• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

How Lee took credit for "This Man This Monster" by FF Historian Chris Tolworthy
1 1

74 posts in this topic

JOHN ROMITA: I was present at at least two plotting sessions of John — Jack and Stan Lee. They were the same as my plotting sessions and the same as Gene Colan’s and Herb Trimpe’s and John Buscema. John Buscema actually did his plotting by phone, because he lived two hours away from the city. But anybody else who went in, Colan would come in, Jack Kirby would come in, I was at the office, we would plot in Stan’s office, and with Stan and Jack, most of the time — some of the times Jack would -Stan would drive both of us home on a Friday night or whatever night he was in plotting. They would finish or almost finish and then Stan would say, “come on, I will drive you guys home.” He would drop me off first and then he would take Jack, who lived about twenty minutes past me in the same general area of Long Island. So I was in the back seat of Stan’s Cadillac on two occasions that I remember distinctly, maybe more, where they were continuing what they had not finished in the office, continued plotting.

I remember one particular Fantastic Four plot about the birth of the son of the two major characters in the Fantastic Four. Mr. Fantastic and The Invisible Girl were having a baby and it was a boy and they were discussing whether the boy would be gifted, a mutant like they were and gifted with powers and talents, or whether he would be a normal boy, and I remember the reference — I even referred to them and said it’s like the Munsters. There was — in the Munsters television show they were all bizarre mutated people except for the little boy who was raised — or there was a girl. I think there was a girl. She was the only normal person. So I said you could make the kid a normal guy in a family of mutants. And then they said they considered that, and then said, “well, I don’t know” — and I was thinking to myself, wow, wouldn’t it be great if they had him and you never know if the kid has powers and slowly but surely he would exhibit — for instance, he would levitate a glass or something. And so I am thinking all these things while they are talking and I remember them talking. One guy would make a suggestion, Jack would say, “that’s not a bad idea, but what if we did it this way,” and then Stan would say, “okay, but only if we did it that way” and “only if we did it this way.” They were both talking different plots and it’s -and the reason I know it is because when Stan and I would plot, I foolishly did it from memory. I never recorded it. Gene Colan was his setting, I would do everything he would ask for, but I had to do the nuts and bolts of the story. When it comes to characters, he would ask me “give me a character called The Shocker.” I would create — he would tell me the — he has the powers to shock people with electric bolts from his wrists. So he shocks people.

Q: Stan would tell you that?

JOHN ROMITA: Yeah, he would say that’s what The Shocker is. So I would create a costume for it. I didn’t create the name. I didn’t create anything else. I didn’t create the powers. I just created the costume. I put him in a quilted outfit, believe it or not. I thought it was going to be laughed at. Stan accepted. He was quilted so he could absorb his own shocks. The next time it would be The Rhino. He is a man in a rhino skin. He could drive himself through a wall. Just butt head right through a wall. I just did a guy in a rhino skin with his face showing through the open mouth of the rhino. Brilliant. Stan accepted it. And then he would take the character and make him valid. He would make him valid by his behavior, by his dialogue, by his — the results of what he does, the mayhem he caused, and he would give the guy a personality. That’s all it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Didn't Jack rather imfamously take credit for Spiderman also?

This is my recollection as well, that Jack described a scene of Steve and Stan “fumbling” with a character and Kirby saying “here, I’ll show you how it’s done”.  The interesting thing about team collaboration and creation to me is many things can be (and probably are) true.  Kirby and Ditko probably did have more input on narrative than typical artists.  Kirby probably did, in fact, have the original inspiration for the FF but Stan developed that kernel of an idea into a more three dimensional set of characters.  Once both Spider-man and the FF were well on their way, Stan probably took on a back seat role and let the other guys do the driving.  And Stan was probably very good at recognizing a great idea when he saw it.

Sadly, these things are very common as well.  Fans always seem to want to identify “the real star” among teams or partnerships- think Simon and Garfunkel, The Beatles, Laurel and Hardy, etc.  The truth, so very often, is that it was the collaboration that created great ideas, one idea building on another until- boom!  Magic happens and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Unfortunately, once there is measurable success, too often, egos enter into the equation and one person steps forward and takes credit for the work produced by the team.  At first, it’s usually when the rest aren’t around, but then the word gets out and the other team members get outraged and confront the one who took all the credit.  At which point, either the credit-taker manages to sweet talk and mollify the others or the team breaks up.  This dynamic is unbelievably common.  

My opinion is that this is what happened between Stan, Jack, and Steve (and countless other creative teams).  That Stan knew this was his Walt Disney moment and grabbed on and held on as hard as possible to being the “main guy” as popularity grew and grew for all of these characters.  And I think it was probably unfair to do so.  2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Didn't Jack rather imfamously take credit for Spiderman also?

In his mind he did. Jack never READ any of these comics after he worked on them.

We know that Jack worked on a character that never got used called the Silver Spider and that he'd done 4 issues of a character called the Fly over at Archie with Joe Simon - he then took those concepts, supposedly based upon what Lee told him he wanted, and did 5 pages of a 'Spider-man' story.

There was Uncle Ben and a teenager and a web gun and he looked a lot like the picture below.

Ditko then took it and created something completely different as far as story and idea and costume.

Jack never READ the comic, so as far as he was concerned he came up with the idea.

Stan on the other hand had infamously taken credit for creating the entire Marvel Universe in testimony given under oath in a court of law and that Jack and Steve were just artists given assignments to do.

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Well... when it came to giving credit

Such a great timeline of information. My favorite is Stan's quote, "Since Spider-man's been doing so well, Ditko thinks he's the genius of the world..."

This of course is when Ditko has taken over the book and him and Stan aren't speaking. Stan was clever in how he gave out 'commpliments', but it had to be on HIS terms. He certainly gave both Kirby and Ditko plenty of compliments, lots of compliments, but that isn't the same thing as giving them equal CREDIT for creating things.

And of course, when it came to money... well he certainly wasn't giving out credit there. As the idea of who created what became an issue, Stan went on the offensive. And that's why there's been a certain amount of back bite from the Kirby/Ditko side.

It's amazing to read Stan say, "Oh no, I always made up all of them, in all the books. Jack was just the guy whom I'd say, "Hey I've got something for you to draw." (From 2003, Alter Ego) And of course the things he said in his testimony. THAT is the issue people have with Stan and his version of things.

I don't think people are jumping on Stan because of "THAT" one statement.   If so, then wouldn't the same people jump on Kirby for his most absurd assertions, like the time he was quoted saying Stan didn't even know how to write, had no knowledge of history and didn't even read books.   (I don't have the exact quotes handy but that is pretty close to what Kirby said in a totally off-the-rails moment).   Kirby even insisted he really created Spider-man, which has put some Stan-haters in the position of embracing the contradiction that both Ditko and Kirby are correct in asserting that Stan stole their credit but innocent in stealing credit from each other.  

There's similar contradiction in the arguments regarding Kane, Finger and Robinson re the creation of the Joker.  Haters will tell you Kane claimed improperly stole credit owed to Finger and that Kane claimed credit due to Robinson, but they don't see the contradiction and won't acknowledge you can't credit both Robinson and Finger with 100% credit, which is not possible.  I've seen lots of claims that Kane lied about Finger and lied about Robinson, but as yet I've seen nobody claim that Robinson lied about Finger's role (or vice versa).  They're so focused on implicating Kane that they don't even see or acknowledge that Finger and Robinson were not just calling Kane a thief; they were also disputing each other. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bluechip said:

I don't think people are jumping on Stan because of "THAT" one statement. 

It's FAR from that one statement. His testimony in court alone was enough to infuriate people on the Kirby/Ditko side. But it was FAR more than even that.

Read the 'Stuff Said' book which gives us exact quotes from Kirby, Lee and Ditko in chronological order (listing their sources) over the entire 50 years. It's hard to read and not see exactly what Stan was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

It's FAR from that one statement. His testimony in court alone was enough to infuriate people on the Kirby/Ditko side. But it was FAR more than even that.

Read the 'Stuff Said' book which gives us exact quotes from Kirby, Lee and Ditko in chronological order (listing their sources) over the entire 50 years. It's hard to read and not see exactly what Stan was doing.

Your sentence made it sound like you were relying on that one statement.  

I have heard the "he saids" which I understand make up most of the "stuff said" book you reference.    Even exact quotes can be misleading when the writer starts with an agenda and has control over which quotes get in and which do not -- especially when most of the people involved have either contradicted themselves or indulged in accusations and assertions that stretch the limits of logic.    I could easily assemble a piece, using only substantiated quotes, that would make Kirby look like an angel and Stan the devil, then use different substantiated quotes to create a piece with just the opposite conclusion. 

Kirby's most off-the-rails remarks are likely due to the fact he never got over the Herald-Tribune article and I think never believed that Stan hadn't played a part in his portrayal, even though the writer was apparently in the room with both men for the whole session/interview.   Ditko asserted that Spider-man didn't truly exist, even as a concept, until he drew the costume (and yet the costume he drew was remarkably similar to a kids' halloween costume that existed for eight years before AF15).   Everybody has good points and everybody has stretched their points, sometimes to the breaking point.    One thing that people keep forgetting is that the very first person who said "Jack is practically the writer" was Stan himself, and he said it repeatedly and for a long time before anyone else was saying it (including Jack).  Stan made more than Kirby or Ditko ever made but he didn't make nearly as much he could have, nor nearly so much as many others who were far more peripheral in the exploitation of Marvel's assets (because they were better businesspeople).

 

Edited by bluechip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bluechip said:

Your sentence made it sound like you were relying on that one statement.  

I have heard the "he saids" which I understand make up most of the "stuff said" book you reference.    Even exact quotes can be misleading when the writer starts with an agenda and has control over which quotes get in and which do not -- especially when most of the people involved have either contradicted themselves or indulged in accusations and assertions that stretch the limits of logic.    I could easily assemble a piece, using only substantiated quotes, that would make Kirby look like an angel and Stan the devil, then use different substantiated quotes to create a piece with just the opposite conclusion. 

You haven't read the book. The book uses all of their quotes in chronological order. You don't even have to read the commentary.

Stan FAR more took credit for being the creator of the idea behind the characters than Jack ever did. 

5 hours ago, bluechip said:

Kirby's most off-the-rails remarks are likely due to the fact he never got over the Herald-Tribune article and I think never believed that Stan hadn't played a part in his portrayal, even though the writer was apparently in the room with both men for the whole session/interview.   Ditko asserted that Spider-man didn't truly exist, even as a concept, until he drew the costume (and yet the costume he drew was remarkably similar to a kids' halloween costume that existed for eight years before AF15).   Everybody has good points and everybody has stretched their points, sometimes to the breaking point.    One thing that people keep forgetting is that the very first person who said "Jack is practically the writer" was Stan himself, and he said it repeatedly and for a long time before anyone else was saying it (including Jack). 

That's ridiculous. Maybe that's how you'd like to remember it. But then, you haven't read the book. See ALL the quotes, exactly in order as they were said. His overall point was always - I sometimes just have to give Jack a small idea and he fleshes it out and practically writes the whole thing.

Which is his basis of OWNERSHIP - HE, Stan Lee, came up with the idea. 

5 hours ago, bluechip said:

Stan made more than Kirby or Ditko ever made but he didn't make nearly as much he could have,

You lost me there. Stan owned the rights to the characters, at least from a leverage point to give him a Mlillion Dollars a Year Salary (plus other benefits paid for) for the last couple of decades. That's light years beyond what Ditko and Kirby made up until Kirby's Estate was able to finally get a ruling.

In the long run - Stan Lee made more off of Marvel than anyone. He deserved to make as much, if not more than anyone, because he built that empire. But as his output, post Kirby and Ditko shows, he built it primarily off the back of two people who didn't get nearly enough out of the deal.

5 hours ago, bluechip said:

nor nearly so much as many others who were far more peripheral in the exploitation of Marvel's assets (because they were better businesspeople).

They didn't exploit it to the point of owning the rights to the characters. And THAT was the ultimate goal of Stan. It was the ultimate goal of Marvel as a company. I'm not sure how much you know or understand the full history of Goodman and his company, but they're MO for the decades leading up to the 'Silver Age' was ripoff and duplicate. 

Goodman went to court three times over stealing stories from other writers for his publications, changing the title, and characters names in the story and then having it printed as the companies own. The battles that the company had with Joe Simon, Carl Burgos, and Bill Everett to steal those creations from them, are well documented. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Marvel-Comics-Moonlighting/dp/1606995529/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=history+of+marvel+comics&qid=1581505071&sr=8-6

Goodman was pretty open about it. Stan was much more sly in his manipulation. Which as I said, is easy to see when reading all of his quotes in chronological order. https://www.amazon.com/Kirby-Lee-Stuf-Expanded-Second/dp/1605490946/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=stuff+said+kirby&qid=1581505156&sr=8-1

The Legacy of Marvel Comics is BASED on making the real creative genius' look like petty complainers. Great artists, with ADDED ideas that benefitted Stan's amazing talent. He was very sly in the WAY he praised those artists. The quotes SHOW this, especially when read in order. You come out of it with a very clear path Stan had that he REPEATED when it went to court eventually. HE had the basic idea for the characters - who they were, what they looked like, where they worked, etc. - and he would give them to the artist. LATER ON, they would sometimes embellish his ideas and he was ok with that. Sometimes he'd even give them a plotting credit or by Stan and Jack byline.

He just never had to pay them for it.

Because when it came down to REAL MONEY - he quickly changed his story - suddenly, he just gave them those 'creative help' quotes to make them feel better - in HIS OWN WORDS - he came up with all the ideas and simply assigned the art to the artist. He stated that under oath.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, on books where Kirby or Ditko didn't participate... those books were pretty average. Stan suddenly didn't have that same magic with Gene Colan or Ayers and very quickly handed the chores of actual writing over to other people. There's no masterpiece in the first 150 issues of Iron Man or Daredevil - the real masterpieces (and the real SELLERS) of the growth of Marvel were thru ASM, FF and Thor. And once Jack left those books, sales went down, and Lee stopped any writing on them pretty quickly.

Luckily for him, Romita, probably the most unsung hero of that era, kept Spider-man on a path that made him the #1 Superhero. He's the PERFECT example in all of this. He says the same things: Lee would give me just a basic idea, and I'd have to create it all. But with Romita - his strength wasn't in creating amazing world's of comic book brilliance, like Kirby and Ditko - HIS was pacing and characterization, romance, and storytelling. No longer did Spider-man have a constant new outlandish villain ever issue - instead we got romance and Man Mountain Marko and... the Gibbon... the Shocker!

How much did those villains resonate with the readers? Not very. Where was Stan's brilliance now? It was at DC and Charlton. The Creeper isn't brilliant... it's still more interesting than the Gibbon. And Jack... Jack created mazing worlds right up until his death. None of them got a chance to run as long as his Marvel work did. But it was still over flowing with creativity. 

Romita, thanks to years on Romance Books for DC comics, made ASM extremely readable and... great.  With Stan's editorial guidance and ideas and eye for what works. And It's great comics. Not classic - world moving - legendary for all time comics... but great stuff still. Romita's work became the face of Marvel, and like previously stated - he is the real unsung hero of that era into the Bronze Age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

You haven't read the book. The book uses all of their quotes in chronological order. You don't even have to read the commentary.

Stan FAR more took credit for being the creator of the idea behind the characters than Jack ever did. 

That's ridiculous. Maybe that's how you'd like to remember it. But then, you haven't read the book. See ALL the quotes, exactly in order as they were said. His overall point was always - I sometimes just have to give Jack a small idea and he fleshes it out and practically writes the whole thing.

Which is his basis of OWNERSHIP - HE, Stan Lee, came up with the idea. 

You lost me there. Stan owned the rights to the characters, at least from a leverage point to give him a Mlillion Dollars a Year Salary (plus other benefits paid for) for the last couple of decades. That's light years beyond what Ditko and Kirby made up until Kirby's Estate was able to finally get a ruling.

In the long run - Stan Lee made more off of Marvel than anyone. He deserved to make as much, if not more than anyone, because he built that empire. But as his output, post Kirby and Ditko shows, he built it primarily off the back of two people who didn't get nearly enough out of the deal.

They didn't exploit it to the point of owning the rights to the characters. And THAT was the ultimate goal of Stan. It was the ultimate goal of Marvel as a company. I'm not sure how much you know or understand the full history of Goodman and his company, but they're MO for the decades leading up to the 'Silver Age' was ripoff and duplicate. 

Goodman went to court three times over stealing stories from other writers for his publications, changing the title, and characters names in the story and then having it printed as the companies own. The battles that the company had with Joe Simon, Carl Burgos, and Bill Everett to steal those creations from them, are well documented. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Marvel-Comics-Moonlighting/dp/1606995529/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=history+of+marvel+comics&qid=1581505071&sr=8-6

Goodman was pretty open about it. Stan was much more sly in his manipulation. Which as I said, is easy to see when reading all of his quotes in chronological order. https://www.amazon.com/Kirby-Lee-Stuf-Expanded-Second/dp/1605490946/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=stuff+said+kirby&qid=1581505156&sr=8-1

The Legacy of Marvel Comics is BASED on making the real creative genius' look like petty complainers. Great artists, with ADDED ideas that benefitted Stan's amazing talent. He was very sly in the WAY he praised those artists. The quotes SHOW this, especially when read in order. You come out of it with a very clear path Stan had that he REPEATED when it went to court eventually. HE had the basic idea for the characters - who they were, what they looked like, where they worked, etc. - and he would give them to the artist. LATER ON, they would sometimes embellish his ideas and he was ok with that. Sometimes he'd even give them a plotting credit or by Stan and Jack byline.

He just never had to pay them for it.

Because when it came down to REAL MONEY - he quickly changed his story - suddenly, he just gave them those 'creative help' quotes to make them feel better - in HIS OWN WORDS - he came up with all the ideas and simply assigned the art to the artist. He stated that under oath.

 

You come from the place of wanting to support Kirby and be extension you see it as part of that support to slam Lee.   I do not have the time to engage on every point but you reference ALL the quotes so many times I can't help but notice and reply that there is no way the "stuff said" mag or any magazine or book has ALL the things every person said on these issues.  Even if you wanted to amass them all you couldn't.    You would see only a portion of the quotes which were chosen and arranged by writers and editors for past articles and books about the issues.  

Stan didn't and never did OWN any of the characters.   At one point he was able to negotiate a percentage but was never paid it.   He settled for 10 million (and I imagine lawyers took a third to 40 percent of that).  He also got them to agree to a mil a year salary which was apparently worth it to Marvel to have him as a happy figurehead and booster.  Kirby did not get anything like that while he was alive but his family sued to claim OWNERSHIP (not just a percentage) and they, like Stan, settled for millions.   The exact amount has not been revealed but it's thought by those with reason to know that the amount is likely equal or greater than the 10 mil lump sum Stan got.

The testimony in court was never about Lee establishing ownership.  He was summoned to testify by Marvel, which was establishing their ownership.  If Lee had disputed in court their ownership, in contradiction to the raft of legal papers they had with him, Marvel and Disney's legal armada would have rained helllfire on him.

Goodman and his assigns that took over Marvel got people like Jack to sign off on papers that said their work was done for hire.  The particulars were sloppy in retrospect and it can easily be argued that all the creatives, including Lee, were pressured (and got screwed) to some extent.  Stan died with the kind of money a guy can make by writing and/or directing a single hit TV show or movie.   Not like a guy who was integral to a business worth tens or even hundreds of billions.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Robert Downey Jr ended up making more off of Marvel than any other individual.  To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Stan owned the rights to the characters?  Nah.

When Marvel got back in the superhero game in the early 60's I sincerely doubt if anyone involved had envisioned a long game.  Superheroes (other than Batman and Superman) had a short shelf life.  The characters and stories, like the comics, were disposable.
They were flying by the seats of their pants and so documenting who came up with what would have been a waste of precious time.  Only after it became clear that there would be long term value to these ideas did questions of authorship arise (except for Ditko- he wanted plotting credit and compensation at the time).   And Ditko has stated that Marvel owned the characters and that he received proper compensation for his contributions (other than his plotting dispute with Stan) and that he had no rights to the characters.

Speaking for myself and as someone who was around at the time, yes the FF and Spidey were regarded as the 2 best titles, but my friends and I also enjoyed all the other Marvel books as well.  They were all great.
The Avengers' Sons of the Serpent 3-issue storyline.  Iron Man's three-parter with the Titanium Man.  Daredevil's classic three-part battle with the Cobra and Hyde where DD lost his enhanced senses.  The Sub-Mariners' six part Quest serial in TTA.  The Hulk storyline with the Stranger and the Abomination. And so on.  All great, all well received by the fans.

Stan would quickly leave a book after Ditko or Kirby left?  Stan stayed with ASM for 70-plus more issues after Ditko left.

It seems like there's a lot of revisionist history and hyperbole being bandied about to try and make a point.  Super hero comics need heroes and villains.  I guess when those properties become popular and profitable beyond what was originally expected, the creation of those properties need heroes and villains, too.

 

Question:  When Simon and Kirby ran their own company, did they extend creators rights to their work-for-hire?  Did they return original art to the artists working for them?  If those line of books ended up like the Marvel properties did, would Simon and Kirby be regarded in the same way as Martin Goodman and Stan?

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

You come from the place of wanting to support Kirby and be extension you see it as part of that support to slam Lee.   I do not have the time to engage on every point but you reference ALL the quotes so many times I can't help but notice and reply that there is no way the "stuff said" mag or any magazine or book has ALL the things every person said on these issues.  Even if you wanted to amass them all you couldn't.    You would see only a portion of the quotes which were chosen and arranged by writers and editors for past articles and books about the issues.  

Mmm, no... they pretty much sourced everything available including radio interviews. It's pretty complete up through Kirby's death. Once again, you haven't read it, so... you're simply making assumptions.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

Stan didn't and never did OWN any of the characters. 

No but he threatened his way into his first couple of contracts with Cadence, who feared he would battle them on ownership.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

At one point he was able to negotiate a percentage but was never paid it.

Mmm, no. There's a lot of misconception repeated about that whole process. Stan was paid royalties on the characters for years. He was NOT paid what he should have been from the MOVIES. THAT was what he sued for. 

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

He settled for 10 million (and I imagine lawyers took a third to 40 percent of that).  He also got them to agree to a mil a year salary which was apparently worth it to Marvel to have him as a happy figurehead and booster.  Kirby did not get anything like that while he was alive but his family sued to claim OWNERSHIP (not just a percentage) and they, like Stan, settled for millions.   The exact amount has not been revealed but it's thought by those with reason to know that the amount is likely equal or greater than the 10 mil lump sum Stan got.

Mmm, no. Stan got more than 10 million dollars. For one he got 1 million a year for 15 hours of work a week and if (when) he passes (passed), his wife (if she was alive) would've continued to receive 1 million a year and his daughter after his wife would get 1 million a year for life. He also got all travel, expenses and hotel paid for as spokesperson for the company. And Stan traveled a LOT.

That's a contract worth more than 10 million.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

The testimony in court was never about Lee establishing ownership.  He was summoned to testify by Marvel, which was establishing their ownership.  If Lee had disputed in court their ownership, in contradiction to the raft of legal papers they had with him, Marvel and Disney's legal armada would have rained helllfire on him.

Right. Because Stan had already gotten his due. He was shill for the company that paid him well. But make no mistake - he was letting the world know that the ideas were all his. And that Kirby and Ditko were just artists working for him.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

Goodman and his assigns that took over Marvel got people like Jack to sign off on papers that said their work was done for hire.  The particulars were sloppy in retrospect and it can easily be argued that all the creatives, including Lee, were pressured (and got screwed) to some extent.  Stan died with the kind of money a guy can make by writing and/or directing a single hit TV show or movie.   Not like a guy who was integral to a business worth tens or even hundreds of billions.

He didn't make TV shows or movies. He made comics. And on that scale, he far surpasses anyone that he worked with in the 60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I'd say Robert Downey Jr ended up making more off of Marvel than any other individual.  To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

He's an actor. Not a comic book creator.

14 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Stan owned the rights to the characters?  Nah.

When Marvel got back in the superhero game in the early 60's I sincerely doubt if anyone involved had envisioned a long game.  Superheroes (other than Batman and Superman) had a short shelf life.  The characters and stories, like the comics, were disposable.
They were flying by the seats of their pants and so documenting who came up with what would have been a waste of precious time.  Only after it became clear that there would be long term value to these ideas did questions of authorship arise (except for Ditko- he wanted plotting credit and compensation at the time).   And Ditko has stated that Marvel owned the characters and that he received proper compensation for his contributions (other than his plotting dispute with Stan) and that he had no rights to the characters.

Are you not aware that Goodman straight out stole Captain America from Jack and Joe? They may not have had any idea of what it'd become, but Goodman understood the concept of ownership of intellectual property. He stole enough of it in his lifetime, he was certainly aware. 

And he screwed Burgos and Everett too... he understood - owning that - he could sell it and sell it and resell it. He KNEW the value as it was FOR THE TIME PERIOD.

14 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Speaking for myself and as someone who was around at the time, yes the FF and Spidey were regarded as the 2 best titles, but my friends and I also enjoyed all the other Marvel books as well.  They were all great.
The Avengers' Sons of the Serpent 3-issue storyline.  Iron Man's three-parter with the Titanium Man.  Daredevil's classic three-part battle with the Cobra and Hyde where DD lost his enhanced senses.  The Sub-Mariners' six part Quest serial in TTA.  The Hulk storyline with the Stranger and the Abomination. And so on.  All great, all well received by the fans.

Stan would quickly leave a book after Ditko or Kirby left?  Stan stayed with ASM for 70-plus more issues after Ditko left.

I addressed the Romita years. 

14 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

It seems like there's a lot of revisionist history and hyperbole being bandied about to try and make a point.  Super hero comics need heroes and villains.  I guess when those properties become popular and profitable beyond what was originally expected, the creation of those properties need heroes and villains, too.

What part of history am I revising? If you think the 'Sons of the Serpent' is in the same category as the Galactus Trilogy, you're free to think that. I don't.

To me there's a CLEAR difference in the quality of work and story when Stan worked with Jack vs when Stan worked with Don Heck. There are magazines and numerous books devoted to Kirby's output. Don Heck? Not so much.

14 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Question:  When Simon and Kirby ran their own company, did they extend creators rights to their work-for-hire?  Did they return original art to the artists working for them?  If those line of books ended up like the Marvel properties did, would Simon and Kirby be regarded in the same way as Martin Goodman and Stan?

Man, as much as I respect pretty much 99% of what I discuss with you, I just find this repeated point to be one of the silliest. Name one character someone created for them. None? Of course not - Simon and Kirby actually wrote all the material - they really DID employ work for hire artists. Jack working with Stan was a completely different work relationship that was in NO WAY a basic work for hire.

And as to what they would do... Joe Simon and Jack Kirby worked together for years. They never ended up suing each other over ownership of anything. In fact, it seems the only time they butted heads was when Goodman pitted them against each other so that HE could gain ownership of Captain America.

Simon and Kirby were two completely different type of people that Goodman and Lieber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2020 at 6:35 PM, Chuck Gower said:

 

Simon and Kirby were two completely different type of people that Goodman and Lieber.

Yes, Stan Lee's birth name was Lieber.   He Americanized his name.   It's something people were, sadly, encouraged to do not so long ago.   And perhaps not living during those times you think less of him for doing so.  ...  But, wait!    So did Kirby (born Jacob Kurtzber

I am generally curious when people use the names of Jewish writers/artists.   Sometimes it's a fellow Jew wanting to reclaim their heritage. But then I see examples -- often -- where a person's birth name is used in a piece that is largely about how they don't like that person.   I can't say that's a certain correlation.   But when somebody references two Jewish men who changed their names, and uses the birth name of one, and not the other.   And when it's clear that they use the Americanized name of the one they like, and the birth name of the one they don't like... I am not sure where that's coming from.

 

 

 

Edited by bluechip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bluechip said:

Yes, Stan Lee's birth name was Lieber.   He Americanized his name.   It's something people were, sadly, encouraged to do not so long ago.   And perhaps not living during those times you think less of him for doing so.  ...  But, wait!    So did Kirby (born Jacob Kurtzber

I am generally curious when people use the names of Jewish writers/artists.   Sometimes it's a fellow Jew wanting to reclaim their heritage. But then I see examples -- often -- where a person's birth name is used in a piece that is largely about how they don't like that person.   I can't say that's a certain correlation.   But when somebody references two Jewish men who changed their names, and uses the birth name of one, and not the other.   And when it's clear that they use the Americanized name of the one they like, and the birth name of the one they don't like... I am not sure where that's coming from.

 

 

 

I have no issue with Stanley (or Jack) changing his name and certainly understand the reasons for doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

I have no issue with Stanley (or Jack) changing his name and certainly understand the reasons for doing so. 

 

3 hours ago, bluechip said:

Yes, Stan Lee's birth name was Lieber.   He Americanized his name.   It's something people were, sadly, encouraged to do not so long ago.   And perhaps not living during those times you think less of him for doing so.  ...  But, wait!    So did Kirby (born Jacob Kurtzber

I am generally curious when people use the names of Jewish writers/artists.   Sometimes it's a fellow Jew wanting to reclaim their heritage. But then I see examples -- often -- where a person's birth name is used in a piece that is largely about how they don't like that person.   I can't say that's a certain correlation.   But when somebody references two Jewish men who changed their names, and uses the birth name of one, and not the other.   And when it's clear that they use the Americanized name of the one they like, and the birth name of the one they don't like... I am not sure where that's coming from.

 

 

 

According to Stan (multiple times stated over many, many years) he did not change his name due to being Jewish. He was trying to save his real name for something better like writing the great American novel. Comics were considered a low end business for losers. A great many who worked on them were also embarrassed by it. Stan told many stories on trying to get out of explaining to people what he did. Comics for a long time were considered a field for people who couldn’t draw well enough to be professional artists or commercial artists or writers who couldn’t make it in a “real” field of writing. There are a lot of Jewish people who changed or shortened their names to be more “American” sounding but that’s not the case with Stan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1