding of what Greg  Theakston ,who is no longer with us, stated in his ground breaking articles for his magazine Pure Imagination and his work on Jack Kirby and Betty Page. Just do a Wiki if you are unfamiliar with him he was a fantastic collector/person.

 In fact, I wish I can link the Marvel and Spiderman articles he wrote. Now he did go into more detail in our discussions at SDCC and he told me stuff which was not put in those articles.

 The research here is spot on, no matter whose side you take........SM, PM or Subby was not the first one to questions the Marvel creations myth.....be he is the first one to document step by step, the real marvel universe creation from a  factual standpoint.

I agree some people can come in with rose colored glasses...not this time...SM's Stan Lee Lied is a gut punch for the truth!!

Edited 9 hours ago by Mmehdy

[seanfingh]

Who is SM?

[fast eddie]

Maybe he meant PN,,,,,, but put Sub-Mariner instead?

[Mmehdy]

On 10/22/2024 at 11:56 AM, seanfingh said:

Who is SM?

corrected...from now on Subby!

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 3:09 PM, Aman619 said:

On 10/21/2024 at 12:08 PM, jimjum12 said:

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

a woman hired me to do some work for her once.  Later I learned she hired others, and paid us different amounts!  When I went back to her and said that not fair, she quoted  this parable to me.  Ive never forgotten it, and how absurd the logic is.  So much for equal pay for equal work!  

The repercussions and consequences for individual actions and decisions these days are being eroded. 

There is an entire segment of social study that examines this. People have been trained by social media to seek unfair compensation for things they're NOT entitled to, simply if it becomes popular to do so.

This is a product of social media changing the way humans think, from children on up (everyone gets a trophy) and teaching them to equate power and popularity through sheer numbers as being the same as, or equal to reason and logic. It's quite literally a social illness that has taken over all of society and you can see it in society everywhere. 

Someone doesn't like that they're getting what they deserve? All they have to do is muster enough opposition and they can get what they want rather than what they deserve. 

It's quite literally the single main reason for the downfall of Western civilization. And that's not an understatement. 

Edited 8 hours ago by VintageComics

[jimjum12]

On 10/22/2024 at 2:49 PM, Mmehdy said:

If you look at the theads on the board, if you read the book, you cannot come to that conclusion in anyway...the facts are the facts...A book by book examination on a month by month basis point to one conclusion...Stan Lee DID lie.....I went in thinking that Stan was the Man, the man who should be given 80/90 of the credit in creating and writing some the comic book stories ever created, my bubble burst when those "pure images" issues came...the first of their kind and after 2 discussions with Greg, my outlook changed forever. I went in to these  SA theads and this book hoping to get a better understanding of what Greg  Theakston ,who is no longer with us, stated in his ground breaking articles for his magazine Pure Imagination and his work on Jack Kirby and Betty Page. Just do a Wiki if you are unfamiliar with him he was a fantastic collector/person.

 In fact, I wish I can link the Marvel and Spiderman articles he wrote. Now he did go into more detail in our discussions at SDCC and he told me stuff which was not put in those articles.

 The research here is spot on, no matter whose side you take........SM, PM or Subby was not the first one to questions the Marvel creations myth.....be he is the first one to document step by step, the real marvel universe creation from a  factual standpoint.

I agree some people can come in with rose colored glasses...not this time...SM's Stan Lee Lied is a gut punch for the truth!!

You're glossing over everything BCC said, Mitch. We already know you read the book and agree with Chuck's conclusions. GOD BLESS. 

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... money was tight for us in the 60's, so I opted out of SS 1 and subsequent, not choosing to ditch two regular books for a new one. None of my friends had a copy for basically the same reason. 

[Mr Sneeze]

Well I finally had a chance to read to book. I very much enjoyed it and really appreciate the hard work and passion you put in into it. For anyone on the fence, I highly recommend it. You don’t have to agree with any or all conclusions but if you are a fan of comics then there is much here to consider.

I have more to say but just wanted to get this out.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/22/2024 at 12:35 PM, jimjum12 said:

You're glossing over everything BCC said, Mitch. We already know you read the book and agree with Chuck's conclusions. GOD BLESS. 

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... money was tight for us in the 60's, so I opted out of SS 1 and subsequent, not choosing to ditch two regular books for a new one. None of my friends had a copy for basically the same reason. 

I lived it...and I can remember...the supermarket I bought it from...it was like WOW...........comics have come a long way.....are they better today? some respects yes and others no. 1962-1964 I believe was unlike any comic book buying time in my history...Kirby covers probably, they really stood out then..I will give credit to Strange Adventures and House of Secrets etc....

 As far as the support for the book and his theads here, it is the idea or idea expressed and so far, Subby has brushed back the Serious challengers (of the unknown. also great 62-62 covers).

Of course, seeing my responses to those board theads over in SA, as well as my responses here..confirm one thing...I seek the truth.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/22/2024 at 12:42 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

Well I finally had a chance to read to book. I very much enjoyed it and really appreciate the hard work and passion you put in into it. For anyone on the fence, I highly recommend it. You don’t have to agree with any or all conclusions but if you are a fan of comics then there is much here to consider.

I have more to say but just wanted to get this out.

Interested in your deep dive, especially the critical items you spotted as well as the good. Cong!

[Blastaar]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:56 PM, seanfingh said:

Who is SM?

One of the greatest and most consistent hitters in baseball history. 

[jimjum12]

On 10/22/2024 at 3:43 PM, Mmehdy said:

Of course, seeing my responses to those board theads over in SA, as well as my responses here..confirm one thing...I seek the truth.

This is obvious to me.

The character assassination of Stan, which is amplified by manipulation of context and disregard of MANY counterpoints, was at the heart of BCC's comments and concerns. There is a difference between an expose' and a smear job. Many of us remain unconvinced of any constitutional malevolence at the heart of Stan Lee's endeavors, that a prevailing and ancient evil does not feast on Stan Lee's very soul. Yes, however, he did claim a bit more than his due.  GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

He came, he saw, and he conquered, 

... with a "little" help from his friends.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 9:13 PM, Zonker said:

Could be Stan had spent too much time on 1960s college campuses, and catered this series to where he thought his audience was by then.  Forgetting about his core demographic perhaps.  Alley-awarding winning material as it turned out, but a snoozefest for the mainstream?

 

...or desperate to live up to his "Modern Day Shakepere' tag.