So how long?

...

That would of been a perfect scenario that I would love to pay to see.

Disgusting. If your post was capworthy then someone else would have done it for you.

Probably 5 inches before the circumcision.

It really takes very little effort to remove the (you) in Photoshop, user, but here's a tip: close your browser, start it up, go back to the thread and THEN cap it.

...

fuck off

I'm looking forward to it

Not soon enough.

Apparently he had to film all his coming cameos all at once. Did he seem more low energy in Dr. Strange?

Marvel has already created a perfect 3D model of his face, along with a lifelike voice synthesizer.
Even after Lee himself kicks the bucket, he will keep reappearing in all marvel movies until time ends.

how long was your penis at birth bruh?
oh right you're probably white

Or till the next decade when Marvel finally collapses.

Sounds a little too "good" to be true, even though sister company Lucasfilm has recently toyed with and somewhat backpedaled that kind of crap

...

He didn't even create Dr Strange by his own admission

He still has to appear in all these movies

...

My point is where's Steve Ditko's cameo?
Even Rob Liefeld got a cameo in Deadpool. And Chris Claremont and Len Wein got a cameo in Days of Future Past. Stan Lee's cameoing in all these properties and he genuinely didn't have fuck to do with some of them

There will never be a Steve Ditko cameo because Steve Ditko is a fucking recluse that lives in a shitty apartment in New York, surviving off his government pension. Numerous people have tried to contact him to no avail. No one has seen him in years. Any time people in other media try to credit him for Spider-Man, they get a phone-call from Ditko demanding they take it off.

It's like everything else with Ditko. You think he's a forgotten creator, but in reality he isn't. He's just a cunt who ran his own career into the ground because of his faith in Objectivism.

Stan died a few years ago you fucking idiots. They just use computers and a sound-a-like voice actor to potray him on-screen nowadays on his own request before he died.

This is the only true thing you said in that entire paragraph

I get that you want to believe he's a poor, downtrodden artist, but seriously, the man made his own bed.

Read up on him. He's an asshole.

B-BUT user I'M SURE HE'S ONLY AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE MARVEL WOULD HAVE HIM ASSASSINATED IF HE WAZNT

the best part is I was only one of those fags
what a great thread

I get that he's not Jack Kirby but Marvel (or rather, Stan specifically) still fucked him over. In addition, if he didn't want credit for Spider-Man he wouldn't have made this.

The only true things you said were that he's a recluse (he stopped granting interviews or making public appearances even when he was at Marvel) and that his Objectivism more-or-less tanked his career (I think it was Hawk and Dove that did it specifically)

Go back to /x/ with this shit

With Ditko, the issue of credit is a complete shit-show.

Ditko is contradictory and confusing, but one thing I was able to gather is that Ditko simply doesn't want credit, but sole credit. According to Ditko, even though Stan Lee came up with the idea for Spider-Man, it was Ditko that actually drew the comics, thus entitling him to sole credit. Stan Lee corroborated that Ditko has this view, recounting his phone conversations where he attempted to make amends. So it's case where they want to give him credit, but Ditko won't accept anything but sole credit.

Now as much as I hate Marvel and Stan Lee, I can't agree that they "fucked him over". Despite Ditko's claims to the contrary, he does receive royalty checks (ones that have a lot of zeros, if his neighbor is to be believed), which is how he's able to afford an office and an apartment in New York. Also, unlike a lot of artists from his time, such as Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko actually has a lot of his original work, which he could sell of thousands of dollars. However, Ditko prefers to chop the art up and use it to mend his cutting board. Then he cries poverty.

I'm all for creator rights and creator credit, but Steve Ditko is a terrible poster child for it. Ditko isn't where he is because of Marvel fucking him over. Ditko is where he is because he's stupid and insane.

Johnny Knoxville in Bad Grandpa looks like Stan Lee.

The British TV personality Johnathan Ross (primarily famous, as far as I can tell, for always hosting awards shows, because he's never going to win one) did a documentary about him a while back, and was able to meet and "interview" him (off camera). It used to be on Youtube, dunno if it still is.

There's a whole documentary called In Search Of Steve Ditko, where they ended up never actually finding Steve Ditko.
Well, they couldn't of tried too hard, because one interview I read said all they had to do was read the goddamn floor directory on his building.

It's still on YouTube. Got Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman in it, if that's a dealbreaker/maker for y'all

They did find Steve Ditko. Ditko didn't want to be interviewed on camera. Jonathan Ross respected that.

The hard part isn't finding him. It's getting him to answer the door.

I know one guy waited two days outside of Steve Ditko's office just to talk to him. When Ditko finally opened the door, he just squinted suspiciously at the guy and closed the door without a word.

I can't help but compare him to his colleague, Jack Kirby, whose home was always open to fans and his wife Roz would even make them sandwiches. Ditko won't even say hello, or even open the door at times, to most anyone that pays him a visit.

By the end Jack Kirby wanted the same thing. Keep in mind this was years after being dicked around by Marvel, denied credit, proper royalties or even his artwork back, but Jack did eventually say 'Fuck Stan Lee, he didn't create anything'.
With regards to credit, Stan Lee says he considers Ditko the co-creator but if you press him hard enough, as Jonathan Ross did, he'll basically reveal that he believes he created Spider-Man and only him, not Steve. With regards to co-plotting, he never paid Ditko his due for co-plotting. When it came to credit, he'd give Ditko the proper attribution but he'd also shit all over him, for example the aforementioned Doctor Strange credit and when Ditko started plotting Amazing Spider-Man by himself Stan said, in the Bullpen, something akin to 'If the plot was shit, that's because Ditko wrote it'.
Probably a tenth of what he'd get if he went to court. That's 'Don't sue us' money.
I agree that Ditko's not like Jack Kirby. Ditko's like a hundred times worse than Alan Moore and Alan Moore's pretty grumpy. But his bad feeling towards Stan and Marvel is not without foundation. Stan did treat him like shit. The way Ditko tells it, the reason he quit Marvel and Spider-Man was because he didn't feel like busting his ass for somebody who wouldn't even speak to him.

Jack also wanted his original artwork back.
The artwork that Marvel said they destroyed, the artwork they were auctioning at the same time they were telling Jack it had been destroyed.

That's what I said

For Jack Kirby, who did create a lot of shit and deserves recognition for that, credit was a means to an end. Equal credit was an important thing because with it he could get good a good page rate for his work and get royalties so he could continue to provide for his family. Even his fight to get his work back was out of a desire to make sure his family was well taken care of by providing them art to sell.

With Steve Ditko, his situation isn't as clear cut. Numerous people offered Ditko co-creator credit, and nobody gives a fuck what Stan Lee thinks, seeing as he's a well known blow-hard with no actual influence over anything. He still won't accept it and demands sole credit.

Steve Ditko's demand for sole credit is bizarre, almost spiteful. If it's for recognition or money, he could easily do what Jerry Siegel, Joe Simon, and even Jack Kirby did of putting pressure on comic companies with public opinion. There's legions of people out there who'd bust their balls to help the co-creator of Spider-Man get his share of the glory. But he doesn't talk to those people. He doesn't talk to anyone. He ignores all attempts to help him and refuses every opportunity to help himself.

The demand for sole credit seems like an excuse for Steve Ditko. It's a problem he doesn't want to solve, just to complain about. I don't know if it's because of his objectivism or his cantankerous nature, but that's what it looks like.

Stan was editor and then publisher at Marvel. I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that when new owners bought Marvel in the 70s and asked about this whole credit thing, he said 'yeah, I created them all' which pretty much ensured his collaborators would never get their share. He had influence. Probably still does, I'm given to understand he's still on Marvel's payroll. Probably has a Bob Kane, who he's expressed admiration for by the way, type deal where if Marvel say anybody else created his shit Marvel get taken to court.

soon…

Stan had influence, but not anymore. Get gets a pay-check, but I think that's more of a pension than for actual work. I also don't think he has a contract as good as Bob Kane's, seeing as Kirby and others are still credited, and even then, DC has started crediting Bill Finger for Batman despite Bob's contract.

As for the new owners, because Stan was the loudmouth promoting the books, they believed he was the brains of the operation. Stan never corrected them or stood up for the artists. I believe Stan's actions were more out of cowardice than actual malice.

But that's neither here nor there. Ditko was receiving plotting credits prior to him quitting in 1966, which was two years before Marvel was sold to the Perfect Film and Chemical Corporation, the new owners that caused Kirby to quit. The thing is Ditko could change things tomorrow, he could've changed things 15 years ago when the first Spider-Man movie came out with a Jerry/Joe public campaign for credit. He didn't and he doesn't.

But he's always credited as "co-creator" and I've never really seem Stan taking sole credit for any character. At least in interviews he always mentions "me and Jack" when talking about the old comics.

That's because Bob's contract was fraudulent. Everything that stipulates that Bob Kane and only Bob Kane will receive credit for Batman comes from the second contract, which DC offered Bob because he claimed to have been under 18 when he signed the first contract. In fact, Kane was about 22 (or was it 25?) when he signed that first contract, so any lawyer worth his salt could easily argue that the second contract was obtained by fraud and is therefore null and void.

It's the work-for-hire argument. Basically, Stan's claim is that he conceived the idea for the Marvel characters and then hired Jack Kirby (or Steve Ditko, or John Romita, or whoever) to draw them, therefore it's his (or Marvel's) idea and thus the artist has no intellectual property rights whatsoever, because they were merely hired to execute Stan's ideas. Therefore Stan receives royalties and the original artists don't. Of course, the counter to this argument is that Jack Kirby was the one bringing work to Stan who would then pay Jack a page rate for it. John Romita basically confirmed that Jack Kirby would never listen to a thing Stan said about plots, he'd go away and draw his own. There's the famous anecdote about Stan's plot for a Fantastic Four issue being 'The Fantastic Four fight God' and Jack coming back with first part of the Galactus three parter, to which Stan responded upon seeing the Silver Surfer for the first time 'Who the fuck is that?'
He mentions Jack because he can. Jack's family don't get shit for Jack's work. That's why they're suing Marvel.

I don't deny Stan is a hack who gets way more praise and money than he deserves and that Jack got screwed in the whole deal.

I was just pointing out that I've never seem Marvel giving him sole credit, nor him taking sole credit for any of the creations.

And I'm saying that, yes, they might say on paper that he co-created these characters but legally all the credit, for those particular characters at least, belongs to Stan and Marvel

No, they're not. They settled back in 2014

Stan doesn't own shit. He only gets royalty checks and a company pension.

I was responding to the user saying Stan probabably had a Bob Kane type of deal with Marvel that obligates them to give him sole credit.

Okay, sued Marvel. Don't be pedantic.
More than Kirby gets

Considering the conditions of the settlement, with Disney wanting to prevent the PR disaster and the damage to their bottom line that a SCOTUS hearing would cause, I'd imagine the amount is quite substantial.

Aren't the terms of the settlement sealed?

The terms? Yes. However, considering the situation Disney was in, the Kirby's probably got a good deal, maybe making out like bandits.

It was an 11th hour deal with the possibility of a Supreme Court trail. The Kirby's and Disney were playing Poker and Disney folded.

Thank you anons. I thought that they just did In Search of Moebius and that was it.

Stan is pretty much Marvel's mascot at this point.

Probably around the same time Jim Davis meets his grave.

Jim Davis is way younger. And also, why would you wish death on Jim Davis? He gave the world Garfield

He did start an intentionally mediocre comic strip specifically to be marketed

Which I enjoyed as a kid, which got spun-off into decent TV specials and a decent if not great 80s cartoon show, and which made him a ton of money. So, I ain't mad at him.

Not like Stan. Stan deserves to die.

Now that I've checked, he's in his 70s when I thought him to be in his 80s.

...

The only good thing to come out of Garfield is:
Garfield minus Garfield
Garfielf and Fist of the Borf Star
lasagnacat

Garfield itself is trash.

Funny enough when asked which Marvel character he would want to play Stan Lee said J Jonah Jameson since they have similar looks and are both cantakerous assholes. I guess JJJ was kind of like a parody of Stan Lee.