True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee 6 6

[Prince Namor]

Ditko once wrote that Stan’s ideas (when he was still talking to him in the early days of ASM) were more along the lines of “let’s have Attuma show up and battle Spidey” (which fits the idea of commercializing it) and Ditko (and Kirby) just wanted more than that. 
 

That’s the difference in how they viewed it in and art vs commerce way. I want something different and new and unique, not the same old thing.
 

That’s art. Commerce says, “Milk that baby for all it’s worth.”

I’ll take Kamandi over Secret Wars (Eww) any day of the week. I’ll take Charles Burns over Todd McFalane any day of the week. As a personal preference. 
 

To me it’s very clear - Stan was a salesman. He was a promoter. He was commerce. Kirby and Ditko were the creativity. Lee had his ideas but he wasn’t the driving creative force. He was the driving sales. Which is equally important. 

[littlebull]

I just got the book, came from Amazon today!

[mrc]

7 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

To me it’s very clear - Stan was a salesman. He was a promoter. He was commerce. Kirby and Ditko were the creativity. Lee had his ideas but he wasn’t the driving creative force. He was the driving sales. Which is equally important. 

It's not black & white. Lee was Marvel's primary creative leader for two decades, something that (for some reason) you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

[Prince Namor]

27 minutes ago, mrc said:

It's not black & white. Lee was Marvel's primary creative leader for two decades, something that (for some reason) you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Two decades? Stan's 'creativity' seemed to kick in right around the time Jack returned to Marvel in 1958. When Jack left in mid-1970, suddenly Stan couldn't seem to 'write' much anymore. He was down to 2-3 titles, rehashing the same old characters in the same old stories - while Jack went on to create 100 characters in 2 years at DC Comics.

Stan's writing output by mid-July 1971 was ZERO. Within a YEAR of Jack leaving he suddenly was no longer 'writing' ANY comic books. And what did Marvel CREATE in that time? The Defenders? They already had those characters. Ghost Rider? That wasn't Stan. The Punisher? That wasn't Stan. Warlock? Not the character Stan had 'written'. Luke Cage? That wasn't Stan.

Stan had collaborated and edited the greatest creative force in the history of comic books in Jack Kirby, for about 12 years. It was HUGELY successful. It WAS a collaborative partnership. But all you have to do is look at what the two of them 'created' once they were apart and it's easy to see who was the 'creative leader'.

Darkseid, Metron, Orion, Mister Miracle, The Forever People, Lightray - all in the first month! DC Editorial didn't like the Fourth World books? Jack then created Kamandi, Omac, The Demon... these are characters who've remained a part of the DC Universe for 50 years now. Stan can claim... She-Hulk? Well... she IS still around. 

Didn't like the way it was written? That's not the discussion. That's subjective. The FACT is that once they split Jack STILL created and created and created (he was creating new characters up to the last comic he ever did) while Stan... didn't really create anything after they split.

[ADAMANTIUM]

15 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Didn't like the way it was written? That's not the discussion. That's subjective. The FACT is that once they split Jack STILL created and created and created (he was creating new characters up to the last comic he ever did) while Stan... didn't really create anything after they split.

Could it be? that by your definition, Stan "created" for 12 years and was petering out while Jack was just getting started? having always worked on "stan's ideas?"before departing.

This would explain why Stan was done or at least exhausted "his ideas" then Kirby took a shot. To discount those 12 years and say Kirby was one of the idea men and then went on at dc as still "an idea man" with a fresh perspective and not having exhausted ideas by working with Stan....

I mean it kind of proves that Stan was more the idea in the first 12 and cowrit or made it written the way it was editorially, so I'm not sure the point you're making?

Stan had 12 years, Kirby had years, your not saying that Stan's 12 years don't count as still around because he worked with Kirby who did art, are you?

[ADAMANTIUM]

I'm just saying 

it's more believable that Stan had more control and writing and editorial, as well as the driving force in ideas for the first twelve, and Jack tried it as the lead later, 

than to say it was a joint effort equally and then Jack went on for years to come without a complication....

That is just hard to fathom....

[ADAMANTIUM]

I guess by my definition

Jack came up with the art and some sequencing all those years, so to write as well wouldn't be all that far fetched.

Although stan did direction sequencing too

It's like pick your work horse

I guess if I had to form an opinion based on data, it was joint effort doing everything they did and jack continued and stan moved on to just salesman. Cause it's not like stan tried to write after jack left and failed, right?

 

[Prince Namor]

Case in point: John Romita.

The most under rated performer of the Silver Age. Spent 7 years working on romance comics with DC before returning to Marvel and what did Amazing Spider-man become after he took over? A romance comic, within a Superhero story. 

And what of Stan's amazing ability to create (as he claims) characters like Galactus and the Silver Surfer and the Inhumans (etc.) for this title? Well... he didn't have Kirby, he had... John Romita. And Romita's strength wasn't creating characters. Oh we DID get the Kingpin, who isn't exactly Galactus, but certainly a very, very, very worthy addition to the Marvell Rogue's Gallery of Legendary Villains. 

But what else? The Shocker? Man-Moutain Marko? The Prowler? The Kangaroo???? Over 5 years?

Here is glaring evidence, that without Kirby or Ditko, the 'creative leader' Stan Lee struggled to come up with much of anything. From issue #39 to #100, the Kingpin far and away is the best villain created and I'm not even sure what you'd say is #2. The Shocker? He made it to a Spider-man video game, at least. (And actually was kind of a cool battle in that game).

But Kirby, while holding back on the FF and Thor in his last years, still managed to squeeze out Sif, Ulik, Mangog, Him (eventually Adam Warlock), The Sentry, Ronan the Accuser...

Meanwhile on Daredevil... without Kirby you got, the Plunderer? The Gladiator wasn't bad, I guess. The Masked Marauder? Leap Frog? The Unholy Three? Seems Colan's strength wasn't creating villains either. Where was Stan's creative leadership here?

Once you subtract Kirby and Ditko from the collaborative process, what's left isn't much different than an Archie Super Hero Comic.

[Hollywood1892]

17 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Case in point: John Romita.

The most under rated performer of the Silver Age. Spent 7 years working on romance comics with DC before returning to Marvel and what did Amazing Spider-man become after he took over? A romance comic, within a Superhero story. 

And what of Stan's amazing ability to create (as he claims) characters like Galactus and the Silver Surfer and the Inhumans (etc.) for this title? Well... he didn't have Kirby, he had... John Romita. And Romita's strength wasn't creating characters. Oh we DID get the Kingpin, who isn't exactly Galactus, but certainly a very, very, very worthy addition to the Marvell Rogue's Gallery of Legendary Villains. 

But what else? The Shocker? Man-Moutain Marko? The Prowler? The Kangaroo???? Over 5 years?

Here is glaring evidence, that without Kirby or Ditko, the 'creative leader' Stan Lee struggled to come up with much of anything. From issue #39 to #100, the Kingpin far and away is the best villain created and I'm not even sure what you'd say is #2. The Shocker? He made it to a Spider-man video game, at least. (And actually was kind of a cool battle in that game).

But Kirby, while holding back on the FF and Thor in his last years, still managed to squeeze out Sif, Ulik, Mangog, Him (eventually Adam Warlock), The Sentry, Ronan the Accuser...

Meanwhile on Daredevil... without Kirby you got, the Plunderer? The Gladiator wasn't bad, I guess. The Masked Marauder? Leap Frog? The Unholy Three? Seems Colan's strength wasn't creating villains either. Where was Stan's creative leadership here?

Once you subtract Kirby and Ditko from the collaborative process, what's left isn't much different than an Archie Super Hero Comic.

A harsh assessment, but fairly accurate, except you forgot Rhino, but yeah Kingpin is definitely far and away the best villain in that run. Is it arguable that Kingpin can rank up with the likes of Green Goblin, Mysterio, Kraven, Doc Oc, Sandman, Vulture, Scorpion? What is Kingpins actual superpowers? 50 tho is the most iconic cover in the run from 1-100 imo and arguably one of the most iconic covers of all time, which probably explains its value as much as Kingpins first appearance.

Also 40 was a decent issue

[Prince Namor]

29 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I guess by my definition

Jack came up with the art and some sequencing all those years, so to write as well wouldn't be all that far fetched.

Although stan did direction sequencing too

It's like pick your work horse

I guess if I had to form an opinion based on data, it was joint effort doing everything they did and jack continued and stan moved on to just salesman. Cause it's not like stan tried to write after jack left and failed, right?

 

Jack was a creative work horse for 20 years prior to the Silver Age while Stan languished in obscurity. Jack created and worked on THREE of the biggest selling comics of the pre-Silver Age in Captain America, Boy Commandoes and Young Romance - all Million copy selling books. Even in the downtime following the Wertham scare he did over 600 pages in 2 1/2 years at DC Comics and created the Challengers of the Unknown (a precursor to the FF).

Stan mainly wrote on liner comedy for humor comics and watched Goodman's comic business slowly decline using the Rip Off and Duplicate method of coming up with books to do.

[Prince Namor]

10 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

A harsh assessment, but fairly accurate, except you forgot Rhino, but yeah Kingpin is definitely far and away the best villain in that run.

Even the Rhino made it to a movie! 

10 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

Is it arguable that Kingpin can rank up with the likes of Green Goblin, Mysterio, Kraven, Doc Oc, Sandman, Vulture, Scorpion? What is Kingpins actual superpowers?

Yes. He is a classic villain in the Marvel Universe. Not flashy in a Green Goblin sense, but tenacious and smart and physically powerful. He's a great one.

10 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

50 tho is the most iconic cover in the run from 1-100 imo and arguably one of the most iconic covers of all time, which probably explains its value as much as Kingpins first appearance.

Also 40 was a decent issue

Yep.

[Hollywood1892]

11 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Stan mainly wrote on liner comedy for humor comics and watched Goodman's comic business slowly decline using the Rip Off and Duplicate method of coming up with books to do.

Kirby created Darkseid and New Gods, and Thanos is a direct rip off of Darkseid, albeit he created both Eternals and New Gods, but they are somewhat similar. I just don't think Kirby wanted the spotlight, it was clear tho he was a visionary 

Was Kirby Wozniak to Lee's Jobs? 

[lordbyroncomics]

17 hours ago, kav said:

Stan plotted and wrote the books.  Sometimes kirby or ditko would have some plot ideas which were used but they didnt write the actual words.
The end.

I respect you kav but this is fundamentally untrue except for the dialogue part. Kirby was plotting all the stories. Ditko was plotting Spider-Man to the extent that Stan credits it and mentions it in several interviews. The end.

[lordbyroncomics]

There is evidence that Kirby was the primary creative force as well as plotting and laying out the stories. I take nothing away from Stan's dialogue skills- but dialogue on a fully plotted story is "dialogue by" NOT "story by".

Here's the ending of FF #8, which Stan actually created a "written plot" to give to Jerry Bails, after Bails requested such a thing after DC gave him one. Stan typed one up for FF #8, recently released. Except... Kirby did a story in the fifties for Black Magic that Stan had nothing to do with. Why is it impossible for people desperate to hold to a myth from their youth instead of looking at the most obvious, common sense proof? Why does it have to bring down Stan to say he was a great editor and sometimes great dialogue writer? Why must he be righteously defended for pointing out accurate things?

 

[lordbyroncomics]

14 hours ago, kav said:

It's clear he wrote the dialogue and boxes.  We know it couldnt have been Jack and Steve.  Their distinctive writing was NOTHING like the SA Marvel stuff.  It was Stan.
The end.

I didn't realize anyone was disagreeing with this? However, adding dialogue to a finished plot isn't the same as "creating" or "writing the story". I agree it's absolutely collaborating on the story, but not in any 'conceived by' sense. Sorry Kav, I know you're a loyal merry marvel marching society member of high standing! 

[shadroch]

1 hour ago, wisbyron said:

There is evidence that Kirby was the primary creative force as well as plotting and laying out the stories. I take nothing away from Stan's dialogue skills- but dialogue on a fully plotted story is "dialogue by" NOT "story by".

Here's the ending of FF #8, which Stan actually created a "written plot" to give to Jerry Bails, after Bails requested such a thing after DC gave him one. Stan typed one up for FF #8, recently released. Except... Kirby did a story in the fifties for Black Magic that Stan had nothing to do with. Why is it impossible for people desperate to hold to a myth from their youth instead of looking at the most obvious, common sense proof? Why does it have to bring down Stan to say he was a great editor and sometimes great dialogue writer? Why must he be righteously defended for pointing out accurate things?

 

  So Kirby had such a great imagination that he needed to re-imagine his own work twenty years later?

[lordbyroncomics]

8 minutes ago, shadroch said:

  So Kirby had such a great imagination that he needed to re-imagine his own work twenty years later?

Again: is that the point of what I'm saying? Maybe he had no imagination at all. That's fine! The point is that HE WAS THE DRIVING PLOTTING FORCE. Attacking his apparent lack of imagination is a way for someone to sidestep the acceptance of that fact.

Kirby was doing so many books and creating concepts and plotting as well as layouts for other artists- I'm sure he recycled old plots, concepts. Does that make him less imaginative? I don't know. Bowie put out an album in 1980 that people thought was very cutting edge and it's highly regarded. Did the people that liked it know that a couple of the songs were re-tooled and re-written versions of a song he did pre-Space Oddity, back in the late sixties? I don't know; doesn't make him less imaginative. Still, it's always slightly funny to see how, even when given proof that you can't dispute, people will be psychologically unable to face it and just pivot to something else. Kirby's dialogue sucks, wahhh! Etc. Not once did I say "he had the greatest imagination". As I said, maybe he had zero imagination- that's not the point of my post. My point is that the body of evidence is there. Thank you.

[lordbyroncomics]

Kirby's margin notes on his delivered art:  "Chemicals cause him to freeze- sand mixed with liquid nitrogen- when flame hits it- it gives off poison vapors"

 

Stan's dialogue for this:  "Knowing I'd have to face your flaming attack sooner or later, the Wizard gave me the perfect means to stop you.. by releasing a quantity of liquid nitrogen, my sandy molecules immediately freeze! Then, as soon as your now-useless flame contacts me, the chemical combination gives off a powerful, poisonous vapor..!"

 

Now, is Stan's dialogue better than Kirby's margin notes? OF COURSE THEY ARE. That isn't in dispute. But saying things like "Kirby may have contributed to a plot" and "Stan wrote everything, The End"- shows a bias and an obvious unwillingness to read more into this and look at the documented evidence. Some of the members here are artists, right? Okay.

Let's say Kav (for example), whose art I have seen and really like, gives me a completely drawn story. And, in one of the panels, he shows a guy leaping out of a window and Kav's notes say  "got to jump out now- before room explodes- thinks, if i roll, can absorb hitting the grass" and gives it to me for dialogue. And then, I write "I've got to make my jump now! The room's gonna explode any minute- if I time the leap and roll just right, I'll absorb most of the shock before I hit the grass!"

And then I credit myself as the writer of the story and Kav as the artist. You think Kav wouldn't be like "well.. wait a sec." All I did was better articulate Kav's initial story notes about what his plot was.

[lordbyroncomics]

15 hours ago, kav said:

So for the third time-who is the mystery man who actually wrote all of the SA Marvel titles?

It's time for the truth to come out.

 

It was Irving Forbush. Or Artie Simek. One of those guys. 

[Lazyboy]

56 minutes ago, shadroch said:

  So Kirby had such a great imagination that he needed to re-imagine his own work twenty years later?

Any prolific creator is going to repeat some things, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.