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

[shadroch]

1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

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

Except Kirby didn't own his prior work so he was, in effect, stealing from his former employer.  Did he write the story that he obviously copied for the FF book?

Looking at MCS's data base, it looks like most of Kirby's work on Black Magic was a Kirby/Simon work. 

As were the three books that chuckles keeps pointing to as proof of Kirby's superiority.

Edited April 3, 2021 by shadroch

[Prince Namor]

27 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Except Kirby didn't own his prior work so he was, in effect, stealing from his former employer.  Did he write the story that he obviously copied for the FF book?

Looking at MCS's data base, it looks like most of Kirby's work on Black Magic was a Kirby/Simon work. 

As were the three books that chuckles keeps pointing to as proof of Kirby's superiority.

Except Stan had ZERO success prior to the Silver Age. So let's add it up:

 

Golden Age: Jack Kirby with Joe Simon - Worked together on some of the biggest selling comics of the era from the 40's through the 50's.

                     Stan Lee - working with many different people - watched Goodman's comics slowly sell less and less. Copying others ideas.

Pre-Silver Age: Jack - creates 'Challengers of the Unknown' - maybe/maybe not with someone. Still being sold in reprint tpb form as late as 2017 (59 years later)

                     Stan Lee - Lays off the entire staff. Prepares to shut the comics down.

Silver Age: Jack Kirby with Stan Lee - The entire Marvel Universe is created.

Bronze Age: Jack Kirby, on his own - creates concepts and stories and comics for DC that are still in use today - 50 years later

                     Stan Lee: Nothing

 

And what did Joe Simon go on to create without Kirby?

[Lazyboy]

45 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Except Kirby didn't own his prior work so he was, in effect, stealing from his former employer.

[kav]

4 hours ago, wisbyron said:

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.

what abt Ditko's own words tho?

[Prince Namor]

24 minutes ago, kav said:

what abt Ditko's own words tho?

That's from Amazing Spider-man Annual #1, on newsstands June 11, 1964, right around the same time as ASM #16.

We know from what Stan has said and what Ditko has said, that the two of them had story conferences early on. Both of them contributed. Stan was the Editor. He was Ditko's boss. Stan's ideas ran along the lines of crossing over heroes and villains from other books (Daredevil appears in #16, the Hulk in #14, the Human Torch in #17), but Ditko wanted to go in a different direction. According to Stan they argued so much that Lee gets mad and tells Ditko to think up his own story ideas. 

He does, and Spider-man starts to go in a different direction from #24 on - and the crossovers stop. ASM becomes a huge sales success and passes the FF for Marvel's #1 book.

Ditko creates Doctor Strange and even brings him in for Annual #2. (Remember Stan Lee writes to Jerry Bails about Dr,. Strange: "Steve Ditko is gonna draw him. Sort of a black magic theme. The first story is nothing great, but perhaps we can make something of him—'twas Steve's idea, and I figured we'd give it a chance, although again, we had to rush the first one too much." 

Stan does two things in that letter that you wouldn't see much later on - a) he gives someone else credit for the idea and b) he actually down plays one of Marvel's titles!

But Ditko would go on to do the rest of the ASM run on his own - both men admitted over the years that they didn't speak to each other for the last year plus, so they would'nt have been able to have story conferences. Stan has even told us he had no idea what the stories Ditko was doing until he turned his pages in!

Incidentally - Stan never allowed Dr. Strange to have a full cover of Strange Tales, the entire time Ditko was doing it - but once Ditko quit, suddenly he got a full cover to himself! ALL of the other two-character comics Marvel did alternated those characters on the covers each month except Strange Tales.

[lordbyroncomics]

1 hour ago, kav said:

what abt Ditko's own words tho?

 Uh.. we're taking that literally? We're taking that without the context? We're taking that without any consideration of the time and place? Okay.

[kav]

4 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

 Uh.. we're taking that literally? We're taking that without the context? We're taking that without any consideration of the time and place? Okay.

Either Ditko was lying which i dont believe Ditko would ever compromise himself like that or at some point Stan wrote scripts.

[dupont2005]

1 hour ago, kav said:

what abt Ditko's own words tho?

Would Marvel publish the story if it said Stan did nothing and Ditko did everything?

[lordbyroncomics]

Kav brings up a valid point about one's own words. So, in the spirit of that here are exact quotes from the creator of Marvel Comics:

"Some artists, of course, need a more detailed plot than others. Some artists, such as Jack Kirby, need no plot at all. I mean, I'll just say to Jack 'Let's let the next villain be Dr. Doom'.. or I may not even say that. He may tell me... he just about makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing."  (1968)

"...I merely gave a brief outline of each story (to Kirby and Ditko)... they would then draw the actual strip without any further instructions from me."  (2008)

 

It goes on and on.. and, notably, Stan's tone/story literally only changes AFTER THERE ARE NEW CORPORATE OWNERS. 

I also think that... the reason bringing up these facts and documented evidence seems to make many fans become defensive of Stan is because they think that by sharing them, your intent is somehow, to bring Stan down. (And that is likely true from some fans, sure) But again- that's not my intent, and I think you don't need to bring Stan down at all for the most part- the guy was witty and a clever dialogue writer and very keen with the bullpen bulletins, etc. That's just not the point. The point is- credit for creating, credit for writing. Nothing more and nothing less. The evidence is there and, as we've seen, no direct or compelling argument against it exists. It's always "well if Kirby is so clever", or "then Kirby stole the plot from the last publisher" or Kirby can't write dialogue... more steering away from the point they don't want to face which is that Stan Lee steered the ship but he didn't chart the course. And there's nothing wrong with that. We just gotta be honest.

[kav]

1 minute ago, dupont2005 said:

Would Marvel publish the story if it said Stan did nothing and Ditko did everything?

would Ditko lie?

[lordbyroncomics]

1 minute ago, kav said:

would Ditko lie?

would Ditko be the final word on what went out? No he would not.

After all, Ditko Spider-Man stories went out with Stan-directed redrawing of Ditko's art (by Carl Hubbell).

Kirby's stuff would be changed by Romita. My point is, Stan was the final word as Editor on what went out. I don't think Ditko ever lied, but he would rationalize things just like when he denied working with Eric Stanton. The context of that story needs to be considered that Ditko is still trying to make a go of it and work and collaborate with Stan. Consider why Ditko left- it was a bunch of things piling up and building up, and the straw that broke the camel's back was Stan deciding to not talk to him after he (rightfully) asked for plotting credit. He got it- and affected Stan's paycheck- and Stan stopped speaking to him.

[dupont2005]

5 minutes ago, kav said:

would Ditko lie?

If he liked being employed by Marvel

[kav]

1 minute ago, dupont2005 said:

If he liked being employed by Marvel

He had other options.  Maybe i'm wrong but Ditko has always seemed absolutely uncompromising when it came to personal truth. 

[lordbyroncomics]

19 minutes ago, kav said:

He had other options.  Maybe i'm wrong but Ditko has always seemed absolutely uncompromising when it came to personal truth. 

True, but it's not like his certainty about it was as strong and absolute all his life. As he continued to grow and evolve, his philosophies changed... so the Ditko of 1964 was still figuring out his standings as opposed to the Ditko in 1974 in regards to where his convictions stood. I again just feel thinking this one panel as proof of something seems kind of ridiculous in relation or response to the literal quotes from Stan Lee as well as him literally crediting the Spider-Man stories as plotted by Ditko. We have established that Stan did the dialogue, so what exactly is the argument here?

[kav]

3 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

True, but it's not like his certainty about it was as strong and absolute all his life. As he continued to grow and evolve, his philosophies changed... so the Ditko of 1964 was still figuring out his standings as opposed to the Ditko in 1974 in regards to where his convictions stood. I again just feel thinking this one panel as proof of something seems kind of ridiculous in relation or response to the literal quotes from Stan Lee as well as him literally crediting the Spider-Man stories as plotted by Ditko. We have established that Stan did the dialogue, so what exactly is the argument here?

all i ever said was stan wrote the dialogue.  thats it.  

[Larryw7]

10 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

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.

Those are nothing compared to Striperella.

[Randall Dowling]

5 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

That's from Amazing Spider-man Annual #1, on newsstands June 11, 1964, right around the same time as ASM #16.

We know from what Stan has said and what Ditko has said, that the two of them had story conferences early on. Both of them contributed. Stan was the Editor. He was Ditko's boss. Stan's ideas ran along the lines of crossing over heroes and villains from other books (Daredevil appears in #16, the Hulk in #14, the Human Torch in #17), but Ditko wanted to go in a different direction. According to Stan they argued so much that Lee gets mad and tells Ditko to think up his own story ideas. 

I've been reading this thread and wasn't going to post in it as, generally, most people have already made up their mind on this subject.  However, this part that you wrote I think is critical to the discussion.  At the heart of this topic is the question of authorship, which is generally the most valued quality when it comes to creative efforts.  For years, I've always thought of the relationship between Stan Lee and the various artists and other collaborators as one of teamwork, each building on each others ideas.  When working as a team, this is usually a very good model.

But I think what you wrote is probably a better way to view Stan's role.  He was an editor much, much more than a writer.  That's in no way diminutive of the valuable function that editors perform.  But that's not the same thing as being the author.  And, historically, editors are not recognized or remembered.  The author is.

My personal opinion, is that Stan Lee always looked down on comics (as the vast majority of "serious" people did at the time).  He felt he was destined for bigger things and deserved greater recognition which explains why he was always dabbling with Hollywood and trying (unsuccessfully) to be a "real" writer.  And at some point (when none of that worked out), he stepped forward and claimed authorship as the cultural impact of Marvel characters was becoming larger and larger.  He knew editor was an under recognized role in creative work.  But the creator (or author)- that's where the recognition is.

The reaction by the actual authors (Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Wood, Everett, Lieber, etc.), varied based upon a number of factors (self-esteem, financial options, concern about recognition, etc.) and many were content to just let Stan take credit for everything.  Once he claimed that credit, he fought like a junkyard dog to maintain it.  Only occasionally, would he act magnanimously and give a little credit to the others.  After everything I've read on the subject (and a few anecdotes from fellow collectors back in the day), I agree that Stan Lee was the editor of Marvel Comics, but not the author of the characters.  

[kav]

11 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I've been reading this thread and wasn't going to post in it as, generally, most people have already made up their mind on this subject.  However, this part that you wrote I think is critical to the discussion.  At the heart of this topic is the question of authorship, which is generally the most valued quality when it comes to creative efforts.  For years, I've always thought of the relationship between Stan Lee and the various artists and other collaborators as one of teamwork, each building on each others ideas.  When working as a team, this is usually a very good model.

But I think what you wrote is probably a better way to view Stan's role.  He was an editor much, much more than a writer.  That's in no way diminutive of the valuable function that editors perform.  But that's not the same thing as being the author.  And, historically, editors are not recognized or remembered.  The author is.

My personal opinion, is that Stan Lee always looked down on comics (as the vast majority of "serious" people did at the time).  He felt he was destined for bigger things and deserved greater recognition which explains why he was always dabbling with Hollywood and trying (unsuccessfully) to be a "real" writer.  And at some point (when none of that worked out), he stepped forward and claimed authorship as the cultural impact of Marvel characters was becoming larger and larger.  He knew editor was an under recognized role in creative work.  But the creator (or author)- that's where the recognition is.

The reaction by the actual authors (Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Wood, Everett, Lieber, etc.), varied based upon a number of factors (self-esteem, financial options, concern about recognition, etc.) and many were content to just let Stan take credit for everything.  Once he claimed that credit, he fought like a junkyard dog to maintain it.  Only occasionally, would he act magnanimously and give a little credit to the others.  After everything I've read on the subject (and a few anecdotes from fellow collectors back in the day), I agree that Stan Lee was the editor of Marvel Comics, but not the author of the characters.  

Reading Bullpen Bulletins I dont get the feel of someone who looked down on comics but indeed loved them.  And involving readers with no prizes, MMMS and what not shows a real bond to what they were creating.  Not just comics but a sense of belonging.

Edited April 4, 2021 by kav

[lordbyroncomics]

Very well said Randall. I'd have to say though that it doesn't even need to be your "personal opinion"- Stan is well documented with his feelings on comics in dozens of interviews. And again, I need to stress this for the easily offended real frantic ones- that's fine. It doesn't discount from his skill as an Editor and marketing whiz that he didn't have a passion for comics and little interest in the medium. We've all had jobs we didn't care about that we were great at, probably. Stan was a great Editor but unfortunately, that's not the role he chose to take credit for. 

[lordbyroncomics]

1 minute ago, kav said:

Reading Bullpen Bulletins I dont get the feel of someone who looked down on comics but indeed loved them.  And involving readers with no prizes, MMMS and what not shows a real bond to what they were creating.  Not just comics but a sense of belonging.

_{Spoken like a man who has never read dozens of Stan Lee interviews! But yeah, the feeling of fun in the Bullpen Bulletins is indeed contagious and who is to say that Stan didn't have palpable excitement when writing them? But I think you're mistaking the context of Stan's being excited at finally finding success and recognition for "indeed loved them"- that's a big difference.}

_{If Stan "loved" comics so much why does he try to get out of them as soon as Kirby leaves and go to California? Why does he convince the Goodmans to publish Celebrity Magazine in the late seventies which is really an excuse for him and his wife to be photographed with D-List celebrities? Why was he desperately trying to get out of them pre-1961 Marvel, with self publishing golf books and syndicated strips? (See Ger Aperdorn's exhaustive article in Alter Ego for more of this) Why does he say in literally every interview going forward that he never reads comics because he "doesn't have the time", etc. if he loves the medium so much? Stan was on a roll and WAS genuinely excited with the audience he was crafting. Of course, he couldn't craft that audience IF the product he was selling didn't deliver. Those Marvel Comics did deliver- if it wasn't Kirby producing most of the concepts and plots, would it have? Doubtful.}