| Author |
|
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2830
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 5:23am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I haven't seen them, but my impression was always these were going to be little more than Ayn Rand Illustrated. Ditko is very clear with his Objectivism and seems to have little interest in expressing anything other than that. Honestly, when I see these snippets, I don't find the art to be compelling. I would like to see an issue as a curiosity I guess, but nothing more.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Greer
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 18 August 2004
Posts: 14190
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 6:09am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Nathan, Ditko has views on why he won't grant interviews. Read his work and find out. The reason I am vague in telling you why Ditko does this or Ditko does that, is that his work should tell you what he wants you to know. It's part of the reason I don't endorse the Blake Bell book even though I read it. In the end it is someone else's story about Ditko and not Ditko telling his story. His work will tell you better than mine or anyone elses opinion of the work. Out of respect for the man I say walk away from any speculation on if he took money from the movies. Go to the source, read his opinions about compensation. It should be enough. Another thing that you can tell from Ditko's work is that he is in tune with todays fandom and their opinions of him. He makes it clear how he feels about that in his work as well.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Kopperman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3490
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 6:15am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
The art is always interesting, but I wish there was more emphasis placed on traditional inking. There's almost nothing in the history of comics as beautiful as Ditko inking himself.
The essays themselves, well - you'll either like them or you won't. Curiously, it's the lettering that most puts me off. His earliest polemics (Avenging World, Mr. A) still had enough polish and razzle-dazzle, as well as a stronger comics format to them that you can get more easily through the denser text clouds.
I still strongly recommend the Bell book, though - the reproductions are well-selected and beautifully reproduced, and as a survey of Ditko's career, it's indispensable. Bell is a good writer, too, which helps a lot when he doesn't have a subject who can be pinned down.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10943
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:19am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jason C: "First of all, why would Marvel offer unsolicited money to Ditko? That's not the way corporations work. Considering the fact that Stan Lee had to sue in order to get the Spider-Man movie money to which he was contractually entitled, it seems improbable that Marvel would decide to offer film money to Ditko for nothing, when he wasn't even asking for it."
*****
Steve Ditko's name is on the credit block for the movies. The credit block is the list of names and titles on the movie poster and DVD box. It is derived from a contract. They don't add names for any other reason than it is what the contract stipulates. What goes on that movie poster is very specific and doesn't involve polite nods to people or "special thanks".
So if his name is on the contract, then he gets paid. There's no question in my mind that he was paid, but the question is what he did with the money.
Lee and Ditko's name appearing means that have creator rights and they get some checks - I would assume even the worst deal results in good money as Spider-Man is everywhere.
I have a Ditko question -- has it been confirmed who is the anonymous donor who gave the original art to Amazing Fantasy #15 to the Library of Congress? I couldn't believe that art even existed, and when the complete original art was donated in total, I assumed it was Ditko. Knowing the financial worth and cultural significance, it seems Ditko would be one of the few to not see dollar signs and instead put it somewhere for everyone to see.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Greer
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 18 August 2004
Posts: 14190
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:50am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Tim, the donor of that art has not been named. There are rumors of certain Marvel staff and artists that may have stolen much of the art of that time. But it is purely rumors at this time. The person in question offered Ditko the art back but Ditko refused it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Tim, it seems like you're making a lot of unproven assumptions based solely on the fact Ditko's name appears in the Spider-Man credit block ("based on on the Marvel comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko"). I'm hardly an expert on film, but I suspect there have been some instances in the history of film in which a person's name has appeared in the credit block who did not have a contract. I don't see how it's safe to assume with absolute certainty that every person mentioned in a credit block must always have a contract with the film company. As far as I know, there is no other evidence that Ditko signed any contract.
I am skeptical Ditko signed any sort of contract, based on what I've read about him. There is certainly not enough evidence to say that there is "no question" he was paid. And Lee and Ditko definitely do not have any "creator rights" to Spider-Man.
At any rate, the suggestion that Ditko signed a contract with the filmmakers but refused money makes no sense to me. If he did not intend to accept money, why would he sign the contract in the first place? And why would the filmmakers even bother to negotiate a contract with him? Ditko has never claimed to have any ownership of Spider-Man, nor has he asked for money for the character. And unlike Siegel and Shuster, he has never sought to generate negative publicity for the owners of Spider-Man.
Regarding the original art for Amazing Fantasy #15: the person who donated the art "checked with" Ditko before donating it. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound like he was necessary offering to give it to Ditko, but perhaps was just seeking Ditko's approval on donating it. Ditko reportedly responded that he didn't care what was done with the art.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 21 March 2012 at 12:04pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10943
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Jason C: "I don't see how it's safe to assume with absolute certainty that every person mentioned in a credit block must always have a contract with the film company. "
****
That is exactly what I am saying - I'm highlighting this for the specific reason that I know of no other situation where someone would be named in a credit block without some form of agreement and compensation. It just doesn't happen on international studio releases with unions and lawyers scrutinizing the end result. I don't think any corporation would be so negligent to name someone on the credits like that without something in place. At the very least, he would have to sign a waiver. Alan Moore wouldn't agree to having his name in a credit block, so his name is not featured on any WATCHMEN movie posters, which looks odd when you know he is the co-author
I'm not saying Lee and Ditko have a good deal -- the "based on the comic by" credit is very carefully worded to leave out the word "created". And while Lee and Ditko are credited on the movies, their names don't appear in each Amazing Spider-Man comic book in the way Lee and Kirby are mentioned on each issue of Fantastic Four. What does that mean? Maybe it has something to do with Stan Lee actively pursuing his creative rights for Spider-Man in film/TV and merchandise but not publishing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10943
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:44pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Jason C: "At any rate, the suggestion that Ditko signed a contract with the filmmakers but refused money makes no sense to me. If he did not intend to accept money, why would he sign the contract in the first place? And why would the filmmakers even bother to negotiate a contract with him? Ditko has never claimed to have any ownership of Spider-Man, nor has he asked for money for the character. And unlike Siegel and Shuster, he has never sought to generate negative publicity for the owners of Spider-Man."
***
Well, Ditko probably received no money anyway! Even with a deal in place, Stan Lee had to sue Marvel for profits on the movie. Hollywood has "creative accountants" who can make a movie that did a billion in box office look unprofitable.
Since Ditko hasn't pursued his rights, my best bet would be that this has more to do with Stan Lee pursuing his rights for Spider-Man in movies. Any actions Lee takes would be tied to Ditko - I don't think Lee is so brazen as to claim he is the sole creator. And while Ditko has not legally pursued his rights, the illustration upthread makes it clear that he believes he is responsible for the iconic visual elements of Spider-Man.
It is absolutely in the studio's interest to make a deal and give credit/compensation to Lee and Ditko. And they don't do this to be fair to them, but rather to prevent future lawsuits. If they give Lee and Ditko a little credit now for pennies, they could stave off the full creator rights issue that would cost them lots of dough.
Pure speculation on my part, but the evidence is compelling!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10943
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:47pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Paul G: "Tim, the donor of that art has not been named. There are rumors of certain Marvel staff and artists that may have stolen much of the art of that time. But it is purely rumors at this time. The person in question offered Ditko the art back but Ditko refused it."
****
Fascinating!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark McMurray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 7:54pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Nathan said: I have seen images online taken from some of his books -- seem to contain personal views. That's not TOO far off from "giving an interview".
McM: I agree with this! Check out his comics and essays published in Robin Snyder's "the Comics" where Ditko lays it all out from his point of view. This stuff covers a lot and I feel he is more "open" then some think he is. I wish they were all more readily available, but they can be ordered via the links or directly from Robin Snyder.
Until Steve Ditko and RobinSnyder collect these in an upcoming volume of thePackage series, these backissues of The Comics are what you need: The Comics Vol. 12, No. 5 (May2001) launches the series with “A Mini-History: Some Background”, which functions as an introduction; “A Mini-History” was composed of “1. The Green Goblin” (Vol. 12, No. 7,July 2001); “2. Amazing Fantasy #15″ (Vol. 12, No. 10,October 2001); “3. The AmazingSpider-Man #1″ (Vol. 12, No. 11, November 2001); “2. The Amazing Spider-Man #2″ (Vol. 13, No. 1, January2002); “5. The AmazingSpider-Man #3″(Vol. 13, No. 4, April 2002); “6. Spider-Man/Spider-girl” (Vol. 13, No. 5, May2002); “7. The AmazingSpider-Man #4″ (Vol. 13, No. 8, August 2002); “8. Others, Outsiders (OOs): Complainers andComplaints Against Betty Brant” (Vol. 14, No. 2, February 2003); “9. The OOs and Aunt May” (Vol. 14, No. 4,April 2003); “10. The OOs andJJJ” (Vol. 14, No. 5, May 2003); “11. Further Complaints and Influences of the OOs” (Vol. 14, No. 6,June 2003); “12. Guest Stars: Heroesand Villains” (Vol. 14, No. 7, July 2003); “13. Speculation” (Vol. 14, No. 8,August 2003); and “14. The Mistrial” (Vol. 14, No. 9,September 2003); “Wind-up” (Vol. 14, No. 11,November 2003). In this masterwork, Ditko lucidlyspells out his every memory of these years, comics and core issues, basedon “a rough record of myearly involvement with” the characters that Ditko wrote for himself back in1966 (“Some Background,” The Comics, V. 12, N. 5, May 2001,pg. 35). Ditko winds up with a pretty (justifiably) causticassessment of fandom’s role in all this — what should have been done, what wasleft undone, and the myths that spun as a result of both action and inaction.It’s the most direct imaginable communication from Ditko himself,and a final accounting for anyone who cares…” That sums it up pretty good! Let us know what you think if you check any of it out! |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4649
|
| Posted: 21 March 2012 at 9:14pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Tim O'Neill wrote:
| Well, Ditko probably received no money anyway! Even with a deal in place, Stan Lee had to sue Marvel for profits on the movie. Hollywood has "creative accountants" who can make a movie that did a billion in box office look unprofitable. |
|
|
So you're suggesting that possibly Marvel went out of their way to negotiate a contract with Ditko to prevent a lawsuit, and then used creative accounting to not pay him the money they agreed to? That makes absolutely no sense. Why would they initiate a contract with Ditko in the first place if they didn't intend to honor it? Why not just ignore him, given the fact he has never claimed ownership of Spider-Man nor threatened a lawsuit, and was not seeking any money from them?
Tim O'Neill wrote:
| Maybe it has something to do with Stan Lee actively pursuing his creative rights for Spider-Man in film/TV and merchandise but not publishing. |
|
|
The thing is though, Stan Lee has never claimed any creator's rights to Spider-Man, and has never threatened to sue for said rights. To the contrary, he has signed documents quite clearly asserting he has no legal ownership of the character and never did, and he has affirmed this in court testimony on several occasions. The profit-participation contract Lee negotiated for the Spider-Man films was not based on him having nor claiming any creator's rights. Marvel faces no risk of a character ownership lawsuit from Stan Lee, and they did not have to put his name in the credit block to protect themselves from that.
Perhaps Ditko was contacted and agreed to allow his name to be mentioned in the credits. Perhaps he signed a waiver and was even given a token payment for the use of his name. But I don't think the fact that his name is mentioned in the credit block constitutes proof positive of that, and I'm still skeptical. I also remain skeptical that he signed any sort of contract. And there is absolutely no evidence that he was offered money and refused it.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 21 March 2012 at 9:16pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Hollon
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13705
|
| Posted: 27 March 2012 at 4:08am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
...and for those who might care, DITKO 16, his latest comic was just officially made available this morning!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
