Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[4sake Baned]

By the way I came across this cool YouTube video on Twitter.

This is Stan Lee as people knew him in the 1960s at Marvel. The famous Stan Lee look (wig, glasses, mustache, permanent cheshire cat grin) came about 1970.

It's kind of uncanny, but this is the Stan Lee who collaborated with Kirby and Ditko, and how they largely remembered him:



It's a look at the "man behind the curtain" none of that slick, slangy presentation that came later.

Wooooooowwwwwww

[Brian B]

I think it’s undeniable that Stan Lee gobbled up way more credit than he deserved. As dialogue writer on so many of these comics, Stan deserves some sort of creator credit and acknowledgement.

BUT he was also completely full of sh!t on claiming sole credit as he did across so many Marvel heroes. Quite frankly, Stan Lee was a thief in the employ of Martin Goodman, then Perfect Film/Cadence, then as a publicly traded company, and finally for Disney. This is the real problem I have with Stan as a nearly lifelong Marvel fan.

I love Stan. I love the Marvel characters. I love how Stan marketed the comics to us kids, his whole huckster personality.

BUT, this is also the man who put into print demonstrable falsehoods about who created what, attempting to erase Kirby’s, Ditko’s, Lieber’s, and others’ contributions. He even had the unmitigated gall to lie under oath in depositions and claim to be the sole author, the sole creator, of so many of Marvel’s characters.

This isn’t just about artistic credit and acknowledging who created what. This isn’t about some sense of justice. This is about a guy who stole credit and was paid for it. Stan often liked to point out he didn’t actually own the characters or Marvel, he was just an employee. But not all employees got treated as well as Stan. Jack Kirby didn’t get to move to the hills of L.A. on the company dime. Kirby had to sign over Captain America for a loan for moving expenses at a 6% interest rate. Jack Kirby didn’t hobnob at the Polo Lounge in Beverly Hills with stars and starlets. Jack Kirby didn’t own Rolls Royces. Jack Kirby and all of those other creators were not over the course of 40 years allowed to draw millions in company pay, and for what? To fail at movie pitches for another 30 years? And why was Stan Lee’s name so big over the credits and splash pages starting shortly after Perfect Film / Cadence bought Marvel?

Stan’s word was practically all Marvel had, through four different owners, to buttress its claims of ownership of these characters. If Stan created it and directed all the work, as he claimed, then Marvel is the author as Stan just did work-for-hire as a company employee. If Stan did not direct all this work, if Kirby brought these works to the table, Kirby’s heirs could reclaim his copyrights and intellectual property, as they attempted in the courts.

For those who want to continue to believe Stan was all he claimed, ask yourself, why did Disney/Marvel settle with the Kirby estate? Disney doesn’t care that much about bad press over intellectual property. Look at Winne the Pooh and Mary Poppins. But Marvel and Disney settled with the Kirby estate. At the time, Disney had won in two lower court rulings. Disney’s hand appeared strong, but they still settled with the Kirbys. Why would Marvel do that unless the Kirby claims have great merit? Jack is now acknowledged as “co-creator” of most of the original Marvel Universe, as part of the settlement, officially and publicly. It is official after 60(!) flipping years that Stan Lee is not the sole creator of Marvel!

It’s also heavily rumored Ditko got some kind of settlement, too. Note the creator credits on the Spider-Man movies. Stan never gave Ditko real credit. But Sony and Disney give Ditko credit.

Larry Lieber ought to seek out a good lawyer.

Did Stan co-create some of the Marvel Universe? It really doesn’t matter. Stan stole credit that wasn’t his to take. It’s a massive character flaw. I still love Stan and Marvel, but it’s not without a bitter taste.

By the way, Revolutionary_Jack, I think you are way off base about Sean Howe’s book. It’s very good and well reaearched. If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do. I have not read the Riesman book, yet, but Howe does not paint a real pretty picture of Stan or Martin Goodman, or Marvel as an employer. It really is a sad story.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think it’s undeniable that Stan Lee gobbled up way more credit than he deserved. As dialogue writer on so many of these comics, Stan deserves some sort of creator credit and acknowledgement.

BUT he was also completely full of sh!t on claiming sole credit as he did across so many Marvel heroes. Quite frankly, Stan Lee was a thief in the employ of Martin Goodman, then Perfect Film/Cadence, then as a publicly traded company, and finally for Disney. This is the real problem I have with Stan as a nearly lifelong Marvel fan.

I love Stan. I love the Marvel characters. I love how Stan marketed the comics to us kids, his whole huckster personality.

BUT, this is also the man who put into print demonstrable falsehoods about who created what, attempting to erase Kirby’s, Ditko’s, Lieber’s, and others’ contributions. He even had the unmitigated gall to lie under oath in depositions and claim to be the sole author, the sole creator, of so many of Marvel’s characters.

This isn’t just about artistic credit and acknowledging who created what. This isn’t about some sense of justice. This is about a guy who stole credit and was paid for it. Stan often liked to point out he didn’t actually own the characters or Marvel, he was just an employee. But not all employees got treated as well as Stan. Jack Kirby didn’t get to move to the hills of L.A. on the company dime. Kirby had to sign over Captain America for a loan for moving expenses at a 6% interest rate. Jack Kirby didn’t hobnob at the Polo Lounge in Beverly Hills with stars and starlets.

Take a bow!!!

At the very least, this ought to make it clear that I have been drawing it mild, contrary to what some here have argued. That's right I have been the moderate centrist in this debate it's just that the rest on this board are too conservative to see the light.

Jack Kirby didn’t own Rolls Royces. Jack Kirby and all of those other creators were not over the course of 40 years allowed to draw millions in company pay, and for what?

By the way this is as good a time as any to correct one point about Roy Thomas' The Hollywood Reporter riposte (or failed riposte) that has been bugging me but which I've not addressed yet. Thomas said and I quote: "No, Jack may not have gotten rich drawing comics — few of us did — but the decade from 1959 to 1970 that he was employed full-time by Marvel Comics was probably the most financially stable job that he ever had in the comics industry, a field not exactly known for offering long-term security."

In fact the most stable job Kirby ever had was when he worked at Ruby-Spears animation in the late '70s and early 80s. He got entered into the animation guild union and got healthcare for the first time in his life. Kirby felt relieved because he was worried about health issues that could eat into the finances and per Evanier and others, Kirby would have killed himself rather than put his family though that.

So that's another instance of Roy Thomas spreading misinformation.

Larry Lieber ought to seek out a good lawyer.

With him, it's too personal, a lifetime of betrayal and family memories which he's trying to sort out by contemplating the writing of a memoir.

By the way, Revolutionary_Jack, I think you are way off base about Sean Howe’s book. It’s very good and well reaearched. If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do. I have not read the Riesman book, yet, but Howe does not paint a real pretty picture of Stan or Martin Goodman, or Marvel as an employer. It really is a sad story.

Howe's book is mixed in my opinion. I said this before. I said that the parts of the book dealing with Jim Shooter are hopelessly one-sided and doesn't paint a representative picture of Marvel in the '80s. The rest of the book dealing with Lee and Goodman and the corporate history is indeed interesting but even then, Riesman has far more new material and information to offer on that front.

I recommend his Lee biography, which is also the best book about how Timely/Atlas/Marvel really functioned. I haven't scratched the surface of the stuff in this book in my posts about it.

[Thezmage]

By the way this is as good a time as any to correct one point about Roy Thomas' The Hollywood Reporter riposte (or failed riposte) that has been bugging me but which I've not addressed yet. Thomas said and I quote: "No, Jack may not have gotten rich drawing comics — few of us did — but the decade from 1959 to 1970 that he was employed full-time by Marvel Comics was [i]probably the most financially stable job that he ever had in the comics industry, a field not exactly known for offering long-term security."

In fact the most stable job Kirby ever had was when he worked at Ruby-Spears animation in the late '70s and early 80s. He got entered into the animation guild union and got healthcare for the first time in his life. Kirby felt relieved because he was worried about health issues that could eat into the finances and per Evanier and others, Kirby would have killed himself rather than put his family though that.

So that's another instance of Roy Thomas spreading misinformation.

When was Ruby-Spears animation considered part of the comics industry?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

When was Ruby-Spears animation considered part of the comics industry?

I am impressed you didn't draw on the word probably as Thomas' get-out-of-jail-free card.

[Alan2099]

When was Ruby-Spears animation considered part of the comics industry?

When it makes Stan look bad.

Some people are more interested in doing that than being accurate.

[Thezmage]

I am impressed you didn't draw on the word probably as Thomas' get-out-of-jail-free card.

I am impressed that you would phrase me pointing out your deliberate misrepresentation of Thomas' quote as a "get-out-of-jail-free card" as if it reflected more poorly on him than on you

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I am impressed that you would phrase me pointing out your deliberate misrepresentation of Thomas' quote as a "get-out-of-jail-free card"...

What can I say, I call it as it is.

...as if it reflected more poorly on him than on you

The Hollywood Reporter is an industry trade paper meant for people who don't know comics stuff or inside-baseball stuff about Lee, Kirby and so on. So when Roy Thomas says that this was Kirby's most stable job "in the comics industry" without adding any caveats or acknowledging Kirby's work in animation or the value of a union job in animation, he's essentially lying by omission, or giving a false impression that Marvel Comics was as good as it got for Kirby across his career**.

Defending a company that exploited his labor, under-credited him, paid him pittance and repeatedly humiliated him privately and public as the most stable job Jack Kirby had which he did in that article is a false narrative, and that was the impression that Thomas wanted to convey in that article. To return to that Stan Lee video I posted above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe6VllAgWLI&t=5s). Lee is introducing the 1960s Captain America cartoon and at the end of the clip he talks about Marvel directly using the comic pages as cels or background material for limited animation. Kirby was paid nothing for this, nor for the Marvel early animation work in the 1960s and Lee in that video unmasked as the corporate-shark he truly was, is putting a polite smile to that. So I wouldn't say that the animation-and-comics side was entirely separate or cordoned off as a defense for Thomas.

** Likewise, even in the comics side of things, it's not true that Kirby working at Marvel Comics in the 1960s was his best or most paying job in the industry. Kirby made far money off of New Gods especially when Jeanette Kahn took over and arranged for Kirby to get royalties off merchandise. In the 1980s, a New Gods series of toys was lucrative and provided Kirby and his family stability for the rest of his life. On a biographical anecdote, it also allowed Kirby to enter Toys R Us and buy gifts for his kids whereas in the '60s he avoided entering because seeing merch made off his creations without any pay, would have given him ulcers. Likewise, Kirby's work with Image Comics in the 1990s was also a much bigger payday than '60s Marvel was.

[Thezmage]

What can I say, I call it as it is.



The Hollywood Reporter is an industry trade paper meant for people who don't know comics stuff or inside-baseball stuff about Lee, Kirby and so on. So when Roy Thomas says that this was Kirby's most stable job "in the comics industry" without adding any caveats or acknowledging Kirby's work in animation or the value of a union job in animation, he's essentially lying by omission, or giving a false impression that Marvel Comics was as good as it got for Kirby across his career**.

Defending a company that exploited his labor, under-credited him, paid him pittance and repeatedly humiliated him privately and public as the most stable job Jack Kirby had which he did in that article is a false narrative, and that was the impression that Thomas wanted to convey in that article. To return to that Stan Lee video I posted above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe6VllAgWLI&t=5s). Lee is introducing the 1960s Captain America cartoon and at the end of the clip he talks about Marvel directly using the comic pages as cels or background material for limited animation. Kirby was paid nothing for this, nor for the Marvel early animation work in the 1960s and Lee in that video unmasked as the corporate-shark he truly was, is putting a polite smile to that. So I wouldn't say that the animation-and-comics side was entirely separate or cordoned off as a defense for Thomas.

** Likewise, even in the comics side of things, it's not true that Kirby working at Marvel Comics in the 1960s was his best or most paying job in the industry. Kirby made far money off of New Gods especially when Jeanette Kahn took over and arranged for Kirby to get royalties off merchandise. In the 1980s, a New Gods series of toys was lucrative and provided Kirby and his family stability for the rest of his life. On a biographical anecdote, it also allowed Kirby to enter Toys R Us and buy gifts for his kids whereas in the '60s he avoided entering because seeing merch made off his creations without any pay, would have given him ulcers. Likewise, Kirby's work with Image Comics in the 1990s was also a much bigger payday than '60s Marvel was.

Taking a quote that specifies that it is talking about a specific industry and pretending that it doesn't in order to call the person who made the quote a liar is a false narrative, and refusing to admit it when called out on it is pretty damn dishonest.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

…

Thank you for the kind words.

[Brian B]

...Some people are more interested in doing that than being accurate.

That’s not true.

You could say we are being mean-spirited about Stan. That maybe true. You could say we are speaking unconscionably bad about the dead, and that’s wrong. You might be right about that, too.

But the record really is very clear. Stan tried to lay claim to creating everything. And that’s just wrong. It’s true.

I am a Kirby fan, and I think Stan hurt Jack’s estate, at the very least.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That’s not true.

You could say we are being mean-spirited about Stan. That maybe true. You could say we are speaking unconscionably bad about the dead, and that’s wrong. You might be right about that, too.

But the record really is very clear. Stan tried to lay claim to creating everything. And that’s just wrong. It’s true.

I am a Kirby fan, and I think Stan hurt Jack’s estate, at the very least.

Fundamentally, Stan Lee's obfuscation of credits and failure to give due acknowledgement defines him. That has to be the central part of his legacy more than anything else he's done.

That can't be some inconvenient stuff you can ignore. This is real-life and not comics, in comics having a dark secret or shady backstory might give complexity, in real-life it creates unresolved issues for which there's no redemption or absolution.

[Brian B]

Fundamentally, Stan Lee's obfuscation of credits and failure to give due acknowledgement defines him. That has to be the central part of his legacy more than anything else he's done.

That can't be some inconvenient stuff you can ignore. This is real-life and not comics, in comics having a dark secret or shady backstory might give complexity, in real-life it creates unresolved issues for which there's no redemption or absolution.

Of course being fair about it, none of this is really big or surprising news for us fans. I remember hearing about Kirby’s fight for his artwork back in the ‘80s. It’s really just part and parcel of the history of the comics business. And speaking for myself as s consumer, it never stopped me from buying a Marvel comic, and that’s wrong. I should have been a more conscientious consumer.

[JackDaw]

Of course being fair about it, none of this is really big or surprising news for us fans. I remember hearing about Kirby’s fight for his artwork back in the ‘80s. It’s really just part and parcel of the history of the comics business. And speaking for myself as s consumer, it never stopped me from buying a Marvel comic, and that’s wrong. I should have been a more conscientious consumer.

I wonder what the general “fan” view of Stan is?

My own gut feeling is that if an appropriately worded poll was arranged on this site (where I guess general comics knowledge is way higher than general population) that considerably more people would be ticking the “Good old Stan, main creator” box than the “Stan took too much credit” box, and very few would tick “Villain”.

[jackolover]

I don’t think we can reconcile what went on in the publishing business in the early days of Timely/Atlas /Marvel. Publishing rules dictated how to deal with staff, and ownership was assumed to be the company’s. Today, nobody likes that ownership rule. To me, Stan Lee was just the face of that ownership rule, so who am I to judge, when Stan couldn’t do anything about it, because the company had better lawyers, and, the judiciary backed the big companies. Justice was missing in those days. Employees lived with pay per page deals because that’s what it was. And another thing. Nobody thought the Marvel little characters that they produced would last 5 years, so who thought about litigation back then? It was not until Marvel characters outlasted their predicted life, that people then thought about creator ownership. History is full of injustices. Maybe Marvel should have done what Disney did after 2010 sooner, but not in 1961. That was a world full of neglect and brutalisation. I’ve been the recipient of bullying through my life, so I learnt to just get on with life, until life got better.