Stan Lee gets star on Hollywood Walk of Fame

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, I think the "heroes with problems" was evident from the start. The Thing actually wanted to beat Mr. Fantastic for getting them all irradiated in the early stories. Spider-Man contemplated a life of crime briefly in the first issue of Amazing. Those were definitely things the Silver Age DC characters would never really consider doing.

I will give Stan credit for that angle of Marvel's success.

Chris

[kennermike]

Dude,

You are totally speaking out of your rectum here. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the FACTS. The media, and what you see on Entertainment Tonight or whatever, is programming you to believe that Stan Lee is some kind of genius, when he's really an old, talentless, fool, who takes credit for the work of the truly inspired artists he HIRES, because he has a lot of money. He himself, cannot draw a straight line or write greeting card, let alone a comic book. What he's "created" over the years with Marvel, is a group of talented, visionary, artists and artisans, who built his empire with THEIR own hands.

Now, that being said; Does it take a certain skill to do that? Sure it does, but what Stan Lee has taken credit for AND been GIVEN credit for in this industry, is a joke. Anyone who's ever worked for him or around him, quickly gets the sense that he's a bumbling idiot, with a cool voice, who's often charismatic enough to catch people's attention with some catchy sayings and his stories.

Please, don't even get me started on this. With me, or ANY artist who's ever worked for him or Walt Disney or any of those other megalomaniacs, it's a very sore subject. These men have made billions of dollars on other people's talent, creativity, and hard work, and then have the AUDACITY to take credit for it. They create while these slick idiots play golf and drink mimosas with studio executives. He can take his Hollywood walk of fame star and shove it up his old, wrinkled, arse.

SC

Damn Sandy telling it like it is!

[Brazoo]

>they were a little different, but not for the things Lee gives himself credit for

I would say they were more different than you feel they were.... like I said; not a complete reinvention, but a definite step in a new direction given the standards of the day.

>Lee always gives that spiel about the characters having real problems. It's not evident at all in the early stories

I dunno; in Fantastic Four 9 you had the team taken out financially, which hadn’t been done before. And an early Spider Man had him seeing a shrink after getting beat. It was the little touches like that which grounded the characters and created the “hero with problems” ideal. At that time, Batman would never have gone to a shrink (although he probably should have) and Clark Kent never had to worry about getting fired, despite disappearing whenever a story happened. Stan added the idea that the heroes WEREN’T gods; that they had to live WITHIN the world, and the world would have tangible effects on them. Earlier heroes were forces of nature. They didn’t have to care about the mundane bits, they were above it. (And no; I’m not saying one is inherently better than the other. They’re just different ways of telling stories.)

My favourite example: the original Phantom Lady. Her disguise was conspicuous nudity. Not even a mask, and NOBODY ever figured out who she was. Not her boyfriend.... not her FATHER ‘fer Pete’s sake! There’s even a story where she rescues her boyfriend who notices how similar she is to his girl.... right down to the same perfume.... but he doesn’t figure it out. (I guess she likes ‘em stupid.) Even Supes wore glasses.... But that was the way it was done; the secret identity wasn’t nearly as important as the punch-up. And over time the fight became the whole point, to wit the fiddly-bits were relegated to base trappings. The Marvel characters started using them in the stories. Hence the aforementioned “problems.”

>In the early days they never really say where the stories take place.

Flipping through some of the Marvel Essentials, they mention New York right of the bat. I think the problem is it was drawn as every generic city in a superhero book.... but that’s more a state of the art for the day thing I suspect. (Heck, in a Wolverine comic he visited Windsor, which looked suspiciously like Marvel N.Y.... even though we have relatively few buildings over ten stories.)

>or at least not anymore

I think that’s his problem. At one time he was inventive, but he’s still working with the ideas that were new 40 years ago; and they’re not so new any more. So you get really weird, really shallow stuff that has whatever’s currently hip slapped onto an old framework.

Don C.

I'll concede to some of your points - there's some very slight things that contrast with the standard DC superhero style at that time - though I still don't think Lee's take was especially "new" for most of the Marvel heroes.

Wasn't FF #9 the one where they get broke, so they have to go to Hollywood to make a movie? Then they get into a real battle and the movie crew films it? I'll admit, becoming broke might have been inspired by Lee's real life dealing with Marvel - and taking things from actual life is a step up to some degree - but the superheroes in a movie bit seems like a pretty standard rehashed Golden Age plot, to me. And their money problems are gone by the end of the issue, and not mentioned again - so, I'm not sure how much actual realism that added. Going broke seems like more of a simple plot device for getting them to Hollywood. But it's all how you look at it, I guess.

Spider-Man was a genuine departure from the superhero norm right from the start. And I'm saying that as a HUGE FF fan. My problem with Lee's claims is that he makes it seem like his vision for all of Marvel - and I think if that was true we'd see more evidence of it across the board, and not just in one book.

Aside from Spider-Man I'm not sure I agree that the early Marvel alter-egos were part of the story any more than DC hero alter-egos were. Most of them are pretty generic science guys - and anytime the story involves them it's because of some convenient tie-in with a project they're working on. They all have their generic Lois Lane type love interests they can't have because that would mean they'd have to reveal their secret - which is no different than any character at DC.

As far as living within the world - I personally think that Siegel and Shuster did that better way back in their original Superman stories.

Off hand I don't recall them mentioning New York specifically - which book did you find that in, by the way? If they did, they don't do it often. From what I remember most of the time they go out of their way to call it "the city" or something non-specific.

The 'who did what first' thing isn't my main interest in doubting Lee's claims really - because tracing influences back can be futile and tiresome. Everyone influences each other. The main problem I have is that he tries to sell this idea that all the innovations of Marvel were in his head and all he did was let them out - and that's just not true at all.

These ideas evolved - some of the best ideas were directed by the fans - some were heavily influenced by the artists. And I still think the character designs and the artwork made early Marvel books stand out WAY more than anything Lee is talking about.

[Brazoo]

Here's a good example of pure Lee nonsense (in my opinion). He's talking about coming up with the idea of Iron Man on the movie's DVD:

I think I gave myself a dare. It was the height of the Cold War. The readers, the young readers, if there was one thing they hated, it was war, it was the military ... So I got a hero who represented that to the hundredth degree. He was a weapons manufacturer, he was providing weapons for the Army, he was rich, he was an industrialist ... I thought it would be fun to take the kind of character that nobody would like, none of our readers would like, and shove him down their throats and make them like him ... And he became very popular.

Now, I admit, I haven't read the early Iron Man stories for a while - but I never got any of that from Lee's version of the character - it all sounds like stuff that evolved after Lee wasn't creatively connected with the book anymore. To me it sounds like he's building his memories from hindsight.

Lee also says he borrowed ideas from Howard Hughes - which I might buy to some degree - but is early Tony Stark really any different from Bruce Wayne?

[Brazoo]

Yeah, I think the "heroes with problems" was evident from the start. The Thing actually wanted to beat Mr. Fantastic for getting them all irradiated in the early stories. Spider-Man contemplated a life of crime briefly in the first issue of Amazing. Those were definitely things the Silver Age DC characters would never really consider doing.

I will give Stan credit for that angle of Marvel's success.

Chris

The family dynamic is my favorite thing about the FF (my favorite comic). The fact that they argue and fight is something truly great about it - and I totally agree that their relationship evolved out of little baby steps like the scene you mentioned.

Though, I think that scene is fairly typical for the monster and sci-fi books Marvel was doing - so I'm just not convinced that the roots for that scene were in Lee's head as a way of making superhero books different - as much as it was just a typical scene in a style of book they were already doing.

If anything the twist wasn't "let's make heroes fight with each other" it was "let's try a book with some superheroes this time". At least that's my take.

[PNGwynne]

To me it sounds like he's building his memories from hindsight.

Absolutely, something you often see with older celebrities (I'm a TCM junkie). Blend that with Lee's ego, and you get the impassioned reactions shown in this thread.

The problem is, Lee's is in perennial Excelsior! mode--the rah-rah Marvel poster-boy, all hubris now.

If he'd just step back, show a little humility, and think before he speaks, he could be the elder statesman we wish he was.

His inability do do that (unlike Kane to some extent) is what prompted Sandy's post imo.

[ctc]

>there's some very slight things that contrast with the standard DC superhero style at that time

Not just DC; there were OTHER guys doing superheroes. Bland, dry superheroes....

>I still don't think Lee's take was especially "new" for most of the Marvel heroes.

....but that’s kinda what I’m getting at. His stuff wasn’t COMPLETELY new; most of it was tweaks on things that were already there, but nobody paid attention to. I think for us modern readers it’s tough to really put into perspective what a big deal those changes were. I saw it ‘cos I read superheroes at a much later age (late 20's) and read almost the entire Marvel and DC continuities in a year or so. In rapid-fire succession like that, the small changes are more glaring ‘cos you see their effects. Effects which in some cases YEARS to take root.

I think a good (but DC) example of this sort of thing that’d be familiar to folks here would be “The Dark Knight Returns.” To the fans it made a HUGE splash and had massive (often detrimental) effects on superheroes in general. But when you read it, it’s not THAT different from any other post 70's Batman. Everything in that book was present, in some capacity, in the continuity already. “Dark Knight” merely shifted the focus from where it normally is. (So, rather than glossing over the collateral damage.... which is EVER PRESENT in superhero comics.... they focused on it.) Since a lot of current fans were there for it the first time, it registers more as an event; whereas the impact 60's Marvel had is lost on a lot of folks ‘cos by the time WE were reading the comics, it had already become the standard.

>Wasn't FF #9 the one where they get broke, so they have to go to Hollywood to make a movie?

It was a plot by the Sub-Mariner. And the going broke thing surfaced a few times, and was often resolved by having Reed license out one of his inventions: which is why everybody in the Marvel Universe has costumes made of “unstable molecules.”

>Everyone influences each other.

Very true; ‘cos if you go back to pre-Code comics you can see little sniglets of the sort of things Marvel did. Most of ‘em got appropriated by other genres though and by the 50's superheroes were pretty much stagnant. I’ve got some old late 50's stuff from some no-name publishers that are absolutely OBSESSIVE about continuity. Sad, weird, continuity....

>he tries to sell this idea that all the innovations of Marvel were in his head and all he did was let them out

THAT one’s hard to sort out, and yeah; there were a lot of other guys who added to things but I think the most accurate telling came from an interview with Lee years back. He said he’d grown really tired of writing the same old stuff and was going to quit, so his wife said that if he was going to quit ANYWAY, why not fire off some stuff HE liked? Hence, Fantastic Four 1.

>I never got any of that from Lee's version of the character

I think what he’s saying is what went on in his head.... but times have changed and stuff like the early Iron Man stories don’t have the edge they had back in the day. (Kinda like how your grandma’s pics of her 1940's bathing suit were once considered “racy.” Or how the term “racy” used to mean something....) Which goes with the idea that Stan hasn’t aged so well either ‘cos he still sees things with 1960's eyes.

>is early Tony Stark really any different from Bruce Wayne?

He IS, in that we actually see what Tony does in the comics. Bruce is a “rich guy” who has a lot of “shares” and “corporate holdings.” Again, for us now that seems pretty inconsequential but at the time delving even THAT MUCH into the character’s background was new. Which goes to the points at the beginning of this post.

Don C.

[samurainoir]

I'm a huge fan of Kirby's 70's DC genre-benders, but from a more objective POV, as terrific as the bombastic characters and art are, they do seem to be missing that certain touchy feely Stan Lee word-smithing.

This experiment is probably well past it's Best Before date, but I would be really curious to see the results of handing a sixties era Stan Lee a big stack of Kirby original art from New Gods/Demon/Kamandi/OMAC sans word balloons, without any explanations and let him go to town.

At the end of the day, the one thing that is certain is that Silver Age Marvel was the result of a certain alchemy between the creators involved that they arguably were not able to replicate on their own (in terms of sales and popularity at the time of their publication).

Although we do see DC running with the 70's Kirby characters decades after their cancellations and squeezing $$ out of them in a variety of media and merchandise (Smallville, Brave and Bold, action figures etc).

Will Ravage 2099, 7th Portal, Stripperella, or Heroman have the same kind of longevity?

[The Toyroom]

I'm a huge fan of Kirby's 70's DC genre-benders, but from a more objective POV, as terrific as the bombastic characters and art are, they do seem to be missing that certain touchy feely Stan Lee word-smithing.

Yeah I've always felt that too...Kirby's DC stuff, while beautiful to look it is sometimes hard to enjoy on a strictly literary level. It's like he was the King as far as concepts but had a hard time after that as a scripter of his own work. More of an idea man than a writer.

Will Ravage 2099, 7th Portal, Stripperella, or Heroman have the same kind of longevity?

Uh....no

[BlackKnight]

is programming you to believe that Stan Lee is some kind of genius, when he's really an old, talentless, fool

wow Dude ... Pretty Harsh Words Man.

[Cmonster]

wow Dude ... Pretty Harsh Words Man.

Maybe, but it's the truth. Period.

SC

[Adam West]

I just got to reading this thread and didn't realize that this was turning into a Lee/Kirby/Ditko/Marvel/DC argument. I don't know why or who deserves a star in Hollywood and most of you are more knowledgeable than me on comic history. From my limited knowledge; Lee thought outside the box with his superhero creations. DC characters generally had exterrestrial origins or humans with no special powers....just lots of money and a bunch of cool gadgets (and that is not to put down DC...I'm a fan of both sides). Stan Lee created characters that represented the nuclear age....characters that were completely different from DC. All of the artists deserve credit but ultimately; it was Stan Lee who pulled the story lines together and was the face of Marvel. Lee is definitely a self promoter for sure. I kind of liken him to Kiss. The brainchild is Gene Simmons. He wasn't a particularly good singer or even a particularly great musician but he was the mastermind behind the whole image and ultimately will be the most famous member of the band.

[WannabeMego]

I equate Stan Lee to Walt Disney.

I can see your point, but I think you're being too kind.

I think he's more like P. T. Barnum.

IMHO.

[BlackKnight]

but it's the truth.
SC

NO It's Not.
It's an Opinion ..., and a Bitter 1 at that.

[Cmonster]

NO It's Not.
It's an Opinion ..., and a Bitter 1 at that.

Really?

Interesting you should say that, Jason. Tell you what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; Let's say it is an opinion... Who's opinion is more likely to be valid or lets say, a more accurate assessment of reality? The guy's who has met a lot of these artists (Kirby, Neal Adams, Buscema) and has talked to them at length about Stan, and has also sat in a room with the man in question here, on more than one occasion, listening to his bone headed ideas about everything from "Alter Ego", to "Striperella"? OR-- Someone who hasn't? It's a pretty simple question Jason, that requires a simple and very obvious answer.

You think that because you have a house filled with little superhero dolls, or you saw "Iron Man" 30 times, or that you think you're so up on the current events of geek culture, that makes you better qualified to form an opinion about Stan Lee? You would be incorrect. All you need to do, is simply look at EVERYTHING this man has tried to "create" since the Marvel glory days, and see that it has been an epic failure, to realize that he is not the driving creative force behind any of it. Again Jason, I'm IN the industry. I know more than you do about this. That may be a hard pill for you to swallow, but it's a fact. You can make whatever comments you want or share your own "opinions", but that doesn't mean those comments or opinions hold any water. It's all just conjecture...

I'm sorry if my interjections of the sad reality of Hollywood, conflict with your views, or tear down the delusions you have about what really goes on behind the scenes with your precious superheroes. If you choose to live in a little bubble, where you believe everything you're spoon fed by the media about the industry, that's fine. Just don't come at me like you did and tell me that I'm bitter or wrong about something that I live and breathe and am very close to. I have worked in different aspects of this industry for over 20 years, from comics, to action figures, to making my own feature film, and my resume and work speak for themselves... No offense here J, but I think my "opinion" as you put it (bitter or not) about this particular subject matter, has more first hand knowledge backing it up than yours.

SC