• 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

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

U2 and Led Zeppelin and a number of other bands did that.

LZ even split credit among the band on songs they didn't write! (Hey, relax, there are many days when I think LZ are the best ever and Page as well.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Sounds to me like he's making a judgment call against collaborative work (like Stan's) and for one-man shows, with the collaborative work being denigrated.

I don't think success as a "team" is more or less important than success as an individual. Mignola's name was tossed out as one who can go it alone (and rightfully so) but we do not denigrate him for his career when he was teaming up but never hit the home run. Some people have a singular vision and some work well within the corporate sandbox, success in either should be admired and respected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stan worked pretty hard, I imagine.
During the heyday, Stan was editing 10-16 books a month (I'm not sure where the 8 book a month limit for silver age Marvel came from; if you check the newstand feature on Mike's Amazing World website, Marvel was putting well more than 8 books a month on the stands - usually 10 to 15 or 16).  All these books would pass thru Stan's desk at least twice (pencil stage and then after lettering & inking).
Stan was also writing a good share of these. 
And writing the dialogue for everything from the FF to Modeling with Millie.  Approving covers.  Deciding which artists and inkers to pair.  The Bullpen page and letters pages. Promotion, promotion, promotion. And other day-to-day stuff.  (and yeah he had Roy for much of this time - not at the early stages, though)

By comparison, in the years and decades that followed, and after Marvel expanded and hired multiple editors and assistant editors, an editor would handle maybe 6-10 books a month, at most.  Stan was doing double that plus all the other duties noted above when He, Kirby and Ditko were building the House of Ideas.  A phenomenal amount of work, when you think about it.  DC was putting out a little more than  twice as many books each month during that time.  How many editors and writers did they have during this same time?

To think that Stan was sitting around while others did all the work and he took all the credit doesn't reflect the reality of the early silver age "bullpen".  The Marvel method of creating a book was as much a necessity as anything else.
That is not to say Stan didn't end up taking advantage of it.

 

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, VintageComics said:

He didn't say Stan sucks, though. He said Stan couldn't stand on his own without the artist and there is a lot of truth to this.

Just playing Devil's advocate here because I don't think Stan sucks, but what has Stan done without a great artist behind him?

Here is another way of looking at this.

Stan Lee did the 'writing' and dialogue for all the early issues, right?

Don Heck was a great journeyman artist but his early Marvel stories aren't nearly as compelling as the Ditko or Kirby stories of the same early 60's era (they weren't for me, anyway). How about when Al Hartly or Joe Sinnott did the early Thor / JIM issues? Or the Werner Roth or Jack Sparling early X-me issues? Not nearly as appealing as the stories with Kirby artwork.

So there is some truth to the argument that Stan's stories were only as good as the artist that rendered them and brought them to life.

As a counterpoint, it's also true that Ditko and Kirby weren't as great without Stan but in comics, being a visual medium they seemed to have more legs than Stan in comics.

I don't see the same demand for Heck, Roth, Sparling or Sinnott artwork that I see for Kirby and Ditko artwork either.

Did Stan every write anything great outside of comics?

 

 

Yes and this is why I have these two on ignore. I never said Stan sucked but of course that’s the position they take because anything brought up that questions him is automatically assumed an attack. It’s a silly way to have a conversation, so I pass. 
 

The last part about Marvel’s assembly line process is pretty much fact / that’s what Marvel was going for - have Jack create or flesh out an idea - give it to another artist and convince him to draw like Kirby. 
 

Ultimately - Jack and Steve created comics until the day they died. Stan stopped after they both left. Just seems kinda weird. 

Edited by Chuck Gower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

The Surfer run is one of my favorite runs in comics, for sure, and that's a great observation. 

I would venture to say that it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if Kirby had drawn it (issue 18 not being on par with 1-17).

I think that after seeing a lot of Buscema's work in Avengers, his art really complimented the melodrama well that always surrounded the Surfer. John's art looks dramatic even without words.

Does anyone have any excerpts or discussions about who did what with Stan in regards to the Surfer story lines? Or any uber Buscema fans who may know John's work better than the average reader have any comments? 

I think that it's far to say that at the very least the success between artist and writer!scripted should have been split 50/50 (letters don't really sway a reader, do they? And colors weren't advanced enough back in the 60's to really influence me - that came in the 80's when printing techniques advances to where colors and letters DID influence stories).

----------------------

On a side note, I read an interesting interview with Mark Tremont of Alterbridge (formerly Creed) and he said that even though he and Myles Kennedy do most of the writing they split all credits equally among the band members. 

That's a very refreshing example in a capitalist world where everyone is fighting for their fractional share. 

I love how they LOOK, but I recently tried re-reading #1 and... bored me to death. It’s subjective though - I’m sure some people love it, but... personally I think it’s the artwork on those that make them great. The stories not so much. 
 

To me, it looks like Stan said, “Let’s have the Surfer battle Thor!” and then John Buscema just couldn’t come up with something quite as compelling as Kirby and Ditko would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

To me, it looks like Stan said, “Let’s have the Surfer battle Thor!” and then John Buscema just couldn’t come up with something quite as compelling as Kirby and Ditko would.

BUT INSTEAD HE CREATED THE GREATEST SUPERHERO COVER OF ALL TIMES FOR THAT VERY FIGHT!

oh, sorry about that. Got excited there for a minute. its passed though. no, wait...

OF ALL TIMES I SAY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Stan worked pretty hard, I imagine.
During the heyday, Stan was editing 10-16 books a month (I'm not sure where the 8 book a month limit for silver age Marvel came from; if you check the newstand feature on Mike's Amazing World website, Marvel was putting well more than 8 books a month on the stands - usually 10 to 15 or 16).  All these books would pass thru Stan's desk at least twice (pencil stage and then after lettering & inking).
Stan was also writing a good share of these. 
And writing the dialogue for everything from the FF to Modeling with Millie.  Approving covers.  Deciding which artists and inkers to pair.  The Bullpen page and letters pages. Promotion, promotion, promotion. And other day-to-day stuff.  (and yeah he had Roy for much of this time - not at the early stages, though)

By comparison, in the years and decades that followed, and after Marvel expanded and hired multiple editors and assistant editors, an editor would handle maybe 6-10 books a month, at most.  Stan was doing double that plus all the other duties noted above when He, Kirby and Ditko were building the House of Ideas.  A phenomenal amount of work, when you think about it.  DC was putting out a little more than  twice as many books each month during that time.  How many editors and writers did they have during this same time?

To think that Stan was sitting around while others did all the work and he took all the credit doesn't reflect the reality of the early silver age "bullpen".  The Marvel method of creating a book was as much a necessity as anything else.
That is not to say Stan didn't end up taking advantage of it.

 

Who says Stan sat around doing nothing? I don’t see where anyone implied that.

The original agreement was for 8 books a month which went on from 1957-61 roughly - Marvel started to cheat with bi-monthly titles to try and sneak more books in as the line grew and eventually asked DC to up them to 11 and then 16.

Once the agreement finished and Marvel was free of their control was when their explosion of titles in 1968.

 

Edited by Chuck Gower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I love how they LOOK, but I recently tried re-reading #1 and... bored me to death. It’s subjective though - I’m sure some people love it, but... personally I think it’s the artwork on those that make them great. The stories not so much. 
 

To me, it looks like Stan said, “Let’s have the Surfer battle Thor!” and then John Buscema just couldn’t come up with something quite as compelling as Kirby and Ditko would.

Sure, the dialogue was long and drawn out at times and it seemed like the words were secondary to just a lot of visual gratification. I'd have to reread it (haven't done so in a while) but I remembered it fondly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what it comes down to is whose opinion you believe. I read much of the Ditko essays years ago and they didn't really wash with me then and I will admit that his (to me ) odd world view made me take what he said with several grains of salt.

The essay he wrote about Spider-Man / Jack Kirby rang different with me because I know that the people who had Kirby's ear towards the end of his life had him believing that he had created the entire Marvel Universe single handedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I think what it comes down to is whose opinion you believe. I read much of the Ditko essays years ago and they didn't really wash with me then and I will admit that his (to me ) odd world view made me take what he said with several grains of salt.

The essay he wrote about Spider-Man / Jack Kirby rang different with me because I know that the people who had Kirby's ear towards the end of his life had him believing that he had created the entire Marvel Universe single handedly.

Which is sad, because Jack's entire work history essentially proves the value of collaborative creation in the comics industry.  I also believe that Joe Simon was generous in granting Jack co-creator credit for Captain America, and it is unfortunate that Jack, and Stan, and others sometimes found this difficult to do.  After all, Simon created the character design for Cap, picked the name, and wrote all the stories in the first issue, including providing Jack with penciled in lettering and suggested breakdowns.  Simon wasn't even going to use Jack as the artist on all three stories in CA 1, but Jack convinced him to do so.  Jack then penciled the stories in record time based on Joe's breakdowns.  Some might argue that Joe gave Jack credit because it had no real financial impact on him to do that given the financial terms of their partnership agreement (Joe was the senior partner on a 3/2 split), but I think that probably not generous as Joe valued Kirby's artistic flair and fast production, and Joe had an expansive view of the creative process.

But, its a legitimate question:  Assuming that Joe's story is true (and I don't believe it is disputed), who created Captain America?  Joe Simon or S&K.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sfcityduck said:
On 2/19/2020 at 2:08 PM, Chuck Gower said:

That’s absurd. There are plenty of individual creative people in the world of comics who both write and draw their own material.  The truth is STAN couldn’t stand on his own because he can’t DRAW. ... It’s mainly in mainstream comics, where a need arises to pump out an assembly line of grossly repetitive nonsense on a weekly basis to keep its endlessly dwindling collector base hypnotized that they feel the need to make everything a group project.

Sounds to me like he's making a judgment call against collaborative work (like Stan's) and for one-man shows, with the collaborative work being denigrated.

I guess I just don't see it that way. I just see it as stating Stan couldn't do anything in the industry without decent artists (and this is backed up with how sales dwindled when 2ndary artists were drawing Marvel books and it took a remarkable artist to bring sales back).

And I see the 2nd half of his statement (grossly repetitive nonsense) as just a rant against the current comic industry. If it was meant otherwise, I didn't 'get it'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I guess I just don't see it that way. I just see it as stating Stan couldn't do anything in the industry without decent artists (and this is backed up with how sales dwindled when 2ndary artists were drawing Marvel books and it took a remarkable artist to bring sales back).

And I see the 2nd half of his statement (grossly repetitive nonsense) as just a rant against the current comic industry. If it was meant otherwise, I didn't 'get it'

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

Stan worked pretty hard, I imagine.
During the heyday, Stan was editing 10-16 books a month (I'm not sure where the 8 book a month limit for silver age Marvel came from; if you check the newstand feature on Mike's Amazing World website, Marvel was putting well more than 8 books a month on the stands - usually 10 to 15 or 16).  All these books would pass thru Stan's desk at least twice (pencil stage and then after lettering & inking).
Stan was also writing a good share of these. 
And writing the dialogue for everything from the FF to Modeling with Millie.  Approving covers.  Deciding which artists and inkers to pair.  The Bullpen page and letters pages. Promotion, promotion, promotion. And other day-to-day stuff.  (and yeah he had Roy for much of this time - not at the early stages, though)

By comparison, in the years and decades that followed, and after Marvel expanded and hired multiple editors and assistant editors, an editor would handle maybe 6-10 books a month, at most.  Stan was doing double that plus all the other duties noted above when He, Kirby and Ditko were building the House of Ideas.  A phenomenal amount of work, when you think about it.  DC was putting out a little more than  twice as many books each month during that time.  How many editors and writers did they have during this same time?

To think that Stan was sitting around while others did all the work and he took all the credit doesn't reflect the reality of the early silver age "bullpen".  The Marvel method of creating a book was as much a necessity as anything else.
That is not to say Stan didn't end up taking advantage of it.

 

Well said.  He did his job and he did it well.  It's business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Who says Stan sat around doing nothing? I don’t see where anyone implied that.

The original agreement was for 8 books a month which went on from 1957-61 roughly - Marvel started to cheat with bi-monthly titles to try and sneak more books in as the line grew and eventually asked DC to up them to 11 and then 16.

Once the agreement finished and Marvel was free of their control was when their explosion of titles in 1968.

 

I didn't say that anyone claimed Stan sat around doing nothing.  But with all the incendiary language being bandied about in this topic and the "Stan stole FF 51" topic, it could lead one to view it that way.

Once again, I am referring to the timeframe when Stan, Jack and Steve were creating the marvel superhero universe.  More than 8 books a month, then.

 

My post was aimed at the way in which journalists and authors commonly use methods to elicit an emotional response in the reader.  One method by which journalists fool the general public is by using very broad assumptions and to slap incendiary labels on individuals whom they don’t agree with, rather than relay the information in a factual genuine way.

I can provide examples from both threads if needed.

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

I love how they LOOK, but I recently tried re-reading #1 and... bored me to death. It’s subjective though - I’m sure some people love it, but... personally I think it’s the artwork on those that make them great. The stories not so much. 
 

To me, it looks like Stan said, “Let’s have the Surfer battle Thor!” and then John Buscema just couldn’t come up with something quite as compelling as Kirby and Ditko would.

Silver Surfer 1 is a great origin story with superb art, but the constant one-note soapboxing of the character becomes tedious, as Lee repeats it issue after issue. Buscema's fantastic, but continuing reading through the short series all the way to the finish line quickly turns into a chore.

Edited by Ken Aldred
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