• 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

22 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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.

 

the comments from other creators are a response to LarryW post about what other's said

The opinion you quote is about his writing wasn't very good to make it in hollywood. I think that's true and probably something even Stan Lee would agree. I think overall it confirms what many here say. That Stan without Kirby or Ditko isn't much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jsilverjanet said:

the comments from other creators are a response to LarryW post about what other's said

The opinion you quote is about his writing wasn't very good to make it in hollywood. I think that's true and probably something even Stan Lee would agree. I think overall it confirms what many here say. That Stan without Kirby or Ditko isn't much. 

Stan style was well suited to comics.    So was Jack’s.  How far do you think Jack would have gotten as a fashion illustrator drawing models all day?    Sexy was probably the one thing Jack couldn’t draw to save his life.   
 

So, while it’s probably true re his writing not being apt for Hollywood, it really doesn’t prove anything.   I’m not sure any of them would have made great astronauts or air traffic controllers either.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 500Club said:

Usually, it is said that someone has an 'axe to grind' when the same point or argument is brought up repeatedly.

......have an axe to grind, meaning 'to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people to accept and that is the reason why you do something'

OR...............

 

VariableGrimyCaudata-max-1mb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

Stan style was well suited to comics.    So was Jack’s.  How far do you think Jack would have gotten as a fashion illustrator drawing models all day?    Sexy was probably the one thing Jack couldn’t draw to save his life.   
 

So, while it’s probably true re his writing not being apt for Hollywood, it really doesn’t prove anything.   I’m not sure any of them would have made great astronauts or air traffic controllers either.   

I think the difference is that Stan thought he could succeed in Hollywood based on his success in comics. He probably thought that the industry would take his ideas based on his success at Marvel. I don't think he's trying to prove anything (I could be mistaken) but only illustrate that his success was tied to both these creators. I agree Jack probably couldn't draw models (but Wood probably could).

Your example is that Kirby and Ditko never attempted to become Astronauts or Air Traffic Controllers unless Chuck is going to post that (in the remaining pages that are left).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mrc said:

......have an axe to grind, meaning 'to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people to accept and that is the reason why you do something'

OR...............

 

VariableGrimyCaudata-max-1mb.gif

One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrc said:

......have an axe to grind, meaning 'to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people to accept and that is the reason why you do something'

OR...............

 

VariableGrimyCaudata-max-1mb.gif

To be fair, aren't most threads here "axes to grind"

Heck I'm now aware of pence copies thanks to Marwood's Axe to Grind about them

Or How great Tom Brady and Tiger Woods are thanks to 1950's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And it IS fair to say that, without Stan, Jack and Steve would not have had the platform for their greatest successes, that far exceeded virtually everything they had done, either before or since. Clearly, there was a symbiosis involved corporately that would not have existed separately, regardless of what the real measure of credit actually is.

It's important to note that the issue isn't that Ditko is suggesting that Stan deserves no credit. It's that Ditko is saying that Stan stole credit to which he was not due, because Stan's #1 goal in life was the promotion of Stan. And any objective analysis would admit that. Stan was a glory hog, no two ways about it. Jack and Steve were not. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpret Ditko pages as more clearing the air (in his opinion) rather than "axe to grind". He certainly could have grinded an axe. I'm sure plenty would have loved for him to Something discussed at length sometimes can be passion for the truth. 

Chuck is only posting the words of the creator not interpretting them for everyone here. I get it it's easier to make Chuck the villian or mock Ditko "crazy wacko views" as someone said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

I think the difference is that Stan thought he could succeed in Hollywood based on his success in comics. He probably thought that the industry would take his ideas based on his success at Marvel. I don't think he's trying to prove anything (I could be mistaken) but only illustrate that his success was tied to both these creators. I agree Jack probably couldn't draw models (but Wood probably could).

Your example is that Kirby and Ditko never attempted to become Astronauts or Air Traffic Controllers unless Chuck is going to post that (in the remaining pages that are left).

 

I suspect...just based on what Stan wrote about himself in the 70s and 80s...that he very much expected to succeed in Hollywood, and it ground him to powder that that wasn't true, despite the reasonable success of the cartoons and the live-action Hulk (which, by all measures, was a decent success.)

He thought Hollywood was the natural progression...but Stan's work, while perfect for comics of the 60s, doesn't hold up to today. There are glimmers of greatness in Spidey #1-100 or so, but Gerry is really the writer who made Spidey more "adult"...and even still, Peter Parker stagnated as a character until Stern took over in the 80s. There is a ton bunch of silliness and far-fetched scenarios in everything Stan dialogued, that certainly does not hold up today. 

Head and shoulders above what DC and others were doing, no doubt. But Alan Moore, Stan Lee is not. Chris Claremont, Stan Lee is not. Ed Wood, Stan Lee was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GACollectibles said:
2 hours ago, Senormac said:

This thread needs a pole. 

1. Lee was the best

2. Ditko was the best

3. Kirby was the best

4. Crack is the best

5. Best Buy is open 10 am to 9 pm

(In my best Inigo Montoya voice)

I do not think pole means what you think it means.

I think there are too many... um, poles in this thread already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, topofthetotem said:

Wasn’t this thread just locked? 

A few times.  The last time, Roy's comments were missing after the lock.  Not sure for what reason though. 

xoxo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, greggy said:

A few times.  The last time, Roy's comments were missing after the lock.  Not sure for what reason though. 

xoxo

I saw he quoted me but then the post was removed. What did he say? Was he hitting on me again. Perv.

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