Was he really as much of a crook and a glory hog as people make out that he was?

It's more so how he made every normie think he made every Marvel character ever made, or how he made Marvel in general when he didn't. He's not Bob Kane levels of thievery, but he's done shady stuff, like not fully sharing credit with Ditko and Kirby.

Yes and No, it was pretty complicated and he actually pushed for a lot of positive changes but he was out of his depth and his family made him do a lot of shady shit to keep them at the top with him as a figurehead
He ended up hating himself and them by the end and people consider the elder abuse in his later years to be karma

>>149434819 (OP)
Nah, that's called revisionism. And Gen-X (I believe) are the main perpetrators of it.

>>149434819 (OP)
He didn't steal shit, stop with this thousand year old myth.

>>149434819 (OP)
>glory hog

he's literally the reason that US comic books started printing creator names as a regular, normal thing to do

like he literally introduced that as an editor at Timely Comics, long before it became Atlas Comics, let alone Marvel Comics

you ever wonder why Ditko was such a weird, weird outlier mentally from most people? like most people, even most libertarians, don't believe that there's no point getting the credit for something you did as long as you also got paid for that thing, but that was literally Ditko's whole deal, the thing that he believed right up until he died

and the reason he believed that is because when he was starting out in comic books, that was what was drummed into delicate little flowers like Steve Ditko - you ain't gonna get a credit, be happy if you're getting enough work to pay the bills every week, so take your licks, be glad the boss likes you enough to give you money, and don't rock the boat because the system works fine

Stan Lee didn't agree and when it was put to him by some other creatives that they'd like credits, he just did it, because he was a good boss and understood the need for it

>crook

what do you even mean by that? you mean all those stories that the kids of ex-Marvel staffers tell about him?

Neal Kirby says Jack Kirby, his father, never got a credit on X-Men (2000); that's untrue and as anybody who'd ever sat through the credits of that movie (like someone looking for a credit) would know, and that's typical of how these stories get started; somebody says "he always claimed to have created" and then the follow up is some confused, mumbled shit that's half completely untrue and half a matter of opinion, like if someone asserted to Stan Lee in a 4-minute interview slot in 2002 "you created Spider-Man" and he didn't then spend the next 4 minutes correcting them *instead of promoting the movie he was there to promote* and just glossing over their error? that's just ratfucking to say he claimed it

Yeah. Stan Lee fucked my wife. He took out his little old man penis and fucked my wife

>>149434819 (OP)
He was an employee who tried to do what it takes to have a successful career and get some recognition within an industry that doesn't give a whole lot of it to its creatives. People really think he's the reason Kirby and Ditko got screwed over? It's normal for that to happen. Look how hard Siegel and Schuster had to fight to get any kind of respect from DC. The creators of Superman, ending up in nursing homes and one bedroom apartments. Lee didn't do that, that's how capitalism works.

>>149434819 (OP)
Kinda, yeah

>>149435111
>that was literally Ditko's whole deal, the thing that he believed right up until he died
lol this is so wrong, Ditko wanted the title of co-creator. He wrote about it on his 2000s and 2010s essays. Did you know that in TCJ #111 Stan said
>It seems to me that the person who says, ‘This is the idea that I want done,’ is the person who created it… I think I’ve been very generous, ‘cause, as I say, anywhere except in the comic book business the artist would not be considered a co-creator, because it’s the guy who says, ‘Let there be a Hulk,’ and lo, there was a Hulk. The guy who says it, he’s the creator.
He even took more credit than what he deserved in the asm comics he wasn't writing alongside Ditko. Like saying in a 1998 interview that he was responsible for the lifting scene in #33. Or how he was the one who wanted Norman Osborn to be Green Goblin. Both and many more statements were denied by Ditko in his essays, everyone knows he was the real writer since at least #25. Stan was important and he contributed with a lot of things. Someone fundamental in Marvel's history. But some of those contributions are overexaggerated and he was a big liar. I'm surprised that Ditko didn't take more credit, I think. In one essay he was just calling himself co-creator

And Kirby and Ditko weren't the only ones robbed. Romita for example was doing more than just the art in his run, and this was poorly acknowledged until issue 68

>>149436010
>Ditko wanted the title of co-creator.

he absolutely did not, and frequently said as much when responding to fans

>>149436994
From one of his essays, Creator or Co-Creator
>It is a foolish mistake with increasingly bad consequences for those minds who believe the creator/co-creator issue is just a problem, issue, between me and Stan Lee. It is a crucial, fundamental issue between the real world of facts and a mind, the type of mind which has no respect for the real world, a mind that is anti-mind (anti-reason).
>Even Lee’s “creative” crediting of Marvel's artists as “illustrators” denies, demotes the artist and denies him credit for the full range of the needed panel's storyline that his mind/hand must supply, create, for a twenty-page comic book story/art from a page and a half synopsis.
>If the artist is not, cannot be, a co-creator, then a claim can also equally be made that an editor or writer cannot be a creator or even a co-creator.
>Lee’s real, authentic achievements are not good enough for him. He wants more. His “idea” to gain more, even gain all, had to involve denying all others their authentic achievements, from Goodman down.
>The full, objective reality “script” of what actually happened inside Marvel is rejected by Lee for his “synopsis” version, for his “idea” of being the sole cause, “creator”, of the creation of Marvel’s success excluding all others.
Ditko was the kind of man who just cared about finishing a job. He was popular for that. But he also cared about personal achievements, and he despised not being recognized. Supposedly that letter is from 2013, and at that point, or even before, he stopped caring about everything. Or maybe he didn't and he continued writing about recognition and his criticisms of Stan, but only on his last books. Why not on the letters? Because he started to hate the average fan, a lot

>>149434819 (OP)
No.

>>149434880
HE didn't "make" anybody do anything. 99% of people don't care about comics. Getting butthurt over their assumptions makes you more retarded than they are.

>>149434971
>people consider the elder abuse in his later years to be karma

no they don't you absolute faggot

>>149434819 (OP)
Not remotely. Bob Kane was a crook. Stan Lee did more for creators than anyone before him. He was a salesman and a showman but regardless of what anyone wants to think it's because of this that anyone gave a crap about marvel at all. He made things punch. He made things stand out from the crowd. If he ever got too much credit it was because he was the one out there acting as the crazy comics uncle.

>>149434819 (OP)
No, he always credited Kirby, Ditko, etc. for what they did and he obviously did more than simply put words in a balloon. His Surfer stuff is obviously all him and he's responsible for a lot of Spider-Man's actual characterization or refining what Ditko and others did.

>>149435111
>like if someone asserted to Stan Lee in a 4-minute interview slot in 2002 "you created Spider-Man" and he didn't then spend the next 4 minutes correcting them *instead of promoting the movie he was there to promote* and just glossing over their error? that's just ratfucking to say he claimed it

This. Exactly. Most of Stan's "crimes" are that he didn't correct every interviewer ever, which he was never obligated to do and would have been an idiot for wasting his time doing.

Another thing that people forget is that interviews are edited. According to Jim Shooter, it was common for comics pros to name-drop other comics pros in interviews only to have it get cut from the interview because the mainstream media could not care less about comics industry details and have no interest in publishing or broadcasting that stuff. So a lot of the times that "Stan didn't mention Kirby or Ditko" he actually DID.

The more I read into and the more I learn about the behind the scenes of comics the more I realize that a lot of creators where spoiled divas who threw a fit any time their boss acted like their boss.

>>149436010
>anywhere except in the comic book business the artist would not be considered a co-creator

This is 100% true without exception no matter how much you want to deny it.

>>149437821
Comic creators wouldn't last two seconds in any other industry.

I thought it was fucked what happened with the Corman FF movie but other than that i dunno
Anyone ever read what happened with Stan Lee Media? That shit was weird

>>149435111
There was an episode of Ben Stein's money where Stan had to tell Ben, a guy who had a show about him knowing things, that he never drew Hulk or Spidey *multiple times*

Stan loved glory. But he did also try to build up the people around him. Was he better at one thing than the other? Sure. Was he a crook as large as the villains whose dialogue he wrote? Nah.

>>149434819 (OP)
I wouldn't call him a crook, but sometimes a glory hog. The reality is complex. He always praised Ditko and Kirby, and when speaking more in-depth about the comics he was clear they were collaborative efforts and acknowledged that Ditko and Kirby contributed a huge amount to them. But he was happy to let people call him "creator of" for all of these rather than making them say "co-creator" and sometimes exaggerated his specific contributions. He also believed having the initial spark for an idea and making the initial push for it made him "creator" even when others fleshed it out a ton. As Ditko called it, he sometimes engaged in "creative crediting" (Ditko: Illustrator), giving the impression that he contributed more than he did. But nothing outright fraudulent or criminal.

He could've done more for Ditko and Kirby in terms of crediting and money, but he wasn't nearly as bad as people treat him. You've got to understand the Marvel Method too, and why it naturally leads to contribution disputes. Basically, Stan would give a plot (or a brief description, or nothing at all), then the artist would plot things out more and draw the whole comic, putting notes in the margins (or script panels in Ditko's case). The notes sometimes even included dialogue, varying from simple ("Thor says stop") but sometimes more complete. Stan Lee would then go through, writing the final dialogue and captions. He was also the editor and officially the art director, so he would sometimes make them redraw pages and stuff. Basically like board driven animation, but for comics.

Although even with the dialogue, Stan sometimes got help from ghost writers and his assistants. More so later on I believe. Which makes sense when considering how many books he was working on simultaneously. Kirby and Ditko contributed more on the creative side, but Lee undeniably contributed a ton to the voice of the comics. The Thing wouldn't be the same without "It's clobberin' time!"

>>149434819 (OP)
No, that was Bob Kane.

>>149438682
>“Some artists, such as Jack Kirby, need no plot at all. I mean I’ll just say to Jack, ‘Let’s let the next villain be Dr. Doom’… or I may not even say that. He may tell me. And then he goes home and does it. He’s so good at plots, I’m sure he’s a thousand times better than I. He just about makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing… I may tell him that he’s gone too far in one direction or another. Of course, occasionally I’ll give him a plot, but we’re practically both the writers on the things.”
>Stan Lee, 1968
Another quote. He was actually pretty open about how things worked, even if he sometimes told things in a way that favored his role. He was also the face of Marvel, acting as a spokesman, so it's not surprising he'd play up his contributions. There's also a self-deprecating quote from him in 1999: "I'll take any credit that's not nailed down."

>>149434819 (OP)
He didn't steal anything

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he genuinely did forget sometimes who came up with what, considering how fast they were pumping out books. They also decided some things by brainstorming with each other, which makes it hard to pin down precise credit for every idea.

>>149434819 (OP)
> Make everyone else do 99% of the work
> Tweak some dialogue before it hits the stands, maybe change a couple characters names
> You now have to split your royalties 50/50 with the exec's nephew because otherwise he'll fire you
I'd say so.

>>149436994
He just said: "Legally, I can't make that claim without getting sued, but them's the breaks."

>>149438988
>Tweak some dialogue before it hits the stands, maybe change a couple characters names
The amount of work varied depending on the comic and issue, but you're exaggerating. There were tons of other comics he did where he wrote all of the dialogue and captions, or close to all of it.In many cases too he really did come up with the initial plot outlines and many of the concepts. That's not even touching on his editorial role, where he had to decide what got made, which artist did which book, etc.

>>149438834
>1968

There's the key phrase right there, which you are conveniently ignoring. By 1968 that was almost true even if Stan was generalizing. But that was far from the case initially. Even Ditko openly admitted that his contributions grew as time went on. The same applies to Kirby. But early-60s Marvel was a far more equal collaboration. Even mid-60s Marvel was, to a lesser extent. '68 was when Marvel expanded their line and Stan began spreading his time more thin on each book.

>>149439270
>There's the key phrase right there, which you are conveniently ignoring.
Yeah my bad, I wasn't intentionally leaving it out I just wanted to share the quote. I agree with everything you're saying, that extra context is important and I should've included it.

>>149434819 (OP)
no
he was worse

>>149437404
>>149438682
>As Ditko called it, he sometimes engaged in "creative crediting" (Ditko: Illustrator), giving the impression that he contributed more than he did.
>Even Lee’s “creative” crediting of Marvel's artists as “illustrators” denies, demotes the artist and denies him credit for the full range of the needed panel's storyline that his mind/hand must supply, create, for a twenty-page comic book story/art from a page and a half synopsis.
This is true, but worth noting that the specific credits used varied a lot, and Ditko eventually did get his own plotting credit. Early issues of Fantastic Four just said "Stan Lee + Jack Kirby" for example. A lot of the time it was Writer: Stan Lee, Artist: Steve Ditko/Kirby/whoever, along with Inker, Letterer, and other roles.

>>149434983
A lot of it is from people like Groth who were Kirby fanboys. Kirby was bitter because he wasn't as rich as he thought he should be once the licensing really took off and Cadence (not Stan or Shooter or anyone) jerked him around on giving him back his art.

>>149439077
I can give you that, but you can't count editorial stuff to try to hype up hos role as a writer. You can say: "Stan was a good editor" or "Stan did a good job at figuring out who could draw which characters the best" but that's by and far from being the creative mastermind.

I could maybe see if he was outlining and give that to him, but it makes it a hard sell when nearly every Spidey issue says: "PLOTTED by Steve Ditko." that really makes it sound like Steve came up with the story, drew it, then Stan just adlibed the dialogue, though I wouldn't be surprised if there may have been some existing dialogue or even an outline of what was going on and he just made the specific word choices so he got the credit, and that's without getting into the fact that this was a needless step and just something he forced them to do so he could put his name on the title and say he was the writer and/or co-creator.

Imagine writing fanfiction and arguing over people you never met

>>149438682
As I said before, Stan Lee is the American Torishima. His contributions to comics are enormous and they'd definitely not be as succesful without him but calling him creator or co-creator is going too far. He was a brilliant editor but not a creator

>>149434819 (OP)
>Crook
Yes
>Glory Hog
No
He was Marvel art director which made him the boss of their artists. He was also Editor so he could hire writers and assign teams to books. On top of this he was a freelance writer. He got 3 separate checks for each of these positions and synergized the work into the Marvel method. Especially he treated artists like AI. As as editor he'd write a prompt, as art director he'd "train" the artists, and as writer he'd clean it up. This is why a lot of artists got mad. Kirby did most of the work and Stan was getting paid well over 3 times as much as him.

>>149438988
>> You now have to split your royalties 50/50 with the exec's nephew because otherwise he'll fire you

They didn't get royalties back then. Stan was paid a salary like everyone else, not royalties.

>>149434819 (OP)
Yeah he sucked, he was a hack, a fraud, died like a bitch. Like the Mcdonalds guy, America loves hucksters and liars and thieves. We admire these skills.

>>149440473
Yeah, in the case of Spider-Man that's basically how it went halfway through Ditko's run, they started off co-plotting the stories but eventually Ditko took over plotting completely. For other comics he played a larger role in the plotting, though as other pointed out his role was larger in the early 60s vs. late 60s. I don't think the importance of the dialogue should be downplayed though. A lot of what makes Spider-Man good is the characterization, like Spider-Man's witty banter and his monologues, and the characterization of the supporting cast. That was coming from Stan, and it's a huge part of the comic. I don't think insisting on doing the dialogue was just a cynical attempt to steal credit or steal cash from the artists. It was important to give the characters and writing a consistent voice, and Stan provided that across the Marvel line.
>>149440586
I understand the comparison, but I'd say co-creator is fully justified in Stan's case, at least for some of the books. He was a writer/editor, not just an editor like Torishima (unless Torishima did more than I'm aware, in which case maybe the comparison is more close). Even Ditko and Kirby wouldn't argue with calling him a co-creator, even if they felt they deserved the bulk of the credit. I also feel that dialogue is a more significant part of the creation than some people give credit for too.

>>149440766
With Ditko things really broke down around issue 25. They weren't even talking, they worked completely separately until issue 38 when Ditko left.

>>149437737
The Silver Surfer is a perfect distillation of how Stan worked with artists. Kirby draw him in unprompted with no more than the idea that a god needs a herald, and Stan just ran with the idea, falling in love with the character and going on to write him in his own book with a different artist.

>>149438414
except when they do. Many artists had long careers in doing art for movies, games, and TV.

>>149440766
Torishima was the one who insist Toriyama to focus more on action rather than humor. Also Torishima called Goku a flat character after the first arc and ordered Toriyama to give him a motivation, which result on Goku looking to become stronger. Toriyama was passive-agressive toward Torishima but he respected him. He even changed the direction of the Androids arc just because Torishima, at that time not his editor anymore, found them lame

>>149435143
JACK KOIBY! IS DAT YOU? GET YOUR ASS OUTTA UR GRAVE AND DRAW ME A NEW ISSUE OF FANTASTIC FOUR YA DEAD BUM!
The day Jack Koiby died was the day the world became a worse place.

>>149440858
That's cool. I had heard about him shaping the Android Saga, but I never looked into how much he shaped the whole series. I see where you're coming from more then with the comparison.

Here's something that no one ever brings up in these threads: According to Don Heck, "The Marvel Method" was not even in effect when Marvel began publishing superhero comics in the 60s and actually was first used at an unspecified point during his run on Iron Man. That places the debut of the collaborative writing style at no earlier than the start of 1963. So everything from 1961 and 1962 is pre-Marvel Method. And Don Heck drew very little of Iron Man that year, not actually becoming the regular artist on a consistent basis until issue #50 (of Tales of Suspense), so it's possible (if not probable) that Marvel doesn't debut their use of "The Marvel Method" until some time in 1964. (And while this is impossible to prove, if you actually read the comics you'll notice that there is a sudden shift in pacing throughout Marvel's superhero line during 1965, so I wouldn't rule out the new collaborative writing standard being put into place as late as then.)

Here's something that no one ever brings up in these threads: According to Don Heck, "The Marvel Method" was not even in effect when Marvel began publishing superhero comics in the 60s and actually was first used at an unspecified point during his run on Iron Man. That places the debut of the collaborative writing style at no earlier than 1963. So everything from 1961 and 1962 is pre-Marvel Method. And Don Heck drew very little of Iron Man that year, not actually becoming the regular artist on a consistent basis until issue #50 (of Tales of Suspense), so it's possible (if not probable) that Marvel doesn't debut their use of "The Marvel Method" until some time in 1964. (And while this is impossible to prove, if you actually read the comics you'll notice that there is a sudden shift in pacing throughout Marvel's superhero line during 1965, so I wouldn't rule out the new collaborative writing standard being put into place as late as then.)

>>149440925
Interesting. Not sure how accurate Don Heck is about that though. I believe Fantastic Four #1 used the Marvel Method already in 1961. Maybe it was a gradual process, where it became used for more comics over time.

>>149440925
>>149441106
Speaking of Don Heck, stumbled on this just now
https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/2g80wj/the_iron_works_of_don_heck/

>>149434880
basically normies are the problem. as we've seen today, as they ruin every piece of media

Stan was the Brian Epstein standing between the conflicting desires of nerds and normies. He made comics cool, without making them smug about it. He "took credit" for things when the truth was too complex for idiots to understand. He took the raving genius insanity of guys like Ditko and Kirby and molded it into something the average schmuck in the 60s could find palatable, while STILL (and this is key) making the SMART people feel special for understanding it more deeply.

Every creative needs a Stan Lee, and every promoter would be lost without the Kirbys and Ditkos and guys like that. They both need each other, they're both hugely important.

>>149438943
That plus his memory is so famously bad that he'd start out statements in interviews with stuff like "I say this often enough that it might even be true"

>>149440858
>he's the reason Piccolo had trhat beaky nose
I'm speechless. that's amazing. also reminds me of that time someone requested I draw Piccolo with an afro.
>>149440877
I read this in The Thing's voice (RIP Chuck McCann)

>>149434819 (OP)
>Was he really as much of a crook and a glory hog as people make out that he was?
considering this thread isn't about Bob Kane, no

>>149434819 (OP)
A cog in the Marvel Method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSiyxvlv_-g

>>149434819 (OP)
Biggest crook in comics.

>>149438682
>He could've done more for Ditko and Kirby in terms of crediting and money, but he wasn't nearly as bad as people treat him.
It's often forgotten that Stan tried really hard to give Kirby a staff position at Marvel instead of a freelance artist job, but Jack turned it down because it would have meant he wouldn't have had the time to draw comics anymore. IIRC it was the Art Director job that John Romita had for decades.

>>149440321
A lot of this stuff is third-hand "knowledge" from people like that who weren't there, but have an agenda, and repeated as if it's fact.

>>149437798
I mean it's a lot of artsy nerds. Also I think the real problem is the introduction of licensing and other factors. Once comics started to become big multimedia business in the later part of the '60s everyone started to want their piece of the pie. Kirby didn't want his art back for artistic or sentimental reasons, he wanted it back because there was now big money in selling it. He wanted greater acknowledgment because that meant more of a cut on royalties and shit. He still made it out well, not like Jerry Siegel who was in perpetual near poverty amd having to get pity jobs under pseudonyms.

>>149441106
Or perhaps the actual process itself evolved. It may have always been "not using full scripts" but with the Marvel Method as we think of it coming later.

>>149434880
>He's not Bob Kane levels of thievery
Explain.

>>149434819 (OP)
>>149434880
Haha it's funny because he died in his own filth while be abused by a fat black nurse

Fitting end for a DEI-obsessed jew

>>149444074
>DEI-obsessed

He was actually pretty against that stuff.

>>149444041
Someone post the clown story.

>>149440858
I thought it was funny that Toriyama redesigned him in Jump Ultimate Stars to look more like he did at the time in real life.

>>149439671
Shut up tard

>>149442858
Nope

>>149444074
Shooter worked very closely with Stan for years and very much liked and admired him. He also fought against company higher-ups and laweyers to give Jack Kirby's artwork back to him, as well as instituting a far better royalties/payment scheme for employees and freelancers.
Disrespectful use of that pic all around desu

>>149434819 (OP)
He's not a crook, but he could certainly get caught up in his own hype. He isn't nearly the vicious backstabber people make him out to be, but he also isn't the blameless angel Twitter loudmouths pretend he is because they read the Untold Story five minutes ago. The comics industry - any industry, really - spouts nothing but bullshit to the press, and as his company's bullshitter-in-chief he sometimes swallowed his own line. For the most part he tried to do right by people, though - Wally Wood pushed for co-writer credit on Daredevil given how much of the plotting he was doing and he got it, for instance.