500Club

wrong foc had passed on hell arisen 3 also. DC increase the overprint on it but hasnt said by how much I stand corrected. Tough to say then, with the overprint unknown

Hell Arisen 3 will be the full appearance. The catch is, when DC started really pimping the books, Batman 89 had passed FOC and Hell Arisen hadn't. The supply mismatch may create a situation where a one panel cameo fetches higher prices than the first full.

Poor Mr Ditko Ditko considered himself lucky to have met the legend.

I’m good with that, but an accurate objective analysis tends to be more balanced than some of these threads end up.

This is where I stand. Sometimes, it just seems that the pendulum swings too far in these threads, toward the complete tarring and feathering of Stan.

Logan510, Janet.

Usually, it is said that someone has an 'axe to grind' when the same point or argument is brought up repeatedly. The thread starts with some interesting essays by Ditko, ostensibly just for interest's sake, but by the bottom of page 3 and onto page 4, Chuck is clearly driving the narrative by posting quotes from other creators. Interspersed with that are comments that can't be construed as anything BUT his opinion: On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 6:03 AM, Chuck Gower said: No one seems to understand why Stan Lee - this 'vast creative mind of ideas' - went to Hollywood in the 70's and had such a hard time getting anything done. It's because a) he couldn't actually write anything more than a synopsis (which, unless you're a proven commodity, isn't going to get you far in Hollywood) and b) couldn't find anyone as talented as Kirby or Ditko to transform his basic ideas into a full fledged working story. Between that, the 'This Man, This Monster' thread, and Casey overhearing Chuck having this very discussion in person, you can see where the 'axe to grind' sentiment comes from.

Ditko, to me, is one of the more fascinating people to come through the industry. Some of these essays are a grind, but it’s interesting to get a feel for his perspective.

The argument that Goodman was the creator of the books in question is really tangential. I suspect we all know that Goodman saw the response to DC’s Justice League, and told Lee to craft something similar. So, why stop with Goodman as the creator? Why not stretch the thin thread of logic further, and say that DC created the Marvel books in question. I get what Ditko is saying: Goodman told Lee to create these ideas, just as Lee told Stan and Jack to create the follow-on visuals and ideas. But, a three page treatise...

Whoever this mysterious person may be, I'm sure he's beloved by all in the comic collecting hobby. He’s certainly never been immortalized as a thief in an issue of Spectacular Spider-Man...

Plus, the stories of the beanie on the head, and the bowing to Stan on the filing cabinet made me both laugh and cringe. I hadn’t heard those before. I’m sure working for Martin Goodman from the age of 18 didn’t give Stan the best of examples and role models for leadership. However, there are many ‘eminences grise’ out there who I’m sure would cringe at some of their behaviors from their younger years.

In your opinion. Why be here then? Exchange of ideas.

He wasn’t. He had his flaws, like every human being. He did stupid, inconsiderate things at times, like we all have. This thread has selectively presented anecdotal memories that paint him in a bad light. Take the middle ground - understand that all these creators were indispensable to the formative years of Marvel Comics.

The ‘bash Stan’ agenda gets pretty tiring. There’s no doubt Stan had his sharp edges, and there’s no doubt Stan wasn’t singlehandedly responsible for the rise of Marvel in the 60s, but the thematic flavour of this thread is an overshoot.

Likewise. It lead to more story and character depth. I also miss thought balloons. 5 panel pages of pin-up art, in a decompressed ‘made-for-six-issue-tpb’ story, isn’t as satisfying.