"Am I Out of Touch? No"

[romanstylesiii]

Just a larger question I had out of all this, when has a 70 man ever been in touch with society?

I work at a senior center, and if all these people are in touch, M.A.S.H. and Happy Days are the most popular shows on TV.

[tigermaskxxxvii]

It's the children who are wrong!

[Citizen Snips]

Stan Lee seems pretty with it for being 94, but yeah Vince was out of touch in his 50's, let alone now.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

[Susan "Poison" Candy]

[Hobby Drifter]

Vince has *never* been in touch. He's fallen ass-backwards into every bit of success he's ever had. The only times he's had major success, creatively, is when poaching a guy and gimmick from another company (Hogan) or when all of his guys up and left him with no choice but to push people the fans were behind (Austin, Rock, Foley).

[Kevin Hamilton]

Jun 12, 2017 20:06:32 GMT -5 Citizen Snips said:

Stan Lee seems pretty with it for being 94, but yeah Vince was out of touch in his 50's, let alone now.

To be fair, Stan's whole deal for quite some time now has pretty much been agreeing with whoever was talking to him at the time. "You got it True Believer! Face Front!"

He's in his 90s though, and one of the last Golden Age guys left, so I'm cool with it.

[whtbldclls]

But I love Mash..

[RadcapRadsley]

The one thing he still has a pulse on. How much everyone appreciates Noam Dar and The Beautiful Alicia Foooooooooooxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Deleted]

Damn I fear for the seniors in the seniors home you work in with that much ageism you have towards them OP.

[CMPunkyBrewster]

Jun 13, 2017 0:06:44 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Damn I fear for the seniors in the seniors home you work in with that much ageism you have towards them OP.

...wow.

[Deleted]

Jun 13, 2017 0:16:19 GMT -5 CMPunkyBrewster said:

Jun 13, 2017 0:06:44 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Damn I fear for the seniors in the seniors home you work in with that much ageism you have towards them OP.

...wow.

Wow is right. OP doesn't seem to have a high opinion on seniors and I've seen some neglectful and condescending staff members when my grandma was in a nursing home. So yeah I get little sensitive even if it's casual.

[Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]]

...

...

...

What you got against Happy Days an M.A.S.H. Boy?

[Hobby Drifter]

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:41 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:06:32 GMT -5 Citizen Snips said:

Stan Lee seems pretty with it for being 94, but yeah Vince was out of touch in his 50's, let alone now.

To be fair, Stan's whole deal for quite some time now has pretty much been agreeing with whoever was talking to him at the time. "You got it True Believer! Face Front!"

He's in his 90s though, and one of the last Golden Age guys left, so I'm cool with it.

Stan Lee had this insane explosion of creativity that lasted something like 5 years. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Original X-Men, the Avengers and more in rapid-fire succession. He certainly had help from co-creators, but without Stan, we'd not have any of those characters.

And he's spent the following 50+ years letting people who (for the most part) had a solid grasp on them keep them going. He had that solid half decade and then more-or-less stepped away and just had fun doing what he wanted from then on. Nothing ever caught fire like his early 60's material, but he didn't try to impose his will upon people who were more with it than he was. He transitioned from being the Father of Marvel Comics, to your fun uncle, to the favorite grandfather.

What I'm getting at is that Stan Lee has, almost from the start, been very clear in his understanding that while he set these characters in motion, if left (even mostly) up to him, they wouldn't be able to change and adapt with the times. Under future creators, Stan Lee's characters went from disposable entertainment, to pop culture icons, to global megastars.

The only other person in the last 400 years to have created so many enduring characters is, arguably, Walt Disney. And, in 50 years, Stan Lee's legacy go on to eclipse even his.

THAT is the kind of reputation Vince McMahon could have built for himself. If he'd have trusted others to steward the WWF after the peak of the Attitude era. Instead, he's chosen to remain and micro-manage things, selling a product to an audience that everybody around him knows full well that he doesn't understand.

Vince wants to be Stan Lee or Walt Disney, but what's he shows, year after year, is that he just "pulled a Homer".

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Jun 13, 2017 9:20:36 GMT -5 Hobby Drifter said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:41 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

To be fair, Stan's whole deal for quite some time now has pretty much been agreeing with whoever was talking to him at the time. "You got it True Believer! Face Front!"

He's in his 90s though, and one of the last Golden Age guys left, so I'm cool with it.

Stan Lee had this insane explosion of creativity that lasted something like 5 years. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Original X-Men, the Avengers and more in rapid-fire succession. He certainly had help from co-creators, but without Stan, we'd not have any of those characters.

And he's spent the following 50+ years letting people who (for the most part) had a solid grasp on them keep them going. He had that solid half decade and then more-or-less stepped away and just had fun doing what he wanted from then on. Nothing ever caught fire like his early 60's material, but he didn't try to impose his will upon people who were more with it than he was. He transitioned from being the Father of Marvel Comics, to your fun uncle, to the favorite grandfather.

What I'm getting at is that Stan Lee has, almost from the start, been very clear in his understanding that while he set these characters in motion, if left (even mostly) up to him, they wouldn't be able to change and adapt with the times. Under future creators, Stan Lee's characters went from disposable entertainment, to pop culture icons, to global megastars.

The only other person in the last 400 years to have created so many enduring characters is, arguably, Walt Disney. And, in 50 years, Stan Lee's legacy go on to eclipse even his.

THAT is the kind of reputation Vince McMahon could have built for himself. If he'd have trusted others to steward the WWF after the peak of the Attitude era. Instead, he's chosen to remain and micro-manage things, selling a product to an audience that everybody around him knows full well that he doesn't understand.

Vince wants to be Stan Lee or Walt Disney, but what's he shows, year after year, is that he just "pulled a Homer".

My take on the Stan Lee comparison, is that Stan Lee knows enough to KNOW he's an old guy.

Even if he doesn't totally agree things, he'll step back, let people do what they enjoy and be happy for them.

He also seems to genuinely listen to people, so he has a good idea where the world's at and can adapt.

[JCBaggee]

Jun 13, 2017 9:28:46 GMT -5 Futureraven: Beelzebruv said:

Jun 13, 2017 9:20:36 GMT -5 Hobby Drifter said:

Stan Lee had this insane explosion of creativity that lasted something like 5 years. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Original X-Men, the Avengers and more in rapid-fire succession. He certainly had help from co-creators, but without Stan, we'd not have any of those characters.

And he's spent the following 50+ years letting people who (for the most part) had a solid grasp on them keep them going. He had that solid half decade and then more-or-less stepped away and just had fun doing what he wanted from then on. Nothing ever caught fire like his early 60's material, but he didn't try to impose his will upon people who were more with it than he was. He transitioned from being the Father of Marvel Comics, to your fun uncle, to the favorite grandfather.

What I'm getting at is that Stan Lee has, almost from the start, been very clear in his understanding that while he set these characters in motion, if left (even mostly) up to him, they wouldn't be able to change and adapt with the times. Under future creators, Stan Lee's characters went from disposable entertainment, to pop culture icons, to global megastars.

The only other person in the last 400 years to have created so many enduring characters is, arguably, Walt Disney. And, in 50 years, Stan Lee's legacy go on to eclipse even his.

THAT is the kind of reputation Vince McMahon could have built for himself. If he'd have trusted others to steward the WWF after the peak of the Attitude era. Instead, he's chosen to remain and micro-manage things, selling a product to an audience that everybody around him knows full well that he doesn't understand.

Vince wants to be Stan Lee or Walt Disney, but what's he shows, year after year, is that he just "pulled a Homer".

My take on the Stan Lee comparison, is that Stan Lee knows enough to KNOW he's an old guy.

Even if he doesn't totally agree things, he'll step back, let people do what they enjoy and be happy for them.

He also seems to genuinely listen to people, so he has a good idea where the world's at and can adapt.

Let's not kid ourselves: Stan Lee's greatest character is Stan Lee.

Excelsior!

[Kevin Hamilton]

Jun 13, 2017 9:20:36 GMT -5 Hobby Drifter said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:41 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

To be fair, Stan's whole deal for quite some time now has pretty much been agreeing with whoever was talking to him at the time. "You got it True Believer! Face Front!"

He's in his 90s though, and one of the last Golden Age guys left, so I'm cool with it.

Stan Lee had this insane explosion of creativity that lasted something like 5 years. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Original X-Men, the Avengers and more in rapid-fire succession. He certainly had help from co-creators, but without Stan, we'd not have any of those characters.

And he's spent the following 50+ years letting people who (for the most part) had a solid grasp on them keep them going. He had that solid half decade and then more-or-less stepped away and just had fun doing what he wanted from then on. Nothing ever caught fire like his early 60's material, but he didn't try to impose his will upon people who were more with it than he was. He transitioned from being the Father of Marvel Comics, to your fun uncle, to the favorite grandfather.

What I'm getting at is that Stan Lee has, almost from the start, been very clear in his understanding that while he set these characters in motion, if left (even mostly) up to him, they wouldn't be able to change and adapt with the times. Under future creators, Stan Lee's characters went from disposable entertainment, to pop culture icons, to global megastars.

The only other person in the last 400 years to have created so many enduring characters is, arguably, Walt Disney. And, in 50 years, Stan Lee's legacy go on to eclipse even his.

THAT is the kind of reputation Vince McMahon could have built for himself. If he'd have trusted others to steward the WWF after the peak of the Attitude era. Instead, he's chosen to remain and micro-manage things, selling a product to an audience that everybody around him knows full well that he doesn't understand.

Vince wants to be Stan Lee or Walt Disney, but what's he shows, year after year, is that he just "pulled a Homer".

Well CO-created. Kirby and Ditko deserve at least 50% of that recognition. I love Stan, but credit where it's due.

Rest of your point is valid. I'm just sayin that Stan in no way has any actual say over his co-creations any more; we agree there

[Deleted]

There's soooooo many angles and character arctypes they've missed out on over the years because Vince "doesn't get it"

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Jun 13, 2017 11:36:26 GMT -5 @chikago said:

There's soooooo many angles and character arctypes they've missed out on over the years because Vince "doesn't get it"

then there are some he did get but the writers didn't like and dropped and Vince still got targeted for being behind the times

see Pirate Paul

[corndog]

Jun 13, 2017 9:20:36 GMT -5 Hobby Drifter said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:41 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

To be fair, Stan's whole deal for quite some time now has pretty much been agreeing with whoever was talking to him at the time. "You got it True Believer! Face Front!"

He's in his 90s though, and one of the last Golden Age guys left, so I'm cool with it.

Stan Lee had this insane explosion of creativity that lasted something like 5 years. The Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Daredevil, the Original X-Men, the Avengers and more in rapid-fire succession. He certainly had help from co-creators, but without Stan, we'd not have any of those characters.

And he's spent the following 50+ years letting people who (for the most part) had a solid grasp on them keep them going. He had that solid half decade and then more-or-less stepped away and just had fun doing what he wanted from then on. Nothing ever caught fire like his early 60's material, but he didn't try to impose his will upon people who were more with it than he was. He transitioned from being the Father of Marvel Comics, to your fun uncle, to the favorite grandfather.

What I'm getting at is that Stan Lee has, almost from the start, been very clear in his understanding that while he set these characters in motion, if left (even mostly) up to him, they wouldn't be able to change and adapt with the times. Under future creators, Stan Lee's characters went from disposable entertainment, to pop culture icons, to global megastars.

The only other person in the last 400 years to have created so many enduring characters is, arguably, Walt Disney. And, in 50 years, Stan Lee's legacy go on to eclipse even his.

THAT is the kind of reputation Vince McMahon could have built for himself. If he'd have trusted others to steward the WWF after the peak of the Attitude era. Instead, he's chosen to remain and micro-manage things, selling a product to an audience that everybody around him knows full well that he doesn't understand.

Vince wants to be Stan Lee or Walt Disney, but what's he shows, year after year, is that he just "pulled a Homer".

Imagine if Kirby/Lee/Ditko continued to dictate Marvel characters into the 80s? Marvel wouldn't have survived, they needed fresh blood and ideas to revitalize the brands. Claremont taking over X-Men in 1975 was what put them on the map.

The interesting thing is you bring up the Attitude Era and how Vince should have left others dictate the direction of the company. The ironic part of that, is the Attitude Era was born because Vince conceded that he was out of touch and allowed talent to get themselves over. That was 20 years ago and now a man who was out of touch then is completely micromanaging the company again.

In a way, there are similarities between the paths of Vince/Lee. Both enjoyed strong periods early on, then struggled with top talent departures and their products becoming stale, then another period of success when conceding that they needed to change paths and let others dictate that path.

The difference is Lee stepping back from creative direction was permanent, with Vince it was not only temporary but became worse when he returned.