Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man, X-Men and Avengers, dies aged 95

Almost as famous as his Marvel superheroes, Lee was known for bringing complex emotional life to cartoon characters

Attached: Stan Lee pictured in his office in California in 2002.jpg (620x372, 27.7K)

Rest in Peace.

People choose to ignore how this shit always happens in the creative industry.
Just look at who took the credit for Batman. The actual creator was forced to live like a prole and died without seeing any material success for his talent.

Also reminder that "No Evil Shall Escape My Sight" is a highly underrated /lefty/ story arch.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (326x500, 433.25K)

RIP stan, you can finally rest now

Reminder that capeshit is fascist. Superman is the only non-fash superhero ever made.

*Red Son

Attached: Superman_in_Red_Son.png (300x525, 787.23K)

There is literally an alternative future arch where he went full fash and Batman had to tear down his dumb police regime.
Superman is metaphorically the white boy scout who grew up in a suburban town and got free handjobs from all the parents for joining the military. Batman is the rich kid who decided by his own will to stop turning the other cheek and reject 50s idealism.

*arc

He worked his way to the top and felt so passionate about his creations that he never stopped working on them. Creators and artists are people who usually get shafted in Hollywood, but my man fuckin' made it time and time again and became a figurehead for the entire franchise until the very end.

RIP Stan :( gonna miss your cameos.

Attached: 1476769071212.png (1188x1736, 1.22M)

How is superman any different from other superheros? All the popular ones uphold law and order and play into ideological presuppositions about some great movement or individual who will protect and save everyone else. Though they also represent the fantasy that the individual consumer of the comic/superhero media could overcome their human limitations and finally fix the world with raw power (other works like Death Note more explicitly plays out this fantasy than something like Batman, though Spiderman also has that core fantasy of the loser kid who is down and out but miraculously becomes greater than anybody else could possibly hope to be). The latter fantasy is kind of Debordian release valve, coalescing comic consumers into this big mass discussing what they would do if they could have the power of the superheroes, even organizing them around these fantasies through massive conventions.

Modern Captain America is a commie. They finally fixed him after all these years.

Tbh a lot of this shit is open to various interpretations. Superman for example is meant to represent an ideal that humanity ought to work towards, which itself is perfectly compatible with socialism as a project for the improvement of humankind.

True, and I may be wrong in thinking this but there is a strange line between fiction promulgating certain values that can be actualized and the kinds of media fiction we consume in capitalism. At least, that is the Debordian theory as I understand it. Our stories become more fantastic, more indirect, more impossible and directly produced for consumption. We begin to experience realities through the stories with no hope of actualizing them, and we cling to their representations as the only possible means of accessing that experience.

Religious stories were almost always explicitly told as offering a path to virtuous action. I think it is arguable that many other stories throughout history, though they may have been fantastic, were either explicitly moralistic (Aesop's Fables, for instance), or close enough to life to be suggestive of real action (Homeric poems about the Trojan war, suggesting honorable or heroic behavior in a war, or chivalric tales that even became satirized in the effect they had on Don Quixote trying to actualize them). Of course, mentioning Don Quixote you could say that we have even subsumed that notion for superheros in movies like Kick-Ass, but the story is still basically of how impossible it would be to actualize and how insane the kid looks. Kick-Ass is ineffectual without the help of the real/unreal abilities of Hit Girl and Nick Cage. But either way, I think many of these stories are not moralistic or suggestive of action/virtue. They're purely products about impossible realities, things that induce people to discuss "lore" that is totally detached from reality, basically Roman circuses. Will the famous gladiator be able to defeat two guys on a chariot? What would happen if Iron Man and Captain America fought? etc.

How based is Red Son anyway?

god I fucking love that pic

Thought I might add it isn't to say that these types of media or stories are exclusive to capitalism, clearly the spectacle of the circus had a dulling effect as well. And it isn't even to same superheros or comics are outright bad, obviously nothing is. It's to ask what effect do they generally have, and how prominent are they?

To go back to the Religious iconography and stories which were so prominent in catholic Europe, these weren't only moralistic tales but also served to make sense of the world for people. You understood cosmically where you sat and what your "purpose" was. It seems like our largest iconography and stories instead suggest that where you stand cosmically isn't important. Don't worry about reality, think about this thing. Feel the direct pathos being given to you by the imagery of Luke Skywalker screaming at his father, or feel delighted by this reference to your favorite media property, or be awed by our epic fight between a Kaiju and mech. Even in the story of Star Wars, which is often taken to be this kind of seminal cultural achievement, the preoccupation is either on the lore on one end, or the application of the story format itself. Did this movie EFFECTIVELY feed me pathos in the most EFFICIENT way possible? Was this story PERFECTLY crafted to make me feel what I wanted to feel?

Good point. Socialist realism tried to provide a stand in though.

Yeah it seems like the iconography and media of socialist states were clearly serving the ideological function of showing what a virtuous person is, why we are all doing this, etc.

And I wouldn't say that that is the perfect way to do things either. Ultimately the question of how art really functions is what the individual is doing with it, or how they consider it. But of course we can take that wider view and question how it generally functions for the average person, or what is the purpose behind its production? In socialism it was consciously promoted to invigorate the population and suggestively establish what socialist values were. Much like Catholic iconography or old Greek myths, the sense of what is a "correct" story is based on its content. You can't tell a story about how Jesus fucked Pilate's wife and fled to India where he later became the Buddha or something. That is a "wrong" story. In 20th century socialism you can't tell a story about how a group of workers connived to take some capitalist down because they were envious and simply wanted to see him suffer. It's a "wrong" story. However, in capitalism media's function is typically to sell you a feeling or experience. So the criteria for a "wrong" story is simply, did this thing fail at that goal? Was it crafted in a deficient manner, did the new Superman movie just not make me give enough of a shit about Superman's antics? Waste of money.

But I will say the avant-garde and its intersections with accepted forms of media have sort of pushed against this in capitalism, generating a lot of anxiety about what the point of all this shit is, or whether we should feel like this other shit that just tries to sell effective pathos is somehow "wrong" because it DOESN'T have any other purpose? We even have a lot of activist media these days. Shows like Atlanta or Orange is the New Black are ostensibly trying to relay a social message just as they're trying to entertain. And they may actually work to an extent, but they may also just serve to make an audience that already agrees with them feel like they're consuming the "correct" form of entertainment media.

Anyways, RIP Stan Lee I guess. I'm sure he was a cool enough dude who just wanted to make stories he liked.

He will be missed. He was the heart and soul of the comics industry

haha you fags really have replaced religion with capeshit didn't you

i thought it was a meme

20 something white people who are into capeshit are some of the crigniest specimens imaginable

epic

Attached: PEPE!!!.png (1082x695, 302.39K)

Lol

rest in rip. was a good guy, and I liked his cameos.

Stan Lee is shit. For an actual good comic read the Black Monday Murders.

It's literally about occult vampire banker bourgeoisie who keep their power by making sacrifices to Mammon.

god we need /leftyco/ so bad

Anything more than a cyclical is a bit of a waste in my experience.

Holy Shit. The Soviets loved Westerns. Kim Jong loved James Bond. Stalin fucking loved watching movies late at night.

Stop being autistic.

Heh

It'll just be /co/ just gayer and filled with stupid ass paragraphs instead of cool ass art and fan theories

This is Marvel thread stop talking about DC, duh.>>2716681

This thread…is this reddit? Is there anything more pathetic than writing notes of condolences for rich people on obscure internet pages or facebook. He can't read it you dumb dumbs, and with 99.9999999% certainty I can say neither will his family members or anyone else who might remotely care about your words.

Stop worshiping rich people, liberals.

good job bumping it retard

would you believe there's an elaborate explanation for that?

Attached: CA.jpg (943x576, 322.16K)

He stole people's drawings and ideas and took monetary credit for it while they languished in poverty. I'm sure he was a good guy and all, but he clearly had no problem ripping people off and impoverishing them

...

muh law
muh civil liberties

What did i miss? I read the nee york time obituary first and they mention him having a rep for doing this to several artists and writers not just kirby

it's in the OP as well

It's actually canon that the Mccarthyist era Cap that killed commies was actually just a psycho who stole his identity while the real captain america was frozen in ice.

The first Superman comic had him torturing a war lobbyist and the second issue he goes after the capitalist behind him.
His first enemies were capitalist, before anything else.f
Just sayin.

Stan Lee fucked over Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby.
He should burn in hell.

Although I do think it was somewhat poetic that he in turn got fucked over in his old age by his lawyers, family, and caretakers.

Come to think of it, his treatment by Lee during and after his time at Marvel is a big part of the reason that Ditko turned into such a raging libertardian recluse.
Poor bastard.

I mean, he was a dick, but I remember reading about him trying to reach out to Ditko later. Kirby actually tried to take credit from Ditko too, if I remember right.
Biggest sin I think was taking credit for Doctor Strange, and not be honest that most of his input was creating a synopsis, rather than an actual script

Capeshit isn't necessarily fascist. Superman is probably the most fascist of them all. He's the ubermensch who leads people to greatness and shit.

Red Son is really bad and its portrayal of the USSR is based on western propaganda. The series ends with Supes helping create a utopia that becomes Krypton and sends him back in time. And it had nothing really to do with any of the ideas developed in the run prior to this.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (649x1000 1.54 MB, 1.58M)

Your hypothesis is absurd. Why would a sane person who gets fucked by a business guy come to lolbert philosophy? The more plausible story is that there never was a pre-spastic period of Ditko. It's no wonder how him having full creative control resulted in retarded lolbert pamphlets in comic form like Mr. A.

So, Red Son was basically NazBol?

superman doesnt even have the means to lead people to greatness. he's just some naive guy from kansas who happens to be able to fly. laser eyes don't give him superior socioeconomical knowledge, even in a subjective, ideological way

...

Would have been more interesting that way tbh.

Yeah, this is why he's a fascist concept. Being superior in a physical sense only means you're a good leader in the mind of a fascist.

user was talking about a different meaning of idealism.

what? just because someone else could interpret superman as a good leader doesn't mean superman himself is fascist.

batman doesn't coherently reject anything. him dressing up as a bat and breaking the necks of random criminals is not an intellectual, anti-boomer gesture. he's a completely pathological product of anger and grief.

I mean superman the concept not the character's beliefs.

This is mostly correct. He is reacting to the idea of the American establishment, but it's if anything a reactionary return to straight up brutalizing people who threaten your prosperity without subterfuge or pretense. My point was mostly a nitpick.

what about superman in-concept insists that he be a leader? what makes superman heroic in the first place is that he doesn't do that

He's a role model. That's always a central part of the character. The most iconic Superman situation is people on the streets literally looking up to him while he's flying. The awful Man of Steel movie actually articulated this element of the character most clearly with the speech in the trailer. He also leads the Justice League with Batman and Wonder Woman.

never use man of steel as the proper judge of superman's character. it paints him as a foreign alien inherently separate from humanity when all that makes superman interesting and righteous is that he's a guy from kansas who can't relate to the kryptonian part of himself at all. that's like the point of zod. to show what superman would be like if he really considered himself some kind of leading ubermensch as you say he's supposed to be. i know man of steel flubs that up but like i said, never use it as an example.

and ok? him leading the justic league just as well makes le based batman or wonder woman equally as fascist.

I'm not using MoS to judge his character. I'm just citing the speech as a more or less accurate summary of his character as established elsewhere.
I'm not saying that being a leader in and of itself makes a character fascist, but that someone leading society to a better place because they have virtues of inherent superiority is fascist. And Batman is a piece of shit.

Work on your reading comprehension.

Attached: IMG_20181112_014537.jpg (1030x913, 170.42K)

Superman going full communist and completely destroying America would have been a really good unironic superman story.

literally lasers Castro's Cigar. Easily best comic from Marvel.

Superman is DC, like Batman.

Batman is an allegory for why capitalism is an ouroboros, and its problems can never can be solved through liberal methods. Batman, despite his best intentions, is a part of the problem without realizing it. Gotham city is almost always in some sort of cultural decay, and filled with poor people and criminals. Simultaneously, Wayne Industries is a flourishing company in the middle of this degradation. Even stories about Wayne Industries making attempts at charity never change Gotham itself. Instead, there's always some deeper rot. The reason the Joker laughs, is because on some level he realize Batman is nothing more than Don Quixote fighting windmills and chasing his own tail.

Attached: slavoj-iek-hipster-quackery-onpage.jpg (710x710, 65.18K)

idk why, but so many zoomers seem to think Superman is Marvel.