|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 8:06:35 GMT -5
Wait, what happened between panels 3 and 4? Don't give me that funky corn, Jack Kirby. It's quite clear to me. And you find this dialog corny? No, I find the jump cut in the action jarring. "Somehow" between panels Kalibak did that? I'm guessing Kirby scripted the pages after he'd drawn them (ala Lee) and that transition between panels didn't make sense to him when he sat down to script it. Not a big deal, but proof that scripting after the fact isn't as easy as people make out. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 27, 2024 8:13:49 GMT -5
A sample of Kirby's bad dialog. Notice the sparce word balloons as each character just says what he needs. Compare that to the over written dialog in the Thor review thread we have. Where Stan always uses 3 or 4 balloons when 1 would do. Is Kirby's dialog really so cringey and off sounding?  Pretty much all of Kirby's dialog in OMAC is kind of off-putting, stilted even (though I wonder if that was intentional). It's weird though, for some reason The Demon doesn't have this problem (though if it does, I didn't notice)  |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 8:17:10 GMT -5
It's a comic book. You read the dialogue not the pictures. The pictures tell the story, often the dialog is superfluous. For the Marvel method artist, you could know what was happening without reading the words. Yes, the dialog and captions helped, but were they really the reason the books were good. Did they really contribute more than the artist? Would the dialog Kirby and Ditko suggested in the margins work just as well. Or was Stan so incredibly superior as a writer that without him these books would just be mediocre. Does that mean you read comics without reading the words? Perhaps that's where some folks' differences lie. As a young comic book fan, I read my favorite comic books again and again dialogue first. The pictures mattered, and I had my favorite artists, but the basic process of reading a comic was to read the words first. The words and captions matter a great deal. These days I'm much more likely to read a book for the art than the writing, but I can still read a series with mediocre art if the writing holds some sort of appeal to me. Would the Marvel books have been just as good if someone else had scripted them or they'd used the margin notes? Possibly. I don't think they would have been mediocre, but they may not have been special either. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 8:22:09 GMT -5
A sample of Kirby's bad dialog. Notice the sparce word balloons as each character just says what he needs. Compare that to the over written dialog in the Thor review thread we have. Where Stan always uses 3 or 4 balloons when 1 would do. Is Kirby's dialog really so cringey and off sounding? Pretty much all of Kirby's dialog in OMAC is kind of off-putting, stilted even (though I wonder if that was intentional). It's weird though, for some reason The Demon doesn't have this problem (though if it does, I didn't notice) I think Kirby's biggest problem scripting is that all of his characters sound the same. You can literally have any character say the lines he's scripted and it won't make a difference. The goal is to propel the story forward not dwell on the characters. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 27, 2024 8:31:12 GMT -5
Sure, every character has the same voice.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 27, 2024 8:40:22 GMT -5
One thing I thought of, and there is no answer. We only have Kirby and Ditko plotting with Lee doing the dialog. With other artists from then, like Buscema, Colan or Heck, we can compare Lee to Thomas or Conway. But Kirby and Ditko only had Lee as scripter. So we don't have other samples of writers on those books to compare.
(There are some of the early Thors, but they were mostly meh, no matter who was writing)
|
|
|
|
Post by princenamor on Jun 27, 2024 11:17:51 GMT -5
It's quite clear to me. And you find this dialog corny? No, I find the jump cut in the action jarring. "Somehow" between panels Kalibak did that? I'm guessing Kirby scripted the pages after he'd drawn them (ala Lee) and that transition between panels didn't make sense to him when he sat down to script it. Not a big deal, but proof that scripting after the fact isn't as easy as people make out. Kirby scripted as he drew. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2024 12:11:32 GMT -5
I think Stan’s dialogue is great a lot of the times. But at other times, it’s not so great.
And as much as I like Spider-Man, it’s hard not to notice, especially the first few years of the Romita era, how all the gang at the Coffee Bean makes the exact same kind of quips all the time. I don’t really have the time to go and find examples, but all you have to do is read it. Peter, Flash, Harry, Gwen and Mary Jane all seem to have the exact same sense of humor.
I’ll certainly give Stan credit that most of it’s pretty funny. But they all have the same voice in this particular area.
And then there’s the way a lot of the characters have the same gratuitous, demeaning tone toward women. Like Reed or Hank Pym or Don Blake saying something condescending about how women can’t help being emotional or something like that. And you look at the panel and think about how all the dialogue could be changed and be about something else, and it would make the whole sequence so much better.
I understand that that was an attitude of a lot of men then and now, but it seems out of character for these guys to harp on it like that. And to have pretty much the same wording and the exact same attitude.
But, obviously, it can be very subjective at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 15:22:24 GMT -5
One thing I'm curious about is why Lee's years of experience writing for Timely and Atlas over a multitude of genres is so easily dismissed. I don't think you can write that many stories without honing your skills into something that's halfway decent. I'm particularly interested in his Western fillers. They're simple morality tales, but well executed stories, and he worked with some amazing artists. The amount of genres his work covers is amazing. What's even more amazing are the blatant rip-offs of Archie, Casper the Ghost, Dennis the Menace, Carl Barks, etc. But even those hack jobs provided valuable training. None of this is to say that Stan was a great ideas man, just that he had a wealth of experience working on funny books.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 15:26:13 GMT -5
I think Stan’s dialogue is great a lot of the times. But at other times, it’s not so great. And as much as I like Spider-Man, it’s hard not to notice, especially the first few years of the Romita era, how all the gang at the Coffee Bean makes the exact same kind of quips all the time. I don’t really have the time to go and find examples, but all you have to do is read it. Peter, Flash, Harry, Gwen and Mary Jane all seem to have the exact same sense of humor. I’ll certainly give Stan credit that most of it’s pretty funny. But they all have the same voice in this particular area. And then there’s the way a lot of the characters have the same gratuitous, demeaning tone toward women. Like Reed or Hank Pym or Don Blake saying something condescending about how women can’t help being emotional or something like that. And you look at the panel and think about how all the dialogue could be changed and be about something else, and it would make the whole sequence so much better. I understand that that was an attitude of a lot of men then and now, but it seems out of character for these guys to harp on it like that. And to have pretty much the same wording and the exact same attitude. But, obviously, it can be very subjective at times. I absolutely agree with all of your points. Stan's work had its flaws like everyone else. As much as I've argued that Stan's dialogue brought out the characterization of the Fantastic Four, the last time I read a run of FF issues, their constant bickering was irritating. The sexism thing is very real and prevalent throughout early Lee work as well. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 27, 2024 15:41:38 GMT -5
One thing I want to say about Jack's scripting is that I really liked the way he scripted Darkseid.  The tiger-force at the core of all things is the most Kirby thing ever, but I love it! |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2024 15:59:54 GMT -5
One thing I'm curious about is why Lee's years of experience writing for Timely and Atlas over a multitude of genres is so easily dismissed. I don't think you can write that many stories without honing your skills into something that's halfway decent. I'm particularly interested in his Western fillers. They're simple morality tales, but well executed stories, and he worked with some amazing artists. The amount of genres his work covers is amazing. What's even more amazing are the blatant rip-offs of Archie, Casper the Ghost, Dennis the Menace, Carl Barks, etc. But even those hack jobs provided valuable training. None of this is to say that Stan was a great ideas man, just that he had a wealth of experience working on funny books. Are they relevant to a discussion of the works that might’ve eventually inspired The Fantastic Four? I’m asking because I don’t know. I really haven’t read very much that Stan Lee wrote in the 1940s and 1950s. Maybe you or somebody else can offer up a few suggestions, like some specific stories, that Stan Lee wrote in the 1940s and the 1950s that might show that he was leading up to something like The Fantastic Four. If we could see some of the stories, maybe we could have a discussion about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2024 17:00:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2024 17:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 27, 2024 17:10:19 GMT -5
|
|
