500Club

5 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

12 hours ago, 500Club said:

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?’.

 Did you really think I was interested in getting into a "here's what I read, now show me what you have?" I know what your position is regarding Kirby and Ditko. Also know that you've reiterated your position and will probably continue to do so. Disagree based on what I know and have read about Kirby and Ditko. And my response is "akin" to knowing that much more empirical evidence is required since there probably haven't been any specific studies on the labor - management dynamics that existed in comic book publications during the '50s & 60s (at least I'm not aware of any). This would help us in getting more information. These thread discussions aren't always about "I'm right and you're wrong." 

Yes, actually.  That’s how I learn, and, in fact, based on the information, may be inclined to alter my position.  I’d be really interested to read about any views Kirby and Ditko put forth while dealing with Marvel in the early 60s, in the vein of ‘I want more because I feel these characters and stories I’m creating will be hugely finiancially successful in the future.’

Plus, I just love reading about the history of comics.

13 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I try not to let people dig through the trash to find their treasures. "  "

That’s a very concise post.  I can’t believe Chuck called you wordy. 

34 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

One man's treasure is another man's trash 

I’d be hard pressed to call Claremont’s work trash. 

I am willing to dock him a few points for dialogue and hanging plot threads, though...

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

5 hours ago, 500Club said:

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.

Yes.

Ditko's whole point was that HE was the real writer of Spider-man, and thus should get credit AND compensation for such. Eventually, Stan caved in and gave him the co-writer credit, but NOT the financial compensation, which he pushed off on Goodman. This was a major point of contention between Stan and Steve. Stan even said in a Bullpen Bulletin about Doctor Strange that it was Steve's idea completely - yet right there on the published page - written by Stan Lee - which meant that HE got paid as the writer - despite not writing it - and Ditko did NOT. 

Ditko tried to get Kirby to leave when he did - but Kirby had a family to support and didn't want to take the risk - his time at DC had been marked by a bad relationship with... was it Weisinger? And he feared having to go back there - nobody else paid enough... Kirby had just finished the Galactus trilogy (another storyline written by the artist - where Stan has openly admitted to just telling Jack "the FF meet God" and Kirby did the rest) and created the Black Panther, and instead stayed and treaded ground for a few years before he'd finally leave.

But they felt they deserved to be paid more because they contributed more...

You’ve misinterpreted my post above.  It’s a post to bronzejohnny responding to his assertion that Kirby and Ditko, in the early 60s, sought different forms of recompense from Marvel, over and above work-for-hire, based on their view of future success of their creations.  My supposition is, in 1963, these guys had no possible inkling as to the worldwide iconic status these creations would ascend to over the coming decades.

I agree with your post, that the work-for-hire payments weren’t divided properly, based on the work that was being done, but that’s a side point, off on a tangent from the initial points about selling your creative process in the work-for-hire setting, and then expecting a bigger slice when the sold creation succeeds beyond all expectation.

Interestingly, you’ve circled right back to the points I made in my very first post on page 3 - the ‘derisking’ of the creative process by accepting a fixed payment in the work-for-hire setting, rather than the high risk associated with going it alone.

5 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

5 hours ago, 500Club said:

 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.

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?’.

38 minutes ago, bronze johnny said:

2 hours ago, 500Club said:

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...

 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.

4 minutes ago, bronze johnny said:

I'm not an expert in the history of labor relations in the private sector world of comic book publishing during the 1950s & 1960s so it's not clear to me how management treated employees and how artists approached getting work. Additionally, I'm not sure what the power of the employee compared to that of the employer was in 1963 where contract negotiations were at issue. My best guess is that employers had the advantage. That's the key issue when it comes to deciding whether Kirby and Ditko should be dismissed where subsequent compensation for their creations is concerned. I raised the question of using an attorney for contractual negotiations to make a point for anyone advocating that Kirby and Ditko willfully got themselves into their disposition as it relates to future compensation.

As for Kirby and Ditko just having a skill? Can't disagree with you more. A skill is something that can be taught. Kirby and Ditko had something that couldn't be taught- what puts them way above their contemporaries. What they each had was a gift. It's not so simple to say they had a choice when a gift like theirs is bestowed upon them. Moreover, Kirby was a visionary who saw things that others didn't. And Kirby, like other comic book artists, saw himself achieving more than comic books. By 1963, Kirby had been drawing comic books for more than two decades.

A point about options since it's not clear they had any. I'm not so sure Madison Avenue was ever an option for Jewish artists back then, nor would I embrace the idea that DC would be willing to pay more than competitors for artists back then. Interesting questions that require further investigation. 

What's sad and ironic about Ditko's estate has more to do with how the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange died  with so little wealth at a time when others (Do any have a connection to the comic book medium?) are reaping billions of dollars from his creations. 

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...

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Maybe I'm different... I've never looked at things as... I don't have what I want in life, so too bad if someone else doesn't. I wish everyone could have what they want in life.

The death of art in America. Forget who made it! Let's worry about buying and selling it as a commodity!

Man... I'm on the wrong forum I guess...

 

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.

4 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

19 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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 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.

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

And mainstream comics haven't JUST started sucking - I think they started back in the early 80's. I realize things like Secret Wars and Teen Titans or whatever is extremely popular on these boards (due to nostalgia mostly), but from a literary standpoint, those stories are just regurgitated ideas. There's very little that's original and truly creative - and especially in the case of Marvel - they're written in a - how can I put this - they're written almost like you're explaining something to a mentally challenged person.

Once I started reading novels, comics just seemed like kid stuff to me.

Hell, once I started reading Heavy Metal and National Lampoon, those comics seemed like kid stuff to me. Reading a Chris Claremont comic word for word has got to seem obnoxiously overkill to anyone who isn’t knee deep in nostalgia over it. People think RMA and myself can be long winded on here - gimme a break - Claremont could write a 100 word manifesto on Wolverine sneaking around a corner over three panels.

 Mainstream comics, in general, have sucked for a long time.

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.

1 hour ago, fastballspecial said:

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

2 hours ago, NoMan said:

oh, man. I've never read the Chric C. Xmen stuff and I just put together a 94-150 xmen run to finally read it and you say it sucks. 

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.

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Quote

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.

 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.

57 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

1 hour ago, 500Club said:

‘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.

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.

2 hours ago, bronze johnny said:

4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Stan has said that over the last year or so of Ditko's time on the book, he'd just drop off the pages and he wouldn't even know what he was getting. Yet 'Stan Lee' was still listed as the writer on the book. So it got even worse as far as the fair division of labor towards the end...

Mmmm.... man, I just can't disagree with everyone's assessment of this more.

First of all, look at the result. Where are the great creators in comics today?

They're working in other forms of media that compensate them for their talent, creativity, and... success. Comic Books got what it deserved for treating it's talent the way that it did. I'm surprised people even still read Marvel and DC, when really ALL it has going for it, is what these legendary creators gave them. 

Comic Books in the basic state are over simplified and kind of childish, but today’s comics are grotesquly incestuous in story and superficially grandiose in form, like a blurred copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy.... who is there to breathe life into it?

WHY would anyone be there to breathe life into it?

Is this really what everyone thinks is a successful business model?

I got MINE! F YOU! Is this really the American mentality toward greatness?

Stan did what a company man does - he promoted the face of the company as comics, and promised Jack and Steve better things to keep them around for as long as he could. Ditko saw through it and left, Kirby held out hope for longer, but eventually realized he’d been lied to as well.

Most of these early greats in comics were sons of immigrants who'd come to America with nothing... they weren't business savvy - they were artists.

But to hell with it… it’s all about the profit of the company. Let’s put kids back to work - they should KNOW better - and pay anyone we can less than we have to.

Those sweatshops work out well in third world countries… if those people don’t like it, they should start their own company! Let ‘em eat cake!

Comics, and their fans, have gotten exactly what they deserve.

Watered down garbage, created by people who'll never give there best to an ungrateful corporation.

 

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.

3 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I also don't think you can just blame it on his Objectivist views; I've never heard of another Objectivist with such antipathy towards money. He just was who he was and, for better or worse, stayed true to that. 

‘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.

2 hours ago, lighthouse said:

The one genuine highlight has been Immortal Hulk. I have no idea if the story can maintain the current momentum, and whether there's enough runway there (or whether CB "don't call me Akira" is enough of a fool to yank Ewing off of it), but so far it looks like the story that is going to vault Al Ewing into being THE top writer working at Marvel today.

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.

36 minutes ago, SBRobin said:

Did Marvel pay their artists royalties when they were wage employees?

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. 

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:10 AM, Artboy99 said:

Re: art compensation comments.

I have long wondered why it matters who created the character.

I have worked as an artist for over 30 years. I once worked for a company that created costumes, character "logos" and mascots that represented companies. I was paid a wage for my creations and my art ( it is called work for hire). If some company took the character I created for them, and then marketed it and earned billions from doing so good for them. I don't really care what someone does with something they paid me for.

Did Mr. Ditko feel the same way? Perhaps...

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.

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:16 AM, Mr bla bla said:

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:10 AM, Artboy99 said:

Re: art compensation comments.

I have long wondered why it matters who created the character.

I have worked as an artist for over 30 years. I once worked for a company that created costumes, character "logos" and mascots that represented companies. I was paid a wage for my creations and my art ( it is called work for hire). If some company took the character I created for them, and then marketed it and earned billions from doing so good for them. I don't really care what someone does with something they paid me for.

Did Mr. Ditko feel the same way? Perhaps...

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.'

13 hours ago, Mecha_Fantastic said:

They were a lot harder to get here. I couldn't get any here through my LCS, and they're the biggest in the country. Plus the issue itself was about $10 anyway, iirc, so getting 4 variants, particularly Lau's, for just $50 is a very good deal. 

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.

31 minutes ago, divad said:

When did y'all start calling this a printing defect? It's not. It's once again, the seam imprint from the stoopid poly-bag. 

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

2 hours ago, jools&jim said:

The difference between this modern, homogeneous post-animé rubbish and Kirby and Ditko's work is that Kirby and Ditko were, among many other things, highly individual stylists...idiosyncratic visionaries who had something to say artistically.

Most contemporary mainstream hero stuff looks the same to me, and is boring as hell -- I can't tell one artist from another.  It's almost as if the publishers are afraid of giving a book to someone who might have a unique point of view.

It may be "modern" and pass muster with the teenie-bopper crowd, but that sure as hell doesn't make it any good.

And so we get what we get...insipidity disguised as "the latest thing".  But I guess people are buying this cr@p, so who cares what I think...

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.

1 hour ago, Lonzilla said:

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2015 at 6:37 AM, Lonzilla said:

Cage Max set may get a Netflix bump.

Bloodstone #1, Elsa is going to end up on a screen somewhere

Deadpool MWAM #7 1st Lady Deadpool because Gwenpool needs a nemesis

Deadpool (2008) #19 - 1st Hit Monkey - James Gunn wants to do a movie badly

Nemesis set - Movie is coming, then it isn't, when it is again look out

Almost 3 years later. I was right on a couple of them. I still believe in Nemesis

Just wait longer.  Still potential there.

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

3 hours ago, ComicCollectorMatt said:

Lots of old guys here. Seems you all are grumpy because the new generation is pushing you out. Nobody listens to your logic anymore

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.