Why Is Stan Lee’s Legacy in Question?

[Comicopolis]

Why Is Stan Lee’s Legacy in Question?

[Ken Aldred]

A long but extremely interesting article.

 

We've seen the conflicts about who created what discussed many times here on the boards.

[Red84]

The book that changed my view on Stan was Marvel Comics the Untold Story. I have great respect for him, but I do think he took more credit than he deserved.

[StuporMan]

Meanwhile...

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Why Is Stan Lee’s Legacy in Question?

 

Most interesting & informative.

Stan Lee is without doubt a legend, 50% is real, 50% is in his own mind.

Nevertheless without Stan Lee, would this forum or CGC even exist today?

Doubtful.

[Doktor]

I've long ago reached the same conclusions as the author of this. A legend & an immortal that claims more of a grand impact on the world than he deserves while simultaneously earning orders of magnitude more acclaim than most of us will ever understand.

[fmaz]

There are absolutely some people who have legitimate issues with Stan with regard to credit taking. Stan may or may not argue that things were done in the interest of marketing, or just selling Stan as a Marvel brand... whatever. But clearly a case can be made by certain people that Stan took credit for more than he deserved. And I agree with those people. Others might not.

 

A case cannot be made, however, that he does not deserve a great deal of credit on his own.

Further, much of the anti-Stan talk over the years, I feel, has come from those who might be jealous of his success or who are trying simply to knock him down.

 

The people who have a legitimate case... fine. Reading all of that over the years has absolutely tempered my image of Stan. But it has not changed my opinion that he is the single most important figure in the history of Marvel comics.

[budsbundy]

while simultaneously earning orders of magnitude more acclaim than most of us will ever understand.

I'm just trying to understand this sentence

 

 

Stan's Legacy is firmly cemented

[ComicConnoisseur]

Marvel was real great two times.

When Stan Lee was the editor in chief,than when Stan Lee picked Jim Shooter to be his editor in chief, while he Stan Lee became publisher.

Once Stan Lee stopped having a say in Marvel decisions and became a figure head we will find Marvel Comics has never been the same.

[Doktor]

while simultaneously earning orders of magnitude more acclaim than most of us will ever understand.

I'm just trying to understand this sentence

 

 

Stan's Legacy is firmly cemented

 

I meant it in the sense that we can kinda understand, but without actually achieving that sort of acclaim ourselves, we could never truly understand it. Kinda like being President. You can understand it but without actually living thru the experience, you'll never totally know what that feels like.

 

From a 3rd party perspective, we can see his legacy, but I meant it in a 1st person sort of way.

[Scturo]

Similar to who deserves more credit, Jobs or Woz for Apple. Stan Lee deserves all the credit he gets. Marvel would not be the brand that it is without him.

[vaillant]

Honestly, I believe this statements by Roy Thomas pretty much sums it all:

 

“I think he'll be remembered as the guy who gave the world the Marvel universe,” says Thomas. “I know various others of us — Jack and Steve — were very important in that. But without Stan Lee, there is no Marvel universe. He’s the one who had the vision.”

 

I would just substitute "Marvel Universe" with "Marvel Age" when we extend it to the other giants, both of the first and of the second generation (like Thomas, Archie Goodwin, etc.).

[Comicshrine]

They don't call him Stan "The Man" for nothing.

[shadroch]

Marvel was real great two times.

When Stan Lee was the editor in chief,than when Stan Lee picked Jim Shooter to be his editor in chief, while he Stan Lee became publisher.

Once Stan Lee stopped having a say in Marvel decisions and became a figure head we will find Marvel Comics has never been the same.

 

There's almost a decade and a dozen editors in chief between Stan stepping down as editor and Shooter taking over. The editors position was a revolving door,with some lasting a month or two.

[Mr. 10%]

Why Is Stan Lee’s Legacy in Question?

 

Christ, read the linked article. Its pretty clear:

 

Lee b-a-c-k-s-t-a-b-b-e-d Kirby. Big time.

 

End of story

[namisgr]

True or not, that doesn't alter the fact that Stan Lee was the personality of Marvel, and as editor in chief singlehandedly took the superhero concept beyond DC and brought comic books in the 1960s from children's fare to cool must-read material for teens to young adults.

[comicwiz]

I shared this article on Facebook yesterday after reading it, and I think this is one of the best articles written on the topic. The real show stopper for me was the quote from Stan describing his working relationship with Terry Dougas, saying "No, he’s great to work with. He does all the work, I take the credit. You couldn’t have a better arrangement.” The author then writes:

 

"That last bit is more than a little remarkable to hear. On the one hand, he’s just doing the typical Stan routine, one he’s been doing for the better part of seven decades: putting an audience at ease via disorienting shifts between self-promotion and self-debasement. But saying he just slaps his name on other people’s work — well, that’s a topic he usually keeps off the table, even for jokes. After all, it’s unwise to draw attention to the things for which you’re most hated, and since at least the late 1960s, Lee has been accused of stealing credit from two of comics’ most legendary creators, two men who had tremendous creative synergy with Lee before they concluded that he was an unforgivable . Those two men were writer-artists Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko."

 

The author held little back, but the ending has a degree of self-defeatism to it that really should not be allowed to fester any further than it has. I know Stan Lee has a massive fan base, and played a part in weaving the fabric of a fan culture we love dearly, but the "unfulfilled life" Stan recounts in his memoirs growing-up in a demoralizing era is the very legacy and fate he rammed down the throats of his bullpen, and unfairly, onto the two people who made his fame and fortune possible.

 

There is a degree of just desserts reading he was never able to recapture his self-involved genius, or translate that into anywhere near the success he enjoyed when Kirby and Ditko were no longer around to produce the magic. He robbed Kirby and Ditko of the legacy they rightfully deserved. Kane did it to Bill Finger, and despite what Lee's supporters (which include Steranko) have stated in the past, saying Lee should not be compared to Kane, he damn well didn't do enough when it really mattered to distance himself from the practices Kane used to keep Finger from enjoying the credit he deserved while he was still alive.

 

Maybe there is a degree of justice in the fan base knowing the truth, and in cases where it's relevant, the heir's benefitting monetarily after these greats are finally given the credit they have been owed for decades, with a few nearing a century, but I loathe the idea of sentimentalizing this, or reducing it down to human falability, or Lee not being able to help himself. Lee's legacy to me is of someone who was good at taking credit for someone else's work. No more, no less.

[Comicshrine]

 

, "and despite what Lee's supporters (WHICH INCLUDE STERANKO) have stated in the past, saying Lee should not be compared to Kane,"

 

I think we should give a lot of weight to Steranko's opinion, he worked with Stan, he was there at the time.

[Prince Namor]

, "and despite what Lee's supporters (WHICH INCLUDE STERANKO) have stated in the past, saying Lee should not be compared to Kane,"

 

I think we should give a lot of weight to Steranko's opinion, he worked with Stan, he was there at the time.

 

Steranko was there for what, a year in the LATE 60's?... he left because Stan wouldn't let him have complete creative control.

 

Now he has a contract with Marvel that pays him some royalties he wasn't privy to when he did that work in the late 60's.

 

And those contract's stipulate you can't talk bad about Stan.

 

[Prince Namor]

The Marvel Universe would not have come to be what it was without Stan Lee's part in it.

 

Jack Kirby would've still created characters, but they wouldn't have been the same. Steve Ditko would've created characters, but they wouldn't have been the same.

 

And certainly, the Marvel UNIVERSE would've no where near been the same.

 

Stan likes to take more credit than he deserves as a creator, which is what is finally catching up to him, but his part as a co-creator/editor is VASTLY UNDER RATED.

 

Yes, he was a great promoter/showman yadda yadda yadda, but as a co-creator/editor, he was able to take raw ideas and mold them into a more readable and relatable concept... he took many ideas from the Golden Age and added them into the mix, like wise guy superheroes, and team ups, and fan letters, and most importantly the EXCITEMENT and he made it OURS to join in on.

 

I'll never believe that Stan Lee, out of the blue, for the only time in his life, came up with complete concepts and story ideas for these characters and simply farmed them out to artists. Nothing in his history before or since would lead anyone to come to that conclusion, whereas Jack and Steve created similar concepts before and after working with Stan.

 

But what Stan ADDED to those raw ideas, is what helped make those creations relatable to more people. Bigger than any superheroes ever were before. And the reason that, even today, a LAME Spider-man movie can still do more than a Zack Snyder Man of Steel movie.

 

Jack Kirby was the greatest comic book creator EVER.

 

But none of this.... the movies, the worldwide merchandising and acceptance of these characters as ICONS, would've happened without Stan Lee.