I caught this the first time around on BBC4 a few months ago, but it is well worth watching, believe me.
So, if you haven't watched this yet, then either download it, watch on the BBC's iPlayer or do whatever you need to, but just watch it.
There are so many positives to the documentary, not the least of which is watching the usually-complete-twat Jonathan Ross genuinely doing something that he is clearly passionate in. Oh, and of course, to see how Steve Ditko has inspired so many creators - Alan Moore included.
I've always held the first 20 issues of Amazing Spider-Man to be the 'Holy Grail' of Spider-Man. We're introduced to Peter Parker, his supporting cast, given a definitive sense of who and what he is, witness his trials, tribulations, loves, commitments and, more importantly, his sense of just. We're introduced to a rogues gallery, villains who are still in high demand and popularity today, villains so well formed that they've translated superbly to the cinema screen (Doctor Octopus & Sandman foremost amongst them).
These issues, including the Annual, is true, quintessential Spider-Man. Everything, and I do mean everything, from JMS to Todd MacFarlane to Howard Mackie to Brand New Day to Roger Stern that we've seen since in a Spider-Man comes from this defining run.
Sure, Steve Ditko left some 18 issues later although, by then, the quality had diluted a little; the character becoming increasingly mire in street-standard storytelling, villains given that 'gangster' twist - all clearly inspired more by Ditko than by Lee. But that earlier incredible 20 issue run is defining, awe-inspiring, bold and emotional; a run that will stand the test of time and one we should all look back with admiration.
And it's available as Essential Spider-Man Vol. 1 - sold at all good comic book stockists that begin with a 'W' and end in a 'R'.
Just to make a "me, too" post here for a minute - as RTBW says the documentary is extremely good and the sensitivity of Jonathon Ross and the programme makers was pleasantly surprising.
The programme throws out some interesting ideas for discussion about creators rights and attribution and where credit should lie for "creating" a character. A lot was made at the time of the first broadcast of this programme about how it shows Stan Lee's "mask slipping" when discussing the argument between the two men about who was credited with the creation of Spiderman, but I did not find that to be the case, and I think the issue is much more complex than Ditko made it out to be. Although I think, from what we learn about him here, he would always be tempted to reduce things to a black and white view.
I want to say more about that, but I will wait until after it has aired and you have seen it, Norsefire1, and then maybe we can have a good chat about that. _________________
i saw this last night and i got to say it was one of the best docs ive seen on the subject full stop. just ace, i agree that Mr. ross and the team that made the film delt with the subject with great sensititvity.
as well as being a thought provoking show, what i like about the doc was that it was really about the artists body of work and that the points of disscussion come from his work and not his personality. another important part of the show that was implicit in the content but nice that it was mentioned was how comics can be used as a media, ie to disscuss philosophical issues. also i found it great that in lots of ways this was a show about "where idears come from" although at the end i did feel that the show made it very easy for the viewer to side with the underdog (ditko) against corporate marvel.
Yeah - I guess that was inevitable given the title
I think the interesting thing was the discussion of "who created Spider-man". Given the "Marvel Method" of making comics at the time a lot more of the actual storytelling work fell to the artist, and it appears (although I don't have a deep knowledge of the comics of the time) that the visual components of the comic were more important that the words.
If this is the case would Spider-man have been the success it was with different visuals? If he had had a different costume, say, or moved differently as the movement of the body in space seems to me to be the key thing about these early Spider-man comics.
On the other hand would the artist have been able to come up with the visuals he did if it had not been for the ideas of the writer? Would the outcome have been the same if another writer had had basically the same idea and described it to the artist?
I have heard these arguments go round and round in circles amongst creators - although how ever much people talk about recognition for their art and input it usually seems to come down to arguments about money and rights and what is worth more - time taken/original conception etc.
The documentary, in the end made me sad. When you read about most of the "great comics" something that always comes out is the intense nature of the collaboration (f unless you get writer / artists). When people get into "pissing contests" about who was the "senior partner" in such efforts or get to squabbling people caring more about "time and motion" (and not in a cool sci-fi sense!) than creativity you might get good technique - but not good art.
The need to cast one party as the "super villain" of the piece does not help with resolving such issues in the future. It's easy to see Stan Lee in this light over this issue, but it sounds like the two men were trying to write such different politcally slanted stories on the same page it was never going to work out. There is an argument to say that Ditko didn't want to draw the stories that Stan Lee was trying to tell perhaps he would have been better off working with a different writer. He was trying to wrest control and steer the book off in ways the writer was not comfortable with.
I have also read that the base idea of Spider-Man was something that had been hanging around for ages, having been through several forms since it's original pitch to Kirby,I think. I will need to go and find the book that is in and post the details later. All in all I think both parties should have been happy to settle for "co-creator" credits, which seems to be what Stan Lee offered in his letter. Also I think the quibbling over the word "considered" as in "I have always considered Steve Ditko to be a co-creator" was a bit childish. I think that was just his way of speaking and it got out all proportion.
Whether because of this issue directly, or other complex reasons we are not privy to, it seems that the art of comics as a whole lost a great creator who could have done fantastic things in the medium.
I would like to read those Mister A comics though.
All in all I am glad this kind of documentary that treats comics as valid artforms in this way is being made. Even if the subjects of this one did not come out looking too shiny! _________________
yes i think that the subject of the visual language and its ownaship of the creation of spider -man and its repercussions (such as films, animation and merchandise) was indeed at the heart of the doc. and due to ditkos design of spider -man and dr.strange and it is quite clear that they would not be as memorable as they are. and again due to the way that the issues where put together there seems to be a lot evedence in favor for the artist.
on the subject of the idears of the writer and his/her relation to the art, i think that in the case of ditko and i think with dr.strange the details of the characters and the conceptual stlye that those tales took was all about ditko.
i think that from the doc, there seemed to be a cocktail cash, rights and politics going on i guess that its quite easy to forget that in the background to all this the US was a mess.
i am not sure if at the end of the doc it made me sad, it did seem to have a bittersweet quality to it, although for me i felt that it had enriched my adoration for two of my fave heroes of all time dr.strange and the question.
yes, casting one party as the villain really doesnt help, as wrestling fan something similar often happens with vince Mcmahon, i think its intresting that in the doc, little was made in way of critcism in the fact that it was the artist that walked away not stan "the man" lee. and as catfang suggests maybe ditko would of been better off with with another writer, although i would say maybe the politics and personal worldview was a large factor of the walk out
yes i do feel that mr.lee was exploited, it was clear that all mr.ross had to do open up some old wounds and push the right buttons to get the reaction and maybe it did get a little out of proportion, although maybe it did not
for those who have yet to read the question, do so. i highly recommend the title.
to finish off. i think that the viewer was the real winner of the show, to agree with catfang it was good to see a doc that delt with comics as valid media.
I do want to read Doctor Strange - I know it has been collected as essentials but they are black and white and I think such a lot is lost without the colour.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
