Ditko's estate... 6 6

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

I disagree with you on this topic and I will use a facet of my own past and current life as an example.  When I was embarking on my career I looked into the benefits of one career path versus another.  I entered into a profession that did not pay as much as my peers but I reap the benefits from once I retire.   Sure, a few of my friends travel around the globe, they drive amazing automobiles, own large primary homes and vacation residences among other things that most people "want."  I traded that life off for one where i get to retire in a little more than twelve years and I will be WELL taken care of in my retirement.  I will be young enough in my retirement to do whatever I want.  In fact, I could have accepted a deal that allowed me to retire at 52 instead of 55. 

No one held a gun to Ditko's or Kirby's head when it came to CHOOSING their career path.  They chose to do something they enjoyed but understood the trade off. They understood the deals that they made.  In post WWII America there was far more opportunity than there is now especially for Kirby who was a veteran.  If he found the deal unsatisfying he could have easily embarked on an entirely different career path or switched to working for another company which both artists did.  They sought out the best deals that the could find offered at the time for their line of work.  That's the deal they made when they decided to work for Marvel.

I firmly believe that while Ditko was extremely talented and Kirby was extremely talented, that neither would have been great without the Marvel machine.  

Really????

Will Eisner was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Jack Davis was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Harvey Kurtzman was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Wally Wood was great, long before and long after his Marvel work. Kirby produced great work before Marvel and after Marvel.

The truth is, MARVEL wouldn't be here without those two. What did Stan Lee create without Jack and Steve? Anything that wasn't tied TO something created by Jack and Steve?

Go to this web address: http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/newsstand.php?type=calendar&month=8&year=1958&publisher=marvel&sort=alpha&checklist=null

(It’s the great web site index by Mike Voiles)

August 1958. Marvel produced NOTHING. They were going out of business. The months leading up to it were mostly inventory stories. They were DEAD.

Now click one month ahead. Jack Kirby created Tales of Suspense #1, Tales to Astonish #1 and Strange Worlds #1. Along with a lesser known artist named Steve Ditko, they helped kick start Marvel back to life, introduce the Monster faze at Marvel, and eventually the Superheroes of the Silver Age.

They saved Stan Lee. They saved Marvel.

I get where you’re coming from but this doesn’t coincide with too many people’s personal examples.

[Prince Namor]

53 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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.

1

Two of my favorite boardies I get to discuss comics with today! (And I mean that.)

The great talents were finding their way into other forms WAY before 2018. John Romita got tired of Stan Lee and went into advertising art for a while. Neal Adams, Mike Plogg, Barry Windsor-Smith... and plenty of others.

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.

53 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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.

3

No, Kirby was very much about the future, hence his creative imagination. Remember, he was the one who, as the industry was trying to woo Hollywood, said, "Someday they're going to come to US for stories." Kirby was a lot like many offsprings of immigrants who grew up in poor neighborhoods and had acheived enough to own a home in nicer neighborhood - scared of ever falling back. 

53 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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.

[NoMan]

9 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

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.

 

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. 

[Prince Namor]

17 minutes 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.

[Buzzetta]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Really????

Will Eisner was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Jack Davis was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Harvey Kurtzman was great, he didn't need Marvel or DC. Wally Wood was great, long before and long after his Marvel work. Kirby produced great work before Marvel and after Marvel.

The truth is, MARVEL wouldn't be here without those two. What did Stan Lee create without Jack and Steve? Anything that wasn't tied TO something created by Jack and Steve?

Go to this web address: http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/newsstand.php?type=calendar&month=8&year=1958&publisher=marvel&sort=alpha&checklist=null

(It’s the great web site index by Mike Voiles)

August 1958. Marvel produced NOTHING. They were going out of business. The months leading up to it were mostly inventory stories. They were DEAD.

Now click one month ahead. Jack Kirby created Tales of Suspense #1, Tales to Astonish #1 and Strange Worlds #1. Along with a lesser known artist named Steve Ditko, they helped kick start Marvel back to life, introduce the Monster faze at Marvel, and eventually the Superheroes of the Silver Age.

They saved Stan Lee. They saved Marvel.

I get where you’re coming from but this doesn’t coincide with too many people’s personal examples.

Davis and Kurtzman were the Ditko and Kirby of EC Comics as far as I am concerned. 

I doubt I am going to change your mind but here is my basic thoughts on the matter. 

If you wanted to draw for a living from the 1930's to 1970's then you did so with the understanding that your publisher owned the creations that you made.  If you disagree with that then you could venture out on your own or don't draw.   We romanticize these creators because their ideas became iconic characters to which we enjoy almost 80 years later in some cases.  However, at the end of the day, I personally view them as mere cogs in the machine. 

Maybe it is my personal views on artists and art in this hobby that influence my words.  For example I was introduced to 'artwork' from collecting Disney animation.  With animation collecting, it is character driven rather than artist driven.  Even in my own comic art collecting, I am more likely to chase a dynamic page of a character rather than a specific artist's rendition as shown in a page attached to this post that is currently hanging in my living room. 

Kirby and Ditko knew what they were getting into.  At the end of the day they had a choice to make.  If they found their choice so disagreeable they would have done something else. 

I will add to my above story.  I dislike where I work and normally I seek a transfer to work somewhere else in the city.  However I do like certain things that go along with where I work.  I like the neighborhood and the commute. As much as I would like to transfer out, I weigh my options and after reviewing them concede that I am better off where I am.   We are all stuck in positions that we find less than perfect.  I weighed my options and Kirby and Ditko had the opportunity to do the same.  They made their choices as I have made mine. 

 

[Prince Namor]

6 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Davis and Kurtzman were the Ditko and Kirby of EC Comics as far as I am concerned. 

I doubt I am going to change your mind but here is my basic thoughts on the matter. 

If you wanted to draw for a living from the 1930's to 1970's then you did so with the understanding that your publisher owned the creations that you made.  If you disagree with that then you could venture out on your own or don't draw.   We romanticize these creators because their ideas became iconic characters to which we enjoy almost 80 years later in some cases.  However, at the end of the day, I personally view them as mere cogs in the machine. 

Maybe it is my personal views on artists and art in this hobby that influence my words.  For example I was introduced to 'artwork' from collecting Disney animation.  With animation collecting, it is character driven rather than artist driven.  Even in my own comic art collecting, I am more likely to chase a dynamic page of a character rather than a specific artist's rendition as shown in a page attached to this post that is currently hanging in my living room. 

Kirby and Ditko knew what they were getting into.  At the end of the day they had a choice to make.  If they found their choice so disagreeable they would have done something else. 

I will add to my above story.  I dislike where I work and normally I seek a transfer to work somewhere else in the city.  However I do like certain things that go along with where I work.  I like the neighborhood and the commute. As much as I would like to transfer out, I weigh my options and after reviewing them concede that I am better off where I am.   We are all stuck in positions that we find less than perfect.  I weighed my options and Kirby and Ditko had the opportunity to do the same.  They made their choices as I have made mine. 

 

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...

 

[Buzzetta]

3 minutes 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...

 

I don't think that is what it is.  I work hard for what I have and am proud of it.  However at the end of the day these characters have transcended their creators. Spider-man is more important than Ditko or even Stan Lee. This is not the Mona Lisa where DaVinci's name is forever attached.  This the nature of this specific genre. Ditko stopped working on Spider-man after 39 issues including AF15 at issue 38.  Spider-man did not die off in sales.  If anything, he became even more popular once Romita took over the art chores.  I do not view comic books as a creator driven medium. I view it as a character driven medium.

For example, when it comes to art.  I would prefer a published page of art of a dynamic representation of a character from a not so well known artist rather than a lackluster representation of a character crafted by a well known artist.   For example, I have the resources to buy a Curt Swan or a John Byrne Superman page.  At the end of the day, this was the page that made my eyes light up and is hanging in my living room.  When people come into my home they know who Superman is.  They do not know who Curt Swan or John Byrne is... and to tell the truth... they really do not need to.   

I understand where you are coming from, and you have a couple of valid points.  However I disagree with it though and perhaps that is not because of my outlook on life itself (as you may think) but how I view this specific medium. 

[Logan510]

You should've used the resources on a Byrne or Swan page.

[Logan510]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:58 AM, RCheli said:

I suspect that Ditko was getting decent royalty checks for his work that was being reprinted by Marvel, DC, and other companies. I don't believe he has refused payment for that. His Spider-Man and Dr. Strange stories have been constantly in print over the past few decades, and while it's not huge money and not anywhere near the rate one would get for new pages, it was something. 

I don't know if this is entirely true. John Byrne said years ago on AOL that he made more money from the Essential reprints of his X-Men work than he did when he originally drew those pages.

[fastballspecial]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

1 hour 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.

 

[Buzzetta]

41 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

You should've used the resources on a Byrne or Swan page.

I disagree... It's no secret I am always looking for GI Joe art when I go to shows.  I have watched some dealers price certain artists above others because of the artist.  Gotta be honest, if I am shopping for a GI Joe page, I am not shopping for the artist nor do I care.  I am looking for specific characters.  This is a page I picked up this year of Clutch, which is perhaps the most dynamic page of Clutch in the entire run.  To be honest, as I type this I forget who the artist is.  It doesn't matter to me.  GI Joe is a character driven storyline rather than an artist driven one.   I would much rather have this, than a say a Trimpe page of random vehicles and the back of people's legs as they are looking at something. 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Buzzetta

[Ryan.]

Objectivists are definitely not anti-money.

[500Club]

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.

Edited September 1, 2018 by 500Club
Can’t fix the bolding

[500Club]

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.

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

I disagree... It's no secret I am always looking for GI Joe art when I go to shows.  I have watched some dealers price certain artists above others because of the artist.  Gotta be honest, if I am shopping for a GI Joe page, I am not shopping for the artist nor do I care.  I am looking for specific characters.  This is a page I picked up this year of Clutch, which is perhaps the most dynamic page of Clutch in the entire run.  To be honest, as I type this I forget who the artist is.  It doesn't matter to me.  GI Joe is a character driven storyline rather than an artist driven one.   I would much rather have this, than a say a Trimpe page of random vehicles and the back of people's legs as they are looking at something. 

 

I was being flippant. I would never tell anyone how to spend their own money or tell them what they can or can't like.

Even in this thread we have a guy whose anti Stan Lee rhetoric is so annoying, that people used to ask me years ago if he was Mark Evanier using a sock puppet  And I would never feel like I have the right to tell him he can't think what he wants.

 

 

[Logan510]

13 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.

[500Club]

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.

[500Club]

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I always find it amusing when people bash Claremont for being "too wordy" and yet worship at the altar of Alan Moore 

Because Alan Moore can write dialogue that sounds like something actual human beings would say, rather than the trite, hackneyed soap opera exchanges that Claremont favors.

 

[Logan510]

Just now, 500Club said:

It’s not so much Claremont being too wordy, it’s more his occasional expository dialogue that is completely redundant to the art.

Oh, I agree with that. He wasn't a perfect writer, but I have very fond memories of his work and in particular his ability to write very strong female characters.