info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What's the deal with Stan Lee?
141 views
Skip to first unread message
tmc...@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2014, 1:06:40 AM2/21/14
to
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/492743/deal-stan-lee?page=1
Post by Goldenbane on 11 hours ago
Sort of inspired by the "Give Bill Finger Credit for Batman" thread, I have a question about Stan Lee. In every interview and stuff I've seen of him, Stan comes off as a rather humble and pretty good guy. He seems to treat the fans exceptionally well and from what I've seen, he seems to give co-creation credit to guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. However there have been stories that some guys, like Jack Kirby, hated Stan Lee's guts...kind of accusing him of being a Hulk Hogan-like politician behind the scenes. Despite how bad everyone seems to hate Bob Kane, there's never been an insulting parody caricature of him like there has been of Stan (From what I understand, the goof character of "Funky Flashman" was created by Jack Kirby to insult Lee and point out all his flaws).
So what is it? Is Stan Lee secretly a giant douchebag behind his friendly fatherly/grandfather exterior? Was Jack Kirby just being a tremendous asshole or did he have a legitimate point? Is Stan "Marvel's version of Bob Kane?" How do you all feel about Stan the Man Lee?
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 10 hours ago
Stan's a complicated case, in that for DECADES, he didn't outright claim to have created anything like Kane did, but when reporters or other media covering him acted like he did, he was perfectly happy to go along with it.
He doesn't get the same vitriol that Kane does because he's like "Uncle Stan", and has been the face of comicdom to fans and those WELL outside of fandom for so long. In fact, I'd say that as much of his contribution to comics as anything he had ever written or co-created; being a carnival barker/cheerleader for comic books in general, and getting the artform out there to the masses.
Further, he had a hand in much more stuff than Kane did, and was at least more responsible for his collaborations than the latter. It's impossible to know exactly who all did what, and who was MOST responsible for say Spider-man or the Hulk, but the breakdown is probably something like 60-40 Kirby/Lee or Ditko/Lee or the like where it was a much more collaborative process.
He also doesn't get as much shit because he has been willing (in some cases a bit reluctantly) to say that "yes, these guys at least co-created all these things."
A really great look at Stan as a whole, warts and all is :http://www.amazon.com/Stan-Rise-Fall-American-Comic/dp/1556525419 It's a great biography that gives credit where its due, and takes him to task where it's needed.
In short, I guess he gets more of a pass as "Uncle Stan" because it is a more complicated it of collaboration than Kane/Finger, and really cuz Stan's persona (again probably his greatest creation) is so damned likable that he's not near the douchebag that Kane was.
Post by shaker on 10 hours ago
Nowadays, he's pretty much an old lovable grandpa type person.
In the 70s and 80s, when comics were becoming moneymakers, he was basically a huge jackass and effectively took money out of creator's pockets by taking credit for things. He was a sharp and ruthless businessman, first and foremost.
You're right on the Funky Flashman - he looks a lot like 70s era Stan Lee, his first appearance was trying to cash-in on Mr. Miracle, and he has a weird sidekick/butler Houseroy (Roy Thomas).
Post by Push Val Venis on 10 hours ago
For the record, I view Stan Lee as a cool Grandpa that might not have been 100% involved in every story he tells me but I believe he at least had his hand in there somewhere, no matter how minor. Perhaps he thought up everything... or perhaps all he did was say that the composition of the Thing's dork is a superhero secret.
Post by shaker on 10 hours ago
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
As far as I am concerned, and I might be way off base, Stan Lee invented every Marvel character. That, or someone he employed did, and by proxy that means Stan should get credit on everything anyway.
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
I think this is where a lot of the anger towards Lee comes from. He's presented himself as a creator for so long that, to the public, he really did create most of Marvel Comics himself.
Stan Lee is rich as hell, meanwhile workhorses and the really creative guys like Ditko and Kirby lived modest lives and see no money at all from their most famous creations. I know the Kirbys were suing to try and get some Marvel money a few years ago but were denied. Despite the fact that "The Avengers" made billions of dollars and wouldn't even have existed without Jack Kirby.
Post by Antitribu on 10 hours ago
Stan Lee is a hack as far as I'm concerned. He didn't create a damn thing, he'd give people a vague idea of what he wanted and tell them to create on his behalf, with minimal direct input. For example he'd tell his artists "I want a hero who swings from building to building with elastic rope" and the first guy to come up with something would be made lead artist for The Human Spider(tm).
Most of the time he didn't even WRITE the stories he was credited on as, he would look at the finished drawings and fill the empty space with dialogue boxes on the spot. (Hence all the awful ubiquitous narration in every Silver Age Marvel comic) They called it the Marvel method and it was pretty much the reason how they could produce so many monthly books compared to bigger publishers with better infrastructure in the first place.
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 10 hours ago
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
OH yeah, I'm not saying he should get full credit on everything, but at least partial credit. I'm fairly sure he has had at least a hand in most every character, and being THE GUY there, he deserves it.
I guess that's the issue though, how much he deserves it.
Take something like the Silver Surfer. Stan had virtually nothing to do with the Surfer's inception. He just gave Kirby a plot that the FF were going to "fight God" (and in fact pretty much all of his work with Jack and Stan was just him laying out a kernel of an idea, and the the artist would do the lion's share of the work, plotting and drawing the entire story, and in Jack's case he'd leave dialogue suggestions as well, and then Stan would come and fill in the word balloons). Well Jack had the idea to give "God"--Galactus of course, a herald, and just drew the Surfer there from his own imagination. There are lots of little things like that, to where Stan deserves SOME credit, no question there.. hell I love Stan and have a really complicated way of looking at him now that I know all this background, but if anyone was THE GUY, it was Jack.
Post by knapp on 9 hours ago
10 hours ago shaker said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
I think this is where a lot of the anger towards Lee comes from. He's presented himself as a creator for so long that, to the public, he really did create most of Marvel Comics himself.
Stan Lee is rich as hell, meanwhile workhorses and the really creative guys like Ditko and Kirby lived modest lives and see no money at all from their most famous creations. I know the Kirbys were suing to try and get some Marvel money a few years ago but were denied. Despite the fact that "The Avengers" made billions of dollars and wouldn't even have existed without Jack Kirby.
I've always had the impression that Kirby's non-comics work - in Hollywood, working on storyboarding and animation - garnered him a HELL of a lot more money, allowing him to live well (not like Stan is apparently, but he sure wasn't scrapping by). Not to mention when DC had him design Super Powers and work the New Gods in - all basically a big plan by Levitz and other DC execs to make sure Kirby saw money off of the New Gods. He made more off that than any character he'd created ever.
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 9 hours ago
Ditko's remaining relatively meager from a financial standpoint is at least partially his own decision in recent decades. He could've gotten quite a bit of cash from the Spidey movies for example, but chose not to for whatever moral stance that he has. His extreme Objectivism has really colored the way he looks at the world since embracing those ideals.
With all that said, he did the bulk of plotting for Spider-man early on, and should be recognized as such. Though, I will say Stan and Romita did a lot to soften the character into what we know of as Peter Parker now. If you go back to those early issues of Amazing, a lot of the time Pete is an out and out douchebag
Post by Hit-Monkey on 7 hours ago
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
OH yeah, I'm not saying he should get full credit on everything, but at least partial credit. I'm fairly sure he has had at least a hand in most every character, and being THE GUY there, he deserves it.
Not really. There are so many of Marvel's popular characters that he had nothing to do with. Hell, the X-Men universe alone has Wolverine, Colossus, Storm, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Gambit, Cable, Bishop, Deadpool, none of which created by Stan. Then on the Spider-Man side you have the guy some would argue is his best villain, Venom, who was created by Todd McFarlane. Stan is also often credited with Captain America and Nick Fury, which is way off base by a couple of decades.
So yeah, Stan is definitely responsible for some of the all-time greats, but he's hardly responsible for ALL of them.
Post by grennel on 6 hours ago
Stan has admitted in interviews that he was so busy at times that his contribution to comic was a one page outline. He praises Kirby and Ditko, in most interviews I've read. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but to me Kirby always seemed a little bitter that Stan was the face of the company.
I honestly think that Stan's charisma stands out even more than his writing, I remember being a wee kid and watching Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends... man, back then I was so small I had no idea that these characters came from comic books, let alone who the hell Stan Lee really was. I just used to really enjoy hearing his voice narrate the show. Didn't know what he looked like even, but he was as big a part of my childhood as the superheroes on the screen.
In short I f***ing love Stan Lee.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/492743/deal-stan-lee?page=2
Post by double T on 2 hours ago
It wasn't until the mid 80s that Stan started giving Kirby more credit. And that was after in the fan press Stan had been called out for taking way more credit than he should. Ditko has never gotten the credit he deserves for helping create Marvel's best known hero. Part of it is that Ditko left early on in Spidey's run. And another part is that Ditko is a recluse.
Post by grennel on 2 hours ago
Yeah but he gave him plot credit as far back as 1965 (I had to Wiki the date, guilty as charged), I'm sure he knew he needed Ditko at that point because they proved a winning formula together. If Stan was ever the venomous egomaniac behind closed doors that myth suggests, I'm pretty sure bullshit pride would've shown Ditko the door and hired an even cheaper artist.
But hell, man, what do I know? All this took place behind closed doors and before the internet. For all I know Stan could've been part of some midget sacrificing cult. I just choose to believe he's one of the good guys in this world.
Post by Goldenbane on 11 hours ago
Sort of inspired by the "Give Bill Finger Credit for Batman" thread, I have a question about Stan Lee. In every interview and stuff I've seen of him, Stan comes off as a rather humble and pretty good guy. He seems to treat the fans exceptionally well and from what I've seen, he seems to give co-creation credit to guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. However there have been stories that some guys, like Jack Kirby, hated Stan Lee's guts...kind of accusing him of being a Hulk Hogan-like politician behind the scenes. Despite how bad everyone seems to hate Bob Kane, there's never been an insulting parody caricature of him like there has been of Stan (From what I understand, the goof character of "Funky Flashman" was created by Jack Kirby to insult Lee and point out all his flaws).
So what is it? Is Stan Lee secretly a giant douchebag behind his friendly fatherly/grandfather exterior? Was Jack Kirby just being a tremendous asshole or did he have a legitimate point? Is Stan "Marvel's version of Bob Kane?" How do you all feel about Stan the Man Lee?
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 10 hours ago
Stan's a complicated case, in that for DECADES, he didn't outright claim to have created anything like Kane did, but when reporters or other media covering him acted like he did, he was perfectly happy to go along with it.
He doesn't get the same vitriol that Kane does because he's like "Uncle Stan", and has been the face of comicdom to fans and those WELL outside of fandom for so long. In fact, I'd say that as much of his contribution to comics as anything he had ever written or co-created; being a carnival barker/cheerleader for comic books in general, and getting the artform out there to the masses.
Further, he had a hand in much more stuff than Kane did, and was at least more responsible for his collaborations than the latter. It's impossible to know exactly who all did what, and who was MOST responsible for say Spider-man or the Hulk, but the breakdown is probably something like 60-40 Kirby/Lee or Ditko/Lee or the like where it was a much more collaborative process.
He also doesn't get as much shit because he has been willing (in some cases a bit reluctantly) to say that "yes, these guys at least co-created all these things."
A really great look at Stan as a whole, warts and all is :http://www.amazon.com/Stan-Rise-Fall-American-Comic/dp/1556525419 It's a great biography that gives credit where its due, and takes him to task where it's needed.
In short, I guess he gets more of a pass as "Uncle Stan" because it is a more complicated it of collaboration than Kane/Finger, and really cuz Stan's persona (again probably his greatest creation) is so damned likable that he's not near the douchebag that Kane was.
Post by shaker on 10 hours ago
Nowadays, he's pretty much an old lovable grandpa type person.
In the 70s and 80s, when comics were becoming moneymakers, he was basically a huge jackass and effectively took money out of creator's pockets by taking credit for things. He was a sharp and ruthless businessman, first and foremost.
You're right on the Funky Flashman - he looks a lot like 70s era Stan Lee, his first appearance was trying to cash-in on Mr. Miracle, and he has a weird sidekick/butler Houseroy (Roy Thomas).
Post by Push Val Venis on 10 hours ago
For the record, I view Stan Lee as a cool Grandpa that might not have been 100% involved in every story he tells me but I believe he at least had his hand in there somewhere, no matter how minor. Perhaps he thought up everything... or perhaps all he did was say that the composition of the Thing's dork is a superhero secret.
Post by shaker on 10 hours ago
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
As far as I am concerned, and I might be way off base, Stan Lee invented every Marvel character. That, or someone he employed did, and by proxy that means Stan should get credit on everything anyway.
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
I think this is where a lot of the anger towards Lee comes from. He's presented himself as a creator for so long that, to the public, he really did create most of Marvel Comics himself.
Stan Lee is rich as hell, meanwhile workhorses and the really creative guys like Ditko and Kirby lived modest lives and see no money at all from their most famous creations. I know the Kirbys were suing to try and get some Marvel money a few years ago but were denied. Despite the fact that "The Avengers" made billions of dollars and wouldn't even have existed without Jack Kirby.
Post by Antitribu on 10 hours ago
Stan Lee is a hack as far as I'm concerned. He didn't create a damn thing, he'd give people a vague idea of what he wanted and tell them to create on his behalf, with minimal direct input. For example he'd tell his artists "I want a hero who swings from building to building with elastic rope" and the first guy to come up with something would be made lead artist for The Human Spider(tm).
Most of the time he didn't even WRITE the stories he was credited on as, he would look at the finished drawings and fill the empty space with dialogue boxes on the spot. (Hence all the awful ubiquitous narration in every Silver Age Marvel comic) They called it the Marvel method and it was pretty much the reason how they could produce so many monthly books compared to bigger publishers with better infrastructure in the first place.
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 10 hours ago
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
OH yeah, I'm not saying he should get full credit on everything, but at least partial credit. I'm fairly sure he has had at least a hand in most every character, and being THE GUY there, he deserves it.
I guess that's the issue though, how much he deserves it.
Take something like the Silver Surfer. Stan had virtually nothing to do with the Surfer's inception. He just gave Kirby a plot that the FF were going to "fight God" (and in fact pretty much all of his work with Jack and Stan was just him laying out a kernel of an idea, and the the artist would do the lion's share of the work, plotting and drawing the entire story, and in Jack's case he'd leave dialogue suggestions as well, and then Stan would come and fill in the word balloons). Well Jack had the idea to give "God"--Galactus of course, a herald, and just drew the Surfer there from his own imagination. There are lots of little things like that, to where Stan deserves SOME credit, no question there.. hell I love Stan and have a really complicated way of looking at him now that I know all this background, but if anyone was THE GUY, it was Jack.
Post by knapp on 9 hours ago
10 hours ago shaker said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
I think this is where a lot of the anger towards Lee comes from. He's presented himself as a creator for so long that, to the public, he really did create most of Marvel Comics himself.
Stan Lee is rich as hell, meanwhile workhorses and the really creative guys like Ditko and Kirby lived modest lives and see no money at all from their most famous creations. I know the Kirbys were suing to try and get some Marvel money a few years ago but were denied. Despite the fact that "The Avengers" made billions of dollars and wouldn't even have existed without Jack Kirby.
I've always had the impression that Kirby's non-comics work - in Hollywood, working on storyboarding and animation - garnered him a HELL of a lot more money, allowing him to live well (not like Stan is apparently, but he sure wasn't scrapping by). Not to mention when DC had him design Super Powers and work the New Gods in - all basically a big plan by Levitz and other DC execs to make sure Kirby saw money off of the New Gods. He made more off that than any character he'd created ever.
Post by Kevin Hamilton on 9 hours ago
Ditko's remaining relatively meager from a financial standpoint is at least partially his own decision in recent decades. He could've gotten quite a bit of cash from the Spidey movies for example, but chose not to for whatever moral stance that he has. His extreme Objectivism has really colored the way he looks at the world since embracing those ideals.
With all that said, he did the bulk of plotting for Spider-man early on, and should be recognized as such. Though, I will say Stan and Romita did a lot to soften the character into what we know of as Peter Parker now. If you go back to those early issues of Amazing, a lot of the time Pete is an out and out douchebag
Post by Hit-Monkey on 7 hours ago
10 hours ago Viking Snad said:
10 hours ago Kevin Hamilton said:
You're way off base. At best he was 50% responsible for any of the characters he and Jack or he and Steve worked on.
OH yeah, I'm not saying he should get full credit on everything, but at least partial credit. I'm fairly sure he has had at least a hand in most every character, and being THE GUY there, he deserves it.
Not really. There are so many of Marvel's popular characters that he had nothing to do with. Hell, the X-Men universe alone has Wolverine, Colossus, Storm, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Gambit, Cable, Bishop, Deadpool, none of which created by Stan. Then on the Spider-Man side you have the guy some would argue is his best villain, Venom, who was created by Todd McFarlane. Stan is also often credited with Captain America and Nick Fury, which is way off base by a couple of decades.
So yeah, Stan is definitely responsible for some of the all-time greats, but he's hardly responsible for ALL of them.
Post by grennel on 6 hours ago
Stan has admitted in interviews that he was so busy at times that his contribution to comic was a one page outline. He praises Kirby and Ditko, in most interviews I've read. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but to me Kirby always seemed a little bitter that Stan was the face of the company.
I honestly think that Stan's charisma stands out even more than his writing, I remember being a wee kid and watching Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends... man, back then I was so small I had no idea that these characters came from comic books, let alone who the hell Stan Lee really was. I just used to really enjoy hearing his voice narrate the show. Didn't know what he looked like even, but he was as big a part of my childhood as the superheroes on the screen.
In short I f***ing love Stan Lee.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/492743/deal-stan-lee?page=2
Post by double T on 2 hours ago
It wasn't until the mid 80s that Stan started giving Kirby more credit. And that was after in the fan press Stan had been called out for taking way more credit than he should. Ditko has never gotten the credit he deserves for helping create Marvel's best known hero. Part of it is that Ditko left early on in Spidey's run. And another part is that Ditko is a recluse.
Post by grennel on 2 hours ago
Yeah but he gave him plot credit as far back as 1965 (I had to Wiki the date, guilty as charged), I'm sure he knew he needed Ditko at that point because they proved a winning formula together. If Stan was ever the venomous egomaniac behind closed doors that myth suggests, I'm pretty sure bullshit pride would've shown Ditko the door and hired an even cheaper artist.
But hell, man, what do I know? All this took place behind closed doors and before the internet. For all I know Stan could've been part of some midget sacrificing cult. I just choose to believe he's one of the good guys in this world.
avenge...@gmail.com
Nov 6, 2014, 4:56:04 PM11/6/14
to
tmc...@gmail.com
Nov 10, 2014, 1:49:36 AM11/10/14
to
0 new messages