Steve Ditko: Classic or Dud

>>Meanwhile a whole separate think-thread is probably needed to address the deep causes of the male child's seemingly universal, instinctive preference for thin, busy or fussy linework (Perez and ilk) over bold brushstrokes.

This is a pretty wild generalisation - Archie, Harvey, Gold Key et al built on the back of bold brushstrokes.

Well how about this-- the little boy loves the things you mentioned, with their bold strokes and open areas; then when it is time to be all I AM NOT A CHILD he gravitates to the opposite (busy tech-pen detailing are serious). Because that's definitely not kid stuff.

I used to look down on Stan Lee, but he was one of the top five lightning-in-a-bottle catchers of the 20th century. I don't begrudge him any of his movie cameos. I wouldn't give you Bill Gates' last nickel for anything he's done in the last 40 years though.

eh I think his role is VASTLY overstated

Well, I can't hate stan because all my favorite comics have his name on them.

Plus I adored his intros to Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends. Just one of those adults that I trusted as a kid I guess.

yeah, jesus shakey... hating on stan lee is like hating on the brothers grimm, imho...

CLAMP hair is Todd McFarlane webbing for girls

haha!

Think it's pretty easy to hate on Uncle Stan, really - guy was a MAJOR credit thief and corporate apologist who never created a single interesting character without major input from kirby, ditko etc etc, tho there's no denying he had a certain genius for marketing, publicity and self-promotion, or even that he was an outstanding editor, a great talent-spotter who was 'loyal' to his most favoured creators (Romita Sr and John Buscema, especially.) As a writer he had a glib turn of phrase and a way with snappy dialogue (tho' this of course has dated p badly, now) and was able to impose some kind of narrative coherence on Kirby's wilder flights of fancy, which certainly made commercial if not always aesthetic sense. Lee always liked Joe Sinnott's inking on Kirby, for the way Sinnott's immaculate brush lines smoothed and rounded up the rougher edges of Kirby's work, at the expense sometimes of dynamism and power; the same could be said of Lee's dialogue over Ditko and Kirby's rawer, wilder storytelling.

the only Hulk I read as a kid was a Marie Severin paperback; first year uni - by which time I was well aware of Lee's credit hogging, value-inflation and corporate cuntery - I made a concerted effort to give Kirby a go, with the help of a large collection someone had donated the library*. Within this was one Hulk short in which Kirby had drawn the big dude on top of a train rushing towards a bridge; he crouches and braces; leaps to grab the railing and by force flips himself over the whole bridge, to land again on the rushing train on the other side.

Thrilling, clearly drawn action sequence, right? Objects in action clearly depicted. Body language communicates action and emotion. Panels make perfect sense. So Stan clogs up half of each panel with a turgid wodge of Feldsteinian text about how the Hulk is so strong that his very brain can levitate him over the bridge, in contradiction of what the artist and actual writer has cartooned. At that point I said "fuck this dude," and have never read another Lee comic on purpose. (I'll finish the Ditko Spidey run sometime, I guess.)

*mainly though I raided this for UGs, Spirit magazine reprints, and the long shitty fallow patch of LoSH between baby Shooter and Levitz

How anyone in the internet's home of EXCELSIOR could hate Stan is beyond me
(xpost)

I used to look down on Stan Lee, but he was one of the top five lightning-in-a-bottle catchers of the 20th century.

Just want to say here that I'm not complimenting him as a writer, just his ability to recognize and hitch Marvel's wagon to the zeitgeist.

kirby 'clicked' with me when i was about 12... i had a glossy reprint of iron man's first appearance w/a kirby cover and i was like man that owns... i dont think he did the interiors though which i found disappointing... he was the only old timey superhero bro i was really into i guess (loved all the classic MAD guys)

i still dont have much of an opinion on ditko. did he design spider-man's original uniform? i've always been impressed by the timelessness of that design.

this guy's great, i love how he throws chairs

in just abt the only interview he's ever given (for a vv early 1960s comics fanzine) ditko claims to have designed the spiderman costume, inc. things like the web shooters, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to contradict this.

Well, I can't hate stan because all my favorite comics have his name on them.

yeah didja ever wonder how his name actually got on there... hmmm

Ward's evaluation of Lee is OTM imho.

I think it was one of Kirby's last interviews - the super-long career-spanning one in Comics Journal - that really turned me against Stan. The bitterness and loathing that Kirby had for him was unbelievable. And then I got to thinking about some of the assertions in the interview - that Lee had never created anything significant on his own (after his partnerships with Kirby and Ditko expired, dude has like NOTHING to claim, which is very suspicious), that his position at Marvel began as nepotism that enabled him to slap his name on everything, his relentlessly annoying penchant for self-promotion, the whole kerfuffle in the 80s about Marvel refusing to return original artwork to Kirby - and it all lines up with other people's accounts of the man and his practices. He seems like a total shitheel. And yet to this day he is the most famous name associated with Marvel comics.

i have no doubt stan's a douche as a publisher - i do love his dialogue though

cosign by the hoary hosts of hoggoth

Love his cod-shakespeare shit, kinda hate his hipster patter shit.

how instrumental was Stan in the idea that all the Marvel heroes existed in a close-knit interconnected universe?

In re: Mr. A, above, and "Only fools will tell you that money is the root of all evil!"

That's because the correct adage is: The love of money is the root of all evil. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense, even if the ascription of "all evil" is not strictly true. I would identify the love of power as a still more fundamental force for evil and it is only the power money gives one that people fall in love with.

Eh. Comic books. Not the best source of philosophy (a trait they share with song lyrics).

And operas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSdZETnEacA

how instrumental was Stan in the idea that all the Marvel heroes existed in a close-knit interconnected universe?

I'd be more inclined to attribute this to Kirby, given that he was doing the initial layouts/pencils for the vast majority of the early books that established this via multiple cameos (Fantastic Four sees Thor fly by etc) but who knows, really. Obviously there was a huge marketing advantage to plugging other characters/books within various titles so maybe Stan came at it from that angle. By all accounts the way they worked was that Kirby would do the layouts/pencils, often with dialogue+captions written in the margins (as is evident from existing original artwork), Stan would then add in his own dialogue and exposition (sometimes completely ignoring Kirby's notes in the process and thereby fucking up continuity/storytelling etc as noted in the above anecdote), and then turn it over for inking and coloring, etc. Where accounts differ has to do with Stan's lifelong claim that he would give Kirby character and storyline ideas prior to Kirby doing the artwork, and that he would hash these out with Jack. Kirby vehemently denied this, especially in later years, and in a number of cases Lee's claim is quite obviously highly suspect (the Fantastic Four bears a striking similarity to Kirby's previous Challengers of the Unknown, Thor is very clearly a product of Kirby's lifelong obsession with mythology, etc.)

Ditko, incidentally, refuses to discuss how his "partnership" with Stan worked.

really? so the whole "Marvel" way of doing a comic book (writer comes up with plot, gives it to penciler to do roughs, then the writer comes up with dialogue, then everything is lettered, inked & colored) was nothing but a sham? I figured it seemed so counterintuitive that it had to seem legit...

"had to be legit..."

The Marvel Method was a real thing; the dispute is in how much involvement Lee had in plotting each issue before the pencilling.

the whole plotting before pencilling, and then writing of the dialogue, this just seems like such a strange way to make a comic book. I imagined that it must have been the way that Stan Lee preferred to work and then he just kind of mandated the method company-wide once he got other writers in there. Otherwise, why split up the writer's job like that?

in order to cover up the fact that you can't actually write, duh

makes sense

http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlogarchives/2006Images/Day11Funky.jpg

http://www.guiadosquadrinhos.com/ShowImage.aspx?path=./upload/personagens/3095person_2276.jpg

http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/silverage/FunkyFlashman-MMiracle06.JPG

"I'll just sip my martini by the ocean -- and wait for the next fish to jump!!"

Words to live by.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tHVfHpnv17g/TPJ3MMqJPwI/AAAAAAAAMsc/bfaUVvIDNIo/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2010-11-28%2Bat%2B9.11.37%2BAM.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4N6ybVLERfQ/SYMMpfkgk7I/AAAAAAAAIIs/jUkxApZdO28/s320/Mr+Miracle+06-22+Funky+Flashman.jpg

did i already tell you guys my george perez story? i'll make it quick in case i did somewhere. i went to the opening of forbidden planet in nyc when i was kid - huge lines and a big mob scene - and perez was there doing marker drawings for ten bucks a pop. i sat down to get one and he asked me what comics i liked. he asked me if i liked the teen titans - his big book at the time - and i said yeah! i liked the teen titans! he said great! so what character did i want drawn? and i said: nightcrawler!

did he draw Gar Logan transformed into Nightcrawler?

Ok, I think I may have found a reason to hate on Stan Lee

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=86075&tsp=1

thanks universe

he did a nice quick bamfing 'crawler. dude was a pro.

x-pst

that was my chillwave x-post.

stan is stan. the man never met a dollar or a reason to have his picture taken that he didn't like.

he's old school corrupt. he probably thinks he's doing you a favor all the time.

hahahaha OTM. He's a Boss Tweed kinda guy.

thanks universe

Stan announces a new cartoon co-developed with a public figure every second Wednesday at 3pm, this will never actually happen

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EBqnetSEcQw/SeX7o5kcL-I/AAAAAAAAAHQ/-gOKdn8nzec/Stan%20Lee%20realistic%20caricature%20as%20carnival%20barker.jpg

stan is doing manga now. he's new wave.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Heroman_Vol_1.png

Joseph Carter "Joey" Jones (ジョセフ・カーター・“ジョーイ”・ジョーンズ, Josefu Kātā "Jōi" Jōnzu?)
Voiced by: Mikako Komatsu
Joey is an orphaned boy living with his grandmother, working at a restaurant to make ends meet. His life changes when he fixes the Heybo that he names Heroman. He is able to issue commands to Heroman via a controller that forms a gauntlet around his left hand. This controller also gives Joey his own powers, such as super speed and the ability to create force fields.
The name "Joey Jones" was chosen by Minami at the behest of Stan Lee to choose a name that had identical initials, much like various other Marvel protagonists such as Peter Parker.[11]
Komatsu was chosen to voice Joey because of her boyish voice and the difficulty in finding a young man that had the voice the production team wanted.[11]

With great robot, comes great... uh....

was flipping though the first issue of Kirby's Silver Star - had totally forgotten this contains a dozen-page long full-color backup feature by Ditko called "The Mocker" which basically looks exactly like 60s-era Ditko. 1981, I think...?

cool find!

d'oh, number 2, not number 1

"According to Ditko1, he first started working with the concept in 1981, drawing the first ten page story and working on the breakdowns for the next episode. The page story found its way to Pacific Comics and was published in Jack Kirby's Silver Star #2. Ditko was not aware of this sale and was not pleased with the format. (The story was meant to be magazine size, or twice the size of a comic book page; and had been colored when it was meant to be published in black and white.) The original story (restored to black and white) and the others were published in a 1990 graphic novel published by Ditko and longtime partner Robin Snyder.

The originally intended format of the book influences much of its look. Planned to be published in a black and white magazine, the art is a study in various methods of adding texture with pen and ink. The Mocker's special power is signified by squiggling thin lines, various characters have an affinity for pinstripe suits or polka dots or have distinctive facial hair patterns that display the various skills Ditko had mastered in decades of comic work. The book was never published in magazine size, however, so the sixteen panels per page are slightly cramped.

Much of the dialogue and especially contents of thought balloons is in sentence fragments. The basic concepts floating around in the characters mind are tied together with commas, partly to display the characters' confused, unfocused, state, and quite possibly partly due to economy of space in the small panels."

color is actually really nice

http://carlscomix.com/when-i-got-a-letter-from-steve-ditko/
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-28-at-5.02.16-PM.png
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-28-at-5.02.34-PM.png