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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 6:30 AM, VintageComics said:

Both you and Comicwiz have done the same thing, repeating this but not actually answering my questions.

You keep talking to what Stan DIDN'T do, but never reply to what he did do.  

He stole credit and pay from his artists who wrote the stories. 

On 9/18/2024 at 6:30 AM, VintageComics said:

Wow. David Lee Roth disgusts me. He's transparent, shallow, has zero substance and is all ego. He gets more gross every time he opens his mouth.

I loved VH's early music as a whole, but I hate who he is as a person.

Why are you discussing and even insulting personal taste when it's entirely subjective in a thread where you're apparently only interested in facts?

On 9/18/2024 at 6:30 AM, VintageComics said:

Most people don't understand how important this is. They have a knee jerk reaction without thinking it through. I'll try to speak more to this later to bring some nuance to the discussion. 

That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a while.

[CGC Mike]

On 9/17/2024 at 7:33 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

On 9/17/2024 at 7:28 PM, Terry JSA said:

So you already knew the answer to your own question.

I'm taking the fifth.  

I am going to ask that both of you stop this back and forth now.

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/17/2024 at 7:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Both you and Comicwiz have done the same thing, repeating this but not actually answering my questions.

You keep talking to what Stan DIDN'T do, but never reply to what he did do.  

He stole credit and pay from his artists who wrote the stories. 

I'm going to ask the question one last time. So far, NOBODY has addressed it. 

The movements within Marvel stories were about human rights, respect, equality, goodness. It was an incredible strategic move of pure genius. These qualities were long term goals that drove all the stories, not just an afterthought and they were the fundamental difference between Marvel and everyone else at the time.

All the Kirby and Ditko art in the world couldn't manipulate people into loving the brand without that emotional factor of the underdog fighting for good.

 

Who motivated and drove the bullpen in this direction? - Note, this is not a discussion about whether there was a physical bullpen or not. Whether physical or remote, there was still a group of creators called "the bullpen"

So, who corralled together the world class talent AND cultivated that activist culture within the company, and drove those principles throughout Marvel's story telling?

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:36 PM, Bookery said:

My agenda, I suppose, is that I don't like historical events being judged only through the lens of today's moment and culture.

I understand where you coming at with this, as oppossed to someone else quoting you on it, and I'm going to address it from both points.

Yes... someone who looks at a Frazetta painting from 1965 and calls it 'a dangerous sexist painting' is... judging it through the lens of today's moment and culture. They're not WRONG, per se... how it makes someone feel is their own right to feel that way... BUT, its a product of a different time and a differnt society. There's far too much that's allow and overlooked in MODERN society today that is sexist and SHOULD be addressed and ISN'T - why are people worried about some painting from 1965?

Not to mention, that it's ART. It doesn't necessarily reflect the view of who created it, but rather an IDEA that they wanted to put forth. In this case, it was created for a STORY that they had no part in writing. Art isn't necessarily WHO the artist is. PERSONALLY, I always knew Bob Marley wasn’t really going to shoot the Sheriff - and that Christian Bale wasn’t really a serial killer named Patrick Bateman… 

But that’s MY perspective and how it felt to ME.

Everyone is entitled to how THEY feel. 100%.

HOWEVER... in this day and age, having the perspective of 'I don't like historical events being judged only through the lens of today's moment and culture.' can also be used in devious ways by those in power who want to manipulate. So I think it IS important to understand... slavery may have existed in the 1800's and maybe society WAS different and it's hard to judge it through the lens of today's society, etc. - it still doesn't change the fact that it was WRONG. 

What Lee did... stealing credit and pay from the artists who wrote the story... was WRONG. No one else was doing that. They were taking kickbacks, sure. But stealing credit and pay both? Bob Kane at least PAID Finger and Robinson for the work he stole credit for and that guy STILL got villified for decades.

Lee's crime was universally wrong. And he never showed remorse. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/17/2024 at 7:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Wow. David Lee Roth disgusts me. He's transparent, shallow, has zero substance and is all ego. He gets more gross every time he opens his mouth.

I loved VH's early music as a whole, but I hate who he is as a person.

Why are you discussing and even insulting personal taste when it's entirely subjective in a thread where you're apparently only interested in facts?

You're mischaracterizing why I said that and it doesn't apply here.

I used that sentence when you stepped outside of strictly discussing your book about Stan Lee and started smearing people personally for being "Marvel only" fans. Conflating the two discussions don't make logical sense but they do make emotional sense if you don't like Stan Lee and want to disparage people who do like him. 

If you simply stated what you didn't like about Marvel it would be fine, but instead you disparaged people who like Marvel which is a very different thing. That's the difference. 

I've been discussing the nuanced intangibles of Stan Lee the entire time, as have been many others (like @jimjum12 and @Dr. Balls) because some qualities / realities are only found outside of the known or established facts. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:20 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm going to ask the question one last time. So far, NOBODY has addressed it. 

The movements within Marvel stories were about human rights, respect, equality, goodness. It was an incredible strategic move of pure genius. These qualities were long term goals that drove all the stories, not just an afterthought and they were the fundamental difference between Marvel and everyone else at the time.

All the Kirby and Ditko art in the world couldn't manipulate people into loving the brand without that emotional factor of the underdog fighting for good.

Are you serious? That didn't come from Stan Lee. 

Have you read ANY Kirby or Lee stories from the Golden Age???

That was ALWAYS in Kirby's work. ALWAYS. In simpliest terms, who do you think Captain America was?

That same 'human rights, respect, equality, goodness' was NOT in Stan Lee's pre-Silver Age work. The jokey dialogue? Yeah, for sure.

But Chilli wasn't respectful of Millie. She was MEAN. Verbally abusive. NOT respectful. Didn't see her as an equal. Was NOT a good person.

Dextor the Demon? Mean, spiteful character.

THESE are the people Stan Lee wrote about.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:20 AM, VintageComics said:

Who motivated and drove the bullpen in this direction? - Note, this is not a discussion about whether there was a physical bullpen or not. Whether physical or remote, there was still a group of creators called "the bullpen"

So, who corralled together the world class talent AND cultivated that activist culture within the company, and drove those principles throughout Marvel's story telling?

Let's see... Ditko quit because of Lee. Wood quit because of Lee. Kirby quit because of Lee. Orlando quit because of Lee. Ayers got forced out by Lee and then had someone at Marvel start a rumor that he went insane, making it difficult for him to get work elsewhere (according to Ayers)... yeah, a real Bullpen of Motivation there. 

[Funnybooks]

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/17/2024 at 8:20 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm going to ask the question one last time. So far, NOBODY has addressed it. 

The movements within Marvel stories were about human rights, respect, equality, goodness. It was an incredible strategic move of pure genius. These qualities were long term goals that drove all the stories, not just an afterthought and they were the fundamental difference between Marvel and everyone else at the time.

All the Kirby and Ditko art in the world couldn't manipulate people into loving the brand without that emotional factor of the underdog fighting for good.

Are you serious? That didn't come from Stan Lee. 

Have you read ANY Kirby or Lee stories from the Golden Age???

That was ALWAYS in Kirby's work. ALWAYS. In simpliest terms, who do you think Captain America was?

That same 'human rights, respect, equality, goodness' was NOT in Stan Lee's pre-Silver Age work. The jokey dialogue? Yeah, for sure.

But Chilli wasn't respectful of Millie. She was MEAN. Verbally abusive. NOT respectful. Didn't see her as an equal. Was NOT a good person.

Dextor the Demon? Mean, spiteful character.

THESE are the people Stan Lee wrote about.

So it was Kirby that created the brand that Marvel was. 

And it was Kirby who wrote that sort of stuff in the Bullpen Bulletins.

And the Letters pages.

And the social commentary in the stories.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, VintageComics said:

You're mischaracterizing why I said that and it doesn't apply here.

"When I do it, it's ok! When YOU do it, it doesn't count!" 

LOL. Classic.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, VintageComics said:

I used that sentence when you stepped outside of strictly discussing your book about Stan Lee and started smearing people personally for being "Marvel only" fans.

How is it smearing someone for being a "Marvel only" fan, when... you're simply saying they're a "Marvel only" fan? LOL.

Classic.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, VintageComics said:

Conflating the two discussions don't make logical sense but they do make emotional sense if you don't like Stan Lee and want to disparage people who do like him. 

If you simply stated what you didn't like about Marvel it would be fine, but instead you disparaged people who like Marvel which is a very different thing. That's the difference. 

Roy: "You're not allowed to tell people how they can post!"

Proceeds to tell me how to post.

LOL. Classic.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, VintageComics said:

I've been discussing the nuanced intangibles of Stan Lee the entire time, as have been many others (like @jimjum12 and @Dr. Balls) because some qualities / realities are only found outside of the known or established facts. 

Yeah. 'Nuanced' Lol

[BlowUpTheMoon]

On 9/17/2024 at 9:36 AM, Bookery said:

... you chose a title that screams for attention, stirred controversy by a contentious and highly emotional response style, and have elicited a multitude of responses both here and at Bleeding Cool. 

Short of doing a book tour, this these actions are normal and expected when releasing a book. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

How is it smearing someone for being a "Marvel only" fan, when... you're simply saying they're a "Marvel only" fan? LOL.

Classic.

On 9/17/2024 at 8:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

Roy: "You're not allowed to tell people how they can post!"

Proceeds to tell me how to post.

LOL. Classic.

I'm not trying to tell you how to post.

I'm pointing out that explaining why you don't like only Marvel is very different than calling someone a "doofus" (as you did below) because they only like Marvel.

It's intellectually dishonest to conflate things the way you're doing. 

On 9/17/2024 at 8:41 AM, Prince Namor said:

The first Marvel Zombie I ever encountered was many years later at a local comic shop at college. He was going on and on about how he only collected Marvel titles. I was standing in line buying my books, a month's worth after coming back from Christmas break, and which included all 4 Spidey books, Daredevil (Mazzucchelli issue), Starlin's Dreadstar, Byrne's Fantastic Four, Miracleman, and Nexus.

I just thought, "What a doofus."

Even now it just seems weird to me. To what end, would you limit yourself on reading comics? Duh.It's like saying, "I only watch Channel 4!"

Weird.

It's obvious that we're going in circles now so I'll stop but I am going to post some thoughts about judging the past by today's standards when I get a chance if I can find some material I'm looking for. 

Edited yesterday at 12:51 AM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:42 AM, VintageComics said:

So it was Kirby that created the brand that Marvel was. 

And it was Kirby who wrote that sort of stuff in the Bullpen Bulletins.

And the Letters pages.

And the social commentary in the stories.

No one claimed that. Straw Man. LOL. Classic.

What someone DID cliam, who bought those books off the stands when they came out, was that they bought them because they liked the comics, not the hype. Not denying that some people enjoyed that nonsense, but... Marvel had plenty of dud sellers in the sixties.

Hulk... majorly hyped. Canceled. Ant-Man. No matter what they did, replaced by Namor. Amazing Adult Fantasy... MAJORLY hyped by Lee. Canceled.

If the HYPE was so great, why did some comics for Marvel sell better than others? Shouldn't they have all sold the same if it was the HYPE that was making them sell?

And if the hype for the BRAND was so great, why did Marvel in the 60's NOT ONCE ever outsell DC Comics? Or even Archie Comics? 

If the BRAND was so great, why did it take DC to outprice themselves not ONCE, but TWICE in the 70's, before Marvel - withh dwindling sales that just didn't dwindle as quickly as DC's (due to the orice hikes) ONLY THEN become the #1 publisher?

If the BRAND was so great, why did it take almost 30 years to get a decent superhero movie made for Marvel, while DC had 4 Superman movies, and 4 Batman movies? If the BRAND was so great, why'd DC Comics sell just as many toys in the 80's and have just as many cartoons of the charcters on TV?

Which BRAND has the most all time best selling graphic novels in the Top Ten?

The BRAND is the obsession of the... "Marvel Only" fan.

To most everyone else it's just another brand. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:49 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm not trying to tell you how to post.

I'm pointing out that explaining why you don't like only Marvel is very different than calling someone a "doofus" (as you did below) because they only like Marvel.

"I'm not telling you how to post, but this is how you should post."

LOL. Classic.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:49 AM, VintageComics said:

It's intellectually dishonest to conflate things the way you're doing. 

It's obvious that we're going in circles now so I'll stop but I am going to post some thoughts about judging the past by today's standards when I get a chance if I can find some material I'm looking for. 

"You're conflating! You're conflating! You're conflating."

What are you taking about? There's nothing conflated here. LOL. Classic.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:49 AM, VintageComics said:

It's obvious that we're going in circles now so I'll stop but I am going to post some thoughts about judging the past by today's standards when I get a chance if I can find some material I'm looking for. 

You should. It's not going well.

Let's review:

"Stan created a BRAND."

Ok. No one is disputing that.

"Stan's 'truth, justice, and deep... thoughts... his writing... he was great, or..."

Go read the non-Kirby Ant-Man stories. LOL.

"He... he motivated the bullpen."

Three of the greatest artists in history QUIT.

"You're.... you're conflating...!!"

LOL. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/17/2024 at 8:42 PM, VintageComics said:

So it was Kirby that created the brand that Marvel was. 

And it was Kirby who wrote that sort of stuff in the Bullpen Bulletins.

And the Letters pages.

And the social commentary in the stories.

No one claimed that. Straw Man. LOL. Classic.

What someone DID cliam, who bought those books off the stands when they came out, was that they bought them because they liked the comics, not the hype. Not denying that some people enjoyed that nonsense, but... Marvel had plenty of dud sellers in the sixties.

Hulk... majorly hyped. Canceled. Ant-Man. No matter what they did, replaced by Namor. Amazing Adult Fantasy... MAJORLY hyped by Lee. Canceled.

If the HYPE was so great, why did some comics for Marvel sell better than others? Shouldn't they have all sold the same if it was the HYPE that was making them sell?

And if the hype for the BRAND was so great, why did Marvel in the 60's NOT ONCE ever outsell DC Comics? Or even Archie Comics? 

If the BRAND was so great, why did it take DC to outprice themselves not ONCE, but TWICE in the 70's, before Marvel - withh dwindling sales that just didn't dwindle as quickly as DC's (due to the orice hikes) ONLY THEN become the #1 publisher?

If the BRAND was so great, why did it take almost 30 years to get a decent superhero movie made for Marvel, while DC had 4 Superman movies, and 4 Batman movies? If the BRAND was so great, why'd DC Comics sell just as many toys in the 80's and have just as many cartoons of the charcters on TV?

Which BRAND has the most all time best selling graphic novels in the Top Ten?

The BRAND is the obsession of the... "Marvel Only" fan.

To most everyone else it's just another brand. 

My questions were rhetorical. Everyone knows the answers but you won't say it. 

Stan Lee was the intangible glue that made the Marvel brand what it was. 

You keep trying to surgically remove Stan from Marvel's success because your ideology is premised on the idea that Stan Lee didn't bring much to the table in regards to Marvel's success and this is where most disagree with you.

Were there unethical things? Possible. Even likely, judging by what we know, but that still doesn't negate the fact that without Stan Lee Marvel would likely not have been as unique or ultimately as popular. 

Batman was my first love, but Marvel was the brand I grew to love and it was because of Stan Lee's hype machine. I fully bought into it and it was a large part of my life...if not one of the largest. 

Without the Stan Lee "ballyhoo" I wouldn't have bought into the hype and wouldn't have loved the brand as much. It's as simple as that. 

 

[Terry JSA]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:38 PM, Funnybooks said:

This is why I disappear from the boards from time to time.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:01 AM, Terry JSA said:

This is why I disappear from the boards from time to time.

@CGC Mike 

[Funnybooks]

On 9/17/2024 at 9:01 PM, Terry JSA said:

This is why I disappear from the boards from time to time.

it's really the same handful of members...the boards have turned into a mess

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:56 PM, Prince Namor said:

"I'm not telling you how to post, but this is how you should post."

LOL. Classic.

"You're conflating! You're conflating! You're conflating."

What are you taking about? There's nothing conflated here. LOL. Classic.

One last constructive commentary. 

Your thread would go a lot better (in your favor) if you didn't reply to every comment.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:03 AM, Funnybooks said:

it's really the same handful of members...the boards have turned into a mess

@CGC Mike