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

[Mmehdy]

On 10/1/2024 at 8:28 AM, lostboys said:

 

This thread should be put out of its misery now.

and you should read the book...if you dare!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:10 AM, VintageComics said:

I've had discussions with you for years on a variety of topics and the result is always the same. 

You've mischaracterized what people have said, moved goal posts in the discussion, addressed things nobody is talking (see the Bullpen discussion) and to objective outsiders it seems as though it's an attempt to constantly veer the discussion towards not being wrong rather than figuring out what's actually objectively true. 

And I'm not alone in feeling this way. It's more than half the people in the discussion (not that there's strength in numbers alone but the rebuttals have been well formed and reasonable).

There's a reason why so many people think you're tearing down Joe Simon and Stan Lee and making it sound like they didn't bring much to the table when in fact they're probably the main reason Kirby was so successful in the GA and SA, but instead of reconsidering it, you double down and put more focus on Kirby and take away from the others. 

So if you're being misunderstood it may have something to do with the way you choose your words and not the facts you're presenting. 

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

What I meant by my last few posts was that IF your goal was to help people change their minds, you would have written a different book, rather than use a very controversial title with controversial language. Hard language and force doesn't convert people.

It's just an opinion on the best way to convert people to what you believe.

And to top it off, you're openly, continually insulting everyone who doesn't agree fully and blaming it on hero worship and having a blindspot. As if you don't have one.

I don't worship Stan Lee. I don't think anyone here does. We're just trying to reconcile things we believed to be true our entire lives with your version and the only way to do that is through discourse. 

The fact that you're alienating people who have been in the hobby for decades, who are reasonable and KNOWLEDGEABLE and influential people to have discussions with, and who have offered an opportunity to actually set the record straight in a public forum, on the record is actually proving counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish.  That's not just my opinion again, but also the opinion of several people who have been in the discussion. 

Let's hope justice is served and the truth is fully understood one day. 

I'm genuinely out now. 

By making an intelligent decision based upon the EVIDENCE......and this book hits you in the mouth...there was so much evidence out there...it just took one person with guts and hard work to flush this out.....Stan Lee was for Stan Lee...in fact his created credit go bigger and bigger as time went on, then he took credit for the whole and with his great acting ability..said I had co-creators acting like he was the NICE guy giving away credit. Nothing can be father from the truth...

you want to find out what really happened VC...read it all and make your own up and do not shut the door to anything or possibility!!!!

[sfcityduck]

On 10/1/2024 at 3:28 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

 

Stan was never caught with fingers in the cash box, he never felt the hand of the law on his collar, but there's an awful lot of smoke for us not to suspect a fire.

 

To much hyperbole for me. There is no rational case for the notion that Stan committed a crime. This is over the top demonizing. 

The argument of the "artists plus" (to use Ditko's term) is that they should have been compensated for the extra work they put in due to the lack of a "full script" or a "panel breakdown." The extra compensation that some feel was just was the compensation that otherwise was paid to the "writer." This probably would have been over compensation because the artists were not writing the words that actually went into the comic (dialogue and captions) so there was still compensable work was being performed by the writers. And while the visuals are certainly a big part of a story, that is what an artist is paid to do. And Marvel's artists had the ability to negotiate their own deal - they were not unionized.

I do agree that there probably should have been plotting credits and compensation for "artists plus," but the industry was focused on page rates. Kirby negotiated better than average page rates for himself -- and it may be Marvel was willing to pay him extra compensation as payment for the extra effort and ideas he brought to the comics. But, clearly the notion that artists generally should get paid more when working based on a plot or synopsys as opposed to a full script was not something that was implemented in the 1960s. It was a business arrangement entered into freely between the artists and the company, not a theft. 

Could it have violated the contract between Marvel and the artists?  Maybe. Maybe they had a claim for breach of contract. But I don't know of any artists who ever filed that suit. So my assumption is that the arrangement fell within the scope of the contract everyone agreed to. It would be interesting to see a written contract if one existed. If it was all just oral handshake deals, then every time an artists picked up a paycheck without complaint they were affirming that the work they did was what they contracted to do.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:28 AM, Mmehdy said:

By making an intelligent decision based upon the EVIDENCE......and this book hits you in the mouth...there was so much evidence out there...it just took one person with guts and hard work to flush this out

Mitch,

It's not like this is a new argument. The Kirby v. Lee debate on creator credit has been happening since the 1980s at least. Based on what we've seen on this thread, it may have been happening since the mid-1960s. And a lot of the evidence on which PN has relied on in his threads on this board is collated from the work of other writers who have put articles up on the Kirby Museum and in other sources, and also from interviews of Kirby (and Simon etc.) by other interviewers dating back decades. He may well have compiled the materials, but the question is whether his compilation presents a full picture or just a "one-sided prosecution."

Given the blinders and goals he has admitted to, and based on my own review of the original material and the slants he puts on it, I'm not convinced he could possibly have provided a full picture because he had no apparent interest in doing so.

The one thing that would get me to read this book would be to see any new interviews of relevant figures taken by the author. But, I am not particularly interested in cherry picked outtakes, I'd like to see the whole interviews. Does he include any full interviews he took in an appendix? 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/30/2024 at 9:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

It's not about the book. It's about my right to write it.

 

No. That's a funny comment since 37 pages ago I wrote this:

On 9/20/2024 at 9:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

One final comment:

I may disagree with your arguments, your tone, and your decision to write this book.

But you absolutely have the right to decide to write it, and I'd defend that to the death. You also have the right to defend and debate your ideas.

 

And others have a right to comment in this thread without having read the book. And to refuse to read the book because they do not want to send money into your pocket. At least that's the America I live in.

But I'll tell you what. You (or Mitch or someone else) send me a free copy of your book, and I'll give it a look and see if I can point out any factual errors or conclusions not supported by the established facts. If its all "the TRUTH" as you assert, I'm happy to admit that. As you know, I've already agreed that Stan Lee did over claim his role at various points in time. If this book truly is a tighter more balanced presentation than what I see you post on the boards, then I'll be happy to admit that. So what have you got to lose?

[Mmehdy]

On 10/1/2024 at 10:20 AM, sfcityduck said:

Mitch,

It's not like this is a new argument. The Kirby v. Lee debate on creator credit has been happening since the 1980s at least. Based on what we've seen on this thread, it may have been happening since the mid-1960s. And a lot of the evidence on which PN has relied on in his threads on this board is collated from the work of other writers who have put articles up on the Kirby Museum and in other sources, and also from interviews of Kirby (and Simon etc.) by other interviewers dating back decades. He may well have compiled the materials, but the question is whether his compilation presents a full picture or just a "one-sided prosecution."

Given the blinders and goals he has admitted to, and based on my own review of the original material and the slants he puts on it, I'm not convinced he could possibly have provided a full picture because he had no apparent interest in doing so.

The one thing that would get me to read this book would be to see any new interviews of relevant figures taken by the author. But, I am not particularly interested in cherry picked outtakes, I'd like to see the whole interviews. Does he include any full interviews he took in an appendix? 

On page 357 he has a section called  "Required Reading" which lists 7 authors and  books with some descriptions  of content...There is no interview list in an appendix.

[jimjum12]

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

Could it have violated the contract between Marvel and the artists?  Maybe. Maybe they had a claim for breach of contract. But I don't know of any artists who ever filed that suit. So my assumption is that the arrangement fell within the scope of the contract everyone agreed to. It would be interesting to see a written contract if one existed.

This should be the FIRST document presented in an academic expose'. Especially where compensation fraud is alleged. I'll read the book when I get it. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

There is no rational case for the notion that Stan committed a crime.

No, but surely there is a case that he used his seniority in the hierarchy to deprive his collaborators of at least some of their just rewards.

Too many of them have made similar claims over the years for there to be nothing behind it.

If Stan's banging the drum for comics in general and Marvel in particular was as far as it went, no problem.

But if negative financial consequences for other employees were a result of Stan's ego, then a moral line has been crossed.

Or did Stan believe, AT THE TIME, that he was the originator of nearly all the innovations?

Maybe he was able to come to that conclusion only much later.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

[bronze_rules]

On 10/1/2024 at 10:20 AM, sfcityduck said:

The one thing that would get me to read this book would be to see any new interviews of relevant figures taken by the author. But, I am not particularly interested in cherry picked outtakes, I'd like to see the whole interviews. Does he include any full interviews he took in an appendix? 

There was an original interview with a man by the name of Drew Friedman. It ran a few pages, and I really felt that brought something new to the table - I would not find elsewhere. That's the kind of content I'd like to see populate more of the book. That being said, if anything Friedman, who had some first hand experience, felt sympathetic for the guy (Stan Lee) that took the brunt of Martin Goodman's abuse. It made me feel even less inclined to think of Stan as the monster, and rather Goodman being the monster. In the pulp days, times were tough, and Goodman like many publishers was quite slimy and skirted around laws and ethics to make a fast buck. I'd rather have a buffer like Stan between me and Goodman, if I was an artist back then. I would bet that Stan very likely tried to push for more for his artists, than Goodman would want. I should add that I'm pretty convinced it was Goodman who shuffled the books and stiffed Kirby and Simon of their 25% of profits for Captain America - that is perhaps the biggest swindle of all*.

Anyways, I'd suggest getting PN's book for at least that original content alone.

@PN. Not sure how you get the idea that I took sides with the publishers over Kirby - I definitely did not. I sympathize 100% with creative types and strongly believe that they should get more out of their creations. I only think your argument about lack of compensation should go towards "ALL" creative types that get used, chewed up, and spit out by the system. And that's more of a political struggle, which is very real even to this day. 

I think you've brought a lot to the discussion; I just think it paints an extremely bad picture of Stan Lee and his contribution to the success of Marvel, that is a bit too far in the negative direction.

*For more on Goodman and the early Pulp Publishing "Pirates" in general and their shady get rich quick mentality, I highly recommend Blake Bell's, "The Secret History of Marvel Comics: Jack Kirby and the moonlighting artists at Martin Goodman's Empire." There are some samples inside of Stan's early writing work, and I'd say it's pretty good for someone his age, there's a particular story that had similar elements to Daredevil's origin, IMO.

Edited October 1 by bronze_rules

[sfcityduck]

On 10/1/2024 at 11:25 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

No, but surely there is a case that he used his seniority in the hierarchy to deprive his collaborators of at least some of their just rewards.

Too many of them have made similar claims over the years for there to be nothing behind it.

If Stan's banging the drum for comics in general and Marvel in particular was as far as it went, no problem.

But if negative financial consequences for other employees were a result of Stan's ego, then a moral line has been crossed.

 

Personally, I think it is about credit. Kirby and Ditko believed that Stan did not give them the credit they deserved for the work they were doing.

Ditko elected to move on early. He didn't try to sue Marvel for breach of contract. So I don't think it was about money for him. 

Kirby also has made a number of comments which suggest that for him it was a lot more about Stan grandstanding than money. He basically says he didn't move on because he was happy with the money - money which he negotiated. But he and Roz were not happy with Stan. (And if you believe Joe Simon, Kirby was anti-Stan starting in the early 1940s). In fact, Kirby basically lambasts himself for never confronting Stan on these issues when he was working at Marvel. He just went along not making credit an issue because he was satisfied with the money and where his life was at. Here's some relevant quotes from Groth's interview (Roz participates because by Kirby's recollection needed correction):

GROTH: Did your page rate increase substantially in the ’60s as the work became more popular?

KIRBY: Yes, it did. My object was to help the publisher to make sales. That was my job. It wasn’t a job of being a Rembrandt.

ROZ KIRBY: It wasn’t that big an increase.

GROTH: Do you remember approximately what it went 10 from the beginning ’60s to the late ’60s?

ROZ KIRBY: I don’t remember what the page rate was.

GROTH: Do you think your page rate doubled during the ’60s?

ROZ KIRBY: I don’t think it doubled.

KIRBY: I don’t think it doubled, but it gradually grew, and it grew faster than it usually did.

....

GROTH: Did you have to ask for increases, or did they simply offer them to you?

KIRBY: No, no. I had to ask for them.

....

GROTH: When Marvel started to take off — when Marvel was becoming popular on college campuses and achieving a media profile and soon — was there a sense that you were at the center of an exciting creative movement?

KIRBY: No. I knew by then that I was only going to make — I was making a fairly good living. I was making good money, and my marriage was going fine, and I was thinking of moving possibly to a better place. Roz and I, we were young people with plans in our heads. We could plan maybe on another child. Life was moving. If life was moving, and you’re very, very active, it’s a very stimulating atmosphere.

....

GROTH: So you brought in an issue of The Fantastic Four, and they simply gave you a check?

KIRBY: They’d send the check out. They wouldn’t give the check to me, but I’d get the check the following week. They were prompt with their checks. We never had any difficulty because I was making sales for them, and there was a good relationship there.

....

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.

ROZ KIRBY: Can I say something? It bothered me a lot when it said Stan Lee this and Stan Lee that. If they wanted to be fair, they could have said, “Produced by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.” But he didn’t have to say, “Written by —.” He didn’t have to take the entire credit. He’d put down drawn by Jack "King" Kirby and all that stuff.

KIRBY: Yes, and he’d be very flippant.

ROZ KIRBY: Jack took it with a grain of salt, but I was the one who was very hurt by it all.

GROTH: I see. Did you ever talk to Stan about the application of credit?

KIRBY: You can’t talk to Stan about anything.

ROZ KIRBY: Every so often he’d put down, “Produced by —”

KIRBY: Yeah, sometimes he did. 

....

GROTH: Were you very — active isn’t the right word — but you were on top of things during that period? Did you know what was going on?

ROZ KIRBY: Of course. Jack was right down there working in what we called the dungeon. We had the basement then, a studio down there in the dungeon. Whenever anybody called, or Jack came to the office, I was usually there. It hurts to this day when my grandson sees Stan Lee’s name and he knows what his grandfather did, and he asks, “Why is Stan Lee’s name all over?” That’s hard to explain, you know.

KIRBY: Yeah. So why shouldn’t I be hurt? Why shouldn’t my family be hurt? I know my wife is sore at me—

ROZ KIRBY: No, I’m not sore.

KIRBY: —because I say these things, but I’m deeply hurt because it hurt my family. There’s nothing I can do about it. I’m not going to be believed at Marvel. I’m no going to be believed anywhere else unless… Actually, my own fears probably prodded me into an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cowardice. I should have told Stan to go to hell and found some other way to make a living, but I couldn’t do it. I had my family. I had an apartment. I just couldn’t give all that up.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 10/1/2024 at 8:31 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

I know, and I figured you'd be responding. I'm an atheist but I don't hold anyone's beliefs against them. I've had people pray for me and I've thanked them. It's a very nice gesture even though I don't believe what they do.

I'm glad you're posting a lot again, sir.

I too am not religious, but I would like to think in light of this thread that Stan is waiting for someone up or down there, with a nice shiny halo, or a massive red hot pitchfork.  

[jimjum12]

On 10/1/2024 at 3:38 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I too am not religious, but I would like to think in light of this thread that Stan is waiting for someone up or down there, with a nice shiny halo, or a massive red hot pitchfork.  

I don't know, but for me, I think if EVERYONE were to ever get a trophy without restriction, it would be after finishing a life on this mudball. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 1 by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

I've had discussions with you for years on a variety of topics and the result is always the same. 

Aimed at me, not the topic.

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

You've mischaracterized what people have said, moved goal posts in the discussion, addressed things nobody is talking (see the Bullpen discussion) and to objective outsiders it seems as though it's an attempt to constantly veer the discussion towards not being wrong rather than figuring out what's actually objectively true. 

Again, what was I wrong about? What goalposts did I move? I didn;t bring up the Bullpen, YOU did.

And I didn't VEER the discussion. No one discussed the actual information IN my book. Very literally everyone ELSE veered the discussion.

And I went along with it. 

There are misunderstandings in intent in any discussion, but what was I wrong about?

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

And I'm not alone in feeling this way. It's more than half the people in the discussion (not that there's strength in numbers alone but the rebuttals have been well formed and reasonable).

What was I wrong about? 

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

There's a reason why so many people think you're tearing down Joe Simon and Stan Lee and making it sound like they didn't bring much to the table when in fact they're probably the main reason Kirby was so successful in the GA and SA, but instead of reconsidering it, you double down and put more focus on Kirby and take away from the others. 

So if you're being misunderstood it may have something to do with the way you choose your words and not the facts you're presenting. 

Again aimed at me and not the topic. 

If someone can't prove me wrong it inevitably becomes ME who is the problem. Got it. LOL.

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

What I meant by my last few posts was that IF your goal was to help people change their minds, you would have written a different book, rather than use a very controversial title with controversial language. Hard language and force doesn't convert people.

It's just an opinion on the best way to convert people to what you believe.

Help people change their minds? LOL. Yeah, as if.

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

And to top it off, you're openly, continually insulting everyone who doesn't agree fully and blaming it on hero worship and having a blindspot. As if you don't have one.

What thread have YOU been reading? I've been accused of buying advertisement disguised as a news story, TWICE... of paying Mitch a commission to give my book a positive review... of 'White Knighting', of being a bully, of being too forceful in my opinions, Paul's words: 'arrogant and dismissive manner".

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

I don't worship Stan Lee. I don't think anyone here does. We're just trying to reconcile things we believed to be true our entire lives with your version and the only way to do that is through discourse. 

Oh stop.

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

The fact that you're alienating people who have been in the hobby for decades, who are reasonable and KNOWLEDGEABLE and influential people to have discussions with, and who have offered an opportunity to actually set the record straight in a public forum, on the record is actually proving counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish. 

LOL. Yeah, ok.

Set what record straight?

I didn't get anything WRONG? And none of what THEY presented was anything I got....WRONG? 

What are you so offended by?

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

That's not just my opinion again, but also the opinion of several people who have been in the discussion. 

In other words, you weren't able to prove anything I said was incorrect. Got it.

On 10/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, VintageComics said:

Let's hope justice is served and the truth is fully understood one day. 

I'm genuinely out now. 

In other words, Roy was wrong. Couldn't prove ME wrong. So... wall of text to blame me and put it on ME.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:19 AM, bronze_rules said:

@PN. Not sure how you get the idea that I took sides with the publishers over Kirby - I definitely did not. I sympathize 100% with creative types and strongly believe that they should get more out of their creations. I only think your argument about lack of compensation should go towards "ALL" creative types that get used, chewed up, and spit out by the system. And that's more of a political struggle, which is very real even to this day. 

I didn't mean it as you took sides... I clearly left in the the part in parenthesis where you said ('Not that I'm saying it's right') or something to that effect - it's that you recognized it as true that they DID take advantage.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:19 AM, bronze_rules said:

I think you've brought a lot to the discussion; I just think it paints an extremely bad picture of Stan Lee and his contribution to the success of Marvel, that is a bit too far in the negative direction.

Well, to be fair, Lee has more hagiographies that go in other direction, with ZERO negative or controversial, than maybe any human in history.

And again, mine wasn't a biography. It was a book about the lies told in Origins.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:19 AM, bronze_rules said:

*For more on Goodman and the early Pulp Publishing "Pirates" in general and their shady get rich quick mentality, I highly recommend Blake Bell's, "The Secret History of Marvel Comics: Jack Kirby and the moonlighting artists at Martin Goodman's Empire." There are some samples inside of Stan's early writing work, and I'd say it's pretty good for someone his age, there's a particular story that had similar elements to Daredevil's origin, IMO.

with Michael J Vassallo.

Yes, it's really excellent book and worth reading!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/1/2024 at 2:30 PM, VintageComics said:

People need to stop saying this. It's a subjective opinion spoken as fact, and I object to it. 

I object to your objection!

[Mmehdy]

I really like the way the "chapters : of the book flow.....it never ending....the information and the conclusions!. Even if Stan were alive today...he probably would remain silent....too much evidence here...

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/1/2024 at 2:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

Again aimed at me and not the topic. 

If someone can't prove me wrong it inevitably becomes ME who is the problem. Got it. LOL.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:10 AM, VintageComics said:

The fact that you're alienating people who have been in the hobby for decades, who are reasonable and KNOWLEDGEABLE and influential people to have discussions with,

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/1/2024 at 2:30 PM, VintageComics said:

People need to stop saying this. It's a subjective opinion spoken as fact, and I object to it.