Stan Lee

[USArmyParatrooper]

I never understood the Stan hate. Although I haven't studied him for years like some people appear to have, in the few interviews I've seen with him, he always appears very professional and gracious. He bestows a tremendous amount of credit upon the creative staff around him, especially Jack Kirby. He even downplays his own work at times and makes a lot of self defamation jokes. Just one example, when Kevin Smith asked him about how he came up with the idea of mutants, and how they fit into the civil rights movement at the time, Stan Lee admitted there was no deep forethought involved. He came up with the idea of mutants out of laziness, so he would no longer have to keep coming up with new ways people got their powers. I thought that was hilarious, but also big of him to admit.

[Gothos]

I never understood the Stan hate. Although I haven't studied him for years like some people appear to have, in the few interviews I've seen with him, he always appears very professional and gracious. He bestows a tremendous amount of credit upon the creative staff around him, especially Jack Kirby. He even downplays his own work at times and makes a lot of self defamation jokes. Just one example, when Kevin Smith asked him about how he came up with the idea of mutants, and how they fit into the civil rights movement at the time, Stan Lee admitted there was no deep forethought involved. He came up with the idea of mutants out of laziness, so he would no longer have to keep coming up with new ways people got their powers. I thought that was hilarious, but also big of him to admit.

The two most frequent complaints seem to be (1) he grabbed credit from other collaborators, and (2) he took part in a system that exploited the talents of workers.

The most frequent counters are that (1) the complainers think that "Kirby and Ditko did everything," so those fans won't accept Stan tooting his own horn in any shape form or fashion, and (2) the only reason Stan came out of the Classic Marvel years with a lucrative contract was because he became the company's figurehead.

However, had Stan protested the entrenched comics-system as many have claimed that he should have, I think Martin Goodman would have tossed him out on his ear and recruited Roy Thomas to be the new figurehead.

[Sean@CharitablePress]

One thing to keep in mind when you meet Stan......he is nearly DEAF, man. I've met him several times and he has always been very kind, funny, and gracious. All but one of those times were paid appearances, but I do agree that someone of his magnitude draws a unique crowd....it's pretty crazy around him even with the paid tickets keeping the crowd manageable.

I'm not saying I fully agree with it....in fact, I'm all about using our prosperity to help others and the dude IS worth a lot of money. But, that said, it's a treat to meet him and he is always very appreciative.

Just be ready to talk loudly and work with his handlers who often have to shout in his ear. The cooler the item you're having signed, the more response you'll get, by the way....he gets tickled by unique items.

Oh, and George Perez was great at that show. The kid in front of me had a sketch book of drawings he'd done and George flipped through it and gave him some sincere pointers, then took a picture. He did a pimp Iron Man sketch and was only charging $25 for those. I believe his autographs were free. He's a class act.

[BDiogenes]

hondobrode, not sure when con was, but I commend you for posting ahead of your visit. I saw Stan at his second q and a at '12 Megacon, intending to ask question, which I'd researched. But I arrived late and was not reached in line. He was overflowing in praise of JK and very candid in all answers, including about what other poster said on X-Men origination. He got an incredible ovation, and this was his second Megacon yearly visit in a row. As for paying to meet or get a signing, I wouldn't, but maybe he charges and charges so much because he feels he didn't get what he should have from his work and the remuneration is evening things out. I specifically attended that con, all three days, to ask him that question, but I'm glad they didn't get to me as further research has answered it or at least allowed me to refine any further question I might have. I doubt Stan is fabulously wealthy from his creations, as he damn well should be, along with his colleagues. Like some it bugged me when Stan didn't mention Jack when Stan appeared on Nightline. Ironically, the only person AT ALL whose autograph I have is Jack Kirby, whom I made a point of meeting at the 1972 New York Comic Art Convention and who signed to me by name my manila envelope that enclosed my program material. I treasure being with him for moments. He drew my favorite story. JK and SL are two of the greatest aesthetes who've ever lived.

[Sean@CharitablePress]

He IS fabulously wealthy. Though, it's possible that the bulk of that loot came from the success of the movies very late in his life. I don't want to be vulgar and post his reported net worth, but it's on the internet and fairly easy to find.

You're right that he deserves it. You're right that I've never seen him do anything other than lavish praise on the other creators he worked with, and he seems to love his fans. As for your Jack Kirby story, I am very jealous and yet glad you got to experience such a great moment!

[BDiogenes]

^Tnanks much. That means he does visit cons out of wanting to be with us.

[hondobrode]

It was great meeting Stan ! I told him I'd waited my whole life to meet him. He loved my Approved By the Comics Code Authority t-shirt and called me Mr. Comic Code Authority with a laugh.

I did pay to both have my pic and an autograph with Stan. It was 2 separate companies running each event, and I was pretty upset because there were literally thousands of people in line and it took a combined 8 hours of standing in line for me to get to Stan both times.

Stan autographed a print of the poster of his 1972 Carnegie Hall lecture. I was thrilled ! Stan had his head down and was autographing like mad. I told him, "God bless you Stan !" and he looked up, saw Mr. Comic Code Authority, smiled and said "Thank you !".

I haven't had the opportunity to meet as many Golden Age creators as I'd like, but am elated I got to meet Stan. It was totally worth it.

[dan bailey]

He drew my favorite story.

Which one?

[SxySamurai]

I'd gladly pay a small amount of money to be able to talk to someone that I'm a fan of, be it Stan Lee or anyone else. However, I've also had the opportunity to meet Todd McFarlene and Will Wheton at no cost and both were really friendly and open to my questions.

In regards to what I would say/ask, I'd probably say thank you for helping create some of my all time favorite characters, as well as helping to build the industry so that I can continue to be entertained so many years later. I'd also want to ask him that if he could go back, would he do anything differently, such as how a character was created/story line/etc.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

I'm going to be seeing him at Dallas Comic Con in a few weeks. I've got a print I want him to sign and I've been wondering what to say to him.

Part of me wants to stand up for Jack Kirby, as in "Why no credits for Jack on the Avengers movie credits ", but I'll never get to see Stan again.

What do you guys suggest I say ? The guy is a legend, despite over-inflating his accomplishments and not giving some of his contributors and fellow creators with the full credit they deserve.

I think Marvel is really starting to put the hammer down on giving comic book creators "credits" in their movies. Most of these people should have understood they were working under "work-for-hire" conditions even if the company hadn't made it "official policy" on paper until the Shooter Era. I think they want to discourage any more lawsuits from people who seem to forget this fact. Personally, I think the Kirby (Family) lawsuit is a waste of time and money. Kirby knew what Martin Goodman's position was--both from his previous experience with him in regards to Captain America (in the 40s) AND Goodman's backpedaling on a possible royalty deal with Jack and Steve Ditko in the mid 60s!

And HOW is today's Marvel is supposed to see it any differently?

[LEADER DESSLOK]

The two most frequent complaints seem to be (1) he grabbed credit from other collaborators, and (2) he took part in a system that exploited the talents of workers.

The most frequent counters are that (1) the complainers think that "Kirby and Ditko did everything," so those fans won't accept Stan tooting his own horn in any shape form or fashion, and (2) the only reason Stan came out of the Classic Marvel years with a lucrative contract was because he became the company's figurehead.

However, had Stan protested the entrenched comics-system as many have claimed that he should have, I think Martin Goodman would have tossed him out on his ear and recruited Roy Thomas to be the new figurehead.

I agree up to a point but I think the problem was the fact that the creators were treated as freelancers, meaning they got a page rate and no more, whereas staff members like editors and even the secretaries may have gotten health benefits and perhaps, pensions. I don't consider it "exploitation" if a creator AGREES to work under those conditions, after all, no one was chained in the bullpen or anything. Plus, writing and drawing comic books is lightweight compared to men and women who work or have worked under slave-like conditions in the garment industries, orange groves and coal mines--both in America AND overseas today! When comic book creators suffer under the tragic scale of the women who perished in the Triangle Fire of early 20th Century New York perhaps, then, we can call it "exploitation". Let's have a little perspective here.

[dan bailey]

I agree up to a point but I think the problem was the fact that the creators were treated as freelancers, meaning they got a page rate and no more, whereas staff members like editors and even the secretaries may have gotten health benefits and perhaps, pensions. I don't consider it "exploitation" if a creator AGREES to work under those conditions, after all, no one was chained in the bullpen or anything.

And if their talents &/or passions happened to be best suited for comics & nothing else, but no other working conditions were available?

When I was a newspaper reporter, a lot of us -- me included -- worked dozens of hours of unreported overtime every week because that's what was required to (a) do the job & (b) do it right, especially back when there was a competing daily (i.e. through mid-October 1991). Uncompensated OT is illegal, of course, but it was expected of us ... completely unofficially, natch. (If we'd reported it, we would've been put through the wringer, & then probably fired, as happened to more than one of our predecessirs.)

I guess I & my colleagues should've just up & changed skills & careers or moved somewhere else, because obviously it was all our fault, not our employer's (& for that matter the industry at large's; such situations weren't at all uncommon then & if anything they're worse now, with mass layoffs leaving fewer & fewer people to do more & more work).

Plus, writing and drawing comic books is lightweight compared to men and women who work or have worked under slave-like conditions in the garment industries, orange groves and coal mines--both in America AND overseas today! When comic book creators suffer under the tragic scale of the women who perished in the Triangle Fire of early 20th Century New York perhaps, then, we can call it "exploitation". Let's have a little perspective here.

Very, very specious reasoning. You might as well say -- Godwin's Law alert! -- that since, I dunno, the Nazis exterminated 12 million people in concentration camps, the few thousand killed in the 9/11 attacks weren't really worth noticing.

Besides, those

men and women who work or have worked under slave-like conditions in the garment industries, orange groves and coal mines

you cite in your bleeding-heart manner ... big damned deal. I mean, to use your logic above, "if a [worker] AGREES to work under those conditions," everyone's happy as a clam or at least should be, right? Right! "Slave-like conditions" ... pish!

[BDiogenes]

dan bailey, thank you for posting that and sharing your personal experience. A bigger wrong does not diminish a smaller wrong IF PEOPLE CARE. Unless people do injustices of all shades will not end, and creating without ownership is exploitation and should be against public policy.

[dan bailey]

A bigger wrong does not diminish a smaller wrong IF PEOPLE CARE. Unless people do injustices of all shades will not end, and creating without ownership is exploitation and should be against public policy.

Well said. Of course, every time this subject comes up here or elsewhere, whether we're talking about comics or movies made from comics, we see that a surprising number of people just don't care as long as their own particular itch is scratched.

Human nature, I guess. *sigh*

[LEADER DESSLOK]

And if their talents &/or passions happened to be best suited for comics & nothing else, but no other working conditions were available?

When I was a newspaper reporter, a lot of us -- me included -- worked dozens of hours of unreported overtime every week because that's what was required to (a) do the job & (b) do it right, especially back when there was a competing daily (i.e. through mid-October 1991). Uncompensated OT is illegal, of course, but it was expected of us ... completely unofficially, natch. (If we'd reported it, we would've been put through the wringer, & then probably fired, as happened to more than one of our predecessirs.)

I guess I & my colleagues should've just up & changed skills & careers or moved somewhere else, because obviously it was all our fault, not our employer's (& for that matter the industry at large's; such situations weren't at all uncommon then & if anything they're worse now, with mass layoffs leaving fewer & fewer people to do more & more work).



Very, very specious reasoning. You might as well say -- Godwin's Law alert! -- that since, I dunno, the Nazis exterminated 12 million people in concentration camps, the few thousand killed in the 9/11 attacks weren't really worth noticing.

Besides, those



you cite in your bleeding-heart manner ... big damned deal. I mean, to use your logic above, "if a [worker] AGREES to work under those conditions," everyone's happy as a clam or at least should be, right? Right! "Slave-like conditions" ... pish!

ITEM #1- The question is: were you FORCED to work there? Probably not. Of course,some companies were better than others, that's just simple reality. But, you weren't FORCED to stay there if you didn't want to. Different comic book publishers had different standards. If ALL of them were less than ideal, a creator had several options but the two which stand out the most are:

A. Deal with the company they felt was the best, in their opinion OR...
B. DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A LIVING. It's not rocket science--it's REAL LIFE and MILLIONS of Americans deal with it everyday.

ITEM #2- HUH? How is this related to calling the drawing of funny books "exploitation" compared with working long hours under unsafe working conditions? If you're trying to say both involved choice, that only makes sense if the creators were forced to work in "bullpens" under similar conditions. What I was referring to is that it's not "exploitation" if a creator knows that his or her ideas and contributions belong to the company. That's why they were hired in the first place--for their skills and creativity. If a creator has superior skills, he or she can negotiate for a higher page rate or other incentives. If the "publisher" refuses, the creator can go back to doing their job--OR GET THE HELL OUT and go somewhere else or do something else. Comics are a business not charitable organizations or Socialist institutions. But your ITEM #2 response addressed none of this.

ITEM #3- NOW you want to address it? Then what was the point of ITEM #2?

(...?)

(...?)

I'm still waiting...

(ZZZZZZ)

Oh, nevermind.

BACK TO THE THREAD:

In response to the thread, I don't think, nor have I ever felt, that Stan Lee should be held responsible for the policies of Martin Goodman, even if he may have supported his uncle's decisions. From what I've read, Lee always tried to get higher page rates for his creative people. ALSO, Kirby was offered a staff job (that eventually went to John Romita) but Jack couldn't accept it because the job required that he remain in New York but Jack and his family had to move to California for personal health reasons.

My issues with Lee often involved his tendency to tell "whoppers" (like the infamous seeing a bug crawling on a wall and that gave him the idea for Spider-Man). Like Bob Kane's (I created Batman when I was 13) it makes for a sexy story outside of the world of comics, but it doesn't hold up to what they've each already admitted to and what the people who helped them have said. Both eventually gave thanks to all the people who helped them along the way and that's good enough for me. Bob Kane is dead so I can never get an autograph or even a sketch he himself did. If anyone is a Stan Lee fan, don't miss out on the opportunity to see him or speak with him. We don't know how much longer we will have him.