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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 2:40 AM, VintageComics said:

This is exactly the type of balanced, nuanced perspective I think people expect from an "informed" perspective. 

I think you and @Bookery should write a book on Stan Lee. 

I have to agree. Nothing quite sounds like Marvel without Stan Lee's spin on it. 

Except for the ghostwriters who easily mimicked his writing style. The Bullpen Bulletins for years were written by others 'as Stan' and no one knew the better of it. Or the ghostwriters who mimicked his style for the newsspaper strip for over 20+ years, while leading people to believe it was him.

On 9/19/2024 at 2:40 AM, VintageComics said:

As a kid, growing up I used to think all of these artists and creators were sitting in plush chairs with large offices. The reality is that it was probably a chaotic, dumpy work environment (when they were actually together, which obviously wasn't often) and there was a lot of overlap in everyone just manically hustling to get the job done for the presses the way it may be portrayed in a bad movie. 

In situations like that, especially in a struggling company with a cheap owner, where individual roles were obviously not clearly defined and it was the norm for creators not to receive public credit, surgically identifying roles, or better put recognition is going to be nearly impossible to do. 

This brings to mind a question on what Stan Lee's agreement with Goodman was. How was he paid and what exactly was he paid for?

The court documents, along with Lee's depositions - he did two, one for Marvel and one for the Kirby team - that one is HEAVILY redacted, and I mean HEAVILY - but within all that we know that Lee collected a very large salary from the company (He collected Rolls Royce's, and bought his first one back in the 50's.) On top of that he was paid as a freelance writer on each story he claimed to have wrote. 

All of what I wrote there is based on words from the mouth of Lee himself. 

On 9/19/2024 at 2:40 AM, VintageComics said:

Gower's post above makes it sound like Stan Lee "ran the office from home" lounging around in pajamas and stealing pay, but we also know Stan Lee was a public figure who never met a camera he didn't like, so how much of his time was spend working out of the office?

According to both Lee and Thomas, Lee was at the office two, sometimes a third day, each week and worked from home the rest of the time. That's not according to me. Here Delic, makes it sound like I'm just making up my own theories. This is based on what Lee and Thomas have stated. 

On 9/19/2024 at 2:40 AM, VintageComics said:

What were Stan Lee's obligations outside of actually working on comics?

For Goodman? I've never heard of anything.

On 9/19/2024 at 2:40 AM, VintageComics said:

This is sort of well balanced perspective on what Stan Lee did right that I think a lot of interested readers are looking for rather than just a condemnation of all the things he did wrong. 

Yeah... plenty of books out there about the positive perspectives on Lee's life. No one's forcing you to be aware of mine. You CHOSE to.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:41 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Didn’t know that.  The way the story is written in first person makes it sound like Wood wrote it, but as far as I knew, despite that, it was always credited to Feldstein.

Al as far as I am aware and believe, penned the lions share of EC stories inc. the SF ones. Notable exceptions would be Reed Crandall, Krigstein and the odd Frazetta and perhaps Williamson and another odd one or two. I think maybe Orlando wrote his own as well. The Wood SF work I can remember of the top of my head definitely shouts Feldstein. The My World story never occured to me as being written by Wood because I thought always it was Al who wrote the concept. I was in touch with Al for a number of years before he passed, wish I had asked him about this now.  

The most easily recognizable writing style was Johnny Craig, of course he didn't dip into SF much if at all.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 1:39 AM, jimjum12 said:

none of them ever duplicated the same level of success without Stan. 

Kirby's original Captain America run sold more copies than anything ever printed by Marvel from 1960 to 1988-ish. 

Same with Boy Commandos.

Same with Young Romance.

Most likely, even Challengers of the Unknown, on it's own, and in Showcase sold at least as much as the Fantastic Four did in the 60's.

 

And in the 1971 Statement of Publication Numbers:

Kirby's Jimmy Olsen: 299,810

Lee's Fantastic Four: 275,000

Lee's Thor: 185,039

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

No one's forcing you to be aware of mine. You CHOSE to.

Well you did kind of start a thread about it....in a forum which Delic is a member......so there's that.   

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 2:41 AM, jimjum12 said:

Corny was Lee's keynote in many ways, and one of the ways he was able to help us laugh WITH each other and at ourselves. Kirby and Ditko, both, were dripping melodrama and self importance in their writing styles, each definitely with something to say, but definitely not in the direction of that warm and fuzzy, island of self-confidence that Lee took us to. I liked the pictures, but seeing someone punched through a brick wall, issue after issue, was not the pinnacle of what was 1960's Marvel. To me  Nothing will diminish that, certainly not some butthurt over an artist negotiating a poor contract for his self, and towards the end, Kirby was knocking down over 3 times the median income. Still, Kirby was my first Idol Artist, followed shortly by Adams. But I was always a reader, going so far as to actually read Dr. Seuss in my pre comics days. GOD BLESS ... 

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Yeah... the Silver Surfer series was a real hoot!

That was to be Lee's real showcase to show what he could do without Kirby and Ditko. That book was SEEPED and 'dripping melodrama and self importance'. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 3:34 AM, Hschwartz said:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. That's why I said these are my opinions and not facts. I love Steve Ditko and corresponded with him but after leaving Marvel he never wrote anything with the humanity of Spider-Man 31-33. He fleshed out the story in a way that was fantastic and certainly deserves all the credit for plotting the story but I don't think he wrote the incredible dialogue. The same goes for Jack Kirby after he left the Fantastic Four. None of his 4th world characters resonated with me the same way so I give the dialogue credit to Stan lee in making these characters so memorable. Do I know for sure who did what? No I don't and people can make up their own minds. 

Again I don't know for sure but if I remember correctly Wally Wood tried to take credit for writing the classic My World Story for EC Comics. Al Feldstein didn't take kindly to that since he said he wrote the dialogue. Again I will say for the final time these are opinions and not facts. None of us can say for sure what really happened.

Yeah, if you didn't find any humanity in New Gods, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Easily some of the best work Kirby ever did and some of the best stories he ever wrote.

[VintageComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 4:47 PM, Hschwartz said:

This was fifty years ago so I could have it wrong.

One thing is certain, the human memory is very subjective / suggestive, and well established that eyewitness accounts are not accurate. This why it's one of the premises that the Western legal system is built on.

[Bookery]

Vintage Comics:  "I have to agree. Nothing quite sounds like Marvel without Stan Lee's spin on it". 

Prince Namor:  "Except for the ghostwriters who easily mimicked his writing style. The Bullpen Bulletins for years were written by others 'as Stan' and no one knew the better of it."

    This seems to me a bit of a weird take on things.  You don't mimic someone unless his work is successful.  This is like dismissing Frank Sinatra by saying "he's not that great because Rich Little learned to do an impression of him".  You've made this comment twice in the thread... I don't think it's working the way you think.

 

[VintageComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

'as Stan'

as 'Stan'

On 9/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

but within all that we know that Lee collected a very large salary from the company (He collected Rolls Royce's, and bought his first one back in the 50's.)

Large is relative. We'd need a better idea of exactly how much he was making and when to understand how much he was making relative to the people working with him. 

And also how much work he was actually doing compared to the people around him. 

On 9/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

According to both Lee and Thomas, Lee was at the office two, sometimes a third day, each week and worked from home the rest of the time. That's not according to me. Here Delic, makes it sound like I'm just making up my own theories. This is based on what Lee and Thomas have stated. 

It should be obvious that Stan Lee wasn't "at home" all the time. 

@Mmehdy already stated he was visiting campuses.

He was doing interviews on television. 

He was lecturing and promoting. 

It's impossible to do that from home in a pre-internet age, so my post wasn't to "make it sound like you're just making up your own theories", it's to make it sound like he wasn't doing all of those things he was obviously doing. So obvious that everyone could see it with their own eyes. 

If saying Stan was "at home" when he was actually out there makes it sound like you're making up your own theories, that's a conclusion everyone can come to on their own. I didn't say that. 

On 9/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

For Goodman? I've never heard of anything.

So why was Stan touring, doing lectures, being interviewed on television and the rest? 

Who was directing him to do it?

Why was he doing it?

Who was paying him to do it?

Was he doing it for free?

These are all obvious efforts Stan was putting in that were part of his EIC / managerial role that I'm addressing.

On 9/18/2024 at 4:48 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/18/2024 at 3:40 PM, VintageComics said:

This is sort of well balanced perspective on what Stan Lee did right that I think a lot of interested readers are looking for rather than just a condemnation of all the things he did wrong. 

Yeah... plenty of books out there about the positive perspectives on Lee's life. No one's forcing you to be aware of mine. You CHOSE to.

I'm not sure why you're taking this position. You wanted your book discussed and I'm offering a constructive criticism and an explanation as to why so many people are up in arms. 

You must have anticipated there would be a strong reaction to your title (and not just the content of the book) so why be defensive when people are just looking for answers to satisfy your take on things?

[Bookery]

On 9/18/2024 at 4:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby's original Captain America run sold more copies than anything ever printed by Marvel from 1960 to 1988-ish. 

Same with Boy Commandos.

Same with Young Romance.

Most likely, even Challengers of the Unknown, on it's own, and in Showcase sold at least as much as the Fantastic Four did in the 60's.

This is a disingenuous take.  Pretty much everything in the '40s sold better than in later decades (except for Dell and Mad).  And it had absolutely nothing to do with Kirby or any other creator.  Sales began dropping after WW2, took another hit with the Comics Code, and eventually gave way to the competition of free stories on television.  Kirby only did a handful of issues of Challengers, then left DC.  He left a lot of places... Marvel-Timely to go to Prize then to DC then back to Marvel then back to DC yet again.  He never seemed particularly comfortable wherever he went, because he never felt publishers gave him the creative room he wanted.  Artists are temperamental.  It's unlikely he would have ever have been completely happy no matter who the editor was.

[VintageComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:18 PM, Bookery said:

Vintage Comics:  "I have to agree. Nothing quite sounds like Marvel without Stan Lee's spin on it". 

Prince Namor:  "Except for the ghostwriters who easily mimicked his writing style. The Bullpen Bulletins for years were written by others 'as Stan' and no one knew the better of it."

    This seems to me a bit of a weird take on things.  You don't mimic someone unless his work is successful.  This is like dismissing Frank Sinatra by saying "he's not that great because Rich Little learned to do an impression of him".  You've made this comment twice in the thread... I don't think it's working the way you think.

 

Exactly.

So now ALL PARTIES CAN FINALLY AGREE THAT STAN LEE HAD A DISTINCT WRITING STYLE! 

I'm glad we got there.

That's the beauty of free speech. You inevitably get to the truth of the matter if enough discussion is allowed. 

And it's this distinct writing style that made Marvel unique compared to all other competitors, that made Marvel zombies such fervent fans, and that propelled the brand. 

Thank you for putting in crayon for everyone. 

[thehumantorch]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:48 AM, Hschwartz said:

There are so many gray areas here that need to be taken in context of the times and can't really ever be certain about since all of the principals have now passed on and nobody in the early sixties could possibly have guessed how important these characters would be to so many people sixty year later.

I will start by agreeing with Prince Namor and then go on to the areas I disagree with him. Keep in mind these are represented as my opinions and not in any way as facts. 

The so called Marvel Method was a real rip off to the artists. All of them deserved plotting credit and should have been paid much more than they were. Comparing a Stan lee marvel Comic to an Al Feldstein EC Comic  showcases how much more work the artist had to put in. With a Feldstein EC Comic the artist got a very detailed description on top of the panel and he just had to fill in the blanks. With a Marvel Comic the artist had to decide exactly where all the action would go and sequence the whole story in a way that made it very easy for Stan to put in the dialogue. This was a real injustice but I can't call it stealing. Stealing would be if a check was made out to Wally Wood and Stan crossed out his name and wrote Stan Lee on the check. If being underpaid and under compensated for the work provided is stealing I think half of America could say they were stolen from when you see CEO pay compared to the average worker. Another point is that Stan Lee was editor in chief and not the owner. Martin Goodman made final decisions on salary even though I'm sure Stan had a lot of influence.

I agree with Prince Namor that Stan had a lot to answer for and took way more credit than he deserved. All of these characters were co creations and Stan should have been more forthcoming particularly when the movies started and so many non comic book people were paying attention. I was particularly annoyed when he got his Hollywood Walk of Fame footprint and gave a speech without mentioning Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko at all. Without these two he would never have gotten there. Stan did better when pressed by comic book people but totally failed to give credit when he was interviewed by news people who didn't know the comic industry. 

Now my big disagreement with Prince Namor is on Stan's contribution to the comics themselves. In my opinion the best Marvel Comics ever done were Spider-Man 31-33 and Fantastic Four 48-51. Other great comics were Daredevil 7, Avengers 9, and Captain America 110, 111, and 113. These were drawn by Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Wally Wood, Don Heck, and Jim Steranko. Guess whose name is attached to all of them Stan Lee. He must be the luckiest guy in the world if he was just riding on all of these artists coat tails and wasn't a crucial element of their success. Many people have extolled the writing abilities of Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko but not so much the other three mentioned. I also love Daredevil 1-20 which was helmed by four different artists but I loved the stories in all of them. This is why I think Stan was the most important person in Marvel's success in the sixties. He humanized the characters in a way that Kirby and Ditko couldn't and in my opinion that made all of the difference.

I have read all of the fourth world Kirby DC Comics and The Question, Blue Beetle, Creeper and Hawk and Dove by Ditko. These were all perfectly acceptable comics but they never moved me the way the Stan Lee Marvel characters did. Again this is just my opinion. Many people think the New Gods were better than the Marvel books and they should express it but I just don't agree. 

My biggest point is that I'm able to separate Stan lee the man from Stan lee the writer. He was a big disappointment in some ways as a person but still an incredible writer whose stories will last for quite a while.

Absolutely agree that Spider-man 31-33 and FF 48-51 and in general the SA Marvel books of that time were to me the greatest comic books ever published.  My first Super Hero comic was FF50 that I picked up at a second hand bookstore for 6 cents and that book motivated me to look for more SA FFs and ignited a passion for collecting comic books that I still have.

The collaboration of Kirby's incredible covers and pages and Stan Lee's wonderful dialog that made the characters come alive was irresistible.  To me nothing done in comics before this point or since this point can hold a candle to this work.  And the editor's page, the soapbox, the little comments throughout the books telling me where a character last appeared or whatever made these books better and different than any other publisher.  For the most part DC books of this era felt dull and dead to me.

To me the issue at hand is who created the characters and concepts and who plotted the stories.  And I think the general answer is the artists to a greater or lesser degree helped create or did create many of the characters and concepts and to a significant degree Stan Lee did take credit for their work.  I don't care about the lens of history or how things were done at other publishers or the Marvel Way or Stan Lee promoting the universal brand, what's right is right and what's wrong should be made right.  If Kirby or any other Marvel artist was involved in the creation of a character or concept or the plotting of a story they should get credit for their contributions.

Where Prince Namor and I would probably disagree on is how important was Stan Lee to SA Marvel and who was more important to the Marvel Universe, Stan Lee or Jack Kirby.  My short answer would be that without the combined contributions of Lee and Kirby the SA Marvel universe would never have occurred and right now rather than collecting comics I'd be knitting sweaters.

[VintageComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:31 PM, Bookery said:

On 9/18/2024 at 4:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

Kirby's original Captain America run sold more copies than anything ever printed by Marvel from 1960 to 1988-ish. 

Same with Boy Commandos.

Same with Young Romance.

Most likely, even Challengers of the Unknown, on it's own, and in Showcase sold at least as much as the Fantastic Four did in the 60's.

This is a disingenuous take.  Pretty much everything in the '40s sold better than in later decades (except for Dell and Mad).  And it had absolutely nothing to do with Kirby or any other creator.  Sales began dropping after WW2, took another hit with the Comics Code, and eventually gave way to the competition of free stories on television. 

Correct. 

Comics in the GA had 1MIL print runs. Not because they were better, but because they were a new art form with few titles.

As the titles spread in breadth and other forms of entertainment came out, comics diminished and have been diminishing ever since.

It dropped to 100,000s of 1000s to 10,000s of 1000s to 1000s. 

Edited 21 hours ago by VintageComics

[Bookery]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:33 PM, VintageComics said:

Correct. 

Comics in the GA had 1MIL print runs. Not because they were better, but because they were a new art form with few titles.

As the titles spread in breadth and other forms of entertainment came out, comics diminished and have been diminishing every since.

It dropped to 100,000s of 1000s to 10,000s of 1000s to 1000s. 

Exactly.  It's why I got out of new-releases a couple of years back.  The trend has been steady now since about 1946.  The writing is on the wall.  I'm really amazed that one of the large companies already hasn't abandoned monthly floppies.  (I do think graphic novels and reprint compilations will continue for quite awhile).

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

as 'Stan'

Large is relative. We'd need a better idea of exactly how much he was making and when to understand how much he was making relative to the people working with him. 

And also how much work he was actually doing compared to the people around him. 

Who needs a better idea of exactly how much? I don't. The guy could afford to buy a Rolls Royce in the 50's.

You want to know how much he did go do your own research. My book is about the lies in the The origin of Marvel Comics.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

It should be obvious that Stan Lee wasn't "at home" all the time. 

No one said he was. I stated Roy Thomas and Stan Lee both said that he was in the office 2 to 3 days a week.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

@Mmehdy already stated he was visiting campuses.

He was doing interviews on television. 

He was lecturing and promoting. 

And?

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

It's impossible to do that from home in a pre-internet age, so my post wasn't to "make it sound like you're just making up your own theories", it's to make it sound like he wasn't doing all of those things he was obviously doing. So obvious that everyone could see it with their own eyes. 

If saying Stan was "at home" when he was actually out there makes it sound like you're making up your own theories, that's a conclusion everyone can come to on their own. I didn't say that. 

And? 

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

So why was Stan touring, doing lectures, being interviewed on television and the rest? 

Who was directing him to do it?

Why was he doing it?

Who was paying him to do it?

Was he doing it for free?

Don't know.

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

These are all obvious efforts Stan was putting in that were part of his EIC / managerial role that I'm addressing.

I'm not sure why you're taking this position. You wanted your book discussed and I'm offering a constructive criticism and an explanation as to why so many people are up in arms. 

No, you're deflecting.

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:26 AM, VintageComics said:

You must have anticipated there would be a strong reaction to your title (and not just the content of the book) so why be defensive when people are just looking for answers to satisfy your take on things?

I'm not being defensive. I was trying to have a simple conversation based on your questions which do not relate to the book.

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

After a while of this, it's clear you want to speak about your own agenda, and it's boring to me.

If you're interested in the topic of what Stan did - there's plenty of reserach material out there - have at it.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 4:31 AM, Bookery said:

This is a disingenuous take.  Pretty much everything in the '40s sold better than in later decades (except for Dell and Mad).  And it had absolutely nothing to do with Kirby or any other creator. 

Nothing disingenuous about it. Everything in the 40's didn't sell a MILLION copies.

After Kirby and Simon left Marvel, the publisher never had another book sell a million copies.

And no, a million copies was not a NORMAL amount for a book to sell in the Golden Age.

Yet Kirby again on Boy Commandos, over a million copies a month.

And yet Kirby again on Young Romance with over a million copies a month.

Seems he did have a hand in the success and with Joe Simon even got their names on the cover of a DC Comic promoting them.

On 9/19/2024 at 4:31 AM, Bookery said:

Kirby only did a handful of issues of Challengers, then left DC.  He left a lot of places... Marvel-Timely to go to Prize then to DC then back to Marvel then back to DC yet again.  He never seemed particularly comfortable wherever he went, because he never felt publishers gave him the creative room he wanted.  Artists are temperamental.  It's unlikely he would have ever have been completely happy no matter who the editor was.

So did Gil Kane. So did Wally Wood. So did Steve Ditko. So did Harvey Kurtzman. So did Jim Steranko. So did Frank Miller. So did John Byrne. So did Todd McFarlane. 

[Bookery]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:46 PM, Prince Namor said:

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

After a while of this, it's clear you want to speak about your own agenda, and it's boring to me.

If you're interested in the topic of what Stan did - there's plenty of reserach material out there - have at it.

I think some assumed, as did myself, that in the course of your research you might have come across some of this information.  That's why we asked.  We didn't even assume it was covered in the book... just that you might happen to know (or not).  We're discussing it with you here and now... not some other author of some other time.  But it's your thread, and your right to focus as narrowly on a subject as you choose to.  As you say... have at it.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 4:31 AM, VintageComics said:

Exactly.

So now ALL PARTIES CAN FINALLY AGREE THAT STAN LEE HAD A DISTINCT WRITING STYLE! 

I'm glad we got there.

That's the beauty of free speech. You inevitably get to the truth of the matter if enough discussion is allowed. 

And it's this distinct writing style that made Marvel unique compared to all other competitors, that made Marvel zombies such fervent fans, and that propelled the brand. 

Thank you for putting in crayon for everyone. 

Who claimed Lee's writing wasn't distinct? Or even made any claim about it's... style?

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

Who claimed anything about Lee or the Marvel brand not being unique or whatever you're trying to say?

These are all topics YOU made up.

My book is about the Lies he told in the Origin of Marvel Comics.

[bc]

Even back to Captain America Comics #3 (May 1941), Stan signed his initial 2 page text story. He signed every job he did until Cap 19 (where he disappeared from the title).

Speaking of 2 page stories, why are none of the Pre-code Atlas/Post-Code Atlas/Pre-Hero Marvel/Marvel Comics 2 page text stories written and signed by Stan? That's hundreds (if not thousands) of jobs that he could have utilized his storytelling capabilities.

For someone credited as being a prolific writer, there's very little evidence of that outside of his work in the post-code GGA titles (I'm not keen on the "dumb broad" name for this genre) until he became involved the new Marvel Comics.

-bc

[Prince Namor]

On 9/19/2024 at 4:32 AM, thehumantorch said:

Absolutely agree that Spider-man 31-33 and FF 48-51 and in general the SA Marvel books of that time were to me the greatest comic books ever published.  My first Super Hero comic was FF50 that I picked up at a second hand bookstore for 6 cents and that book motivated me to look for more SA FFs and ignited a passion for collecting comic books that I still have.

The collaboration of Kirby's incredible covers and pages and Stan Lee's wonderful dialog that made the characters come alive was irresistible.  To me nothing done in comics before this point or since this point can hold a candle to this work.  And the editor's page, the soapbox, the little comments throughout the books telling me where a character last appeared or whatever made these books better and different than any other publisher.  For the most part DC books of this era felt dull and dead to me.

To me the issue at hand is who created the characters and concepts and who plotted the stories.  And I think the general answer is the artists to a greater or lesser degree helped create or did create many of the characters and concepts and to a significant degree Stan Lee did take credit for their work.  I don't care about the lens of history or how things were done at other publishers or the Marvel Way or Stan Lee promoting the universal brand, what's right is right and what's wrong should be made right.  If Kirby or any other Marvel artist was involved in the creation of a character or concept or the plotting of a story they should get credit for their contributions.

Where Prince Namor and I would probably disagree on is how important was Stan Lee to SA Marvel and who was more important to the Marvel Universe, Stan Lee or Jack Kirby.  My short answer would be that without the combined contributions of Lee and Kirby the SA Marvel universe would never have occurred and right now rather than collecting comics I'd be knitting sweaters.

No I don't disagree that his role was important and made a difference. 

Again, I say, 'Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe would not have been the same.' (But without Jack Kirby it never would have existed)

The Marvel Universe COULD have occurred - Kirby was always going to create - it just would most likely not have been anywhere near the same without Lee's contribution. He very obviously altered the output of those artists. His part in the cultural impact of it is essential.

But without Kirby, it never gets created in the first place. (And without Ditko and his contribution on Spider-man, it never achieves the level of cultural significance).

Edited 21 hours ago by Prince Namor