Ditko's estate... 6 6

[500Club]

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.

 

[500Club]

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...

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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...

I wouldn't call it trash either. I hate to see talented people denigrated.

IMHO Claremont's best work happened when he worked with artists who had a strong vision and contributed to the plots.

 

[500Club]

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. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, 500Club said:

1 hour 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. 

I know, right...? I just think it's funny when people get so easily offended on behalf of others, when those others wouldn't be offended themselves. I suppose it gives meaning to their lives.

Edited September 2, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

32 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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

I wouldn't. His dialogue is the worst. It's painful at times. Try reading X-Men #132, especially the page where Jean holds back Scott's eyebeams. It's painful how cheesy the dialogue is.

"Hush. No questions now, my love. No words."

 

[Logan510]

"It's a new world, Arcane...
It's full of shopping malls...
and striplights and software. The dark corners are being pushed back...
a little more every day.
We're things of the shadow, you and I...
And there isn't as much shadow...
as there used to be.."

Yep, master dialogue...

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, 500Club said:

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.

 

No, they had no way of knowing that those characters would be worth billions, no one did, BUT Marvel certainly knew that having ownerships of ideas as cheaply as possible was a key to THEIR success. Goodman was a guy who, during the pulp days had his editors take published books - change the title and the names of all the characters, and reprint them as if he owned them. He was caught doing this not once, but three times.

And Lee had some idea of their value, especially once Goodman gave him some stake in the business - as the 'creator' of all of these characters - and no longer with any artists' talented enough to do the work for him - he set off to Hollywood to try and sell rights to the studios where he could really profit from it.

[Prince Namor]

 

And for those having trouble following the adults having a conversation:

No one’s claiming the work-for-hire Marvel did was wrong. There’s certain work Kirby and Ditko did - they got paid for it. Simon and Kirby owned a studio at one time pumping out tons of romance books - they work for hired artists to do a lot of that work.

Nobody from that work for hire created Captain America or the Silver Surfer though.

And I’m not aware of anyone saying they were asked to do more than they were paid to do, or were promised money for building the studio up that they weren’t paid for or wrote the stories on top of having to draw them and only getting paid to draw. If any of those stories are quoted anywhere I’ll be glad to read them.

As far as Spider-man, I don’t know of anyone who believes Kirby created Spider-man (including Gary Groth who sure didn’t sound convinced in that interview***). The concept of a Spider MAN was thrown around for years, and Kirby and C.C. Beck and maybe even Joe Simon were talked about to work on a ‘Silver Spider’ character, but Kirby’s couples of pages (according to Ditko) were given to him and he rejected those ideas outright and created his own vision, minus any involvement from Stan Lee.

It’s important to note, that if Jack’s version, featuring a web gun and whole different world than we’d come to know was then transformed into what Ditko did - you have to wonder exactly what WAS Stan’s involvement, if any in the creation of the character.

So no one’s saying Kirby deserves ALL of the credit for creating the Marvel Universe. It just wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t come back to Marvel.

Kirby before Stan = Created Captain America with Joe Simon, the Romance genre of comics, and had a successful run of Golden Age titles for DC that him and Joe Simon created.

Stan before Kirby = created nothing that was successful. COPIED whatever was popular from other publishers.

Kirby after Lee = Created the Fourth World, which is still used at DC to this very day, as well as the Demon and continued to try and create new ideas well into his old age. He WAS a creator.

Lee after Kirby = created nothing that was successful. Became a salesman of an image.

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, 500Club said:

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...

Yes, let's not forget those hanging plot threads and hanging plot threads and hanging plot threads...

Claremont carried on a tradition of Marvel Silver Age ideas as outlined by RMA (team members who fought, characters with real lives), and took it even further in scope and vision....

But man, some things just never seemed to finish...

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I know, right...? I just think it's funny when people get so easily offended on behalf of others, when those others wouldn't be offended themselves. I suppose it gives meaning to their lives.

Yeah, I think one of the things that has kept Comic Art from becoming accepted as a true art form is it's 'fans' refusing to accept any sort of critical analysis. All accepted forms of creative art have it. 

[Ryan.]

4 hours ago, Logan510 said:

"It's a new world, Arcane...
It's full of shopping malls...
and striplights and software. The dark corners are being pushed back...
a little more every day.
We're things of the shadow, you and I...
And there isn't as much shadow...
as there used to be.."

Yep, master dialogue...

 

 

 

Swamp Thing was certainly a dramatic character. I like it though.

[Buzzetta]

I need to renew my Marvel Unlimited app to re-read those issues from my "later-in-life" standpoint.  

Edited September 2, 2018 by Buzzetta

[bronze johnny]

8 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." 

Edited September 2, 2018 by bronze johnny

[Logan510]

5 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Yeah, I think one of the things that has kept Comic Art from becoming accepted as a true art form is it's 'fans' refusing to accept any sort of critical analysis. All accepted forms of creative art have it. 

If by "critical analysis" you mean regurgitating the one sided ramblings of the Kirby sycophants, you have that down pat. As discussed earlier, so much so that people who were aware I knew you asked if you were a Mark Evanier sock puppet.

[tv horror]

I remember reading an article were Stan was addressing a doctor that was one of the early fans and in the letter he clearly states that Ditko is off creating a character using black magic! I don't remember him saying WE were creating?

Edited September 2, 2018 by tv horror

[Logan510]

5 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

 

And for those having trouble following the adults having a conversation:

No one’s claiming the work-for-hire Marvel did was wrong. There’s certain work Kirby and Ditko did - they got paid for it. Simon and Kirby owned a studio at one time pumping out tons of romance books - they work for hired artists to do a lot of that work.

Nobody from that work for hire created Captain America or the Silver Surfer though.

And I’m not aware of anyone saying they were asked to do more than they were paid to do, or were promised money for building the studio up that they weren’t paid for or wrote the stories on top of having to draw them and only getting paid to draw. If any of those stories are quoted anywhere I’ll be glad to read them.

As far as Spider-man, I don’t know of anyone who believes Kirby created Spider-man (including Gary Groth who sure didn’t sound convinced in that interview***). The concept of a Spider MAN was thrown around for years, and Kirby and C.C. Beck and maybe even Joe Simon were talked about to work on a ‘Silver Spider’ character, but Kirby’s couples of pages (according to Ditko) were given to him and he rejected those ideas outright and created his own vision, minus any involvement from Stan Lee.

It’s important to note, that if Jack’s version, featuring a web gun and whole different world than we’d come to know was then transformed into what Ditko did - you have to wonder exactly what WAS Stan’s involvement, if any in the creation of the character.

So no one’s saying Kirby deserves ALL of the credit for creating the Marvel Universe. It just wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t come back to Marvel.

Kirby before Stan = Created Captain America with Joe Simon, the Romance genre of comics, and had a successful run of Golden Age titles for DC that him and Joe Simon created.

Stan before Kirby = created nothing that was successful. COPIED whatever was popular from other publishers.

Kirby after Lee = Created the Fourth World, which is still used at DC to this very day, as well as the Demon and continued to try and create new ideas well into his old age. He WAS a creator.

Lee after Kirby = created nothing that was successful. Became a salesman of an image.

No one is denying Kirby's enormous role in the creation of the Marvel Universe and even though you will spout " Kirby doesn't deserve all the credit", from our previous conversations I don't believe you really believe that.

As far as the creation of Spider-Man goes, any rational person understands that Kirby had nothing to do with the version that became Marvel's flagship. No one here is disputing this, the point was is that Kirby believed it as he believed he created it all by the end of his life.

If you want to get technical, there wouldn't be a Marvel Universe if Martin Goodman hadn't instructed Stan Lee to come up with something like the Justice League. The original plot to FF #1 written by Lee was discovered by a Marvel staffer who inherited Stan Lee's old desk, unless you'd like to call Roger Stern a liar as well?

Kirby did create the Fourth World and while I enjoy those books, they were not exactly setting the world on fire sales wise...unless you want to call Carmine Infantino a liar as well?

[Logan510]

6 minutes ago, tv horror said:

I remember reading an article were Stan was addressing a doctor that was one of the early fans and in the letter he clearly states that Ditko is off creating a character using black magic! I don't remember him saying WE were creating?

I have nothing but respect for Ditko, but nothing he created without Lee has had the lasting impact of The Amazing Spider-Man or Doctor Strange. Why didn't the Blue Beetle, The Creeper or The Question have nearly the impact or popularity? What was missing 

[Prince Namor]

39 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

If by "critical analysis" you mean regurgitating the one sided ramblings of the Kirby sycophants, you have that down pat. As discussed earlier, so much so that people who were aware I knew you asked if you were a Mark Evanier sock puppet.

Yawn. You're trolling is neither interesting, creative or even... enough to be annoyed by. It's just bland.

For someone who has asked me NOT to communicate with you, you certainly go far and out of your way to comment on my posts and make your snidely little remarks.

Then again for someone who so greatly praised RMA’s abilities on this very forum (https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/196556-im-afraid-to-post-an-rma-feedback-thread/?page=2), only to turn around a year later and try and claim he ripped you off, I guess that type of bizarre behavior is expected of you.

And I don’t need any proof from Mark Evanier to show my work. There’s plenty of information out there on it, including Stan’s own words. There are people who’ve made the research on it their life’s work.

http://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/ff_Lee-Kirby.html

http://hilobrow.com/2011/06/27/btoom-kirby-vs-lee-intro/

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/2011/06/

And of course the one place you CAN find critical analysis of comic art:

http://www.tcj.com/a-96th-birthday/

Nice try though. Remember - if you’re not making a point toward the conversation - you’re just being rude. And if you’re just here to troll… well you’re just here to troll so, I guess there’s really no lesson there.