Stan Lee creations that really missed the mark 0

[topofthetotem]

1 minute ago, newshane said:

I honestly experienced a sinking feeling when I saw it. 

 

I never underestimate man’s desire for profit even in the most inappropriate of times. 

[Keys_Collector]

8 hours ago, newshane said:

Are you kidding? Someone already has a Stan Lee thread going in the sales forum. 

I saw that and liked the comment that called him out on it.  Doesn't mean this thread wasnt tasteless either.

[Jaylam]

11 hours ago, zosocane said:

Stan was writing Romance comics before going the super-hero route.  And the dialogue in the first 25 issues of ASM is consistent with what he wrote for FF, JIM, TOS, etc.  It was the early 1960s, after all.  

But he did make an effort to include women and create superpowered roles for them from the very beginning. I was probably most frustrated with how Sue Storm was handled in the FF. She was really the most powerful member of the team, but she was never really allowed to fully embrace her powers in the early days. Stan always wrote her in a more damsel in distress/weaker sex tone and let the use of her powers put too much strain on her or wear her down in battle to the point she became ineffective at times. But, nevertheless it was a beginning that expanded to the Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Black Widow, Medusa, Crystal and so on. And let's not forget the pivotal role Alicia played in the classic Galatus trilogy in FF 48-50 (which I think is very much overlooked even to this day, so much so, I'm including it here). 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jaylam

[F For Fake]

I don't get the pearl clutching about the sales thread. If anyone understood chasing a buck, it was Stan. And I don't mean that disrespectfully at all. Game respect game.

[Keys_Collector]

26 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I don't get the pearl clutching about the sales thread. If anyone understood chasing a buck, it was Stan. And I don't mean that disrespectfully at all. Game respect game.

His body wasn't even cold yet and people are already rolling out the items for sale with raised prices.  Come on, there's clearly a difference between the man marketing his services and people making money off a legend who died hours before.

[Black_Adam]

I also think if Stan Lee knew there was a thread on characters he created that missed the mark he'd be the first wanting to chime in (and I bet he'd have a longer list than the rest of us). No one is harder on their own work than a writer and one who self-admittedly wrote most of his stories in one sitting is bound to have a few strikeouts. How many comic stories did he write? It must have been thousands. Needless to say, his home runs more than made up for his misses.

Anyway, back to the topic, I don't think any of his heroes missed the mark for me but some of his early Silver-Age villains of the week sure did (IMHO). I remember dreading any stories with carnival villains (the Ringmaster, CIrcus of Crime, etc though I did like the woman with the snake - Princess Python?). Also not a big fan of Plantman or the Porcupine.

Excelsior!

 

[NoMan]

2 hours ago, Keys_Collector said:

 Doesn't mean this thread wasnt tasteless either.

  Relax. Nobody said anything bad about the guy. Not taking one's self so seriously is what made him unique. Hell, it's what built the Marvel Empire. 

[newshane]

4 hours ago, Keys_Collector said:

I saw that and liked the comment that called him out on it.  Doesn't mean this thread wasnt tasteless either.

I don't think this thread is tasteless because it is pretty much academic in nature. It's okay to discuss an artist's work in critical fashion. In fact, I'm sure Stan was used to criticism and would have welcomed a discussion about the merits and weaknesses of his work. 

Evaluating his legacy as an artist is MUCH different from trying to profit immediately after the man's death. 

I am well aware that we live in a (largely) free market society, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with trying to "cash in". But the man has been picked at by swarming vultures over the last few years, and it makes the sort of shameless display we saw in the sales forum that much harder to swallow. 

[Keys_Collector]

2 minutes ago, newshane said:

I don't think this thread is tasteless because it is pretty much academic in nature. It's okay to discuss an artist's work in critical fashion. In fact, I'm sure Stan was used to criticism and would have welcomed a discussion about the merits and weaknesses of his work. 

Evaluating his legacy as an artist is MUCH different from trying to profit immediately after the man's death. 

I am well aware that we live in a (largely) free market society, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with trying to "cash in". But the man has been picked at by swarming vultures over the last few years, and it makes the sort of shameless display we saw in the sales forum that much harder to swallow. 

I agree for the most part and wouldn't have called it tasteless had the thread emerged some time after his passing.  In my humble opinion, discussing an artists work in a critical fashion especially when talking about him naming someone 'donut girl' isn't exactly painting him in the most positive light.  I'd rather us as a community focus on the good when he just passed yesterday as we have the rest of the time to have these type of discussion moving forward on where his pitfalls and missteps were.

[newshane]

3 minutes ago, Keys_Collector said:

I agree for the most part and wouldn't have called it tasteless had the thread emerged some time after his passing.  In my humble opinion, discussing an artists work in a critical fashion especially when talking about him naming someone 'donut girl' isn't exactly painting him in the most positive light.  I'd rather us as a community focus on the good when he just passed yesterday as we have the rest of the time to have these type of discussion moving forward on where his pitfalls and missteps were.

I totally get it. 

I just don't think this situation (a debate) is as egregious as trying to make a buck from it. 

[Gaard]

I liked Paste Pot Pete. DD liked him, too.

[NoMan]

13 minutes ago, Keys_Collector said:

I agree for the most part and wouldn't have called it tasteless had the thread emerged some time after his passing.  In my humble opinion, discussing an artists work in a critical fashion especially when talking about him naming someone 'donut girl' isn't exactly painting him in the most positive light.  I'd rather us as a community focus on the good when he just passed yesterday as we have the rest of the time to have these type of discussion moving forward on where his pitfalls and missteps were.

I didn't make a buck out of calling some fat woman "Donut Girl," Stan Lee did.

Good/Bad is subjective hence the polite discussion wherein the first words of the thread refer to Lee as a master, meaning I think very highly of him.

You let us know at what date it's ok to discuss Stan Lee's full breadth of a public work and we'll continue at that time.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by NoMan

[newshane]

30 minutes ago, Gaard said:

I liked Paste Pot Pete. DD liked him, too.

If I am not mistaken, didn't PPP beat the stuffing out of DD once...and a few other marque characters as well?  

[NoMan]

Just now, newshane said:

If I am not mistaken, didn't PPP beat the stuffing out of DD once...and a few other marque characters as well?  

i got rid of ST110 cause of the PPP cover. Boo!

[jcjames]

2 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I don't get the pearl clutching about the sales thread. If anyone understood chasing a buck, it was Stan. And I don't mean that disrespectfully at all. Game respect game.

 

If Stan was anything other than a writer - he was a Capitalist and I do mean that in a positive way.

He was a living legend who promoted the carp out of his (and others') products and ideas.

He created an enormous swath of our culture that will live on for centuries.

 

 

 

[Jaylam]

4 hours ago, newshane said:

I totally get it. 

I just don't think this situation (a debate) is as egregious as trying to make a buck from it. 

Well, you gotta believe some have been stockpiling his signatures just for this day, so of course they are wanting to cash in and have their payday for it. 

[newshane]

6 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I don't get the pearl clutching about the sales thread. If anyone understood chasing a buck, it was Stan. And I don't mean that disrespectfully at all. Game respect game.

There is a difference in self-made wealth and predatory wealth...perhaps not in the number of zeroes, but definitely in regards to morality. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by newshane

[mrc]

18 hours ago, Keys_Collector said:

Bad taste on the day he passes, no?

Yes.

[kav]

5 hours ago, NoMan said:

6 hours ago, Keys_Collector said:

I agree for the most part and wouldn't have called it tasteless had the thread emerged some time after his passing.  In my humble opinion, discussing an artists work in a critical fashion especially when talking about him naming someone 'donut girl' isn't exactly painting him in the most positive light.  I'd rather us as a community focus on the good when he just passed yesterday as we have the rest of the time to have these type of discussion moving forward on where his pitfalls and missteps were.

I didn't make a buck out of calling some fat woman "Donut Girl," Stan Lee did.

Good/Bad is subjective hence the polite discussion wherein the first words of the thread refer to Lee as a master, meaning I think very highly of him.

You let us know at what date it's ok to discuss Stan Lee's full breadth of a public work and we'll continue at that time.

Just to be clear-Stan did not name the characters on Who Wants to be a Superhero-they named themselves.  And her name was Fat Mama not Donut Girl.

Nuff said

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

There is a difference in self-made wealth and predatory wealth...perhaps not in the number of zeroes, but definitely in regards to morality. 

Perhaps. But I can't get too upset with folks who are striking when the iron is hot (or cold, in this case, I suppose) when they themselves were subject to a mercenary practice in order to obtain those sigs in the first place. How much was a Stan Lee sig in the last few years, $100 or so? I didn't begrudge Stan (or his handlers) for charging insane money for his signature, and raking in tons of cash while doing so; so I can't really begrudge the people who are now turning around and doing the same. 

I mean, yeah, I get it: it's tacky. It really is. But the process of getting the signatures was tacky as well. It's all one big gross pile.

(And again, I don't have any Stan Lee sigs, and I'm not selling any either. I have no use for signature series at all.)