Stan Lee and Spider-Man

[RJT]

Who created "Logan"? When Wolverine appeared in Len Wein's original Hulk versus Wolverine, he wasn't called Logan and wasn't identified as a mutant even, or in fact conceived to have healing factor that made him semi-immortal, or that the claws are inside him. That all developed gradually in Claremont's run (X-Men #100 is when we learn that the claws are inside him, #103 is when he's called Logan for the first time). In either case it doesn't matter because near everyone agrees that Wolverine was created by Len Wein, Romita Sr' and Roy Thomas, albeit Len Wein is given prime credit. Even Claremont.

If you want to say Stan Lee created Silver Surfer because he came up with the Norrin Radd stuff, then that amounts to saying Claremont created Wolverine. Now whether later creators are entitled to a share in the characterization of a licensed character is an interesting debate and something I am in favor of...but that's separate when the reality of Kirby's creativeness has so obviously been sidelined and short-selled whether in actuality, by Lee, or in rhetoric, by Lee-defenders. Especially since Jack Kirby literally created the Silver Surfer -- including the name -- the gimmick, the look all by himself.

Remember, you started this by saying that Stan Lee had nothing to do with the creation or development of Silver Surfer. I think a case can be made that Jack Kirby is the sole creator of Silver Surfer. But Stan Lee and John Buscema developed his entire backstory, including his identity before he appeared as Galactus' herald. And his background as Norrin Radd has played a huge part in many of the Silver Surfer stories told beyond his original ongoing, including the terrific J.M. DeMatteis run on the character, and the acclaimed Slott/Allred series. Stan Lee felt very proprietary about Silver Surfer for a long time--more so than almost any other Marvel character, most of whom he seemed to forget about the second he stopped "Writing"/editing their titles. It's also--interestingly-- probably the only character that Stan Lee did not take some credit for like he did all the others that were created by Kirby during their run on FF. He told the story countless times that Kirby brought in the art boards with the Surfer on them and that was the first Lee had seen or heard of the character. I think these two seemingly contradictory elements--his proprietary hold over the Surfer for much on the 70s and his clear admission that he had nothing to do with the genesis of the character--suggest to me that Lee did have a lot to do with the development of the Surfer's character post Fantastic Four 48-50, in a way that he maybe did not with many of the other Marvel characters.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I've always found Stan's role in the old animated series intersting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N9TIvIEnpA
how much of that was what he thought people would like to hear and how much was his actual personal thoughts?

I would say all of that was what he thought people would like to hear. In the first place, the script and the words spoken were written by John Semper. So Stan Lee is ventriloquizing what Semper thinks Lee would say.

As for Stan Lee's "actual personal thoughts", nobody had access to that other than Stan Lee. All you can do is try and find some hints or indications, such as a separation between public persona and private actions, long arc of their careers, consistent patterns and form an informed view based on that.

Remember, you started this by saying that Stan Lee had nothing to do with the creation or development of Silver Surfer. I think a case can be made that Jack Kirby is the sole creator of Silver Surfer. But Stan Lee and John Buscema developed his entire backstory, including his identity before he appeared as Galactus' herald. And his background as Norrin Radd has played a huge part in many of the Silver Surfer stories told beyond his original ongoing, including the terrific J.M. DeMatteis run on the character, and the acclaimed Slott/Allred series. Stan Lee felt very proprietary about Silver Surfer for a long time--more so than almost any other Marvel character, most of whom he seemed to forget about the second he stopped "Writing"/editing their titles. It's also--interestingly-- probably the only character that Stan Lee did not take some credit for like he did all the others that were created by Kirby during their run on FF. He told the story countless times that Kirby brought in the art boards with the Surfer on them and that was the first Lee had seen or heard of the character. I think these two seemingly contradictory elements--his proprietary hold over the Surfer for much on the 70s and his clear admission that he had nothing to do with the genesis of the character--suggest to me that Lee did have a lot to do with the development of the Surfer's character post Fantastic Four 48-50, in a way that he maybe did not with many of the other Marvel characters.

Hmm...that's an interesting argument.

What I meant by development is the original Galactus Trilogy and the Surfer's appearances after that in Fantastic Four under Kirby. Silver Surfer's personality is mostly set in stone by Kirby in the first Galactus stories.

In the '70s, Lee and Kirby actually worked on a Silver Surfer proto-graphic novel and for this collaboration Kirby left a paper trail showing him clearly doing the plotting and conception and storytelling while Stan appeared indifferent and lackadaisical as always. This is in Riesmann's book.

[RJT]

Hmm...that's an interesting argument.

What I meant by development is the original Galactus Trilogy and the Surfer's appearances after that in Fantastic Four under Kirby. Silver Surfer's personality is mostly set in stone by Kirby in the first Galactus stories.

I think reading the first 17 issues of the first Silver Surfer series by Stan Lee and John Buscema and the 18th issue that was done by Jack Kirby will show that Lee and Kirby’s respective ideas of what Surfer’s personality were were very different.

I think we tend to get hung up on who “created” characters—probably because it’s something that has had legal significance to it. But when dealing with an ongoing superhero universe, the development of those characters is often just as important. Chris Claremont did not “create” Wolverine but his development of the character over the 17 years he wrote him inarguably is why he is still a popular character today. If Wolverine had been limited to his first appearance in Hulk by Len Wein and Herb Trimpe, I doubt most of us would have any idea who he was. A lot of what people think about as “Superman” come from stories after Siegel and Shuster left the title.

Comics is a unique medium in that hundreds of creators have contributed to ongoing stories of these characters. And while Kirby was an almost singular figure in his ability to create characters with “good bones” (I think Ben Grimm is a good example of a character who is practically indistinguishable today from the version Kirby did in the mid to late 60s) the truth is that nearly even Marvel and DC character has been developed beyond their first appearance by hired hands. Stan Lee probably never created a character in his entire life (and lied and stole credit from those he hired as editor) but he certainly helped develop some as a scripter. I reread Amazing from 39 to 122 this past long weekend and there are issues by Romita, Buscema, and Gil Kane and throughout it all there is a common tone and voice in all the characters (that is markedly different from the first 38 when Ditko clearly was running the whole show) that clearly suggest to me that Lee was doing more than signing invoices and stealing credit. How much one values his contributions during that time is purely subjective but denying he made any contributions is something else entirely.

[NC_Yankee]

This belongs on a Spider-Man thread, I should think.



Stan Lee didn't really care a great deal about comics, personally. In his private utterances and recorded exchanges he was constantly trying to get out of comics into more respectable lines of work (fiction, movies, media personality).

So I don't know how much Stan Lee really liked any of the Marvel characters on a personal level. If he liked Spider-Man it was because he was popular and Stan Lee wanted to be associated with that popularity.



Well he didn't do much or any major lifting in creating the character or concept you know. So I'd say he put as much effort in creating Spider-Man as he did other characters, lol.

-- The concept of Spiderman and even the name pre-existed Lee, it was developed in the 1950s by the Simon and Kirby studios, with Simon even designing a Spiderman logo (sans hyphen).
-- Per Tom Brevoort, a Lee defender, it was Kirby who pitched the idea of Spiderman as a teenage hero with spider-abilities to Stan when he was presenting concepts.
-- Kirby developed a first concept which had the hero staying with his Aunt and Uncle. Then Kirby claims that the workload was too much so he gave it to Steve Ditko who expressed an interest.
-- Ditko says that he chanced on the concept at Lee's office and felt it was too much like The Fly (an Archie comics hero that was a repurposed concept from the failed Spiderman of Simon and Kirby idea) and it seems like Lee cottoned to his interest and asked him to give it a whirl.
-- Ditko came up with the costume design, gadget design, action movement, character designs, and the basic plot i.e. -- boy gets bitten by a radioactive spider, lets go a burglar who kills his Uncle.
-- The names of the characters, seem to have been cobbled from earlier stuff, Jack Kirby did a Golf comic in the late'50s called "On the Green with Peter Parr" and Ditko and Lee did a Timely/Atlas era comic about a mermaid who stayed with Aunt May and Uncle Ben (let's see how Al Ewing finds a way to work that into continuity).
-- Stan Lee's big innovation was the hyphen. That was definitely him.

So basically, the only original stuff in the first Spider-Man comic was by Steve Ditko. The interesting question is if Ditko liked Spider-Man because it seems like Ditko valued Doctor Strange as a more personal creation, being that it originated and generated almost entirely from him whereas with Spider-Man he was salvaging a Kirby-Simon pitch that went nowhere in circles for a decade or so.

I do not know Steve Ditko, but the fact he never ( to my knowledge) spoke negatively about Peter, Spider-Man nor about his other creations ( Strange, JJJ, Norman, Otto etc) should be a clue that characters that lasted over half a century after he created them is something I am sure he took pride in.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do not know Steve Ditko, but the fact he never ( to my knowledge) spoke negatively about Peter, Spider-Man nor about his other creations ( Strange, JJJ, Norman, Otto etc) should be a clue that characters that lasted over half a century after he created them is something I am sure he took pride in.

Ditko generally wanted the work to speak for itself and didn't want to constantly be asked or made to answer questions on any of his past work. And that's how it should be.

I reread Amazing from 39 to 122 this past long weekend and there are issues by Romita, Buscema, and Gil Kane and throughout it all there is a common tone and voice in all the characters (that is markedly different from the first 38 when Ditko clearly was running the whole show) that clearly suggest to me that Lee was doing more than signing invoices and stealing credit.

Firstly Stan Lee only participated regularly until ASM#110. From #111 it was Gerry Conway's run. Conway was hired and was able to mimic Stan Lee's style in his early issues but he gradually changed as time went on.

And even in the Lee-Romita era (From #39-110), you have a lot of peaks and valleys. The first 12-14 issues (ASM#39-52) is good, and then you have another run of good comics from ASM#87-98, but between that a lot of mediocrity and repetition and trite melodrama, and then after that you have Roy Thomas' brief and insane (in a bad way) run with Spider-Man which includes the Savage Land trip, the Mobius intro and so on.

[RJT]

Firstly Stan Lee only participated regularly until ASM#110. From #111 it was Gerry Conway's run. Conway was hired and was able to mimic Stan Lee's style in his early issues but he gradually changed as time went on.

And even in the Lee-Romita era (From #39-110), you have a lot of peaks and valleys. The first 12-14 issues (ASM#39-52) is good, and then you have another run of good comics from ASM#87-98, but between that a lot of mediocrity and repetition and trite melodrama, and then after that you have Roy Thomas' brief and insane (in a bad way) run with Spider-Man which includes the Savage Land trip, the Mobius intro and so on.

You do realize I said I just reread these comics, right? I know that Conway took over and that Thomas filled in. I was just listing the issues I read, the majority of which were credited to Stan Lee. I know how to read title pages and credit boxes.

And your opinion of those issues is subjective. If your assertion is that Stan Lee contributed nothing, you can’t wave away when someone points out that Stan Lee actual made contributions to a book with a “but I don’t like those contributions.”

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If your assertion is that Stan Lee contributed nothing...

I never actually asserted that Stan Lee contributed nothing.

[RJT]

I never actually asserted that Stan Lee contributed nothing.

Sorry, I must’ve misread your 800 comments about the subject.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Sorry, I must’ve misread your 800 comments about the subject.

Look up my posts on this thread, never said that once.

You simply assumed that me arguing and setting the record straight that Lee should not be treated as the major creative force on these characters was equivalent to me saying Lee contributed nothing.

[RJT]

Look up my posts on this thread, never said that once.

You simply assumed that me arguing and setting the record straight that Lee should not be treated as the major creative force on these characters was equivalent to me saying Lee contributed nothing.

The person who compared you to an evangelical new nonsmoker was spot on. People have known this about Stan Lee and have been discussing it openly for over thirty years; there have been multiple articles and books written on the subject. But because you just learnt about it for the first time from a book you read like two weeks ago you have to condescend and talk down to everyone.

[FFJamie94]

I just got ignore. I'm tired of every topic of Stan Lee getting derailed into the same debate. People who have spent any amount of time in comic circles have already made up their mind.
The most we're going to get is what we've got, Ditko, Kirby and Lee getting an equal share of the credit.

It stops being an interesting topic and makes me wish this site had a better block button.

[NC_Yankee]

Ditko generally wanted the work to speak for itself and didn't want to constantly be asked or made to answer questions on any of his past work. And that's how it should be.



Firstly Stan Lee only participated regularly until ASM#110. From #111 it was Gerry Conway's run. Conway was hired and was able to mimic Stan Lee's style in his early issues but he gradually changed as time went on.

And even in the Lee-Romita era (From #39-110), you have a lot of peaks and valleys. The first 12-14 issues (ASM#39-52) is good, and then you have another run of good comics from ASM#87-98, but between that a lot of mediocrity and repetition and trite melodrama, and then after that you have Roy Thomas' brief and insane (in a bad way) run with Spider-Man which includes the Savage Land trip, the Mobius intro and so on.

I agree with you 100% that is he work speaks for itself and it should, but I still imagine that privately, Ditko must have been pleased that his characters have lasted as long as they have, and that he along with very others ( Jack Kirby, Bob Kane and Stan Lee to name three that come to mind) will be discussed as long as comic books exist.

[Holt]

The block button is your friend, people.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Don't know about Spidey being his favourite character. Pretty sure JJJ was. Certainly one he identified with and actually wanted to play if the Spider-man movie had happened in the 80s. But, again, that might have just been Stan trying to regal us with his fanciful notions.

Now, as to his favourite DC character? Apparently that was Lobo.

[Somecrazyaussie]

The person who compared you to an evangelical new nonsmoker was spot on. People have known this about Stan Lee and have been discussing it openly for over thirty years; there have been multiple articles and books written on the subject. But because you just learnt about it for the first time from a book you read like two weeks ago you have to condescend and talk down to everyone.

That book resulted in a epiphany and now it is his crusade in life to squash the devil that is Stan Lee. This is totally forgetting that the writer of said book may have been biased or was working a angle themselves. Hence why it is better to read between the lines. We all know Stan lied and took credit (then passed it off as humour when corrected on it). But to say he literally did nothing is underestimating his contributions.

Either way, it does make the boards more lively.