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

[Prince Namor]

7 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

Joe Simon was an equal partner. Uh... right.

Marvel was not in the Empire State Building in 1961.

Marvel put out no books whatsoever in October 1961, which lends to Kirby's claims.

Michael J Vassallo did the research and was able to pinpoint that Kirby first saw Stan again right after Joe Manleey died, lending credence to him seeing Stan distraught and understandably emotional. Vassallo has the research to back all of this up.

Stan "may have" played with facts and forgotten things but "Kirby was much worse".. uh, wow. Right. You have lost any credibility with this specific statement.

Kirby may have had memory issues- Stan outright lied. Which is worse? 

Man that Vassallo blog is so awesome, and he’s certainly fair to Stan on it. He’s a big fan of his writing on the Westerns and gives credit where credit is due. 
He provides a ton of actual comic stories that Stan wrote to actually read and some of it IS decent - though he gives it a bit more credit than I think it deserves - that’s just subjective opinion. (The humor romance books are so freaking dumb, yet they still make me laugh sometimes - not as good as the Archie stuff, but still worth reading, mainly because I just love the art). 
Depsite that - nothing that makes me see a future FF in the mix like the Challengers. 

[lordbyroncomics]

Michael J. Vassallo: …this exact period is the most critical moment in Marvel’s 80 year history. Atlas implosion in April of 1957, inventory runs out, declining sales (assumed), and on June 7, 1958 Joe Maneely dies. It was the company’s nadir and I’m sure Goodman had had enough. There was enough profit in his men’s sweat magazines (a genre he actually pioneered, rather than copied). So what happens next is the lynchpin to what came afterward. Immediately (and I mean days) new sci-fi titles were launched. What corresponds with that launch? Jack Kirby returns. Do you actually think Stan suggested new sci-fi titles? He had never written any! Do you actually think Martin Goodman suggested new sci-fi titles? Goodman hated science fiction. It never sold for him. Not in the pulps, not in the comic books. The sales pitch had to come from Jack and the decision to green-light it was made immediately, based on job numbers. The original sales pitch may even have been for super heroes, and Goodman resisted, but at the very least it was science fantasy and Goodman relented. So the line chugs on for another 2 years as sci-fi becomes monster stories, westerns, romance and some new war stories appear and humor continues unabated (which were probably the best sellers). Then the second critical juncture occurs and with declining sales Kirby probably shows up with his blitzkrieg proposal for new superhero titles and Goodman finally relents The first series was a super-powered version of what he already did, the Challengers of the Unknown. THAT is the most likely scenario of how Marvel re-launched. No wife telling Stan to do comics “his” way, no golf game, no spider-on-the-wall, no Chondu the magician, no…

Patrick Ford: Michael, There is some evidence that Kirby’s pitch was for super heroes. In several different interviews (as early as 1969) he said he was pushing for the super hero. He said in 1969 that he “kept harping on” trying superheroes while doing the monster stories. Later he told Will Eisner he had to “fight for the super hero” titles. I think he came in pushing the idea and Goodman didn’t want to go with it due to the poor reaction to the Timely hero revival. Kirby was also doing science fiction and monster stories at the time for Crestwood, National and Harvey and my guess is he also pushed for those with Goodman jumping on the “giant monster” genre which was popular at the time in film and comic books.

Michael J. Vassallo: Back to what I said above, there are 2 lines of history now. There’s the “official” history nearly 100% based on what Stan has told starting in the 1970’s. Then there’s Jack’s history, told in numerous interviews. Of the 2, only Jack’s is backed by a deep look at the actual books, the actual history of the time period, and the back history of both. Jack’s story can be backed with data and evidence. Stan’s cannot. Stan’s back history tells us nothing. His recollection of the critical junctures are negligible. His forward story is made up and cannot be corroborated. Jack’s back story is really all you need to see which history is correct. His interviews just corroborate what he was saying.

[lordbyroncomics]

Michael Vassallo: Does Stan, on his wife’s advice, finally do comic book stories "like he wants to"? (Having done a thousand Millie the Model, My Friend Irma, My Girl Pearl, Rusty, Lana, Tessie, Mitzi, Little Lenny, Little Lizzie, Nellie, Kathy, Ginch, Imp, Mrs. Lyons’ Cubs, Willie Lumpkin, et al stories, a smattering of recent westerns, and not a single superhero since 1942).
Does Stan (and Goodman), after constant pushing by Kirby, relent and see what he proposes? (Having already done the most visually exciting superheroes hits of the golden-age, co-invented the romance comics genre, produced some of the most respected genre comics of the genre age, Sky Masters, Challengers of the Unknown for DC, The Fly at Archie, bug powers via an “extract” for Harvey, two different previous Thors, untold powerful monsters, and a score of “ancient gods walking among men” stories).
Stan Lee (1922-2018) – The Timely Years, Timely-Atlas-Comics blog post

Mark Mayerson, Marvel Method, 27 December 2019: The other thing about Lee’s outside projects is that they were all humorous. He wasn’t writing adventure or drama. He obviously felt that his strongest potential for outside sales was comedy. Yet, he’s celebrated for “creating” heroes and adventures when it was obviously not his strength.
Kirby, on the other hand, had done very little humor in his career. His work was all about heroes and adventure. Yet, somehow, Lee is the “creator” of the Marvel universe and Kirby was only the artist who drew up Lee’s ideas.
The truth is so obvious for anyone who bothers to look.

[lordbyroncomics]

I feel like I need to stress this again: I don't cite this research because I wanted to believe this stuff. I believe this stuff because they researched it and convinced me. I feel this has to be explained because- again- people are acting like Stan is being attacked/demonized. It's not attacking someone to investigate and point out overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Prince Namor]

Exactly. The research is overwhelming. Anyone who reads that blog will be overwhelmed at the amount of research done by Vassallo. 
 

He goes through EVERY single comic book Stan Lee ever did including the rest of the titles at Timely/Atlas/Marvel that he didn’t. He goes through EVERY book. 
 

If anyone knows Stan Lee’s work - it’s him.

[kav]

I've been rereading Robert Crais books-my favorite mystery writer.  Anyway I was reading this interview with him and he mentioned meeting Stan.
Ps he also said Batman was a private eye. He just wore a cape and was rich.
For bonus I'm posting my drawing of His characters Elvis Cole and Joe Pike.

Edited April 12, 2021 by kav

[rexinnih]

That's a fun No Prize anecdote. I did have the pleasure to "meet" Stan a few times at the San Diego Comic Con. But "meet" was standing in line for him to sign a few comics. I did take advantage of his signing and to get a picture with him at the 2017 Emerald City Comic Con in Seattle and was impressed that he said "Thank you" after the picture. I appreciate the work he did. 

[kav]

7 minutes ago, rexinnih said:

That's a fun No Prize anecdote. I did have the pleasure to "meet" Stan a few times at the San Diego Comic Con. But "meet" was standing in line for him to sign a few comics. I did take advantage of his signing and to get a picture with him at the 2017 Emerald City Comic Con in Seattle and was impressed that he said "Thank you" after the picture. I appreciate the work he did. 

I also was a recipient of a No Prize.

[Buzzetta]

39 minutes ago, kav said:

I also was a recipient of a No Prize.

Just because people scam you on eBay and send you empty envelopes doesn’t mean they are giving you “no prizes.”

 

okay... tell us the no prize story 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Buzzetta

[kav]

14 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Just because people scam you on eBay and send you empty envelopes doesn’t mean they are giving you “no prizes.”

 

okay... tell us the no prize story 

Oh yeah ok-well what happend was when I was like 18 I noticed a 6 fingered spider man in one panel so I sent in a letter and sure enough Bill Mantlo sent me a six fingered signed no prize!  Sold it on ebay like an insufficiently smart person-and when I went to mail it I got a parking ticket so my sale netted me negative $35 dollars.

[Buzzetta]

45 minutes ago, kav said:

Oh yeah ok-well what happend was when I was like 18 I noticed a 6 fingered spider man in one panel so I sent in a letter and sure enough Bill Mantlo sent me a six fingered signed no prize!  Sold it on ebay like an insufficiently smart person-and when I went to mail it I got a parking ticket so my sale netted me negative $35 dollars.

What was your reasoning for six finger Spider-Man to explain the error ?

[kav]

10 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

What was your reasoning for six finger Spider-Man to explain the error ?

they drew spider man with 6 fingers.

[kav]

36 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

What was your reasoning for six finger Spider-Man to explain the error ?

Oh I see what youre asking now-I said in my letter it must have been a delayed reaction from the spider bite.

[shadroch]

On 4/7/2021 at 6:10 PM, wisbyron said:

Joe Simon was an equal partner. Uh... right.

Marvel was not in the Empire State Building in 1961.

Marvel put out no books whatsoever in October 1961, which lends to Kirby's claims.

Michael J Vassallo did the research and was able to pinpoint that Kirby first saw Stan again right after Joe Manleey died, lending credence to him seeing Stan distraught and understandably emotional. Vassallo has the research to back all of this up.

Stan "may have" played with facts and forgotten things but "Kirby was much worse".. uh, wow. Right. You have lost any credibility with this specific statement.

Kirby may have had memory issues- Stan outright lied. Which is worse? 

Joe and Jack were 50-50 partners.  I'm sure there are legal documents. 

The Kirby story is from 1958, not 1961.

Marvel was in the ESB in 1958, as best I can tell.

Credibility?  See the above.

[shadroch]

You yourself talk about Kirby going to Marvel in 1958 and then you say it happened in 1961.

Credibility?

[lordbyroncomics]

2 hours ago, shadroch said:

Joe and Jack were 50-50 partners.  I'm sure there are legal documents. 

The Kirby story is from 1958, not 1961.

Marvel was in the ESB in 1958, as best I can tell.

Credibility?  See the above.

I'm sure it says they were 50-50 partners legally. Creatively, it was not the case.

Credibility? I don't want to argue but you can't resist this tone. Hey Shadroch- maybe you're right. It just means that all of the Timely and Atlas era artists, editors and writers whose interviews are helpfully documented in Alter Ego Magazine were wrong about Marvel moving out of the Empire State Building at the end of the forties/beginning of the fifties.

Because, again- I do not say things because I have a sentimental and nostalgic need to preserve these thoughts. I'm simply reaffirming documented statements and evidence. Again, you could be right! And every interview with someone who worked at Timely/Atlas- welp, to be fair, they WERE old guys at the time of interview.

But hey, since you want to challenge, let's look at "as best I can tell". If it's your research skills we're gonna base this Credibility? on- well, I knew what I was saying was simply repeating what others said in a magazine devoted to that era and edited by Roy Thomas, an expert on that era. But I know that means little to you, so I did a cursory search. And I kid you not- it took me less than three minutes to turn up this, which confirms Marvel left the Empire State Building in 1951:

http://alphabettenthletter.blogspot.com/2016/02/comics-timely-comics-moved-to-empire.html#:~:text=In 1942%2C it moved to,where it remained until 1951.

Again, Peter Sanderson may be incorrect when he wrote in his officially authorized book about Marvel's history that they left in 1951. I'm not even being sarcastic. I just doubt that he is. 

[lordbyroncomics]

2 hours ago, shadroch said:

You yourself talk about Kirby going to Marvel in 1958 and then you say it happened in 1961.

Credibility?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or Prince Namor.

Again, everything I've said is credible unless the sources themselves were wrong. So, if Stan's actions and comments and lack of creating were somehow falsified... if every single interview I've read and interaction I've had was somehow a hallucination... 

I've met and interacted with Stan several times and he was beyond charming and charismatic and enjoyable. I referenced Jerry Todd and Poppy Ott and he said "you and I are the only two people on the Western Hemisphere who know who the Hell they are!" and I cherish that memory. I've got a 1940s' portrait of Stan that he not only signed to me, but drew a word balloon around. I hung out with him and Gil Champion briefly and he cracked me up. None of this is some mission to discredit Stan Lee. Stan just got unfair credit and it's easily proven, except that fans holding on to their happy memories of Stan narrating Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends make them illogically react and take things personally when nothing personal is intended whatsoever. 

[shadroch]

12 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

I'm sure it says they were 50-50 partners legally. Creatively, it was not the case.

Credibility? I don't want to argue but you can't resist this tone. Hey Shadroch- maybe you're right. It just means that all of the Timely and Atlas era artists, editors and writers whose interviews are helpfully documented in Alter Ego Magazine were wrong about Marvel moving out of the Empire State Building at the end of the forties/beginning of the fifties.

Because, again- I do not say things because I have a sentimental and nostalgic need to preserve these thoughts. I'm simply reaffirming documented statements and evidence. Again, you could be right! And every interview with someone who worked at Timely/Atlas- welp, to be fair, they WERE old guys at the time of interview.

But hey, since you want to challenge, let's look at "as best I can tell". If it's your research skills we're gonna base this Credibility? on- well, I knew what I was saying was simply repeating what others said in a magazine devoted to that era and edited by Roy Thomas, an expert on that era. But I know that means little to you, so I did a cursory search. And I kid you not- it took me less than three minutes to turn up this, which confirms Marvel left the Empire State Building in 1951:

http://alphabettenthletter.blogspot.com/2016/02/comics-timely-comics-moved-to-empire.html#:~:text=In 1942%2C it moved to,where it remained until 1951.

Again, Peter Sanderson may be incorrect when he wrote in his officially authorized book about Marvel's history that they left in 1951. I'm not even being sarcastic. I just doubt that he is. 

I stand corrected. My notes say  14th floor Spring 43-Fall 61 but I guess I've been going off a typo. 

Where the meeting supposedly happened is less important than when it happened. In one post you say it happened right after Stans friend and right hand an was killed and in another you  use the fact that Marvel didn't put out any books one month as being connected.

[lordbyroncomics]

Just now, shadroch said:

I stand corrected. My notes say  14th floor Spring 43-Fall 61 but I guess I've been going off a typo. 

Where the meeting supposedly happened is less important than when it happened. In one post you say it happened right after Stans friend and right hand an was killed and in another you  use the fact that Marvel didn't put out any books one month as being connected.

No harm done, I didn't remember the exact dates either. I just know a lot of the old timers interviewed in Alter Ego had cited it as being at the beginning of 1950. 

I didn't say it happened right after, I speculated that was the reference Kirby brought up of Stan being distraught. Michael J Vassallo pinpointed this, and I referenced it. The No comics being put out in October 1961 (also not pinpointed by me), was evidence of Kirby saying Goodman was about to stop publishing comics. Again, the EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS in a way that it is illogical to brush off, unless you're trying hard to rationalize something.

But is it total proof? Of course not. But it's very strong evidence in support of something Kirby said several times. I take the guy who literally killed Nazis on the battlefield at his word over the guy who laughingly bragged about his military service as writing stateside and dating girls on the weekend and getting away with it.

Anyway, this is not what "I say", but what I repeat; the research of a very respected comics historian who has written exhaustedly for Marvel and done significant amounts of research for comics. Go tell Dr. Vassallo he lacks credibility, please. But here, since you've clearly never read any of this stuff and quite possibly only watched the "True Believer" pro-Stan documentary, I will provide the research for you:
 

Michael Vassallo: ¹⁶ Jack’s recollection of seeing Stan crying shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. When I constructed a timeline of job numbers, I was shocked to find that Joe Maneely’s last story and Jack’s first story in Strange Worlds #1 (“I Discovered the Secret of the Flying Saucers!”) were only a few digits apart. I immediately asked Ayers to check his work records on an equally close western he did and his work records corroborated that all these stories were commissioned within one or two days of Joe Maneely’s death on June 8th 1958!

Immediately it made possible sense to me that if Jack had in fact arrived looking for work on the following Monday, June 10th he would have found Stan Lee in his office inconsolable, and predicting the soon demise of Goodman’s already tenuous line of 8 titles a month.

Whatever anyone may want to say about Stan, he was very close to Maneely, had worked with him since late 1949, and depended on him to launch many/most of the Atlas character features in the western, war comics throughout the 1950’s. He was the fastest artist he had (Jack Kirby fast, possibly faster, by all accounts) and after the implosion he was drawing most of the covers and handling the Two-Gun Kid feature. There just wasn’t enough new material to keep him busy so he was also simultaneously at DC and also Charlton. But even more importantly for Stan, he was a partner on their Mrs. Lyons’ Cubs newspaper syndicated feature, both hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and leave the dregs of the comic book industry.

So taking all of that together, the timing and the relationship, it is “very” likely Jack did find Stan, not necessarily bawling his eyes out, but very upset that morning when he went in looking for work.

 

[kav]

5 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

No harm done, I didn't remember the exact dates either. I just know a lot of the old timers interviewed in Alter Ego had cited it as being at the beginning of 1950. 

I didn't say it happened right after, I speculated that was the reference Kirby brought up of Stan being distraught. Michael J Vassallo pinpointed this, and I referenced it. The No comics being put out in October 1961 (also not pinpointed by me), was evidence of Kirby saying Goodman was about to stop publishing comics. Again, the EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS in a way that it is illogical to brush off, unless you're trying hard to rationalize something.

But is it total proof? Of course not. But it's very strong evidence in support of something Kirby said several times. I take the guy who literally killed Nazis on the battlefield at his word over the guy who laughingly bragged about his military service as writing stateside and dating girls on the weekend and getting away with it.

Anyway, this is not what "I say", but what I repeat; the research of a very respected comics historian who has written exhaustedly for Marvel and done significant amounts of research for comics. Go tell Dr. Vassallo he lacks credibility, please. But here, since you've clearly never read any of this stuff and quite possibly only watched the "True Believer" pro-Stan documentary, I will provide the research for you:
 

Michael Vassallo: ¹⁶ Jack’s recollection of seeing Stan crying shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. When I constructed a timeline of job numbers, I was shocked to find that Joe Maneely’s last story and Jack’s first story in Strange Worlds #1 (“I Discovered the Secret of the Flying Saucers!”) were only a few digits apart. I immediately asked Ayers to check his work records on an equally close western he did and his work records corroborated that all these stories were commissioned within one or two days of Joe Maneely’s death on June 8th 1958!

Immediately it made possible sense to me that if Jack had in fact arrived looking for work on the following Monday, June 10th he would have found Stan Lee in his office inconsolable, and predicting the soon demise of Goodman’s already tenuous line of 8 titles a month.

Whatever anyone may want to say about Stan, he was very close to Maneely, had worked with him since late 1949, and depended on him to launch many/most of the Atlas character features in the western, war comics throughout the 1950’s. He was the fastest artist he had (Jack Kirby fast, possibly faster, by all accounts) and after the implosion he was drawing most of the covers and handling the Two-Gun Kid feature. There just wasn’t enough new material to keep him busy so he was also simultaneously at DC and also Charlton. But even more importantly for Stan, he was a partner on their Mrs. Lyons’ Cubs newspaper syndicated feature, both hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and leave the dregs of the comic book industry.

So taking all of that together, the timing and the relationship, it is “very” likely Jack did find Stan, not necessarily bawling his eyes out, but very upset that morning when he went in looking for work.

 

Dont know if this is part of the puzzle but from wikipedia:
On the night of his death, "past midnight of what was early Sunday morning," June 7, 1958, Maneely had dined hours earlier with fellow laid-off Atlas colleagues, including George Ward and John Severin, in Manhattan.^[25] He did not have his glasses with him, and was killed when he accidentally fell between the cars of a moving commuter train on his way home to New Jersey.^[26]