lordbyroncomics

I've heard that too but this guy made a good point about some of these "museum" pieces:

Thank you for this information. Sean took a lot of time in 2021 giving me advice when I was dealing with burnout and other stress from working in a pharmacy and the general tilt in the lower rungs of the medical industry in general. We had planned to meet up as we was up by Rutgers' quite a bit and now I'm sad we never found the time. A really patient and generous guy with me. R.I.P.

In regards to the Spider-Man costume, remember that no less than a Stan Lee defender than Jim Shooter claimed to have seen Kirby's original and rejected Spider-Man pages in the 70s' and that it wasn't like Ditko's Spider-Man at all. He described him as much more Captain America like, which supports Ditko's recollection where he did a rough sketch of Kirby's Spider-Man costume in one of his self-published pamphlets. Shooter also remembered that the setup was different which supports Stan just giving a name and basic concept to the artist and letting them flesh out the details/plot since, if he had given the artists a -script, Kirby and Ditko's Spider-Men wouldn't have deviated so much.

Yeah, there's no Marvel as we know it without Stan- Bullpen Bulletins, the letter pages and so forth are utterly and completely significant to the rise of the Marvel, as well as his dialogue up until about 1967-1968. The issue is Stan getting credit for things he didn't do.

Once again, I apologize for my prior shortcomings.

Not fighting anyone*, least of all Prince Namor whom I respect tremendously. I apologize again for my prior passionate comments. (*- However, if anyone here wants to meet at a convention and put on gloves for a charity match, let me know )

I apologize. You're right.

"There's no evidence that Stan made anything up about his Uncle and Spiderman." The evidence is Stan's contradictions in what he'd say about Goodman at various times. "And given he was a family member, that's a bit far-fetched as there were plenty of people who could have disagreed if they felt Stan was treating Goodman unfairly at the time." Was Stan around Goodman relatives after he'd gotten Chip Goodman removed in 1971...? And why would Stan care if Goodman relatives disagreed?? "Hey, Goodman's nephew thinks you're a heel!" Uh, okay. Stan seemed pretty immune to being insulted. A bit far-fetched? Stan treating Goodman unfairly? You think Robbie Solomon was around when Lee was giving his interviews to the college press?? What garbage speculation!!! "This article took what could have been a nice factual look and immediately pivoted to garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad. Critical readers should be able to spot the many other flaws with the article." Critical readers should know that documented and recorded evidence shared with the author by Goodman family members and discovery of contemporary newspaper reports that you can also seek out are not garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad you can't read, its too bad you can't grasp, it's not surprising your bias provokes these garbage statements devoid of factual support. Unless, you know, Goodman's family saved all that stuff that was forged I suppose.

"I guess we'll never know..." On the contrary- I'm guessing no one reads the article Prince Namor shared- Jean Goodman was exceedingly outgoing and outspoken and an early advocate for mental illness and a patron of the arts. She wrote a column and was a regular at society events regarding alternative education and at art galas. If your "vibe" is that someone is sad, that's fine but remember that your vibe might just be that. There's all SORTS of things to know about the Goodmans. None of the facts shared in that article were speculative; they come from newspaper accounts and help from the surviving Goodman children.

Luckily for Goodman, parts of his early travels were helpfully documented by photographs of him in various towns and certain receipts he saved for sentimental reasons. Sorry to have your emoji wasted! There's this thing called research... it sorta beats a life where you strictly comment on message boards.

I truly had excitement on that, believing it'd be a "life story" of sorts- it wasn't, it was speculative and facts around Timely/Atlas/Marvel releases, I'm amazed they even put Goodman on the cover. They didn't speak to his living children who have a wealth of things that fill out his fascinating life. Also, Goodman is mentioned in contemporary press for all sorts of stuff- social events, fundraisers, etc.- just not specifically for comics stuff.

He was interviewed in 1968, 1969, and 1989. He also kept a day-to-day journal, which one of his children showed me a few pages of that largely covered his meetings.

The article assets it is a lie because it was a lie. Goodman was not going to fire Stan for Amazing Fantasy #15. This is just another component of the stories that charmed journalists and comic fans for years. It sounds good; it's intoxicating. The point of that article is that even the anecdotes about Goodman often contradict themselves if read together. Goodman is sometimes a penny pincher who goes over every cover with a fine tooth comb, or he's obtuse and oblivious and the comics don't mean anything. For the record, Stan is cited no less than 17 times in recorded interviews as saying that Goodman "looked at every single cover" before a comic went to the printer. Amazing Fantasy #15 had two covers commissioned and paid for. Goodman knew Spider-Man was coming out in Amazing Fantasy #15. Therefore, why would Stan be fired over it? It's a tall tale, plain and simple. There's nothing for you to argue about- all of this comes from Lee's own documented statements. Unless you'd like to take the approach that Lee just lied about everything?

I spoke to Mr. Morrow about these very things last year in Baltimore. He's a lovely man and while he didn't say this outright, he has his hands tied a bit with what he can speak about. One does not want to alienate Marvel at this point when so much of his publishing depends upon it's history. Also, there are certain things he cannot speak upon. I know this for a fact. At best, he will direct you to the printed magazines and what lies therein.

I don't know how inclined you are to venture into NJ during your trip, or if you're even able, but 50 miles away from NYC is a great store I discovered last year in Cranbury, NJ called Doctor Wonder's. It's all back issues and quite vast and has that vibe and old paper smell of the comic shops I remember from my childhood.

It really does boil down to the television show. Regular cartoons and commercials in the Eighties- the last Golden Age of developed toys when toys were still geared towards kids and not guys in their 30s' and 40s'- it was inescapable. If there had been a Micronauts cartoon, they'd possibly have more staying power or at least more vague pop culture status.

I mean.... they are a thing, unfortunately. All they do is re-tell the same origin stories every few years, just not in the panel by panel remake format you described. DC's 1980s Secret Origins had a few stories- not all- that did the remake of the original story, presumably that was a Roy Thomas thing.

The best and remaining "comic shop vibe" left in Manhattan at least is JHU Comics, formerly Jim Hanley's Universe- while I'm glad Forbidden Planet and Midtown apparently thrive, you're not going to find back issues and such there. At least there's a degree of that at JHU. I miss the days of when it was across from the Empire State Building and you'd find Golden Age Larry there. I dropped in a few months ago and guys were at the desk talking about Bill Mantlo's HULK run which warmed my heart considerably. The guy who owned St Marks Comics still does conventions; I see him set up at Big Apple every year. http://jhucomicbooks.com/

In 2006 I took Stan some books from the late 20s' he'd always cited in interviews (Jerry Todd & Poppy Ott) and he was delighted and took the time to give me a special personalized kind of autograph, special I guess in the sense that Stan drew a word balloon around his name. A year or two ago I thought of selling it when I was getting rid of a lot of excess stuff but it would only work if I sold it to someone named William.. or Will.. or Bill.. or Billy.. or Liam.. or Willis.. or Guillermo... Anyway, I just put it with some other prints and such I'd gotten at early NYCCs. But something made me remember it last week so I wanted to dig up pics I'd had and did so thought to share them here. Of course Stan signed so much stuff ranging from Silver Age comics he'd worked on to modern mutant titles he absolutely did not; this started in the 90s' as I remember being in Middle School and seeing Stan as a guest on QVC or Home Shopping Network, it's evident the most value his signature is gonna have is on key and vintage stuff but mostly it's going to be sentimental value for whomever got their signature(s) in person.

No, he didn't steal his ideas. That'd be a different thread. He stole credit. And payment for plots that he didn't write. It's entirely different. You could say every comic creator stole ideas and that's fair and you're right, you can riff off of it and make something new. This is about Stan getting credit for things and not crediting others. I know it's hard to grasp and some of the stirrers on here want to change it into a "poor Stan, he's not praised enough" kind of thing because they enjoy it- it really is just about stealing credit, not ideas. Stealing ideas makes it seem as if you have ideas of your own. Stan Lee in 1974: "The Living Eraser might've been my nuttiest idea yet!" Below: Jack Kirby's Harvey sci-fi story a few years before the Living Eraser To be fair it could be just a coincidence. But the coincidences are legion and, if nothing else, are worthy of a conversation.

That's good of you, ol' pal. I can speak from experience how emotional I get seeing your age related mental decline on this very thread! Kirby got "hush money"? Please explain. What hush money did he get- why was it hush money- what source do you have for your usual instigative dishonest nonsense? So now all of those artists are all in cahoots and dishonest. Got it! - lbc (a friend of old crooks)

But that's SUBJECTIVE and a matter of your OPINION. Who are the Stan Bashers, dare I ask? Could I bash a guy by saying he didn't do all the things he's credited for? Does this make you a Kirby basher? After all, Stan's well ran WAY dry as soon as Kirby stopped giving him stories. Is it bashing to point out facts? One guy stopped creating. Does pointing that out constitute "bashing"?

Solely because you entered the discussion with 'I think what they meant' etc.- speculative more than having the actual information next to you which would validate or invalidate what you were offering. I don't mean it personally, you're obviously very intelligent. I think in conversations like this we need to have some point of reference to where we read it or heard it and what was said. Obviously you're free to ignore me but it won't change me being honest with you. I'd tell my best friends the same thing if they were wading into such a thread and weren't precise about what they knew.

Literally calling an artist on the phone- which I am positive Stan Lee did thousands of times over four decades- is decidedly not what you meant. You meant the narrative of Stan calling up artists to give them a PLOT to work from. The latter is what I am saying didn't happen. But please, see yourself out. You keep offering things when you don't even know the points of reference.

"I'd say to the artists, look, you know how the stories go" Yep.