Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[captchuck]

I would wonder what history will describe the comic book industries actions regarding creator ownership? Sadly, most creators of the original Silver Age starting in 1961, can have no benefit. I do wonder if a recompense will ever be passed onto the families that survive them? I wonder what that could look like?

I see the comic book industry as this business that was in a pressure cooker from the very start. It was 4-colour pulp to be thrown away after reading. Then it became the subject of big-screen blockbusters. My breath has been taken away just imagining that what I read as a kid has reached these great heights. Why is that?

Jack Kirby, along with Joe Simon were comic book publishers in the 1950's. As far as I know, they didn't return artwork. Nobody asked for it. Their company ultimately failed. Stan Lee's Atlas Comics almost went out of business too. Stan Lee relied on Jack Kirby to pencil a lot of monster stories, which became super-hero stories. Something clicked and Stan learned to promote this stuff. This is the skill than promoted Stan as well as Jack to some level of fame. We probably wouldn't be here typing on this comics board without Stan Lee. Besides promoting himself, he also promoted the Marvel artists in such a way that they became well known in the fandom. Without Stan, Jack's family would not be receiving Disney checks today. DC artists of the 1960's are not as well known as the Marvel artists of the same era. Stan's promotion made the difference.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Jack Kirby, along with Joe Simon were comic book publishers in the 1950's. As far as I know, they didn't return artwork. Nobody asked for it. Their company ultimately failed.

Kirby-Simon in the 1950s ran their own artist's studio. They weren't really publishers i.e. there wasn't a Kirby-Simon imprint or logo anywhere comparable to Dell, EC, Atlas, DC, Archie in that time. The studio produced ideas and concepts which they created for many companies. It's not at all comparable to Image Comics or any such thing.

Stan Lee's Atlas Comics...

It was Martin Goodman's Atlas Comics. Stan Lee was the nephew of the owner. That's how he got the job and that's why he was kept on and promoted and escaped several layoffs in the company which it was Lee's job to enforce.

...almost went out of business too.

It was in a bad state but that was because Timely/Atlas was a thoroughly sh-tty and mediocre company that most comics professionals avoided like the plague if they could help it, and Kirby only went there because he had no other choice.

Stan Lee relied on Jack Kirby to pencil a lot of monster stories, which became super-hero stories. Something clicked and Stan learned to promote this stuff.

Okay if Stan Lee was such a great promoter how is that in the 1940s and 1950s, Lee didn't bring his promotional skills on selling any of the Pre-Kirby stuff. Likewise, how is it that Marvel comics went into a slump after Kirby and Ditko left in the mid-70s at which point the only thing keeping it afloat was the license of Star Wars comics.

We probably wouldn't be here typing on this comics board without Stan Lee.

We can chicken-and-egg any number of scenarios from now to the Big Bang. Without Martin Goodman, we wouldn't have Stan Lee. Without Stan Lee, Kirby-Simon probably wouldn't have quit Timely in the 1940s because someone ratted them out (and it's very likely and plausible that it was Stan Lee who did that) and who knows under Kirby-Simon, Timely actually becomes a major company earlier rather than d-cking around for 2 decades as the least creative and innovative comics publisher of its time. Nor would there be comics without Kirby and Ditko, and later editors and publishers and executives, who innovated and consolidated Marvel like Jim Shooter, Tom Defalco, Bill Jemas, David Maisel, heck even Isaac Perlmutter. We also wouldn't be here typing on this comics board without DARPA who created the internet, the computer revolution of Palo Alto funded by government subsidies, the personal computer boom of the 90s, and the arrival of internet modems and social networks in the 2000s and 2010s.

Without Stan, Jack's family would not be receiving Disney checks today.

This is the most outright false statement anyone has made in this board. I insist you retract it.

DC artists of the 1960's are not as well known as the Marvel artists of the same era.

Carmen Infantino, Neal Adams aren't well known?!

[Brian B]

I don't think poorly of Stan, because I think he was as much a victim as any of them. He paid a price. He lived in fear. He needed to say whatever he thought he had to so that he could remain the face of Marvel. He got lots of great perks, but didn't become a hero. Both Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko became the heroes of the fandom. I think this could be the subject of an opera with Stan ending up as the tragic figure.

Stan Lee made tens of millions of dollars by claiming sole credit for something he definitely did NOT solely create. How is he a victim in any way, shape or form?

[Brian B]

I tend to see your endeavour to demonise Stan Lee as activism towards backing creator ownership. Me on the other hand, though I am naive, come from the generation that saw this type of protectionism in industry, so I am aware of the pressures involved and the scares it leaves on those who went through that grinder. I see Stan Lee as weak. I was weak as well, so as a fellow of Stan Lee, I can relate. Remember, Stan Lee started in comics in the early 1940’s, so he has a long history of backed up protectionism, and Jewish badgering from the conservative power brokers of industry. But he was brought up on the legal bullying that men like Martin Goodman hit people with, (Jewish as Goodman was, he also had to swim those waters of corporate survival, and used methods that got him through). Stan Lee sat at Goodman’s table and learnt all the lessons Goodman did, and adapted them, to his big houses and fancy cars. That was their generation. Blame Stan for being a product of his upbringing in big business. You can also blame Stan for not being able to adapt, and that’s fair too. But I feel he couldn’t adapt to later be a liberal because of his scares. Call him out on his weaknesses, yes, Stan was weak, and yes he was corrupt too as you’ve pointed out. But because I lived through that kind of manipulation, I see him in a different light. Others can criticise him for being corrupt. It’s hard to step out of the thing you’ve become.

I am aware of my own deficiencies, so I don’t turn around and easily beat on one of my own.

Stan is no victim. He was testifying as recently as 11 years ago against Kirby’s heirs’ just claims.

[Brian B]

Like my answer to Revolutionary, I don’t think Stan Lee could become liberal again, after his whole career had been molded as a protector of corporate ownership. What’s he going to do? Suddenly divest himself of all he ever stood for?

Stan was NEVER liberal.

And I’m really unclear what politics have to do with continuing to steal intellectual property 50 or 60 years after the original theft.

[Brian B]

I would wonder what history will describe the comic book industries actions regarding creator ownership? Sadly, most creators of the original Silver Age starting in 1961, can have no benefit. I do wonder if a recompense will ever be passed onto the families that survive them? I wonder what that could look like?

I see the comic book industry as this business that was in a pressure cooker from the very start. It was 4-colour pulp to be thrown away after reading. Then it became the subject of big-screen blockbusters. My breath has been taken away just imagining that what I read as a kid has reached these great heights. Why is that?

Jack Kirby’s heirs settled their copyright claims with Marvel, apparently to their satisfaction. As part of the settlement, Jack Kirby is officially co-creator of most of what we think of as Marvel Comics, and Disney and Kirby’s heirs, as well as the MCU now acknowledge that. Given that Kirby’s heirs were asking for all the copyrights back and instead chose to settle as well as proudly, officially claim Kirby as co-creator of Marvel’s “universe” tells me the settlement was a LOT of money.

[Brian B]

Putting it into a wider context: Don’t 99 percent of people in work effectively do work for hire rather than take a share of the profits?

Often on comic discussion boards it seems like we believe “creators” have a uniquely bad deal...where as I feel the reality is they probably get a better deal than most people worldwide.

I’m certainly not arguing that comic book creators get a fair deal! But rather that the overall system throughout society, throughout the world is manifestly unfair...and most people in most places are getting an even worse deal.

I think compared to most fiction publishing endeavors, comics were a raw deal. The other side of that coin is the big two publishers, Marvel and DC, claim most of their creators were freelancers, and thus, Marvel in particular, had no or very limited healthcare or retirement plans. So, the big two stole artists’ work and refused to provide much in the way of benefits. Until the ‘70s, it appears that in Marvel’s case there were not any contracts involved, just broken handshake agreements. DC was definitely better in terms of following legal standards and having contracts in place, even at the detriment of folks like Siegel and Shuster. Even in the ‘70s, Marvel tried to claim people endorsing their checks meant Marvel dictated terms of any agreement about copyright. It probably was not even a legal arrangement.

[Brian B]

I know in the IT when I used to work for a steel producing company you had to sign off when you were hired that whatever programs you created was owned by the company.

Marvel really did not have that in place, and only in the ‘70s did they try to put it into place by putting it on the back of paychecks and claiming that endorsing the check was the same as signing your intellectual property away in a contract. Such a thing is legally dubious, at best.

[Brian B]

Jack Kirby, along with Joe Simon were comic book publishers in the 1950's. As far as I know, they didn't return artwork. Nobody asked for it. Their company ultimately failed. Stan Lee's Atlas Comics almost went out of business too. Stan Lee relied on Jack Kirby to pencil a lot of monster stories, which became super-hero stories. Something clicked and Stan learned to promote this stuff. This is the skill than promoted Stan as well as Jack to some level of fame. We probably wouldn't be here typing on this comics board without Stan Lee. Besides promoting himself, he also promoted the Marvel artists in such a way that they became well known in the fandom. Without Stan, Jack's family would not be receiving Disney checks today. DC artists of the 1960's are not as well known as the Marvel artists of the same era. Stan's promotion made the difference.

Holding up how DC treated Siegel and Shuster, and how DC and Bob Kane treated Bill Finger, does not actually make for a good argument that Kirby should have been grateful, far from it, in fact.

[captchuck]

Holding up how DC treated Siegel and Shuster, and how DC and Bob Kane treated Bill Finger, does not actually make for a good argument that Kirby should have been grateful, far from it, in fact.

No, you misunderstand me. The Kirby's should not be grateful for what they got. Jack Kirby is the greatest creator in the history of American comics. But, the Kirby family is lucky that they got anything. Comic books have been a raw deal for creators since the beginning. Stan Lee stayed a company man (not to his credit.) But to his credit, he did put artist credits on Marvel superhero comics in large type with nicknames that we all know. Jack Kirby will always be Jack (King) Kirby, the king of comics, as far as I'm concerned.

If not for The Fantastic Four, I'm convinced that Kirby would not be as well known today. The Fantastic Four, luckily, was a hit when Atlas Comics (or should it be MC Comics?) needed a hit. Stan and Jack's next (kind of) heroic book, The Incredible Hulk was a flop ending after 6 issues. If The Fantastic Four had flopped, can we surmise that Atlas would have continued with titles like Millie the Model and Rawhide Kid? Would Atlas have ended up as another obscure comic book company like Charlton?

And as a comment to Revolutionary_Jack, without the Lee and Kirby Fantastic Four series, Disney would have never bought Marvel. Millie the Model and Rawhide Kid are still unlikely to become Disney's next Billion Dollar Babies. Therefore, without both Jack Kirby and Stan the Man, Disney Dollars would not end up in Kirby bank accounts. I hope that is clear to you.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If not for The Fantastic Four, I'm convinced that Kirby would not be as well known today.

Jack Kirby would be remembered and celebrated for his work in the 1940s and 1950s alone, including launching the genre of Romance Comics with Joe Simon, co-creating Captain America, his work on Newsboy Legion, Fighting American, and as a mentor to many artists and a valued colleague. The reason Jack Kirby became "the King" and a legend is because he left Marvel for DC, created New Gods and a slew of other concepts, and then in the 1980s lent his voice to the creator's rights movements giving it legacy and a mascot. That's why Jack Kirby is famous and well known.

Fun fact: the first time I heard or knew of Kirby is when I saw SUPERMAN THE ANIMATED SERIES and saw the dedication at the end of the episode Apokolips Now. I knew Kirby as the creator of Darkseid, Orion, Apokolips and New Genesis, long before I found out about the Marvel stuff.

So yeah, my own life experience refutes your claim.

The Fantastic Four, luckily, was a hit when Atlas Comics (or should it be MC Comics?)

Martin Goodman owned a number of publications with various names and dummy corporations. It was part of his bizarre business strategy. Marvel was actually circulating as one of the names (and in fact there was a Marvel Comics published in the 1930s before Stan Lee even arrived working there).

And as a comment to Revolutionary_Jack, without the Lee and Kirby Fantastic Four series, Disney would have never bought Marvel.

Disney only bought Marvel because Iron Man in 2008 was a success and they announced the plan to do several movies which would lead to The Avengers. It was David Maisel, Isaac Perlmutter, Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr. and Kevin Feige who made that happen. Want to go back further, you can credit Avi Arad, Sony Pictures, Sam Raimi for the success of Spider-Man 1, which more or less bailed out Marvel. There's no direct connection between Stan Lee and the Disney purchase.

And fundamentally Disney makes most of its Marvel money from merchandise -- toys, stickers, backpacks, lunchboxes, costumes, cosplay gear. The movies...they are important for sure, but they're not the most lucrative assets of Marvel IP for Disney. There are babies born every day too young to see movies, but old enough to buy Marvel merch or have their cribs decorated with Marvel merch. And it's Jack Kirby's art on that, not any of Stan Lee's words. It's Kirby and Ditko (among others) whose work rakes in the moolah for the Disney Empire, that gives them their daily bread. I mean do you actually believe that comics are the first point of contact or reference for people when they are introduced to these characters?

There's far more direct connection between Kirby and Ditko (among others) and the bonuses and returns made by Disney execs than anything Lee did.

[captchuck]

Kirby-Simon in the 1950s ran their own artist's studio. They weren't really publishers i.e. there wasn't a Kirby-Simon imprint or logo anywhere comparable to Dell, EC, Atlas, DC, Archie in that time. The studio produced ideas and concepts which they created for many companies. It's not at all comparable to Image Comics or any such thing.

Mainline Comics was co-owned by both Simon and Kirby.

It was Martin Goodman's Atlas Comics. Stan Lee was the nephew of the owner. That's how he got the job and that's why he was kept on and promoted and escaped several layoffs in the company which it was Lee's job to enforce.

Yes, of course.

It was in a bad state but that was because Timely/Atlas was a thoroughly sh-tty and mediocre company that most comics professionals avoided like the plague if they could help it, and Kirby only went there because he had no other choice.

Exactly right.

Okay if Stan Lee was such a great promoter how is that in the 1940s and 1950s, Lee didn't bring his promotional skills on selling any of the Pre-Kirby stuff. Likewise, how is it that Marvel comics went into a slump after Kirby and Ditko left in the mid-70s at which point the only thing keeping it afloat was the license of Star Wars comics.

Stan Lee was only a successful promoter starting with the 1960's superhero titles. Neither DC or Marvel were doing well in the late seventies. Jeanette Kahn stopped DC from going all-reprint and as you say, Roy Thomas saved Marvel by acquiring rights to Star Wars.

We can chicken-and-egg any number of scenarios from now to the Big Bang. Without Martin Goodman, we wouldn't have Stan Lee. Without Stan Lee, Kirby-Simon probably wouldn't have quit Timely in the 1940s because someone ratted them out (and it's very likely and plausible that it was Stan Lee who did that) and who knows under Kirby-Simon, Timely actually becomes a major company earlier rather than d-cking around for 2 decades as the least creative and innovative comics publisher of its time. Nor would there be comics without Kirby and Ditko, and later editors and publishers and executives, who innovated and consolidated Marvel like Jim Shooter, Tom Defalco, Bill Jemas, David Maisel, heck even Isaac Perlmutter. We also wouldn't be here typing on this comics board without DARPA who created the internet, the computer revolution of Palo Alto funded by government subsidies, the personal computer boom of the 90s, and the arrival of internet modems and social networks in the 2000s and 2010s.

This can be argued all day (could be fun. I love What-If storylines) but without a successful Fantastic Four comic book, I think Marvel would have stuck with Millie the Model. That's the sort of book that Stan actually liked.

This is the most outright false statement anyone has made in this board. I insist you retract it.

Once again, without Stan Lee and Jack Kirby succeeding with The Fantastic Four, the world of comics as we know them would cease to exist. It would be the Ultimate Nullifier of the fandom.

Carmen Infantino, Neal Adams aren't well known?!

To the best of my knowledge, Marvel was the only major company regularly giving credit to artists in the mid-60's. Bob Kane had more ghosts than all the ghosts in Casper's Ghostland. Bob Kane even referred to Neal Adams as one of his ghosts. Walt Disney never stopped writing Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, even after his death. Nobody was credited to the aforementioned Casper's Ghostland either as Harvey never credited their artists. Once Carmine Infintino became publisher and collected lots of his own work in a very cool 80-Page Giant, DC at least became very good at giving everyone credit.

[captchuck]

Jack Kirby would be remembered and celebrated for his work in the 1940s and 1950s alone, including launching the genre of Romance Comics with Joe Simon, co-creating Captain America, his work on Newsboy Legion, Fighting American, and as a mentor to many artists and a valued colleague. The reason Jack Kirby became "the King" and a legend is because he left Marvel for DC, created New Gods and a slew of other concepts, and then in the 1980s lent his voice to the creator's rights movements giving it legacy and a mascot. That's why Jack Kirby is famous and well known.

Fun fact: the first time I heard or knew of Kirby is when I saw SUPERMAN THE ANIMATED SERIES and saw the dedication at the end of the episode Apokolips Now. I knew Kirby as the creator of Darkseid, Orion, Apokolips and New Genesis, long before I found out about the Marvel stuff.
So yeah, my own life experience refutes your claim.

The New Gods, etc. is Kirby's best work. Although I love the Simon and Kirby work as well. Once Fighting American got going, it showed Kirby's sense of humor was original and all his own. My first Kirby experiences were with the 1960's comics, learning about Kirby's departure in Marvelmania Magazine.

Martin Goodman owned a number of publications with various names and dummy corporations. It was part of his bizarre business strategy. Marvel was actually circulating as one of the names (and in fact there was a Marvel Comics published in the 1930s before Stan Lee even arrived working there).

Yeah, I'm aware of all that. For simplicity, I just go with the comic company name on the cover. The dummy corporation thing never seemed kosher to me.

Disney only bought Marvel because Iron Man in 2008 was a success and they announced the plan to do several movies which would lead to The Avengers. It was David Maisel, Isaac Perlmutter, Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr. and Kevin Feige who made that happen. Want to go back further, you can credit Avi Arad, Sony Pictures, Sam Raimi for the success of Spider-Man 1, which more or less bailed out Marvel. There's no direct connection between Stan Lee and the Disney purchase.

And fundamentally Disney makes most of its Marvel money from merchandise -- toys, stickers, backpacks, lunchboxes, costumes, cosplay gear. The movies...they are important for sure, but they're not the most lucrative assets of Marvel IP for Disney. There are babies born every day too young to see movies, but old enough to buy Marvel merch or have their cribs decorated with Marvel merch. And it's Jack Kirby's art on that, not any of Stan Lee's words. It's Kirby and Ditko (among others) whose work rakes in the moolah for the Disney Empire, that gives them their daily bread. I mean do you actually believe that comics are the first point of contact or reference for people when they are introduced to these characters?

There's far more direct connection between Kirby and Ditko (among others) and the bonuses and returns made by Disney execs than anything Lee did.

I don't think Stan was doing much after his comic book writing stopped other than being a figurehead. His methods of marketing worked in the 1960's, but wouldn't have worked after that.

[captchuck]

Stan Lee made tens of millions of dollars by claiming sole credit for something he definitely did NOT solely create. How is he a victim in any way, shape or form?

Stan wanted to be the star, a famous author, but his own actions limited his fame. Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko ended up with more credibility, at least in this fandom.

[captchuck]

Stan was NEVER liberal.

And I’m really unclear what politics have to do with continuing to steal intellectual property 50 or 60 years after the original theft.

Stan was the one who got Ditko into Ayn Rand. Lee eventually lost interest, but Ditko became a full convert.