Ditko Spidey Splash - your for $100K

[Boboset]

yeah I think so too. I am 34. guys four years younger than me weren't really into comics when they were kids. My wave was pretty much the last hurrah

 

I disagree. I'm 30 and EVERYONE in my circle of friends collected comics up until 92/93 and I wasn't even a geek (well, maybe a little...). Almost everyone I know has a short box full of Valiant/Spawn/McFarlane Spider-Man in their parents' attic.

 

Now I do have a good friend who is 26 and has probably never owned a comic in his life, so the cutoff is somewhere around there, but it's definitely a little later than you think...

 

Why does it appeat everyone in 92/93 suddenly realized comics had become ?

 

because it ten years for them to realize that's all they had become by then

 

Absolutely. Because because DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was . As was CRISIS. And WATCHMEN. And SANDMAN. And MAUS. Yup, comics were absolutely terrible once they moved away from having every sentence end with an exclamation point.

 

Please remember that this is coming from a guy who absolutely loves the Golden Age, and respects the arc that comics have taken from the 1930's until today. If you really want to get deep, this guy respects the arc pictorial storytelling has taken from wall paintings, to Goya, to Migliari.

 

I'm not quite sure why there appears to be a need to dismiss time periods other than those one is the most familiar with. Every childhood has its corresponding memories, every age its heroes. There should be no need to trash any of it in order to put one's own perspective of nostalgia on a pedestal.

I totally agree but I think this generation will have an abundance of bad art. More so than any other time period the early 90s till now have produced lots on underisable stuff. There’s been so many different comics published during that time you know it's true. But every generation has the influential books. The eighties had The Dark Knight Returns when the nineties had The Death of Superman. The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn. That does'nt mean it won't be valuable or that it's worthless as collectable art.

 

 

I loved writing this line btw:

The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn.

[jjonahjameson1]

... The eighties had The Dark Knight Returns when the nineties had The Death of Superman. The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn. That does'nt mean it won't be valuable or that it's worthless as collectable art.

 

 

I loved writing this line btw:

The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn.

 

Sure, but the 90's also had Bone, Strangers in Paradise and other excellent non-superhero titles.

[Boboset]

... The eighties had The Dark Knight Returns when the nineties had The Death of Superman. The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn. That does'nt mean it won't be valuable or that it's worthless as collectable art.

 

 

I loved writing this line btw:

The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn.

 

Sure, but the 90's also had Bone, Strangers in Paradise and other excellent non-superhero titles.

Very true. It's hard for me to focus outside the superhero genre sometimes.

[CollectingFool]

Absolutely. Because because DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was . As was CRISIS. And WATCHMEN. And SANDMAN. And MAUS. Yup, comics were absolutely terrible once they moved away from having every sentence end with an exclamation point.

 

For someone who is invoking the term "pictorial storytelling" you're missing one important point. The STORY has to be worth telling. Watchmen, Sandman, Maus all won awards because of the story. You may not like the art but in my opinion I'd rather read a comic with a good story to tell than look at some pretty pictures telling the same recycled "guy with cape beats up bad guy and shows good triumphs over evil".

 

I don't recall any specific glaring examples of bad sequential storytelling in these books. It's not like we're talking about the Liefeld/McFarlane school of storytelling where splashes rule and hyper-detail can make up for anatomy/perspective/frame continuity issues.

 

 

[Mighty Hal]

For someone who is invoking the term "pictorial storytelling" you're missing one important point. The STORY has to be worth telling.

 

The story has always driven comic art. I've never been impressed by the artwork alone in WATCHMEN. It's perfectly serviceable, it does its job, but it's only magical because of the storyline that drives it. Would I love a page from WATCHMEN? Absolutely. Do I want one of Dave Gibbons' GREEN LANTERN pages? Not so much.

 

If Ditko had only drawn romance comics, would anyone here care about his OA?

[CollectingFool]

If Ditko had only drawn romance comics, would anyone here care about his OA?

 

I give Ditko a little more credit (Kirby too!). They were making up the story as they went, not just drawing according to a -script. I'm amazed by artists and the talent they show in interpreting scripts and making them visual. Ditko and Kirby on many titles went way beyond that. They created the story with only the semblance of a framework and then Stan put the dialog in. I feel Spider-man is more a creation of Ditko than it is of Lee. Same thing with FF and Kirby. You can find examples of both their art where they were acting in the traditional "comic artist" role. The comics where they shine are the ones where they were also telling the story.

 

 

[clemso]

If Ditko had only drawn romance comics, would anyone here care about his OA?

 

I give Ditko a little more credit (Kirby too!). They were making up the story as they went, not just drawing according to a -script. I'm amazed by artists and the talent they show in interpreting scripts and making them visual. Ditko and Kirby on many titles went way beyond that. They created the story with only the semblance of a framework and then Stan put the dialog in. I feel Spider-man is more a creation of Ditko than it is of Lee. Same thing with FF and Kirby. You can find examples of both their art where they were acting in the traditional "comic artist" role. The comics where they shine are the ones where they were also telling the story.

 

 

Also both their styles were unique, who could have possibly imagined the mystic realms that Ditko drew or the enormous cosmic machinery that Kirby consistently used in his stories.

 

clem

[vodou]

If Ditko had only drawn romance comics, would anyone here care about his OA?

Not too many people would care, but the style would still be distinctive enough to stand out to - and be collected by - folks into vintage romance art..folks like me

[bluechip]

yeah I think so too. I am 34. guys four years younger than me weren't really into comics when they were kids. My wave was pretty much the last hurrah

 

I disagree. I'm 30 and EVERYONE in my circle of friends collected comics up until 92/93 and I wasn't even a geek (well, maybe a little...). Almost everyone I know has a short box full of Valiant/Spawn/McFarlane Spider-Man in their parents' attic.

 

Now I do have a good friend who is 26 and has probably never owned a comic in his life, so the cutoff is somewhere around there, but it's definitely a little later than you think...

 

Why does it appeat everyone in 92/93 suddenly realized comics had become ?

 

because it ten years for them to realize that's all they had become by then

 

Absolutely. Because because DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was . As was CRISIS. And WATCHMEN. And SANDMAN. And MAUS. Yup, comics were absolutely terrible once they moved away from having every sentence end with an exclamation point.

 

Please remember that this is coming from a guy who absolutely loves the Golden Age, and respects the arc that comics have taken from the 1930's until today. If you really want to get deep, this guy respects the arc pictorial storytelling has taken from wall paintings, to Goya, to Migliari.

 

I'm not quite sure why there appears to be a need to dismiss time periods other than those one is the most familiar with. Every childhood has its corresponding memories, every age its heroes. There should be no need to trash any of it in order to put one's own perspective of nostalgia on a pedestal.

I totally agree but I think this generation will have an abundance of bad art. More so than any other time period the early 90s till now have produced lots on underisable stuff. There’s been so many different comics published during that time you know it's true. But every generation has the influential books. The eighties had The Dark Knight Returns when the nineties had The Death of Superman. The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn. That does'nt mean it won't be valuable or that it's worthless as collectable art.

 

 

I loved writing this line btw:

The eighties had Maus and the nineties had Spawn.

 

I talk to people now and then who never really read comics but nonetheless think it would be cool to have a first appearance or some key issue for characters they have come to love in other mediums.

Compared to comics collectors there may be comparatively few people who collect early "Amazing Stories" or the pulps (like the 1st app of Tarzan) but compare that to the number who read new pulps (near zero).

[westform]

Did this splash sell? I can't find it on Comiclink anymore?