Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
  1. #16
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,103

    Default

    Short note here, afaik Ditko left Marvel because his randian philosophy wouldnt allow him to compromise. Lee was grouchy about that sure but thats on Ditko frankly. As for Kirby whilst he and Stan had issues at times Kirby left because the EIC (not Stan) wasnt paying him enough. Just because Stan showboats and is good at promoting himself doesnt make him a complete shitheel. You want that you go to Bob Kane.

  2. #17
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetengine View Post
    Short note here, afaik Ditko left Marvel because his randian philosophy wouldnt allow him to compromise.
    Ditko didn't really become Randian until long after he left Marvel. He left Marvel in 1966, then he spent a year at Warren Comics under Archie Goodwin illustrating horror comics (that some, like Alan Moore, think are his best works) and then he went to Charlton. It wasn't until Mr. A (which came out in 1973-Six Years Later) that people realized how deep into Rand he was. Ditko's issues with Marvel as per his biographer Blake Bell were entirely down to pay. He was co-writing stuff but got a credit (and payment) solely for his work as artist. He negotiated a plotting credit which he saw as a sop (but still more than what Kirby achieved) and then Stan Lee in interviews at the time talked smack about Ditko, saying he wasn't a good plotter (which considering that the issues after that was the Master-Planner Saga is pretty false).

    There was absolutely no political reason behind Ditko's departure from Marvel. For one thing, Ayn Rand in the early to mid-60s was still largely known as a mainstream author of science fiction and YA rather than a philosopher. That's apparent when you consider the fact that the person who introduced Ditko to Rand, who recommended him to read her, was none other than...Stan Lee himself. Stan Lee essentially dunked Ditko into a vat of acid all things considered. Likewise, Jack Kirby, who was a liberal and leftist (he opposed the Vietnam War in the '60s at a time when Lee was studiously apolitical) had same issues with Lee and he said he would have left at the same time as Ditko if not for having to take care of his family first and provide some stability before he made the shift.

    As for Kirby whilst he and Stan had issues at times Kirby left because the EIC (not Stan) wasnt paying him enough.
    With Martin Goodman (who was publisher of Marvel and Lee's Uncle). Yeah. Ditko had issues with him. But both Lee and Kirby definitely didn't see Stan on their side.

    Just because Stan showboats and is good at promoting himself doesnt make him a complete shitheel. You want that you go to Bob Kane.
    I don't think Bob Kane is the only flavor and variety of bad. Lee, in the context of his time, was further ahead of others in terms of introducing full credits and so on, and he wasn't personally a bad writer and so on...but you can definitely hold him responsible for the stuff he didn't do or fully own up to and so on. And as Editor-In-Chief, you can definitely hold him to task dor driving away "the goose that lays the golden egg" to competitors which definitely played a part in Marvel's slide in the '70s. For all that Jim Shooter got grief for driving John Byrne to DC, it's nothing compared to Lee's blunder in driving co-founders of Marvel to the competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid View Post
    I feel like Marvel taking place in a "real world" setting is an advantage. I don't mean it's realistic, but rather it sets itself as being our world if it we[/re a superhero world.
    That's another thing that no longer has any meaning. Marvel might have been a mirror to the "real world" in the '60s and '80s but not anymore. New York City is gentrified heavily but you still have high crime rates taken for a given in Marvel NY. Functionally Marvel NY is not any different from Gotham and Metropolis at this point. It's just not the "world outside your window" anymore. The exceptions are stuff like Miles Morales and Kamala Khan which reflects some real world stuff but those are exceptions.

    Spider-Man and Daredevil for instance absolutely exist in a fantasy version of New York City. As does The Punisher and others.

    I think just having the Marvel characters come from actual real-world places with defined locations helps to better sell them as real people instead of a fictional city of a vaguely-defined location.
    People at DC would argue that having each character having a defined location and background of their own allows each hero to stand out as something special individually as opposed to Marvel where there's a superhero caste system in NYC where basically the Fantastic Four live in a penthouse and handle the cosmic/galactic stuff, the Avengers live in a Mansion and handle stuff the FF are too busy to deal with, while "street-level" heroes exist to be mocked and made fun off in crossover stories for handling small-time crooks and gangsters and so on. On the whole DC is a more democratic place. Superman would never say, like Iron Man does in Homecoming with a straight face, that "so-and-so" is below his pay grade. Batman would never say any threat is beneath him and so on.

    That's my take as to the advantages Marvel has over DC.
    Advantages aren't forever. The advantages that Marvel once had over DC aren't there anymore, or they no longer have the same value and meaning.
    -- Stuff like everyone living in a real city and background doesn't mean anything if they don't continue to update and progress and keep paces with changes in that background.
    -- Marvel in the '60s had real-time progression and character growth and that was a huge advantage it had over DC. But then the "illusion of change" came and now it's not any different from DC.

    People also need to grok something. DC has obviously stayed in business since the '60s, and many great comics have come out since then. They still kept the fictional cities and other stuff. So if you want to make a case of "advantage" then it doesn't explain why DC still do that and still stay solvent. Maybe those advantages aren't really advantages after all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •