500Club

My positions are always based on what I've read and studied about the history of comics. I'm also clear about what's not available in the historical record. A great deal still has to be written about the history of comics. The questions related to Ditko's estate is one chapter in comic book history that will be open to interpretation since the empirical evidence is very limited. My response was something of a lead in, to allow you to state what you’ve read, and where. My position is, Kirby and Ditko were wage for hire, and didn’t take any sort of negotiating position based on some perception of the likely future success of the creations. Your response is akin to stating ‘studies have shown...’, to which I always think, ‘oh, yeah, what studies and where?’.

 Kirby and Ditko's consideration of future compensation is where we differ in opinion.  You think they did? I’ve never read anything that would lead me to believe that. Have you? Everything I’ve read about comics in the formative years at Marvel led to my above profile of comics as a disposable medium.

I don’t think Kirby or Ditko considered future compensation in 1963. At the time, they were producing a disposable form of entertainment, for 8-12 year olds. Comics were expected to be enjoyed, and probably weren’t assigned much more utility than the daily newspapers. There were no TPBs, no their media for the characters, and comic fandom was embryonic at best. Skill? Gift? Pure genius? I’m referring to their place in the industry (see my above post) and not to their creativity. On a creative level, I’d agree with talent, gift, or genius...

Nah. Despite debating these points, I think we all love the creators who gave us each our ‘Golden Age’ of comics. For me, that was Byrne, Perez and Miller. It was probably Adams for the generation before, and Kirby, Ditko and Lee before. I think this hobby loves its creators probably as much or more than any other. You’re on the right forum.

 I always find it amusing when people bash Claremont for being "too wordy" and yet worship at the altar of Alan Moore  Not saying that's happening here, but I've seen it several times. It’s not so much Claremont being too wordy, it’s more his occasional expository dialogue that is completely redundant to the art.

I’d go with the 90’s. I agree with your overall point, though. The problem is, once you have a fixed set of characters and mythos, after a certain amount of time, it’s tough to not regurgitate ideas. I think it was Agatha Christie who said there are only seven basic stories. Novels? That’s moving from checkers to chess. The constraints of twenty page issues make it very hard for the comic medium to match the nuances of a good novel. It can be done; sequencing of panels, colouring, facial expression etc,etc give comics some sophisticated storytelling tools. It’s just very hard to do.

It depends on what you like. If you grew up reading nothing but Stan Lee 'written' comics, it won't seem so bad. If you're a modern reader, you may want to brings some aspirin. That's stretching it a bit. There are storylines in there that are still voted some of the best of all time. Dark Phoenix and Days of the Future Past. Some of the art will be fantastic with Byrne early stuff. Cockrum not so much, but still well worth reading. If anything it will make you appreciate the comic medium much more. Chuck is right that some of Claremont’s dialogue is really unwieldy. It used to really annoy Byrne, who used to say (paraphrase) ‘I already drew that right there, why do you have to write it?’ Nevertheless, you’ll really enjoy the run, especially 125-143.

 I can't agree with you there. Every superhero movie I see was because of them or inspired by them. That's not just a simple worker. Looking at it from the perspective of the industry at the time, they were simply workers. Cogs in the machine, as Buzzetta put it. Comics were lowbrow entertainment produced for kids. The creators were the workers that churned the product out. The creative genius involved was not really recognized as such until the rise of organized fandom later into the Sixties, and then the Seventies.

I'm just saying that people attribute a lot more to his Objectivist beliefs than is warranted. A lot of it was just his personality and personal values. Other Objectivists in his shoes would not have necessarily made the same life choices he did. Oh, I agree, and in fact, more is made of Objectivism than it deserves, in that it's simply at its core, a natural state of being true to yourself and your personality. Most Objectivists, and people in general, would have valued money more and seclusion less, but Steve had different values, and he lived true to them.

Bravo! Agree and I will add to the point you made about how Kirby and Ditko weren't business savvy in relation to "work for hire," especially given the time period they lived in. Does anyone believe these guys had attorneys sitting next to them when they read and signed these contracts? Did these guys even retain attorneys back then? It's easy to say that they should have gotten attorneys back then to review the contract - be interesting to see how Marvel and other companies would have viewed that back then. Think about the time they lived in and the fact that these guys were artists and not business men. Consider whether they really understood the long term consequences of work for hire. Also consider whether there were any other option for them back then- did comic book companies provide alternatives to work for hire arrangements? Easy to say that they could have just found something else- Madison Avenue? Back then when you didn't fit the ethnic and/or religious background? {b}Let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today to what things were like back then.{/b] Sadly, Kirby, Ditko, and many others had to go through their experiences in order that those who followed them reap the benefits of creator owned artwork. Indeed. And, yet, Chuck's whole post is written from a 2018 perspective. In fact, he relates the state of the industry today back to my initial post discussing how things were in 1963. Unfortunately, he's off base. The industry is the way it is today not due to creators' rights, but simply due to economics. We have at present an industry that simply cannot compete with other forms of entertainment, in terms of engagement and unit cost per hour. The average comic is $3.99. Netflix is $12/mo. Video games are $60. Many phone and tablet apps are free. That has led to declining sales, declining revenue, less ability to compete for and pay artistic talent, and thus, as Chuck notes, the great talents find better pay in other media. On to your post, and its 'did anyone consider...?' theme. Yes. I did. My whole post was based on the perspective of the work-for-hire artist in 1963. Not the 2018 fanboy, but the guy looking for work in 1963. So, would they have considered attorneys? Of course not. Their perspective would have been simply to get a job and be paid per page drawn. Maybe there was health and other benefits, but, let's face it, this was a hire as simple as some of our first summer jobs. Consider long term consequences of work for hire? Give me a break. In 1963, they're simply looking to get a job illustrating periodicals for 8-12 year olds. First, you'd have needed psychic powers to conceptualize where this would be in fifty years, and second, I suspect if you'd challenged Kirby to consider that far flung a future, he'd have said 'get lost, buddy, I have a family to provide for right now'. Consider whether there was any other option for them? No need. We all do it automatically, so they would have as well in 1963. If they could have gotten better pay at DC, or in advertising, I'm sure they would have. Bottom line: these guys were simply workers with a certain skill engaged in employment par for the standards of the time. As you say, let's not get caught up in drawing conclusions based on how things work today. In fact, there's probably employment dynamics today that no one is bemoaning, but, in fifty years, will be a topic of hot debate the same as this issue.

‘Blame’ is the wrong word. From Steve’s perspective, ‘credit’ is the way to look at it. As you say, he lived life true to himself. For him, unlike a lot of people, Objectivist or not, money wasn’t important.

No surprise. Immortal Hulk has captured the essence of what made the Hulk a popular character in the first place. In addition, single issue stories are being told.

Jim Shooter ushered in the royalty system at Marvel in the 80s, I believe, in a transition period where creators were standing up for their rights to a greater extent.

Two interesting lines of thought here. First, Ditko followed the philosophies of Ayn Rand. That led him to 'withdraw his services' from ASM, as he felt at the time he wasn't being compensated properly for the amount he was contributing to the title. Near the end of his run on ASM, Stan was apparently discussing plots and stories in very cursory terms, leaving Ditko to essentially flesh out and tell the stories with his art. That didn't seem to be a fair division of labor to Steve, when lined up with the relative compensation and acclaim being given. Randian Objectivism thus led Ditko to look out for his own interests, and leave ASM. In everything I've read, it wasn't the fact he was co-creator of Spidey that bothered Ditko, it was the fact that he was the de facto engine driving ASM at the end, while Stan was benefitting disproportionately from the success of the title. Secondly, I agree with you on the work-for-hire perspective. At the time, the creators entered into a contract where they provided a product, and the receiving company paid them for it. This contract was entered into because the creator didn't have the wherewithal to get his product to point of sale without the enterprise capital (preparation, printing, publishing, distributing) that the corporation provided. Occasionally, creators in various fields feel strongly enough about their creations that they split off from their work-for-hire contracts, and choose to supply all the capital required to produce and sell their product. This, of course, entails much more risk. Thus, choosing work-for-hire allows for a significant risk reduction, and a guaranteed return. It's much in vogue to bemoan the poor creators who had creations succeed beyond anyone's wildest beliefs, but, on the other side of the contract, how about the unsuccessful product that the companies paid for? You never hear about anyone asking for a clawback of payments, which would be the symmetrical response from the other side of the contract.

I think Mr. A will eventually get his time in the sunshine ... what a ferocious dude ... You need to respect the old adage: 'It is better to be thought a fool, that to open your mouth, and remove all doubt.'

Do you get Previews? Some LCSs are rather poor at plucking good cover variants out of the flood of monthly offerings and ordering them. You may need to pre order yourself.

No, no, not that... a lot of these books have an ink scratch/roller track mark on the front cover.

People aren’t ‘buying this ’ though. Sales are off. Somewhere, in the last 10-20 years, the essence of storytelling has gotten lost. Even the most lamentable of artists from the Bronze Age, like the afore mentioned Frank Robbins, understood using backgrounds, panel sequencing, and pacing to tell a story. This seems to have been lost in this era of muddy, stylistic artwork.

Almost 3 years later. I was right on a couple of them. I still believe in Nemesis Just wait longer. Still potential there.

Boy, is THAT the understatement of the new millenium... It's true...lots of people have no time for logic anymore. Whatever feels good...that's all that matters. Take your logic, your facts, your well reasoned arguments... and hit the trail, you grumpy old

The shelf life for hype and speculation is about 2-4 weeks nowadays.

Imparting, not ‘implying’ or ‘inferring’.

Read it today. Thought it was OK to good. Some of the familiar FF family elements were there. Agree it’s not a spec candidate. Also agree with the post stating Pichelli’s art wasn’t very good. It’s a far cry from her nice clean work on USM.

And that's why, just because CGC puts something on a label, it's not 'the word of God'.

It doesn't matter if CGC takes a view. As far as valuation goes, CGC is the tail. The comic buying market is the dog. As far as a literal first appearance, they're either there or they're not.