Boba Fett

As a kid Stan Lee was a childhood hero, but as I've gotten older and found out how he marginalized the work of his collaborators/co-creators, I feel I've strongly soured on him.

After hearing him on Fatman on Batman, where he wasn't entirely in his full-on hype machine mode, I began to wonder how real the genial old man persona is? I'd like to think he really is as happy and outgoing as he portrays but his ego has gotten the best of him over the years, but I still can't shake the feeling that maybe it's a facade.

What's your personal opinion of Lee?

Timber

I think he was mainly hype. I get the feeling that he was more of a Co-Plotter/scripter for most of that early stuff and not the out and out writer. I'm not saying he was a Scott Lobdell and just did scripts off of other guys plots but he gets more credit than he probably deserves.

Supermallet

He's certainly good at hyping himself up, but I think he was also a genuine talent back in the day. Now he's little more than an oddity.

stingermck

Mostly hype. I like him as an old man ambassador now, but growing up i felt he was a rip off. FF was just a JLA ripoff, and all his other characters applied a simple formula:

Name + power / radioactive something = hero

Ash Ketchum

He was a showman who knew how to marshal others' talents to great effect. He was a great organizer and hype artist, something that Marvel needed at that time. He probably took too much credit over the years and certainly mistreated his chief collaborator, Jack Kirby. He deserves both praise and criticism.

My question has always been--why'd he have such a low profile for the first 20 years of his professional tenure and then burst on the scene so loudly and unforgettably in the 1960s? Had he finally attracted the right talent to make Marvel Comics happen the way he wanted it? Was it luck, good timing, or had he laid the groundwork for Marvel's success in the previous 20 or so years?
Just curious.

Philzilla

Stan Lee is great, very personable, and I will be sad when he dies.

stingermck

I think he just rode the wave of the super hero resurgence that DC and Julius Schwartz started.

Boba Fett

The Fatman on Batman episode with him actually touches on the Marvel explosion.

DieselsDen

His biography suggest that he was an inspired creator with genuine aspirations to being an artist, but stuck with a pulp form of craft and a trashy genre. He was also a clever businessman, and likable enough to take partial credit from others without too much outrage. I appreciate his work in general and like him now a lot better than when he was getting trashed in the 80's and 90's by embittered fellow creators like Jack Kirby and the editors at THE COMICS JOURNAL.

davidh777

I think there's more to it than that, though. I can go back and bulk-read FF but not JLA--the stories and characters just aren't that interesting, especially over multiple issues. And while the radioactive device was overused, Hulk, Spider-Man, and Daredevil were all very different characters.

How much of the credit Stan deserves, I don't know. And I agree he's become a hype machine of some unworthy stuff. But I met him a few years ago and was pretty taken by his charm and enthusiasm. From my perspective, he's earned at least a fair amount of that credit.

mrhan

I don't think he is worse than Bob Kane.

Nick Danger

I read a Kirby biography (I forget which one) that said Lee was in the trenches every day during the 1960s, writing or co-writing all those titles. Even in his capacity as editor, he put in a tremedous amount of creative work.

Regardless, after working in comics since WWII, he's entitled by now to coast on his persona.

Paul_SD

I agree with the sentiments of the first paragraph. Lee has always been able to project a very affable, likable demeanor. He's always had a warm, distinctive speaking voice - which in tandem with his theatrical, over the top enthusiasm makes him fun to listen to. He was a great 'face' for not only Marvel, but the entire industry. Kirby was 'The King', but Stan is one of a kind. He won't be around much longer and when he goes it's going to be a dark day- because nobody has that precise combination of talent, ego, and affability. He reminds me in many ways of Forrest Ackerman. We won't see his like again anytime soon.

As far as the second paragraph goes- one of the great things about the GIT DVD Rom collections is that all the early issues of these ground breaking titles are cover-to-cover and it is very fascinating to read some of the early back-ups that you never see get reprinted now. I'm thinking especially of Tales To Astonish and the early Iron Man back ups, with their sub Twilight Zone, you can see them a mile coming, O'Henry twist endings. You can definitely see Lee getting better as time passes and his collaborators get stronger. Hell even the Iron Man feature starts out fairly weak and you can see him grow. I think the real cream of the crop at Marvel-Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, Romita, etc were all not only peak craftsmen in and of themselves, but they elevated Stan's game as well. He had great chemistry with many different artists-not a small thing.

And while he wasn't a perfect human being, I don't begrudge him the praise he got at all as a writer. In fact, I think in a lot of ways his work is stronger than people give it credit for. Just compare the writing, by Kirby himself, in the DC books of the early seventies- or his Cap America from his mid seventies return to Marvel- to the work he was doing with Lee just a few years prior. Lee's writing seems, even today, mostly effortless- that's an honestly creative person firing on all cylinders- not a charlatan imposter.

Josh-da-man

Agree, mostly.

I think there was something really... odd... magical... strange... going on back in the 1960s. Something about the combination of Lee, Kirby, and Ditko at that time just fucking worked and they created a new and enduring mythology.

Fantastic Four. Spider-Man. Iron Man. Incredible Hulk. X-Men. Thor. Doctor Strange. The Avengers.

I've never been impressed with anything Stan Lee has written outside of the early Silver Age Marvel books (and that's being charitable), but I think that, somehow, those guys played off of each other to great effect.

I also think Lee was able to reign guys like Kirby and Ditko. Kirby, left to his own devices, can get incomprehensible. Exhibit A: Captain Victory. And Ditko, well, when he's left alone he starts pumping out objectivist Chick tracts.

ytrez

The answer is that no one was paying any attention to the first 20 years of his professional tenure. Working in comics was the bottom of the barrel and Lee was ashamed to even admit to it. Even the creators of newspaper comic strips looked down on comic book writers/artists. When Marvel took really took off in the 60's the mainstream media picked up on the new vibe and Lee started to get magazine and newspaper reports asking for interviews. He got on TV and was invited to college campuses. Thus the hype machine started.

My personal opinion of Stan is borderline positive. I think he wrote/discussed plots with his artists. When he got busier with the editorial responsibilities of the expanding line of comics and the time demands of the Marvel hype machine he may have contributed scenarios or matchups, but not full plots. I've heard him admit that eventually Steve Ditko did full plots on Spider-Man, submitting the art to which Stan would add dialogue/captions. His dialogue was better than pretty much anything DC was putting out in the 60's though sometimes it was contrary to what was going on in the art.

My main problems are the lack of writing credits given to his artists and his dismissal of the artists role in creating the characters. Even though Jack, Steve, etc. weren't literally typing out the stories on pieces of paper, by virtue of submitting a full comic of story art, with little to no input from Stan, they "wrote" the stories we've all read. Stan was at best co-plotter/scripter or even just scripter. But he wasn't really the writer.

To say that Steve Ditko isn't the co-creator of Spider-Man is insane. C'mon, Stan.

pelenor

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UJ4pDfTe9ko" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Preterite

In an interview for the UK television documentary, "In Search of Steve Dikto", there's a moment where Lee drops the bluff persona and acknowledges Dikto's contributions - pretty much creating the character based on Stan's original idea and plotting every issue.

It's an excellent documentary if you can track it down.

Spiderbite

^you can watch on Youtube. That's where I watched it. Excellent documentary as you say.

JasonF

Stan has been pretty explicit about his feelings regarding Spider-Man. Briefly, it is that he came up with the idea of the character, then took it to Ditko who designed the look of the character. In Lee's mind, because he had the original idea, because he presented it to Ditko as a fully developed concept, he (Lee) is the creator. That is not to suggest that Ditko did not make important contributions -- he did, and Lee acknowledges this; he just doesn't think those contributions entitle Ditko to be labeled as "creator." As an aside, Lee went to Ditko second -- originally, he took the Spider-Man concept to Kirby, but Lee didn't like the character Kirby designed to be Spider-Man, so he then went to Ditko. Arguably, this supports Lee's case -- he had a clear vision in mind for the character before any artist got involved -- and arguably, it supports Ditko's -- whatever Lee had in mind, it wasn't something that anyone could put down on paper, since Lee had to step away from Kirby's version and get Ditko to do it.

More generally, I think Lee is a very talented creator -- probably one of the top ten best writers ever to do superhero comics. Separate and apart from his skills as a writer, he was also a master of hype. And as Marvel's editor (as opposed to a freelancer), part of his job was going out and selling Marvel. That made him the public face of this company that rocketed to success in the 60s, and there's a natural tendency to recast that as "Lee didn't give Kirby and Ditko credit." But that's not true -- if you go back and look at what Lee has said over the years, he has always given Ditko and especially Kirby tons of credit. But at the end of the day, when Lee goes to college campuses or on Merv Griffin to talk about Marvel, maybe he mentions Jack Kirby a few times, maybe a bunch, but at the end of the day, he's the one who's there talking, and he's the one people remember.

And part of this is backlash. Younger fans may find it hard to believe, but there was a period in the 70s through the 90s when Kirby's name was mud. People wrote in to Marvel demanding he be taken off Captain America and Black Panther. He was referred to as Jack the Hack. He was viewed as a relic, as over the hill, as an artist who stuck around past his expiration date. Coupled with Marvel's battles with Kirby over ownership of his artwork, this meant clear battle lines were drawn -- either you were on Marvel's side or Kirby's side. Most people were on Marvel's side, but a few people were on Kirby's side, and Stan Lee (and Jim Shooter) became the face of the enemy. Then, as Kirby's reputation got rehabilitated (especially after he passed), the idea of "Marvel=Stan Lee=The Enemy" spread. So Jack's reputation got rehabilitated (deservedly so), but at the expense of tearing down Lee's (undeservedly so).

The truth is that Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and Stan Lee were all creative geniuses, and none of them produced work as good solo as they did in the Lee-Kirby or Lee-Ditko collaborations.

Here's an example of how good Stan Lee was, and how much he contributed it. Check out this page from FF #94:



Now, by FF #94, pretty much everyone agrees that Kirby had control over the plots. He was having a brief conversation with Stan (at most), and then penciling the issue. Then Stan would get it and fill in the dialogue based on Jack's notes in the margin.

So on this page, Jack's notes in the margin show what he envisioned: in panel 2, Reed asks Ben if he wants to hold Franklin. In panel 3, Johnny tries to stop it -- Ben's a big lug and he's going to hurt Franklin! In panel 4, Ben takes Franklin, but in panel 5, he realizes Johnny is right, that he's a monster who shouldn't be holding Franklin because he'll inadvertently hurt him.

Lee turns the scene completely on its head, transforming it from (yet another) page about how Ben is a thing into a page that strengthens the bond between Ben and the rest of the FF. He is the only one who is not Franklin's blood relative, but this page makes it clear -- he is just as much a part of the family as Reed, Sue, and Johnny are.

That concept -- that approach to the characters and to the page -- is 100% Lee. And not only is that the product of Lee's imagination, he was able to implement it while still being true to the pencils Kirby had put down with an entirely different scene in mind. To me, that's true talent, and a clear demonstration that Lee was just as much a driving force on the book as Kirby.

Boba Fett

Just watched the Steve Ditko doc and I'd say when it came to the co-creator/creator debacle, Ditko was ultimately more than a bit petty, especially after the letter Lee wrote.

ytrez

I don't think this supports Lee's argument at all and lean towards your second point regarding that it supports Ditko's argument. Lee essentially said "I want a hero with spider powers and make him a teenager. Kirby, who was working on most of Marvel's other titles at the time recycled a costume (Captain America) and a concept (the Fly - a magic ring turns a teenager into an adult hero. NOTE: Ditko claims this concept was in Lee's 1st issue synopsis/script, it was the same as Joe Simon's Fly concept so he pointed it out and it was changed to the radioactive spider bite). Kirby claimed several times that he created Spider-Man. Here's Ditko's argument for why that isn't true:



If Lee had a clear vision he should have communicated what the character should look like before the artist designed it. That obviously didn't happen with Kirby. And Lee didn't work that way. Lee going to Ditko is simply an example of Lee acting as the editor of the comics line.

I can understand where you're coming from but not a second after Lee tells the story about writing the letter saying that he was willing to "consider" Ditko to be the co-creator he turns around and says that he really doesn't believe that to be the case. That he, Lee, is in fact the sole creator.

Ross: But do you, yourself, believe he (Ditko) co-created him?
Lee: (long pause)...(shrug)...I'm willing to say so.
Ross: That's not what I'm asking.
Lee: No. That's the best answer I can give you.
Ross: So it's a no then.
Lee: No. I really think that the guy who dreams the thing up created it. You dream it up then you give it to anybody to draw it.

Ditko knew the letter was carefully worded to be disingenuous and was rightfully unsatisfied with Lee.

Lee had an idea. Ditko turned that idea into a comic book character. In my mind that makes them co-creators:



I'd like to see Lee/Marvel try to sell a t-shirt, or pajamas, or bed sheets with just his idea on it.

Hokeyboy

Lee is a legend, and a hell of a great pitchman. But if you've been reading Marvel for decades on end (coming up on 40 years for me), if you remember every last Marvel TV show, movie, Broadway show, tour, ice capade, whatever, that Stan hyped and pitched and frothed at the mouth furiously over, that NEVER came to fruition, then you know how entirely full of poop he can be. But that's part of the fun with Stan the Man.

As far as creator recognition, I'm more upset about Bill Finger's marginalization.

JasonF

Well that's not really fair. I mean, there's no doubt whatsoever that Robert Kirkman created the Walking Dead. Do you think people would buy T-Shirts that said "It's a book about a man who wakes up from a coma to find a zombie apocalypse has occurred. He and a handful of other remaining human survivors must band together to survive, but the focus is more about the way the humans attack each other than about the way the zombies attack them." Of course not. Comics (and T-shirts) are a visual medium, and you absolutely need a visual artist to bring them to life. That doesn't mean that the artist who draws the book is necessarily a co-creator of the underlying concept.

hanshotfirst1138

When I first got into comics, I tried going back to the beginning, but Silver Age stuff is really really, hard for me to read with a modern eye. The interviews I have seen with Lee make him look like a very amicable guy, though I have heard stories about him having more unsavory business practices that weren't exactly beneficial to artist, but how much of that is true, I'm in no position to say. I'm highly inclined to agree with the criticisms being thrown at him over his so-called "co-creator" comments, especially since it's the visual identity that winds up on the merchandise.

Supermallet

However, I've seen many comics that share creator credits between writer and artist. Sam Keith is credited as co-creator of many of the characters in Sandman because he drew the first six or so issues, where many of them first appeared.