Stan Lee: Fact, Debate and Opinions! ! !

[runawayboulder]

I never hear Stan bash the guys he worked with. Kirby is long dead and I never hear anything out of Ditko. If they were at each others throats, we'd hear about it....especially in this day and age where the internet is used for airing dirty laundry and grievances ALL THE TIME.

Anybody in the industry that has negative opinions about these guys should just keep it to themselves. It's like they're trying to stir up a s**t storm or something. Alan Moore is the last person in comics that should be talking about anybody, he's come across as a miserable p***k more often than not.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

You don't hear anything out of Ditko because he is disgruntled over lack of credit. That is why he won't do interviews. For info on the Kirby side of things, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17eeZPl_Pgo&list=PL94BBD69A4E0842C4

 

[Themanofbat]

I love this pic... it's so "tongue & cheeky"... lol

The reality is that Stan is part creator & part opportunistic... at the end of the day, I see Stan's name as the writer to a LOT of books I've loved since I was a kid, so he garners my respect, but I also understand that some of those stories were plotted by the artists, as well as some of the characters were people created by the artists... but I love those guys as much as I love Stan, and they garner my respect for their accomplishments...

BUT in regards to who should get credit, that's not for me to decide... I don't believe he did it all himself...

But does it really matter... not to me...

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I love this pic... it's so "tongue & cheeky"... lol

The reality is that Stan is part creator & part opportunistic... at the end of the day, I see Stan's name as the writer to a LOT of books I've loved since I was a kid, so he garners my respect, but I also understand that some of those stories were plotted by the artists, as well as some of the characters were people created by the artists... but I love those guys as much as I love Stan, and they garner my respect for their accomplishments...

BUT in regards to who should get credit, that's not for me to decide... I don't believe he did it all himself...

But does it really matter... not to me...

My brother might agree with you in that idea that it doesn't matter. In my mind though because Jack was so hurt by Marvel or Stan or Goodman or whoever, it does matter. In 1993, he tried to get his art back from Marvel because he wanted to sell them to leave an inheritance for his family. Marvel never gave him the art back (now that is not Stan's fault, probably).

It's just injustice and it matters. The Seigel/Shuster debacle with WB and DC is a lot different because they got a lot of money and are now credited with the creation of the comics industry.


As far as Ditko goes, I know he's angry, but I wish he would give an interview!

 

[Themanofbat]

My brother might agree with you in that idea that it doesn't matter. In my mind though because Jack was so hurt by Marvel or Stan or Goodman or whoever, it does matter. In 1993, he tried to get his art back from Marvel because he wanted to sell them to leave an inheritance for his family. Marvel never gave him the art back (now that is not Stan's fault, probably).

It doesn't matter in regards to Stan Lee... which is what this thread is about.

If we were talking in regards to Marvel, then it's a different issue... Stan had nothing to do with Marvel by 1993, and in fact, Stan has also been in litigation with Marvel as well... which just goes to show that the company, "Marvel", is all about making money and does not give a damn about who does what when it comes to making comics... but that has nothing to do with Stan.

It's just injustice and it matters. The Seigel/Shuster debacle with WB and DC is a lot different because they got a lot of money and are now credited with the creation of the comics industry.

It's only an injustice because some of these characters are worth 'billions today... I'm not sure of exactly who got paid what, but I believe all the creators involved were paid for their work within the "company"... so if they got paid, how is that an injustice?

The unfortunate reality is that most of these people were pioneers and were entering uncharted waters in regards to their "creations"... should the "companies" give them some form of compensation for their creations? Of course. But that has nothing to do with Stan.

As far as Ditko goes, I know he's angry, but I wish he would give an interview!

Ditko has shown more negative emotions in regards to Spider-Man in recent times moreso than he has ever done in the prior 20... I'm not sure if he's mad over "lack of credit", but like I said, he has certainly been more vocal about his involvement with Spider-Man's creation than Stan... Stan had the name, Ditko came up with costume and web-shooters, etc... but in the end, I'm not going to debate "Stan had 10% credit and Ditko gets 90% credit"... when I watch the movies, I see "Spider-Man created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko", and I'm fine with that...

Most of the injustices that you want to discuss have more to do with Marvel & DC, or the "company", as opposed to Stan Lee himself... which again, is whom this thread is about.

 

[runawayboulder]

You don't hear anything out of Ditko because he is disgruntled over lack of credit. That is why he won't do interviews. For info on the Kirby side of things, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17eeZPl_Pgo&list=PL94BBD69A4E0842C4

You know, for someone that started this thread under the guise of stirring up a discussion, you seem to have an Anti-Stan agenda.

If Ditko is disgruntled and doesn't go out there and voice his opinion on Stan, then who in the hell is anybody to think they should do it for him? Let that guy fight his own battles.

And I could care less about what anybody has to say in a 20 minute documentary about a dead guy. He's a DEAD GUY, why should we spur to action because other people are telling you what a long deceased guy supposedly felt about his old co-worker? Why are we even listening to those people? He's gone, let the dead rest in peace.

I swear, people just LOVE to pick up signs and protest or have little crusades over things that don't concern us directly. If these guys don't like each other, then let them figure it out with each other. It's not like any of them are living in squalor. They've all had nice, comfortable lives because of their work.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Anti-Stan agenda? i don't know... that may be partially true as I'm not quite sure where i stand on Mr. Lee! it's not necessarily that I don't like him! part of me loves Stan for what he has given both me and the world at large, but the other part of me wonders why Stan gets so much respect and love which is certainly a lot more than a lot of other watershed creators seem to get! Bob Kane gets virtually no love for the idea of Batman (and is even hated) and Jerry and Joe are looked at as little more than "those guys who created Superman". With Stan Lee, it's "the wonderful Stan Lee who is the father of Marvel and oh he created the ________ character and isn't he just so wonderful". So, on the one hand, I love Lee for his creations and ideas and on the other hand, I see him as a thieving person. How much money, wealth and assets etc does Stan have ($250,000,000) that belongs to other people, (not just Jack and Steve Ditko) ie Roy Thomas, Wally Wood, Everett, Steve Skeates etc. All I'm wondering is why the people that praise Stan aren't smart enough to give equal credit to the other creators?

 

[venom892]

The OP fails to mention that in the book he's referencing by Sean Howe, mentions that in the 60's Martin Goodman had final say on pretty much everything and by the 80's Stan was out in Hollywood working on TV and movie projects. Also Stan was devastated in the 50's when he basically was left to fire his entire staff by Goodman. As far as I could tell, Stan always talked about the "Marvel" method of creating comics, which included him giving a short summary to an artist,the artist drawing the entire 22 pages and Stan filling in the dialogue. Is Stan completely innocent? No, no one ever is, but he isn't a devil that's for sure.

 

[Spider - Man]

In 1974 I bought Origins of Marvel Comics at age 8 and from then on I didn't want to be Spider-Man or The Hulk or Iron Man...I wanted to be Stan Lee! I got a group of 8-10 guys together from my class, got them drawing comics for me. I'd pay them 50 cents for each 7 page issue they'd give me, put the Club Comics Group Logo on the cover and tack my name at the top of the first page followed by 'presents' and the name of the hero, mimeograph it for free in the school office (that awful purple ink!), and sell each issue for a nickel. I cleaned up! This lasted for my 4th and 5th grade years! It was awesome. Stan Lee is probably the single biggest influence in my life and I finally got to meet him personally last year. We chatted, made pics and videos, he signed a ton of my stuff and was just an all-around great guy. Now, obviously he's a huckster but that is exactly what Marvel needed at that time. When he spoke, he gave all credit to Jack and Steve as well as Johnny, Gil, Gene and a dozen others. I don't even think it is debatable that he is the only person without which the Marvel Age would not have happened and it is debatable whether or not comics as we know them would even exist without him. Neither Kirby nor Ditko had nearly the success without Stan as they had WITH him. Stan however had great success with Kirby independent of Ditko and vice versa as well as great success with Romita, Kane, Colan, Everett. Lee was the Man who kept a consistent unified continuity running thru all the Marvel titles something that is sorely lacking today. Yes, he was an egoist, yes, he blew his own horn. But he probably did the work of 3-4 people and shaped an empire. Kirby and Ditko and the others may have been his commanding officers but Lee was the General and all you have to do is look at the difference between the comics Marvel put out during that time and the comics that DC put out at that time to see what Stan brought to the table. Stan is the Muhammad Ali of comic books, he is simply the GOAT. A living legend. If you want to know who really got screwed, look at how Marvel and their BOD have treated Stan, the man who they all owe the existence of their jobs to. As to the references from the Sean Howe book, I am on my 3rd read-thru. Martin Goodman would tell Stan to fire the staff and then go off on vacation. Stan said it was the worst thing he ever had to do. He took no pleasure in it. I think that the people who want to trash Stan for not giving credit to the artists do not, themselves, give Stan his due for HIS part, probably the only absolutely vital part, in creating the Marvel Universe and the MArvel Age of Comics. In other words, take away any other single person and it still would have succeeded on some level. Even without Kirby, there were others to fill the hole, perhaps not to as great a degree of success but remove Stan from the equation and this website wouldn't even exist.

 

[BLACKVULCAN]

Well I dig Stan! I always will! I think he is awesome,but just like everybody on this mudball floating in space. He's just A MAN!Is he some benevolent comic empire impresario,Who Single handily founded MARVEL comics all by himself? No. Did he look out for everybody and made sure they were due the credit they deserved?Probably not. Stan was part of a sum of a great team ,who helped create something so many of us enjoy and just like the characters he wrote about. He was full of his share of flaws( which I'm sure where alot of his inspiration came from!)overall i think the guy has a genuine love and exuberance for what he helped to produce( there are plenty of people in this world who could care less about what they put out to people) and tried his best to do what was right. even if sometimes he failed. I will never ever think that dude went in to this with " okay! How can i screw these people over!!!" and for that and for not talking to me in the comics he wrote like i was a Neanderthal!( there are freaking people with college degrees who dont know what a "cretin" is!) and for teaching me that Hey! just cause some dude has blue fur, you should treat him like you want to be treated! I give that guy MAD RESPECT AND PROPS!!!

just my 2 cents! i had to use the rest for the bus ride over here!

 

[Themanofbat]

Lee gives credit to Ditko and Kirby... are you suggesting that he should give away his money? Stan doesn't get royalties from his creations (movies & toys), he would be worth a LOT more... Stan's worth is what he's worked for, and he's always acknowledged the efforts of his co-creators...

Check it out...

http://www.comicmix.com/news/2012/06/13/blame-it-on-stan-lee/

If you want to speak of injustices, then blame it on fat execs at Marvel and DC...

 

[C. Lee]

Anti-Stan agenda? i don't know... that may be partially true as I'm not quite sure where i stand on Mr. Lee! it's not necessarily that I don't like him! part of me loves Stan for what he has given both me and the world at large, but the other part of me wonders why Stan gets so much respect and love which is certainly a lot more than a lot of other watershed creators seem to get! Bob Kane gets virtually no love for the idea of Batman (and is even hated) and Jerry and Joe are looked at as little more than "those guys who created Superman". With Stan Lee, it's "the wonderful Stan Lee who is the father of Marvel and oh he created the ________ character and isn't he just so wonderful". So, on the one hand, I love Lee for his creations and ideas and on the other hand, I see him as a thieving person. How much money, wealth and assets etc does Stan have ($250,000,000) that belongs to other people, (not just Jack and Steve Ditko) ie Roy Thomas, Wally Wood, Everett, Steve Skeates etc. All I'm wondering is why the people that praise Stan aren't smart enough to give equal credit to the other creators?

Like I and others have said.....Stan was the "figurehead" of Marvel....not the actual guy in total and final charge of policies...but the guy with hands on work in creating the characters and promoting them. A lot of other creators (Kirby, Ditko, etc) were not into self promotion and or promotion at all. They felt their work said all that needed to be said...and so are not as well known or loved. It's like what was shown in a documentary I saw....Stan related a time in the 70's when some big news story was going to write about them, they interviewed Stan and Jack.....and then wrote mostly about Stan. Stan said that Jack was hurt by this and got angry with Stan. Now...did Stan somehow make them omit most of Jack's stuff....or was Stan just more interesting and the better story? I love them both.....but from everything I have read about them over my 50+ years of reading comics....I can see where a reporter would concentrate more on Stan than Jack.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Valid points. I don't think anyone here has denied Stan credit. Some people just feel he could have gotten less and more could go to other creators. I love the original FF and X-men stories and Lee/Ditko's Spider-man was a Spider-man comic book that has yet to be matched, though Conway came close!

 

[Themanofbat]

Valid points. I don't think anyone here has denied Stan credit. Some people just feel he could have gotten less and more could go to other creators. I love the original FF and X-men stories and Lee/Ditko's Spider-man was a Spider-man comic book that has yet to be matched, though Conway came close!

Why not have it that Stan gets his share, and the other get the same?
Why does Stan have to get less?

Again, Stan's net worth is not just based on moneys from his Marvel creations, and he also doesn't get paid any royalties for his co-creations (movies, toys, etc...) so what "these people feel" sounds more like sour grapes than anything else.

 

[runawayboulder]

The OP fails to mention that in the book he's referencing by Sean Howe, mentions that in the 60's Martin Goodman had final say on pretty much everything and by the 80's Stan was out in Hollywood working on TV and movie projects.

THERE.

That explains a lot of why Stan gets most of the attention. In the 80's he was still with Marvel while Kirby was at DC and Ditko was bouncing around freelancing. Stan never left the Marvel stable as was their longest running EiC. He went out to the west coast to branch out the Marvel brand in movies and TV. So he got all of the press out there and rightly so, he was there. If it was one of the other guys in LA, they would have got all of the attention....but it wasn't. Stan was there, so that's how things played out.

I mean, writers are going to get more of the focus than an artist anyway. A perfect example is The Walking Dead. You see Robert Kirkman in interviews and on The Talking Dead more than you do Tony Moore. It's just how it is.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Why not have it that Stan gets his share, and the other get the same?
Why does Stan have to get less?

Again, Stan's net worth is not just based on moneys from his Marvel creations, and he also doesn't get paid any royalties for his co-creations (movies, toys, etc...) so what "these people feel" sounds more like sour grapes than anything else.

He doesn't have to get less (that was what I meant to say was "Stan gets his share, and the other get the same") but the fact remains Stan has a net worth of $250,000,000 and in 1993 he was still a millionaire and Kirby had to attempt to buy his art to give his family an inheritance). So who got their fair share? For the majority of the 80's, Stan owned multiple homes and Ditko was in fact living in shall we say dire circumstances. Again, I love Stan for what he helped to give the world... My ultimate point being that somehow whether it be Stan, Goodman, the people who owned Marvel or otherwise... Ditko (and Kirby when he died) is not as wealthy as Stan because somewhere somebody decided Stan gets movie cameos, Stan gets to do voiceovers, Stan gets to be head etc. Talk about fair treatment!

 

[runawayboulder]

If you feel that Kirby or Ditko were wronged, then you are misplacing blame. This isn't really Stan Lee's fault. Marvel execs wronged these guys. Stan is not an exec. He has no power. He hasn't had any power in the past 30 years.

Could he have done more to stand up for them considering the comfy position he was in? Sure. But that doesn't make him a bad person because he didn't do more. It's a dog eat dog world we live in and the entertainment industry is a cutthroat one.

 

[C. Lee]

He doesn't have to get less (that was what I meant to say was "Stan gets his share, and the other get the same") but the fact remains Stan has a net worth of $250,000,000 and in 1993 he was still a millionaire and Kirby had to attempt to buy his art to give his family an inheritance). So who got their fair share? For the majority of the 80's, Stan owned multiple homes and Ditko was in fact living in shall we say dire circumstances. Again, I love Stan for what he helped to give the world... My ultimate point being that somehow whether it be Stan, Goodman, the people who owned Marvel or otherwise... Ditko (and Kirby when he died) is not as wealthy as Stan because somewhere somebody decided Stan gets movie cameos, Stan gets to do voiceovers, Stan gets to be head etc. Talk about fair treatment!

Now you are really getting into sour grapes territory for yourself.

When Stan and Jack first staring working together...Jack was an artist and Stan cleaned up the office and ran errands for him. Move ahead 20 years later, and Jack is still an artist and Stan is editor/writer of the books. Who's fault is it that one has money and one doesn't? I know of many situation where two people start out the basiclly the same....but because of how they handle life one is better off in the future than the other. That doesn't mean one screwed over the other....it means one maybe had better business sense, or handled hardships better, or just invested money better. Saying that Stan worked with guys who wound up with less than him in no way means he caused them to have less....

 

[Themanofbat]

He doesn't have to get less (that was what I meant to say was "Stan gets his share, and the other get the same") but the fact remains Stan has a net worth of $250,000,000 and in 1993 he was still a millionaire and Kirby had to attempt to buy his art to give his family an inheritance). So who got their fair share? For the majority of the 80's, Stan owned multiple homes and Ditko was in fact living in shall we say dire circumstances. Again, I love Stan for what he helped to give the world... My ultimate point being that somehow whether it be Stan, Goodman, the people who owned Marvel or otherwise... Ditko (and Kirby when he died) is not as wealthy as Stan because somewhere somebody decided Stan gets movie cameos, Stan gets to do voiceovers, Stan gets to be head etc. Talk about fair treatment!

Now you're just sounding petty...

You think that Ditko doesn't get opportunities to do stuff?
Do you really believe that SONY would NOT want Steve Ditko for a cameo role in a Spider-Man movie? Someone would JUMP all over that PR moment...

Steve Ditko doesn't get the same treatment as Stan does because Steve Ditko wants no part in it.

And again... looking at YOUR words... "because somewhere somebody decided Stan gets..."

So why not get mad at whoever this "somebody" is, and leave Stan alone.

Stan is no saint, but he has given credit where credit is due for over 40+ years.

It's not Stan's job to pay these people.

 

[runawayboulder]

What are the chances that Comics N' Toons is one of Kirby's grand-kids that just tried to unsuccessfully sue Marvel?

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Now you're just sounding petty...

You think that Ditko doesn't get opportunities to do stuff?
Do you really believe that SONY would NOT want Steve Ditko fvor a cameo role in a Spider-Man movie? Someone would JUMP all over that PR moment...

Steve Ditko doesn't get the same treatment as Stan does because Steve Ditko wants no part in it.

And again... looking at YOUR words... "because somewhere somebody decided Stan gets..."

So why not get mad at whoever this "somebody" is, and leave Stan alone.

Stan is no saint, but he has given credit where credit is due for over 40+ years.

It's not Stan's job to pay these people.

That's just it... Stan isn't at fault for his wealth, he earned it. But so did Jack who never got it and Ditko who is very wealthy presently (I believe his wealth is now over $1,000,000), but has gotten no royalties from anything Marvel related. To say he wants no part of it is a lie because he happily takes royalty checks from DC/Warner for everything related to his DC work. Again, Ditko is just bitter and has nothing to do with the MARVEL company because of Stan. Ditko was interviewed in private by Neil Gaiman and Jonathon Ross and threatened to sue if they leaked a word of it.

As far as giving credit where credit is due for over 40+ years, if Stan had done that, this thread would be all about what a genius Mr. Lee is (which part of this thread has said that and yeah, it's very true!) . Unfortunately, that statement is false.

As far as his contributions go, my favorites are the FF! Stan will forever be worthy of our admiration as fans for those characters!

 

[Comics N' Toons]

What are the chances that Comics N' Toons is one of Kirby's grand-kids that just tried to unsuccessfully sue Marvel?

If I had the honor of being one of Kirby's grand kids, I would be ecstatic! Fortunately, I'm smart enough to know that entering into a legal battle with a conglomerate without a case is dumb!

 

[runawayboulder]

For the majority of the 80's, Stan owned multiple homes and Ditko was in fact living in shall we say dire circumstances. Again,

That's just it... Stan isn't at fault for his wealth, he earned it. But so did Jack who never got it and Ditko who is very wealthy presently (I believe his wealth is now over $1,000,000), but has gotten no royalties from anything Marvel related.

You're totally contradicting yourself now. I have no clue where you stand on this and you're flip-flopping all over the place.

This thread is starting to make my head hurt.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

why? its simple... a few decades ago, Ditko was in poverty. Now he's a millionaire-lite. Who knows why? Commissions? Royalties from all those DC trade paperbacks of his characters? I'm not contradicting myself. Your head hurts and I'm starting to feel very opinionated like John Byrne or something! The fact is, you can disagree with me all you want to. I have not broken any forum rules or flamed anyone. This thread is not about the injustices for Kirby or Ditko. It's about Stan Lee and I apologize if our ongoing dialogue has made it otherwise!

 

[Themanofbat]

That's just it... Stan isn't at fault for his wealth, he earned it. But so did Jack who never got it and Ditko who is very wealthy presently (I believe his wealth is now over $1,000,000), but has gotten no royalties from anything Marvel related.

So if Stan earned his worth, why is it Stan's fault if Jack didn't get paid what he earned as well?

Again... blame Marvel Comics Inc... it's like you're bitter than Stan is financially successful despite the fact that he earned his worth.

And as far as royalties go... even Stan never got paid for royalties until recent times (2005) when he had to sue Marvel for his creations... I think he got a one-time settlement of $10 million dollars (which is less than 5% of his net worth).

And Stan had to sue to get his money...

why? its simple... a few decades ago, Ditko was in poverty. Now he's a millionaire-lite. Who knows why? Commissions? Royalties from all those DC trade paperbacks of his characters? I'm not contradicting myself. Your head hurts and I'm starting to feel very opinionated like John Byrne or something! The fact is, you can disagree with me all you want to. I have not broken any forum rules or flamed anyone. This thread is not about the injustices for Kirby or Ditko. It's about Stan Lee and I apologize if our ongoing dialogue has made it otherwise!

DC is just as bad as Marvel is when it comes to not paying their talent.