• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT
5 5

583 posts in this topic

23 hours ago, kav said:

Great novels have no pictures, and they are top notch.

Well novels are novels and comics are sequential art and so would argue the medium is at it's best with a solid artist. Ditko's line work is very expressive and again would argue one could get the main gist of his Spider-man and Dr Strange pages without any dialogue at all. Same goes for Kirby who really takes off when finally freed from the weight of excessive dialogue in the earlier Marvels - I can think of a few pages in those early FF's where you can barley fit another word in. Hell, look at the caliber of artists contributing to the marvel method in the sixties and I begin to think the brush is quite a bit mightier than the pen. Again, no disrespect to Mr Lee intended, merely a big fan of the artists to whom the medium owes so much. 2c

Edited by Mr Sneeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

Well novels are novels and comics are sequential art and so would argue the medium is at it's best with a solid artist. Ditko's line work is very expressive and again would argue one could get the main gist of his Spider-man and Dr Strange pages without any dialogue at all. Same goes for Kirby who really takes off when finally freed from the weight of excessive dialogue in the earlier Marvels - I can think of a few pages in those early FF's where you can barley fit another word in. Hell, look at the caliber of artists contributing to the marvel method in the sixties and I begin to think the brush is quite a bit mightier than the pen. Again, no disrespect to Mr Lee intended, merely a big fan of the artist's to whom the medium owes so much. 2c

I like the older dialogue heavy stuff.  modern books can be read often in abt 30 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kav said:

I like the older dialogue heavy stuff.  modern books can be read often in abt 30 seconds.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put another way... the WRITER in movies isn't anywhere near as celebrated as the Director. Movies are a visual medium, and so the way a DIRECTOR tells the story, plays the biggest part in how's it's perceived. Even more so if the story is taken from a synopsis. 

The synopsis writer isn't considered the owner of the movie or the creator of the movie or the visionary, and especially not the person who is financially rewarded the most or critically compared to his contemporaries.

In may ways he may be considered the least important part of the process, especially as changes are made... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Ditko on the autism spectrum (not that there is anything wrong with that but reading an autistic writer is painful)?  He missed Lee's sarcasm about 'taking any credit that isn't nailed down'. Ditko treats it like a confession.  I'm embarrassed for both of them.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is literally something to be said about how staggering it is that someone could say to you "for the next one, have The Scorpion kidnap Betty Brant" and then, you go and plot and develop the story and draw it, and then that person who made the suggestion adds dialogue to what you provided for them, but they are considered the "writer".

Dialogue would be a better credit. And I say this being a huge fan of Stan Lee. Believe me. His conversational dialogue was a big difference from DC's exposition heavy dialogue and I give him so much credit for making Marvel what it is in the public consciousness. There's always these two extreme sides in this argument but it's really easy to figure out. 

Comic Historians have mistakenly compared Stan and Jack (for example) to Lennon and McCartney. No, a more apt comparison would be Mike Love and Brian Wilson.

Stan's voice and irreverence is what got Marvel famous. But it's no different from say, Tony Wilson and Factory Records. Tony Wilson was a personality. He was witty, able to give you a quote, well suited for television and radio interviews and very self-deprecating. But Joy Division wrote the music that sold the records.

 

Steve Ditko does not need fans who weren't there to be embarrassed for him, with all due respect. He is entitled to feel this way since he did indeed contribute the iconic Spider-Man costume design (as well as countless other things) that provide literally millions in merchandise for Marvel and still be designated as "the artist who drew the idea that I created" in public by Stan.

Yeah, Ditko was outspoken. It was a popular narrative that he was reclusive. He wasn't- he was just selective. But comics fandom doesn't like that. If he had published his essays in Wizard instead of through Robin Synder, perhaps it'd be different. But people should have went out of their way to go to Ditko, not vice versa.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Put another way... the WRITER in movies isn't anywhere near as celebrated as the Director. Movies are a visual medium, and so the way a DIRECTOR tells the story, plays the biggest part in how's it's perceived. Even more so if the story is taken from a synopsis. 

The synopsis writer isn't considered the owner of the movie or the creator of the movie or the visionary, and especially not the person who is financially rewarded the most or critically compared to his contemporaries.

In may ways he may be considered the least important part of the process, especially as changes are made... 

I'm confused. How can the person that comes up with an idea for a movie and sells that idea to finance the movie not be considered a creator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mrc said:

...........as much as I admire Ditko's work for Marvel in the 1960's, it's plainly evident to me that he was unwilling to compromise with anyone on his artistic vision throughout his career.

Possibly stubbornness. but maybe indicating why he was an advocate of Objectivist thought processes, which dominate his later self-published works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Turnando said:

Was Ditko on the autism spectrum (not that there is anything wrong with that but reading an autistic writer is painful)? 

Being a bit socially withdrawn, as he was in his later years, doesn't necessarily indicate that.

If you read his self-published work, there's a lot of very, very literal black / white interpretations of social situations, both in his writing and his art, and he seems to be incapable of accepting the existence of intermediate, composite, 'grey' interpretations of those same social situations.  Instead of someone hiding confidently inside overblown Objectivist philosophy, this viewpoint could also much more simply indicate very narrow thinking and a 'lack of theory of mind', which can be present in autism spectrum disorders, but also in other non-autistic and quite distinct conditions.

Edited by Ken Aldred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrc said:

I'm confused. How can the person that comes up with an idea for a movie and sells that idea to finance the movie not be considered a creator?

Movies are a visual presentation.

Let's say someone says, I want to do a movie (and finance it), a comedy about the Knights of King Arthur. And I want them to chase after the Holy Grail. And they get into funny adventures along the way.  And maybe have something called 'The Holy Hand-Grenade'.

The team of movie makers goes and and creates 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

The idea isn't what makes the movie great. It's the execution. It's what is created from it in a visual form.

Anyone who's ever written understands that a synopsis, an idea, a concept - can get you an opportunity to create a book, or a comic or a movie or some type of presentation - but if you can't write or draw or make movies - you can't actually CREATE something that is sellable.

A studio may BUY an idea to work it and create around it - or make a deal with someone for limited rights if it's been successful elsewhere - and that's a key part - successful in another form of media - books, television, 40 years of comics... but they're not just going to take a 'synopsis' and do all the work so that the writer of that gets all of the glory. The power of movies is in the Visual presentation and how that basic synopsis is turned into something that can be bought and sold.

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.

Hollywood is always STARVING for ideas - but useable ideas. Actual stories. 

When Kirby got frustrated with the comics industry and went to Hollywood to do work he immediately was able to transform his concepts (ideas) into working form (Thundar the Barbarian, Turbo Teen). These weren't just written ideas, but VISUAL ones - a fully formed presentation, that was immediately put into the production of something.

The belief by Stan that he could just go to Hollywood and say, "I've got a character - we'll call him Sentry  Man - and he has a staff that sometimes doesn't work, and maybe a sidekick who..." and movie studios would say, "That's great!" and someone would make a movie from that and it'd be successful... that's not how the world of movies work. The auteur is KING.

He may have twisted it around in the world of comics, but no one was going to let him get away with it in the movies. Way too much money involved. And egos far bigger than his own with that money.

Hollywood eventually caught up with the comics - the VISUAL presentation of it - they changed the stories and some of the concepts - but the VISUAL dynamics of it - created by the artists - propelled it to worldwide success.

Edited by Chuck Gower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrc said:

I'm confused. How can the person that comes up with an idea for a movie and sells that idea to finance the movie not be considered a creator?

I'll put it another way. If Kirby had been allowed to continue the 5 pages of the original Spider-man concept that Stan Lee had worked on with him - the character wouldn't have been anywhere near the same.

This is why movies don't champion and reward the 'idea guy'. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Go out to Hollywood - there's plenty of idea guys walking around without a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy howdy, it seems like this Stan Lee fellow must have really held back his employees. I wonder why they didn't go work for the Distinguished Competition.

Speaking of which- did Ditko ever do any DC work before or after Shade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Ayers:

Ayers (Alter-Ego Magazine): “Stan said, ‘I can’t think of a story for Sgt. Fury. We won’t have an issue unless you think of something.”

When Ayers requested a plot credit Stan told him, “Since when did you develop an ego? Get out of here!”

Ayers wrote a wordless story (And not a Word was Spoken) for Two-Gun Kid #61.

Ayers submitted a payment requisition to Stan for the plot feeling he should be paid more for writing the wordless story. Stan and Ayers argued, and Stan agreed to pay Ayers for five pages of lettering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or one of the nicest guys in the business, the late Stan Goldberg (also from Alter Ego Magazine):

JIM AMISH:” Sounds like you were doing most of the writing then.”

GOLDBERG: “Well, I was.”One time I was in Stan’s office and I told him, “I don’t have another plot.” Stan got out of his chair and walked over to me, looked me in the face, and said very seriously, “I don’t ever want to hear you say you can’t think of another plot.” Then he walked back and sat down in his chair. He didn’t think he needed to tell me anything more.”

OR

GOLDBERG:” Stan would drive me home and we’d plot our stories in the car. I’d say to Stan,”How’s this? Millie loses her job.” He’d say,”Great! Give me 25 pages.” And that took him off the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
5 5