|
Post by Shiryu on Jul 27, 2013 17:58:53 GMT -5
An interesting BBC documentary on Steve Ditko, with a surprise twist in the end. Love Alan Moore's rings and Neil Gaiman's expression after being given the comic books.
Whose side do you favour, Lee's or Ditko's? I must admit I'm more inclined towards the reasoning of the former regarding what "create" means.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 27, 2013 19:32:04 GMT -5
I'm just a little ways in, Shir-- but this is a very engaging little doc, here. Sadly, I'm gonna be out of touch for about 9 days (vacation w/ no internet!)-- but upon returning I do intend to watch the rest and give ya a couple of comments.
(Comment #1. . . OMG, is that really a REAL copy of AmFant#15 that the three of them are snatching back and forth???!!?? GNARRRGHLLL!)
HB
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jul 29, 2013 0:32:33 GMT -5
Thanks Shiryu, just finished watching and really enjoyed the doc. It's funny that the debate is really over a word. I find that I agree with Stan that the person who has the idea is the "Creator" but creation is just one aspect. There's no doubt that, as Stan himself says, if Ditko had not done such an excellent job, it would have been a failed creation. I could liken it to a couple of teenagers having sex and creating a child which they give up for adoption. If that child turns out to be a wonderful person, the credit goes to the adopted parents even though the teenagers are still undeniably the "Creators." I think Ditko's contribution to the character is every bit as important and great as Lee's but I do think that Lee is the true "Creator." I think Stan is willing to share the credit for that very reason. He too sees the importance of the art. It's just a shame that a word could come between them.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 6, 2013 18:56:28 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this, Shiryu. When it premiered back in 2007 IIRC a few of us here even discussed it briefly. Then as now, I don't blame Stan for sounding exasperated in this documentary. I get that this was made to be part of a BBC Comic Book festival (as the voiceover at the end indicates), and I'm sure Ross had a great time putting this together...but then as now, I think Ross and the others' hyperbolic fawning and gushing didn't do Ditko any favors. And then the part about Ditko--after years of being silent and/or intermittently proclaiming he didn't care and didn't want anything--drawing adorable little pictures for a fanzine, which supposedly express his "real feelings" about the matter--well, it just seems passive-aggressive to me. (My opinion is also based on other things I've read about this matter: for example the books by Howe, Ro, Spurgeon; Roy Thomas's accounts; and more.)
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 9, 2013 21:04:45 GMT -5
Man, it's taken about four tries, but I finally got to finish watching this little doc.
Coincidentally, while I was on vacation last week, I took along Essential Spiderman #2, which covers the second half of the Lee/Ditko run, including the flippin' BRILLIANT issue #33. This is a bit embarrassing, but I had never, ever read that run before. And in a way, I'm kind of glad, because it was like finding a hundred dollar bill in the pocket of a coat that's been in a closet for 5 years. Oh, what a great run (although I haven't quite gotten to the end of it yet). It's like I finally get what all the fuss about Steve was for.
The whole "who created Spidey" question? I'm sorry, but neither Stan nor Steve is staking the correct claim. It would seem that the word "gestalt" was banished from the conversation for some reason, never to be considered. As a person who works in an extremely collaborative artistic field, it seems painfully clear to me that neither Stan nor Steve can make a clear case for priority. The initial inspiration or idea is great, yes, but it remains intangible & meaningless until it's implemented or executed. And the execution is absolutely crucial to the level of success. Stan clearly recognizes that, but is clinging firmly to his particular definition of what being the "creator" of the character is. It's also very fuzzy because the character was being so completely & increasingly guided and molded by Steve as its popularity grew. Effectively, Stan all but admitted that, while he himself created character, Steve was the one bringing it to life by both plotting and drawing it.
It was both of them. . . it really was. "Me", "mine", and "I" kinda need to get shown politely to the door, IMO.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 10, 2013 6:22:59 GMT -5
Now, all of that (previous post) being said- a lot of the decades-long bad feelings clearly could have been avoided if these two guys had managed to step past the confines of their very quirky personality traits. I mean, polar opposites, really. Stan was an instinctive (and rather shameless) self-promoter-- possibly even unconsciously so. Steve was/is an isolated, deeply reclusive, rather loopy (sorry, but that's truly my sense) Objectivist Rand disciple. There's just not a lot of common interpersonal ground for them to operate in.
I remember seeing a clip somewhere of Stan talking about Steve coming up to him at a convention after YEARS of not speaking, and saying something to the effect of, "We're fine, there's no conflict between us anymore", and then ambling off again. Stan seemed honestly perplexed by this, but this would clearly have been a HUGE gesture from Steve's perspective, considering his nature. It was also revealing to see Stan in this doc really get put out of his comfort zone with the semantics of how he was willing to admit or yield creative credit. And, geeze, he refers to Steve as being a "perfect collaborator" right before he goes into a detailed explanation of how Steve would do about 75% of the work on the book, and then Stan's job was to tie it all together with script. Well, yeah-- that' like "collaborating" with the school science whiz on an advanced particle physics project. . .
But. . . that was clearly the doc's point of view at the outset.
Alan Moore-- boy, NOTHING like I pictured him in my head! He sounds just like all of those rural English farmers in ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL, except that he's educated, talkative and articulate. Fascinating guy to listen to. Sheesh-- what's the deal w/ the rings, though?
And that Neil Gaiman always seems like just about the nicest guy in the world. He falls into Terry Pratchett's orbit quite a lot, which is where I'm probably most familiar with him. He never fails to come across as a guy you'd enjoy having over for a neighborhood barbecue.
Mr A? Hoo-boy. . . I'm sorry, but that whole Objectivist philosophy mind-set is completely anathema to me. It seems like a rigid, fundamentalist belief system for folks who have turned away from religion, and yet are craving that sharply-delineated structure provided by yer typical religious fundamentalism (but I may be oversimplifying).
HB
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on Aug 12, 2013 7:59:15 GMT -5
I finally got to watch this over the weekend. I love how they got to see Ditko and honored his request not to share the results. Rare thing in media culture. They didn't get their scoop, but they got their wish and are clearly delighted by that.
Saying "I created something" in comics makes as much sense as saying "I won" in baseball. No team, no success.
I've seen Alan Moore a couple times and love how deliciously weird he is. But I had no idea how odd Ditko was. Not the isolation, I get that (well, I can never GET it, having chosen family life, but I understand the impulse). It's the ideas and their intensity. Wow...
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 12, 2013 11:26:26 GMT -5
I finally got to watch this over the weekend. I love how they got to see Ditko and honored his request not to share the results. Rare thing in media culture. They didn't get their scoop, but they got their wish and are clearly delighted by that. Completely agree, WGB. It was a very unexpected piece of good grace that reflected nicely on Ross (was that the guy's name? I don't remember what his claim-to-fame is. . . )-- he made the wholly welcome choice to be a person before being a fan/"journalist". I can certainly live w/out knowing the particulars of their meeting, since it's clearly important to Mr. Ditko. It really elevated the whole piece, which was ineed kinda heavy on the puffery. What was cool w/ Moore here, though, was that in spite of his oddball personal appearance, he came across as quite engaging and approachable and not particularly self-absorbed. I'd also never seen letters-page Empress Cat Yronwode before, which was neat-- but boy, she's another person w/ a whole lot of "alternative" goin' on, isn't she? It's just so funny to see such a VAST array of diverse personalities in this field, isn't it? Barbarian/Goth (maybe?) Moore; Wicca (I assume) Yronwode; "Hollywood" Stan; COMPLETELY regular-joe John Romita; Geology Conspiracy nut Neal Adams; Libertarians Are Too Liberal Ditko; Roly-poly Joe Quesada---- you couldn't really put all of these folks into one office environment and have it be tranquil, y'know? And I have to tell you-- Steve's whole belief system, ironically, borders on the stuff that generates vigilante supervillains. I mean, do you suppose Marvel's FOOLKILLER could have been a direct comment on Ditko's Objectivist stuff? I mean, "There's nothing in-between black and white"--- sheesh, even a five-year-old could make an irrefutable moral argument against that maxim. There has to be a lot goin' on inside that poor guy's head for him to have to resort to such an ironclad belief system. (good to hear from ya, Wundy--- it's been verrrrrrry quiet 'round here this midsummer-!) HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 12, 2013 20:50:56 GMT -5
I find that I agree with Stan that the person who has the idea is the "Creator" but creation is just one aspect. There's no doubt that, as Stan himself says, if Ditko had not done such an excellent job, it would have been a failed creation. I could liken it to a couple of teenagers having sex and creating a child which they give up for adoption. If that child turns out to be a wonderful person, the credit goes to the adopted parents even though the teenagers are still undeniably the "Creators." I think Ditko's contribution to the character is every bit as important and great as Lee's but I do think that Lee is the true "Creator." I think Stan is willing to share the credit for that very reason. He too sees the importance of the art. It's just a shame that a word could come between them. Yes, I agree completely. What I think Ditko misses is that, without him, Stan could have passed the idea on to another artist, and there still would be a Spider-Man. A completely different, possibly unsuccessful one, but a Spider-Man nonetheless. Whereas without Stan's idea, Spider-Man simply would not exist. I could even go as far as to say I'm not entirely sure Spider-Man wouldn't have been successful without Ditko. Stan had a vast arrey of artistic talents at his disposal, and Daredevil's Bill Everett was also suited for street-level heroes, although Ditko's imput to the formative stories was so big that is impossible to tell for certain what would have happened. On the other hand, some editorials published in Italy as preface to a series of Spider-Man reprints go on to say that Ditko really poured himself into Peter Parker, essentially creating his own comic book alter ego. As time went by, Stan wanted Peter to enjoy some limited success with the girls and become more part of the gang with Flash and the others, but Ditko was adamant this should never happen. This fact was given as the reason why Peter's social fortunes turn so much when Ditko leaves the book and the far more social John Romita comes on board. But it would also explain why being considered the "creator" of the character means so much to him. If we look at his own self-portrait he does look a bit like a Peter Parker with a receding hairline. Which makes me wonder if his often-smiling JJJ, constantly trying to trick Peter into selling his photos for far less than their value whilst pretending to be his friend wasn't really a spoof of Stan himself and of what he perceived their relationship to be. Smilin' JJJ anyone? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross He has actually written a few comics himself. I came to appreciate him during my stay in the UK, and chance wanted that the first episode of "Friday Night with J.R." I watched was also the final one, with an hilarious interview to Jackie Chan. But I didn't know of his background of comic book collector until I found out about this documentary on Ditko. I remember reading, once, that Dr. Strange's popularity in his early years was largely due to the fact that LSD users would basically see "their own world" reflected in Ditko's colorful art. Moore actually mentions it to an extent in the Dr. Strange part of the documentary. Ditko was unaware of this, and said to be deeply upset when it was brought to his attention years later. You know, once I helped organizing a comic art exhibition in Genoa (Italy). I was there as translator / interpreter, but that year they were short of staff so we were all happy to help putting the panels up and so on, and we familiarized a bit. You could have a word with most student writers and they all seemed pretty ordinary, regular people. But the artists... you couldn't help but notice most of them were a bit "out of touch" with the world, so to speak. Not in a derogatory way, but their reasoning on pretty much *any* subject would jump from A to F in a way a regular person's doesn't. I distinctly remember trying to chat a pretty girl up only to be left totally unable to follow what she was saying or where she was heading. The dots were simply too far apart to connect. This and other experiences I've had with artists has made me think that the same genius making them capable of seeing and representing unexisting worlds and beings, makes most of them somewhat disconnected from the inner workings of the regular world. Place them in the highly commercial environment of an editorial bullpen and it's no wonder misunderstandings arise.
|
|
|
Post by wundagoreborn on Aug 13, 2013 13:51:12 GMT -5
do you suppose Marvel's FOOLKILLER could have been a direct comment on Ditko's Objectivist stuff? HB That is a very interesting idea. I'd forgotten about the Foolkiller entirely. But I think they would have done something with more black & white in his costume if that's what they were after. It was all blue-black IIRC
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 13, 2013 19:39:00 GMT -5
I You know, once I helped organizing a comic art exhibition in Genoa (Italy). I was there as translator / interpreter, but that year they were short of staff so we were all happy to help putting the panels up and so on, and we familiarized a bit. You could have a word with most student writers and they all seemed pretty ordinary, regular people. But the artists... you couldn't help but notice most of them were a bit "out of touch" with the world, so to speak. Not in a derogatory way, but their reasoning on pretty much *any* subject would jump from A to F in a way a regular person's doesn't. I distinctly remember trying to chat a pretty girl up only to be left totally unable to follow what she was saying or where she was heading. The dots were simply too far apart to connect. This and other experiences I've had with artists has made me think that the same genius making them capable of seeing and representing unexisting worlds and beings, makes most of them somewhat disconnected from the inner workings of the regular world. Place them in the highly commercial environment of an editorial bullpen and it's no wonder misunderstandings arise. Ah Shiryu, you ol' smooth-talkin' continental lothario, you--- makin' time w/ the lovely lady artists-! (couldn't resist--heh) But your observation is an apt one very often-- and can be seen across the spectrum of the arts w/ creative geniuses, as it were. Heck, even in KIRBY, KING OF COMICS there are a number of quiet, affectionate references to how loopy he could be and unable to grasp, really, a lot of fundamental life-skills. And yet was still that hard-talkin', street-wise personality that you'd never associate w/ your average sensitive artist. Mozart, of course, was quite a piece of work (although maybe not the extreme of AMADEUS). Sooooo many rock & pop stars have taken their innate artistic excentricity and minted it into an almost-expected persona. Van Gogh? Yikes! Walt Disney was fascinated w/ his giant train sets whilst his brother (I believe) handled the nuts & bolts of that nascient early empire. George Harrison's BEST friends would gamely find ways to escape once he started bending their ears about religion. Ohhh, it goes on and on. HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Aug 14, 2013 17:10:49 GMT -5
Finally, my video thingy works, so I can watch this whole fascinating doc.
Being a semi-regular viewer of BBC America, I've come to enjoy Mr. Ross, didn't know he was a serious comic collector either but I thought he did a rather good job here.
Moore sounds exactly like I thought he would. Very well-articulated and intelligent, whenever he talks, one should listen. Although I thought it ironic when he started speaking over the creator issue with Ditko, considering Moore's own troubled and long-standing feud with DC on that very point.
Gaiman, as always, is a delight, Joe Q your regular joe (pun intended) good ol' Ralph Macchio, one of the best editors Marvel has ever had, Cat Yronwynde, nice to finally learn how to pronounce her name.
And John Romita, I could never fault his goal of working as hard as he could to get all the work he could in order to pay the bills. Some, like Ditko, may be in the business for just the artistic and creative expression while others, like Romita, who is a great artist in his own right, sees the work as a job and a means to support him and his family. Nothing wrong with either cause.
Although strange how things work out, if Ditko hadn't left, then Romita would have probably stayed on longer on Daredevil and thus we may never have gotten Colan on DD. How the dots are connected indeed.......
As for the notion of who created what, it is a collaborative effort. I do agree with Stan, it was his initial idea. But Ditko is the one who gave it a unique life and look. Another artist could have done Spidey but that version may not have been as successful. So both of them together worked to create a unique fictional character.
And while Stan is forever the showman and seller, I like that, even after all this time, he is willing to give credit where credit is due. Like Ross said, I can't ever see Stan as the villain in this or similar situations.
Lastly, LOVE the Merry Marvel Marching Society record. That sounds awesome!
And I remember the live-action Spider-Man TV show from the 70s. Loved Nicholas Hammond back then and those HUGE web-shooters he wore. ;D
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 17, 2013 19:58:16 GMT -5
I did finish up the Lee/Ditko Spidey run last night, and a number of observations crossed my mind. 1) That last issue- "A Guy Named Joe"- was really rather weak. Ditko's art was very, very uninspired-- looking much more like his output at the beginning of the series, honestly. It could have been any story w/ just about any hero inserted (except for the subplot stuff-- which just tread water for the most part). Also, there had been instances in recent issues where there was a sense of Stan trying to fit a workable script into the drawn & plotted pages he was handed w/ no explanation--- and that seemed to be even more the case here. 2) Peter's college social track was IDENTICAL at this point to his high school track. . . even down to the particulars. I even went back to check on those earlier issues. Pete is ostracized by the "crowd" in general because he's perceived as being stuck-up/brainy-weird/arrogant/uncommunicative/etc-- and it's a direct result of him being hopelessly preoccupied with a)a dire Aunt May health emergency, b)money, and c)ongoing Spidey demands. He and Flash are also still predictably at each others' throats AND there's an instance where they mix it up & Flash gets the worse of it. . . just like in high school! This may border on sacrilege, but has anyone ever brought forth the idea that perhaps Ditko's circular plot cycle may have run its creative course? Steve was/is a plenty bright guy-- he himself may have seen some handwriting on his wall. . . 3) The unbelievably condescending attitude (and one would have to assume it was Stan's) towards the protesting college students was REALLY hard to stomach in that last issue-- and directly contrary to what we'd see not too much farther down the road. 4) Geeze, Gwen Stacy was about the biggest, most self-absorbed, conceited Rhymes-With-Witch on the planet when she was first introduced-! I mean, she really, REALLY was! She even looked a bit like the Enchantress! And there was still pining going on over the failed Betty Brant relationship-- which could almost have been Stan not wanting to let go of it, I think, since most of it was indicated via thought/speech balloons alone. As a said before, I have LOVED reading this run for the first time. It is such great comics, w/out any qualification. BUT-- I am going to respectfully submit that Steve Ditko's departure, while a staggering shock at the time to so many, came exactly when it should have. To me, there was every early sign that the book was just about to hit stagnant waters. Am I nuts? Or making a reasonable point? HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Aug 26, 2013 23:19:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure that I fully understand the argument that Ditko was 'supposedly' against Peter graduating from high school/going to college. I think it's a natural progression, certainly one that I don't recall seeing elsewhere during that time (for example, was Dick Grayson home-schooled just in case Robin was needed? I dunno)
As you mentioned, perhaps Ditko's story cycle was meant to show that even if Peter 'succeeds' by going to to college, he is still subject to the same tribulations and stigmas as high school, elements that have affected his role as Spider-Man. I don't know but I think it's an intriguing consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 28, 2013 11:28:21 GMT -5
I think it was more of a case of Ditko wanting Peter's private life during college to... well, suck, as much as his high school life, whereas Lee wanted him to blossom to an extent.
I've always found it interesting how well the public responded to the more sociable Peter of the Lee/Romita years. I suppose the socially akward Peter of the Ditko years attracted readers who could identify with him, but the relatively more successful Peter of the Romita years sort of gave readers hope for a brighter future. After all, seeing a character whose life keeps being terrible regardless of how much effort he puts in things would get kind of depressing in the long run, especially for someone who identifies with him. We all enjoy seeing a well-deserved pay off.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Aug 28, 2013 16:53:18 GMT -5
I've always found it interesting how well the public responded to the more sociable Peter of the Lee/Romita years. I suppose the socially akward Peter of the Ditko years attracted readers who could identify with him, but the relatively more successful Peter of the Romita years sort of gave readers hope for a brighter future. After all, seeing a character whose life keeps being terrible regardless of how much effort he puts in things would get kind of depressing in the long run, especially for someone who identifies with him. We all enjoy seeing a well-deserved pay off. I completely agree w/ that POV, Shir. It's funny-- you remember that long debate we had here awhile back about Married Peter vs. Perpetually Single Peter? Character growth (potentially making the character unrecognizable from his original concept) vs. eternal character stability (leading to inevitable creative stagnation)-? I daresay that debate must have been similarly hashed out by fans regarding Pete's graduation & subsequent moving on to college. Our discussion was surely just a decades-old echo (especially considering that it had been decades since even the wedding happened-!). No, I still maintain as well that a perpetually-beaten-down character simply can't sustain sympathy or interest over a long period of time. It has to eventually deteriorate into a continuous "woe is me" fest, which comes across as whining no matter how appropriate it may be, OR the character seems to be divorced from their personal reality if they seem to just soldier chipperly on past on unending string of personal catastrophes (or at least setbacks). And as much as I loved reading this Ditko/Lee run, Romita/Lee's "College Spidey" probably remains my classical favorite. And geeze-- it's not like that college career was a barrel of laughs, with its whole new set of woes, eh? I think. . . am I remembering right that Pete never did get his Masters Degree in. . . in. . . what the heck was his field, anyhow? Was it bio-engineering? Chemistry? Physics? Hunh. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 28, 2013 18:57:18 GMT -5
And geeze-- it's not like that college career was a barrel of laughs, with its whole new set of woes, eh? I think. . . am I remembering right that Pete never did get his Masters Degree in. . . in. . . what the heck was his field, anyhow? Was it bio-engineering? Chemistry? Physics? Hunh. . . I think you are right there, Aunt May didn't speak to him for ages after he dropped out of college, in the mid-80s... it was around the time of Hobgoblin and the Secret Wars IIRC. But I can't remember if he didn't complete his degree at all, or if he was attempting a doctorate and then decided to give up. Likewise, wasn't his field physics in the comics and biochem in the cartoon in the 90s? I remember he was Curt Conner's lab assistant in several episodes. Recently, Doc Ock was hilariously unimpressed at finding out he is no longer a "doc" whilst in Peter's body.
|
|