Some people here are acting like Stan took sole credit for everything, where in truth he attributed Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and John Romita Sr. a great deal over the years. Stan was the point man, similar to Kevin Feige now.
People always gave Stan too much credit. Even in Stan’s memoir he was pretty open about how he would only write a brief plot summary and whatever artist was working on a title had free reign to interpret it. That isn’t to say Stan didn’t take credit for shit he didn’t do, because he did. In that same memoir, he stated that he didn’t understand why Steve Ditko left Marvel, even though it was because Stan refused to give him a writer’s credit.
To me the Best I can say about Stan lee He help start marvel but most of His stuff he just set up the villain for a plot or put the Hero in a spot to get there powers but thats it Well future writers did more with His stuff From Spider-man to Captain America and X-men and gave theme more of a Build up with better Potential
@@comicbookreviewer4856 Stan Lee along with the artists he worked with introduced a new idea at the time. The hero’s secret identity was more important than the costume. They added soap opera drama and everyday problems that now define a most superhero comics. The fantastic four never had secret identities and didn’t have costumes for the first few issues. Before Spider-Man, heroes weren’t teenagers and they didn’t have to worry about stuff like paying rent. Captain America wasn’t Stan’s, though. That was Joe Simon and Jack Kirby.
The main problem isn't that he didn't ever acknowledge it, it's that he was so happy to reap all of the benefits without sharing them with anyone else involved. Like, you don't get to say "actually I didn't do it all alone" without dough *everything* you can to share the wealth of marvel with everyone that made it what it was. The guy was just a normal greedy ceo, happy to take all the cash, and occasionally winked and nodded towards the others as if that counts for anything.
Actually Stan didn't know why Steve left. Steve said in an interview that Stan never asked him, in fact he wouldn't even come out of his office when Steve was there quitting. Steve to my knowledge has never told anyone why he left either, but he did leave hints here and there. One weird part, is Steve wanted Jack to come with him and start their own comic company, since they both felt they did all the heavy lifting anyway. Jack declined as he had a family to support. Not sure how that company would have fared if they did not get a Stan like person to promote it. Also Stan sometimes just discussed the stories with the artists without writing it down, and sometime he didn't even do that, the artists just came up with the story, penciled it, and then Stan did the dialog. At least the last year of the Ditko run of Spider-Man Stan never spoke to Steve for any occasion, including the episode where I mentioned Steve quit, right there in front of Stan's office.
This is why Alan Moore is to me the GOAT of comic book industry. He calls out all the BS. RIP Stan Lee and thank you for your postive contributions but Jack Kirby isn't even known by the newer generations. That is a crime. The music and film industries are up there but the comic book industry is the most corrupt. If Stan Lee is Edison. Kirby is Tesla.
@@lukeanil1336 a million percent! Ditko was really the true creator of Spiderman, he was the first person to draw Spiderman. He created Dr. Strange, worked on Hulk and Iron Man, the list goes on. He died in 2018 and I barely heard anyone mention his name when he died unlike when Stan died who died 4 months later and that is a real crime.
COPIED FROM REDDIT: I thought I'd quickly fact-check Moore on this. Here's what Stan Lee actually writes in the 'Grandson of Origins' intro to Captain America: "The origin of Captain America was told for the first time in 1941 in the first issue of his own mag in the glorious days of the Golden Age of Comics. It isn't easy to take the time-honored tale by legends like Jack Kirby and Joe Simon - perhaps the origin of all origins - and try to find a dynamic new way to present it for a new generation of Mighty Marvel maniacs." He didn't take credit for creating Captain America, but clearly gave credit to Kirby and Simon. That's from page 95, and it would be good if someone could add that as a comment on the youtube video. Stan Lee was a relentless self-publicist and a lot of his collaborators didn't get the recognition they deserve, but there can also be an unfair backlash to that in which Lee's creative role is downplayed, and false or exaggerated claims about him stealing credit are made. This was copied from a comment from u/ymcameron
Having read all the Stan stuff- he does deserve the praise he gets- just Jack deserves more. Stan was still best writer of his generation, arguably best editor of all time and certainly best promoter. You don't have to tear Stan down to give Jack the respect he deserves. Moore on the other hand through a fit because Claremont used one of Moores characters in a panel of UXM. At the time Moore vowed never to work for Marvel again even though he'd been using dozens of Claremont created characters in the book he was writing at the tine
Consider for a moment that Moore should own the full rights of Watchmen and either be raking in the dough from selling it out or preserving its creative integrity from the series future bastardisations. Moore's sentiments come from a well earnt place. Man didn't just wake up one morning and decide to drink hater-aid. You'd be pretty unreasonable too if Comic book execs like Stan Lee (even if not personally Stan Lee) had personally taken advantage of a contract loophole to both screw you out of multi-millions and desecrate the legacy of your most famous creative work at the same time. Stan probably rubs extra salt in the wound for getting all the fame and fortune, while the artists and little people under him are footnotes today.
@@azariyelvarro6271 all I’ve seen from Moore is that he made poor business decisions Why would I feel bad for someone like him who constantly shits on comic creators and fans while acting so high and mighty and like he’s a victim when he just made a really bad decision
Yeah, let's not all start mindlessly kissing Alan's ass, Just because Watchmen or V for Vendetta and let's Even say Swamp Thing and Killing Joke or For The Man Who Has Everything are all timeless doesn't mean he can do no wrong, The old fart has a lot of shit takes
@@azariyelvarro6271 Stan didn't own Marvel or have any creator rights either. Stan shrewdly understood and worked in the confines of that system by connecting with the fans and making himself part of the company instead of lashing out at it. I massively respect Jack (not just for his matchless body of work- but also for improving creator rights for future generations)- but all this Stan hatred is misplaced.
Growing up I too idolized Stan Lee, as any aspiring comic writer does, but learning more about the comic industry, I begin to realize that idolization was misplaced and it's rather sad.
@@TerminalConstipation Growing up did you aspire to become a comic writer? Well, imagine you did only to find out the person who created the characters you idolized and inspired you now live in poverty because their work was stolen from them. Do you think to a person like that; do you think they would give a shit?
Growing up all I wanted to do was write and draw for Marvel Comics. My samples were deemed not good enough *yet*, and by the age of 20 I stopped submitting and got a ‘real’ job, writing and drawing other stuff. Decades later I realised that Marvel is a factory, the creatives are under stress to churn out stuff. The original creators of the comics industry as we know it were churning it out and if they even remember who said what under such pressure was what led to the Marvel method in the first place. So kudos to Stan, Jack, Steve, et al. as well the production people, for their genius and fortitude … but believe that it was a meeting of minds and talents in the right place at the right time.
Stan Lee didn't create Captain America, he was 18 not 12 at the time. And he was at Marvel in the early years of Captain America. He worked on Captain America #3. But when he got control of Marvel in the 1960s he did an extensive re-launch of the character who had been defunct for over a decade, and created a lot of the plotlines we think of as Captain America canon today.
@@space.pirate481 that's what Alan Moore was talking about , not Stan. Alan Moore is taking Lee's statement out of context, probably on purpose but who knows, and this comment has cleared it up. Kirby could've worked elsewhere. Alan Moore's jus taking an extreme side. I believe jack Kirby wasn't as upset about it as his wife was. he seemed happy to just work for D.C. or Marvel. he wasn't entrepreneurial.
@@nuckygulliver9607 maybe wasn't sad,but he had a fight with Stan that's why he left Marvel in early 70s to go to Dc again to start his Fourth World.Originally was for Marvel the idea ,but Marvel editors rejected the idea, not to mention O.M.A.C.(One Man Army Corpse) was originally supposed to be as futuristic Captain America before went to Dc and came back to Marvel in '76 for The Eternals which is similar plot to his New Gods one.They didn't let him on Eternals to have his celestial stuff , only 1-11 was his vision, the rest 12-19 Marvel forced him to add Hulk even though was a cyborg,time travel etc.
This is why hearsay is inadmissible in court because the recounting itself may be inaccurate. I've seen the interview Mr.Moore is referring to and the interviewer was asking Stan Lee if he thought Steve Ditko was the CO-CREATOR of Spidey, not the sole creator.
To be fair, Ditko was really hard to work with most people. The reason he may have gotten poor over time is due to living off of his self-published Ayn Rand comic
Yeah, I've read a couple of them, and while the art is enjoyable, the stories and characters are very one-dimensional. I can unbiasedly say that Mr. A is a Gary Stu. For the record, I have a deep respect for Steve Ditko as an artist, but he believed in some bull crap
I don't know if he was that poor, having a studio office in a NYC highrise in the very heart of Manhattan. But he did seem to be bitter about the lack of recognition that he received in the creation of Spider-Man. But when he did get chances to set the record straight, he wasted his time preaching to the choir (i.e, those who purchased his self published 'zines).
I tried to read some of that. Its not that he believed in bull crap. It was just written in this really broad and obvious way. It didn't earn its symbolism. @@AceLM92
No disrespect to anyone involved but, I’m just gonna come out and say it- Kirby and Ditko were THE heavy, creative lifters at Marvel Comics. No way around it. HOWEVER- at least on Spider-Man, Steve Ditko admitted in His many an essay that Lee came to Him with a synopsis for Spider-Man which HE improved on, hence Him (rightfully) wanting to be Spidey’s co-creator. As for Kirby, obviously the much more wronged individual, artist John Romita stated in many interviews how He would witness Stan and Jack’s creative sessions for things like Fantastic Four on drives home and such and would describe each pretty much ignoring the other. He would then go on to describe how He’s fairly certain Jack wouldn’t read the issues He worked on because He was Marvel’s workhorse, unfairly at that. It’s more than safe to say His dialogue suggestions were probably not the ones in the final cuts, meaning those brilliant stories were products of both Kirby’s Plotting and Illustrations but also Lee’s Dialogue and Character Work. So Yes, Kirby and Ditko OBVIOUSLY deserve much more credit and are DEFINITELY the major creative forces at Marvel but to say these biased, blatantly untrue statements about how “Lee did nothing and was just a thief” are just flat out wrong. Did Lee give Himself WAY TOO MUCH credit? Hell Yes, but did He also script, edit, AND help create these iconic characters, without Him, many being VASTLY different than how We know and Love Them today? Absolutely, and I’m so sick of these one sided, non nuanced views. The Ditko documentary Moore MENTIONS even says similar rhetoric. Look, I’m sorry, I am biased and, more importantly, I would never deign try to question the validity in Kirby and Ditko’s, again, VASTLY WARRANTED aggressions with Marvel but this one sided “it was all Lee” argument NEEDS to be put to rest already. Okay, rant over. Bring on the hate train.😅
Everyone who's read comics knows this is true. It's the Marvel and Disney execs who let Stan Lee be the figurehead, and redditors who've apotheosithized the movies. I think you might find that once you've been cheated in the creative industry, you feel the need to overcompenate because the narrative is 100% controlled by these companies, whose wealth would be greatly reduced if these burnt artists and writers actually got their fair share of the $$$ they generated.
I want to see the stacks of scripts that Stan Lee wrote for the comics, they don't exist, on the other hand you could see Kirby's writing explaining what is going on in the comic panels to help stan lee to fill the dialogue
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Maybe you should start taking them out and leaving horny teenagers alone, Jason. 😂 I can see it now _Friday the 13th, part 87. Jason takes out Stan Lee apologists!_ There can be a scene where you stab one in the eye with a comic coloring pen.
Even though Stan Lee probably gave himself way more credit than he should've, I still think he at least had a hand in the success of Marvel Comics. That's more than could be said about Bob Kane (the self-proclaimed creator of Batman)
@@alexduran2476after Bill passed away, when he already left a broken life behind, and even after that Bob Kane ON HIS OWN GRAVE credited the creation of Batman to God. So, Bob Kane was and forever will be remembered as a big pos.
True. As great as Kirby and Ditko were, they couldn't do everything. They needed someone Stan to bounce off ideas, direct story lines and write dialogue.
Stan Lee's greatest creation was just himself - The barker, the company man, the PR Guy, the salesman, the mascot. No wonder he's friend with Bob Kane. 😂😅
Stan never stopped away the name of the artists like Bob Kane stripped away Bill Finger’s name. I think people hate Stan because he outlived Kirby. Kirby’s sole creations were more about god-related characters. When he worked under Stan the characters were way more humanized and upbeat.
@@petermj1098 Quite the contrary. People in the know, and also artists that worked with Lee hate him because he rode coattails to position himself as the creator of this universe , whereas all he did was be involved in the creations of other artists only as a script provider. Which is all well and good, until he started behaving like he created the marvel universe.
@@sca8217 He hired the artists to work under him not the other way around. If Stan told the artists: “Make me a design of a superhero who is a dorky teenager with powers of a Spider” “Make me a design of a superhero who is African king dressed and has abilities like a feline” “Make me a design of a superhero who is like Howard Hughes and wears a metal suit that is like a rocket”. “Make me a design of a superhero who is a scientist like Victor Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll who turns into Frankenstein’s monster mixed with Mr Hyde.” “Make me a design of a superhero of four astronauts hit by cosmic rays. A smart leader, a woman, a pretty boy and a strong one.” Stan has the right the call himself a creator if he came up with the idea of the characters in the first place. The artists would never made the designs if he didn’t give them the idea of the characters and Stan chose to use the designs we recognize today. And Kirby’s sole creations were more about god related stuff and Ditko’s was more edgier stuff. When they worked with Stan their creations were way more humanized and relatable than their sole creations- which is consistent to what Stan always said he wanted the superheroes to be.
@@petermj1098 Good point. He definitely was the binding force behind that whole universe. It's easy to hate on Stan, especially because he is a soft target. Deep in my heart, I do love that old codger, rest his soul
As a kid i watched a lot oh behind the scenes & interviews. I remember one where Stan Lee flat out said he didn't create spider-man. And i quote" Ditko pitched me the idea. And i didn't think it would sell. So Steve put a short in the back of a comic without me knowing. And the kids eat it up." So from then on Spider-Man became a Marvel staple. Now as i can't find that video. Don't even know what to look for honestly. But i'll admit maybe i'm misremembering things. But that story segment has always sat wrong with me.
With all due respect, That might of been Dr. Strange. Spidey was Amazing Fantasy #15’s Cover Story, while Strange didn’t even get a name billet on His first appearance in Strange Tales #110, I believe. I completely agree Ditko is Spidey’s Co-creator- Ditko Himself admitted Stan came to Him with the idea He improved upon and gave life to, so absolutely Ditko’s Estate is is more than rightfully entitled.
Jonathan Ross did a documentary about Ditko which has some Lee interviews in it, and his story kind of shifts around. At this point, there's a very rehearsed lawyerly version which he's recited under deposition on numerous occasions, but when he's being candid it seems to shift a bit.
Nah. Writers and artists got paid for their work. Stan Lee had ideas, handed them off to the artists, and they did their jobs. If it wasn't for Stan Lee, no one would have known their work.
@@duckman8943 nah Bob kane stole from people all the time. There is a story about bob getting sued by a guy that he had hired to make a bunch of clown paintings for him because Bob tried to pass them off as his own work.
Even when I was a kid reading Marvel in the 1970s and early 80s, I never could quite figure out what Stan Lee actually did. I took him for a figurehead and nothing much else. When his name became attached to having "created" so many iconic characters, I was pretty incredulous. But it's only in recent years that I have come understand what a leech the man was off of other people's talent and ideas. All you need to do is listen to an interview with him about a character and he will try his hardest to please the audience and give them the version of the character's spirit they were looking for. If asked about Hulk vs Thor, he will make sure that person he's with is more disposed to one or the other. Stan Lee was a publisher and a promoter of Marvel. He was a terrible curate to this creative workers.
Stan Lee did work on the Captain America character a decade later and he was 18, not 12. Stan Lee wrote many stories. Countless almost. He wrote many different genres even. At one point the Disney talents broke off from Disney and fired their own company that was supposed to beat Disney. they all came back to him for jobs. He had the vision that somehow the public connected with. he was able to reign the talents in... and direct them. TEh fact that Alan Moore is lying and greatly exaggerating kind of puts all his other comments into suspicion.
Stan Lee never claimed to have been the soul creator but he was the editor the final say and ensuring the fluidity of Marvel's Comics beautifully. So many relationships and conclusions realized by him not them.
He did claim to be sole creator of all those comics. Go read The Origin of Marvel Comics. He also stated he created Spider-Man on that Jonathan Ross documentary. He stated " I think the guy who came up with the idea is the creator, then you can get anyone to draw it". I 'm paraphrasing a bit, but that ii very close.
@timsmythfilmsandanimations okay well on youtube I have now watched 5 different interviews with Stan Lee. Each one said he co-created Marvel characters, not once did anyone say only he created Marvel like Spiderman. He does take responsibility for his part. Stan Lee made it clear Kirby as stated was behind the graphic style, while Stan Lee kept things relevant and the stories interesting.
@@cheshirekittinz17 Watch in Search of Steve Ditko, and you will see how Stan actually thought. Hear him say you come up with an idea, and then anyone can draw it. Something like that. For years and years he took sole credit for creating Spider-Man among others. Look for his interview by Kevin Smith, he claims again to have come up with the idea.
@timsmythfilmsandanimations Ditko wanted Stan Lee's job they didn't give it to him so he quite. It sounds like Ditko messed up a good thing. And I watched the Kevin Smith interview Stan Lee never takes credit but when Kevin Smith points out his accomplishments all he says I'm afraid so. I still disagree and view Stan Lee as the main inspiration mainly becouse he didn't take off when things didn't go his way.
@@cheshirekittinz17 Ditko was plotting Spider-Man, he did not need Stan Lee's job, I have no idea what you are talking about? Neither Stan, nor Steve ever said why Steve left the company. In the Kevin Smith interview, Stan told the same story he has always told, seeing the fly on the wall, how he came up with the name, he certainly didn't mention anyone else in the story. Ditko never claimed to have created Spider-Man, but did claim to be the co-creator, Stan has claimed many times to be the sole creator.
And back in the mid eighties Jim Shooter would practically dismiss Kirby and sing the praises of Stan Lee as if Lee had been the main creative force of Marvel in the 60's. Then by 1987 Shooter's ass was kicked out of Marvel Comics. Not many people at Marvel wept over that.
To me the Best I can say About Jim shooter was that He made the right call about Taking care of the Dark phoenix storyline as it was Clear Jean grey downfall was meant to remind the reader even know you got help the damage you done won't always come undone as your actions from the past might've effected others
Alan Moore also stated that he hated the film adaption of his graphic novel series "The Watchmen", what I have heard about Lee and Kirby's procedure it that Lee would come up with the plot, often telling Kirby to give him 5 pages of a battle between the characters, and then after the pencils were completed Lee would add the dialogue. Lee was sort of like Oscar Schindler, he provided the image of Marvel, while Stern (Kirby, Ditko, Romita) did most of the work. Some of Lee's fame comes from his cameos in all the Marvel films. I could say in his defense that he was much better at adding dialogue than Jack, I have a ton of Kirby comics where he is the writer as well and some of his characters either look or sound outdated or make strange comments (for example Mr. Big the midget with the monocle who liked to call people Jackenapes).
Stan Lee created the concept of a Spider-Man. Ditko drew the costume. So who created Spiderman? I saw that documentary and stan was more than fair. Ditko would never have dreamn't up the idea of Spiderman. Stan could have got someone else to translate his ideas to paper.
I don't think so. The reason why Steve Ditko wrote dialogue himself is because he was upset that Stan was getting all the credit for creating Spider Man because the character had been Stan's idea while Steve only drew it but didn't invent it. So he basically sat there, upset, going "I'll write it myself then while I draw, thank you very much :P" and Stan was fine with this, because to him Marvel was just this beautiful, fun, creative place and so he looked over Steve's dialogue as he ought to as the editor, and finalized it. Alan Moore only saw the old pages but not the psychology. Steve remained upset about this topic until the end of his life, and somebody who feels wronged like this will resort to all kinds of petty behavior such as writing dialogue while drawing simply so he could get ALL the credit for a comic (dialogue and art), so that the audience would, over time, praise him over Stan. But he didn't get the writers credit by himself because Stan's job was to edit it and therefore Stan's name was on the cover as well. And thus, Steve left Marvel for not getting a writers credit when he tried to game the system by writing himself. Steve Ditko had an ego problem that is quite common among artists. I shall mention, I've seen AI-artists who complain about others for stealing their AI art prompts and then posting their own results.
It’s also true that without Stan’s words in Spider-Man’s mouth the book wouldn’t have been half as successful. It’s possible that without Stan promoting the books Superhero comics would be nowhere. Why has the man in the street unaware of Jack or Steve’s other work? Does Alan Moore believe that Dave Gibbons is the sole creator of Watchmen? Would they even exist if he hadn’t ‘thought’ them out?
It is also true that if Steve hadn't mentioned that Spider-Man was a rip-off of the comic the Fly, we would have gotten a much different comic as well, one with Ditko only providing the inks.
That's a dumb comparison. It's like comparing fast food to a nutritious meal. Stan Lee wrote "scripts" in form of summaries for artists to fill out precisely because his words were what mattered least to the stories. It was about mass production of a new and exciting product rather than well tought and authoral stories. In other words, he leaved the actual storytelling to the artists. Totally the opposite of how duos like Moore and Gibbons worked.
@@tolijero5866 Stan Lee and the penciller plots, or at the least, discuss the story; the penciller tells the story visually; Stan scripts [narration, captions, dialogue] the story. Alan Moore writes a full blown script [dialogue, narration, panel direction, lighting, scenery, props, etc.] which is then given to the artist to draw. Different methods but I’d say the Lee & Ditko and Lee & Kirby teams are more collaborative than Moore & Gibbons.
he wrote full issues of all sorts of different characters and genres. he wrote whole series of books. He wrote every issue of Menace. he was great at writing this horror surprise stories. Alan Moore is full of crap. he's just been convinced by one side of the issue 30 years ago and he thinks it's all true even though all the facts and dates are changed in his mind.
comics is a visual medium first and foremost and the last time i checked stan lee was never a comic book artist. he was a world class promoter of marvel comics but unfortunately the sheep still believe that he was marvel comics.
I've read all of the Origins of Marvel Comics books and Stan NEVER claimed to have anything to do with the creation of Captain America. THAT IS A LIE. I've also seen the Jonathon Ross interview with Stan Lee regarding Steve Ditko and Spider-Man. The actual interview has VERY LITTLE RESEMBLANCE to what Moore is describing. What Stan actually said was that (I'm paraphrasing) in his opinion the creator is the person who initially thinks of a new concept. He claims that he, Stan Lee, thought up the idea for Spider-Man. Was he telling the truth? I don't know; I wasn't in the room. Neither was Alan Moore. As far as I know, Steve Ditko never claimed to be the one who first thought of the character called Spider-Man. Stan goes on to say that Ditko deserved co-creator status for Spider-Man because of all that he brought to the character after the initial concept. I admit that Stan gave Steve co-creator status somewhat begrudgingly (in my opinion). HOWEVER, he gave Ditko a great deal of credit for Spider-Man's success. I would just like to point out that Spider-Man remained just as popular--perhaps became more popular--with Stan writing many classic stories and John Romita and others handling the art. Also, anyone who is foolish enough to think that Stan Lee's writing was not essential to the success of early Marvel Comics, I suggest you read ANYTHING written by either Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko without Stan's input. AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF WHO CREATED WHAT, I'd just like to point out that two of Alan Moore's most celebrated works, WATCHMEN and THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN were both derivative of earlier creators' works. It's no secret that the Watchmen characters were based on the old Charlton Comics characters--most of which were created or co-created by Steve Ditko! And TLOEG is comprised of characters 100% created by other writers such as H. Rider Haggard, Bram Stoker, Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson and H.G. Wells who didn't give Moore permission to appropriate their work.
Haggard, Stoker et al didn't have to give Moore permission, they are in public domain. Jack Kirby said he thought up a character called Spider-Man early on. I can't remember where I read or saw that. There's been a lot of stuff over the years that Lee has taken credit for and then updated as time has gone on. There's a movie/doc on Disney + that's worthwhile.
@@culturefan, yes, I know how public domain works. I never said that Moore broke the law by using these characters. I am only pointing out that he has appropriated other writers' characters, sometimes warping them completely out of shape, but also tries to come off as a staunch defender of creators' rights. He also throws hissy fits when anyone dares to adapt any of the characters he's created. I think that makes him a hypocrite. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. I'm also aware that Jack Kirby claims he thought up a character called Spider-Man before Stan Lee. I didn't bring that up before because it wasn't relevant. I was addressing the dispute regarding Spider-Man between Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. Ditko claims he cocreated Spider-Man. Stan has put it in writing that Steve Ditko cocreated Spider-Man. So, what's the beef? People have pointed out that Stan Lee was great self promoter. This is true. He also promoted Jack "King" Kirby and "Sturdy" Steve Ditko as well as himself. What he was actually promoting was the Marvel Comics brand. Do you seriously think anyone outside of hardcore comics fans would even know who Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko were if it wasn't for Stan? For that matter, does anyone think the MCU would exist if it wasn't for the buzz and hype created by Stan all those years ago? As for Stan's main contribution to Marvel Comics, I will repeat something I wrote earlier: "Anyone who is foolish enough to think that Stan Lee's writing was not essential to the success of early Marvel Comics, I suggest you read ANYTHING written by either Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko without Stan's input." The truth is, neither Kirby nor Ditko were nearly as successful after they stopped working with Stan.
Criticizing Watchmen for being 'derivative' of Ditko's characters is either disingenuous or missing the point. Watchmen was written as a critique of Ayn Rand's libertarianism, and Ditko was a massive Ayn Rand fan, so Moore was referencing his work on purpose to make a point.
@@tentaclepawn1548, I didn't criticize Moore for using derivative characters. I am suggesting that it is hypocritical of Moore to "create" characters that are derived and/or appropriated from other creators while at the same time pretending to be a staunch defender of creators' rights. I am expressing an opinion that those two actions are incompatible.
@@tomwellman4500 "I didn't criticize Moore for using derivative characters!" (Proceeds to criticize Moore for using derivative characters. Again.) You are either trolling or really stupid lol
Stan Lee created folks. All those characters he wrote brain wise came from his perspective. An artist can draw, and art look great. But an author places the mindset into that hero.
Nope, not even that. Lee once stumble upon with Kirby who was drawing Galactus. Stan asked him: "who is that humongous lad?" , and Kirby answered: "That's Galactus the devourer of worlds"
When Moore satirized Stan Lee in his sadly unfinished 1961 comic book series, Moore's writing sounded more like Stan Lee than Stan Lee. More is the greatest comic book writer ever. It is unbelievable how brilliant Alan Moore is.
@@elhinm07probably because you are a fake fan, uneducated and uncultured. You never heard of the man who wrote the watchmen and the killing joke? Or stan lee told you he created those too?
The only thing in Stan Lees defence is that he always said he was a huckster. Simon Cowell once said "I don't know anything about music, I know about Marketing." Stan Lee was the Simon Cowell of Comics. Still, RIP Stan. You huckster.
you say... except he wrote a countless amount of comics and wrote in every genre... even comedy. but of course even though he's written a countless amount of comics.. whole issues he'd write and have on the stands, multiple issues that he wrote. he write many full issues of the horror books and all sorts of characters. of course you say this is standard businessman activities? all this writing? For so many years?
If anyone hasnt seen it, there's an 8 hour interview video with Jim Shooter, and they cover this in great detail. In short, Alan Moore is wrong. But just think. Who was the first editor to give any credit to the art team? Who? Stan Lee. Before that no one got any credit. And who gave the awesome nicknames to promote them? Who? Stan Lee. Who dubbed Kirby the King? Yes, Stan Lee. And finally, for now, it's simple: if Stan said, hey I've got this idea for a Spider-Man and I'm thinking he's a kid in high school. Can you please design me something, then yeah, it was Stan's initial idea. The fact that both Kirby and Ditko got a shot at it means Stan knew where he wanted to go with the character. Not to mention, the whole tone of Marvel comes from Stan's mind. Focusing on the kid rather than the hero was so original. It's the primary reason that the MCU is far superior to DC movie crap. When DC does get a hit, it's because they used the tone that Stan set. Get real, Alan Moore. You can't even remember simple stuff very well. Obviously biased in your memory.
In my opinion Stan Lee's writing is unquestionable but from his own works of mind... I would say he was creatively bankrupt and the creation part belongs to the artists. Writing and creating are not synonymous in visual media.
Anyone could’ve been the first artist to draw HIS characters. That honor goes to Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and etcetera, but only one person could have imagined the characters and propose them. It’s a matter of literary artist vs visual artist.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Nope. It was Kirby and Simmons who created the original idea of a spider based superhero, Kirby then gave it to Lee who gave it to Ditko who refined the design and origin. All Lee did was put his name on things.
Walt Disney, Stan Lee, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Kane, Shakespeare(probably) They're all famous for profiting off of other peoples ideas.
The only difference with Shakespeare is that is wasn't malevolent, and that he may have made a deal with the true creator. Of course this all depends on which theory you subscribe to.
@@WhaleManMan The first time scholars started debating whether or not he wrote those works was in the 1770's. This isn't some modern day conspiracy. People have talked about it for over 200 years.
Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko stumbled into superhero comics by accident and together made them unforgettable. There's no question whatever that Kirby and Ditko did most of the work and that Stan Lee took most of the credit. Its hardly surprising seeing that his uncle owned the business and thought very little of any of them.
Ditko thought Spider-Man was only popular because of the costume powers and gadget he drew. Ditko rejected grey characters and flawed heroes. The reason Spider-Man is popular because he is a flawed hero that has personal struggles in life. Jack Kirby cared more about writing for God characters. Stan is the reason why Marvel characters are flawed humans. Because they are flawed and imperfect they are more relatable to people.
Most comic book characters are co-creations, collaborations between a few different people. But, usually one person gets more credit than the other. This has happened multiple times over the years, all the way back to Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Stan Lee was involved in the creation of a whole lot of characters, but many of them were collaborations. You can blame the industry too for not giving enough credit to others; instead of saying 'these three or four people created this character", it's easier to promote "this one person created the character." At least people know who Jack Kirby, Stan Ditko, and John Romita Sr. are, Stan Lee talked about working with them a great deal. No one knew who Bill Finger was, and he died penniless. If you want to know who Stan Lee was, he was the grand vision of what Marvel and super heroes could be for the modern age. But the details of the actual characters were created by many different people. Stan just lived longer than most of his cohorts, leaving him as the guy to tell the history.
Excelsior Stan Lee, without Lee Marvel would have died in the 60s, he shouldered an entire industry and everyone after owes him a debt. That is not a slight against Kirby or Ditko, but what good is creative talent if there is no medium for them to work in.
No, Moore was assigned to write Watchmen by DC editorial using the Charlton heroes which they had acquired in 1985, but after they saw what he was doing with them (bringing their stories to a conclusive end) they asked him to change them to original characters. Moore has never claimed ownership of the Charlton heroes, though he has expressed frustration over ownership of the Watchmen characters.
So, apparently, according to CBR(so take that with a grain of salt), Stan did not actually credit himself with the creation of Cap, in that book at least. Doesn't mean Stan hasn't taken credit for loads of other people's ideas though
Moore is talking about an occasion where Stan Lee said (as in spoke out loud, not written in the book's credits) he co-created the character with Jack Kirby, but in reality it was Joe Simon. Not that the book has Stan Lee credit as a creator.
Stan Lee was essentially like the director of Marvel Comics. He had the ideas of what he wanted, made the big picture decisions, kept things on track and working together. The artists and writers at Marvel were like the actors and, well, writers for a movie or show. It takes all of these people to make things work. Do directors get more credit than they deserve? I'm sure some do -- and I'm sure quite a few get less. But everyone has their role to play. It's impossible to know the details of what happened behind the scenes, especially since everyone involved has passed on. But I'm sure that everyone involved would tell you that the creation of Spider-Man and the rest of Marvel's most popular and lasting characters were a collaborative effort. At the same time, I absolutely get where Moore is coming from, especially given his own negative experiences working in mainstream comics.
@@simonmacconmidhe9489 But you've got to remember, people who didn't have the power to negotiate for royalties who subsequently feel shortchanged for their work have a self-serving narrative of their own. I can't blame them for feeling the way they do, but anybody involved in creating something of extraordinary value will resent they had agreed to be paid a flat wage for their work, but they would have never been paid at all if they had demanded royalties, the ideas-man would have employed someone else. This could work the other way though, a great artist who lacks a brilliant idea could try to find somebody to work for a wage to come up with characters for the artist to draw, stipulating that they the artist would have sole ownership of the character/creation. It's just finding someone with brilliant ideas is actually a lot harder than finding someone who can draw.
I'm all for giving those who direct things their due and credit. All involved in a creation should get credit. But the credit should be for the thing they actually did, whatever that may be. If you write, you should be credited as a writer. If you edit a creation someone else wrote, then you aren't the original writer. You did work though so you deserve credit for your editing. Maybe you did a lot of editing that completely transformed the work, or maybe you just filled in some gaps and corrected a few logic breaks. But someone who doesn't know how the sausage was made, like an average consumer, should be able to look at the credits and discern who really did what to at least a general degree. Then they can decide for themselves which contributions to a project impressed them the most. But those credits have to be accurate descriptions of who really did what for this to work. Like screenwriters getting their name taken off a movie because a third party came along and edited it, is just revisionist history. The most recent editor isn't THE writer, and being the most recent contributor is no justification to delete all references to all other prior contributors. A later contributor doesn't erase the fact that there were prior contributors. If the later contributor did way more work than the prior contributor its fine to note that in some way, but even then its not ok to erase from memory that first act of contribution. At least a 'based on the whatever written by so and so' would be due. Of course these days w/digital footprints and everything being video recorded and everyone having a video camera in their pocket, its a lot easier to protect oneself from some future 3rd party trying to take credit for what you have done. Though its hard if you're doing it for money. If you need to sell your creation to pay your rent, who knows what rights you might sign away in your time of need that you might regret having signed away 20 years later.
Whenever you see a big name who has many achievments attributed to them, always study their _contemporaries and employees._ Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Homer, Plato and even _William Shakespeare!_
I don't see why everyone thinks that Allan hates everything. He always seemed very calm and collected. He's just giving his honest thoughts. He points out flaws and lists valid reasons. Yet everyone thinks half the time he's some angry get of my lawn with a shotgun Grandpa.
@@PanConQueso001 Because Stan Lee gave co creator credit to Steve Ditko and the later Ditko issues clearly say "plotted and drawn by Steve Ditko" so Stan Lee did not hog all the glory. Even plenty of Fantastic Four issues say "by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby".
Stan Lee didn’t own the company, Stan Lee wasn’t the publisher, nobody forced Jack and Steve to quit 🤷♂️ Stan Lee giving people credit while not opening himself up for legal trouble is not some great evil.
Apparently Moore seemed to be confusing it with the Captain America (1990) movie, where the poster claimed that Stan Lee created Captain America. Kirby was also very angry that the poster claimed Stan created the character. That is what Moore is referencing.
@@wadewilson7000 It came from the Captain America movie from 1990 where the movie poster said "COMIC CREATED BY STAN LEE" on it and Jack Kirby was extremely pissed about it. That is what Moore was thinking of.
Moore talks a load of nonsense here in general. Steve Ditko wasnt the creator of Spider-Man. It was Stan Lee who came up with the basic idea and concept. Not Ditko. Stan handed it over to Kirby first but didn't like Kirbys attempt so gave it to Ditko. Stan Lee gave Ditko credit as co-creator, and in Ditko's later Spider-Man run it clearly says "plotted and drawn by Steve Ditko". If Moore wanted to snipe at Stan Lee then he should have at least got his facts right. He didn't.
Stan was probably referring to the iteration of Captain America who appeared in the AVENGEDERS comic he created with Kirby. I'm not Stan Fan per se, but this seems like a reach.
Supposedly the basic concept came from Stan Lee and he went to Jack Kirby first, who made too brawny of a character for Stan Lee's liking, and he went to Steve Ditko and wound up liking his design much more. idk what the truth of the matter is, but one can argue that whatever the case, this all should have been argued about long before Stan Lee died. If Stan Lee truly is this horrifying villain that people make him out to be now that he can't defend himself, from accounts that are unreliable at best, you need a more compelling case than the outside perspective of a second-hand account during a panel from someone who clearly doesn't like the man. You know what I think? I think Stan Lee was an asshole and Steve Ditko, like many other comic artists, was probably a bit of an egotistical asshole too (Rob Liefield is a great example of unchecked ego, it even ruined his art and made him a laughing stock of comic fans and the internet all around). I'm not basing this on anything I know of Steve Ditko, I don't know the guy. Maybe he's wonderful and is in fact a cherub in an old man's skin, but I'm willing to admit I don't know shit about the situation and not theorize pointlessly, which I'd say puts me miles above Alan Moore here. One thing is for certain, though... Spider-Man's success is owed to Stan Lee. You don't have to like him to know that. There have been some seriously rocky moments for Marvel and Spider-Man, but his popularity has always been pretty fucking high and I don't believe for a second Steve Ditko or any other comic artist could ever hope to capitalize on that the way Stan Lee did.
jack's spidey was based on his character "the fly" jack did the spidey on the cover and i dont know where you have been, but who created spidey was indeed argued about long before stan died really came to the fore when stan decided to sue sony pictures for monies he felt he was due for the spidey motion picture franchise and you clearly know nothing about ditko, cuz he is dead ditko wasnt an ego maniac....he was a recluse
He's not wrong about Stan, but I have a lot more respect for guys like Frank Miller than Alan Moore. His shit is a lot of shock value that doesn't respect the integrity the characters if you ask me. Pretty sure Zack Snyder is his biggest fan.
@@jpc2470 just because he plagerized Frank Miller every chance he got doesn't put them in the same category. Say what you want about 300 but Millers Dark Knight Returns and Sin City are works of art. Way better than the shock value garbage we got with shit like Alan Moore's Killing Joke. Worst comic to be considered at all cannon. If you ask me Alan Moore and Zack Snyder are two pees in a pod. You can throw David Ayer in there too. Both Suicide squad movies were tone deaf trash.
May as well have used Bill Finger and Bob Kane while talking about Steve Ditko and Stan Lee. So many of the real architects either don’t or didn’t get the real credit they deserve! We all need to do better on how we tell our hero’s histories.
Poor Alan. I don't want to make fun of an old man, but ... Stan Lee never claimed to create Captain America, as Moore says here. Also, Stan Lee was asked by Jonathan Ross if he believed Steve Ditko was the co-creator of Spider-Man, not the creator. Alan Moore just says whatever he wants to make people look bad. He's welcome to his wrong opinions, but please at least get the facts straight.
I kind of always knew about something like this because I had a friend in the industry Tell me about this. Yeah, it's true I guess. Be careful who you share your ideas with.
Stan made sure that Jack Kirby got paid way more than everyone else at Marvel comics. When newer artists asked Stan how to draw characters Stan would always say "Draw them like a jack did." Stan came up with a character or idea for one and Jack came up with the look. That was their strategy. When asked towards the end years of his life about the so called feud with Stan Jack said he didn't have a feud with Stan and loved him dearly. Jack's own son confirmed this too. Marvel needed a figure head and Stan was perfect for that job. And whether or not Stan really was "Jolly" or not, most people who worked with Jack said he was not a nice guy and hard to work with. Stubborn. There are whole websites and books dedicated to worshipping Jack. Twomorrows Publishing has a whole magazine subscription dedicated to Jack. He is remembered.
Good God! That's a lot of revisionism over there, buddy! Jack indeed was well paid compared to a lot of his peers BUT that was because the man was a freakin' machine, a workhorse and would draw as many as 04 books a month while most artists can barely put out 22 pages on a monthly basis (ask the Image guys!). The page rate was about the same; Jack just produced more than everyone else in this business ever made or ever will. And the reason why Stan Lee wanted the artists to draw like Jack is rather obvious; Jack had created everything that mattered up till that point in time and the fans ate it up with a spoon so he became THE original "house style", as Jim Lee is known to have been during the 90's and thus everybody was encouraged to emulate the house style as much as possible. I won't dispute that Stan had a fondness for Jack's artwork and maybe for the man himself - he has stated so multiple times - but /me thinks that you're being way too naive to attribute that to Stan's altruism.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 Revisionism? Most of those facts are from Jack and his own relatives. As well as most other people in the business for decades. I am not assuming or hoping any of the things I stated. Naive? Nah. I have read a great deal of interviews and books (as well as watched plenty) about the comic book industry. To be honest your reply didn't really tear down much of anything I even said really. I don't see why you had to be so dramatic about it either ( "Good God! That's a lot of revisionism there." ). Like I was just sooooo fucking wrong... You could argue I wasn't there and can't know for sure...but I doubt you could say that either.
