• 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.

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

341 posts in this topic

Most of this stuff you can read for free online - if you read those Kirby stories from his short time at DC prior to coming to Marvel (he did 600 pages in a year and a half) and read Stan's work from that same time period - my God, how could anyone not come to the same conclusion?

Kirby was the storyteller and the creative force. Stan collaborated and refined it and presented it in a way that made it the greatest comics ever created. As a TEAM they were unmatched.

But without Stan, Jack would've continued creating - that's what he always did - his whole career.

Stan? Stan was nothing before Jack came back to Marvel. That's just a fact. And Marvel would've probably shut it's doors and none of it would've ever existed in the way we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next month Kirby has returned and gives Marvel 3 new #1 issues

Strange Worlds #1, Tales to Astonish #1, and Tales of Suspense #1. He also does the cover for World of Fantasy #15. Stan Lee SIGNS his name to NONE of these, though he would later go on to take credit for them. 

He DOES sign his name to the Kid Colt Outlaw story that Kirby does and the Two Gun Kid story that Kirby does (as well as the other stories in those books with the other artists).

Throughout the couple of years that Kirby did monster books for Marvel (pre-FF) - Stan doesn't sign his name to those stories - and Stan signs his name to everything he can, including pin-ups - basically showing us that Jack came up with those ideas - yet years later Stan would take credit for 'creating' these monster books. (tsk) 

Screen Shot 2021-04-05 at 10.16.00 AM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Stan? Stan was nothing before Jack came back to Marvel. That's just a fact. And Marvel would've probably shut it's doors and none of it would've ever existed in the way we know it.

........and without Stan the Marvel Age of Comics would never have existed, as we know it and, the worldwide popularity of Spider-Man which began in the 1970's with successful launches in the UK and also a version of Spider-Man in Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince Namor brings up so many excellent and sadly oft-ignored points. And yes, you can do all this without giving venom towards Stan. I'm still flabbergasted that any response to unavoidable facts always provokes guys still begrudgingly or defiantly saying things like "but without the Bullpen Bulletins", etc.!!- it's as if they simply are psychologically unable to give Jack Kirby ANY credit for being the catalyst and main plotter/concept creator. Whatever. The Merry Marvel Marching Society marches on.

Interestingly to me, I only just read today from no less a source than Alex Ross that apparently Kirby also came up with the concept for Mar-Vell. Ross said, "Jack recalled telling Stan an idea he had for a Kree soldier (as Jack had come up with the Kree in FF) who defects from his post of observing Earth to defending it against his own world. Stan (Jack said) was encouraging that they should get started around this right away, Jack claimed he said he wanted to hold off until he was able to get in to negotiate a better deal with Goodman since so many of the properties he brought to them weren't getting him any additional money or control. When he (later) saw Marvel's Captain Marvel story, it was another nail in the coffin."

Ross also adds: "It's an interesting thought that in addition to his drawing Captain Marvel Adventures #1 in 1941, Jack Kirby may have been instrumental in both revivals of the Captain Marvel legend with both Marvel and DC, without anyone knowing it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muno42 said:

@Prince Namor Thanks for the many really good posts without the venom and outright dismissal of Stan. 

There really doesn't need to be any. The issue Prince Namor is making, and I'm also making, is that Stan is guilty of allowing people to presume he's the sole creator, and then Stan later claimed this credit rather than just take credit for all the genuinely good things he was super talented at. The entire thing gets diluted when one is for one and against the other, and vice versa. None of this is new. There's been evidence all along, but people didn't want to confront it and you see it with rationalizations and devil's advocate behavior and statements. Again: it isn't about attacking Stan. It's about proper credit and justice for Jack. There's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, 

Kirby in the 50s :

formed his own comic company which rather quickly went bankrupt.

worked on a newspaper strip that never took off and ended up in a lawsuit

alienated the editors at DC to the point that he had to return to Marvel to feed his family.

How exactly does one measure success? Kirby was offered a ground floor opportunity to go into advertising with his long time partner Joe Simon.  It involved taking a chance and going without a paycheck until the business took off.  Kirby couldn't or wouldn't take the chance. 

In a short while, Simon was producing industrial comics, used to train and educate workers. His studio had more work than they could fill. 

In the mid-50s, Jack and Joe lived across the street from each other in my hometown.  Joe moved his family into a mansion in Old Westury and then a few years later bought a compound overlooking Port Jefferson Harbor in a very exclusive neighborhood.

Jack stayed in the same house until he moved to California  around 1970.

While it isn't the only sign of success, continuously moving up in your living situation  is generally a pretty good sign of it.

Simon and Kirby = greatness

Lee and Kirby=greatness

Simon, Lee and or Kirby alone= eeeh.

Kirby,alone, created Darksied but it took other writers to even begin to use his potential.  Kirby was happy using him in children's comics to sell toys.  Scott Free? Big Barda? Granny Goodness? Moonboy?  All interesting characters he created and utterly misused, imo.

BTW- most people credit Wood for at least co-creating the Challengers and some sources say Joe Simon was involved,as well.

 

Edited by shadroch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2021 at 1:57 PM, Prince Namor said:

Exactly. And there's no hero worship here... it's just trying to understand the true history of a hobby I've spent my entire life following. I AM curious as to what was said behind the scenes.

When I was 12, the fall of 1975, me and a friend of mine called the Marvel offices, not once, but twice. Once from my house and once from his house. (So we got in trouble from TWO sets of parents for the long distance calls). I was curious to talk to these guys who were creating these stories. Stan we talked to very briefly - obviously he had a lot going on - but John Romita talked to us for while on one call and Gerry Conway on the other. We asked them questions and probably said a lot of dumb stuff (I'm pretty sure we told them we didn't like Gil Kane's art), and Romita sent us each an autographed reproduced drawing (the one of him at the drawing table with all of the Marvel characters above him) that I still have to this day.

I just find it interesting. 

Wow that's really cool...and how awesome that several of them took the time to talk to a couple of kids!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

There really doesn't need to be any. The issue Prince Namor is making, and I'm also making, is that Stan is guilty of allowing people to presume he's the sole creator, and then Stan later claimed this credit rather than just take credit for all the genuinely good things he was super talented at. The entire thing gets diluted when one is for one and against the other, and vice versa. None of this is new. There's been evidence all along, but people didn't want to confront it and you see it with rationalizations and devil's advocate behavior and statements. Again: it isn't about attacking Stan. It's about proper credit and justice for Jack. There's a difference.

Stan often wrote about the Marvel Method and how the artist was so invovled. The Marvel Method was widely discussed. Anyone who actually reads SA Marvels can see how the credits were shared. Jack sucked at being interviewed and Ditko didn't want to be, so somehow this was Stan stealing the spotlight?

Stan's job was to sell comics, something he did better than anyone else. In a half dozen years he lead the team that turned a formerly obscure third rate company into a worldwide phenomena.  Without looking at the numbers, I suspect Spider-Man sales increased in the years after Ditko and when Kirby left Marvel, it wasn't as if there was a huge decline in sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Stan often wrote about the Marvel Method and how the artist was so invovled. The Marvel Method was widely discussed. Anyone who actually reads SA Marvels can see how the credits were shared. Jack sucked at being interviewed and Ditko didn't want to be, so somehow this was Stan stealing the spotlight?

 

I'm glad you brought this up. Because this is something I've spoken about before- it's not Stan's fault at ALL that journalists were taken with him. He is charismatic, articulate, a good interviewee and he provides snappy banter and quotes, therefore making the journalist's job easier. As you said, Jack wasn't as charismatic and Steve didn't WANT to be interviewed...

So "stealing the spotlight" to you means Stan getting attention? And somehow this is what I was saying? Uh... 

No, that's not him stealing the spotlight AT ALL. I will say it to anybody. HERE is what is "stealing the spotlight"- allowing mistaken journalists to believe he's the sole creator and writer. Writing a book claiming he created things after his new corporate owners wanted to secure the IP. It's all stuff like that. You don't think Stan could have followed up with these writers when headlines came out calling him "The Creator" and 'The Father'?! He could have- he didn't. His claim to fame as this was his ticket out of New York and out of comics. 

I've seen a lot of comments on this thread of people saying "in my opinion" and "the way I see it" and I want to clarify that nothing I've stated is my opinion or how I see it. These are all factual things that Stan did and things that happened and are easily researched. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, shadroch said:

 

Stan's job was to sell comics, something he did better than anyone else. In a half dozen years he lead the team that turned a formerly obscure third rate company into a worldwide phenomena.  Without looking at the numbers, I suspect Spider-Man sales increased in the years after Ditko and when Kirby left Marvel, it wasn't as if there was a huge decline in sales.

So the logic here is that Stan's job selling comics justifies claiming he's the writer or things he only dialogued and creating things he didn't create. Got it.

And yeah, no decline in sales. Romita is more marketable than Ditko. So- I don't want to misrepresent you here and am not being sarcastic- you're saying this justified Ditko's treatment? I kind of don't understand. Or are you saying that sales would have dipped only if Kirby and Ditko were REALLY the plotters or something? None of this seems relevant. Again, you're given facts and quotes but it's always somehow people are being unfair to ol' Stan... for daring to quote his documented statements or looking at his documented body of work.

It's interesting- in no way are the cases similar but I was reading how there's this new Hemingway documentary coming out tonight from Ken Burns and how people don't want to look at the things about Hemingway that they don't like and that they need to preserve the literary myth. It really made me think of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

So the logic here is that Stan's job selling comics justifies claiming he's the writer or things he only dialogued and creating things he didn't create. Got it.

And yeah, no decline in sales. Romita is more marketable than Ditko. So- I don't want to misrepresent you here and am not being sarcastic- you're saying this justified Ditko's treatment? I kind of don't understand. Or are you saying that sales would have dipped only if Kirby and Ditko were REALLY the plotters or something? None of this seems relevant. Again, you're given facts and quotes but it's always somehow people are being unfair to ol' Stan... for daring to quote his documented statements or looking at his documented body of work.

It's interesting- in no way are the cases similar but I was reading how there's this new Hemingway documentary coming out tonight from Ken Burns and how people don't want to look at the things about Hemingway that they don't like and that they need to preserve the literary myth. It really made me think of this discussion.

Marvel used a method that was different than the normal assignments in the industry. They still do. I just saw an interview with JRJR and he still prefers to work under that method.  I personally think having an artist work from a fully scripted plot wastes the artists natural talents. Artist can usually visualize better than writers.

Who was it that nicknamed Kirby "The King"? If it was Stan, does that seem like he was trying to steal his credit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Marvel used a method that was different than the normal assignments in the industry. They still do. I just saw an interview with JRJR and he still prefers to work under that method.  I personally think having an artist work from a fully scripted plot wastes the artists natural talents. Artist can usually visualize better than writers.

Who was it that nicknamed Kirby "The King"? If it was Stan, does that seem like he was trying to steal his credit?

Again... I think we're talking about different subjects. I am not talking about if artists can visualize better than writers, what you personally think having an artist work from brings the best of their natural talent, and what superstars prefer to use that method. I'm not knocking those subjects btw or saying you're wrong! I'm just saying... none of that is relevant to what we're talking about.

But.. seriously. You think Stan giving Kirby a NICKNAME means nothing we've shared is relevant? Shadroch, it isn't even about credit.. it's about stealing writer's pay and claiming you did something you did not. The credit stealing comes later, for different reasons. Does it 'seem' like Stan is trying to steal credit?! I don't know if it seems like that, but it WAS like that and that's what matters. I'm glad you dig Stan. I like him too. The fact remains that his actions and the recorded history states exactly what happened, no matter how it seems to either one of us. Not sure you're grasping that though. I'm not talking about if the Marvel Method was or wasn't innovative. That's subjective and an entirely different subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Marvel used a method that was different than the normal assignments in the industry. They still do. I just saw an interview with JRJR and he still prefers to work under that method.  I personally think having an artist work from a fully scripted plot wastes the artists natural talents. Artist can usually visualize better than writers.

Who was it that nicknamed Kirby "The King"? If it was Stan, does that seem like he was trying to steal his credit?

I've done dozens of comics and i absolutely need a -script.  I will, however, frequently tell the writer "ok this wont work how about this".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

On the other hand, 

Kirby in the 50s :

formed his own comic company which rather quickly went bankrupt.

Quickly went bankrupt?

They created some of the biggest selling comics EVER. And they caught Crestwood publications under paying them for the work. 
Their studio was a success in the time they ran it. Not sure where you get the bankrupt idea from. 

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

worked on a newspaper strip that never took off and ended up in a lawsuit

Not sure what any of this has to do with how Stan STOLE credit for Jack’s work, but...

What about Stan’s failed newspaper strips and books? At least Jack had successful comics during that time. 

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

alienated the editors at DC to the point that he had to return to Marvel to feed his family.

Yeah it sucks to not have a relative who owns the company you work for. 

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

How exactly does one measure success? Kirby was offered a ground floor opportunity to go into advertising with his long time partner Joe Simon.  It involved taking a chance and going without a paycheck until the business took off.  Kirby couldn't or wouldn't take the chance. 

In a short while, Simon was producing industrial comics, used to train and educate workers. His studio had more work than they could fill. 

In the mid-50s, Jack and Joe lived across the street from each other in my hometown.  Joe moved his family into a mansion in Old Westury and then a few years later bought a compound overlooking Port Jefferson Harbor in a very exclusive neighborhood.

Jack stayed in the same house until he moved to California  around 1970.

While it isn't the only sign of success, continuously moving up in your living situation  is generally a pretty good sign of it.

Doesn’t change Stan stealing credit for what he didn’t do. Marvel eventually agreed after Jack’s death. 

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

Simon and Kirby = greatness

Lee and Kirby=greatness

Simon, Lee and or Kirby alone= eeeh.

Kirby,alone, created Darksied but it took other writers to even begin to use his potential.  Kirby was happy using him in children's comics to sell toys.  Scott Free? Big Barda? Granny Goodness? Moonboy?  All interesting characters he created and utterly misused, imo.

Iron Man’s greatest success came long after Stan Lee. Daredevil’s greatest success came long after Stan Lee. And both involved evolving the characters. It happens. 

3 hours ago, shadroch said:

BTW- most people credit Wood for at least co-creating the Challengers and some sources say Joe Simon was involved,as well.

Yes, but thankfully they weren’t such attention whores that they had to steal the credit from Jack over it. 
 

None of this changes what we see in the work above.

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
6 6