Why I can't stand Stan Lee/Marvel Comics

[Blue Meanie]

This article says it all for me:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...m_source=atlfb

Jack shouldn't have had to jump trough hoops for basically co-creating the Marvel Universe as we now know it. Although it looks like Disney is trying to destroy it anyway. So sad that he never got the due.

[enyawd72]

Why hate Stan Lee? Stan ALWAYS gave credit where credit was due. He put their names front and center on every splash page...in TPB's as far back as the 70's Stan was dedicating them to Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, etc. Stan is not responsible for Jack Kirby's failure to negotiate a contract for himself. Stan is also not Marvel. He had no more say in legal matters than you or I. He's been nothing more than a figurehead for over 20 years.

Artists work for hire. That's life. Look how many uncredited people contributed to Star Wars but at the end of the day, George Lucas was the idea man. He's the name people remember.

Steve Ditko chooses to stay out of the spotlight, so that's on him.

[hedrap]

I get the disdain for Marvel's owners, but not Stan. As Dwyane said, he gave as much credit as he could. When Stan became the PR face of Marvel in the 70's, Jack was at DC. That was his choice...which fits his history of horrible business track record before Marvelmania.

Then you got the post-Marvel historical revisions. The guy implied he created Chariot of The Gods with Thor because Fourth World and Eternals were supposed to be Thor, but he doesn't acknowledge things like Star Trek which covered the same topics. That's a clear sign his choices lead to tunnel vision.

I understand his frustration when it comes to animation. He could have revolutionized cartoons but TV wanted cheap and movies were gravitating towards Live FX thanks to Star Wars. I wish he would've moved into practical effects. Can you imagine if Jack was in charge of model or creature design for a guy like Rick Baker?

[sprytel]

Jack Kirby's name is synonymous with comic book greatness. After Stan Lee, he is one of the most well known figures in comics. He got his due. What he didn't get was insanely rich.

Have you ever heard of Herb Peterson? He invented the Egg McMuffin. And in fact, McDonald's recent success is still on the back of that creation, by going to its "breakfast anytime" model and selling a ton more of those suckers. Yet nobody seems to write articles about how Herb should own 10% of McDonald's. In most jobs, you work hard, do your best, and in return, your company gives you a paycheck. I'm not sure why we accept this so readily for most professions, but not for artists like Kirby.

At least Kirby got to create something beloved and enduring. For me, I would give up all the money just to create one thing like that.

[Blue Meanie]

I guess nobody pays attention to the bit in the Steve Ditko Documentary where Stan basically takes credit for creating Spidey because he had the "idea" for Spidey...there still had to be an artists rendition of that idea...that means he is a co-creator. There is a you tube audio piece of a call in show with Jack Kirby on his birthday where Stan calls up and it's all friendly in the beginning but Jack basically has enough of Stan saying he had ideas for the Marvel stuff and Jack quips back that he drew the books and actually wrote some of the dialog and Stan says he didn't. Stan could have also helped out the Kirby estate and chose NOT to when it was going back and forth between Marvel and the Kirby Estate. That would annoy the CRAP out of me if I basically was THE co-creator of the Marvel Universe. I also just don't understand holding Stan up as a "God" in the comic industry. He's more like a used car salesman in my eyes. Especially the little Schtick he used to do in the 70's and 80's when he was basically relegated to being a figurehead and nothing more. Again, this is just my opinion. Hold Stan in any esteem you want to...I just can't stand him personally.

[Blue Meanie]

One other thing...did everyone read the entire article??!!?? Marvel was LITERALLY blackmailing Jack by saying that if he wanted his art back that he had to sign an agreement which basically was saying that he had no claim to any of the characters he co-created. They new that the original contract that they set up with Jack was not legal. They knew it was going to be challenged. That's F'd up. I don't care if it was a work for hire...that's just F'd up. Again, this is not the first time this stuff has happened in the comic industry...Siegel and Shuster come to mind.

[Iron Mego]

I've always been confused by this issue, so maybe someone can clarify it for me.

When you work for a company, doesn't whatever you create during your time under contract belong to that company? Say for example, when Letterman worked at NBC and then left. NBC laid claim to all the stuff Letterman created while he worked for them (such as his trademark Top Ten List). It was NBCs intellectual property because Letterman was under contract with them. Now he fought that and won, but weren't comic artists in a similar situation? At least back then when this was all new? I'm sure artists have learned a thing or two since then, and have different kinds of contracts in place these days.

I don't think that Marvel should have laid claim to Kirby's, or anyone else's, original pieces. But as far as getting creator credit, I'm surprised the artists got any at all.

[MRP]

There's a difference between being a freelancer and working for a company. If you are a salaried employee working for a company using their resources to create things, they own what you create. For freelancers it is a lot more muddled. They are paid a page rate, no benefits, no salary, and depending on the specific terms of the contracts for the page rate, ownership can vary. Most comic companies did not have specific language in their freelance contracts until the changes in copyright law handed down by the courts in the 70s and then tried to retroactively apply those standards to work done previously using methods like putting the contract language on the backs of pay checks and vouchers so if you signed the voucher and/or the paycheck you signed your rights away and if you didn't sign, you couldn't get the money owed to you for work already done. If you read the article, you see the lengths they went to to try to get Kirby to sign away the rights. They didn't actually have the rights, they assumed they did, but the changes to copyright law, which actually heavily favored corporations over creators, delineated the exact terms necessary for the corporations to have ownership over freelancer creations, and in many cases those terms/standards had not been met by publishers so that assumed ownership was in question. The publishers acted fast to try to nail down those terms-DC with Siegel and Shuster and Bob Kane (but not Bill Finger whom Kane threw under the bus to get his money and credit), but Marvel couldn't get Kirby to cooperate and give up his rights, and because so much of Marvel could be traced directly back to Kirby, Marvel went into panic mode to try to force their hand and the battle lasted well into the 80s and beyond.

The thing with Stan is that so much of what he put out there as the "history" of Marvel is as fictional as the stories in the comics themselves. all of it highlighting his role and downplaying everyone else's in the conception of the characters and thus the legal ownership for the properties. Pretty much every account in the Fireside books (Origins of Marvel Comics, Son of Origins, Bring on the Bad Guys, etc.) of how books got conceived by Stan and then passed the ideas along to Jack and Steve is pure fiction, but qualify as lies told often enough they become the "Truth" in the minds of the public, much like Columbus proving the world was round when everyone thought it was flat-a story not told until Washington Irving's biography of Columbus in the late 18th/early 19th century-when the idea of a round earth was the basis of Aristotelian science which was taught in pretty much every medieval university so any educated person at the time of Columbus learned of the round earth model-what was in question was the circumference of the globe and whether it could be navigated before supplies ran out). But Irving's fictional biography of Columbus became what every school kid learned and became "truth" just as Stan's stories were what every fan heard and became "truth" when the facts were very different indeed.

Stan is the ultimate carnival barker, he has done more to popularize comics than just about anyone alive, and his scripting and Soapbox columns provided a voice for early comics fandom, but how much he actually co-created beyond getting Stan and Jack to do books and then revising their dialogue notes in the margins of the art board to polish it is questionable.

If the copyright laws were not revised in the 1970s most of the rights would have already reverted to creators and much of the earliest Marvel stuff would already be in public domain. Publishers don't have perpetual rights tot he material they publish-it reverts to creators and then to the culture at large. It why stuff like Sherlock Holmes or Dracula have been published by several different publishers and now are for the most part public domain characters and works. Specific iterations (such as the Universal monsters) have trademarks attached to them, and that is a whole different ballgame, companies can own trademarks forever as long as they remain in use and are defended by the company, but trademarks and copyrights are very different things and protect/cover different things.

However, I don't see Stan Lee as the bad guy here, more the misguided corporate minion where the control over the rights to the characters comes along. The Fireside stuff was meant to promote the books, but the consequences was it created a narrative that benefited the publisher in the rights battle, whether the narrative was true or not. You see those same stories being told in different places over the years-the Kevin Smith interview with Stan that was released on DVD with the first Spider-Man movie deluxe boxed set has Stan telling those same stories for example. And if you dislike Marvel for doing this, well that's understandable, buy DC did the same thing to their creators too, sometimes even worse in the case of going along with Bob Kane and he basically robbed his collaborators of their due because it was easier for them to deal with 1 person than the 2 or 3 who were actually responsible for the Batman character as we know him. Or in suing the crap out of Fawcett for trademark and copyright issues because Capt. Marvel was outselling Superman but DC had deeper pockets to fight the legal case and it became too expensive for Fawcett to fight the suit which they likely could have won if they had the financial resources to keep fighting. The key difference is that Marvel is essentially the House that Jack built while DC spread out their appropriations from several creators over the years. So if you are going to hate on publishers for how they screwed the people who created the characters that they thrive on, both Marvel and DC deserve equally as much scorn.

-M

[MIB41]

I look at Stan Lee as the "Gene Simmons" of comics. He takes credit for most things he didn't create, but has successfully marketed himself as a sort of mascot to the brand. It caters to the notion that perception creates reality. If you say something long enough, it sinks into the populace as factual, even if it has no basis in truth. Stan Lee's rise into popular myth has been an interesting one to watch. I can vividly remember him as being more of a celebrity only within comic circles back in the 70's and 80's. I even remember a media interview done with him where he was treated as a kind of oddball within the industry back in the day when comics were still viewed by society as a kind of minimalist endeavor for the uneducated or uninspired. You could feel that attitude from people when you told them you wanted to be a comic artist and the textbook reaction was, "Oh...". So to see Stan Lee's star rise from being a social outcast to America's favorite "granddad of comics" has been an interesting evolution, more so by the public than the man himself.

[palitoy]

I think his marketing himself as a mascot came with him also championing the medium, trying to get it taken seriously. He was a middle aged guy who wanted some job security and for the public to realize it wasn't just for kids, it's not as ego driven as folks make it out to be.

An alarming trend I've noticed with comic fans is to instantly side with the person who didn't get their due, it gets really good guy/bad guy. Bill Finger by every account I've read was his own worst enemy and it's been proven he ripped off Shadow stories but now he's "St. Finger". Kane's deal with him was honestly no different than one's Lee Falk, Ham Fisher and even Walt Disney (Disney's signature is on millions of comics he didn't draw) but because it's Batman, it needs to be championed. I'd also like to say, I liked seeing Finger's name in the credits on "Batman V Superman", that recognition was absolutely deserved.

I love Jack Kirby to death but his stories changed as he got bitter over the years. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to be, the game changed mid stream and he was one of the major catalysts. Marvel was absolutely screwing him and that has lawyer's written all over it. I'm just saying he said some things out of anger and I'm not sure they're gospel but I've spoken to many a fan who have magically time traveled back to the Marvel bullpen and witnessed it themselves. Having been in a lawsuit between two creative partners, I witnessed one lie on the stand and say "I did it all" when I knew that wasn't true. Although, I never felt he thought he was lying, he believed it.

Personally, I don't worship Stan Lee, in fact I change the channel when he's talking (see Kevin Smith) . I just don't think he's the ego maniacal villain people make him out to be, nor is he a hero, it's something in the middle. He believed the writer is the creator, I'm not sure I totally agree with that but he also went out of his way to credit creative folks in an industry that was largely anonymous.

[WannabeMego]

Let it go...Enjoy the Books...It's what the Artists & Creators wanted.

[MIB41]

I think his marketing himself as a mascot came with him also championing the medium, trying to get it taken seriously. He was a middle aged guy who wanted some job security and for the public to realize it wasn't just for kids, it's not as ego driven as folks make it out to be.

An alarming trend I've noticed with comic fans is to instantly side with the person who didn't get their due, it gets really good guy/bad guy. Bill Finger by every account I've read was his own worst enemy and it's been proven he ripped off Shadow stories but now he's "St. Finger". Kane's deal with him was honestly no different than one's Lee Falk, Ham Fisher and even Walt Disney (Disney's signature is on millions of comics he didn't draw) but because it's Batman it needs to be championed. I'd also like to say, I liked seeing Finger's name in the credits on "Batman V Superman", that recognition was deserved.

I love Jack Kirby to death but his stories changed as he got bitter over the years. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to be, the game changed mid stream and he was a major catalyst. Marvel was screwing him and that has lawyer's written all over it. I'm just saying he said some things out of anger and I'm not sure they're gospel but I've spoken to many a fan who have time travelled back to the Marvel bullpen and witnessed it themselves apparently. Having been in a lawsuit between two creative partners, I witnessed one lie on the stand and say "I did it all" when I knew that wasn't true. Although, I never felt he thought he was lying, he believed it.

Personally, I don't worship Stan Lee, in fact I change the channel when he's talking (see Kevin Smith) . I just don't think he's the ego maniacal villain people make him out to be, nor is he a hero, it's something in the middle.

Personally I think Stan Lee's contributions will always be relevant enough and important to the legacy and endurance of comics that he can (and should) properly stand with all the writers and artists that got us here today. Having been part of the creative experience where multiple parties create ideas for a character, I know it's a very fluid process where people throw concepts and plot points around until you find agreement that forms the foundation of an idea. That creation is often built upon a melody of ideas that give birth to that final vision. For one person to get full credit for that evolution is always going to be shaky ground to walk on. So, like with most things in life, I'm confident the truth in these matters resides somewhere in between. That being said, I am glad Kirby gets his recognition and Lee is able to celebrate it in his own way as well.

[palitoy]

Yeah, i by and large agree with that Tom.

[Blue Meanie]

Kevin Smith was just flat out Pimpin' for DC last year. Made me want to throw up every time I'd see his face on TV. That DC special that was on the CW was an absolute joke. I used to be a huge fan of Kevin Smith until that little fiasco last year.

[huedell]

Stan Lee gets too much heck from those who simply resent his big mouth. I think it's horrible.

I mean, as palitoy pointed out, SOMEONE needs to be "that guy" as in "the mouthpiece for any given organization"... and many times that egotism makes fans bridle when the "cooler" "artists" decide a guy like Stan's squeaky wheel is getting too much grease.

Here's my thoughts about Ditko, Kirby, etc:
Stan Lee may or may not have "made their careers" as far as their talent being key to them standing out as artists/writers... but he freakin' made their WHOLE DANG INDUSTRY.

They don't put the "Marvel Mascot" in all those film cameos because he's like the Phillie Phanatic or some charming, dancing beast to rally behind... I mean, he IS that.... but he's so much MORE.

This guy concurrently created the market for the superhero comicbook genre AND bolstered the superhero comicbook genre in a way that no one else ever HAS or ever WILL match. And that should mean something to those quick to judge the man as being simply that "big mouth ego" guy who sis sinisterly taking credit for all things Marvel.

MIB brought up Gene Simmons... also cut from that "big mouth" cloth... however, as much of a FAN of Gene as I am... he's not "that" clever... and KISS is simply KISS ---- and there's only so much blood to be squeezed from that one rock no matter how marketable that one band is.

I use Simmons as an example to contrast against a guy like Stan Lee. Exponentially, I find Stan Lee (compared to Simmons) to be more heroic, pioneering, clever, MORE RESPONSIBLE etc etc in his relative field.... therefore, I think his criticizers are much more unfair, then, say , those that would criticize a "Gene Simmons".

Rock N Roll True Believers!