TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Stan Lee, Spider-man and related pages on this wiki

Go To

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#1: Jan 24th 2013 at 12:25:19 PM

The fact is there are many articles around the internet detailing that Stan Lee does not deserve nearly the amount of credit he gets in creating the Marvel Universe.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20026_5-iconic-characters-you-didnt-know-were-ripoffs.html

That is obviously a comedy site, but it sources its claims. Spider-man is awfully similar to an earlier Fox comics character. How about an interview with Jack Kirby himself?

http://www.serialsquadron.com/kirby/kirbyinterview.pdf

For a website that documents fiction, our pages on these people and related series seem to criminally lack critical evaluation all the supplied information. The fact is, insiders in the industry are saying Stan Lee ever wrote anything, that he was never more than an editor. It may be people like Jack Kirby's words against Stan Lee's word but then why are we giving Stan's claims so much more favor?

I guess we should start with Stan Lee's page, Spider-man's and Thor's. For the former, we should acknowledge all the things Kirby had to say on their partnership as well as real life occurrences that support(or deny) his claims. For the second we should include Jack Kirby's claim of creation alongside Steve Ditko which diminishes Stan's creative involvement as well as his similarities to the Spider-queen. For the latter we should talk about how Jack Kirby was a student of history and mythology, the earlier stories done by Steve Ditko involving the thundergod's hammer against the huns and Kirby's claims that what Stan really wanted was a Superman ripoff instead of Thor.

I am open to suggestions though, what should the tone be, what other pages need a little expanding upon, what other details have I not mentioned that could addressing?

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#2: Jan 24th 2013 at 1:05:17 PM

Though this all sounds really interesting, most of it is just rumours. While I'm sure you could fit this information somewhere, I think the main pages should have the official story only.

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#3: Jan 24th 2013 at 1:29:28 PM

Just rumors? I gave you a direct link to a Jack Kirby interview and a list of older comics Marvel ripped off.

Does this website have some kind of unreliable reputation that I do not know of because it has tons of archives on the subject. I am not asking to duplicate them, but the fact that Jack Kirby, who worked with Lee, says he should get no credit for anything other than editing and challenges the reader to find a Stan Lee written script to prove him wrong does not seem like the kind of thing we should be glossing over or ignoring, especially on the chance we are helping to perpetuate a lie.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#4: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:00:39 PM

I think it's pretty well-known that Lee rarely did much in terms of outlines or anything, and largely let the artists tell the story through the art, while Lee provided the dialogue. And having read Kirby's Marvel work from the '70s, I feel pretty confident in saying that Kirby didn't write a fucking word of dialogue for Marvel in the '60s, because Kirby was the absolute worst writer I have ever read in my life. I can understand Kirby feeling like he didn't get enough credit for coming up with the stories. But Lee's dialogue was definitely a major draw of the books, too. So Lee definitely deserves plenty of credit for the popularity of the books.

And I have serious doubts that Kirby really deserves any credit for Spider-Man. That was Lee and Ditko.

I would tend to agree with Kayeka that the main pages should have the official stories, possibly with a brief reference to other versions.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
C0mraid from Here and there Since: Aug, 2010
#5: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:40:45 PM

Perhaps a useful notes page might be what we need?

I'd rather not have all of Kirby's claims on the main pages, especially the more extreme ones he made. Otherwise we might as well put his claim to creating Superman on.

This could easily lead to an edit war, I think we should have a plan ready before changes start being made.

Am I a good man or a bad man?
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#6: Jan 24th 2013 at 4:25:21 PM

You know, I've read several things about the Lee/Kirby conflict and... I could never for the life of me understand Kirby's argument. He did work-for-hire and the company took credit. He let Stan write, and the writer is always billed first. He certainly knew what doing these things would entail (at least I hope he did), so I never understood why he and his supporters, even those today, were so bitter. From what I've heard it didn't even sound like Stan treated him, or Ditko, or whoever particularly badly. And the reason Stan left most of the plotting to the artists is that, at the time, he was basically the only writer they had, so he was stretched pretty thin.

edited 24th Jan '13 4:25:49 PM by HamburgerTime

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#7: Jan 24th 2013 at 5:23:56 PM

[up] Agreed. And it's not like Kirby, Ditko and the other artists don't get a ton of credit anyway. I'm pretty sure even Lee has said that the artists did most of the work and storytelling. But even so, Lee deserves a shit-ton of credit, too. He was definitely responsible for the FF being a family and always arguing. And fuck Kirby, Spider-Man was Lee's baby. Lee picked the right artist, and his narrative style and dialogue got people's attention.

There seems to be a bit of a tendency, among some, to try to downplay Lee's importance, to dismiss him as all flash and marketing and that's the only reason anyone remembers him. Well, yes, he was great at flash and marketing, and that is part of why people remember him. Because that shit sold books. That's what made Marvel more popular than DC. But just as artists like Kirby and Ditko were having a huge influence over the future of comic books, so did Lee. His writing style was just as fresh and new as Kirby's art.

I'd also add that Lee was classy enough that I don't think he ever publicly criticized Kirby. He may have disagreed with things Kirby said about him, but he would never say the sort of shit Kirby said about him.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#8: Jan 24th 2013 at 5:38:01 PM

I actually have read a very in-depth article about the creative process that went into Spider-Man; apparently there's some remote evidence that Kirby designed at least the logo, or that the bare-bones idea was originally Joe Simon's but he never used it, but the article concludes that the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the official story, Spider-Man being a Lee/Ditko original, is 100% correct.

I have heard of that Fox character, though. Marvel actually bought the rights to her and has used her as a villain.

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#9: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:38:09 PM

I am not saying that everything Jack Kirby said might be completely accurate. Even if he told the 100% truth about his personal experiences there was still plenty of time he was not a Marvel while Stan Lee stuck around, stuff he cannot comment on.

I just find it a little strange that there is more than a little controversy over what Stan Lee actually had any hand in creating, the Kirby article just being the most obvious, and found it strange how we just brushed over the issue on all of the relevant pages I have seen on the Wiki.

The Spider-man thing also stood out to me as I have the first Spider-man comic where it claims he is different than all the dime a dozen costumed heroes only to learn they made this claim when another red and blue webslinging spider person predated him by quite some time.

I mean, if you really do not want these things addressed on the main page, fine but I feel listing some known dispute helps people think before decided if something really deserves to be on a pedestal.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#10: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:49:31 PM

Except what made Spider-Man special was very, very different from any of his inspirations. He wasn't a typical superhero. He wasn't some strong, handsome, noble crime-fighter, as every prior superhero had been. He was a scrawny, teenaged nobody. He was a selfish, self-centred prick of a kid, only interested in personal glory. He didn't even become a crime-fighter after getting his powers. He went into show business. He even refused to stop a crook when he had the chance.

This was all the complete opposite of what superheroes were. Spider-Man was revolutionary, same as the Fantastic Four were. The same as Superman was. Lee deserves credit for that. Even the narration on the first page was very, very different and new, compared to what was expected of comic books.

Lee really was responsible for Spider-Man.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#11: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:51:56 PM

Is it true that none of the then-bosses at Marvel thought a teenage headliner hero would fly, so they deliberately stuck him in a book they knew was going to be canned at that issue? Because I could swear I heard that...

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#12: Jan 24th 2013 at 7:16:12 PM

There is some truth to it. Having a teenage character as the main protagonist was definitely a new concept, and there was some concern about whether it would succeed. Since Amazing Fantasy was ending anyway, Lee managed to get permission to put Spider-Man in the final issue - if it didn't sell, no harm done, and if it did, then he could be put somewhere else. Obviously, it sold well.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#13: Jan 24th 2013 at 7:28:42 PM

He was brought up again, and I should have addressed that the first time. The only time I head Kirby talking about credit for Superman he was speaking on how young talent came up with good ideas that saved companies and then watched the profits they should have gotten without question go elsewhere, saying Superman was simply the best example of it(happens to be in the included link).

Superman was a Gladiator ripoff anyway.

edited 24th Jan '13 7:29:07 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#14: Jan 24th 2013 at 7:45:07 PM

[up] Yeah, well, that was the deal they had. If creators want better deals, they can try to negotiate them into the contracts. Get a whole bunch of them to join together and refuse to work unless they get more credit for anything they do. Something like that.

Instead, they always take the deal they're given without complaint, and then only bitch later on. They'll take their money when they hand in their work, and when their work turns out to be popular, they whine about not getting more. I have trouble sympathizing with them.

Perhaps they'd rather a system where they get paid based on how well their work sells? Maybe their comic has to reach a certain sales threshold for them to get a paycheck? The better the sales, the better the pay, and the lower the sales, the lower the pay? Would all the artists who bitched about compensation have preferred that set-up? Would they have been fine with it going in?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for comic companies to do a better job taking care of creators, present and former. Marvel and DC (and maybe the other publishers) should have a joint fund they pay into for things like medical expenses. So Peter David wouldn't be relying on donations from fans to cover the costs of his physical therapy.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
RedM Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
#15: Jan 24th 2013 at 10:32:37 PM

Jim Shooter worked with Stan and Jack, and on his blog he's done numerous posts about the whole conflict. He acknowledges that Jack was a great artist, but he gives Stan the credit for really getting what Marvel was about, what made them different from the Distinguished Competition. Personally, I'd trust the guy who was there.

Don't get me wrong, Kirby was a really creative guy, and some of his art, like on Galactus or the New Gods, was amazing. But am I the only one who thought sometimes his faces looked a little... fugly? Like, with the heavy brows, and the vacant expressions just staring into space? Just every so often, in certain panels. And Tiamatty's right, Jack was a pretty bad writer.

For my money, I liked Ditko better. His and Stan's run on Amazing Spider-Man was a masterpiece. The dialogue is spot-on, the art is great, the pacing is great... And most of all, the stories are actually really good. I was on the edge of my seat reading the Crime Master saga, which is pretty impressive when you realize that everyone knows Spidey's going to get out of the jam he's in and be in print for 50 more years.

The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#16: Jan 24th 2013 at 10:49:34 PM

I believe Kirby was upset (at least for awhile) that he never got any kind of royalties or anything from his numerous contributions to Marvel, while Stan Lee got a VERY sweet financial deal and got to be the figurehead for the company. The only time, apparently, that he was ever paid royalties is when Hasbro used his New Gods for the Super Powers action figure line (or maybe that was just the first?)

Kirby gets a lot of respect, justly, in the American comics industry; he pretty much established the visual language of super hero comics. Still, though, his art is far from my favorite. His work has power and energy, but his characters are often quite ugly, and figure often in seriously weird poses. Also, though, it's important to remember that Kirby's style changed greatly over the years. The Jack Kirby that Steve Rude and John Byrne emulate is worlds away from the Kirby Ron Frenz and Greg Theakston emulate.

edited 24th Jan '13 10:52:58 PM by Robbery

Ronnie Respect the Red Right Hand from Surrounded by Idiots Since: Jan, 2001
Respect the Red Right Hand
#17: Jan 25th 2013 at 7:13:02 PM

Toy nerd nitpick- Super Powers was made by Kenner, not Hasbro. There's a difference. (Well, there was then. Not anymore, but that's a different kettle of fish.)

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
Add Post

Total posts: 18
Top