home
Stan Lee's reputation
Why is Bob Kane criticised, but Lee praised for the same thing?
Patrick Ford shared a link.
5 May 2017
My point here has nothing to do with Bill Finger and Bob Kane. It's the methodology and the reaction which concern me.
This is the sort of thing which annoys me in the context of the Marvel Method. Forget the Kane/Finger issue and instead focus on the evidence presented by the article a documentary and the book mentioned as the basis for the documentary and the article.
What were the steps taken to challenge one story and support another?
1. Public comments made by the slighted party.
2. The author tracks down family members who assist him in telling the story of the slighted party.
Now consider that Kirby has made numerous public comments. Kirby's family, children and grandchildren, are on the record and available.
Further Kane has been widely vilified for years. And yet the author of this book is hailed throughout the comic book community as a champion for justice while Kirby is widely dismissed as a liar, his friends, fans and family written off as biased.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/04/the-dark-secret-behind-the-creation-of-batman/
Chris Tolworthy: Kane was a professional artist, but an amateur, poor self promoter. Lee was a professional self promoter but an amateur, poor writer. There is a world of difference, in my view. I think this is why few people bother to defend Kane, whereas Lee has legions of worshippers who will defend him to the death.
Patrick Ford: We can assume that once Kane signed his contract in 1946 and Lee signed his contract in 1971 there were terms in those contracts which forbid either of them from saying anything on the record which DC or Marvel would object to. Once they signed those contracts, it's almost certain that Kane and Lee could not have credited Kirby and Finger if they wanted to.
Chris Tolworthy: As far as I can see, getting official credit for Batman is Kane's one major "crime". Whereas Lee has been consistent in signing his name on other people's work throughout his career: from his "secrets behind the comics" where he claimed to know the secrets, and said Goodman was responsible for Captain America, to "Stan Lee Presents" to today when he is the face of Marvel movies. Lee is an infinitely more proficient credit taker.
Chris Tolworthy: Patrick Ford unless Kane and Lee had chosen to step away from those contracts as unethical. Which they chose not to.
Patrick Ford: Chris Tolworthy , I agree. And of course the "step away" argument is frequently used to attack Kirby. I can't count the number of times I have seen a fan or pro say that if Kirby didn't like not being paid for writing (which he clearly did not) then he should have walked away.
Patrick Ford: With Lee there are two additional elements.
1. I think it is highly unlikely that it was Martin Goodman's idea for Lee to begin taking the whole writer's credit and pay. It's possible, but Lee and Goodman were barely on speaking terms when Lee began doing that.
2. Since the Kirbys and Marvel have settled I would assume Lee is no longer bound to deny Kirby credit.
Lee has not only stuck to his "I created everything" claims, he gives the impression of having redoubled his efforts to position himself as the the person who proposed the basic character and plot ideas.
Patrick Ford: Marvel has shown they are now willing to credit Kirby as the "idea" guy who was bringing concepts to Lee. There are indications that Lee and his attorneys are using the terms of Lee's contract to fight this.
Patrick Ford: Just to be as clear as possible it's not my intention to defend Kane. It's just the contrast between the near universal way Kane is treated and the way Lee is treated. The way the evidence is handled. In both cases it's almost entirely hearsay.
And yet in only one instance do you have huge numbers of people all attempting to shut down discussion by saying things like, "We don't know. We weren't there." Or immediately talking about pathological hatred of Bob Kane.
Steve Meyer: It's a bit beside the current point of the post, and I agree with Patrick Ford's original point on Kirby, but having just seen the documentary I thought it was quite good. It's definitely the "Marc Tyler Nobleman Show," though Arlen Schumer and Fred Van Lente get a fair amount of screen time.
As for why Kane and Funky are seen so differently (to come back to the point), I expect it has a lot to do with lots of fandom (of a certain age) has fond memories of Silver Age Marvel, and Funky the salesman is closely tied up with that. No one has fond memories of Kane, Batman has only rarely been associated with any particular creator.
Calling Kane a liar doesn't threaten fond memories the way calling out Funky on his lies does.
Patrick Ford: That's it exactly. In his essays Ditko calls this "emotional gratification."
___________________________________
Patrick Ford
14 September 2016
The comments on this COMICS BEAT blog post suggest some cracks in the Stan Lee wall. Is it possible that the tide is beginning to turn against Lee? Even the article is not complimentary and mentions Kirby as a genuine figure of interest.
http://www.comicsbeat.com/stan-lee-as-action-adventure-hero-coming-to-a-theater-near-you/#comments
Michael Hill: The Scott Shaw who was a friend of the Kirbys and defended by Mark Evanier (not the one we knew briefly from the Bray group) posted this about the CBR version of this story: 'If this idiotic "biopic" ever actually gets made, we all may need to wear Depends to view it. It promises to be the filmic equivalent of food poisoning.
However, if this starred Funky Flashman in his cheesy glory, I'm all for it!'
Patrick Ford: Wow. Is Shaw coming around? Amazing.
Michael Hill: Wasn't his outburst at the same time as the Larsen spin-off?
Patrick Ford: Around. Within a short time. Looking at it now I'm convinced it was a coordinated effort. As you probably recall the group had a laissez–faire moderation policy. The moderator was clearly sympathetic towards Kirby but got fed up with Lee's fans harassing him via private messages and he made Henry the moderator of the group without asking Henry. When Henry refused the moderator position somehow Bray and Fleming became the moderators. This was all before Larsen showed up. It was only a short time later that Mark Gordon and Larsen showed up. Then in rapid sequence Larsen announced he was leaving the group. Fleming turned the group over to Mark Gordon. Mark Gordon and Larsen formed the JACK KIRBY! FB page. Mark Gordon began removing people who were critical of Lee from the page which Bray and Fleming turned over to him.
So Gordon was then a moderator/admin at both the pages Bray and Fleming turned over to him and the Larsen page.
When some people noticed that Gordon was an admin on the Larsen page they complained and Gordon gave up his admin position. Bray and Fleming then formed yet another group so that Fleming would have a place to try and promote a bootleg dvd on Kirby he wanted to sell.
Ostensibly the new Bray and Fleming page was supposed to allow criticism of Lee.
Patrick Ford: My theory is Fleming and Bray took on the old group because they saw it was large and active and believed it would be a good place to sell dvds and t-shirts. Shortly after that I figure Larsen and Gordon showed up and proposed that by turning the group over to Gordon they group would be essentially destroyed with the take over being used as a switch to drive membership to the new Larsen and new Bray and Fleming pages.
Jim Van Heuklon: Patrick Ford I'm still a part of that group. Neither Fleming or Bray seem Pro-Lee to me. I get along fine with both. Larsen on the other hand is a dick and has his nose way up Stan's ass.
Patrick Ford: They may not be pro Lee but I have zero doubt in my mind they handed over that old group to Gordon with the intention of creating a new group so that Fleming would have a place to promote his dvd. It also looks to me like they were always fine with little pokes at Lee but didn't want a page where there was a lot of controversy which might drive off fans of Lee. I also notice that as far as I can tell both of them have pretty much given up on the page. Do either of them participate there anymore?
Jim Van Heuklon: Not much
Patrick Ford: When is the last time Bray commented? I looked and see no sign of him. No posts, no comments, not even any "likes."
Jim Van Heuklon: I rarely go there. Like you said, not much going on.
Jim Van Heuklon: our grass roots movement is gaining traction....
Patrick Ford: Of course there are only five comments at this point but it seems to me that as recently as a couple of years ago any derogatory comment about Lee would instantly inflame a comments thread and a large number of Lee advocates would show up in a state of obvious rage.
Patrick Ford: I like the fact that most of the comments are sort of a blasé dismissal of Lee as a running joke. Sort of a bored, "Fuck that guy" yawn.
Michael Hill: I commented on James Hudnall's post of this where I expected to be accosted by other commenters, but it didn't happen. Almost all of the other comments are along the same line.
Patrick Ford: Just checked. Only one new comment and it's another blast at Lee. Things looking hopeful.
home