Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT
6 6

582 posts in this topic

52,212 posts

Fourth World with the goofy dialogue being put on par with FF or other Lee/Kirby stuff is a mind blower.
Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,212 posts

Compare the writing of typical Kirby solo book with any FF Lee story.  If anyone thinks the writing is equally good I cant help them.

RCO009_1466675524.jpg

RCO007_1466675524.jpg

RCO011_1464519853.jpg

 

RCO042_1464519853.jpg

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,407 posts

Fair points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,275 posts
2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Three observations: (1) I'm finding this thread by Chuck Gower more than a bit ironic.  Ditko took issue with Kirby for claiming credit for creating Spider-man.  Yet, over on GA, Gower has put a thread accusing Stan Lee of stealing credit for Kirby's ideas.  Probably, the right view is to realize that these guys all had their issues and none were perfect.  No need to have derangement syndrome about any of them. 

Because ... (2) there are always more than two sides to a story.  if you are true academic (and Gower has claimed he's some sort of historian), you realize that the truth is usually not an either/or.  It's shades of gray.  And when it comes to who is the "creator" of a corporate product that is worked on by writers, pencillers, inkers, and colorists, picking a single person is almost always the wrong idea.  Especially, when the process of creating a comic character is often the result of a many issues of trial and error and character evolution.  

Which is why (3) the sum in DC/Marvel comics is usually better than the parts. 

Focusing on the ravings of a fairly bitter and wacko creator who was obsessed with Ayn Rand is probably not the best methodology for trying to find truth.  Real historians don't try to fit the evidence to their desired conclusions, they follow where the evidence leads them.

 

I didn't really look into it as deeply as you did. I looked at the title, recognized a couple of these essays, and the discussion kind of flowed from it. I know when I wrote to Steve Ditko, he really went out of his way to inform me that he didn't think about Spider-Man or his past work, and that he was only concerned about what was next. That he had moved on. I've found numerous contradictions of what he told me over the years in a number of works he had written well after he had left Marvel, and thought it was kind of interesting that Chuck and others might have noticed the same. That is all I got from the post. 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,212 posts
2 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I didn't really look into it as deeply as you did. I looked at the title, recognized a couple of these essays, and the discussion kind of flowed from it. I know when I wrote to Steve Ditko, he really went out of his way to inform me that he didn't think about Spider-Man or his past work, and that he was only concerned about what was next. That he had moved on. I've found numerous contradictions of what he told me over the years in a number of works he had written well after he had left Marvel, and thought it was kind of interesting that Chuck and others might have noticed the same. That is all I got from the post. 2c

"I dont care about credit for spider man or anything else back then I was work for hire"
"Here's my 100 page treatise on me not getting credit for spider man and anything else back then-"
(shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,992 posts
41 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I don't bother entertaining arguments or even getting into the debates about Kirby's contributions. To me, the most telling fact pattern of mistreatment was how his original art was held hostage. TCJ's Michaeal Dean writes "the basis of the dispute starts with Kirby's longtime creative home, where he was asked to sign away all rights to the Marvel-published characters he had in fact created. As a coercive gesture, the company informed him that it would hold hostage all Kirby original art in its possession until he agreed to sign a special release form that was required of no other Marvel freelancer. Kirby refused to sign the document, and Marvel, in turn, refused to return his original art."  If that wasn't bad enough, Marvel did an awful job safeguarding his art after refusing to return it. So much art had walked out of the Marvel vault, that even if the artists decided they wanted nothing to do with signing the releases, their art had already walked out or was being sold. You read right, Marvel had been selling artwork by artists such as John Romita Sr., Rich Buckler, Joe Sinnot, Gil Kane, Sal Buscema and Barry Smith without the artists permission or knowledge. The stolen art situation got so bad that Greg Theakston urged Jim Shooter to get the police involved and to have the art dealers arrested for selling stolen merchandise, to which Shooter insisted at the time, he had no access to Irene Vartanoff's list, and really had no way to determine what had gone missing. Which was either selective memory or an outright lie, because Vartanoff's list was the most accurate record of what Marvel had in it's possession between 1975 through to 1980. She managed to track what was going missing during the time she was in charge of auditing Marvel's art, and the list would later be used in the protracted legal battle by Kirby's heirs to reclaim Jack Kirby's work.

Marvel, specifically Stan Lee, had plenty of opportunity to undo any wrong towards Jack, but decided not to by refusing to return his art when he asked for it.

will-eisner.jpg.526e4238a6eb75c0cfdcf04048f64c0d.jpg

 

 

You state Marvel was selling the artwork. I've never heard that before. I know they'd occasionally give away a page now and then but can you show where Marvel was selling it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,275 posts
2 minutes ago, shadroch said:

You state Marvel was selling the artwork. I've never heard that before. I know they'd occasionally give away a page now and then but can you show where Marvel was selling it?

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.

letter_from_Marvel.jpg.69a7171161f04658244f63c750fddac6.jpg

marvel-list.jpg.7674badf42dbd3d295527843188d8f11.jpg

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.

WAG.jpg.6a187298f5ad40753d2a78ca10fa0bd5.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,598 posts

Wow. Great information. Never knew about any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,992 posts

What is being ignored is that Marvel Comics changed hands several times between the period where The Work in question and the art was on. 

If I buy a business, any obligation the old owner had to a former employee stays with him unless its in the sale contract. KIrby wasn't a key Marvel employee when New World owned it. Nor when Ron Perlman owned it or when it emerged from bankruptcy or when Disney owned it.

Its pretty obvious Disney had no legal obligation to pay the Kirby's or Ditko's of the world.  Stan also was an employee. Picture yourself walking into your new bosses office and trying to extract payments for work done years ago by someone no longer employed there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591 posts
On 2/14/2020 at 4:41 PM, jason4 said:

He sounds a little bit deranged. I dont know...I dont get why he wouldnt do much for his fans either all those years.

He responded to all fan mail sent to him. If anyone wants to read his letter to me, let me know and I will post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,627 posts
8 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

someone by the name of Joe Krolik

Whoever this mysterious person may be, I'm sure he's beloved by all in the comic collecting hobby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:insane:

 

lollollol

 

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,212 posts

"I work for a boss that takes credit for all my ideas!"
"Quit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,598 posts
40 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Three observations: (1) I'm finding this thread by Chuck Gower more than a bit ironic.  Ditko took issue with Kirby for claiming credit for creating Spider-man.  Yet, over on GA, Gower has put a thread accusing Stan Lee of stealing credit for Kirby's ideas.  Probably, the right view is to realize that these guys all had their issues and none were perfect.  No need to have derangement syndrome about any of them. 

Two incorrect observations. Ditko did not take issue with Kirby taking credit for creating Spider-man. He understood where that came from. He takes issue with STAN saying the same synopsis for Spider-man that he gave both of them created two completely different creations.

And secondly, I didn't accuse anyone of stealing anyone's ideas. I read an article of someone who made some claims and I thought it was interesting. So I posted it there, where I thought others would be interested in reading it and discussing it. That's what a forum is for. 

Quote

Because ... (2) there are always more than two sides to a story.  if you are true academic (and Gower has claimed he's some sort of historian)

The guy who wrote is referred to by others as a FF Historian, I simply was posting what had been written. 

Quote

, you realize that the truth is usually not an either/or.  It's shades of gray.  And when it comes to who is the "creator" of a corporate product that is worked on by writers, pencillers, inkers, and colorists, picking a single person is almost always the wrong idea.  Especially, when the process of creating a comic character is often the result of a many issues of trial and error and character evolution.

Where is anyone denying that? That's something the Stan Lee fans have made up in their head. The issue here is the posting of information - no one is claiming it to be the endsum of whatever - it just butthurts the Stan Lee sycophants ever time the guy is ever questioned. 

Quote

Which is why (3) the sum in DC/Marvel comics is usually better than the parts. 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Something I say a lot, but something NO ONE has ever said to ME on these boards. 

Quote

Focusing on the ravings of a fairly bitter and wacko creator who was obsessed with Ayn Rand is probably not the best methodology for trying to find truth.

Right. The 'Talk down the person' angle. Classy.

Quote

Real historians don't try to fit the evidence to their desired conclusions, they follow where the evidence leads them.

How ironic, that's exactly what you just did.

Edited by Chuck Gower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,598 posts

Man, this thread has set my new record for putting people on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,235 posts
1 hour ago, kav said:

Compare the writing of typical Kirby solo book with any FF Lee story.  If anyone thinks the writing is equally good I cant help them.

RCO009_1466675524.jpg

RCO007_1466675524.jpg

RCO011_1464519853.jpg

 

RCO042_1464519853.jpg

Thanks ..... this is the best post to prove a point in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,598 posts
1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Who says Stevey didn't have a sense of humor? It may be dark, but it's still funny. Here he makes a case for Goodman as the visionary behind the Marvel Universe, based upon Stan's own words.

Ditko003a.jpeg

LOL. I just read the beginning of this and... man how ironic. 

"It is a crucial fundamental issue between the real world of facts and a mind, the type of mind that has no respect for the real world, a mind that is anti-mind (anti-reason).

This is why Ditko's essays fascinate me - he's not looking for money - he's not even looking for credit - he couldn't care LESS about how he's perceived by me or you or anyone. His issue is the TRUTH. What is real. What is actually being said vs what actually happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,212 posts
1 minute ago, 1950's war comics said:

Thanks ..... this is the best post to prove a point in this thread

I didnt have to go searching either I just picked 2 books I like.  Yes I like Kirby's goofy writing-but no way I would say it was equal to Stan Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,212 posts
3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

LOL. I just read the beginning of this and... man how ironic. 

"It is a crucial fundamental issue between the real world of facts and a mind, the type of mind that has no respect for the real world, a mind that is anti-mind (anti-reason).

This is why Ditko's essays fascinate me - he's not looking for money - he's not even looking for credit - he couldn't care LESS about how he's perceived by me or you or anyone. His issue is the TRUTH. What is real. What is actually being said vs what actually happened. 

I find his use of commas between synonyms annoying.  "This table is big, large, giant, huge-"
WTH

Share this post


Link to post
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
6 6