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

[1950's war comics]

i loved Ditko's  Spider-Man and Dr Strange and all the work he did before those like in ST, JIM etc .. , but try as i might i could never get into anything he did after he left Stan Lee and Marvel

Edited February 18, 2020 by 1950's war comics

[William-James88]

6 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

i loved Ditko's  Spider-Man and Dr Strange and all the work he did before those like in ST, JIM etc .. , but try as i might i could never get into anything he did after he left Stan Lee and Marvel

His Charleton stuff was pretty good, at least to me.

Edited February 18, 2020 by William-James88

[kav]

Stan on left, Ditko on right:

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Me?  I think we'd all be better off going into a search for "truth" without preconceptions which impair our ability to see it.

Coming from you, that's absolutely hilarious.

[1950's war comics]

it was a real downer when Stan stopped writing the stories for Sgt Fury and Roy Thomas took over ...  they seemed like bargain basement stories

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, 500Club said:

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. 

Agree.

[Prince Namor]

The essay's by Ditko I'd really like to read are the one's that appeared in Robin Synder's 'The Comics' where he addresses specifically the origin and first couple of issues of the ASM, each getting their own essay.

Years ago I picked up a copy of one of these somewhere (and I'm pretty sure I posted them here) but in case you didn't see it, here it is....

[Prince Namor]

[Prince Namor]

[Prince Namor]

[Ken Aldred]

9 hours ago, William-James88 said:

His Charleton stuff was pretty good, at least to me.

I agree.  I have his 50s Charlton material as the Fantagraphics digital collections.  A lot of very nice artwork in there.

Despite his later figure work looking increasingly stiff, Ditko / Wood was a very nice combination, such as DC’s Stalker comic, and I also rate his work on Rom which was inked by P Craig Russell.
 

 

[Bronty]

Not a fan of ditko/wood as the whole was less than the sum of its parts IMO but in addition to the 50s Charlotte work, his later (60s to early 70s IIRC) charltons are nice also.   

[Prince Namor]

46 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

I agree.  I have his 50s Charlton material as the Fantagraphics digital collections.  A lot of very nice artwork in there.

Blake Bell collected (mostly) in order his pre-Marvel work (his 1st stint in mid-1957) in Strange Suspense (The Steve Ditko Archives Vol. 1) tpb which is just a small portion of it. I really enjoyed it and need to check out the rest of those stories that followed. I imagine that Fantagraphics collection is huge...

46 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

Despite his later figure work looking increasingly stiff, Ditko / Wood was a very nice combination, such as DC’s Stalker comic, and I also rate his work on Rom which was inked by P Craig Russell.

I like his Blue Beetle and Question work he did about a year after leaving Marvel... it looks very Marvel-style Ditko. And whereas it's missing that zippy Stan Lee dialogue, it's packed with lots of action.

I thought the best thing he ever WROTE was Mr. A, which pre-dated the Death Wish movie (and the Punisher and the whole 70's vigilante craze) by 5-6 years. When I first read Miller's Dark Knight, as a young man, I thought he was being sardonic and satirical (nope) - I never thought that with Mr. A. Pure Ditko. LOL.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, kav said:

wow you made it that far? 

I love this emoji. CGC should add it to the standard choices.

[jsilverjanet]

15 hours ago, 1950's war comics said:

i have seen a few instances ..... but it doesn't get much worse than those walls of text by Ditko

Could be worse. Could be small posts with a larger font screaming “look at me, look at me”

Edited February 18, 2020 by jsilverjanet

[bb8]

On 2/16/2020 at 8:15 PM, comicwiz said:

Sometime between 1972-74, Roy Thomas was quoted by The Comics Journal (TCJ) as saying that one idea was to sell the art to establish a retirement fund for the artist who drew it - but according to Thomas, that idea didn't go anywhere. So admidst the rumors of art being "given away", we might never know which went to exhibits, to the Marvelmania folks, Stan's nephew in the UK who he would send things to from time to time - or even some kid who worked at Marvelmania who had been paid with art - until the day we might see that artwork listed on eBay.

Despite this, we did learn, thanks to Sean Howe's book "Marvel Comics: The Untold Story" that documented proof exists revealing Marvel also sold original art as far back as 1973. A letter dated from May 31st, 1973 between The Winnipeg Art Gallery (WAG) and Carla Joseph (using the title of "assistant to the publisher") describes how the WAG had made a request for Marvel to loan artwork for a planned exhibit. From the content of the letter, we learn that Marvel was apparently so impressed with the planning, communication and overall value the exhibit was bringing to their industry that it decided to sell the artwork on a "one-time" basis for $1000.

This story caused an uproar in 2013 when it first broke in online environments, particularly since many artists felt they had been sidelined by an unfair release contract Marvel was asking artists to sign in exchange for returning their art (which I mentioned above). It was around the time this 1973 letter to WAG was written when artists such as Neal Adams were warning artists against signing these releases, which unfairly allowed Marvel to maintain ownership until those releases were signed - only to realize through this revelation that Marvel had been selling artwork by artists in such instances.

The WAG also quickly found themselves having to scramble to release a statement, and they addressed the concerns on Twitter by stating that they had already returned the artwork to the artists in 2006. They added that while the process had been complicated, they gave it all back.

Perhaps one of the most unusual (and unsettling) comments came from someone by the name of Joe Krolik who stated he was approached by the WAG curator Dr. Philip Fry in 1972, and supplied the WAG with his comics to be used in their exhibit. What this person wasn't told is that his comics would essentially be destroyed by being cut up, pasted on foam board and used as visual aids to the artwork on display. He was never credited in the program book for providing the WAG source material for the exhibit, and he also emphasized how the WAG had continued to do this show with the artwork they claimed they had returned well past 2006, with the most recent show happening in 2010 to which he insists, still had the original artwork in it.

How is any of this 'damning' or surprising? What were the terms of the original employment contract that the artists signed with the company? Did it state originally that the company would return all original artwork that the company had commissioned or was it owned outright by the company? The purpose of a corporation is to bring value to its shareholders. Why would it be surprising that a company would sell its assets?

And why aren't we upset that the inker or letterer didn't get their original art returned? Comics are, as stated, a collaborative artform. More than one person had a hand in these pages' creation.

[Prince Namor]

48 minutes ago, bb8 said:

How is any of this 'damning' or surprising? What were the terms of the original employment contract that the artists signed with the company? Did it state originally that the company would return all original artwork that the company had commissioned or was it owned outright by the company?

It didn't state either. As artists began to ask for it back, many of the companies started to give it back, because they had already published it - it didn't seem to matter. At a certain point Marvel decided to use it as a tool against their creators to take more rights away from them.

Quote

The purpose of a corporation is to bring value to its shareholders. Why would it be surprising that a company would sell its assets?

If they were creating widgets, that'd make sense. But intellectual property became a whole new 'thing' and it changed how a lot of this works in creative fields. As an example, it used to be easy to take advantage of musicians - after all, you just sign them to a contract and they do all the work and then you make all the money - no problem - except the law said, NO, there's a difference in the creative abilities of people - you're taking advantage of them.

The fact that they signed a contract didn't matter - in the legal system in the United Staes a judge can look at that contract and say, "That's not right" and award the other side. Sports went through this with free agency and the way players were tied to one team.

It's generally accepted (standard) now in most creative professions - but for some reason people still look at comics as if anyone could've created any of this stuff. 

Quote

And why aren't we upset that the inker or letterer didn't get their original art returned? Comics are, as stated, a collaborative artform. More than one person had a hand in these pages' creation.

Actually inkers and letterers DID get some pages back. Writers too.

These days, entertainment is created by individuals who are protected by the law for their intellectual abilities to create. The things we enjoy the most are owned by the people who actually create it. 'Game of Thrones' isn't owned by HBO, it's owned by who wrote it. Stranger Things is owned, not by Netflix, but by the people who created it.

Marvel Comics meanwhile is still mostly reliant upon ideas that were created 50+ years ago. No one wants to create new ideas for them. Those superheroes are a pale reflection of what they originally were. They've lived off the ideas of Stan, and Jack and Steve for decades - and until the Kirby estate finally got their due - the only person who'd ever been able to strong arm them for credit (money) was Stan.

How are people siding with Marvel for mistreating its creative talent is bizarre to me.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Chuck Gower

[bb8]

12 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It didn't state either. As artists began to ask for it back, many of the companies started to give it back, because they had already published it - it didn't seem to matter. At a certain point Marvel decided to use it as a tool against their creators to take more rights away from them.

If they were creating widgets, that'd make sense. But intellectual property became a whole new 'thing' and it changed how a lot of this works in creative fields. As an example, it used to be easy to take advantage of musicians - after all, you just sign them to a contract and they do all the work and then you make all the money - no problem - except the law said, NO, there's a difference in the creative abilities of people - you're taking advantage of them.

The fact that they signed a contract didn't matter - in the legal system in the United Staes a judge can look at that contract and say, "That's not right" and award the other side. Sports went through this with free agency and the way players were tied to one team.

It's generally accepted (standard) now in most creative professions - but for some reason people still look at comics as if anyone could've created any of this stuff. 

Actually inkers and letterers DID get some pages back. Writers too.

These days, entertainment is created by individuals who are protected by the law for their intellectual abilities to create. The things we enjoy the most are owned by the people who actually create it. 'Game of Thrones' isn't owned by HBO, it's owned by who wrote it. Stranger Things is owned, not by Netflix, but by the people who created it.

Marvel Comics meanwhile is still mostly reliant upon ideas that were created 50+ years ago. No one wants to create new ideas for them. Those superheroes are a pale reflection of what they originally were. They've lived off the ideas of Stan, and Jack and Steve for decades - and until the Kirby estate finally got their due - the only person who'd ever been able to strong arm them for credit (money) was Stan.

How are people siding with Marvel for mistreating its creative talent is bizarre to me.

It's funny how we treat 'intellectual properties' different than so-called widgets. How much more important is Spider-Man in our daily lives than all-wheel drive? Or Google's search algorithm? Even something as simple as Kellogg's recipe for corn flakes. Someone had to create these things. They weren't manufactured from thin air without human ingenuity. And yet we don't care how these people are treated by the companies they work for yet they've revolutionized the way we live.

I'm not siding with anyone. You certainly have an axe to grind. I merely point out that these are companies. They're built to make money; that's it. That's why we have laws to constrain them. A judge can look at a contract and say it's not fair: good. We need arbiters for this purpose. I just find it odd when people are outraged because an entity acts in its own interest.

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, bb8 said:

How is any of this 'damning' or surprising? What were the terms of the original employment contract that the artists signed with the company? Did it state originally that the company would return all original artwork that the company had commissioned or was it owned outright by the company? The purpose of a corporation is to bring value to its shareholders. Why would it be surprising that a company would sell its assets?

And why aren't we upset that the inker or letterer didn't get their original art returned? Comics are, as stated, a collaborative artform. More than one person had a hand in these pages' creation.

First off, the post was in response to @shadroch asking for proof that Marvel was selling artwork.  He asked, I provided proof, I don't even know if he acknowledged it as answering his question, but there it is.

Secondly, it was originally mentioned in the context of Kirby asking for his artwork to be returned in a previous post in this thread, and Marvel in turn asked Kirby (and other artists) to sign releases on the characters they co-created. When Kirby chose not to sign the release, Marvel held his artwork hostage. Those are the facts. Whether you feel that's damming/surprising or not is really up to you to decide, however I had originally mentioned it in the context of Marvel demonstrating an approach that seemed counter-intuitive in that it not only allowed the work to eventually walk out of the Marvel Vault, but that it was actively giving away and selling the art, without the artists knowledge, and rather brazenly, during the time they were forcing artists to sign these releases.

From my perspective, if Marvel had any legal basis, there were certainly consistency issues in their approach, in that some artists did have all their art returned to them. And if Marvel did have any legal basis to hold Kirby's work hostage, it was seemingly ill-equipped to manage or store it in a manner that showed they cared enough, as much of it ended-up being stolen, popped-up at conventions or in the possession of certain dealers. 

AGAIN this was all going on during the time Kirby was still alive and asking for it to be returned.

A company with interest in retaining copyright or intellectual property (if that is what you are suggesting) certainly wouldn't handle his art in such a shoddy manner. Instead, they might have safeguarded it, and at least once in this thread, I explained how Jim Shooter was urged to involve the police, and he stonewalled that request by suggesting Marvel had no list to determine what was gone, which they absolutely did have, and not only did they have Vartanoff's list to go by, but they had the benefit of knowing what had gone missing from the previous list she compiled.

If you have proof to suggest otherwise, I'm all eyes and ears, but from my point of view, they wouldn't have put any artist under the sort of ultimatum they put them through (especially Kirby) if they felt they had a leg to stand on. And we know that Marvel/Disney eventually gave co-creator acknowledgements after the settlement, which named Kirby co-creator.

Unfortunately, the artwork being returned was far too late to address at that point, no one likes that any of this is even brought up, and there is a certain silence when people ask who these people were stealing and peddling Kirby's stolen art.

When they failed to heed the warnings of artists like Will Eisner's petition to return the artwork to Kirby, they threw their reputation to the wind, and their legacy (at least in my eyes) is irrevocably tarnished, as a publisher with zero sense of literary responsibility.

Edited February 18, 2020 by comicwiz

[jsilverjanet]

I'm not sure why Chuck's posts are considered "axe to grind" when all he is doing is posting Steve Ditko's words. He hasn't stated his opinion on it (unless I missed it) or Stan Lee or Marvel other than he finds it interesting. The perception is that he has some outrage because he is posting this content but all it's doing is causing some people's view of The House of Ideas and Stan Lee to be brought under a different light. They seem to be the ones outraged that their idol(s) are being tarnished.