|
Post by Ozymandias on Feb 16, 2024 2:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Feb 15, 2024 17:58:34 GMT -5
Nah, I don't think Kirby needed great inkers. His strengths came trough with most. Colletta was a particular case, because he not only erased pencils (I didn't know that) but he also changed the outcome by such a degree that Kirby didn't look like himself. And yet, I liked the results. Colletta is one of my favorite inkers for Kirby, and at the same time, I can't recall liking his works on anyone else's pencils. Weird.
As for Stan, he wasn't a good inker. (That last bit just to keep it relevant to the thread)
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 29, 2024 1:43:24 GMT -5
In Hulk #143, it's stated that Doc Samson's strength depends on how long his hair is. I've never heard of that, has it always been the case?
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 25, 2024 18:06:14 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that the only thing Stan Lee told Romita for the ENTIRE plot was " Next Month, I want a character called the Kingpin of crime" . And neither should you. So Romita is also lying? He said as much about the Rhino. He said Stan had more involvement with the idea of the Shocker. That actually explains a lot! Out of those three characters, pick a loser
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 23, 2024 16:15:02 GMT -5
To answer your question, I'd have to read those comics, which I haven't in most cases, if any at all. Depends on whether the story made it so it was reasonable to have Superman in it.
I don't think it was unwitting, I think he learned the lesson Ditko taught him, but that's just my opinion. In case you were interested.
If I weren't, I wouldn't have responded. I just don't know if lee ever sat down and said, "I think I'll invent me an interconnected comics universe." Not sure what you mean about having to read the comics with Superman on the cover and your definition of "reasonable" as it applies to funny books, to steal from slam bradley. Supes appears throughout the Jerry Lewis issue and he and some of the JLA pop up briefly in I5, which spoofs Marvel, DC, various creators and comics in general. He never even showed up inside the pages of Shazam 1 or Captain Action 1; he kinda sorta served as the host on Shazam and was actually being pushed aside on CA. Take a gander, Oz... If Superman doesn't appear in any of those two, yes, that's quite shameless. Byrne had a little (shame):
As for what makes an appearance reasonable or not, I'll refer to my two previous examples: ASM #17-18 for the former and Annual #1 for thee later.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 23, 2024 14:34:49 GMT -5
DC had the enormous advantage of a flagship character from whom many of the others characters in the industry derived. That’s why Superman would go on to appear on the covers of comics as varied as Shazam!, Captain Action, Inferior Five, and Jerry Lewis. And then there were his regular appearances in Action, World’s Finest, JLA and of course, Superman. Wasn’t that also crass, by your reasoning?. Remember, back then Lee had no such Big Kahuna who could hold down six titles at once, but a hodge-podge of characters whom he inserted, seeded, sprinkled, or if you prefer, jammed, into other books to promote his David of a line against a comics Goliath... and perhaps unwittingly, create the first truly intertwined universe in comics. To answer your question, I'd have to read those comics, which I haven't in most cases, if any at all. Depends on whether the story made it so it was reasonable to have Superman in it.
I don't think it was unwitting, I think he learned the lesson Ditko taught him, but that's just my opinion. In case you were interested.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 23, 2024 12:03:01 GMT -5
There was a playfulness that was addictive, even in the more serious stories, as well as a constant awareness of the larger Marvel universe that was enticing. The Universe building wasn't just about pouring characters in a mag. Team ups were nothing new, I'm guessing appearances had also been done over at DC, but incorporating characters from outside the series to interact with the story, giving the impression of a larger canvas, wasn't what we had initially from Marvel. Take ASM #17-18 and compare them with Annual #1, published immediately before. In the later we see a shameless parade of superheroes doing exactly that, and a no less shameless caption at the bottom of every panel, reminding the reader that each one of them had their own comic. This was Lee's idea of "Universe building", not a creative concept, but a salesman's one. I can't believe Ditko being responsible for doing something that crass. In fact, I like to imagine him teaching Lee a lesson on how to go about it, in his next story, where he incorporates not the whole Marvel roster, but the characters that made sense for the story at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 22, 2024 16:36:05 GMT -5
When I talk about better writing skills, I don't mean T. S. Eliot, Steve Englehart was already OK.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 22, 2024 3:17:32 GMT -5
The argument has been made for Kirby (I'd throw Ditko in the mix) needing someone else to give his work a more commercial outlook. But Lee just was at the one at right place and time. We all would've benefited as readers, had someone with better writing skills been there instead.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 20, 2024 10:40:37 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that the million dollars a year Lee received as Chairman Emeritus was after Kirby's death, but regardless of that, are you saying that after spending decades worth of his career working for Marvel that Lee wasn't entitled to that position? Is there any evidence to suggest that Kirby couldn't have had a job at Marvel for longer than he did? Couldn't he have easily filled an art director role the way Romita did? Jack clearly wasn't a company man. That's no reason to begrudge Lee for receiving a stipend because he played the company man for decades. [...] Even when Lee sued Marvel, the 10 million he received was nothing compared to the revenue that the movies generated. I neither think he got that position/money for his work as a representative nor the revenue generated trough movies should translate into more of a compensation for Lee than what he already got.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 20, 2024 1:50:28 GMT -5
Thomas Edison is said to have invented the movie camera. Except he didn't, he stole it from the Lumiere Brothers. I find this the better analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 19, 2024 15:48:29 GMT -5
I think this is the one place where the Beatles analogy does work. John Lennon is an outstounding solo artist and Paul McCartney is a pretty adequate solo artist, but they brought something out in each other that was far greater than anything either of them could produce separately. Even "Yesterday," arguably the Beatles' masterpiece that was (by all accounts I'm aware of) entirely the work of Paul is on an entirely different plane than anything McCartney created when he wasn't inspired by, challenged by, and in competition with Lennon. Lee wasn't Paul McCartney, maybe Stuart Sutcliffe.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 19, 2024 15:43:41 GMT -5
No offense, but I always chuckle when people wat to reduce Moore down to something that simple. I read that long interview session he did, I forget with whom, but it was collected into a book or special magazine, in the 00s (or very early 10s), where he described his beliefs and practices and, basically, it boiled down to meditative practices and the whole snake god thing merely a focal point for meditation. Not very dissimilar to a mandala. At least, that was my take. Moore likes to play to his audience and play up the eccentric and iconoclast; but, to totally dismiss the points he makes, without some consideration, is reductive. I don't agree with everything he says, nor believe everything he says as gospel truth; but, he does provide interesting perspectives on various subjects that at least raise interesting questions. They are rarely knee-jerk reactions. To me, he is worth hearing on a subject, then contemplating what he says and weighing it against other input. Ok... how's this... "I tend to take anything said by a guy who says he is a wizard with a grain of salt." I think it was in this interview, over 25 years ago, when I read what he meant by wizardry. I've taken him just as seriously ever since.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 18, 2024 13:52:34 GMT -5
Seems to me that Stan did things so right that it was inevitable he became the bad guy. Back when the company was struggling to keep the lights on, he sold the world on a universe so compelling that it got big enough and drew enough attention to get painstakingly scrutinized in hindsight. He gave credit to and promoted his artists in a way that no one else did, encouraging his fans to care about and celebrate these artists enough to ultimately argue that he'd short-changed them. If there was a fire and I could only save Lee or Kirby, I'd go for Kirby for sure, but I still think Stan gets a bad wrap. Judging him by 2024 standards, he was an absolute villain. But 1961 was a different world, and arguably so were 1971 and 1981. Much as I adore Jack, I seriously doubt he'd be as well-known a name as he is without Stan and likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to create the memorable characters and properties that he did without Stan either. Even with decades of expertise in the field prior to FF #1, Stan is the one who made fans know Jack's name. In that context, he did more good for Jack's reputation than harm, even while taking credit that clearly belonged to Jack. Becoming a bad guy has nothing to do with your deeds and everything with what people will hear about you. On the "universe" he sold, if you mean he promoted it, OK. If you mean he envisioned it, that was Ditko. As for credit were its due, that's already been addressed.
His actions weren't limited to 1961, he kept well within his role up to his last cameo in a MCU film.
The whole "promoter" value is maybe important for American audiences, but I must say that as a foreign fan, I never got to see his public appearances, watch his interviews or read the articles. The comics stood on their own merits for me.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 18, 2024 3:52:01 GMT -5
As in "crossing your fingers so that the mailman doesn't get lost on his way there".
|
|