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

[Buzzetta]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:42 PM, newshane said:

I have no problem with this thread being in Comic General. 

But I am a nobody. 

Only until somebody loves you.  (According to Dean Martin)

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 5:57 AM, VintageComics said:

Because it was the 50's and NOT the 60's.

Timing. Luck. A zillion factors.

Culture (and counterculture), sensibilities, drugs of choice - everything was different between the two decades. In every great success, it's like a lightning strike. Timing is the single, greatest factor in every successful venture. 

Would Zepplin has been the world's greatest rock band of all time if they appeared in 1950 or 1980? Likely not. 

You're looking at Marvel as a math equation and assuming all the separate parts can be quantified, but if it can't be replicated, that means it's impossible to dissect fully and authoritatively.

If you can't manifest it yourself, that means it's all just an opinion.

Kirby was a part of hits in multiple decades.

Captain America sold over a MILLION copies in the 1940's, more than any Marvel book would for another 40 years and became a huge hit. And it's not even about sales - the creation CONNECTED with people. 

Where was Lee's hit? Where was Lee's connection?

Kirby and Simon's Boy Commando's another million copy selling book a month, this time at DC.... and again, it's not even about sales - the creation CONNECTED with people. 

Kirby and Simon's Young Romance and Young Love sold over a Million copies a month into the 50's. Huge Success.

Kirby on his own at DC in the 50's - the Challengers of the Unknown started off in Showcase and got its owwn series faster tha the Flash did. It inspired DC to do more adventure teams (Sea Devils, Suicide Squad) and even to bring back superhero teams (JLA) and eventually influence Kirby's Fantstic Four idea.

Where was Lee's connection? Where was Lee's ideas?

In the 70's, Kirby created the New Gods - who else was creating an entire Universe of characters? Darkseid alone and what DC has milked from it over the years is worth it's weight in gold.

Where was Lee's ideas? Where was his connection.

Basic critical reaasoning skills, from someone who knew nothing about comics would look at this and laugh at the idea that Lee had all the ideas in the 60's at Marvel. He had none before Kirby. He had none after. 

It's just a logical step.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 7:50 AM, KCOComics said:

Roy - you've been very on point this discussion and I pretty much agree with everything you've said. 

 

@Prince Namor congratulations on the new book! 

I don't agree with your position - but I greatly admire your research and passion for the topic. 

I'll buy a copy, though I'm not sure I need to read it. I feel like I've been reading it for 6 years on these forums. 

Thank you! And believe me, there's so much more in there... and some quotes you may not have seen before! You may appreciate it just for that!

[VintageComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:50 PM, KCOComics said:

Roy - you've been very on point this discussion and I pretty much agree with everything you've said. 

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate it. 

I'm all for genuine discussion but it has to be balanced and reasonable. 

I'm really going to pull out of this thread now. I don't want to derail it any longer as it's not my intention. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

 Stan Lee's role was basically the manager of the brand and what I see coming as the end result of Chuck's unbalanced points and rants,

None of which you've pointed out specifically, from a book YOU HAVEN'T read.

On 9/16/2024 at 1:49 AM, VintageComics said:

is that Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee.

Never said that. Never would say that. 

You. Are. Wrong. You are misinformed.

What I HAVE said, numerous times over the years, is very clearly...

If Stan Lee hadn't been involved, the Marvel Universe wouldn't have been the same.

But if Jack Kirby hadn't been involved, it never would've existed.

 

BUT.... ultimately - it makes no difference because THAT is not what the book is about.

It's about all the LIES in the Origins of Marvel Comics.

But you wouldn't know that, because again, you're argueing about something you haven't read or even thought to ask or figure out what it's about. I don't mind discussing the things you've learned to say about Lee from Lee and Thomas and Marvel Comics, but for you to make a recommendation on the book based upon what it's NOT ABOUT... that means you're really...

...you're aiming that at ME. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:12 PM, Prince Namor said:

...you're aiming that at ME. 

No, I'm aiming it at your writing style, which has been consistent the entire time I've known you. 

Many others agree. 

Have fun! 

[KCOComics]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:03 PM, Prince Namor said:

Thank you! And believe me, there's so much more in there... and some quotes you may not have seen before! You may appreciate it just for that!

I will read it and will be happy to provide feedback. 

[Mr Sneeze]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm proud to announce my latest book - Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics', available now on Amazon!

Just in time for the 50th anniversary of this infamous book!

In 1974, Stan Lee released the ‘Origins of Marvel Comics', laying claim to the creation of some of the greatest superheroes in the history of comic books. For 50 years, the lies and inaccuracies of this book have been not only overlooked or outright ignored by the mainstream media (and even many comic journalists), but repeated as FACT.

For the first time, an in depth look at just how inaccurate Lee's story is - fact-checked with modern updated means of information collection and later interviews with the people who were there.

Stan Lee Lied. A LOT.

And that's a fact.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGLQ6BXV

 

My copy arrived today! It will be a few weeks till I'm able to get through it but look forward to reaching out afterwards if this thread ends up locked. Congratulations!

[comicwiz]

I'm not sure how I feel about the "social misfits" comment directed at Kirby and Ditko. 

This is a time where Stan Lee himself had openly admitted he used to lie about being a "writer", and intentionally avoided talking about working in comics because it was low brow.

He'd walk around with a typewriter, have photos and film taken of him typing, and playing the part of a writer working on "scripts", but did not actually produce any material that I'm aware of. If any of his "scripts" or writing have escaped my research, please feel free to point it out to me.

The contradictions of wanting to be a "socialite", hobnobbing about being a writer (a lie), but also deliberately hiding he worked in comics is strange enough.

But then he acted like a meglomaniac, taking credit for everything, everywhere else, where he couldn't be criticized for what he actually did for a living.

From a sociological perspective, people that lie about what they actually do for a living are the real social misfits, because they are fabricating a myth in their mind, living a lie, and in Lee's case, he chose the social circumstances where it is necessary to lie to feel validated, but then allowed it to carry over in his reality when he realized he could financially benefit from it. 

I don't know how anyone sees this as anything other than a person with heightened insecurities and borderline sociopathic tendencies. Nevermind that he was fine taking writing pay from the actual creators beyond taking credit for their work, it is the whacko public persona and deceptive disposition that is perhaps one the things about his character that demonstrates it was always just an act. The title of the book definitely fits.

No passion either, just [deluded] glory.

Edited Monday at 02:06 AM by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:38 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

My copy arrived today! It will be a few weeks till I'm able to get through it but look forward to reaching out afterwards if this thread ends up locked. Congratulations!

I look forward to hearing from you!

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 9:02 AM, comicwiz said:

I'm not sure how I feel about the "social misfits" comment directed at Kirby and Ditko. 

This is a time where Stan Lee himself had openly admitted he used to lie about being a "writer", and intentionally avoided talking about working in comics because it was low brow.

He'd walk around with a typewriter, have photos and film taken of him typing, and playing the part of a writer working on "scripts", but did not actually produce any material that I'm aware of. If any of his "scripts" or writing have escaped my research, please feel free to point it out to me.

The contradictions of wanting to be a "socialite", hobnobbing about being a writer (a lie), but also deliberately hiding he worked in comics is strange enough.

But then he acted like a meglomaniac, taking credit for everything, everywhere else, where he couldn't be criticized for what he actually did for a living.

From a sociological perspective, people that lie about what they actually do for a living are the real social misfits, because they are fabricating a myth in their mind, living a lie, and in Lee's case, he chose the social circumstances where it is necessary to lie to feel validated, but then allowed it to carry over in his reality when he realized he could financially benefit from it. 

I don't know how anyone sees this as anything other than a person with heightened insecurities and borderline sociopathic tendencies. Nevermind that he was fine taking writing pay from the actual creators beyond taking credit for their work, it is the whacko public persona and deceptive disposition that is perhaps one the things about his character that demonstrates it was always just an act. The title of the book definitely fits.

No passion either, just [deluded] glory.

Exactly.

Kirby passed, surrounded by family, in a peaceful loving environment.

Lee passed, surrounded by vultures, trying to find more ways to make money off of him, and feeling brow beaten by his own shopping addicted daughter. 

Who was the social misfit?

 

[DC#]

@Prince Namor     If you don't mind the question - what inspired you to research and write this book?   Your passion is clearly evident in this thread.  

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:34 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I wasn't going to comment on this subject specifically again given that feelings seem to be running high, however I do have a genuine question.

I have to preface it so there is no doubt, that this is not a personal attack or criticism of you at all, but I am genuinely intrigued as to what will be your answer to this:

Your book is called what it's called, namely that SL is a liar. But now you have doubled down an hour ago and called him a thief as well. Ok, fair or not fair, lets leave the ramifications of that to one side.

If you believe SL is a thief (much worse than a liar surely?), why then did you not call your book, STAN LEE LIED AND STOLE?

I'm no expert on publishing but a title like that is dynamite and would surely yield many more potential sales.

I'm curious why you didn't because you said it, so you obviously believe it, regardless whether it is true or not.

 

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/16/2024 at 9:57 AM, DC# said:

@Prince Namor     If you don't mind the question - what inspired you to research and write this book?   Your passion is clearly evident in this thread.  

Marvel is releasing a 50th Anniversary Edition of 'The Origins of Marvel Comics', and I wanted to give a whole new generation of people an understanding that it's full of a whole bunch of lies, so they can get ALL of the information available and make up their own minds. 

[Prince Namor]

TALKING POINTS FROM: 'Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the Origins of Marvel Comics’ by Chaz Gower (available now on Amazon!)

The MYTH of DC Comics Restricting Marvel to Eight Titles a Month.

First off, let me just say: I’m not saying it ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAPPEN… Just that, there’s no proof and… what we do know, sure doesn’t make it look like it’s true.

First some history: In 1956, Martin Goodman was talked into switching distribution of his product to American News Co. (the ANC on the covers of so many comics in the early Fifties). What he didn’t know was that they were under investigation by the Federal Government for some Mafia related business. They shut down 6 months later, and Goodman was without distribution of his comics/magazines and books.

Goodman had to lay off the whole staff.

DC-owned Independent News Co. agreed to distribute for them, which got them up and running, but instead of hiring everyone back, Goodman instructed Stan Lee to use the remaining inventory of work, with an occasional freelance fill in.

So…. DID DC comics impose an 8 book a month maximum on Goodman as Lee claimed (followed by others who simply repeated his statement) or… did GOODMAN put a restriction on Lee for the number of titles based on budget/staff?

 

Reasons to believe the 8 titles a month myth:

 

1) Stan Lee said so. Everyone else just repeated it.

 

So that’s ONE reason. One Zip.

 

Reasons NOT to believe the 8 titles a month myth:

 

1. There’s ZERO evidence. No paperwork. Nothing.

Now that COULD change. But as of now, no one has even SAID they’ve seen proof of it and nothing has ever been brought forward as paper evidence that such a thing was in place. It IS also possible, I guess, that Goodman, trying to be nice, told Lee that this was happening as a way of NOT saying, “Look kid, I have no faith in you to do more than 8 books a month.” But right now, there’s no physical evidence of an agreement.

 

2. There was NEVER a time when Marvel printed 16 bi-monthly books and rotated them every other month as claimed. We can see (mikesamazingworld.com) and count, and clearly show, it’s not true.

Even John Morrow in his ‘Stuff Said Book, repeats:

“In late May-June, Goodman signs with Independent News (IND), the distributor that is a subsidiary of comics rival DC Comics. IND only agrees to carry eight Atlas comic books per month, so Goodman switches to 16 bi-monthly titles…”

Marvel DID have some sort of bi-monthly books during this time - their longest running and most trusted titles - Kid Colt Outlaw, Millie the Model, Miss America, Patsy Walker, Strange Tales… but Kid Colt wasn’t monthly prior to the Implosion anyway. It went from 10 issues over 12 months to 7 over the first 12 months of the new agreement. That’s one more than bi-monthly. Millie the Model went from 9 issues over 12 months to 7 over the first 12 of the new agreement. That’s again one more than bi-monthly and not monthly before then. Miss America, Patsy Walker, and Homer the Happy Ghost went from 6 issues over the previous 12 months to 7 over the first 12 of the agreement! They went UP! Strange Tales and Patsy & Hedy went from 9 to 7.

We’d get 6 issues of Battle over the first 12 months of the agreement, but it was already bi-monthly the year before. Gunsmoke Western, My Own Romance, Marines in Battle, Wyatt Earp were already bi-monthly or close (7 to 5, or 5 to 6, etc.)

The only book you could ALMOST say went from monthly to bi-monthly would be Love Romances which went from 11 the previous year to 7 in the first year of the DC agreement.

I don’t see any evidence of a book going from monthly to bi-monthly after the Implosion.

Somebody made that up and just repeated it over the years.

 

Marvel Propaganda Mouthpiece Tom Brevhoort likes to repeat this lie, but now adds, “from our point of view, they limited him to only 8 comic book releases a month.” (From his December 28, 2019 blog). It’s amazing how their stories change as more proof against them comes out!

But there’s more:

“So Martin got 8 slots, which he used to put out 16 bimonthly books.”

FALSE. As we’ve shown.

“This is how things stood at the start of Marvel, where FANTASTIC FOUR became a 17th title in the mix–either because Goodman got permission or because he didn’t and simply tried to sneak one more series through the pipeline.”

We’re jumping ahead a few years, but FALSE. The month the Fantastic Four came out, Marvel released 17 books THAT month. 10 the month before, and 17 the month after. That’s 44 books between July 5th and September 28th. You know, the MONEY months. 14.66 a MONTH.

Marvel would go on to release another 79 books for the year of 1961, or 8.77 per month in the off season, but TOTAL, average 10.25 a month for 1961.

So the question has to be asked… if this restriction was originally done to limit Marvel’s success, why would DC allow them to bunch the titles up in the busy months of the year? That makes no sense.

Th truth is most likely, that they didn’t limit them at all - Goodman did, and loosened it up whenever, a) he had staff - Kirby was freelancing full-time - and b) when the time of the year dictated. Marvel was in charge of their own production.

NOTE: When Kirby returned in summer of 1959 as a full-time freelancer, his books - Tales of Suspense, Tales to Astonish, Strange Tales, and Journey Into Mystery would all go MONTHLY by spring of the following year. AGAIN, showing what Brevhoort says here is false.

In order to launch a new book, Goodman had to kill an existing series.

What series was killed to add the Fantastic Four? Let’s have a look at the evidence!

The new added 1961 title, Amazing Adventures? Nope, that became Amazing Adult Fantasy. The newly added Linda Carter, Student Nurse? Nope, another title just added two months before FF#1, that would run 9 issues. Kathy? Life With Millie? Nope. Those had been added in 1959.

My Girl Pearl ended in January of 1961, 8 MONTHS prior to FF#1 - is he trying to claim THAT was it???

Marvel was ADDING titles, dude. Not subtracting.

"This tended to make him quick on the trigger, and is one reason why INCREDIBLE HULK was cancelled so swiftly. (In point of fact, Jack Kirby related at one point that INCREDIBLE HULK had been cancelled by Goodman even earlier, with #3, but the book got a short-lived reprieve thanks to fan letters from college students.)”

This is just silly. The Hulk was canceled because it wasn’t selling. (And it wasn’t selling because Lee was imposing his will so strongly on Kirby regarding the stories it just became a mess). It had nothing to do with scheduling that we can see. This is just made up.

"In any event, with his sales booming, Goodman sought and received permission to expand his line by two releases."

More nonsense. By the time X-Men and Daredevil came out (which is what he’s talking about here), Marvel was already averaging 12 titles a month - 4 OVER this mythological restriction.

Why did they expand? Well, sales of course, but also because… of EXPANDED staff.

Joe Orlando, Bill Everett returning, Robert Bernstein, Lee now had Flo Steinburg as a secretary…

 

3. Marvel didn’t follow the supposed restriction. By 1961 they were publishing 10 books a month. It went up every year after that. By 1966 they were publishing 16 books a month - DOUBLE what the claimed restriction was. Marvel apologists say that as Marvel got more successful, DC eased up the restrictions. What??? If DC originally did it as a way to keep Marvel from competing, WHY would they ease the restrictions as they GOT MORE SUCCESSFUL? That makes no sense.

 

4. When asked throughout the 60’s why they didn’t give each character their own book - instead of splitting stories in Strange Tales/Tales to Astonish/Tales of Suspense - Lee’s answer was always, “We don’t have the staff to do it.’ Which is true. As his staff grew, so did the number of books published.

BINGO. There’s your real answer. I need to find more of these college campus transcripts or recordings and transcribe them - Lee had a habit in the 60’s of telling the truth sometimes at these things.

“We’d love to give everybody a magazine of his own, (?) we get requests for these things all the time, we mention in the books and I’m sure nobody believes it, we don’t have the time and we don’t have the staff…” - Stan Lee, Speaking Engagement at Princeton, 1966

 

5. They actually grew more under DC than they did originally switching to Cadence. From 1960 to 1968, Marvel went from 8 books a month to almost 20 books a month - an increase of 12 books per month. From 1969 (Cadence took over publishing of Marvel’s books in July of 1969) to 1971, Marvel increased to only 23 books a month. They only went up 3 books a month with Cadence in the first three years of having their own Distribution? Why? One can only suspect it would be limitations in staff to produce more. If DC HAD been holding them back, wouldn’t they’ve had a bigger increase once they went to their own distributor?

Of course. It was, as it always was, a matter of staff.

 

NOTE: And despite the growth they DID have under Cadence early, in the 2nd half of 1970, 49.3% of Marvel’s output was reprint books. In all of 1971, 43.5% of Marvel’s output was reprint books. The reason? Well, Jack Kirby was no longer there, so… lack of staff (and creative talent to make anything new).

 

6. It was Goodman’s philosophy to run the superheroes together in one book. He was still talking about this in 1971: “(On the erosion of sales) That’s why we have so many superhero characters, and run superheroes together. Even if you take two characters that are weak sellers and run them together in the same book, somehow, psychologically, the reader feels he’s getting more. You get the Avenger follower and the Sub-Mariner follower.” (- Martin Goodman, interviewed by Saul Braun, ‘Shazam! Here Comes Captain Relevant’, New York Times, May 2nd, 1971)

THIS would fall in line with his lack of faith he had in Lee (in the EARLY 60’s) as well as his lack of faith in superheroes, as well as his lack of STAFF to produce enough books.

 

Six to One. Pretty lopsided score.

 

So why would Marvel go to all the trouble to say this? Why come up with this lie that really only surfaced in the 70’s? Why then ADD to it with things like ‘so Goodman switches to 16 bi-monthly titles’ (which actually helps give away the intent)?

Simple.

We KNOW it was Kirby who saved Marvel. (See the previous Essay)

We KNOW Lee did NOTHING to save the company in the year he had before Maneely tragically died and Kirby returned to save the day.

But MARVEL doesn’t want you to know that. Marvel wants you to think it was STAN with the plan that saved Marvel in the late 50’s. That’s why, DC putting the screws to Marvel with that restriction of only 8 titles a month makes it sound so much like Lee overcame all odds to WIN! Marvel’s clever bi-monthly plan - “only 8 a month? Fine! We’ll do 16 bi-monthly then!’ - shows just how smart they are.

No.

Jack Kirby SAVED your . When you had nothing. And Goodman held the paper in his hands to END Marvel Comics… because Lee couldn’t do anything to save it…. Jack Kirby walked in the door and said, “I’ll put you some books together that’ll sell.”

Marvel Comics would’ve ended in August of 1958, if not for Jack Kirby.

 

I often have to say “Without Stan Lee, obviously, Marvel Comics wouldn’t have been the same.”

But I always add, “But without Jack Kirby, it would’ve never existed at all.”

 

On the newsstands in September of 1958? Three new Kirby Sci-Fi books - Strange Worlds #1, Tales of Suspense #1 and Tales to Astonish #1. A genre that had NEVER been successful for Goodman. Kirby had talked him into it.

And the rest is history.

 

Chaz Gower’s new book ‘Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics’', available now on Amazon!

 

 

 

[mrc]

On 9/16/2024 at 12:26 PM, Prince Namor said:

I often have to say “Without Stan Lee, obviously, Marvel Comics wouldn’t have been the same.”

But I always add, “But without Jack Kirby, it would’ve never existed at all.”

...............but, IMHO without Stan (and the emotional connection he created with the readers) the books would not have sold nor, made any money for literally decades to come.

[KCOComics]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:14 AM, mrc said:

...............but, IMHO without Stan (and the emotional connection he created with the readers) the books would not have sold nor, made any money for literally decades to come.

This sums up my argument. 

And I'll start by saying, I hate these debates because I feel like supporting Stan puts you on the position of challenging,  Jack and Steve, among other creators. So I've largely stayed silent when these debates have popped up. 

But I feel like Stan's impact is so multifaceted, it's really hard to discount just how incredibly important he was.  

Stan created a brand. And you can say it was Goodman or the comics that created that Brand, but the central figure that fans connected with over generations was Stan. I grew up in the 90s. When Stan showed up in Mall Rats or did interviews, my brother and I were elated. We connected with Stan. The way he embraced dorky kids like us.  

I also have talked to creators personally that talked about how relentlessly Stan worked. Allen Bellman told me at a show, that way back in the 40s, Stan was working 10, 12 and 14 hour days every day. 

What was he doing??? The creative was part of it, but he was running a company. Managing P&Ls, hiring,  marketing,  putting out fires, trying to keep the lights on. All the things that go into a scaling a successful business.... and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

As for the creative credit,  that can be and will be argued for decades.  All I know is,  some cocktail of partnership, creativity, luck, planning and hard work went into creating a universe that grown adults can still argue about 60 years later.

I bought the book and will read it. I'm sure I'll learn alot because there is no doubt Prince Namor knows his stuff.

But I will also always love Stan! Did he exaggerate and lie?? I'm 100% sure he did. But in life situations often aren't black and white. There is a lot of gray.  To just point out all of Stan's lies over his 90 years, doesn't paint a complete picture.  

I would argue Stan is the single most important person in the history of comics. And we would not be here arguing today if there was no Stan Lee.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/16/2024 at 1:47 PM, KCOComics said:

I would argue Stan is the single most important person in the history of comics. And we would not be here arguing today if there was no Stan Lee.

You're absolutely correct, but a book entitled, STAN LEE MAY HAVE LIED BUT HE DRAGGED THE COMIC BOOK INDUSTRY INTO THE MILLENIUM AND ACTUALLY LAID THE GROUNDWORK FOR COMICS TO BE A RESPECTED AND COPIED ARTFORM.....well...that's not as punchy a title is it? Nor would it sell.

 

[Forbush-Man]

I just ordered a copy, I'll start on it once I finish "Kirby & Lee: Stuf' Said!" 

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:02 PM, comicwiz said:

But then he acted like a meglomaniac, taking credit for everything, everywhere else, where he couldn't be criticized for what he actually did for a living.

From a sociological perspective, people that lie about what they actually do for a living are the real social misfits, because they are fabricating a myth in their mind, living a lie, and in Lee's case, he chose the social circumstances where it is necessary to lie to feel validated, but then allowed it to carry over in his reality when he realized he could financially benefit from it. 

Let me just say before my diatribe here that I don't agree with much of what Stan Lee did to creators. I'm just whipping out some thoughts:

I worked at an ad agency and in advertising for a lot of years (1996-2015), and I worked with some old school ad guys. During this time where new technology and attitudes started replacing a lot of the old ways of working - I was fascinated with the previous eras way of doing things. I dropped into my advertising profession right after things like private jets to see corporate clients, gigantic expense accounts to woo potential prospects and seemingly endless creative budgets to maximize the effect of ads across limited media platforms (TV, radio, print was all there was back then). I was a little dismayed to hear that I had missed a lot of the real action by a few years, but - I got a lot of stories about the "good ole days" where top end advertising people were treated like rock stars simply because they flew in from somewhere to have a meeting.

In advertising, you're not producing things like comics where success is measured in direct sales - you're producing effecting advertising that gains the attention of the trades, as well as other agencies and being talked about. While the ultimate benefit is to create something buzzworthy for the client, what benefits the agency were people/clients/customers/media talking about the ads, or landing awards (which were prestigious back then) and using that attention to draw new clients with your creative prowess, leading to more money earned for the agency.

Now, with that being said, there was also one general attitude that was adhered to in agencies large and small (I worked for a small one): the creative director gets the credit. Now, mind you, this was not comics - but it was a creative profession very similar. Back then, people were not lined up expecting to be put into the spotlight because they sat in on a creative meeting and suggested an idea that got implemented in the final concept. Much like comic books, advertising campaigns that spanned tv, radio and print had lots of moving parts - like a comic book - directors, talent, writers, and the production guys like illustrators, etc. One guy does not come up with the entire concept of an ad campaign, but he generally takes the credit for doing so.

I've sat in countless pitches, meetings and presentations where the agency I worked for, or the creative director himself got the credit, claimed the credit or alluded to masterminding an entire idea that was a success. That never bothered me. To be in a meeting or presentation and getting into the semantics of who-did-what is not the way to drive the meeting. And again, this is plain 'ol advertising. We weren't creating characters that went on to be marketable, profitable endeavors - so I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel. 

This is where my point about Stan Lee comes in. Now, I have no clue of his general attitude towards taking credit - but to me, it's not outlandish notion that he would take credit for everything. If you break down the purpose of a journalist talking to Stan Lee about Marvel Comics it's basically:

Investigating the Who, What, Where, When and Why of their story and identifying what the story is about and finding the angles that make this article unique and interesting.

Stan Lee's job - at that point - is to sell the success of Marvel Comics and let the journalist decide what parts of it are interesting. Much like the pitch meetings I attended, the job of the Creative Director was to convince the client that this was the agency that could fulfill their creative needs. That convincing took the form of anecdotal conversation mixed in with showing portfolio pieces, taking long stories about the creative process and paring it down to a few sentences for the purpose of brevity.

I always felt this is what Stan Lee did - at least in the beginning. Taking credit for successes simply because he was the guy talking to the media. Before mass marketing took hold, comics were just a different form of periodical with advertisements. Not only were publishers seeking to make money by increasing readership, they parlayed those distribution numbers to sell advertising. Aside from the creative aspect - back then - a comic book was seen as another form of revenue. I think Stan's view on this - at the time - was no different than other editors, or creative directors: push the company, make us money.

And with that, comes the statements - like Namor had in his books, specifically about Superboy (earlier in the thread) - where Stan Lee has to set aside facts to push his own agenda with Marvel.

Was it a premeditated lie he was pushing? Or was it promotional BSing to further the Marvel brand? Was he trying to butter his own bread to the media in case he ever lost his job? Or all three at the same time?

There never was, or ever will be - another guy at the head of a media conglomerate who saw the entire operation from soup to nuts for 70 years. I can't imagine story after story to different journalists over decades and decades of self-promotion. You'd have a bunch of half-truths mixed in with barely-remembered true scenarios, and this is what we get with Stan. I know there are infinite permutations to the Stan Lee story, but I think it's worth noting that Stan is a very unique individual - not because he's Stan, but because he's seen everything as one person. Unfortunately, the media took him at his word for decades, so there's a lot of the truth that can come out (which we have here with Namor's book) and I think that's interesting to hear about.

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 02:38 PM by Dr. Balls