I think that’s pretty debatable. Just because something isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it’s not still hugely culturally significant. Marvel has been a pretty big part of pop culture for ages, and especially with the films over the last twenty years or so (MCU and the prior films). Stan definitely helped popularize the brand. He was as popular for being the creator of so many iconic characters as the characters themselves.

Yes I know that and I think that his original blog post is pretty damn stupid too. I agree that some people can take their fandom too far, but to chalk that up to leading to the Trump presidency or other larger political issues I’d say is a stretch.

Or Kanye.

The mainstream isn’t the only source for inspiration and influence.

In that sense, you wouldn’t understand the impact that certain artists have had on my life.

Difference obviously being that while Irwin Allen was known for disaster films he never really reached mainstream celebrity status or was a recognizable figure. Stan Lee was a well known figure in comics and pop culture for decades. Also the Marvel characters are much more tied into the lexicon of our society. People are going to continue to recognize the Marvel characters years from now, but most aren’t likely to remember some old disaster films from the seventies (not saying those are bad films but it’s true).

It’s kind of slippery; Maher isn’t a hardcore antivaxxer, but he seems to be really sympathetic to the cause. And when it comes to things like medicine and health, Maher seems to buy into a lot of woo.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#On_medicine

https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-ty...nce-1780648740

https://vaxopedia.org/2016/10/15/bil...r-on-vaccines/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fiv...-it-yet-again/

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think you’re way off base and are discrediting Stan a lot more than he deserves. I think there’s a lot more people who recognize who he was and attribute him as an important pop culture figure than you do. I also think your cereal character analogy is pretty silly but whatever.

The key difference is that Stan Lee is largely associated with Marvel and that's a huge multimedia/merchandising brand. To one group of people it might just be films, but to other groups its much more than just that when taking into account comics and everything else. I'd wager a good chunk of casual viewers knew who he was off his film cameos alone and probably could name him, and obviously the more diehard fans know who he was. The Marvel films are huge too. It isn't like they're some small flash in the pan. They're ingrained into pop culture forever at this point and make gobs of money for the film industry as well as merchandise tie-ins and stuff. Now Stan wasn't at the forefront of the films, but his characters made them possible and I think a good number of people realize that.

I don't think your other examples really match Stan or Marvel other than maybe the Mission: Impossible franchise due to Tom Cruise being a big star, but even then that's only one thing (films) versus Marvel's various output. The Jurassic Park/World films while popular money makers aren't really associated with one star necessarily (Pratt is just the current guy), and as much as I love Star Trek its much more niche than Marvel and has never had a big mainstream appeal.

The closest icon that I can think of is maybe George Lucas as Star Wars is a huge brand with the films and has superceded just those with shows, video games, toys, and other merchandise. Even he I wouldn't say was ever as spotlighted as Stan Lee though, and oftentimes when he was it was in a more negative light.