Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46
  1. #16
    Extraordinary Member Phoenixx9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    8,496

    Default

    Green Goblin was always a nobody to me. So it doesn't matter who is behind the mask.
    [Quote Originally Posted by Thor-El 10-15-2020 12:32 PM]


    "Jason Aaron should know there is already a winner of the Phoenix Force and his name is Phoenixx9."

  2. #17
    Spectacular Member Nero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Honestly, had the Green Goblin initially turned out to be nobody/complete stranger to Peter Parker then Dr. Octopus would've been Spider-Man's archenemy.

  3. #18
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nero View Post
    Honestly, had the Green Goblin initially turned out to be nobody/complete stranger to Peter Parker then Dr. Octopus would've been Spider-Man's archenemy.
    It's a nonsense hypothesis because it implies that Ditko:
    a)didn't know what he was doing,
    b)why he was doing what he did,
    c)and that he didn't write and draw his stories knowing what and why he was doing.

    That somehow Goblin becoming Spider-Man's arch-nemesis was some accident of history that one single nail removed from it was all that it took. Green Goblin was created to be Spider-Man's arch-nemesis, and that's why Ditko created a mystery around his identity to build him up. He didn't do that for any of the other villains, making Goblin unique in that time. Goblin was also the only bad guy who Spider-Man never caught or even defeated in a straight-up fight during the Lee-Ditko run (whereas Doctor Octopus was defeated on-page and sent to jail), and that's why you had the sustained build-up to his identity and reveal.

    Comics creators aren't idiots, they know what they are doing, they know it instinctively. Spider-Man isn't like Batman or Superman where you had villains introduced serially and stories adding on to their characters stitched in brick-by-brick over decades by several writers. In the case of Spider-Man, Ditko (who learned at the feet of Jerry Robinson, Joker's co-creator) created and built all those rogues by himself. Green Goblin was created to be Spider-Man's arch-enemy, and was created to be Norman. The only way to conceive an alternative is to imagine if Spider-Man was drawn/plotted by Jack Kirby instead of Steve Ditko.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 05-25-2021 at 07:09 AM.

  4. #19
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan2099 View Post
    You can't start your statement with a bold underlined "Stan Lee isn't an unreliable narrator. He's a dishonest narrator," and complain about others trying to skew things.
    Stan Lee repeatedly lied, provably, multiple times over his career. He took credit for creating Captain America in the 1940s, claimed responsibility for Doctor Strange (when in the 1960s he openly said "'twas Steve's idea") and the Master-Planner Saga (which was entirely Ditko's work).

    Anybody else who does what Stan Lee did, we wouldn't hesitate about calling that person dishonest.

    We cannot have one set of standards for regular people, and an entirely different set of standards for Stan Lee.

  5. #20
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,799

    Default

    What if Green Goblin was Noah Boddy?
    https://marvelanimated.fandom.com/wi...er-Man_(1967))

  6. #21

    Default

    ... were the Goblin and Jameson seen in the same place during that time frame before the Osborn revelation? If not.. then there's your one-shot..

  7. #22
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypestyle View Post
    ... were the Goblin and Jameson seen in the same place during that time frame before the Osborn revelation?
    If not.. then there's your one-shot..
    I don't understand this post. Can you explain what you mean?

  8. #23
    Incredible Member Ozymandias's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Lee was a union-busting credit-stealing self-aggrandizing hack who never could have created anything valuable on his own.
    And the first thing he hacked: himself.



    If not for the voice, it'd be quite difficult to make him out.

  9. #24
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,609

    Default

    A random thing that would be hilarious would be if a villain in one title ended up being a major character in another.

    If Spider-Man has no idea who the unmasked Neogoblin is, but it's the prison warden in Daredevil.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  10. #25
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Stan Lee repeatedly lied, provably, multiple times over his career. He took credit for creating Captain America in the 1940s, claimed responsibility for Doctor Strange (when in the 1960s he openly said "'twas Steve's idea") and the Master-Planner Saga (which was entirely Ditko's work).

    Anybody else who does what Stan Lee did, we wouldn't hesitate about calling that person dishonest.

    We cannot have one set of standards for regular people, and an entirely different set of standards for Stan Lee.
    Evidence exists that says he often took credit for things (which he often tried to play off as a joke if corrected) and wasn't as forthcoming in later years as he was at the beginning when he would give praise to Ditko and Kirby.

    However, you often claim he had no part in proceedings. When he did. Lee helped sell the books. He established the comradery in the letters pages. His style and flair presented himself as someone whom fans felt they could call a friend. Showmanship is what Stan did and he did it well. You can't deny that. Plus his role as EiC was to direct talent and get books out (he was lucky he had Ditko and Kirby there or nascent Marvel wouldn't have got books out the door).

    Believe me, I get annoyed that people often think Stan was the guy who created all these characters and never, ever mention the Ditko's, Kirby's, Lieber's and all the rest.

    This dance is going to go on until the end of time, I swear.

  11. #26
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    A random thing that would be hilarious would be if a villain in one title ended up being a major character in another.

    If Spider-Man has no idea who the unmasked Neogoblin is, but it's the prison warden in Daredevil.
    That isn't a bad idea. Makes me wonder if it's been done elsewhere.

    Closest thing is when Lex swapped bodies with The Flash in the JL cartoon and unmasked himself to find out his true Identity, only to stare at the face and say, "I have no idea who this is".

  12. #27
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    However, you often claim he had no part in proceedings. When he did. Lee helped sell the books. He established the comradery in the letters pages.
    He did what an editor and publicist was supposed to do, and passed his editing and publicist as writing, and now we have people citing his contribution to that as sufficient to guarantee him equal contribution to Ditko and Kirby. That's not how this works. We acknowledge the importance of managers of the Beatles like Brian Epstein, without giving him credit for the songs of the group. The idea that Lee as an editor/publicist/PR guy played a part in the sales and promotion of Marvel comics and the success of the company is not the same as what Lee was claiming, which is acting as if doing that was the same as writing and creating and developing the characters and stories across a full rule.

    This dance is going to go on until the end of time, I swear.
    The reason for that is because one person was dishonest and untruthful...Stan Lee. Jack Kirby himself pointed this out:
    "If Stan would only come out of his hiding place and tell the world everything would go great. It isn’t obscure. He knows it, and I know it. There won’t be a resolution. People don’t change. They can’t change. Sometimes it’s too late. You just go on being what you are. Human beings go on being human beings. I can predict everything that Stan will do. I know I can’t change Stan. He says his piece, and I say mine. I could shake hands with Stan till doomsday and it would resolve nothing, the dance goes on."


    It was in Stan's interest that this issue be obfuscated and distorted. So when people say "we'll never know" just remember cui bono(who benefits) from that line of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    That isn't a bad idea. Makes me wonder if it's been done elsewhere.
    The idea was done in Ditko's run on Spider-Man. When Peter unmasks Electro in Issue#9, he admits he doesn't know who he is, since he'd never seen or known Max Dillon before.

    And technically speaking, when Norman Osborn unmasks himself to Peter in ASM#40...that's also the first time Peter has seen him. The only reason he recognizes is him because he knows he's Harry Osborn's dad but otherwise Norman was someone who Peter never knew personally or had met before, but knew of second-hand only.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 06-05-2021 at 06:26 AM.

  13. #28
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    He did what an editor and publicist was supposed to do, and passed his editing and publicist as writing, and now we have people citing his contribution to that as sufficient to guarantee him equal contribution to Ditko and Kirby. That's not how this works. We acknowledge the importance of managers of the Beatles like Brian Epstein, without giving him credit for the songs of the group. The idea that Lee as an editor/publicist/PR guy played a part in the sales and promotion of Marvel comics and the success of the company is not the same as what Lee was claiming, which is acting as if doing that was the same as writing and creating and developing the characters and stories across a full rule.



    The reason for that is because one person was dishonest and untruthful...Stan Lee. Jack Kirby himself pointed this out:
    "If Stan would only come out of his hiding place and tell the world everything would go great. It isn’t obscure. He knows it, and I know it. There won’t be a resolution. People don’t change. They can’t change. Sometimes it’s too late. You just go on being what you are. Human beings go on being human beings. I can predict everything that Stan will do. I know I can’t change Stan. He says his piece, and I say mine. I could shake hands with Stan till doomsday and it would resolve nothing, the dance goes on."


    It was in Stan's interest that this issue be obfuscated and distorted. So when people say "we'll never know" just remember cui bono(who benefits) from that line of reasoning.



    The idea was done in Ditko's run on Spider-Man. When Peter unmasks Electro in Issue#9, he admits he doesn't know who he is, since he'd never seen or known Max Dillon before.

    And technically speaking, when Norman Osborn unmasks himself to Peter in ASM#40...that's also the first time Peter has seen him. The only reason he recognizes is him because he knows he's Harry Osborn's dad but otherwise Norman was someone who Peter never knew personally or had met before, but knew of second-hand only.
    Anybody with sense would realize there is no way he created them all. Not singlehandedly (which is something that frustrates me the most because people just mention Stan and never the artists). But the bulk of the heavy lifting was the artists. The Marvel Method meant that Stan had little say on how the story was told. Stan might have called or, in the case of Romita Snr, left little cards with a sentence or two of the plot e.g. Fantastic Four fights new villain Diablo and left the artists to do the design, breakdowns and layouts. Then he would come in and just react to what was drawn in his scripting.

    The artists often did things in a way that allowed Stan to put more speech bubbles in than originally intended and had the fore thought to accommodate effects. Which is what good artists should do. Because they are the storytellers.

    But Stan, irrespective of his actions, did have a hand in shaping Marvel. He just didn't do it alone. Which is where I am on the whole affair. Everyone who had a hand in creating a character, or shaping a story, should be given their due.

    History will likely be revised now that Stan has passed. Because people can now be more subjective to the facts. Bit like the situation with Jerry Robinson and Bob Kane.

  14. #29
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    The artists often did things in a way that allowed Stan to put more speech bubbles in than originally intended and had the fore thought to accommodate effects. Which is what good artists should do. Because they are the storytellers.
    See the point is that Kirby and Ditko were actively writing those stories. So calling them "artists" or talking about "collaboration" is beside the point. One guy was doing way more work on everything that has to do with comics storytelling more than the other guy, and the guy who did the work wasn't the most credited, and often was paid significantly less. From what I have researched on AF#15, it looks like it was Ditko who came up with the idea that "the burglar Peter lets go kills his Uncle". So Ditko created the costume and gadget design, and the poses for Spider-Man in action, he came up with the psychological basis for Spider-Man being a superhero, and that amounts to basically 90% of what makes Spider-Man unique from Ditko alone.

    But Stan, irrespective of his actions, did have a hand in shaping Marvel.
    I think fundamentally we need to reckon with the fact that Lee's obfuscation and sidelining, and dishonesty is the defining fact of his life, and it overshadows everything else that can be said about him. At least until so far as that part of his life isn't widely acknowledged. Stan Lee didn't want to be remembered as a greator editor, a great PR man, a great manager...which is how people remember (for good and bad) the likes of William Gaines, Mort Weisinger, Jim Shooter, Karen Berger, Louise Simonson. He wanted to be remembered for stuff he didn't do, for stuff other people did.

    He just didn't do it alone. Which is where I am on the whole affair. Everyone who had a hand in creating a character, or shaping a story, should be given their due.
    Talking about "collaboration" as a big kumbaya while valid on a certain level can also be a form of distortion. As I said, we can talk about the impact and value of managers and producers like Brian Epstein on bands like The Beatles, but nobody actually credits Epstein for writing the music. Even in collaboration, some contributions are more equal than others. In the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) they have a process called arbitration that decides in the case of a movie screenplay whether someone's doctoring qualified sufficiently to make credit or not. You need to have written a certain percentage to make the cut. If something like that existed for comics, Stan Lee would have been called to account for his contributions earlier and on each issue.

    Bit like the situation with Jerry Robinson and Bob Kane.
    I think you mean Bill Finger? Jerry Robinson was considerably vocal about his contribution in co-creating The Joker and campaigned actively multiple times for recognition. And Bill Finger near the end of his life was also vocal about challenging Bob Kane's narrative. In the case of Finger, Kane outlived him. Robinson of course outlived Kane but it's not the case that people were unreceptive to Robinson or uncritical of Kane (mostly because unlike Stan Lee who cultivated a personal niceness and friendly demeanor, Bob Kane was openly and publicly an a--hole).

  15. #30
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    See the point is that Kirby and Ditko were actively writing those stories. So calling them "artists" or talking about "collaboration" is beside the point. One guy was doing way more work on everything that has to do with comics storytelling more than the other guy, and the guy who did the work wasn't the most credited, and often was paid significantly less. From what I have researched on AF#15, it looks like it was Ditko who came up with the idea that "the burglar Peter lets go kills his Uncle". So Ditko created the costume and gadget design, and the poses for Spider-Man in action, he came up with the psychological basis for Spider-Man being a superhero, and that amounts to basically 90% of what makes Spider-Man unique from Ditko alone.



    I think fundamentally we need to reckon with the fact that Lee's obfuscation and sidelining, and dishonesty is the defining fact of his life, and it overshadows everything else that can be said about him. At least until so far as that part of his life isn't widely acknowledged. Stan Lee didn't want to be remembered as a greator editor, a great PR man, a great manager...which is how people remember (for good and bad) the likes of William Gaines, Mort Weisinger, Jim Shooter, Karen Berger, Louise Simonson. He wanted to be remembered for stuff he didn't do, for stuff other people did.



    Talking about "collaboration" as a big kumbaya while valid on a certain level can also be a form of distortion. As I said, we can talk about the impact and value of managers and producers like Brian Epstein on bands like The Beatles, but nobody actually credits Epstein for writing the music. Even in collaboration, some contributions are more equal than others. In the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) they have a process called arbitration that decides in the case of a movie screenplay whether someone's doctoring qualified sufficiently to make credit or not. You need to have written a certain percentage to make the cut. If something like that existed for comics, Stan Lee would have been called to account for his contributions earlier and on each issue.



    I think you mean Bill Finger? Jerry Robinson was considerably vocal about his contribution in co-creating The Joker and campaigned actively multiple times for recognition. And Bill Finger near the end of his life was also vocal about challenging Bob Kane's narrative. In the case of Finger, Kane outlived him. Robinson of course outlived Kane but it's not the case that people were unreceptive to Robinson or uncritical of Kane (mostly because unlike Stan Lee who cultivated a personal niceness and friendly demeanor, Bob Kane was openly and publicly an a--hole).
    Bob Kane also took credit for much of Jerry Robinson's work. His name was on the credits for a few projects that Jerry illustrated, and Kane tried to take credit for the creation of the Joker.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/b...5robinson.html

    I do think you underrate Stan Lee's contribution if you think he's more like Mort Weisinger or Karen Berger.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

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