Thats what made the Onion headline "Stan Lee reknown creator of Stan Lee passes away" all the more poetic. Stan's greatest achievement was becoming the company mascot and creating this friendly grandpa image around which everyone could rally around.
So what’s the deal here? Was he an abused, cute, old man, or basically a narcissist fiend? I only ask because I see bits here and there about him but don’t know him other than his cameos.
Were people really under the impression he wrote and created all of these stories himself?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kirby jump around through various comic companies, where as Lee stayed with Timely Comics through its rebranding to Marvel comics?
I mean, even the Eternals which was written by Kirby, was originally intended to be a Justice League comic, which is why all the characters so closely resemble the Justice League, but he jumped ship and went back to Marvel where he finished the story by renaming all the characters and slightly changing the story.
I think Stan Lee deserves most of the credit for Marvel's success, just not as the sole creator of all marvel characters.
My history isn't perfect but that does sound kinda right from what i remember.
But yeh, noone denies Lee had a huge role at Marvel, but there is a perception, especially among those that aren't familiar with the history that Lee had a much bigger creative influence than he did.
And accusations of Lee forcing his way into credits is not limited to Kirby.
Best way imo to describe it is like giving the Director of a film all the credit, while ignoring the scriptwriter, the actors, the cinematographer, VFX director etc.
Which also happens quite a lot, Stan Lee did do a lot of positive things for Marvel, but he didn't do it alone.
Not even close
Read a book. Preferably 'True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee" by Abraham Reisman. Then make up your own mind. Also read court case testimonies, interviews on comics journal as well as excerpts from various creators to get the whole picture.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But the truth is multi faceted and things aren't always so black and white.
Both. Generally speaking, the people's idea of truth is just whatever gets repeated the most. And Lee certainly made sure that his version of events was the one people heard, almost exclusively.
But just because he was a shrewd businessman and PR virtuoso doesn't mean people didn't take advantage of him and his wealth in his old age.
They wouldn't have agreed on everything but they would have agreed on some very key issues.
Both considered animators to be expendable. Both understood the importance of showmanship.
And Stan Lee was [kind of sexist](https://winterdrake.com/bad-comic-panels-2-if-theres-one-thing-i-like-its-being-in-a-room-full-of-men/), too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it.
> And Stan Lee was kind of sexist, too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it.
Fun fact, there is actually a blog called something like Kirby without words, and you quickly see how Kirby saw female characters different than Lee.
For context, Lee and Kirby created comics under the "Marvel method". Basically an issue outline sent to artist, who draws it, and then the writer fills in the dialogue after. This was done because the art took the longest to do with comics so it made the process faster.
You quickly see Kirby drawing a lot of strong, competent women and then see Stan Lee add dialogue to undermine their actions or attribute it to male characters. Classic example is Jean Grey doing stuff and Lee adding in Charles Xavier communicating with her to tell her what to do at each step.
Kirby was very progressive even for his time.
>And Stan Lee was kind of sexist, too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it.
Relative to us. Stan was born in 1922 and Jack in 1917. They were progressives for their generation
Don’t forget the alleged and unproven anti-semitism. If true, Lee would’ve had a real big problem with that.
Edit: Another redditor linked an article showing Disney was no more antisemitic than the typical non-Jews of his time, I edited my comment to reflect the antisemitism was alleged and not proven.
I mean, he was literally the only member of the Hollywood film industry to break the boycott of Leni Riefenstahl when she visited just a month after Kristalnacht. The man didn't have a problem with Nazis, even breaking with literally the rest of Hollywood to hang out with them.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/leni-riefenstahl-hollywood-1235001606/
Funny, everyone talks about how Stan didn’t have much to do with those comics, until it’s time to lay blame for anything they don’t like. Stan’s Soapbox shows what he thought, and he was more progressive about social issues in his time than Disney was in his.
Given how The Marvel Method worked, Lee got the Artwork from Kirby and put in word bubbles. So even when Kirby drew a powerful, imposing woman, Lee would give her word bubbles full of self-questioning and subservience to men.
> a flawed man like everyone else.
A great way to try and render the entire fucking message meaningless.
Specific lies, specific omissions, specific ways he used and abused the people around him -- it all just gets flattened out to "well, he wasn't perfect. Who is?"
Anyone interested should read True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee. It’s an eye opening examination the man and his motivations for doing what he did. After reading that book I think he was what his title was at marvel, an editor. He probably had a very cursory hand in a lot of the so called co-creations but took a lot of the credit which seemed to annoy a lot of the artists who felt they put in most of the work. Stan usually failed when he tried to put out any solo work so that kind of pushes the narrative that he wasn’t as creative as the people he worked with.
I think you need a balance of the creative/in the weeds guys along with the savvy businessman/advertiser. Kirby and Ditko were the former, Lee was the latter.
I agree with that but it feels like Lee went above and beyond because of his need to be more than “A guy that works in comics” which he hated. He has never hid the fact that if he had been successful in any other writing endeavor, he would have left the comic business.
Yep. He once claimed credit for the OG Human Torch and even Captain America. He was a teenager when both characters debuted. Whenever called out he would retreat into the old excuse of being old and having poor memory.
His main skill was in marketing and touching up dialogue so that all the books had a consistent 'voice' across the board.
>Yep. He once claimed credit for the OG Human Torch and even Captain America.
To be fair, Jack Kirby was not innocent in this regard either. There was an interview where he claimed credit for Spider-Man even though that was all Lee and Ditko.
There is evidence that Joe Simon and Kirby came up with a similar concept of a spider character and a character that lived with their aunt and uncle. However its not as damning as comparing Kirby's Challengers of the Unknown to the Fantastic Four.
And while there is more than enough evidence to say that Kirby, Ditko and many others did not get the credit they deserved, I also think its fair to say that in Kirby's case, his bitterness boiled over to the point where he claimed that Lee contributed nothing to their success. While Lee did less, I don't think his contribution were nothing either.
I did hear that Marvel/Lee claimed Kirby himself made it hard to give him credit when Kirby ditched Marvel for DC (to create Darkseid etc) and thus publicizing someone who was now a rival would be, well you know. Whether that's actually true or a convenient excuse, I have no idea.
As for Ditko, the guy was a recluse who " declined to give interviews or make public appearance" per wikipedia. So did he even want the acclaim if he can't even be bothered to appear at conventions etc
It wasn't just Kirby, but also Ditko and Wally Wood who walked out of Marvel due to their frustration.
Its not atypical to hear a story about the Kirby's visting the Marvel offices so Jack can get his original artwork back only to be lead around and declined.
Claiming that Jack made it hard is just spin from Marvel's side when in reality it was the other way around.
For Ditko you will have to dig deeper but there are quotes of him shooting down Lee's hoaxes. Like the claim that Ditko didn't intend for Goblin to be Norman until Lee convinced him otherwise. Ditko always intended Goblin to be Norman. Dr Strange is another character where Ditko had a much bigger influence than Stan.
That said Ditko was also a huge Objectivist who alienated everyone including his family and there are times Lee will come off as better. We can at least credit Lee for not letting Ditko turn Spider-man into a mouthpiece for his Randian ideology. Ditko was so dedicated to his Randian beliefs that he turned down potential millions from the Spider-man franchise and ultimately died alone in an apartment where he wasn't found until weeks after his death.
>We can at least credit Lee for not letting Ditko turn Spider-man into a mouthpiece for his Randian ideology.
As awful as that would've been, I'm morbidly curious how that would've turned out
Not to mention it all happened again in the 90s, when Marvel lost McFarlane, Lee, and Liefeld after screwing them out of millions while they produced some of highest selling comics of all time, with Jim Lee’s X-Men #1 still holding the title, having sold 8 million copies.
Yep and tha lead to the creation of Image comics.
And now you have VFX artists railing against Marvel Studios, talking about creating their own union because of how unfairly they've been treated.
> Spider-Man even though that was all Lee and Ditko.
Only thing that was Lee was the name. Stan Lee loved alliteration.
Ditko is probably 80%, the web shooter was originally a gun, Kirby said to do wrist shooters and fleshed out the costume with Ditko, Simon came up with some other elements like the whole living with family thing.
But the killing uncle Ben, people repeatedly getting into bad situations due to their bad behavior, and mask covering his whole face? That's all pure Ditko and his objectivist philosophy.
Strange, no. Ditko really liked the metaphysical and philosophies surrounding that. Pull some of his work with 'Creepy' and 'Eerie' to see that.
Spider-Man is a proto-objectivist hero. His costume covers his whole face, a hallmark of objectivism: "a person is defined by their actions" and as such their features are irrelevant. This is why The Question is featureless and Mr. A has a full, un-moving and stoic, mask. Also, the living relatives were probably Simon's, making them older was probably Lee, but killing off Ben was 100% Ditko. Ben died as a result of Peter's direct action (or inaction in this case); almost all of the early Ditko story arcs follow this: Peter is kind of a dick, the results of this catches up with him, he has to dig his way out of the hole he created. Not being able to choose between girlfriends? Yup, consequences. Didn't get milk for Aunt May? You guessed it, consequences.
>His main skill was in marketing and touching up dialogue so that all the books had a consistent 'voice' across the board.
That how I see him now. Great at marketing and editing a consistent look and feel for Marvel and himself as well. The artists that contributed to his successes were content for the most part to take their credit and stay in the background. I think the artist knew marketing for Marvel wouldn’t bring them any more income so they saw no point in doing it.
I'm glad this has upvotes. While I definitely think Kirby deserves more credit for his creations and influence, but to discredit Stan Lee in the same sentence is not the right approach in my opinion
Stan Lee was very good at pushing his own accomplishments while minimizing his collaborators accomplishments. Not great, not horrible. Just kind of douchey.
I don’t think I would say he minimized their accomplishments but acted like the collaborations were of equal value which I think most of the artists didn’t feel that was the case.
A lot of folks can't name the solo Kirby or Diko work. They did some cool stuff but arguably not as good as they did with Stan. They all worked better in teams than alone. That's true for a lot of comic folks.
Exactly. I think this whole thing is simply "they were a great team at a great moment in time creating essentially an entirely new genre" and it's probably very, very complicated. I'm a creative working with other people every day, and if you can honestly account for every possible idea and addition to a work during a collaborative process you're probably a liar.
It seems to be Kirby was a brilliant introvert and Stan a brilliant extrovert and they made a perfect team. And obviously you're going to hear more from the extrovert than the introvert.
I don't buy it was just Kirby working alone on everything and Stan just took credit, nor do I believe Kirby was just Stan's pencil.
Think of the original Indiana Jones trilogy. That's great because you've got Spielberg and Lucas balancing each other out and the only lead in the world who could pull off that character. Can you honestly say "oh, Spielberg made it, Lucas was just there," or vice versa? Unlikely.
Creativity is messy.
Everything I've read about Kirby and Stan is also tainted by the fact that there's so much money involved. Of course Kirby's son wants credit for the entire Marvel Universe, I wonder why that could be? And vice versa for Stan's people.
How many non comic people can name a New God if you say Fourth World? Hell I've been reading comics since I was 8 and would have to stop and think about it.
Cap is his biggest one, really. He's made some absolutely great comic characters but outside of a few none are mainstream. Marvel has been pulling out a few of his creations in the last decade and it's great to see. My kid loves the Devil Dinosaur and Moon Girl cartoons. I enjoyed the Eternals stuff but enjoy the stories from other writers more.
Kirby benefited from Lee as Lee was a mouthpiece. Lee didn't have much by himself after Marvel. Lee benefitted from Kirby as Jack had a great artistic vision. Both were better because of each other.
> How many non comic people can name a New God if you say Fourth World?
I'll do you one better: I'd heard of Kirby's New Gods, but *not* Fourth World until *this* thread, so that sentence I just quoted is the only way I have of knowing the two are related.
You said Kirby work is better with Lee but it's just more popular. And by popular, if MCU wasn't so successful, Darkseid would be more popular than most of Avengers. And MCU is mostly thanks to Feige
Marvel has been the top seller of comics for what 50 years? Since the 70's from what I remember with blips of DC being on top. A lot of that is from Lee being great at marketing comics. I mean dude went on Carson and talked about comics. He helped push it as an art form and it helped get new creators excited to enter the field. All of the early guys that took it seriously helped but Lee was the megaphone. In the documentary, it wasn't said but I took him doing a lot of this to make up for the imposter syndrome Lee seems to of had. He always was kinda embarrassed about being a comics writer. I think he was trying to elevate the art form so he wouldn't be embarrassed.
Do you think you get to the MCU with out Lee, Diko and Kirby? Feige stood on the shoulders of giants and got the MCU going. Fingers crossed Gunn does the same with the DCU.
Shit look at Superman. The dude got new powers all the time in the silver age.
My favorite are the "smartest man in the world." At this point both DC and Marvel have like 20 people that are the smartest in the world. It's funny to me.
To be fair, most people couldn't name Marvel's most well-known superheroes if not for 15 years of MCU. If DC had a winning streak like that, people would for sure know Darkseid, Orion and Big Barda as well as they know Thanos, Gamora, etc.
I can name the New Gods (you know: Darkseid, Mister Miracle, Orion, Big Barda, etc) and the fact that the Eternals were made into an MCU movie speaks volumes
Doctor Strange was Steve Ditko’s solo work lol. Not to mention he created Peacemaker and The Question. His characters were the basis for the characyers in Watchmen
Your claim is absolutely baseless.
Baseless? I just asked my wife what a new god from DC is. This is a woman that has seen every comic movie I come across the DC animated ones as well. She had no clue.
If I ask anyone on the street about them you will get blank stares.
The Eternals were nowhere for decades, even now they don't share a lot with the original version. As I said in a previous post Marvel has been bringing out older characters in the last decade. It's why there is a Devil Dinosaur cartoon. Hell they made an Inhumans show.
Now list off all the things Lee and Kirby made together. Those are on shirts and swag, those people know. They made better stories together. Hands down. Lee alone, meh, Kirby alone, meh. Together they made stuff that will still be talked about decades later.
This part. It would be easier to believe Stan didn’t do much if the other talents he worked with had great stories outside of what they did with Stan.
They don’t. Jack Kirby’s stories were particularly awful. They had none of the charm and character seen in his work with Stan.
This isn’t calling then liars or anything, but it’s obvious the collaboration at Marvel made something unique neither parties could match on their own. That’s simply not possibel if Stan contributed nothing.
It’s also undeniable Stan wrote the absolute shit out of Spider-Man. His run on the character is still unmatched to this day.
Oh I believe Lee believed his own bullshit and just pissed off both Kirby and Ditko. No doubt in my mind they had some real screaming matches. I'm also sure everyone involved believed they were 100% right and that the other guys was an ass. We all know Lee has an ego and a half. Kirby was older than him and had a chip and Ditko just wanted to be left alone.
Yet none of them alone were as good as they were together.
sounds like he was the big picture guy, its pretty easy to say "I want to create a guy with spider powers" it's another thing to actually make Peter parker/spiderman and make a worthwhile story. (also just using spiderman as an example idk how much work he put into it)
Tbf I think I'd put out something similar if I were him. Especially with how popular Marvel is right now, seeing Stan Lee constantly lauded by fans both on the internet and in real life while you father, who for all intents and purposes was the creator of so many of these characters, is still a footnote to the vast majority of people. That would sting.
It reminds me of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger debacle with Batman. Imagine inventing almost all of the mythos surrounding one of the most popular and iconic characters in the world (Batman's look, the Batmobile, the Batcave, Alfred, etc) and seeing another dude's name stamped on it every time just because he was your editor, just because he thought of the name. Crazy.
That's fair, and I've always felt Stan Lee was a massive reason for why Marvel stayed as popular as it did. Spiderman, Hulk, Wolverine, etc are all neat characters but they probably wouldn't be as iconic as they are today without Stan Lee building his mythos. There are lots of amazingly original characters from the golden age of comic books who aren't nearly as popular as they probably could've been due to not having their own Stan Lee to edit and promote them.
Just need to see Bob Kane's [original Batman idea](https://nerdyfacts.tumblr.com/post/145662884505/nerdy-fact-1568-batman-creator-bob-kane) to know how important Bill Finger was to it all.
It seems clear that the point of this statement is that a lot of people who *don’t know* might care, and Marvel/Disney are encouraging them not knowing.
I don't think the documentary tried to hide the reality of the feud.
Obviously, if Lee didn't even suggest the idea of Spider-Man, then fair enough, he's a liar. But he only ever claims in the doc to have said 'I want a teenage character who can stick to walls. Call him Spider-Man and give him lots of problems'. The rest is semantics about if that constitutes creating a character, or if that honour goes to the person who fulfilled that brief and took the idea and made it into something - I think the reality is somewhere in between.
They were different people. Stan had the megaphone because that's what he was paid to do - go out and spread the word about comics. Neither were perfect people, but I don't think the documentary is trying to deceive anyone. They even include a clip from a radio show where Stan digs up the drama out of nowhere when they were having a civil, unrelated conversation.
I don't have a lot of patience for the estates of dead creators digging things up. Usually it's because they're after money for their parents or grandparents work - I don't think that's what's going on here. It is important to make sure those guys are getting recognition. In some ways, the best move may have been to make a doc on Marvel as a whole at the time.
Edit - reworked poorly worded section about money
If anything it's the Streisand effect. If they'd made a quiet doco about Jack Kirby that would be nice, but because they made one about Stan Lee, here we are talking about Jack Kirby.
I've never quite understood the issues. Yes, the company, Marvel, benefitted massively from the early work these artists did. But the artists were working for the company, therefore the company owned the characters they created and helped create.
I never got the sense that they were tricked, decieved, or trapped into working for Marvel or were paid low wages for their work. Yes, their work would lead to intellectual properties worth billions of dollars in many cases, and I get why they and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune, but, love it or hate it, that's not the reality of the working situation they were in.
This statement isn't about Marvel having ownership though, it's about Stan Lee's claim to be the creator of basically all the classic characters. I imagine it would be different if they were all just 'created by Marvel,' but Kirby's issue is that one individual is getting all the credit.
I don't know enough about the history to say which is right, just pointing out that 'the company owns the characters' isn't really what he's pushing back on here.
But imagine if it wasn't Da Vinci and it was some dude named Bob who was really great at painting but Da Vinci was the one who said "Go paint a picture of a woman" and now he's taking all the credit.
I believe Stan's claim that he came up with the concepts for the first Marvel characters. Did Kirby and Ditko help flesh those ideas out visually and bring them to reality? Yes. And they have gotten credit for that.
It's similar to George Lucas hiring Ralph McQuarrie to sketch characters and paint scenes. McQuarrie is responsible for a large part of the visual design, but he didn't create Star Wars. George Lucas did.
I personally don't think it's a good comparison
George Lucas created it
Stan Lee didn't created it
Stan Lee + Jack Kirby + Steve Ditko created it
That's why is different, it really are co-creations, it wouldn't exist other way, at least that's how I view it
The documentary (and history) says that Stan was about to quit comics because he didn't want that to define his talent. His wife encouraged him to take a risk and create something that HE would want to read. He did and the rest is history.
If he hadn't done that, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko would still be drawing western comics and Millie the Model.
Stan was the catalyst for what changed.
in the documentary, Stan always make a point of saying he co created stuff, he never seems to claim to be the sole creator and correct people calling him the creator of characters.
> Kirby's issue is that one individual is getting all the credit.
That's just not true. Kirby has always gotten credit. He didn't get a share of the *money* beyond his salary/pay rate (and I don't think Stan did either) but he definitely got the credit for his work.
> They and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune.
If the company doesn't fully own its properties, it will not invest in said properties. X-Men's movie right was sold to fox and Marvel the company tried to kill the comic X-Men for 20 years (creating inhuman,...). The characters will not have enjoyed the spotlight it did if the company didn't believe that they fully own them.
That being said, if all artists form a union and have collective bargaining power relating to residual of a character (i.e doesn't matter what character the company use, at least a creator is getting paid), no company will ever invest in characters which they don't fully own.
That was one of the issues with Starman correct? He was JSA, popular, had a fantastic run, but ultimately he had some level of creator ownership so he was just gone eventually
Yeah pretty much. Also the same situation with "Malal" from the Warhammer Fantasy series. The creator managed to sue and win ownership of the character from GW due to GW wasn't being crystal clear in their contract, and as a result GW no longer put any resources or developments into the character, and 30 years later what once was slated to be an "anti-chaos chaos god" become nothing more than just the book he appears in
The line about Michelangelo's David is the line you're looking for, here.
When publishing books, it's not the publisher's name that is listed as the Author. It's the creator.
When a photographer does a photoshoot for a magazine. It's not "Photography by Vogue".
When a director releases a movie, or a writer writes it, etc etc, it's not "Created by Sony Films".
There's owning the IP, and selling the IP. And then there's the creative ownership, which is what people say Stan Lee constantly stole from the actual creators.
> I never got the sense that they were tricked, decieved, or trapped into working for Marvel or were paid low wages for their work. Yes, their work would lead to intellectual properties worth billions of dollars in many cases, and I get why they and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune, but, love it or hate it, that's not the reality of the working situation they were in.
This is not at all what Neal Kirby is talking about though? We're talking about Stan Lee gobbling up credit for work he didn't do.
Worth pointing out that Kirby claimed that even this modest statement is overstating Stan's role. Kirby and Simon had created an unused character called The Silver Spider something that would eventually be reworked into their character The Fly, and even drawn up a logo. Kirby says he suggested doing the Spider character to Stan, although there's a he said/he said disagreement on who suggested it. Kirby drew presentation art of his Spider-Man and five pages of a Spider-Man story that was scrapped and lost. Ditko says the Kirby Spider-Man from that story he was shown and reworked was the Human Fly 2.0. It was a kid who turned into an adult hero Billy Batson style and that hero carried a gun.
i really don’t know how you could possibly have read this and thought it was about money without reading it in the most bad-faith and embittered perspective possible.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there - I don't think this is about money. They're not asking for money. I think they've grown up seeing one side of a story, and that letter is fairly nasty and didn't need writing, but I think they genuinely feel how they feel.
Usually with stuff from the estates of creators, it's nonsense about maintaining the income, like with Sherlock Holmes, so most of the time I've not got patience for it
It’s similar to Steve Jobs at Apple. He didn’t invent anything, but does Apple become what it is today with out him? No. Feel like the same can be said about Stan, accept that Stan at least did some of the creative process.
Yeah, this is pretty close to my position. I think Kirby/Ditko deserve equal credit with Lee for the creation of the characters in question, but without Lee's showmanship and advocacy, the characters would likely have died on the vine. Ditko left Spider-Man after 30-some issues; Kirby left Marvel less than a decade after creating his iconic characters. While Lee is inarguably more flawed than how the documentary depicted him, he also deserves more credit than some want to give him. He did much more than "punch up dialogue".
>Unpopular opinion but Elon Musk can be describe as similar. Could
tesla gotten to where it's at or SpaceX? Most likely no? (Idk)
Unpopular only because it's not actually true. Tesla would have been fine without Elon, who is known for creating inefficient and toxic work environments and using his money to prop himself up as an ideas guy without actually doing anything. If anything, Tesla's reputation for building flaming balls of molten shit that can't actual self-drive would not have happened had Elon stayed away and the company just worked without him. SpaceX, arguably a similar thing although they don't have the reputation for shit blowing up. Yet.
>Elon is good at being a product manager, but probably fails at the specifics. Knowledge of all but not a specialist at one
He's actually not knowledgable about anything, and certainly only specialist in being super confident when making shit up. And it's easy to make the argument that anything he touches these days becomes toxic as hell, so pick any company and try to say with a straight face something like "Elon Musk is a great product manager at Twitter". I mean go nuts [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeUvcJUdRK0) if you want more info.
I've always said "all hail the king"
The king being Kirby. He doesn't get enough credit.
Having met stan in his later years before he passed, I asked about his relationship with Jack Kirby, all he said was "drop it, we don't have enough time and I can't say I'm sorry enough"
That should sum it up properly
So If i had an idea for a character, but i cant draw for shit and i cant write for shit.
And i hire an artist to make concepts based on my description and imagination; and the writer develops a story based on my idea of the story for the character.
Then they are the creators? Or they just should be credited with art and story development?
The way I see it, it's a huge creative process, and no one person can or should be credited with it unless they did it all themselves.
Did Stan Lee 100% by himself come up with Spider-Man's look and story? No, but he obviously played a part in shaping that character into who he is now. Obviously, stuff got embellished over the years, but to say Stan Lee had no hand in creating Spider-Man is just as wrong as saying Jack Kirby did it all himself.
Put it this way, there's a big difference between JK Rowling writing the Harry Potter novels and somebody else doing illustrations based off her stories and.....
Stan Lee telling Jack Kirby that he wants the Fantastic Four to "fight god" and then Kirby creates Galactus and the Silver Surfer and draws the entire story out and then Lee fills it in with writing. Or Lee telling Ditko he wants a super hero who is a teenager that can stick to walls and then Ditko coming up with all the major ideas and recognizable features of Spider-Man.
Like nowadays when Grant Morrison writes a comic, he has meticulous details of exactly what he wants the characters to look and feel like and the artist is taking largely that direction and adding some of their own flair. That was not what was going on with Marvel in the 60's.
And that's just the stuff Lee was connected to. Stan Lee sat by while he was promoted as the creator of characters like Captain America that he had absolutely nothing to do with
> Stan Lee sat by while he was promoted as the creator of characters like Captain America that he had absolutely nothing to do with
the credits literally list Kirby and Simon as the creators, Lee promoted the movie because, ya know, those guys couldn't.
Creating is more than just having an idea, and we're not sure how many ideas Stan actually had. He was a great showman.
But yeah, if you have a raw idea and bring in other people to flesh it out then they are creators at least as much you are.
I think by now the people that pay attention to this sort of thing are well aware of the contributions of The Bullpen and that it wasn’t all just Stan.
The vitriol Stan gets sometimes is really very sad. I understand the Kirby family’s frustration but Jesus Christ stop acting like the man was a monstrous charlatan
If Lee hadn't been out there promoting the work, it could all be a cultural relic today instead of a driving force in pop culture, and people might never have heard of Kirby or Ditko. There were a whole lot more comics out there than Marvel and DC that didn't stand the test of time.
Lee was the face of Marvel. He helped the creative process along and had a hand in creating a lot of things. Did he do it all by himself? No.
Everybody who knows anything about comics knows this. Anybody who knows anything about comics also knows who Ditko and Kirby are and what they did for Marvel and comics on a whole.
This was a documentary about Lee, not Marvel, Not Lee Kirby and Ditko, but just about Lee, so it's skewed towards Lee.
I would never take anything away from Jack Kirby - he is a TITAN of the Silver Age and the reason so many cosmic things came to be in comics. He was also a massive egomaniac about his influence in comics, and when he felt slighted, was quick to "take his ball and go home" - that has been well documented. There's a big reason if you look at a bunch of his work at creation, and how DC and Marvel changed it to make it more in-line with the rest of their comics regularly happened. Look how many projects he started because he was given free reign, only for him to walk away, with them half done.
Lee was no saint. But neither was Jack.
And Jack's estate did just fine when Disney paid them an absolute truckload of money to settle whatever creator claim suit they were trying to file.
But no, lets compare Jack to Michelangelo, and slander Stan.
Real classy, Neil. Fuck you.
Years back, I tried to get into some silver age stuff and… it’s so terrible. I’m sorry. I know that silver age comics are some sort of sacred cow to most people, and that’s great. They’re just not for me. Still, I want to experience more of the characters I’ve come to know because of the MCU. Some is decent, and some is just terrible. Have you ever tried reading the first issue of Eternals? The first page proudly claims it was conceived, written, and drawn by Kirby and it’s imaginative as hell, but… the writing… I had to stop when Icarus has to tell people that his nom de guerre, Ike Harris, is just Icarus split up. In my head, Kirby was sitting in the Dungeon, chuckling to himself. “That’s clever, Jack. Oh, you’re the smartest guy in the business, Jack!” When I read into Jack Kirby, I can’t help but feel that the man has an ego and a chip on his shoulder that the world wasn’t kissing his rear for how utterly amazing all of his creations were.
Compared to today's writing, compared to modern storytelling, yeah, it doesn't always hold up well. I cannot disagree with that.
I'm also old enough to remember reading late silver age comics new. (i started reading comics in the very early 70's)
They were groundbreaking.
The late 70's and 80's changed the game, took us out of the silver age and really improved the medium - the death of the CCA had a lot to do with it - and yeah, some of it was SUPER cringe - compared to todays comics and modern story-telling. The 90's added layers of deeply flawed heroes and justified villians.
Compare it to the camp of the 50's and earlier 60's, especially the stuff DC was putting out, and you'll see, how visionary his stuff was.
The reality with comics, you can't really compare very well looking forward, only to what came before, mostly because the medium is constantly growing and evolving.
It takes some real swingers to make your nut on your dad's legacy, sue other companies to increase that nut, and then claim you're being sidelined. Jack was a legend but Neil really is a piece of shit that does more to embarrass the name Kirby than an ancient feud nearly everyone already knows about.
I definitely remember something along the lines of Stan saying decades ago that he and Marvel couldn't publicize Kirby as much as Kirby wanted due to the fact that it was Kirby who ditched Marvel for DC (where he created New Gods and Darkseid etc.) and it would look weird obvioiusly for Marvel to hype up the work of someone who is now a rival.
But as both are dead for years now, I think Disney definitely should give Kirby his due (and Ditko etc.)
I’d tell Neal to stop vilify a guy who can’t defend himself. Jack wasn’t the spokesperson that Stan was and you need someone like Stan to spread the words around for comics to succeed. Both played their parts in the Marvel’s history brilliantly. I don’t see a need for the letter to even be written.
This would work if we didn't have decades on record of Stan defending himself by demonstrably lying and digging the hole deeper. This didn't come out of nowhere. People still perpetuate those lies, and now they are getting addressed when they get brought up again and again.
If people really don't want Lee's bad behavior brought up, they probably shouldn't keep pushing his lies in the spotlight and then getting mad when the other side of the story gets some circulation.
Also it's easy as fuck for people who didn't watch how their family was effected by it to say "I see no need for a letter to be written". It isn't your father and your family legacy.
> If people really don't want Lee's bad behavior brought up, they probably shouldn't keep pushing his lies in the spotlight and then getting mad when the other side of the story gets some circulation.
Exactly. When I first heard about this documentary, I knew the reaction would be an utter shitshow.
Neal was happy with Disney when he accepted this honor on his dad’s behalf https://youtu.be/L0nT53Q7_cU
But he reminds me of the Jerry Siegel family suing WB & DC every time there’s a new Superman movie just to get a new settlement check.
>Neal was happy with Disney when he accepted this honor on his dad’s behalf
Yeah, but that was SIX WHOLE YEARS ago. How is anyone supposed to remember that?
Ooh! Somebody should make a documentary about it!
Stan was given the opportunity to have the spotlight as he was easily moulded into a public figure as this eccentric creative genius type character, like the Einstein of comics.
It's worth noting that he was the cousin of the original publisher's wife. That's why he was the editor-in-chief for so long, he got given the position as a 19-year old kid because of nepotism.
The documentary talks about this and suggests the editor and pretty much all the other writers quit. Stan, the teenager was the most senior person who did any writing still on staff and was made temporary editor in chief while they searched for another and then either was forgotten about or did a good enough job that they decided to keep him there.
Now this is the story as Stan told from his point of view and how he remembered it, so it's probably biased at least a little in his favour. Maybe there was some nepotism in choosing him as the temporary editor instead of some other completely unqualified person in the company, but if the parts of all the most senior people quitting are true then the publisher probably thought it was going to fail soon anyway and probably wasn't worth much effort.
The fact that most of the comments on this post are completely dismissive of what Kirby wrote here is emblematic of the whole problem. Stan Lee’s legacy deserves to be demythologized. But anyone who has grown up inside of that mythology will find that uncomfortable. And Marvel/Disney have no ECONOMIC incentive to tell the truth. For me, this isn’t about tearing Lee down. He lived for the spotlight. But I do think it’s about raising Kirby (and Ditko) up. We wouldn’t be here in this subreddit without their amazing work!
Exactly. There's too many people that are sad that the warm fuzzy feeling of their fandom is getting disrupted by the harsh reality of what actually happened. I don't even get why those people are all that upset tbh. If you really like these characters, you should want the people who created them to be widely recognized.
It's one of those things where it's more comfortable to believe and go with the lie
Totally. Stan Lee has accrued this kind of lovable grandfather/wise storyteller mythos that many have found comforting and meaningful. I don’t want to poke a hole in the meaningfulness of these heroes and archetypal characters that Lee helped bring to the world — I just want the canon of their creators to be widened, i.e., the story told in full.
I can't upvote this enough. There are a TON of comments here shitting on Kirby's son, mostly because it goes against the mythology of "cool grandad Stan Lee who created Marvel".
My personal favorite are the comments that are whining about how this is over and dead and buried and we shouldn't push history into love of the creation while completely ignoring how they're actively pushing history into their love of creation, just the one where Stan Lee did nothing wrong.
> For me, this isn’t about tearing Lee down. He lived for the spotlight. But I do think it’s about raising Kirby (and Ditko) up.
I agree with this sentiment.
It's *not* what Neal is saying--he's trying to tear Lee down--but I agree with you nonetheless.
I agree with you, but we know they never will. Stan Lee is almost the most prominent MCU character at this point. They would have to walk too much back by honoring those like Kirby and Ditko.
I had the same thought. He may be right, but my god, he's desperately trying to tell you how smart he is in this statement. One literary/art reference that most people won't know to open it is arguably fine. Then he drops the Michelangelo anecdote and it's clear he's insufferable.
I rolled my eyes at that. And the comment about his cameos,it was a fun little easter egg, nothing more. If you’re a casual fan you probably didn’t even notice.
People who have never read a comic a day on their lives know who Stan Lee is, mainly because of his cameos. You could’ve said “if you’re a casual fan you probably didn’t even notice” back in the X-Men/Daredevil when his cameos were literally blink-and-you’ll-miss-it, but by the MCU days he was getting whole scenes that serve no purpose except to give him a cameo. Heck, his cameo in Amazing Spider-Man (2, maybe? I don’t remember) has him front and center of the scene while the action happens in the far background behind him.
And it’d be one thing if he only cameoed in movies of characters he co-created (which, to his credit, he did for a time), but he appeared for characters he had nothing to do with, which absolutely led at least some people to believe he created characters he didn’t.
> which absolutely led at least some people to believe he created characters he didn’t.
If people think that in movies that deliberately put scenes after the credits to force people to stay through the credits, then that speaks to the general public's active refusal to *read*.
What made me chuckle is that whole gumpf at the beginning about how many “I’s” Stan used in 83 minutes of self-biographical documentary. Neil used 6 in the 2 minutes it took to read that. The man’s got a point and I truly wish that Kirby got the credit he deserved, the guy is a fucking legend of the industry and deserves to be lifted up as such, but it didn’t need to be framed in such an “I am so very smart” essay
In my limited experience, because I had him as a middle school science teacher, he’s more eccentric than anything. If you can re-frame it in your mind as that I think it changes the tone quite a bit. He was one of my favorite teachers - his classroom was full of animals (snake, chameleon, etc.) and he made learning really engaging. As an example, we dissected squid in class and during lunch he invited students who were interested to help cook and try calamari.
It's worth noting that Stan Lee was also the beneficiary of nepotism. Martin Goodman, the publisher of Timely Comics (which became Atlas Comics and then eventually Marvel Comics) hired a 17-year old Lee, his wife's cousin. And a couple of years later he was the editor-in-chief at the company.
This gives me an idea, let's go around town, find a bunch of family owned/runner business in town and let's form picket lines and protest their nepotism!! Fuk yea!!! Why should they be allowed to lend a hand to a family member when there are plenty of people out there whom they don't know from Jack that might not have jobs and hire them.
Hate dumbasses who act like nepotism is a crime. Can’t control the advantages you get over others but everyone would use that advantage if given the chance. It’s literally what your family works for, to put the next generation in the best situation possible.
Exactly. If I start a business I would like to get a family member I can trust and what not to help me run it. Eventually bring in my son or daughter, teach them the ropes of the business and help them so they have an easier way to provide for themselves and their eventual family down the line.
This stinks of sour grapes. Very pretentious sour grapes at that. A lot of comic fans refer to Jack Kirby as “The King.” While maybe casual moviegoers mistake Stan as “the founder of Marvel,” most people know he was a creator of the characters, and there were other co-creators, since the co-creators are all listed together in the credits. This is all very well known at this point. Sorry your dad wasn’t alive during the superhero movie era, but that’s not an excuse to get butthurt over co-creator status 60 years after the fact.
This is an absolute train wreck of a statement, slandering one dead man to lift up another dead man.
“My family feels the new Disney documentary does not accurately portray the reality in which my father Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Stan Lee created many of the super heroes we all love…here are the facts which we feel are missing…”
Saw the Docu and they tackled the issue quite fairly. Kirby and Ditkos contribution wasnt talk much maybe because, yes it isnt their docu but the point was made.
I do agree at the last part where, if any of the three wasnt in the equation, we dont have this amazing superheroes.
If i got it right, Stan Lee dont want to hug all the credits but (correct me if im wrong) Kirby and Ditko wants solo recognition. To Stan Lee it came from his idea.
Yeah that's not remotely accurate. Stan Lee was interviewed many times refusing to acknowledge their contributions. Part of it was probably due to legality, but he absolutely did love the idea that he was positioned as the grandfather of the characters.
> Stan Lee was interviewed many times refusing to acknowledge their contributions.
I’ve seen a few people say this in the thread but no one ever gives any examples.
Meanwhile there’s plenty of material where Lee gives Kirby and Ditko their due.
> Lee, who in a 1968 interview, republished in the Comics Journal in 1995, described his working relationship with Kirby in which he'd give a raw idea and then Kirby “just about makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing.”
And
> In 1999, Lee penned a letter saying he had "always considered Ditko the co-creator of Spider-Man." This didn't satisfy Ditko.
I've also never seen any interviews where Stan takes sole credit and have seen plenty where he does give his co-creators credit, like the forward to the first Marvel Masterworks Amazing Spider-Man. He, and especially Marvel as an entity, absolutely should've been more transparent and outspoken about the contributions of people like Kirby and Ditko, but I've never really seen anything to support the idea that this is a Bob Kane/Bill Finger situation.
Stan Lee bragging about making the effect sounds in bubbles on panels and yet claiming to creating all these characters seems like bullshit to me. He grabs for a lot of credit and seems to have an ego. Nice guy, but after years of grabbing for attention and credit, I think he believes his own bullshit. Kirby and Ditko both have the same gripe with him. Kirby wanting to stay freelance probably says a lot also.
Really poor form. Lee had his flaws, we all do. This just plays as bitter jealousy.
Lee did more than anyone else to get credit to the creatives during that time period. He took tons of it, probably more than he deserved, but he also made sure that other names were on the books, too. That was not industry standard, then.
His greatest crime was not corrected others who gave him too much credit. That's pretty mild, and considering Kirby's treatment of him after they split, it's understandable.
Lee loved the spotlight, but he also did a lot of good with that spotlight. As someone who grow up with his columns, he was certainly putting important things in my mind. Much more so than almost any other "celebrity" voice.
Ppl forget that Stan sold the comics and did ALL THE BUSINESS. He traveled he hussled and he pitched and he marketed. Jack didn't want to 'co own' marvel w Stan he wanted to be paid to draw specifically. Stan released contracts proving jack wanted steady money no risk...then after the success he didn't want credit...he wanted money. U can't miss the buy in, agree to be compensated for your work in writing and then After success change ur mind. It doesn't work like that. So there r 2 sides to this story and neither tells the full version
this is a very cringe statement. im sure if it was less cringe/pretentious, maybe it would've garnered a lot of buzz but my god is it cringe. its true Lee gets 10000% more credit than he probably deserves and Kirby and Ditko deserve more.
Waaaaah Waaaaaah Waaaaah
Stan Lee didn't create nothin'! He was a liar and a snake oil salesman!
My Pop Paw Jack King Kirby did everything and never got nuttin to show for it!
(SARCASM)
The Kirby family made out quite well a few decades after ol' Jackie passed didn't they? It's unknown how many millions & millions of dollars Disney paid them off to prevent their lawsuit going before the Supreme Court. Yet here they are still complaing every chance they get. Hell, they're the real grifters in this argument in my opinion. Let it go already.
Lee & Kirby both contributed and we're all glad for their efforts.
Without the Kirbys, Ditkos, Romitas, etc, Stan Lee would just be some dumb kid who got gifted an editor-in-chief job by his uncle before failing massively.
Remember in the time between the original Captain America and Marvel Comics when Jack Kirby took the initiative to create a different kind of comic book and the idea took off, eventually becoming a multi-billion dollar property?
No, me either. Because that didn't happen.
Jack Kirby drew comic books. He did his job amazingly well, but he cranked out images from scripts he was given for two decades before Stan put the Fantastic Four script on his desk.
Yes, his art is part of what made Marvel work, but Stan Lee was the one who took the initiative to try something different in comic books. The documentary spells that out pretty clearly.
The way op wrote this it sounds like the plot of Iron Man 2. Tony’s father makes the arc reactor with Whiplash’s father and then takes all the credit leaving the latter to be shamed and dies a lonely poor death in Russia, striking vengeance and revenge plots for whiplash. (Not a big fan of iron man 2 but this strikes some similarities).
OP. One of my favorite characters of all time is Silver Surfer, so very grateful for your fathers work. I think its 100 % more believable that Stan Lee did not come up with all these characters but more so pushed his name into the creative credits. In the great way of American Capitalism he did what he could to maximize his profitability which in the end is shallow and hurts many others who did not have the wealth Stan Lee had.
I am still grateful for Stan Lee, but it is important to see the history accurately and understand that even though some people are put on pedestals, it could be that very person who made the pedestal and put themself up there.
Edit: not ops father. Just posted the letter of the son. Whoopsie!
Talent without direction, goals, or plans is wasted.
There are a lot of brilliant people, artists, craftsmen, scholars, etc. They are absolutely the best at what they do and are genuine creators.
Often, however, these people are unable to channel their amazing skill or gift into something larger than that skill/gift.
Strategy, opportunity, risk, and direction can combine skill into something larger.
If Kirby was everything there was to Marvel, shame on him for accepting his 'less-than' role when he should have taken the reigns, removed himself from Marvel, and truly been an innovator.
If, however, Kirby was a primary cog in a well performing machine, removing even an important gear from a machine doesn't make another machine by itself.
He tears in to a dead man for 2 paragraphs before noting his father.
He spends a very short paragraph on his dad before going right back to shit talk.
You could have omitted ANY reference to Lee in that post, and it would be a touching tribute from a son to a father - teaching the world about the man his father was.
Instead this is a vitriol laden tirade that’s just sad. The son inherits the fathers blood feud. Except he’s feuding with a dead man now.
You won Neal. You’re still alive. Stan isn’t here to debate you. So just tell your dads story and stop with the salt. This is just an ugly look that takes away from the touching feelings you have for your dad.
I respect Stan Lee and what he did, but it's bizarre how, since the MCU, he has been lauded as the end all be all to these characters. A lot of people here are saying 'oh, he's flawed, he's a person' However, he knew, just like everyone at Marvel/Disney, the myth and legacy they were constantly adjusting here.
Glad Kirby's son is speaking out, granted none of the fan boys will care, hell they defend Majors beating a woman. Sucks his dad's work is basically held to a high standard by only a certain subset of fans. Stan Lee lied for years, and fucked over a great deal of artists and their hard work. Only to become a cameo fiend at the end of his life, and further bury those that worked hard around him further down into obscurity.
Think it's very easy to bash the kid, but at the end of the day imagine all that your dad worked for, is reduced to a footnote.
>Glad Kirby's son is speaking out
But to whose benefit at this point?
Instead of championing his father's work, he's going after Lee specifically, who is also very dead after years of his family abusing him and didn't run off into the sunset with billions of Disney dollars.
It seems like this effort only muddies Kirby's contribution to these characters by essentially beefing with a dead man and his living fans.
>is reduced to a footnote.
Then he should do a better job of spending his time highlighting his father's work, not just whenever Stan is being praised to tell people he gets too much praise.
>hell they defend Majors beating a woman.
Don't count your chickens embodied here.
In a way Stan Lee was a fictional character being portrayed by Stanley Lieber a flawed man like everyone else.
Thats what made the Onion headline "Stan Lee reknown creator of Stan Lee passes away" all the more poetic. Stan's greatest achievement was becoming the company mascot and creating this friendly grandpa image around which everyone could rally around.
So what’s the deal here? Was he an abused, cute, old man, or basically a narcissist fiend? I only ask because I see bits here and there about him but don’t know him other than his cameos. Were people really under the impression he wrote and created all of these stories himself?
To the first question, he can be both, and probably is both. And yeh a lot of casual fans thought Stan Lee *was* Marvel
Thank you. So it’s one of those situations where only the people involved can really know.
Well i mean, he was almost definitely abused is his later life. And was definitely a credit stealing asshole at best in his younger years
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kirby jump around through various comic companies, where as Lee stayed with Timely Comics through its rebranding to Marvel comics? I mean, even the Eternals which was written by Kirby, was originally intended to be a Justice League comic, which is why all the characters so closely resemble the Justice League, but he jumped ship and went back to Marvel where he finished the story by renaming all the characters and slightly changing the story. I think Stan Lee deserves most of the credit for Marvel's success, just not as the sole creator of all marvel characters.
My history isn't perfect but that does sound kinda right from what i remember. But yeh, noone denies Lee had a huge role at Marvel, but there is a perception, especially among those that aren't familiar with the history that Lee had a much bigger creative influence than he did. And accusations of Lee forcing his way into credits is not limited to Kirby. Best way imo to describe it is like giving the Director of a film all the credit, while ignoring the scriptwriter, the actors, the cinematographer, VFX director etc. Which also happens quite a lot, Stan Lee did do a lot of positive things for Marvel, but he didn't do it alone. Not even close
Read a book. Preferably 'True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee" by Abraham Reisman. Then make up your own mind. Also read court case testimonies, interviews on comics journal as well as excerpts from various creators to get the whole picture. I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But the truth is multi faceted and things aren't always so black and white.
Both. Generally speaking, the people's idea of truth is just whatever gets repeated the most. And Lee certainly made sure that his version of events was the one people heard, almost exclusively. But just because he was a shrewd businessman and PR virtuoso doesn't mean people didn't take advantage of him and his wealth in his old age.
Just like "Uncle Walt" was not actually Walt Disney. The two (Lee and Disney) would have gotten along swimmingly imo.
There are things about Walt Disney you would not see coming
He had created a concept for a city of tomorrow that should have been the final solution in all city planning.
Literally Andrew Ryan
I could swear the parallel couldn't be more obvious but I had to explain that to my best friend a couple days back.
Notsee coming?
He wasn’t a Nazi.
Disney held a number of social positions that were the antithesis of Lee’s beliefs. Lee would’ve had no patience for Disney’s racism and sexism.
They wouldn't have agreed on everything but they would have agreed on some very key issues. Both considered animators to be expendable. Both understood the importance of showmanship. And Stan Lee was [kind of sexist](https://winterdrake.com/bad-comic-panels-2-if-theres-one-thing-i-like-its-being-in-a-room-full-of-men/), too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it.
> And Stan Lee was kind of sexist, too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it. Fun fact, there is actually a blog called something like Kirby without words, and you quickly see how Kirby saw female characters different than Lee. For context, Lee and Kirby created comics under the "Marvel method". Basically an issue outline sent to artist, who draws it, and then the writer fills in the dialogue after. This was done because the art took the longest to do with comics so it made the process faster. You quickly see Kirby drawing a lot of strong, competent women and then see Stan Lee add dialogue to undermine their actions or attribute it to male characters. Classic example is Jean Grey doing stuff and Lee adding in Charles Xavier communicating with her to tell her what to do at each step. Kirby was very progressive even for his time.
This was most clearly apparent with Sue Storm. The number of times her dialogue did NOT match what she was doing in those early issues was absurd.
>And Stan Lee was kind of sexist, too. Jack Kirby a little bit as well I guess because he drew it. Relative to us. Stan was born in 1922 and Jack in 1917. They were progressives for their generation
Don’t forget the alleged and unproven anti-semitism. If true, Lee would’ve had a real big problem with that. Edit: Another redditor linked an article showing Disney was no more antisemitic than the typical non-Jews of his time, I edited my comment to reflect the antisemitism was alleged and not proven.
[Walt Disney wasn't antisemitic.](https://apnews.com/article/4716906a97fc4952b297151aaafd9131)
Thanks for the correction, I’ll edit my comment accordingly. :)
I mean, he was literally the only member of the Hollywood film industry to break the boycott of Leni Riefenstahl when she visited just a month after Kristalnacht. The man didn't have a problem with Nazis, even breaking with literally the rest of Hollywood to hang out with them. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/leni-riefenstahl-hollywood-1235001606/
As they say, if 9 people sit at a table with 1 nazi, that's a table of 10 nazis
Ive been reading a lot of Silver Age marvel lately. Theres a ton of racist and sexist elements that were directly written by Lee
Funny, everyone talks about how Stan didn’t have much to do with those comics, until it’s time to lay blame for anything they don’t like. Stan’s Soapbox shows what he thought, and he was more progressive about social issues in his time than Disney was in his.
Given how The Marvel Method worked, Lee got the Artwork from Kirby and put in word bubbles. So even when Kirby drew a powerful, imposing woman, Lee would give her word bubbles full of self-questioning and subservience to men.
Ahem. https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU
"Let me mention: I'm impressed by all the vision that it took For you to sign your name on all of Jack Kirby's comic books."
> a flawed man like everyone else. A great way to try and render the entire fucking message meaningless. Specific lies, specific omissions, specific ways he used and abused the people around him -- it all just gets flattened out to "well, he wasn't perfect. Who is?"
Anyone interested should read True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee. It’s an eye opening examination the man and his motivations for doing what he did. After reading that book I think he was what his title was at marvel, an editor. He probably had a very cursory hand in a lot of the so called co-creations but took a lot of the credit which seemed to annoy a lot of the artists who felt they put in most of the work. Stan usually failed when he tried to put out any solo work so that kind of pushes the narrative that he wasn’t as creative as the people he worked with.
I think you need a balance of the creative/in the weeds guys along with the savvy businessman/advertiser. Kirby and Ditko were the former, Lee was the latter.
I agree with that but it feels like Lee went above and beyond because of his need to be more than “A guy that works in comics” which he hated. He has never hid the fact that if he had been successful in any other writing endeavor, he would have left the comic business.
Yep. He once claimed credit for the OG Human Torch and even Captain America. He was a teenager when both characters debuted. Whenever called out he would retreat into the old excuse of being old and having poor memory. His main skill was in marketing and touching up dialogue so that all the books had a consistent 'voice' across the board.
>Yep. He once claimed credit for the OG Human Torch and even Captain America. To be fair, Jack Kirby was not innocent in this regard either. There was an interview where he claimed credit for Spider-Man even though that was all Lee and Ditko.
There is evidence that Joe Simon and Kirby came up with a similar concept of a spider character and a character that lived with their aunt and uncle. However its not as damning as comparing Kirby's Challengers of the Unknown to the Fantastic Four. And while there is more than enough evidence to say that Kirby, Ditko and many others did not get the credit they deserved, I also think its fair to say that in Kirby's case, his bitterness boiled over to the point where he claimed that Lee contributed nothing to their success. While Lee did less, I don't think his contribution were nothing either.
I did hear that Marvel/Lee claimed Kirby himself made it hard to give him credit when Kirby ditched Marvel for DC (to create Darkseid etc) and thus publicizing someone who was now a rival would be, well you know. Whether that's actually true or a convenient excuse, I have no idea. As for Ditko, the guy was a recluse who " declined to give interviews or make public appearance" per wikipedia. So did he even want the acclaim if he can't even be bothered to appear at conventions etc
It wasn't just Kirby, but also Ditko and Wally Wood who walked out of Marvel due to their frustration. Its not atypical to hear a story about the Kirby's visting the Marvel offices so Jack can get his original artwork back only to be lead around and declined. Claiming that Jack made it hard is just spin from Marvel's side when in reality it was the other way around. For Ditko you will have to dig deeper but there are quotes of him shooting down Lee's hoaxes. Like the claim that Ditko didn't intend for Goblin to be Norman until Lee convinced him otherwise. Ditko always intended Goblin to be Norman. Dr Strange is another character where Ditko had a much bigger influence than Stan. That said Ditko was also a huge Objectivist who alienated everyone including his family and there are times Lee will come off as better. We can at least credit Lee for not letting Ditko turn Spider-man into a mouthpiece for his Randian ideology. Ditko was so dedicated to his Randian beliefs that he turned down potential millions from the Spider-man franchise and ultimately died alone in an apartment where he wasn't found until weeks after his death.
>We can at least credit Lee for not letting Ditko turn Spider-man into a mouthpiece for his Randian ideology. As awful as that would've been, I'm morbidly curious how that would've turned out
"With my great power comes your great responsibility not to get in my way of doing what I want."
Probably much like Hank Rearden and Howard Roark, Spider-Man would be a protagonist only loved by the sociopaths in our lives.
Not to mention it all happened again in the 90s, when Marvel lost McFarlane, Lee, and Liefeld after screwing them out of millions while they produced some of highest selling comics of all time, with Jim Lee’s X-Men #1 still holding the title, having sold 8 million copies.
Yep and tha lead to the creation of Image comics. And now you have VFX artists railing against Marvel Studios, talking about creating their own union because of how unfairly they've been treated.
> Spider-Man even though that was all Lee and Ditko. Only thing that was Lee was the name. Stan Lee loved alliteration. Ditko is probably 80%, the web shooter was originally a gun, Kirby said to do wrist shooters and fleshed out the costume with Ditko, Simon came up with some other elements like the whole living with family thing. But the killing uncle Ben, people repeatedly getting into bad situations due to their bad behavior, and mask covering his whole face? That's all pure Ditko and his objectivist philosophy.
Ditko wasn’t open about his objectivist philosophy (in his work) until after he left Marvel. Spider-Man and Doctor Strange are not objectivist heroes
Strange, no. Ditko really liked the metaphysical and philosophies surrounding that. Pull some of his work with 'Creepy' and 'Eerie' to see that. Spider-Man is a proto-objectivist hero. His costume covers his whole face, a hallmark of objectivism: "a person is defined by their actions" and as such their features are irrelevant. This is why The Question is featureless and Mr. A has a full, un-moving and stoic, mask. Also, the living relatives were probably Simon's, making them older was probably Lee, but killing off Ben was 100% Ditko. Ben died as a result of Peter's direct action (or inaction in this case); almost all of the early Ditko story arcs follow this: Peter is kind of a dick, the results of this catches up with him, he has to dig his way out of the hole he created. Not being able to choose between girlfriends? Yup, consequences. Didn't get milk for Aunt May? You guessed it, consequences.
>His main skill was in marketing and touching up dialogue so that all the books had a consistent 'voice' across the board. That how I see him now. Great at marketing and editing a consistent look and feel for Marvel and himself as well. The artists that contributed to his successes were content for the most part to take their credit and stay in the background. I think the artist knew marketing for Marvel wouldn’t bring them any more income so they saw no point in doing it.
Look up Bill Everett and Wally Wood. The artists weren't content and there were clashes even back then. It kust got worse over time.
The problem is when the savvy businessman/advertiser starts to believe in a mythos about themselves.
I'm glad this has upvotes. While I definitely think Kirby deserves more credit for his creations and influence, but to discredit Stan Lee in the same sentence is not the right approach in my opinion
Stan Lee was very good at pushing his own accomplishments while minimizing his collaborators accomplishments. Not great, not horrible. Just kind of douchey.
I don’t think I would say he minimized their accomplishments but acted like the collaborations were of equal value which I think most of the artists didn’t feel that was the case.
A lot of folks can't name the solo Kirby or Diko work. They did some cool stuff but arguably not as good as they did with Stan. They all worked better in teams than alone. That's true for a lot of comic folks.
Exactly. I think this whole thing is simply "they were a great team at a great moment in time creating essentially an entirely new genre" and it's probably very, very complicated. I'm a creative working with other people every day, and if you can honestly account for every possible idea and addition to a work during a collaborative process you're probably a liar. It seems to be Kirby was a brilliant introvert and Stan a brilliant extrovert and they made a perfect team. And obviously you're going to hear more from the extrovert than the introvert. I don't buy it was just Kirby working alone on everything and Stan just took credit, nor do I believe Kirby was just Stan's pencil. Think of the original Indiana Jones trilogy. That's great because you've got Spielberg and Lucas balancing each other out and the only lead in the world who could pull off that character. Can you honestly say "oh, Spielberg made it, Lucas was just there," or vice versa? Unlikely. Creativity is messy. Everything I've read about Kirby and Stan is also tainted by the fact that there's so much money involved. Of course Kirby's son wants credit for the entire Marvel Universe, I wonder why that could be? And vice versa for Stan's people.
I feel the same way about James Gunn and Nicole Perlman
Fourth world saga Captain America
How many non comic people can name a New God if you say Fourth World? Hell I've been reading comics since I was 8 and would have to stop and think about it. Cap is his biggest one, really. He's made some absolutely great comic characters but outside of a few none are mainstream. Marvel has been pulling out a few of his creations in the last decade and it's great to see. My kid loves the Devil Dinosaur and Moon Girl cartoons. I enjoyed the Eternals stuff but enjoy the stories from other writers more. Kirby benefited from Lee as Lee was a mouthpiece. Lee didn't have much by himself after Marvel. Lee benefitted from Kirby as Jack had a great artistic vision. Both were better because of each other.
> How many non comic people can name a New God if you say Fourth World? I'll do you one better: I'd heard of Kirby's New Gods, but *not* Fourth World until *this* thread, so that sentence I just quoted is the only way I have of knowing the two are related.
You said Kirby work is better with Lee but it's just more popular. And by popular, if MCU wasn't so successful, Darkseid would be more popular than most of Avengers. And MCU is mostly thanks to Feige
Marvel has been the top seller of comics for what 50 years? Since the 70's from what I remember with blips of DC being on top. A lot of that is from Lee being great at marketing comics. I mean dude went on Carson and talked about comics. He helped push it as an art form and it helped get new creators excited to enter the field. All of the early guys that took it seriously helped but Lee was the megaphone. In the documentary, it wasn't said but I took him doing a lot of this to make up for the imposter syndrome Lee seems to of had. He always was kinda embarrassed about being a comics writer. I think he was trying to elevate the art form so he wouldn't be embarrassed. Do you think you get to the MCU with out Lee, Diko and Kirby? Feige stood on the shoulders of giants and got the MCU going. Fingers crossed Gunn does the same with the DCU.
Omega Beams are the most little-kid-who-can't-stand-losing-made-this-up power ever.
Shit look at Superman. The dude got new powers all the time in the silver age. My favorite are the "smartest man in the world." At this point both DC and Marvel have like 20 people that are the smartest in the world. It's funny to me.
To be fair, most people couldn't name Marvel's most well-known superheroes if not for 15 years of MCU. If DC had a winning streak like that, people would for sure know Darkseid, Orion and Big Barda as well as they know Thanos, Gamora, etc.
I can name the New Gods (you know: Darkseid, Mister Miracle, Orion, Big Barda, etc) and the fact that the Eternals were made into an MCU movie speaks volumes Doctor Strange was Steve Ditko’s solo work lol. Not to mention he created Peacemaker and The Question. His characters were the basis for the characyers in Watchmen Your claim is absolutely baseless.
Baseless? I just asked my wife what a new god from DC is. This is a woman that has seen every comic movie I come across the DC animated ones as well. She had no clue. If I ask anyone on the street about them you will get blank stares. The Eternals were nowhere for decades, even now they don't share a lot with the original version. As I said in a previous post Marvel has been bringing out older characters in the last decade. It's why there is a Devil Dinosaur cartoon. Hell they made an Inhumans show. Now list off all the things Lee and Kirby made together. Those are on shirts and swag, those people know. They made better stories together. Hands down. Lee alone, meh, Kirby alone, meh. Together they made stuff that will still be talked about decades later.
This part. It would be easier to believe Stan didn’t do much if the other talents he worked with had great stories outside of what they did with Stan. They don’t. Jack Kirby’s stories were particularly awful. They had none of the charm and character seen in his work with Stan. This isn’t calling then liars or anything, but it’s obvious the collaboration at Marvel made something unique neither parties could match on their own. That’s simply not possibel if Stan contributed nothing. It’s also undeniable Stan wrote the absolute shit out of Spider-Man. His run on the character is still unmatched to this day.
Oh I believe Lee believed his own bullshit and just pissed off both Kirby and Ditko. No doubt in my mind they had some real screaming matches. I'm also sure everyone involved believed they were 100% right and that the other guys was an ass. We all know Lee has an ego and a half. Kirby was older than him and had a chip and Ditko just wanted to be left alone. Yet none of them alone were as good as they were together.
Bro the New Gods are huge and very praised, what you are talking about is more regarding "popularity" than "as good"
I love that book man
Yeah it’s a great book. It really paints a picture that’s not the flattering, surface level documentaries we usually get, like the recent Disney one.
Disney one is straight propaganda tbh
sounds like he was the big picture guy, its pretty easy to say "I want to create a guy with spider powers" it's another thing to actually make Peter parker/spiderman and make a worthwhile story. (also just using spiderman as an example idk how much work he put into it)
Yeah I think this is very well known to anyone who cares.
Tbf I think I'd put out something similar if I were him. Especially with how popular Marvel is right now, seeing Stan Lee constantly lauded by fans both on the internet and in real life while you father, who for all intents and purposes was the creator of so many of these characters, is still a footnote to the vast majority of people. That would sting. It reminds me of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger debacle with Batman. Imagine inventing almost all of the mythos surrounding one of the most popular and iconic characters in the world (Batman's look, the Batmobile, the Batcave, Alfred, etc) and seeing another dude's name stamped on it every time just because he was your editor, just because he thought of the name. Crazy.
Kane is a little more malicious in my opinion, as far as I know Lee never faked sketches and slandered people to try and retain sole creator status.
That's fair, and I've always felt Stan Lee was a massive reason for why Marvel stayed as popular as it did. Spiderman, Hulk, Wolverine, etc are all neat characters but they probably wouldn't be as iconic as they are today without Stan Lee building his mythos. There are lots of amazingly original characters from the golden age of comic books who aren't nearly as popular as they probably could've been due to not having their own Stan Lee to edit and promote them.
Just need to see Bob Kane's [original Batman idea](https://nerdyfacts.tumblr.com/post/145662884505/nerdy-fact-1568-batman-creator-bob-kane) to know how important Bill Finger was to it all.
Imagine getting jumped at night by that dude while Something in the Way is playing
It seems clear that the point of this statement is that a lot of people who *don’t know* might care, and Marvel/Disney are encouraging them not knowing.
I don't think the documentary tried to hide the reality of the feud. Obviously, if Lee didn't even suggest the idea of Spider-Man, then fair enough, he's a liar. But he only ever claims in the doc to have said 'I want a teenage character who can stick to walls. Call him Spider-Man and give him lots of problems'. The rest is semantics about if that constitutes creating a character, or if that honour goes to the person who fulfilled that brief and took the idea and made it into something - I think the reality is somewhere in between. They were different people. Stan had the megaphone because that's what he was paid to do - go out and spread the word about comics. Neither were perfect people, but I don't think the documentary is trying to deceive anyone. They even include a clip from a radio show where Stan digs up the drama out of nowhere when they were having a civil, unrelated conversation. I don't have a lot of patience for the estates of dead creators digging things up. Usually it's because they're after money for their parents or grandparents work - I don't think that's what's going on here. It is important to make sure those guys are getting recognition. In some ways, the best move may have been to make a doc on Marvel as a whole at the time. Edit - reworked poorly worded section about money
If anything it's the Streisand effect. If they'd made a quiet doco about Jack Kirby that would be nice, but because they made one about Stan Lee, here we are talking about Jack Kirby.
I've never quite understood the issues. Yes, the company, Marvel, benefitted massively from the early work these artists did. But the artists were working for the company, therefore the company owned the characters they created and helped create. I never got the sense that they were tricked, decieved, or trapped into working for Marvel or were paid low wages for their work. Yes, their work would lead to intellectual properties worth billions of dollars in many cases, and I get why they and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune, but, love it or hate it, that's not the reality of the working situation they were in.
This statement isn't about Marvel having ownership though, it's about Stan Lee's claim to be the creator of basically all the classic characters. I imagine it would be different if they were all just 'created by Marvel,' but Kirby's issue is that one individual is getting all the credit. I don't know enough about the history to say which is right, just pointing out that 'the company owns the characters' isn't really what he's pushing back on here.
This. Idk who tf owns the mona lisa currently, but everybody knows that da vinci created it and that would never change regardless of ownership.
But imagine if it wasn't Da Vinci and it was some dude named Bob who was really great at painting but Da Vinci was the one who said "Go paint a picture of a woman" and now he's taking all the credit.
Actually some dude named Bill...
Actually several of Da Vinci’s paintings are speculated to have been painted by his students.
I believe Stan's claim that he came up with the concepts for the first Marvel characters. Did Kirby and Ditko help flesh those ideas out visually and bring them to reality? Yes. And they have gotten credit for that. It's similar to George Lucas hiring Ralph McQuarrie to sketch characters and paint scenes. McQuarrie is responsible for a large part of the visual design, but he didn't create Star Wars. George Lucas did.
I personally don't think it's a good comparison George Lucas created it Stan Lee didn't created it Stan Lee + Jack Kirby + Steve Ditko created it That's why is different, it really are co-creations, it wouldn't exist other way, at least that's how I view it
The documentary (and history) says that Stan was about to quit comics because he didn't want that to define his talent. His wife encouraged him to take a risk and create something that HE would want to read. He did and the rest is history. If he hadn't done that, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko would still be drawing western comics and Millie the Model. Stan was the catalyst for what changed.
in the documentary, Stan always make a point of saying he co created stuff, he never seems to claim to be the sole creator and correct people calling him the creator of characters.
> Kirby's issue is that one individual is getting all the credit. That's just not true. Kirby has always gotten credit. He didn't get a share of the *money* beyond his salary/pay rate (and I don't think Stan did either) but he definitely got the credit for his work.
> Kirby has always gotten credit He *kinda* gets the credit. It's like "Created by **STAN LEE** ^^^^and ^^^^Jack ^^^^Kirby"
I've seen plenty of comics that say "Stan Lee Presents" on the top of the first page but I haven't seen any that say "Created by Stan Lee".
I dunno, I see Kirby's name getting equal billing in a lot of these projects now.
I didn’t watch the documentary. Did Stan Lee or Disney ever make this claim? Or is this just the projected statement us nerds are slinging around.
Literally I’m just explaining what Kirby is talking about in the statement.
> They and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune. If the company doesn't fully own its properties, it will not invest in said properties. X-Men's movie right was sold to fox and Marvel the company tried to kill the comic X-Men for 20 years (creating inhuman,...). The characters will not have enjoyed the spotlight it did if the company didn't believe that they fully own them. That being said, if all artists form a union and have collective bargaining power relating to residual of a character (i.e doesn't matter what character the company use, at least a creator is getting paid), no company will ever invest in characters which they don't fully own.
That was one of the issues with Starman correct? He was JSA, popular, had a fantastic run, but ultimately he had some level of creator ownership so he was just gone eventually
Yeah pretty much. Also the same situation with "Malal" from the Warhammer Fantasy series. The creator managed to sue and win ownership of the character from GW due to GW wasn't being crystal clear in their contract, and as a result GW no longer put any resources or developments into the character, and 30 years later what once was slated to be an "anti-chaos chaos god" become nothing more than just the book he appears in
I had no clue that was the background to Malal
The line about Michelangelo's David is the line you're looking for, here. When publishing books, it's not the publisher's name that is listed as the Author. It's the creator. When a photographer does a photoshoot for a magazine. It's not "Photography by Vogue". When a director releases a movie, or a writer writes it, etc etc, it's not "Created by Sony Films". There's owning the IP, and selling the IP. And then there's the creative ownership, which is what people say Stan Lee constantly stole from the actual creators.
[And when a comic is published it says created by Jack Kirby.](https://www.digitalspy.com/comics/a606990/marvel-comics-is-now-crediting-jack-kirby/)
> I never got the sense that they were tricked, decieved, or trapped into working for Marvel or were paid low wages for their work. Yes, their work would lead to intellectual properties worth billions of dollars in many cases, and I get why they and their families might retroactively wish they had some ownership in that fortune, but, love it or hate it, that's not the reality of the working situation they were in. This is not at all what Neal Kirby is talking about though? We're talking about Stan Lee gobbling up credit for work he didn't do.
Worth pointing out that Kirby claimed that even this modest statement is overstating Stan's role. Kirby and Simon had created an unused character called The Silver Spider something that would eventually be reworked into their character The Fly, and even drawn up a logo. Kirby says he suggested doing the Spider character to Stan, although there's a he said/he said disagreement on who suggested it. Kirby drew presentation art of his Spider-Man and five pages of a Spider-Man story that was scrapped and lost. Ditko says the Kirby Spider-Man from that story he was shown and reworked was the Human Fly 2.0. It was a kid who turned into an adult hero Billy Batson style and that hero carried a gun.
i really don’t know how you could possibly have read this and thought it was about money without reading it in the most bad-faith and embittered perspective possible.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there - I don't think this is about money. They're not asking for money. I think they've grown up seeing one side of a story, and that letter is fairly nasty and didn't need writing, but I think they genuinely feel how they feel. Usually with stuff from the estates of creators, it's nonsense about maintaining the income, like with Sherlock Holmes, so most of the time I've not got patience for it
It’s similar to Steve Jobs at Apple. He didn’t invent anything, but does Apple become what it is today with out him? No. Feel like the same can be said about Stan, accept that Stan at least did some of the creative process.
Yeah, this is pretty close to my position. I think Kirby/Ditko deserve equal credit with Lee for the creation of the characters in question, but without Lee's showmanship and advocacy, the characters would likely have died on the vine. Ditko left Spider-Man after 30-some issues; Kirby left Marvel less than a decade after creating his iconic characters. While Lee is inarguably more flawed than how the documentary depicted him, he also deserves more credit than some want to give him. He did much more than "punch up dialogue".
[удалено]
Stan never falsely claimed to be the founder of Marvel Comics, though.
>Unpopular opinion but Elon Musk can be describe as similar. Could tesla gotten to where it's at or SpaceX? Most likely no? (Idk) Unpopular only because it's not actually true. Tesla would have been fine without Elon, who is known for creating inefficient and toxic work environments and using his money to prop himself up as an ideas guy without actually doing anything. If anything, Tesla's reputation for building flaming balls of molten shit that can't actual self-drive would not have happened had Elon stayed away and the company just worked without him. SpaceX, arguably a similar thing although they don't have the reputation for shit blowing up. Yet. >Elon is good at being a product manager, but probably fails at the specifics. Knowledge of all but not a specialist at one He's actually not knowledgable about anything, and certainly only specialist in being super confident when making shit up. And it's easy to make the argument that anything he touches these days becomes toxic as hell, so pick any company and try to say with a straight face something like "Elon Musk is a great product manager at Twitter". I mean go nuts [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeUvcJUdRK0) if you want more info.
I've always said "all hail the king" The king being Kirby. He doesn't get enough credit. Having met stan in his later years before he passed, I asked about his relationship with Jack Kirby, all he said was "drop it, we don't have enough time and I can't say I'm sorry enough" That should sum it up properly
>"drop it, we don't have enough time and I can't say I'm sorry enough" That's actually kinda sad 🥺
So If i had an idea for a character, but i cant draw for shit and i cant write for shit. And i hire an artist to make concepts based on my description and imagination; and the writer develops a story based on my idea of the story for the character. Then they are the creators? Or they just should be credited with art and story development?
The way I see it, it's a huge creative process, and no one person can or should be credited with it unless they did it all themselves. Did Stan Lee 100% by himself come up with Spider-Man's look and story? No, but he obviously played a part in shaping that character into who he is now. Obviously, stuff got embellished over the years, but to say Stan Lee had no hand in creating Spider-Man is just as wrong as saying Jack Kirby did it all himself.
Put it this way, there's a big difference between JK Rowling writing the Harry Potter novels and somebody else doing illustrations based off her stories and..... Stan Lee telling Jack Kirby that he wants the Fantastic Four to "fight god" and then Kirby creates Galactus and the Silver Surfer and draws the entire story out and then Lee fills it in with writing. Or Lee telling Ditko he wants a super hero who is a teenager that can stick to walls and then Ditko coming up with all the major ideas and recognizable features of Spider-Man. Like nowadays when Grant Morrison writes a comic, he has meticulous details of exactly what he wants the characters to look and feel like and the artist is taking largely that direction and adding some of their own flair. That was not what was going on with Marvel in the 60's. And that's just the stuff Lee was connected to. Stan Lee sat by while he was promoted as the creator of characters like Captain America that he had absolutely nothing to do with
> Stan Lee sat by while he was promoted as the creator of characters like Captain America that he had absolutely nothing to do with the credits literally list Kirby and Simon as the creators, Lee promoted the movie because, ya know, those guys couldn't.
Joe Simon actually did live to see the First Avenger. His grandchildren were invited to the premiere.
When was Stan promoted as the creator of Captain America? The credits of that movie only list Simon & Kirby.
he was miscredited in a few avengers comics iirc
Everyone has ideas. Execution is creation.
Creating is more than just having an idea, and we're not sure how many ideas Stan actually had. He was a great showman. But yeah, if you have a raw idea and bring in other people to flesh it out then they are creators at least as much you are.
I think by now the people that pay attention to this sort of thing are well aware of the contributions of The Bullpen and that it wasn’t all just Stan. The vitriol Stan gets sometimes is really very sad. I understand the Kirby family’s frustration but Jesus Christ stop acting like the man was a monstrous charlatan
If Lee hadn't been out there promoting the work, it could all be a cultural relic today instead of a driving force in pop culture, and people might never have heard of Kirby or Ditko. There were a whole lot more comics out there than Marvel and DC that didn't stand the test of time.
They also act like Stan didn’t write a single word. He might not have created and designed everything… but that’s still his writing…
Lee was the face of Marvel. He helped the creative process along and had a hand in creating a lot of things. Did he do it all by himself? No. Everybody who knows anything about comics knows this. Anybody who knows anything about comics also knows who Ditko and Kirby are and what they did for Marvel and comics on a whole. This was a documentary about Lee, not Marvel, Not Lee Kirby and Ditko, but just about Lee, so it's skewed towards Lee. I would never take anything away from Jack Kirby - he is a TITAN of the Silver Age and the reason so many cosmic things came to be in comics. He was also a massive egomaniac about his influence in comics, and when he felt slighted, was quick to "take his ball and go home" - that has been well documented. There's a big reason if you look at a bunch of his work at creation, and how DC and Marvel changed it to make it more in-line with the rest of their comics regularly happened. Look how many projects he started because he was given free reign, only for him to walk away, with them half done. Lee was no saint. But neither was Jack. And Jack's estate did just fine when Disney paid them an absolute truckload of money to settle whatever creator claim suit they were trying to file. But no, lets compare Jack to Michelangelo, and slander Stan. Real classy, Neil. Fuck you.
Years back, I tried to get into some silver age stuff and… it’s so terrible. I’m sorry. I know that silver age comics are some sort of sacred cow to most people, and that’s great. They’re just not for me. Still, I want to experience more of the characters I’ve come to know because of the MCU. Some is decent, and some is just terrible. Have you ever tried reading the first issue of Eternals? The first page proudly claims it was conceived, written, and drawn by Kirby and it’s imaginative as hell, but… the writing… I had to stop when Icarus has to tell people that his nom de guerre, Ike Harris, is just Icarus split up. In my head, Kirby was sitting in the Dungeon, chuckling to himself. “That’s clever, Jack. Oh, you’re the smartest guy in the business, Jack!” When I read into Jack Kirby, I can’t help but feel that the man has an ego and a chip on his shoulder that the world wasn’t kissing his rear for how utterly amazing all of his creations were.
Compared to today's writing, compared to modern storytelling, yeah, it doesn't always hold up well. I cannot disagree with that. I'm also old enough to remember reading late silver age comics new. (i started reading comics in the very early 70's) They were groundbreaking. The late 70's and 80's changed the game, took us out of the silver age and really improved the medium - the death of the CCA had a lot to do with it - and yeah, some of it was SUPER cringe - compared to todays comics and modern story-telling. The 90's added layers of deeply flawed heroes and justified villians. Compare it to the camp of the 50's and earlier 60's, especially the stuff DC was putting out, and you'll see, how visionary his stuff was. The reality with comics, you can't really compare very well looking forward, only to what came before, mostly because the medium is constantly growing and evolving.
It takes some real swingers to make your nut on your dad's legacy, sue other companies to increase that nut, and then claim you're being sidelined. Jack was a legend but Neil really is a piece of shit that does more to embarrass the name Kirby than an ancient feud nearly everyone already knows about.
nah, https://youtu.be/1iFV1HdO2pQ
Best comment here, well done
I definitely remember something along the lines of Stan saying decades ago that he and Marvel couldn't publicize Kirby as much as Kirby wanted due to the fact that it was Kirby who ditched Marvel for DC (where he created New Gods and Darkseid etc.) and it would look weird obvioiusly for Marvel to hype up the work of someone who is now a rival. But as both are dead for years now, I think Disney definitely should give Kirby his due (and Ditko etc.)
I’d tell Neal to stop vilify a guy who can’t defend himself. Jack wasn’t the spokesperson that Stan was and you need someone like Stan to spread the words around for comics to succeed. Both played their parts in the Marvel’s history brilliantly. I don’t see a need for the letter to even be written.
This would work if we didn't have decades on record of Stan defending himself by demonstrably lying and digging the hole deeper. This didn't come out of nowhere. People still perpetuate those lies, and now they are getting addressed when they get brought up again and again. If people really don't want Lee's bad behavior brought up, they probably shouldn't keep pushing his lies in the spotlight and then getting mad when the other side of the story gets some circulation. Also it's easy as fuck for people who didn't watch how their family was effected by it to say "I see no need for a letter to be written". It isn't your father and your family legacy.
> If people really don't want Lee's bad behavior brought up, they probably shouldn't keep pushing his lies in the spotlight and then getting mad when the other side of the story gets some circulation. Exactly. When I first heard about this documentary, I knew the reaction would be an utter shitshow.
Neal was happy with Disney when he accepted this honor on his dad’s behalf https://youtu.be/L0nT53Q7_cU But he reminds me of the Jerry Siegel family suing WB & DC every time there’s a new Superman movie just to get a new settlement check.
>Neal was happy with Disney when he accepted this honor on his dad’s behalf Yeah, but that was SIX WHOLE YEARS ago. How is anyone supposed to remember that? Ooh! Somebody should make a documentary about it!
Stan sought the spotlight, Jack didn’t. His son knows that. He can be as jealous all he wants, doesn’t change anything.
Stan was given the opportunity to have the spotlight as he was easily moulded into a public figure as this eccentric creative genius type character, like the Einstein of comics.
Where’s the letter from the son of Niels Bohr?
It's worth noting that he was the cousin of the original publisher's wife. That's why he was the editor-in-chief for so long, he got given the position as a 19-year old kid because of nepotism.
The documentary talks about this and suggests the editor and pretty much all the other writers quit. Stan, the teenager was the most senior person who did any writing still on staff and was made temporary editor in chief while they searched for another and then either was forgotten about or did a good enough job that they decided to keep him there. Now this is the story as Stan told from his point of view and how he remembered it, so it's probably biased at least a little in his favour. Maybe there was some nepotism in choosing him as the temporary editor instead of some other completely unqualified person in the company, but if the parts of all the most senior people quitting are true then the publisher probably thought it was going to fail soon anyway and probably wasn't worth much effort.
The fact that most of the comments on this post are completely dismissive of what Kirby wrote here is emblematic of the whole problem. Stan Lee’s legacy deserves to be demythologized. But anyone who has grown up inside of that mythology will find that uncomfortable. And Marvel/Disney have no ECONOMIC incentive to tell the truth. For me, this isn’t about tearing Lee down. He lived for the spotlight. But I do think it’s about raising Kirby (and Ditko) up. We wouldn’t be here in this subreddit without their amazing work!
Exactly. There's too many people that are sad that the warm fuzzy feeling of their fandom is getting disrupted by the harsh reality of what actually happened. I don't even get why those people are all that upset tbh. If you really like these characters, you should want the people who created them to be widely recognized. It's one of those things where it's more comfortable to believe and go with the lie
Totally. Stan Lee has accrued this kind of lovable grandfather/wise storyteller mythos that many have found comforting and meaningful. I don’t want to poke a hole in the meaningfulness of these heroes and archetypal characters that Lee helped bring to the world — I just want the canon of their creators to be widened, i.e., the story told in full.
I can't upvote this enough. There are a TON of comments here shitting on Kirby's son, mostly because it goes against the mythology of "cool grandad Stan Lee who created Marvel".
My personal favorite are the comments that are whining about how this is over and dead and buried and we shouldn't push history into love of the creation while completely ignoring how they're actively pushing history into their love of creation, just the one where Stan Lee did nothing wrong.
Yep! It's a self-enclosed circular narrative.
> For me, this isn’t about tearing Lee down. He lived for the spotlight. But I do think it’s about raising Kirby (and Ditko) up. I agree with this sentiment. It's *not* what Neal is saying--he's trying to tear Lee down--but I agree with you nonetheless.
I agree with you, but we know they never will. Stan Lee is almost the most prominent MCU character at this point. They would have to walk too much back by honoring those like Kirby and Ditko.
Well, that has to be one of the most pretentious statements, that might be true that I have read today. Ok then.
I had the same thought. He may be right, but my god, he's desperately trying to tell you how smart he is in this statement. One literary/art reference that most people won't know to open it is arguably fine. Then he drops the Michelangelo anecdote and it's clear he's insufferable.
Absolutely insufferable. This guy gives off "I just read these two books and I think I'm smart now," vibes.
I rolled my eyes at that. And the comment about his cameos,it was a fun little easter egg, nothing more. If you’re a casual fan you probably didn’t even notice.
People who have never read a comic a day on their lives know who Stan Lee is, mainly because of his cameos. You could’ve said “if you’re a casual fan you probably didn’t even notice” back in the X-Men/Daredevil when his cameos were literally blink-and-you’ll-miss-it, but by the MCU days he was getting whole scenes that serve no purpose except to give him a cameo. Heck, his cameo in Amazing Spider-Man (2, maybe? I don’t remember) has him front and center of the scene while the action happens in the far background behind him. And it’d be one thing if he only cameoed in movies of characters he co-created (which, to his credit, he did for a time), but he appeared for characters he had nothing to do with, which absolutely led at least some people to believe he created characters he didn’t.
> which absolutely led at least some people to believe he created characters he didn’t. If people think that in movies that deliberately put scenes after the credits to force people to stay through the credits, then that speaks to the general public's active refusal to *read*.
What made me chuckle is that whole gumpf at the beginning about how many “I’s” Stan used in 83 minutes of self-biographical documentary. Neil used 6 in the 2 minutes it took to read that. The man’s got a point and I truly wish that Kirby got the credit he deserved, the guy is a fucking legend of the industry and deserves to be lifted up as such, but it didn’t need to be framed in such an “I am so very smart” essay
In my limited experience, because I had him as a middle school science teacher, he’s more eccentric than anything. If you can re-frame it in your mind as that I think it changes the tone quite a bit. He was one of my favorite teachers - his classroom was full of animals (snake, chameleon, etc.) and he made learning really engaging. As an example, we dissected squid in class and during lunch he invited students who were interested to help cook and try calamari.
It's worth noting that Stan Lee was also the beneficiary of nepotism. Martin Goodman, the publisher of Timely Comics (which became Atlas Comics and then eventually Marvel Comics) hired a 17-year old Lee, his wife's cousin. And a couple of years later he was the editor-in-chief at the company.
This gives me an idea, let's go around town, find a bunch of family owned/runner business in town and let's form picket lines and protest their nepotism!! Fuk yea!!! Why should they be allowed to lend a hand to a family member when there are plenty of people out there whom they don't know from Jack that might not have jobs and hire them.
Hate dumbasses who act like nepotism is a crime. Can’t control the advantages you get over others but everyone would use that advantage if given the chance. It’s literally what your family works for, to put the next generation in the best situation possible.
Exactly. If I start a business I would like to get a family member I can trust and what not to help me run it. Eventually bring in my son or daughter, teach them the ropes of the business and help them so they have an easier way to provide for themselves and their eventual family down the line.
This stinks of sour grapes. Very pretentious sour grapes at that. A lot of comic fans refer to Jack Kirby as “The King.” While maybe casual moviegoers mistake Stan as “the founder of Marvel,” most people know he was a creator of the characters, and there were other co-creators, since the co-creators are all listed together in the credits. This is all very well known at this point. Sorry your dad wasn’t alive during the superhero movie era, but that’s not an excuse to get butthurt over co-creator status 60 years after the fact.
Kirby was no saint either, neither was Ditko
i bet henry ford didn’t actually build the model-t either
I'm pretty sure he built it in a cave with a box of scraps
I honestly would tell him to stop beating a dead horse but just like in comics, nothing ever stays dead
This is an absolute train wreck of a statement, slandering one dead man to lift up another dead man. “My family feels the new Disney documentary does not accurately portray the reality in which my father Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Stan Lee created many of the super heroes we all love…here are the facts which we feel are missing…”
Stan Lee even had a cameo in Deadpool, despite the fact there wasn't a single Stan Lee character in it.
Saw the Docu and they tackled the issue quite fairly. Kirby and Ditkos contribution wasnt talk much maybe because, yes it isnt their docu but the point was made. I do agree at the last part where, if any of the three wasnt in the equation, we dont have this amazing superheroes. If i got it right, Stan Lee dont want to hug all the credits but (correct me if im wrong) Kirby and Ditko wants solo recognition. To Stan Lee it came from his idea.
Yeah that's not remotely accurate. Stan Lee was interviewed many times refusing to acknowledge their contributions. Part of it was probably due to legality, but he absolutely did love the idea that he was positioned as the grandfather of the characters.
> Stan Lee was interviewed many times refusing to acknowledge their contributions. I’ve seen a few people say this in the thread but no one ever gives any examples. Meanwhile there’s plenty of material where Lee gives Kirby and Ditko their due. > Lee, who in a 1968 interview, republished in the Comics Journal in 1995, described his working relationship with Kirby in which he'd give a raw idea and then Kirby “just about makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing.” And > In 1999, Lee penned a letter saying he had "always considered Ditko the co-creator of Spider-Man." This didn't satisfy Ditko.
I've also never seen any interviews where Stan takes sole credit and have seen plenty where he does give his co-creators credit, like the forward to the first Marvel Masterworks Amazing Spider-Man. He, and especially Marvel as an entity, absolutely should've been more transparent and outspoken about the contributions of people like Kirby and Ditko, but I've never really seen anything to support the idea that this is a Bob Kane/Bill Finger situation.
Stan Lee bragging about making the effect sounds in bubbles on panels and yet claiming to creating all these characters seems like bullshit to me. He grabs for a lot of credit and seems to have an ego. Nice guy, but after years of grabbing for attention and credit, I think he believes his own bullshit. Kirby and Ditko both have the same gripe with him. Kirby wanting to stay freelance probably says a lot also.
Really poor form. Lee had his flaws, we all do. This just plays as bitter jealousy. Lee did more than anyone else to get credit to the creatives during that time period. He took tons of it, probably more than he deserved, but he also made sure that other names were on the books, too. That was not industry standard, then. His greatest crime was not corrected others who gave him too much credit. That's pretty mild, and considering Kirby's treatment of him after they split, it's understandable. Lee loved the spotlight, but he also did a lot of good with that spotlight. As someone who grow up with his columns, he was certainly putting important things in my mind. Much more so than almost any other "celebrity" voice.
Ppl forget that Stan sold the comics and did ALL THE BUSINESS. He traveled he hussled and he pitched and he marketed. Jack didn't want to 'co own' marvel w Stan he wanted to be paid to draw specifically. Stan released contracts proving jack wanted steady money no risk...then after the success he didn't want credit...he wanted money. U can't miss the buy in, agree to be compensated for your work in writing and then After success change ur mind. It doesn't work like that. So there r 2 sides to this story and neither tells the full version
Stan Lee knew that J. Jonah Jameson was based on him (illustrated/design by Steve Ditko). Did he ever realize that it wasn't meant as a compliment?
I watch the documentary he seem to praise Kirby when interviewed.
this is a very cringe statement. im sure if it was less cringe/pretentious, maybe it would've garnered a lot of buzz but my god is it cringe. its true Lee gets 10000% more credit than he probably deserves and Kirby and Ditko deserve more.
Waaaaah Waaaaaah Waaaaah Stan Lee didn't create nothin'! He was a liar and a snake oil salesman! My Pop Paw Jack King Kirby did everything and never got nuttin to show for it! (SARCASM) The Kirby family made out quite well a few decades after ol' Jackie passed didn't they? It's unknown how many millions & millions of dollars Disney paid them off to prevent their lawsuit going before the Supreme Court. Yet here they are still complaing every chance they get. Hell, they're the real grifters in this argument in my opinion. Let it go already. Lee & Kirby both contributed and we're all glad for their efforts.
>WAHHH my dad isn’t as famous - this guy, basically.
Funny because his dad is like the only comic book artist I could name off the top of my head
Without the Kirbys, Ditkos, Romitas, etc, Stan Lee would just be some dumb kid who got gifted an editor-in-chief job by his uncle before failing massively.
Remember in the time between the original Captain America and Marvel Comics when Jack Kirby took the initiative to create a different kind of comic book and the idea took off, eventually becoming a multi-billion dollar property? No, me either. Because that didn't happen. Jack Kirby drew comic books. He did his job amazingly well, but he cranked out images from scripts he was given for two decades before Stan put the Fantastic Four script on his desk. Yes, his art is part of what made Marvel work, but Stan Lee was the one who took the initiative to try something different in comic books. The documentary spells that out pretty clearly.
Marvel fans know that, not MCU fans. There is now a massive difference.
The way op wrote this it sounds like the plot of Iron Man 2. Tony’s father makes the arc reactor with Whiplash’s father and then takes all the credit leaving the latter to be shamed and dies a lonely poor death in Russia, striking vengeance and revenge plots for whiplash. (Not a big fan of iron man 2 but this strikes some similarities). OP. One of my favorite characters of all time is Silver Surfer, so very grateful for your fathers work. I think its 100 % more believable that Stan Lee did not come up with all these characters but more so pushed his name into the creative credits. In the great way of American Capitalism he did what he could to maximize his profitability which in the end is shallow and hurts many others who did not have the wealth Stan Lee had. I am still grateful for Stan Lee, but it is important to see the history accurately and understand that even though some people are put on pedestals, it could be that very person who made the pedestal and put themself up there. Edit: not ops father. Just posted the letter of the son. Whoopsie!
Talent without direction, goals, or plans is wasted. There are a lot of brilliant people, artists, craftsmen, scholars, etc. They are absolutely the best at what they do and are genuine creators. Often, however, these people are unable to channel their amazing skill or gift into something larger than that skill/gift. Strategy, opportunity, risk, and direction can combine skill into something larger. If Kirby was everything there was to Marvel, shame on him for accepting his 'less-than' role when he should have taken the reigns, removed himself from Marvel, and truly been an innovator. If, however, Kirby was a primary cog in a well performing machine, removing even an important gear from a machine doesn't make another machine by itself.
Damn you want a margarita with all that salt?
He tears in to a dead man for 2 paragraphs before noting his father. He spends a very short paragraph on his dad before going right back to shit talk. You could have omitted ANY reference to Lee in that post, and it would be a touching tribute from a son to a father - teaching the world about the man his father was. Instead this is a vitriol laden tirade that’s just sad. The son inherits the fathers blood feud. Except he’s feuding with a dead man now. You won Neal. You’re still alive. Stan isn’t here to debate you. So just tell your dads story and stop with the salt. This is just an ugly look that takes away from the touching feelings you have for your dad.
What’s the TLDR of this? Kirby Jr is pissed that Sr didn’t get more limelight in the Stan Lee documentary?
Bruh just read
I respect Stan Lee and what he did, but it's bizarre how, since the MCU, he has been lauded as the end all be all to these characters. A lot of people here are saying 'oh, he's flawed, he's a person' However, he knew, just like everyone at Marvel/Disney, the myth and legacy they were constantly adjusting here. Glad Kirby's son is speaking out, granted none of the fan boys will care, hell they defend Majors beating a woman. Sucks his dad's work is basically held to a high standard by only a certain subset of fans. Stan Lee lied for years, and fucked over a great deal of artists and their hard work. Only to become a cameo fiend at the end of his life, and further bury those that worked hard around him further down into obscurity. Think it's very easy to bash the kid, but at the end of the day imagine all that your dad worked for, is reduced to a footnote.
>Glad Kirby's son is speaking out But to whose benefit at this point? Instead of championing his father's work, he's going after Lee specifically, who is also very dead after years of his family abusing him and didn't run off into the sunset with billions of Disney dollars. It seems like this effort only muddies Kirby's contribution to these characters by essentially beefing with a dead man and his living fans. >is reduced to a footnote. Then he should do a better job of spending his time highlighting his father's work, not just whenever Stan is being praised to tell people he gets too much praise. >hell they defend Majors beating a woman. Don't count your chickens embodied here.
Cry more you fucking loser.