Stan Lee has lost his mind

S

snookie_wookums

Guest
Stan Lee, creator of many of the great comic book characters that I grew up reading, has finally gone completely off the reservation.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/article2128530.ece

Beside the fact that the "world's first homo hero" was actually unveiled 17 years ago in the pages of Alpha Flight #106, there's been homo-eroticism in comic books going back to the dawn of comic book heroes (ehh, Batman and Robin, anyone?). Somebody please take Stan Lee out back and "Old Yeller" him before he completely destroys all my fond memories of his good work from 40 years ago.
 
"TV execs hope it will rival the huge success of shows likes Heroes."

I'm sure George Takei is torn between the two.
 
Dumb.

I thought XMen 2 was pretty great, specifically that scene when Iceman tells his parents he's a mutant. In the world of sci-fi, subtlety works better.
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']Stan Lee, creator of many of the great comic book characters that I grew up reading, has finally gone completely off the reservation.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/article2128530.ece

Beside the fact that the "world's first homo hero" was actually unveiled 17 years ago in the pages of Alpha Flight #106, there's been homo-eroticism in comic books going back to the dawn of comic book heroes (ehh, Batman and Robin, anyone?). Somebody please take Stan Lee out back and "Old Yeller" him before he completely destroys all my fond memories of his good work from 40 years ago.[/quote]
Of course he is. The man cowrote the "Stripper Superhero" with Pam Anderson.

Erotica Jones

There wasn't any doubt then that he had lost it.
 
Stan Lee lost his mind a very long time ago. Then he went into comics and found it was a professional asset. He then made a career of shoplifting ideas and hiding the theft behind his towering ego.
 
He just profits from his fame at this point. People hear the name Stan Lee and automatically want to know what he's doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='epobirs']Stan Lee lost his mind a very long time ago. Then he went into comics and found it was a professional asset. He then made a career of shoplifting ideas and hiding the theft behind his towering ego.[/quote]

Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko concur.
 
[quote name='the article']
2m2w0ic.png
[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
Perhaps the Sun is reporting old news? The last time I remember the news covering the unveiling of a gay superhero was many years ago when Marvel debuted the Rawhide Kid.
 
[quote name='Chase']Perhaps the Sun is reporting old news? The last time I remember the news covering the unveiling of a gay superhero was many years ago when Marvel debuted the Rawhide Kid.[/quote]

Truth is, the more modern concept of a "Gay Hero" started with John Byrne's Alpha Flight, where he played around with the idea that the member of the team named Northstar was gay, but in the 80's it was still too controversial to put it out there explicitly, so he *implied* that Northstar was gay, and left it at that.

Then, years later Marvel had much less readership overall, and had Northstar come out of the closet explicitly in order to make headlines, which worked, and artificially boosted readership of their flagging comic book series (Alpha Flight), but ultimately this turned into yet another publicity stunt.

The reality in the aftermath of Northstar coming out was essentially unchanged; his character never had a boyfriend in the pages of the comic, and there was some occasional allusion to his sexual orientation, but the character was unchanged from the narcissistic a-hole he was created to be (hmm... stereotyping?).

So in fact, The Rawhide Kid came out nearly 20 years after Northstar was created by John Byrne, and his coming out was entirely a publicity stunt to appeal to the perceived growing gay audience of Marvel's demographic.
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']Truth is, the more modern concept of a "Gay Hero" started with John Byrne's Alpha Flight, where he played around with the idea that the member of the team named Northstar was gay, but in the 80's it was still too controversial to put it out there explicitly, so he *implied* that Northstar was gay, and left it at that.

Then, years later Marvel had much less readership overall, and had Northstar come out of the closet explicitly in order to make headlines, which worked, and artificially boosted readership of their flagging comic book series (Alpha Flight), but ultimately this turned into yet another publicity stunt.

The reality in the aftermath of Northstar coming out was essentially unchanged; his character never had a boyfriend in the pages of the comic, and there was some occasional allusion to his sexual orientation, but the character was unchanged from the narcissistic a-hole he was created to be (hmm... stereotyping?).

So in fact, The Rawhide Kid came out nearly 20 years after Northstar was created by John Byrne, and his coming out was entirely a publicity stunt to appeal to the perceived growing gay audience of Marvel's demographic.[/quote]


Yes, I know Northstar. I was just referring to the last, recent time I read about 'gay superhero' in the news. ;) Good post, though. :)
 
[quote name='neocisco']Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko concur.[/quote]

I love Stan "the Man" Lee, but yeah, he's an attention grabbing idea thief. Fun to read and listen to though.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko concur.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean stealing from the colleagues he worked alongside with in comics. There was that but there was other things of a more blatant nature that some of those colleagues were party to.

Consider the original Hulk origin story, which appeared in May, 1962. Then watch the 1957 film 'The Amazing Colossal Man' and its 1958 sequel 'War of the Colossal Beast.' These played very widely for years before the Hulk was created and the bomb test sequence that sets the plot in motion is more than a little familiar to Hulk fans.

Just about all of the major Stan Lee creations were derived from well worn SF themes. People going into space and coming back strangely changed. Mutants or evolutionary advancements to the human species.

Daredevil wasn't the first blind superhero. Dr. Midnite had been around over twenty years earlier.

Did Lee's work help advance the state of comics writing? Sure but this was because things were so incredibly abysmal in the wake of the Code eliminating most material of interest to adult and those who wanted to write for an older audience. The Baby Boomers, the most self-indulgent generation known to human history, kept reading comics at an age well past where the previous generation moved on to other things. These are the people who made Stan Lee a success. It still took decades before most comics writing wasn't laughably bad.

There are several DVD collections of major Marvel series, like the first 40 years of Spider-man. Trying to read this all the way through can be a painful slog depending on when your comics experience began. Mine starts in the mid-70s and most of those books are horrible today, yet are leaps and bounds better than the stuff from the 60s.

What is interesting to me is how much better the medium has become, not just for new talents but also for longtime contributors who were constrained from proper storytelling. For example, Doug Moench has done some great stuff but try to read the original Deathlok series from the 70s. It's so disjointed that it is frequently difficult to tell why anything is happening or if we are supposed to recognize the world where this is taking place. Is it the future and if so, how far into the future? Moench had a distinctive concept that was pretty good for the era but little idea how to tell the story. It was the kind of stuff in the prose world that would never make it out of creative writing class, nevermind be submitted to a publisher. Moench tread a lot of the same ground many years later for a DC series called Electric Warrior that was a night and day difference in setting up a world and telling a story that had the reader wanting to know more rather just saying WTF?
 
[quote name='camoor']Dumb.

I thought XMen 2 was pretty great, specifically that scene when Iceman tells his parents he's a mutant. In the world of sci-fi, subtlety works better.[/quote]


you know I went to Wizard World 2006 and sat in on the Kevin Smith panel on that Saturday night and he actually made a very valid point about how the Xmen movies could be taken in a homosexual light. something I never thought of before but actually a very interesting conversation to hear.

[quote name='Quillion']Of course he is. The man cowrote the "Stripper Superhero" with Pam Anderson.

Erotica Jones

There wasn't any doubt then that he had lost it.[/quote]

Was I the only person who liked stripperella? It was so bad it was good. Though the dvd set is one of the few dvds that my wife actually says that I CAN NOT BUY. not because of the content just because how bad she thought the show was. lol

anyway Stan is still the man in my opinion, crazy yes but still the man. and honestly he is just whoring himself out to keep the money coming in. I mean look at the show Who wants to be a Superhero? lol
 
[quote name='epobirs']I don't mean stealing from the colleagues he worked alongside with in comics. There was that but there was other things of a more blatant nature that some of those colleagues were party to.

Consider the original Hulk origin story, which appeared in May, 1962. Then watch the 1957 film 'The Amazing Colossal Man' and its 1958 sequel 'War of the Colossal Beast.' These played very widely for years before the Hulk was created and the bomb test sequence that sets the plot in motion is more than a little familiar to Hulk fans.

Just about all of the major Stan Lee creations were derived from well worn SF themes. People going into space and coming back strangely changed. Mutants or evolutionary advancements to the human species.

Daredevil wasn't the first blind superhero. Dr. Midnite had been around over twenty years earlier.

Did Lee's work help advance the state of comics writing? Sure but this was because things were so incredibly abysmal in the wake of the Code eliminating most material of interest to adult and those who wanted to write for an older audience. The Baby Boomers, the most self-indulgent generation known to human history, kept reading comics at an age well past where the previous generation moved on to other things. These are the people who made Stan Lee a success. It still took decades before most comics writing wasn't laughably bad.

There are several DVD collections of major Marvel series, like the first 40 years of Spider-man. Trying to read this all the way through can be a painful slog depending on when your comics experience began. Mine starts in the mid-70s and most of those books are horrible today, yet are leaps and bounds better than the stuff from the 60s.

What is interesting to me is how much better the medium has become, not just for new talents but also for longtime contributors who were constrained from proper storytelling. For example, Doug Moench has done some great stuff but try to read the original Deathlok series from the 70s. It's so disjointed that it is frequently difficult to tell why anything is happening or if we are supposed to recognize the world where this is taking place. Is it the future and if so, how far into the future? Moench had a distinctive concept that was pretty good for the era but little idea how to tell the story. It was the kind of stuff in the prose world that would never make it out of creative writing class, nevermind be submitted to a publisher. Moench tread a lot of the same ground many years later for a DC series called Electric Warrior that was a night and day difference in setting up a world and telling a story that had the reader wanting to know more rather just saying WTF?[/quote]

Awesome post! I just knew there were some comic geeks on this site who could equal or better my nerdiness when it comes to the historical context of comics, the creators, and the paranoid societal forces around such inventions as the Comics Code Authority. The ultimate irony being that in my opinion, the CCA made the medium better, because when you think about it, creators like Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman would never have created the great works they have unless they had the stupid rules of the CCA to work around.

It's limits that define genius, because without them, how would we ever know what can be possible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dont really care. it will be just another book sitting on the shelf with all the others..and will probably die off due to some crazy comic war that will take center stage as usual.
 
[quote name='DarkKenpachi']you know I went to Wizard World 2006 and sat in on the Kevin Smith panel on that Saturday night and he actually made a very valid point about how the Xmen movies could be taken in a homosexual light. something I never thought of before but actually a very interesting conversation to hear.

[/QUOTE]


Could be taken? COULD BE TAKEN? I think Mr. Smith was having a laugh at the expense of those incapable or unwilling to read the incredibly blatant gay subtext of Xmen 2.

The moving was so flaming they had to add extra fire extinguishers at the theaters where it played. The movie was so intensely gay it had 'Batman and Robin' in a jealous snit.

This is a movie from Bryan Singer, who also placed massive heaping dollops of gay subtext in his Superman movie.

When Iceman's mother asked him if he'd tried not being a mutant, didn't that remind you of a scene played out in so many other movies and TV shows as to be a cliche and why the scene was so funny?
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']Awesome post! I just knew there were some comic geeks on this site who could equal or better my nerdiness when it comes to the historical context of comics, the creators, and the paranoid societal forces around such inventions as the Comics Code Authority. The ultimate irony being that in my opinion, the CCA made the medium better, because when you think about it, creators like Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman would never have created the great works they have unless they had the stupid rules of the CCA to work around.

It's limits that define genius, because without them, how would we ever know what can be possible?[/QUOTE]

I really have to disagree. Before the CCA there were some very respectable writers spending part of their time in the comics field. After the CCA came in and the market for adult oriented content disappeared, only writers incapable of competing in the prose market or simply desparate for cash would work in comics.

When Frank Miller starting building a name for himself, there had been many events that had loosened the stranglehold the CCA had on creativity. The stories in the 60s and 70s were severely constrained by being unallowed to depict certain major aspects of modern life or even allude to their very existence. When Roy 'Speedy' Harper was revealed to be a heroin addict it was a big deal, not just because of a hero's fall from grace but because it acknowledged that there was such a thing as narcotics and addiction.

Moore and Gaiman never worked under the code when it was in strength. The situation in the UK was a lot looser when they started their careers and much of the constraints had dropped before their work started appearing in the US. Gaiman has made clear that he could easily have skipped comics and worked in short stories and novels all along. Actually, his first work to appear in the US was a book about the creative process behind the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' first for radio, then TV, and then novels. He got approached for comics work because Moore gave him an acknowledgment for research help on Watchmen at the end of the series and had been talking him to editors as a talent to encourage. If Gaiman hadn't met Moore through a mutual aquaintance he might never have become known as a comics writer before establishing a successful career in novels.

If the CCA had still reigned over US comics publishing, it's unlikely any of the three would have become famous for comics works instead of pursuing other mediums.
 
[quote name='epobirs']I really have to disagree. Before the CCA there were some very respectable writers spending part of their time in the comics field. After the CCA came in and the market for adult oriented content disappeared, only writers incapable of competing in the prose market or simply desparate for cash would work in comics.

When Frank Miller starting building a name for himself, there had been many events that had loosened the stranglehold the CCA had on creativity. The stories in the 60s and 70s were severely constrained by being unallowed to depict certain major aspects of modern life or even allude to their very existence. When Roy 'Speedy' Harper was revealed to be a heroin addict it was a big deal, not just because of a hero's fall from grace but because it acknowledged that there was such a thing as narcotics and addiction.

Moore and Gaiman never worked under the code when it was in strength. The situation in the UK was a lot looser when they started their careers and much of the constraints had dropped before their work started appearing in the US. Gaiman has made clear that he could easily have skipped comics and worked in short stories and novels all along. Actually, his first work to appear in the US was a book about the creative process behind the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' first for radio, then TV, and then novels. He got approached for comics work because Moore gave him an acknowledgment for research help on Watchmen at the end of the series and had been talking him to editors as a talent to encourage. If Gaiman hadn't met Moore through a mutual aquaintance he might never have become known as a comics writer before establishing a successful career in novels.

If the CCA had still reigned over US comics publishing, it's unlikely any of the three would have become famous for comics works instead of pursuing other mediums.[/quote]

Please forgive my being unclear regarding the CCA: most of the best work from Miller, Moore, Gaiman was specifically *not* under CCA rule, Miller having kicked off a large part of this with "The Dark Knight Returns", for which DC invented a new format called "the Graphic Novel" in order to market it through direct channels, avoiding the bailiwick of the CCA, which was actually the news outlets that used to be the only place to buy comics. And even in this, it was the presence of the CCA that forced creators and the braver publishers to seek out alternate ways of doing things.

You are absolutely right to point out the body of great work that preceded the CCA that Wertham and company completely destroyed, but the modern day form that comic books have taken is (still) in direct rebellion against everything that the CCA and the moral majority heaped upon the comic book pop culture mainstream.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm no fan of the CCA, but I recognize and celebrate the sweet lemonade we got out of that era of lemons. All that plus the goofy Batman comics of the 60's that make Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" that much more pithy in its execution.

Great thoughts generated here. Thanks for all the great input!!
 
So....33 posts an still nobody gets that this article is from the British equivalent to the National Enquirer?
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']Please forgive my being unclear regarding the CCA: most of the best work from Miller, Moore, Gaiman was specifically *not* under CCA rule, Miller having kicked off a large part of this with "The Dark Knight Returns", for which DC invented a new format called "the Graphic Novel" in order to market it through direct channels, avoiding the bailiwick of the CCA, which was actually the news outlets that used to be the only place to buy comics. And even in this, it was the presence of the CCA that forced creators and the braver publishers to seek out alternate ways of doing things.

You are absolutely right to point out the body of great work that preceded the CCA that Wertham and company completely destroyed, but the modern day form that comic books have taken is (still) in direct rebellion against everything that the CCA and the moral majority heaped upon the comic book pop culture mainstream.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm no fan of the CCA, but I recognize and celebrate the sweet lemonade we got out of that era of lemons. All that plus the goofy Batman comics of the 60's that make Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" that much more pithy in its execution.

Great thoughts generated here. Thanks for all the great input!![/QUOTE]

Just a small nitpick but DC did not start the graphic novel with 'The Dark Knight Returns.' The term was first used by Marvel in branding a series of high end one-shot with higher quality binding and heavy paper, starting with 'The Death of Captain Marvel' and soon moving on to entirely original works. Before 'Dark Knight' DC and Miller got into this outreach to more mature readers with 'Ronin.' both companies were reacting to their talent being more and more attracted to doing work with small independents or self-publishing. It wasn't a big money maker for the creators but it was far more satisfying to not be bound to any existing backstory at Marvel or DC.

The big publishers didn't like the idea of characters who received new material when the creator felt he had something genuinely worth doing rather than on a set schedule. A publishing schedule of 'when I feel like it' doesn't go over well with big companies.

The CCA did have a tremendous influence on the work of writers like Moore but mainly in that it inspired deconstruction of those bizarre universes in which normal human motivations were grossly distorted or missing. One of the many subtexts of Watchmen was comparing the world of Golden Age comics to the harsh realities of a more believable world. At first, the era of the original Minutemen seems idyllic but is revealed to have been rather gruesome with many casualties and regrets.

This legacy carries on. It was only a few years ago that DC got a lot of shock value in revealing that Sue Dibny had been raped by Dr. Light years earlier. But in a universe abounding with amoral superhumans, shouldn't this be a very frequent threat to female superheroes and women close to male superheroes?

Even casual sex is still a rarity. The Ultimate Hulk Annual from last week is hilarious in breaking that barrier. After a massive battle, the Squadron Supreme's doppleganger for Wonder Woman takes the Hulk out for breakfast and at his suggestion they get a motel room for a one-night stand. In almost any other medium this would be amusing but in this setting it is far funnier thanks to the shock value of two version of iconic characters jumping into bed together purely for the experience and not some grand cosmos shattering passion.
 
[quote name='emdub']So....33 posts an still nobody gets that this article is from the British equivalent to the National Enquirer?[/quote]

You might not understand this, but nearly *all* the British newspapers are equivalent to the National Enquirer.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Just a small nitpick but DC did not start the graphic novel with 'The Dark Knight Returns.' The term was first used by Marvel in branding a series of high end one-shot with higher quality binding and heavy paper, starting with 'The Death of Captain Marvel' and soon moving on to entirely original works. Before 'Dark Knight' DC and Miller got into this outreach to more mature readers with 'Ronin.' both companies were reacting to their talent being more and more attracted to doing work with small independents or self-publishing. It wasn't a big money maker for the creators but it was far more satisfying to not be bound to any existing backstory at Marvel or DC.

The big publishers didn't like the idea of characters who received new material when the creator felt he had something genuinely worth doing rather than on a set schedule. A publishing schedule of 'when I feel like it' doesn't go over well with big companies.

The CCA did have a tremendous influence on the work of writers like Moore but mainly in that it inspired deconstruction of those bizarre universes in which normal human motivations were grossly distorted or missing. One of the many subtexts of Watchmen was comparing the world of Golden Age comics to the harsh realities of a more believable world. At first, the era of the original Minutemen seems idyllic but is revealed to have been rather gruesome with many casualties and regrets.

This legacy carries on. It was only a few years ago that DC got a lot of shock value in revealing that Sue Dibny had been raped by Dr. Light years earlier. But in a universe abounding with amoral superhumans, shouldn't this be a very frequent threat to female superheroes and women close to male superheroes?

Even casual sex is still a rarity. The Ultimate Hulk Annual from last week is hilarious in breaking that barrier. After a massive battle, the Squadron Supreme's doppleganger for Wonder Woman takes the Hulk out for breakfast and at his suggestion they get a motel room for a one-night stand. In almost any other medium this would be amusing but in this setting it is far funnier thanks to the shock value of two version of iconic characters jumping into bed together purely for the experience and not some grand cosmos shattering passion.[/quote]

I've seen that comic on the internet, Wonder Woman and the Hulk, but there was no breakfast or motel room involved ;-) :bouncy:

Awesome feedback man! It's rare for someone to outgeek me on the nitty gritty of comic books history. Bravo! :applause:
 
[quote name='epobirs']The big publishers didn't like the idea of characters who received new material when the creator felt he had something genuinely worth doing rather than on a set schedule. A publishing schedule of 'when I feel like it' doesn't go over well with big companies.[/quote]

Maybe in theory but not in practice. Unfortunately, many writers and pencilers today have no work ethic, allow work to be solicited and then let it become months late. Warren Ellis, Jeph Loeb, Ed McGuinness, Tim Sale, Bryan Hitch, Joe Madureira, fill-in-the-blank Hollywood guy writing a comic, etc. The publishers and editors are just as much to blame for hiring these people with proven records of not being dependable. IMO, this is the single biggest problem with the comics industry.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Maybe in theory but not in practice. Unfortunately, many writers and pencilers today have no work ethic, allow work to be solicited and then let it become months late. Warren Ellis, Jeph Loeb, Ed McGuinness, Tim Sale, Bryan Hitch, Joe Madureira, fill-in-the-blank Hollywood guy writing a comic, etc. The publishers and editors are just as much to blame for hiring these people with proven records of not being dependable. IMO, this is the single biggest problem with the comics industry.[/quote]


And yet, Brian Michael Bendis continues to defy my expectations for him to start sucking any day now. No matter how much I try to not like his stuff just on principle, he consistently puts out a TON of material and it's almost always great reading.

Also, don't forget about Robert Kirkman, who in my opinion is probably the best currently working and very active writer in the business. The Walking Dead is probably the absolute best character development work I've ever read, and that's saying something since I worked at a comic book shop for close to 10 years.
 
Walking Dead is great but the dialogue can be a little too hokey at times. I wish like crazy that Tony Moore stayed on as the main artist. Charlie Adlard isn't even in his league. I bought the first 8 TPBs as a lot on eBay (which I might sell since I also got the hardcovers due to a shipping mistake that I never returned), and going from TPB 1 to TPB 2 and onward is like night and day.
 
Hokey dialogue, sure, but the world Kirkman has set up is believeable enough that I let it go.

Agreed, Tony Moore is a great artist, and set a tone that Adlard has not quite matched, but after so many issues, I have to admit I've gotten used to Adlard since the story and the style in which it's told (black and white) is stark enough that his style fits.
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']I've seen that comic on the internet, Wonder Woman and the Hulk, but there was no breakfast or motel room involved ;-) :bouncy:

Awesome feedback man! It's rare for someone to outgeek me on the nitty gritty of comic books history. Bravo! :applause:[/QUOTE]

I was referring to this: http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1746969/13328001/

Perhaps you saw something else. I recall some bad fan art depicting the Hulk raping Wonder Woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top