Stan Lee gets star on Hollywood Walk of Fame

[Hector]

I don't consider Lee quite the rip-off artist that Bob Kane has been revealed to be. Lee may have taken too much credit at times, but he never outright denied the contributions of Kirby, Ditko, etc. like Kane did Bill Finger.

I don't see Kane as ripping off Finger in terms of creating Batman...they both did.

I believe Kane first conceived Batman..but he wanted to make him a superhero with bright colors (a la Superman). Finger is the one who suggested a dark menacing look to him...with cowl and long cape...who fought crime with intelligence...a brilliant scientific detective.

Where the problem lies is that Kane took complete control of the Batman character (and sold the rights)...and consequently screwed Finger in the process.

It was not until Kane as an old dude...started giving credit to Finger...a little too late for my taste.

[clemso]

The visual concept is just as important as the initial idea. Lets take Spider-man. His costume is probably one of the most recognized comic book costumes on the planet along side Batman and Superman. When you see a Mego Spider-man, that's Ditko's work your looking at. In the hands of another artist based on Stan Lee's synopsis, it might not have worked. Has anyone heard of the Fly, do you know what he looks like? That could easily have been Spider-man's fate all those years ago. Kirby and Ditko were not just any artists, they were comic book giants in their field. i am happy to give Stan Lee credit, just as long as the artists are equally acknowledged too.

[The Toyroom]

If you can't handle the heat...get out of the kitchen.

Excelsior!

[The Toyroom]

Stupid double post!

[The Toyroom]

I can see why Funky Flashman was based on Stan Lee

Stan was good in his prime when he was working on books with the top guys in the business....a symbiotic relationship of sorts.

When he left the day-to-day grind of writing/editing books and became a figurehead....Mr. Hollywood as it were.....you can see how much of an influence the artists had on Lee's "contributions". Left to his own devices, he really hasn't created anything memorable since the golden days...

Since leaving Marvel's auspices, all of, his solo endeavors have fallen flat...his internet companies, his work with other "celebrities" on characters, etc. ....it's all been one bust after another. But he still tries his damndest to promote the hell outta 'em

[Hector]

I don't consider Lee quite the rip-off artist that Bob Kane has been revealed to be.

I see what you mean though......

Jerry Robinson, who also worked with Finger and Kane on the strip at this time, has criticized Kane for failing to share the credit. He recalled Finger resenting his position, stating in a 2005 interview with The Comics Journal:

Bob made him more insecure, because while he slaved working on Batman, he wasn't sharing in any of the glory or the money that Bob began to make, which is why... [he was] going to leave [Kane's employ]. ... [Kane] should have credited Bill as co-creator, because I know; I was there. ... That was one thing I would never forgive Bob for, was not to take care of Bill or recognize his vital role in the creation of Batman. As with Siegel and Shuster, it should have been the same, the same co-creator credit in the strip, writer and artist.

__________


Although Kane initially rebutted Finger's claims at having created the character, writing in a 1965 open letter to fans that "it seemed to me that Bill Finger has given out the impression that he and not myself created the ''Batman, as well as Robin and all the other leading villains and characters. This statement is fraudulent and entirely untrue." Kane himself also commented on Finger's lack of credit. "The trouble with being a 'ghost' writer or artist is that you must remain rather anonymously without 'credit'. However, if one wants the 'credit', then one has to cease being a 'ghost' or follower and become a leader or innovator."

_________

In 1989, Kane revisited Finger's situation, recalling in an interview:

In those days it was like, one artist and he had his name over it [the comic strip] — the policy of DC in the comic books was, if you can't write it, obtain other writers, but their names would never appear on the comic book in the finished version. So Bill never asked me for it [the byline] and I never volunteered — I guess my ego at that time. And I felt badly, really, when he [Finger] died.

_________

Kane, in his 1989 autobiography, detailed Finger's contributions to Batman's creation:

One day I called Bill and said, 'I have a new character called the Bat-Man and I've made some crude, elementary sketches I'd like you to look at'. He came over and I showed him the drawings. At the time, I only had a small domino mask, like the one Robin later wore, on Batman's face. Bill said, 'Why not make him look more like a bat and put a hood on him, and take the eyeballs out and just put slits for eyes to make him look more mysterious?' At this point, the Bat-Man wore a red union suit; the wings, trunks, and mask were black. I thought that red and black would be a good combination. Bill said that the costume was too bright: 'Color it dark gray to make it look more ominous'. The cape looked like two stiff bat wings attached to his arms. As Bill and I talked, we realized that these wings would get cumbersome when Bat-Man was in action, and changed them into a cape, scalloped to look like bat wings when he was fighting or swinging down on a rope. Also, he didn't have any gloves on, and we added them so that he wouldn't leave fingerprints.



Oh man...all this drama...just like here at the Museum...

[Hector]

Excelsior!

[enyawd72]

If you can't handle the heat...get out of the kitchen.

All I did was make an innocent post about Stan getting a star, and it turned into this crap. I can't believe how much flack I've gotten over this post. I did not start a commentary on how the evil Stan Lee screwed over the entire stable of artists at Marvel, and you guys keep fueling the fire while telling me to get over it.

Well, I'm over it. I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks. I like Stan Lee. The guy never did anything to me, and as far as I'm concerned, he deserves every bit of praise he's received over the years.

[Brazoo]

There's no question that nepotism got Lee his job as editor-in-cheif. There's no question that the industries flagging sales enabled Lee to hire some of the best talent in the business. So okay - every successful person - no matter how talented - needs luck at some point to some degree.

The whole Stan Lee mythology that he perpetuates - that Marvel's superheroes were successful right away because they were so much more realistic and different than any other superhero books at that point - is a total fallacy, in my opinion.

If you read the early books, you'll see that most of them are the same white-bread generic superhero nonsense you can find anywhere else. The characters have incredibly eye catching designs - some of the best ever - and Kirby's visual story telling skills are better and more energetic than anything else at that time. That's about it.

I think kids gravitated to early Marvel because the books looked flashy and DC superheroes had been around for generations already.

Eventually the books did become notably different. I personally think the key to Stan Lee's success is that he took fan suggestions very seriously. "Tales of Asgard" is maybe the best example I can give off-hand. Fleshing out the Norse mythology was thought up by fans, and before that Thor stunk. If you don't believe me check them out. Except for Thor's design and the art the early stories are garbage.

In any case - I'll give Lee the due he deserves - the bragging and warped reality Lee keeps pushing makes it a strain to do - but I'll do it!

[BlackKnight]

I just found out 2 days ago reading a back issue of Entertainment Weekly, ... that Reese Witherspoon has a Star.

With this Being written ..., I believe that Stan Lee Deserves a Frick'in Star.

[Bruce Banner]

Well, I think it's awesome that Stan got a star! I grew up a Marvel kid and this pleases me greatly.

[ctc]

>Seems like every topic devolves into an argument around here.

No it doesn't!!! You're wrong!!!

Sorry....couldn't resist!

>you'll see that most of them are the same white-bread generic superhero nonsense you can find anywhere else

Hmmmm.... I don’t quite agree. The earliest Marvel stuff WAS different, in several noteworthy ways. They’d show the heroes as less than perfect, which was unheard of at the time. They also had an overall story running.... mostly in the background, but there was an effort to portray the stories as actually happening to the characters. It’s tough to see that nowadays ‘cos it became the standard. (I noticed it ‘cos I never really cared for superheroes and didn’t read them until my late 20's/early 30's....and I started back at the beginning for most of ‘em.)

Granted, it wasn’t “Dark Knight Returns” kinda stuff, but it WAS a big step.

Years ago I read an interview with Stan wherein he explained that he wasn’t satisfied writing the same old comics and wanted something different.... the “heroes with problems” sort of thing. Set in the “real” world, affected by real circumstances and events. That’s why the vast majority of Marvel characters were headquartered in New York, and not Gotham, Metropolis, Central City.... Again, to us it seems like a no-brainer; but back in the day it was new and different.

So yeah, I can see Stan getting a lot of credit; if not for the specific characters then for the underlying ideas that shaped them.

>Not realizing that not everybody will suck on the Stan Lee overhyped marvel nipple.

So.... I take it you’re a DC man then....?

Don C.

[ScottA]

Kinda surprised he didn't already have one, along with Kane and Shuster & Seigler.

[Brazoo]

>you'll see that most of them are the same white-bread generic superhero nonsense you can find anywhere else

Hmmmm.... I don’t quite agree. The earliest Marvel stuff WAS different, in several noteworthy ways. They’d show the heroes as less than perfect, which was unheard of at the time. They also had an overall story running.... mostly in the background, but there was an effort to portray the stories as actually happening to the characters. It’s tough to see that nowadays ‘cos it became the standard. (I noticed it ‘cos I never really cared for superheroes and didn’t read them until my late 20's/early 30's....and I started back at the beginning for most of ‘em.)

Granted, it wasn’t “Dark Knight Returns” kinda stuff, but it WAS a big step.

Years ago I read an interview with Stan wherein he explained that he wasn’t satisfied writing the same old comics and wanted something different.... the “heroes with problems” sort of thing. Set in the “real” world, affected by real circumstances and events. That’s why the vast majority of Marvel characters were headquartered in New York, and not Gotham, Metropolis, Central City.... Again, to us it seems like a no-brainer; but back in the day it was new and different.

So yeah, I can see Stan getting a lot of credit; if not for the specific characters then for the underlying ideas that shaped them.

Yeah - we disagree on that. In the very early days Spider-Man was different, the Fantastic Four was slightly different - mostly because of The Thing was more like a Kirby monster than what had typically been a hero at the time, and he's slightly moody about it.

Hulk and Thing are both a riff on the monster stories Lee and Kirby were doing before they got into superheroes. So, yeah, they were a little different, but not for the things Lee gives himself credit for.

Lee always gives that spiel about the characters having real problems. It's not evident at all in the early stories. The secret identities had physical ailments - so did other characters like Captain Marvel Jr. - their physical problems were far from realistic. It was just another version of Kryptonite - an achilles heel for drama in the story.

Except for Spider-Man all of the characters are orphaned, with little or no family or friends - just like the DC characters - hardly realistic.

In the early days they never really say where the stories take place. Kirby always visually set his stories in New York using local landmarks and references - even in his Golden Age comics. I honestly think fans picked up on that, and eventually - maybe 2 or 3 years into Marvel they started referring to New York specifically. Which, again, I give Lee credit for picking up on things the fans liked.

I don't think setting stories in real cities was something that needed to be innovated - I think the motive for not saying exactly where the stories took place, or making up fake cities like Metropolis and Gotham, was an editorial decision because they didn't want to regionalize their characters and exclude kids from other places. And, again, Lee makes it sound like he intended to do that - but read the early books - it's just not there.

Realistically I think a kid picking up a copy of Iron Man instead of Green Lantern was more interested in the fact that Iron Man was new, and Kirby's drawing style was more raw and energized in comparison to DC's house style.

[jwyblejr]

I'll be the one to ask. What was the star for?