Lee the next Lee? 0

[shadroch]

On 11/23/2020 at 9:53 PM, zosocane said:

This.  I'm looking right now at an early SA X-Men.  As much as Stan Lee did a ton of work writing and giving this artists basically free-reign (pretty much unheard of over at National Comics), he was a marketing genius as the Marvel Age of Comics was exploding in the early- to mid-60s.  So that early SA X-Men.  The labels, "ANOTHER TRULY MARVEL-OUS STAR-STUDDED EPIC!!"  or "And WAIT TILL YOU MEET LUCIFER!"  Then the opening page, "MIGHTY MARVEL DOES IT AGAIN" or "Whatever You Want In a Super-epic, This One's GOT It!!"  Then the creator credits which were totally foreign at National:  "Supremely Drawn By:  JACK KIRBY" or "Stoically Lettered By:  S. ROSEN."   The Merry Marvel Marching Society a few pages later.  Then a full-page color ad for four other Marvel issues billed as "4 MORE MARVEL MASTERPIECES!"  Then a two-page letters section, all addressed to "Dear Stan and Jack" with a response to each.  

All of these hooks and marketing gimmicks did so much to build reader loyalty.  Yeah, no one comes close to doing what he did for the medium.

I've always wondered where all that hype was prior to 1962. Something changed in Stan right about then. 

[Rick2you2]

^^^
I’m not sure what triggered this, but we are in agreement that Stan was unique. Not just his showmanship, but his street cred both in the comics community and outside it. He could tell the world “l created Marvel Comics” and get away with it for a long time. No one could replace him. 

But what if the industry still needs someone? So, as I see it, who has enough existing clout to get journalists to write stories to promote comics? Well, there is Alan Moore, but he doesn’t strike me as the type. Same with Frank Miller. Howard Chaykin has the mouth, but given what he is capable of saying, and writing, I don’t think what he might actually say would always be helpful. Stan knew where to draw the line. Kevin Smith? He tries, I will give him that.

Which led me into the hinterlands of TV. Berlanti has success, clout, and knows how to talk to journalists. As a replacement for Stan? No. But sometimes, you don’t get the best cards to play and have to make do.

[BeholdersEye]

As far as Jim Lee being "the next" Stan Lee, I'd personally say, not by a long-shot in any sense of who Stan Lee is, what he represented and his impact on the comic industry.

I get a sense that Jim Lee is just a great artist.  He has no place as a business executive.  He draws great illustrations, but doesn't offer much in terms of marketing innovation.  He's not very charismatic nor even personable in public for the most part other than the obligatory smile and friendly gestures to the fans.  Sure, he was one of the founders of Image Comics.  Sure, he was the artist behind one of if not the most mass produced and largest volume selling comic, X-Men #1.  He hit a lull only to be resurrected by his participation in Batman "Hush" - - but aside from the X-Men and "Hush" I'm not sure if his body of work has anything meaningful other than having pretty pictures.  He's not created any top tier characters.  

So, not even close to being Stan Lee as a person or a creator.

I'd rank many others as the go-to spokesperson for the comic industry ahead of Jim Lee, such as Todd McFarlane who has way more business savvy than Jim.  There's really nobody like Stan Lee who both created a multitude of characters, but also was able to mesmerize a listening audience.   I'd say the ones who are great spokespersons for comics today are Neal Adams, Robert Kirkman, and Jim Steranko, as good captivating storytellers as public speakers.  

I don't not like Jim Lee, but I do think he's a bit over-rated.

To me, Stan Lee was "Walt Disney" in that he created a universe and is an immortal iconic figure who nobody will ever compare to.  In 50, 100, or 200+ years, his impact will continue to grow as part of his legacy to legendary status, much like there's Disney the brand and Disneyland with a plethora of characters, Stan Lee's name will be forever associated with the top Super-Heroes in pop culture. 

 

[ESeffinga]

 

[Bronty]

You know, I like that comparison of Disney to Lee and having thought about this a little, the closest in spirit to Stan Lee isn’t American and isn’t in comics.   
 

The person that fills that “Stan Lee” role best... for this generation... is Shigeru Miyamoto!   Father of a vast library of characters loved the world over, unshakeably positive and an incredible cheerleader for his brand. 
 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Bronty

[ESeffinga]

Once again, had to Google who that was...

If you’d said Hayao Miyazaki, I’d be with you. A name I think most households are at least familiar with.

I would think ( I’m probably wrong) most know the work of Shigeru without knowing his name? I’ve seen him mentioned in a documentary on gaming once, and at least recognized his face, once I looked it up. But O still think Miyazaki is more “known”. But that’s more Disney and less Lee.

Edited December 20, 2020 by ESeffinga

[pinupcartooncollector]

12 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Once again, had to Google who that was...

If you’d said Hayao Miyazaki, I’d be with you. A name I think most households are at least familiar with.

I would think ( I’m probably wrong) most know the work of Shigeru without knowing his name? I’ve seen him mentioned in a documentary on gaming once, and at least recognized his face, once I looked it up. But O still think Miyazaki is more “known”. But that’s more Disney and less Lee.

I had to google who Robert Kirkman is.

 

[Bronty]

12 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Once again, had to Google who that was...

If you’d said Hayao Miyazaki, I’d be with you. A name I think most households are at least familiar with.

I would think ( I’m probably wrong) most know the work of Shigeru without knowing his name? I’ve seen him mentioned in a documentary on gaming once, and at least recognized his face, once I looked it up. But O still think Miyazaki is more “known”. But that’s more Disney and less Lee.

Its just you, trust me

[Randall Ries]

All I knew Stan Lee as was an editor. We knew back in the day who actually created the characters. And as years went by, as the colorists and artists began dying off, Lee asserted himself more and more as the creator of ALL of the characters. No one really challenged the veiled assertion, so it became almost fact. Something I never heard Stan Lee deny. And so the masses - those who have a middling interest in the comic book medium, mostly through the movies, accepted Lee's veiled claims of sole creatorship.

He was the Colonel Parker of the comic book world. Except he wasn't promoting his only client. He was promoting Marvel Comics Group and by proxy became the face of MCG. He did "FOOM" and wrote editorials in virtually every issue. He was communicative. Bob Rozakis and Elliot S! Maggin used to be as well, but not the same way Stan Lee did. He did manage to save MCG from actual bankruptcy, then buried DC Comics. (I'd be surprised if DC EVER makes a decent movie) Lee went from writing editorials and promotion in the pages of comic books straight into TV and movies without let up. It was natural for him.

I agree with Alan Moore 100%. Lee became bigger than life. He accepted credit for WAY more than he was responsible for by simply never GIVING credit when he could have. And wondering if Jim Lee or Frank Miller will become the "face"? Not a chance. Miller - although becoming very well known outside of the medium - can be just as big a crank as Moore. Jim Lee is an artist. There won't BE another "face" or bullhorn for comic books. The titles and characters are owned by huge corporations now like Disney and AT&T. My belief is comic books are on the verge of extinction. Streaming is the new darling and in part because of COVID, movies and cartoon series will take their place. Just a guess on my part.

[Bronty]

13 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

 There won't BE another "face" or bullhorn for comic books. 

that's exactly right IMO

[pinupcartooncollector]

16 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

All I knew Stan Lee as was an editor. We knew back in the day who actually created the characters. And as years went by, as the colorists and artists began dying off, Lee asserted himself more and more as the creator of ALL of the characters. No one really challenged the veiled assertion, so it became almost fact. Something I never heard Stan Lee deny. And so the masses - those who have a middling interest in the comic book medium, mostly through the movies, accepted Lee's veiled claims of sole creatorship.

He was the Colonel Parker of the comic book world. Except he wasn't promoting his only client. He was promoting Marvel Comics Group and by proxy became the face of MCG. He did "FOOM" and wrote editorials in virtually every issue. He was communicative. Bob Rozakis and Elliot S! Maggin used to be as well, but not the same way Stan Lee did. He did manage to save MCG from actual bankruptcy, then buried DC Comics. (I'd be surprised if DC EVER makes a decent movie) Lee went from writing editorials and promotion in the pages of comic books straight into TV and movies without let up. It was natural for him.

I agree with Alan Moore 100%. Lee became bigger than life. He accepted credit for WAY more than he was responsible for by simply never GIVING credit when he could have. And wondering if Jim Lee or Frank Miller will become the "face"? Not a chance. Miller - although becoming very well known outside of the medium - can be just as big a crank as Moore. Jim Lee is an artist. There won't BE another "face" or bullhorn for comic books. The titles and characters are owned by huge corporations now like Disney and AT&T. My belief is comic books are on the verge of extinction. Streaming is the new darling and in part because of COVID, movies and cartoon series will take their place. Just a guess on my part.

One of my journalistic highlights was getting to do a one hour sitdown with Stan Lee.  During that interview, I specifically asked him about Kirby's contributions, and without hesitation, gave Kirby all the credit in the world (I have it on tape).  The problem is journalists really wanted to portray Stan in a certain way, and that seemed to work for Stan, Marvel, and the journalists. 

[Randall Ries]

1 hour ago, pinupcartooncollector said:

One of my journalistic highlights was getting to do a one hour sitdown with Stan Lee.  During that interview, I specifically asked him about Kirby's contributions, and without hesitation, gave Kirby all the credit in the world (I have it on tape).  The problem is journalists really wanted to portray Stan in a certain way, and that seemed to work for Stan, Marvel, and the journalists. 

And that's the thing. Stan Lee kind of went about things in reverse. He was an office guy. A suit. A boss. An editor. The he became the salesman. The hoofer. The Face Of The Company. He made them millions. He made the stockholders rich. The Board of Directors expected results and he was able to deliver. He got in on the ground floor in the early 1940's and knew the business forward and backward.

But to us old timey fans, it's important to us to have the statistics correct. The artists and writers were more important to us than the suits. Who cared about them? Of course they had their roles but to those of us who were following the writers and artists, they were beside the point. I have a feeling if Julius "Julie" Schwartz had started running around saying (or constantly not denying in the press) he was the creator of Ra's Al Ghul every time a reporter asked him, Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil would have raised Hell about it. Seems I remember early on there were several people pointing out that "No. Stan Lee did NOT single-handedly create the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and the X-Men. What the Heck are they talking about?" Also seems like those people began to be suppressed.

I am actually a little sad that comic books have made the mainstream. It always allows mediocrity in and a certain "watering down" and a type of bastardization to occur. Whether it's in comic book art, theater or music, once the "big time" gets achieved, it gets co-opted and has to be served so it's palatable to "the masses". Stan Lee also helped with that for better or worse. Sure. I WANTED people to understand how awesome the medium is but I never wanted them to ruin it by mass acceptance. Then, it becomes about not just money, but HUGE money. 

To us old timers, it's important to remember who created what and to make sure those "other guys" get their due. Stan Lee did NOT do that. Perhaps he did - like the one on one interview you conducted - once in awhile but his general silence on the matter or not stridently highlighting the other members of the team in the press as a matter of course sort of reveals his motivations. The fact is, there are a lot of people running around thinking he was some sort of prodigy hyper genius who could pull characters out of his hat and every one of them was gold.

[pinupcartooncollector]

24 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

And that's the thing. Stan Lee kind of went about things in reverse. He was an office guy. A suit. A boss. An editor. The he became the salesman. The hoofer. The Face Of The Company. He made them millions. He made the stockholders rich. The Board of Directors expected results and he was able to deliver. He got in on the ground floor in the early 1940's and knew the business forward and backward.

But to us old timey fans, it's important to us to have the statistics correct. The artists and writers were more important to us than the suits. Who cared about them? Of course they had their roles but to those of us who were following the writers and artists, they were beside the point. I have a feeling if Julius "Julie" Schwartz had started running around saying (or constantly not denying in the press) he was the creator of Ra's Al Ghul every time a reporter asked him, Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil would have raised Hell about it. Seems I remember early on there were several people pointing out that "No. Stan Lee did NOT single-handedly create the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and the X-Men. What the Heck are they talking about?" Also seems like those people began to be suppressed.

I am actually a little sad that comic books have made the mainstream. It always allows mediocrity in and a certain "watering down" and a type of bastardization to occur. Whether it's in comic book art, theater or music, once the "big time" gets achieved, it gets co-opted and has to be served so it's palatable to "the masses". Stan Lee also helped with that for better or worse. Sure. I WANTED people to understand how awesome the medium is but I never wanted them to ruin it by mass acceptance. Then, it becomes about not just money, but HUGE money. 

To us old timers, it's important to remember who created what and to make sure those "other guys" get their due. Stan Lee did NOT do that. Perhaps he did - like the one on one interview you conducted - once in awhile but his general silence on the matter or not stridently highlighting the other members of the team in the press as a matter of course sort of reveals his motivations. The fact is, there are a lot of people running around thinking he was some sort of prodigy hyper genius who could pull characters out of his hat and every one of them was gold.

Then again, the Kirby estate is certainly a whole richer now as a result of the mainstreaming of comics, which, for better and for worse, Lee was a large part of.

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by pinupcartooncollector
added info.

[ESeffinga]

17 hours ago, Bronty said:

that's exactly right IMO

Agreed.

[ESeffinga]

18 hours ago, Bronty said:

Its just you, trust me

I believe you. Tho I asked 4 dudes in my office, all 10-20 years younger than me, who are all hardcore gamers. I figured since they spend a ton of time talking about games In the office, they’d set me straight. Not a one knew who Shigeru was by name. 2 of them knew who Miyazaki was tho.

So, not just me. 3 of us!  Hahaha 😝 

Edited December 21, 2020 by ESeffinga

[bluechip]

18 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

The fact is, there are a lot of people running around thinking he was some sort of prodigy hyper genius who could pull characters out of his hat and every one of them was gold.

That is extreme, but so are your assertions that he did virtually nothing but edit and hype.  He was a prolific and talented writer who had to master many genres over the years and the experience and talent prepared him uniquely to spearhead Marvel's silver age.  Up until his end times he could, indeed, pull characters out of his hat -- but he would be the last person to say "every one of them was gold".   I've never met or heard of anyone who was creatively both prolific and infallible.  The biggest problem in Stan's latter years was not that he had "lost it" or was "jaded".  Neither of those, in fact.  He still had "it" and he was jaded only by the Hollywood method which veers wildly  between "development hell" and charging forward with reckless abandon.  So while he remained creative and prolific, at one extreme there were some people would question good stuff (or even great stuff) to death, while at the other end were some people who'd say "genius!" no matter came out.    There's always people in the middle but they, too, have to navigate the same system.  Stan never could completely get accustomed to it because he'd spend so many decades co-creating characters, seeing them realized immediately and then in print shortly after.   

 

[Randall Ries]

4 hours ago, bluechip said:

That is extreme, but so are your assertions that he did virtually nothing but edit and hype.  He was a prolific and talented writer who had to master many genres over the years and the experience and talent prepared him uniquely to spearhead Marvel's silver age.  Up until his end times he could, indeed, pull characters out of his hat -- but he would be the last person to say "every one of them was gold".   I've never met or heard of anyone who was creatively both prolific and infallible.  The biggest problem in Stan's latter years was not that he had "lost it" or was "jaded".  Neither of those, in fact.  He still had "it" and he was jaded only by the Hollywood method which veers wildly  between "development hell" and charging forward with reckless abandon.  So while he remained creative and prolific, at one extreme there were some people would question good stuff (or even great stuff) to death, while at the other end were some people who'd say "genius!" no matter came out.    There's always people in the middle but they, too, have to navigate the same system.  Stan never could completely get accustomed to it because he'd spend so many decades co-creating characters, seeing them realized immediately and then in print shortly after.   

 

My whole thing basically boils down to Stan Lee was content to let people think he was the sole creator of all these characters. I never said he did nothing but edit and hype. Quite the opposite. He pulled MCG from the brink. He was involved in everything except drawing, inking and lettering. That's good. What isn't so good is the perception by the public at large who even bother to pay attention is he created all the characters by himself. It may not matter to the public at large, but it should matter to the longtime fan and those that love the medium beyond the tacky consideration of money.

[bluechip]

4 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

My whole thing basically boils down to Stan Lee was content to let people think he was the sole creator of all these characters.

That's a subjective supposition so it's hard to say without question it's not true (or true) because none of us ever were literally inside Stan's head.  So all we can do is go by what he said and how he reacted to what other's said.  He was quoted early in the silver age giving credit to others long before many of them even cared to have credit.   As Marvel got more attention and much of that was put on Stan, he did not correct people every time one implied he was the "sole creator" but he did correct them often, and I would bet, if it were possible to tally up all the times people gave him too much credit, that he corrected them more often than not. 

 

[Randall Ries]

10 hours ago, bluechip said:

That's a subjective supposition so it's hard to say without question it's not true (or true) because none of us ever were literally inside Stan's head.  So all we can do is go by what he said and how he reacted to what other's said.  He was quoted early in the silver age giving credit to others long before many of them even cared to have credit.   As Marvel got more attention and much of that was put on Stan, he did not correct people every time one implied he was the "sole creator" but he did correct them often, and I would bet, if it were possible to tally up all the times people gave him too much credit, that he corrected them more often than not. 

 

The sky is blue.