ALAN MOORE discusses the Charlton/Watchmen (and Ditko) connection with Jon B. Cooke in Comic book Artist #9 (2000). www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html CBA: Do you recall The Question? Alan: Yes, I do. That was another very interesting character, and it was almost a pure Steve Ditko character, in that it was odd-looking. "The Question" didn't look like any other super-hero on the market, and it also seemed to be a kind of mainstream comics version of Steve Ditko's far more radical "Mr. A," from witzend. I remember at the time-this would've been when I was just starting to get involved in British comics fandom-there was a British fanzine that was published over here by a gentleman called Stan Nichols (who has since gone to write a number of fantasy books). In Stan's fanzine, Stardock, there was an article called "Propaganda, or Why the Blue Beetle Voted for George Wallace." [laughter] This was the late-'60s, and British comics fandom had quite a strong hippie element. Despite the fact that Steve Ditko was obviously a hero to the hippies with his psychedelic "Dr. Strange" work and for the teen angst of Spider-Man, Ditko's politics were obviously very different from those fans. His views were apparent through his portrayals of Mr. A and the protesters or beatniks that occasionally surfaced in his other work. I think this article was the first to actually point out that, yes, Steve Ditko did have a very right-wing agenda (which of course, he's completely entitled to), but at the time, it was quite interesting, and that probably led to me portraying [Watchmen character] Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character. CBA: When you read some of Ditko's diatribes in "The Question" and in some issues of Blue Beetle, did you read it with bemusement or disgust? Alan: Well... CBA: A mix of both? Alan: Well, no. I can look at Salvador Dali's work and marvel at it, despite the fact that I believe that Dali was probably a completely disgusting human being [laughter] and borderline fascist, but that doesn't detract from the genius of his artwork. With Steve Ditko, I at least felt that though Steve Ditko's political agenda was very different to mine, Steve Ditko had a political agenda, and that in some ways set him above most of his contemporaries. During the '60s, I learned pretty quickly about the sources of Steve Ditko's ideas, and I realized very early on that he was very fond of the writing of Ayn Rand.
This man has been a vocal admirer, supporter and lover despite their opposing views for more than half a century. The first google search result on their names is Alan gushing over Ditko in an interview from 2000. But you'll still find smoothbrain youtubers painting him envious and bitter regarding Steve.
People with opposing world views are always going to take jabs at each other below the belt. Clearly he had more respect for Ditko than other people who opposed objectivism, but he is also a God of his own world and doesn't very much like the idea of another philosophical God opposing him. Creativity comes with a great deal of narcissism. I do believe his character of Rorschach hyperbolized and failed to reach the essence of Ditko's message.
@@mikethaison432I agree but I do think Rorschach was more of a strawman of the objectivist ideology or like a parody of Ditko's "Mr. A" and how a seemingly virtuous individual can still be broken and molded by the bleak world he lives in. Granted I'm probably off base but that's just what came to mind after reading your comment :)
@@mothballmouth Yeah that’s a fair point. It is mentioned by Ditko that like Plato’s theory of forms the idea of objectivism should be something to strive for, its not a literal goal, since no human can be perfect. Heroes were supposed to be people young men and women could look up to. I can understand a few corrupted heroes here and there but my generation honestly has grown up with very few male role models and the effect has been extremely negative in young men. Luckily I have access to older movies, books, and comics.
@@mikethaison432 well ditko is a great artist but his ideas and belief are nonsense. the whole internet comunity should be dead if half of the world follow the beliefs of ditko. Rorschach is that, in the real world you can't have just good and wrong, theres a lot of grey and this type of character (fictional or reals) get lost in the situations where something doesnt fit in bad or good. I think Moore portait the question in a logical way. Also I think watchmen is not the best superhero comic, and not even the best comic at all, as a lot of people think, it just fit in a good superhero comic book (not the best genre of comics, btw).
Alan has always been an outspoken Ditko fanboy, even going out of his way to underline that Ditko's Randian heroes can be important in this increasing gray world. Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between sharp criticism of ideals and a personal vendetta, so they sold this idea that Alan dislikes/is salty over this comics legend. This was the same documentary where Stan Lee's lawyer got stuck in traffic, so Jonathan Ross got him to finally confess that Ditko was indeed a Spidey's creator. *EDIT:* To be clear, said he _considered_ Ditko to be the co-creator.
It's a fine line that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman tread between openly admiring Ditko's comics work, while also trying to playfully sweep his terrifying Randian obsessions under the bearskin rug. I mean in truth Ditko clones could have populated some segment of the Orwellian government in V for Vendetta, if only Ditko had slightly more tact and nuance. And yes fans and critics, even seemingly intelligent ones, can't seem to understand that you can be critical of someone's ideals and still like their work, or highly critical of some of their work while still liking the overall body of work. The Frank Miller poll I posted here was along those lines. I posted it because it was being hotly debated on Twitter and I'd rather post things that are provocative and interesting as opposed to the "Who would win in a fight" type posts so popular on other channels. Followers of this channel seemed to understand that. But on my Facebook Group seemingly intelligent people were apoplectic about ever daring to so much as question any artist...ever! There was even one popular TH-cam comics historian, who I have never seen on the Group, who popped up to claim any critique of Miller was "ageism." Of course this mealy-mouthed historian is incapable of any criticism whatsoever. He adores everyone and everything uncritically. Speaking of which...I'm a fan of Stan Lee's and don't give AF what Alan Moore's "heart" tells him. Stan co-created Spider-Man and his dialogue, guidance, and tireless promotion was a massive element in Spider-Man's success. Could you imagine a Ditko-written Spidey condemning children to life in prison for spitting their gum out on the sidewalk? I can. It becomes even more nebulous because not only did Ditko surely ste...um, appropriate the iconic Spidey costume from that of a Halloween costume store in NYC that advertised a similar design pre-dating Spider-Man's creation; but also Jack Kirby (and his estate) claimed that he created Spider-Man because of the first cover. Of course at some point Jack cracked up and claimed to have created everything in the known universe (or at least that's what Roz told him). All I know is that when Ditko left (and with no Kirby in sight), Spider-Man continued to thrive with Stan and John Romita, which kind of debunks all claims that Stan had no hand in its success.
@@GodLovesComics Any criticism of Miller is ageism? Lmao that's a new one. So let us praise unquestionably all sexagenarian (and beyond) creators then! Some see Rorschach as a _literally-me,_ so when they find that it's a critique of Mr. A they get all pissy and start arguing that Moore's intent was ackshually for readers to root for Ozymandias -- I blame sports and bipartisanship which ingrained in most people a desperate need for picking a team. The whole Stan v. Ditko thing back then regarding Spidey was more of a backlash to it being brough up solely as Stan's creation. If it had been Stan+Ditko's Spiderman from the get go, just like Seigel+Shuster's Superman, all this commotion wouldn't exist. But are you implying that Kirby DIDN'T create everything in the known Universe? 🤨
@@Tretas.The amusing thing about the ageism claim is that just a few days earlier I posted an hour-long video of Belgian artist Hermann Huppen drawing. Hermann is 84! The insane, revisionist disdain for Stan is so ingrained now that it's hard to know how much credit Stan could have doled out right from the germination of an idea to stem it. The same people who think Stan didn't credit Kirby enough somehow missed the thousands of times Stan praised Kirby to the heavens in every Soapbox and interview, and the fact that the term "King Kirby" was indelibly imprinted on their pea-brains by...Stan. Conversely, it was Kirby who told Gary Groth the absurd lie that Stan "never wrote anything" and couldn't even spell. I guess due to reverse ageism, Groth was too cowardly and/or opportunistic to question Jack on his faulty memory? I can link you to tens of thousands of people right now on social media groups who are certain that Kirby created everything in the known universe.
That's not really what Stan did in the interview. In reality, his responses showed that although he valued Ditko's contribution he never really considered Ditko the co-creator of Spider-Man.
@@walterhoward5512 He played with words, saying _"I _*_consider_*_ him to be the co-creator"_ with Ross pressing him on the matter and Stan underlining _"consider"_ and nothing more -- kinda downplaying a bit Ditko's role. But you're right, he didn't confirm in the documentary that Ditko was a creator (I just checked). Maybe I was conflating it with one of Moore's accounts? Anyway, ty for the correction!
Ditko is my favorite silver age creator. His work was so specific to him and his worldview, no one was ever really able to replicate it. Every character Ditko created/co-created became very different after he left. Even Spider-Man is a functionally different person once Lee is able to take control of the character.
well I think that happens with every superhero... Was Batman the same after Bill Finger and Bob Kane end their run? Was Superman the same after Siegel and Shuster left? Was Daredevil the same after Everett left it? F4 with Kirby and Lee? Every thing changes once the creators left the series... and keep changing with every artist who take the run. Lee never got that control in Marvel stories, as long as all the artist said, Lee just give em a call, discuss potential plots and the artist made the whole thing, Lee of course has an unique hability to put words in characters that make them charismatic. So I dont think all his work was so into his philosophy as a lot of people says, of course his own crations The Question, Mr A, are, but the rest, maybe hawk and dove, but I dont find objectivism in Spiderman, Dr Strange, the Creeper, Squirrel girl, Blue beatle. Besides all that I think he was an amazing artist, if look carefully, all the characters he create or modify someway, remains the same, spiderman suit, strange outfit, the new Ironman design, the creeper, hawk and dove, BlueBeatle, Squirrel girl, etc. Superheroes change outfit every year, but those created by Ditko still wears the same, and that something special, and that is why I like him, nothing more.
@@matuvarela3760 I definitely agree that all characters change over time, but I just feel like the changes that happened to his characters were much more profound. Take Hawk and Dove, for example. The standard version of that duo is one from that Liefeld mini series in the 80s with the female Dove. The Blue Beetle is another one where the Ditko version has been completely overtaken by the JLI take on that character.
@@walterhoward5512 well changing a male character to a female one doesnt make anything as long as the core personality of the character is respected, and Im not a fan of hawk and dove, but the only fact of changing a man for a woman doesnt seem to me as a great change. Bluebeattle, was created by other people, and Steve Ditko is just one more of the artist who made a change in it, I just recall the character to say that he didnt print his philosophy in all his characters, as far as I'm concerned, the only characters who were made with his beliefs are MR A and the question, and Mr A is a character that he loved for his entire life. All the other ones where just work to him. well at least if he were living by objectivism standars
Ditko was such a unique comic book figure and quite an influence of Moore i.e. The Watchmen, etc. He also cut his teeth on some awesome pre-code horror and sci-fi comics. Dr. Death!
I have a hardcover copy of "The Mocker." Ditko was a "true believer" in that he had worked out some kind of objectivist philosophy and he stuck to it to produce some of the most idiosyncratic comics in the US. Even his dialogue was weird. But those hands, those Ditko hands were markers of both Spiderman and Doctor Strange. "Tormented elegance" is a very apt phrase. Thanks for posting.
I'm happy to have so many intelligent and informed (even sometimes prickly) commenters lately. Of all the videos I've posted I certainly didn't expect so many people to engage with this one.
I always liked Ditko's images. They seemed more real. And the tension, that Peter Parker could put Flash through a wall, if he wanted to...but he didn't. That made him a hero.
Ditko and Kirby gave the fledgling Marvel Universe a unique polarity between realism and psychedelia IMO. They were polar opposites and the energy flowing between them helped shape Marvel as we know it.
Moore is definitely one of the most fascinating individuals of this world. His speeches and interviews always leave me flabbergasted in spite of his serious yet somewhat calmed and casual demeanour. Sad how a lot of people misunderstand or just don't bother giving any thought to him and just regard him as a cranky old man. Recently started going through Supreme and his ABC line. Alan said those were more of a break for him, something to have fun with, but geez, not only are they fun, they're genuinely well thought and a love letter to the superhero genre. Might sart going for his more 'messed up' stuff later down the line.
Supreme is a blast, and by far the best Superman run out there. His Glory run also started out great and I could see him winking at early-60's Wonder Woman in every panel but alas it got cancelled when he left Image.
I think the fans who are bitter about Moore have jilted lover syndrome, where they adore some work of Moore's that he has ultimately dismissed and/or does not want to see appropriated and perpetuated by other creators, but fans feel proprietary over his work. And Moore's ABC line, which he just claimed was a breezy correction of the "grim and gritty" era Watchmen inadvertently rung in, would be any other writer's magnum opus. Love it or not, Promethea is an incredibly complex and extraordinary comic. Top Ten was also smart and fun. But after always hearing how great Tom Strong was I finally read a collection and found it surprisingly dull and uninspired compared to Moore's usual standards. I still liked the look of Chris Sprouse's clean and charming CC Beck-like art.
@@GodLovesComics I also found Tom Strong underwhelming after hearing it was akin to the second coming for so long. Have you read Supreme? What's your opinion on it? Promethea is what Glory was but without the love-letter to early WW comics, and more of an excuse to explore his Kabbalistic interests. So although fascinating, I found it rather insipid.
@@GodLovesComics Well for me the difference between Supreme and Tom Strong is simple really: I'd recommend Strong to someone who doesn't like superhero comics. Though that's more with how Tom isn't necessarily a superhero, but more like your average pulp fiction good guy as in Doc Savage (with a bit of Trazan and Superman here and there). IDK haven't reached the point to decide about Tom Strong, but I do like how Moore builds things like his supporting cast and rogues gallery. Which is not to say the Supreme one's bad. The less obvious analogues of Superman foes always kept me in doubts (Is Televillain supposed to be the Prankster or Toyman?) , but even the more obvious ones always had a certain twist to keep them interesting. The Supremium Men is what the Kryptonite Man wishes it could be really.
@@Tretas. I don't recall ever finding Promethea "insipid", although I think that is the perfect term for Tom Strong. I think Promethea was monstrously ambitious in terms of layout and composition, bordering on convoluted storytelling. But I adored J.H. Williams' art and the incredible amount amount of work he put into that book. I've never read a single issue of Supreme. I know people (people other that just Liefeld) say it was really good, so I'm sure it's worth looking at. When you think about it since Supreme is just an analog of Superman, could DC have simply paid Moore the same wages Liefeld paid and gotten a few years of Moore writing Superman and continuing the brilliance of his Superman Annual? Even if the sales didn't justify it then, they surely would have with subsequent decades of collections. I don't know the chronology but maybe Alan had already burned his DC bridges. But kind of sad when there so many possibilities.
It's just now dawning on me that I've never heard Alan Moore's voice. I've heard his opinions, but never actually him talking and his voice weirdly isn't what I expected but also makes complete sense
I’m still upset that I got rid of my original Steve Ditko Spider-Man page from issue 12 with Dr. octopus. There was no Peter Parker or Spider-Man on the page.. I still have my Ditko page Indiana Jones from the 1980s it’s on my wall . I should never have gotten rid of the Spider-Man page.. on the other hand I have two copies of amazing fantasy 15. One of those is 6.0 the other one is restored 8.0 no trimming. I also have a amazing Spider-Man. 1 6.5 classic DITKO
Im a huge Steve Ditko fan as well. Jack Kirby, thank you for make The Thing, my favorite Marvel hero, but Steve will always be my favorite comic book artist
Alan Moore is a legend and I always wanted to get my Batman the Killing Joke signed by him cause the Killing Joke is one of the best Batman stories told in the last 40 years along with the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.Does Alan Moore do signing anymore?
I don't think he does conventions and he has often called Killing Joke a glorified Batman Annual. But he's been dismissive of all his superhero comics recently. He did do signings for his new novel. I would be very interested to know if he signed any comics for people who also bought the novel.
@@GodLovesComics He's been dismissive of it because he found it to be well-trodden ground coming off of Watchmen, Swamp Thing, MarvelMan... He's not into the whole brooding Batman characterization nor is the Bat a character he's ever been interested in. But he's more than happy to sign his comics if you're polite about it. I got my Secret Origins #10 The Phantom Stranger copy signed just before covid hit and neener-neener you 👏 can't 👏 have 👏 it 👏
@@GodLovesComics I completely agree! He's in my top 10 comic authors list. I think for anyone making comics, it's important to study his work regardless of how one feels about his plots or the way he uses characters; the man understands how to use the medium of comics themselves in the service of telling the story. There are few artists in comics who understand it on the level Moore does, let alone writers. His understanding and command of the medium is sublime.
@@GodLovesComics I think that is WHY the Ditko addiction, too. Steve was a madman, an inspired genius until the day he died, evolving as a storyteller, and the medium itself until his death. The more you examine Ditko work, the more you find in the work to examine.
@@RarebitFiends I think Moore has such a fecund mind that he is clearly fascinated by anyone with a unique perspective and anyone who doesn't slot in perfectly with the herd. As for examining Ditko's work, especially his late-in-life Chick tracts, I'll take your word for it. But at a glance it kinda looks like a guy who was ranting in the wilderness about the same thing most of his life, but just finding slightly different methods to transmit the rant.
@@GodLovesComics Ditko's later in life work can be reduced to that, sure... in the same way Moore's work can be reduced to fanfic. The thing fascinating about much of his later work is the same thing that makes his earlier work so endlessly fascinating... his command of the medium itself. I may be giving an old man too much credit when I say this, but he found a way to make poetry using the form of the medium itself. Around the late Oughties, his dialogue became minimal and abstract while still conveying all they needed to for a given story. It's not for everyone's taste, but it's fascinating. Even in his old age, he went places with the medium others hadn't yet ventured into.
A friend told me Spider-Man makes more sense if you consider it as a horror book rather than a superhero book. Most of his books really resonate more if you look at them as horror books.
Can you elaborate on that a little? I think I kind of get what you mean, the Ditko comics definitely do have that vibe, and as a lifelong horror fan, Spider-man has been the only superhero I can get into.
@@EvilDick1995 The style of the Spider-Man books drawn by Ditko is very much like what he did on the Charlton horror books. They are really dark. For quite a while, the only person who treats Peter like a person who has value is Aunt May. He gains confidence as Spider-Man, but then has the many grotesque villains dragging him down. When Romita took over artist duties it seemed like the sun came up on the book!
Steve Ditko was a unique artist, but he was not an easy person to deal with, and he had serious issues. Anyone who views everything in terms of black and white only is not easy to deal with, because they expect you to see things from Their perspective of what black and white is.
It's not necessarily that they expect you to see things in equally black and white terms but rather they likely judge you that way. By many accounts Ditko was pleasant to work with and was not overbearing in conversation. But he probably grew more strident over the years. His Ayn Randian philosophies are both naïve and disturbing and the revisionist take that he was just this odd and wonderful guy often seems part of the revisionism that emanates from both the Kirby and Ditko fanatics whose sole purpose in life is to demean Stan Lee. There's this snippet from Ann Nocenti talking about doing one story with Ditko and it sounds like he was a bit over the cliff by this point th-cam.com/video/zvQtwceDILI/w-d-xo.html
I may have seen Lee/Ditko's Spidey beforehand in the Fireside Books like Origins of Marvel Comics. But the first copy of Spidey I ever remember seeing was 136 which had a Romita cover with the Green Goblin and Ross Andru/Frank Giacoia art. Read it to pieces. Still have it.
@@Ash-Winchester Yeah well, he clearly did a bad job. I know that in the comic he tries to make Rorschach look worse than in the movie basically making him more racist and also defending what the Comedian did. But both of those instances are horrible writing and have nothing to do with Steve Ditko's objectivist philosophy. Objectivism detests cowardice in the face of evil (the comedian) and is fundamentally against racism in any form. The entire philosophy stands on the ground equality of outcome. If you subtract those things from Rorschach you get a guy who murdered a Roman Polanski cosplayer. Who Frankly would have continued to do the horrible things he was doing once he was let out as well as someone who exposed a mass murderer who honestly was so arrogant that his carelessly would have inevitably allowed his master plan to be exposed anyways so all the killing was for nothing regardless, who knows he might have even killed more to contain his secret. Look at the justice system today in the real world, not comic books. In Califonia, New York, and Chicago people can't even prosecuted for looting stores because it happens so much that the justice system has given up on the problem. Riots break out constantly. Jonathan Lewis was just beaten to a death a few weeks ago in what was 100% a hate crime but social justice and liberal politics will protect all 15 of those little murderers and this evil will be permitted to repeat itself again like the vile disease it is. The constant leeching of criminals on the naive and sanctimonious narcissism of the common liberal will be the death of civilization. Steve Ditko saw the disease we are experiencing today when it was only an embyro, but now it is an infestation. He was right, compassion fails. Understanding criminals does nothing more than give them the ability to abuse that understanding. They must be punished, they respond only to fear.
@@GodLovesComics He's stayed friends and did colabs with a ton of different people like Karen Berger, the late Steve Moore and Kevin O'neill, Eddie Campbell, Ian Churchill, Rick Veitch, Ian Gibson, Marat Mychaels, Michael Moorcock, JH Williams III, the controversial Dave Sim when no one else wanted anything to do with him, and so on. People only focus on those strained relationships that were embroiled with shitty companies' practices Watchmen & Dave Gibbons and Image & Rob Liebfeld. And Liebfeld still likes Moore. Then there's the Grant Morrison situation where the Scot openly admitted to have derided Moore because he was searching for a spotlight. Not many writers can maintain a great relationship with their artists like Moore did with O'neill since 1999 until his recent passing.
@@Ada_deor Yes, I'm a big fan of Alan's so I'm not bashing him (although anyone can accept criticism). I have a short posted recently where Moore is talking about how no one else could have done LOEG except O'Neil. And yes, often his fractured friendships revolve around working for publishers. But he did cut ties with Gibbons, Steve Bissette, John Totleben and many others who he once flourished with praise. And has diminished their work recently by disparaging all the silly "superhero" comics he did and taking a veiled poke at Gibbons' drawing Green Lantern. Additionally, Liefeld speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He admires Moore's talent while saying that Moore's entire persona is just "schtick". he also said something like "maybe Alan was even more creative than I was? MAYBE??? Meanwhile Liefeld has spent the last 30 years constantly adjudicating his own contributions to comics and telling anyone who will listen how well he paid "his" artists, over and over and over and over. Of course wrestling fans who grew up with Image never tire of Liefeld's "shtick." I seriously doubt Moore has "stayed friends" with the likes of Marat Mychals. Which would be like Einstein touting his friendship with a gnat. Nevertheless Alan seems to have built up a lot of animosity towards his comics work (perhaps because he's far better known for it than for his novels), and so anyone he associates with former comics collabs may be in the line of fire.
@@GodLovesComics In an industry where every single creator gets bummed in the gob to this very day, Liebfeld patting himself on the back for having paid them well (which no artist has ever denied) is something that needs to be howled, growled, yelled and spray-painted on every studio wall for decades to come. *"Nevertheless Alan seems to have built up a lot of animosity towards his comics work (perhaps because he's far better known for it than for his novels), and so anyone he associates with former comics collabs may be in the line of fire."* I don't think this is the case at all. Have you watched his recent BBC MAESTRO Storytelling course? He loves the medium and never ranks it below anything else. It's more that he's disgusted to see his works, which were targeted mostly for teens and young adults, getting revered as some sort of specialized philosophy course at an advanced level by 40 year olds on an extreme political spectrum.
@@Ada_deor I should have specified his "superhero comics work." But I don't think it's solely because of misconceptions about Rorschach, nor do I think Watchmen or even most of his comics work (outside of the Image stuff) was primarily targeted at teens and twenty-somethings (even if Alan explicitly said they were, which I don't think he has). I think it is unquestionable that well-adjusted and intelligent "40 years olds" can get ample enjoyment and food for thought out of Watchmen. I think they can out of Swamp Thing and LOEG as well. I think it's also clear that the amount of work Moore poured into his scripts for all of those series proves that he himself was intellectually engaged and stimulated by their creation (which I wouldn't say for something like say his work on Spawn). I do know he still loves comics as a medium and presumably still values the comics work that he doesn't feel has been tainted by either its ties to corporations or Hollywood's appropriations. And one would think he's still proud of From Hell, regardless of the movie adaptation. Regardless, the point stands that he cut ties with a number of artists with whom he did some of his best work with (and of course with some like Liefeld with whom he didn't). Which of course is his prerogative and in no way makes him a bad person or anything of the sort. But it does fit the narrative that Moore frequently burns bridges.
@Robbie H Todd has frequently said he came in on Spider-Man and brought it up-to-date to reflect the times and made it "sexier" by drawing more modern styles and making MJ's hair look like his own wife's. I used to take that as a slam on Romita, but in him saying the comic had gotten boring it may have been more about the artists who preceded McFarlane--Alan Kupperberg, Al Milgrom, Jim Mooney, and Ron Frenz-- when the comic looked staid and was just going through the motions. Todd certainly injected life into the book, but I think the ultimate irony is that his versions of the Spidey cast--Peter MJ, etc.--look very dated to the 90's now, while Romita's still look timeless in their cool sixties attire.
You derive that about Moore, but not about Ditko? I feel like Alan Moore is a very well-adjusted and insightful person with a normal, happy family life in the quiet shoe-making town of Northampton. he may have his quirks and I certainly wouldn't agree with him (or anyone) about everything, but he appears very rational.
@@ther-si-tesThe man really thinks he was a wizard and thought he could've talk to his characters and his grey morality is so overblown and pretentious is laughable yeah I'm talking about the end of watchmen
Steve Ditko being infinitely smarter than Alan Moore is still priceless. Evidenced by the fact that Moore tried to parody Ditko with Rorschach and everybody ended up liking Rorschach more than any other character in that thing.
Not everybody, because that is hyperbole, not data. And by that logic because not everyone understood General Relativity, it means "everybody" (and Newton) were infinitely smarter than Einstein. Sometimes stupid people just dont know what they are dealing with.h What you really mean is that you sympathise with that ideology, and anyone who doesn't, or who creates the most influential modern comic that has highlighted the problems with that ideology and ignited a million intermet debates about it, is less smart than you.
Not "everybody", no. Only people who missed the point. Or had, themselves, the kind of morals the character was designed to parody. It's an interesting character, but anyone who considers Rorschach a "hero" is very much mistaken.
@@davidcauley9400 You're wasting your breath, he will never learn the difference between what he likes and others like. He will also never be able to tell what's different between liking a character and supporting that same character's ideology.
@@krank23 Those readers have a desperate need to angrily pick a side in every situation, so they argue that not siding with Rors invariably translates to siding with Ozy -- and by extention project that Moore's intent was to make Ozy the hero thus "he lost to Ditko." Nuance is completely alien to them.
Ditko's black and white view of the world left him with nothing but sneering contempt for the idea of the "flawed hero". I have to wonder where he would have found a perfect hero in history.
That’s his whole point, our historical heroes are all flawed. Ditko saw art as an opportunity to show heroes that were flawless. A model for complete moral good. He thought we should all hold ourselves to the highest standard, even if its impossible.
@@c.a.t.732 I’m not saying all his heroes were flawless, but the idea is that they always do the right thing in the end. “Who gets to decide what moral good is?” Artists! That’s Ditko’s point, that artists have the power and responsibility to show us what’s right and what’s wrong. If you think that’s too simplistic then who is the one actually sneering here?
@@joes-jv9hk You think Mr.A, for instance, a character with zero compassion or humanity, always does the right thing? I find that astonishing. Just as heroes aren't perfect, neither are the bad guys all bad. But in Ditko's view, since their are no shades of gray, a character like Mr. A, who is a thug and a sociopath, is justified in destroying anyone he wants to. Artists have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't make them right.
I think of Mr A as an embodiment of justice, not a literal vigilante. I don’t think Ditko believes criminals should be left to die or treated inhumanly. I think Ditko is just trying to say the world would be better off if everyone was honest and did right by each other all the time. People who do bad things only make it more difficult for everyone else to do the right thing. For example: corrupt people who make others live in poverty cause the poor to steal from each other. Everyone acts out of self greed. Those poor people would all benefit from judging the corrupt rich person, but instead they choose to do wrong because they were all wronged. Again, its pretty much impossible for everyone to be good, but its the standard we should all strive for and judge ourselves by. We all have done something bad before, but we shouldn’t accept ourselves as morally grey, we should try again to be good tomorrow and the day after that.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
ALAN MOORE discusses the Charlton/Watchmen (and Ditko) connection with Jon B. Cooke in Comic book Artist #9 (2000).
www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html
CBA: Do you recall The Question?
Alan: Yes, I do. That was another very interesting character, and it was almost a pure Steve Ditko character, in that it was odd-looking. "The Question" didn't look like any other super-hero on the market, and it also seemed to be a kind of mainstream comics version of Steve Ditko's far more radical "Mr. A," from witzend. I remember at the time-this would've been when I was just starting to get involved in British comics fandom-there was a British fanzine that was published over here by a gentleman called Stan Nichols (who has since gone to write a number of fantasy books). In Stan's fanzine, Stardock, there was an article called "Propaganda, or Why the Blue Beetle Voted for George Wallace." [laughter] This was the late-'60s, and British comics fandom had quite a strong hippie element. Despite the fact that Steve Ditko was obviously a hero to the hippies with his psychedelic "Dr. Strange" work and for the teen angst of Spider-Man, Ditko's politics were obviously very different from those fans. His views were apparent through his portrayals of Mr. A and the protesters or beatniks that occasionally surfaced in his other work. I think this article was the first to actually point out that, yes, Steve Ditko did have a very right-wing agenda (which of course, he's completely entitled to), but at the time, it was quite interesting, and that probably led to me portraying [Watchmen character] Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character.
CBA: When you read some of Ditko's diatribes in "The Question" and in some issues of Blue Beetle, did you read it with bemusement or disgust?
Alan: Well...
CBA: A mix of both?
Alan: Well, no. I can look at Salvador Dali's work and marvel at it, despite the fact that I believe that Dali was probably a completely disgusting human being [laughter] and borderline fascist, but that doesn't detract from the genius of his artwork. With Steve Ditko, I at least felt that though Steve Ditko's political agenda was very different to mine, Steve Ditko had a political agenda, and that in some ways set him above most of his contemporaries. During the '60s, I learned pretty quickly about the sources of Steve Ditko's ideas, and I realized very early on that he was very fond of the writing of Ayn Rand.
This man has been a vocal admirer, supporter and lover despite their opposing views for more than half a century. The first google search result on their names is Alan gushing over Ditko in an interview from 2000. But you'll still find smoothbrain youtubers painting him envious and bitter regarding Steve.
People with opposing world views are always going to take jabs at each other below the belt. Clearly he had more respect for Ditko than other people who opposed objectivism, but he is also a God of his own world and doesn't very much like the idea of another philosophical God opposing him. Creativity comes with a great deal of narcissism. I do believe his character of Rorschach hyperbolized and failed to reach the essence of Ditko's message.
@@mikethaison432I agree but I do think Rorschach was more of a strawman of the objectivist ideology or like a parody of Ditko's "Mr. A" and how a seemingly virtuous individual can still be broken and molded by the bleak world he lives in. Granted I'm probably off base but that's just what came to mind after reading your comment :)
@@mothballmouth Yeah that’s a fair point. It is mentioned by Ditko that like Plato’s theory of forms the idea of objectivism should be something to strive for, its not a literal goal, since no human can be perfect.
Heroes were supposed to be people young men and women could look up to. I can understand a few corrupted heroes here and there but my generation honestly has grown up with very few male role models and the effect has been extremely negative in young men.
Luckily I have access to older movies, books, and comics.
He's a jealous admirer, big difference
@@mikethaison432 well ditko is a great artist but his ideas and belief are nonsense. the whole internet comunity should be dead if half of the world follow the beliefs of ditko. Rorschach is that, in the real world you can't have just good and wrong, theres a lot of grey and this type of character (fictional or reals) get lost in the situations where something doesnt fit in bad or good. I think Moore portait the question in a logical way. Also I think watchmen is not the best superhero comic, and not even the best comic at all, as a lot of people think, it just fit in a good superhero comic book (not the best genre of comics, btw).
Alan has always been an outspoken Ditko fanboy, even going out of his way to underline that Ditko's Randian heroes can be important in this increasing gray world. Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between sharp criticism of ideals and a personal vendetta, so they sold this idea that Alan dislikes/is salty over this comics legend.
This was the same documentary where Stan Lee's lawyer got stuck in traffic, so Jonathan Ross got him to finally confess that Ditko was indeed a Spidey's creator. *EDIT:* To be clear, said he _considered_ Ditko to be the co-creator.
It's a fine line that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman tread between openly admiring Ditko's comics work, while also trying to playfully sweep his terrifying Randian obsessions under the bearskin rug. I mean in truth Ditko clones could have populated some segment of the Orwellian government in V for Vendetta, if only Ditko had slightly more tact and nuance. And yes fans and critics, even seemingly intelligent ones, can't seem to understand that you can be critical of someone's ideals and still like their work, or highly critical of some of their work while still liking the overall body of work. The Frank Miller poll I posted here was along those lines. I posted it because it was being hotly debated on Twitter and I'd rather post things that are provocative and interesting as opposed to the "Who would win in a fight" type posts so popular on other channels. Followers of this channel seemed to understand that. But on my Facebook Group seemingly intelligent people were apoplectic about ever daring to so much as question any artist...ever! There was even one popular TH-cam comics historian, who I have never seen on the Group, who popped up to claim any critique of Miller was "ageism." Of course this mealy-mouthed historian is incapable of any criticism whatsoever. He adores everyone and everything uncritically.
Speaking of which...I'm a fan of Stan Lee's and don't give AF what Alan Moore's "heart" tells him. Stan co-created Spider-Man and his dialogue, guidance, and tireless promotion was a massive element in Spider-Man's success. Could you imagine a Ditko-written Spidey condemning children to life in prison for spitting their gum out on the sidewalk? I can. It becomes even more nebulous because not only did Ditko surely ste...um, appropriate the iconic Spidey costume from that of a Halloween costume store in NYC that advertised a similar design pre-dating Spider-Man's creation; but also Jack Kirby (and his estate) claimed that he created Spider-Man because of the first cover. Of course at some point Jack cracked up and claimed to have created everything in the known universe (or at least that's what Roz told him). All I know is that when Ditko left (and with no Kirby in sight), Spider-Man continued to thrive with Stan and John Romita, which kind of debunks all claims that Stan had no hand in its success.
@@GodLovesComics Any criticism of Miller is ageism? Lmao that's a new one. So let us praise unquestionably all sexagenarian (and beyond) creators then! Some see Rorschach as a _literally-me,_ so when they find that it's a critique of Mr. A they get all pissy and start arguing that Moore's intent was ackshually for readers to root for Ozymandias -- I blame sports and bipartisanship which ingrained in most people a desperate need for picking a team.
The whole Stan v. Ditko thing back then regarding Spidey was more of a backlash to it being brough up solely as Stan's creation. If it had been Stan+Ditko's Spiderman from the get go, just like Seigel+Shuster's Superman, all this commotion wouldn't exist. But are you implying that Kirby DIDN'T create everything in the known Universe? 🤨
@@Tretas.The amusing thing about the ageism claim is that just a few days earlier I posted an hour-long video of Belgian artist Hermann Huppen drawing. Hermann is 84! The insane, revisionist disdain for Stan is so ingrained now that it's hard to know how much credit Stan could have doled out right from the germination of an idea to stem it. The same people who think Stan didn't credit Kirby enough somehow missed the thousands of times Stan praised Kirby to the heavens in every Soapbox and interview, and the fact that the term "King Kirby" was indelibly imprinted on their pea-brains by...Stan. Conversely, it was Kirby who told Gary Groth the absurd lie that Stan "never wrote anything" and couldn't even spell. I guess due to reverse ageism, Groth was too cowardly and/or opportunistic to question Jack on his faulty memory?
I can link you to tens of thousands of people right now on social media groups who are certain that Kirby created everything in the known universe.
That's not really what Stan did in the interview. In reality, his responses showed that although he valued Ditko's contribution he never really considered Ditko the co-creator of Spider-Man.
@@walterhoward5512 He played with words, saying _"I _*_consider_*_ him to be the co-creator"_ with Ross pressing him on the matter and Stan underlining _"consider"_ and nothing more -- kinda downplaying a bit Ditko's role. But you're right, he didn't confirm in the documentary that Ditko was a creator (I just checked). Maybe I was conflating it with one of Moore's accounts?
Anyway, ty for the correction!
Ditko is my favorite silver age creator. His work was so specific to him and his worldview, no one was ever really able to replicate it. Every character Ditko created/co-created became very different after he left. Even Spider-Man is a functionally different person once Lee is able to take control of the character.
well I think that happens with every superhero... Was Batman the same after Bill Finger and Bob Kane end their run? Was Superman the same after Siegel and Shuster left? Was Daredevil the same after Everett left it? F4 with Kirby and Lee? Every thing changes once the creators left the series... and keep changing with every artist who take the run. Lee never got that control in Marvel stories, as long as all the artist said, Lee just give em a call, discuss potential plots and the artist made the whole thing, Lee of course has an unique hability to put words in characters that make them charismatic. So I dont think all his work was so into his philosophy as a lot of people says, of course his own crations The Question, Mr A, are, but the rest, maybe hawk and dove, but I dont find objectivism in Spiderman, Dr Strange, the Creeper, Squirrel girl, Blue beatle. Besides all that I think he was an amazing artist, if look carefully, all the characters he create or modify someway, remains the same, spiderman suit, strange outfit, the new Ironman design, the creeper, hawk and dove, BlueBeatle, Squirrel girl, etc. Superheroes change outfit every year, but those created by Ditko still wears the same, and that something special, and that is why I like him, nothing more.
@@matuvarela3760 I definitely agree that all characters change over time, but I just feel like the changes that happened to his characters were much more profound. Take Hawk and Dove, for example. The standard version of that duo is one from that Liefeld mini series in the 80s with the female Dove. The Blue Beetle is another one where the Ditko version has been completely overtaken by the JLI take on that character.
@@walterhoward5512 well changing a male character to a female one doesnt make anything as long as the core personality of the character is respected, and Im not a fan of hawk and dove, but the only fact of changing a man for a woman doesnt seem to me as a great change. Bluebeattle, was created by other people, and Steve Ditko is just one more of the artist who made a change in it, I just recall the character to say that he didnt print his philosophy in all his characters, as far as I'm concerned, the only characters who were made with his beliefs are MR A and the question, and Mr A is a character that he loved for his entire life. All the other ones where just work to him. well at least if he were living by objectivism standars
Ditko drew his own weird creepy world. Alan Moore has also done this. That's why we read comics.
Unfortunately, Steve Ditko thought the weird creepy world he drew was the actual world.
Ditko was such a unique comic book figure and quite an influence of Moore i.e. The Watchmen, etc. He also cut his teeth on some awesome pre-code horror and sci-fi comics. Dr. Death!
I don't like horror very much, but I was just recommending your channel to a big fan of Heavy Metal magazine a few days ago. Great videos!
I have a hardcover copy of "The Mocker." Ditko was a "true believer" in that he had worked out some kind of objectivist philosophy and he stuck to it to produce some of the most idiosyncratic comics in the US. Even his dialogue was weird. But those hands, those Ditko hands were markers of both Spiderman and Doctor Strange. "Tormented elegance" is a very apt phrase. Thanks for posting.
I'm happy to have so many intelligent and informed (even sometimes prickly) commenters lately. Of all the videos I've posted I certainly didn't expect so many people to engage with this one.
The interview with Moore and Moorcock should be required viewing.
I always liked Ditko's images. They seemed more real. And the tension, that Peter Parker could put Flash through a wall, if he wanted to...but he didn't. That made him a hero.
Ditko and Kirby gave the fledgling Marvel Universe a unique polarity between realism and psychedelia IMO. They were polar opposites and the energy flowing between them helped shape Marvel as we know it.
Moore is definitely one of the most fascinating individuals of this world. His speeches and interviews always leave me flabbergasted in spite of his serious yet somewhat calmed and casual demeanour.
Sad how a lot of people misunderstand or just don't bother giving any thought to him and just regard him as a cranky old man.
Recently started going through Supreme and his ABC line. Alan said those were more of a break for him, something to have fun with, but geez, not only are they fun, they're genuinely well thought and a love letter to the superhero genre.
Might sart going for his more 'messed up' stuff later down the line.
Supreme is a blast, and by far the best Superman run out there. His Glory run also started out great and I could see him winking at early-60's Wonder Woman in every panel but alas it got cancelled when he left Image.
I think the fans who are bitter about Moore have jilted lover syndrome, where they adore some work of Moore's that he has ultimately dismissed and/or does not want to see appropriated and perpetuated by other creators, but fans feel proprietary over his work. And Moore's ABC line, which he just claimed was a breezy correction of the "grim and gritty" era Watchmen inadvertently rung in, would be any other writer's magnum opus. Love it or not, Promethea is an incredibly complex and extraordinary comic. Top Ten was also smart and fun. But after always hearing how great Tom Strong was I finally read a collection and found it surprisingly dull and uninspired compared to Moore's usual standards. I still liked the look of Chris Sprouse's clean and charming CC Beck-like art.
@@GodLovesComics I also found Tom Strong underwhelming after hearing it was akin to the second coming for so long. Have you read Supreme? What's your opinion on it? Promethea is what Glory was but without the love-letter to early WW comics, and more of an excuse to explore his Kabbalistic interests. So although fascinating, I found it rather insipid.
@@GodLovesComics Well for me the difference between Supreme and Tom Strong is simple really: I'd recommend Strong to someone who doesn't like superhero comics.
Though that's more with how Tom isn't necessarily a superhero, but more like your average pulp fiction good guy as in Doc Savage (with a bit of Trazan and Superman here and there).
IDK haven't reached the point to decide about Tom Strong, but I do like how Moore builds things like his supporting cast and rogues gallery. Which is not to say the Supreme one's bad.
The less obvious analogues of Superman foes always kept me in doubts (Is Televillain supposed to be the Prankster or Toyman?) , but even the more obvious ones always had a certain twist to keep them interesting. The Supremium Men is what the Kryptonite Man wishes it could be really.
@@Tretas. I don't recall ever finding Promethea "insipid", although I think that is the perfect term for Tom Strong. I think Promethea was monstrously ambitious in terms of layout and composition, bordering on convoluted storytelling. But I adored J.H. Williams' art and the incredible amount amount of work he put into that book. I've never read a single issue of Supreme. I know people (people other that just Liefeld) say it was really good, so I'm sure it's worth looking at. When you think about it since Supreme is just an analog of Superman, could DC have simply paid Moore the same wages Liefeld paid and gotten a few years of Moore writing Superman and continuing the brilliance of his Superman Annual? Even if the sales didn't justify it then, they surely would have with subsequent decades of collections. I don't know the chronology but maybe Alan had already burned his DC bridges. But kind of sad when there so many possibilities.
It's just now dawning on me that I've never heard Alan Moore's voice. I've heard his opinions, but never actually him talking and his voice weirdly isn't what I expected but also makes complete sense
Be wary of denying the existence of evil for it is just one step away from excusing it in yourself and others.
True. We’re all likely to be drawn to it at some point, especially when demonising others and seeing ourselves as superior to others.
I’m still upset that I got rid of my original Steve Ditko Spider-Man page from issue 12 with Dr. octopus. There was no Peter Parker or Spider-Man on the page.. I still have my Ditko page Indiana Jones from the 1980s it’s on my wall . I should never have gotten rid of the Spider-Man page.. on the other hand I have two copies of amazing fantasy 15. One of those is 6.0 the other one is restored 8.0 no trimming. I also have a amazing Spider-Man. 1 6.5 classic DITKO
Jesus! Indiana Jones never found so many riches and he had to deal with lots and lots of snakes...and he HATES snakes!
Im a huge Steve Ditko fan as well.
Jack Kirby, thank you for make The Thing, my favorite Marvel hero, but Steve will always be my favorite comic book artist
Alan Moore is a legend and I always wanted to get my Batman the Killing Joke signed by him cause the Killing Joke is one of the best Batman stories told in the last 40 years along with the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.Does Alan Moore do signing anymore?
I don't think he does conventions and he has often called Killing Joke a glorified Batman Annual. But he's been dismissive of all his superhero comics recently. He did do signings for his new novel. I would be very interested to know if he signed any comics for people who also bought the novel.
@@GodLovesComics He's been dismissive of it because he found it to be well-trodden ground coming off of Watchmen, Swamp Thing, MarvelMan... He's not into the whole brooding Batman characterization nor is the Bat a character he's ever been interested in. But he's more than happy to sign his comics if you're polite about it. I got my Secret Origins #10 The Phantom Stranger copy signed just before covid hit and neener-neener you 👏 can't 👏 have 👏 it 👏
I completely understand what he means about the Ditko addiction. Alan Moore really is the best fanfic author comics have ever had.
Ouch! I still think he's a genius. He just loves the old toys in everyone else's sandboxes.
@@GodLovesComics I completely agree! He's in my top 10 comic authors list. I think for anyone making comics, it's important to study his work regardless of how one feels about his plots or the way he uses characters; the man understands how to use the medium of comics themselves in the service of telling the story. There are few artists in comics who understand it on the level Moore does, let alone writers. His understanding and command of the medium is sublime.
@@GodLovesComics I think that is WHY the Ditko addiction, too. Steve was a madman, an inspired genius until the day he died, evolving as a storyteller, and the medium itself until his death. The more you examine Ditko work, the more you find in the work to examine.
@@RarebitFiends I think Moore has such a fecund mind that he is clearly fascinated by anyone with a unique perspective and anyone who doesn't slot in perfectly with the herd. As for examining Ditko's work, especially his late-in-life Chick tracts, I'll take your word for it. But at a glance it kinda looks like a guy who was ranting in the wilderness about the same thing most of his life, but just finding slightly different methods to transmit the rant.
@@GodLovesComics Ditko's later in life work can be reduced to that, sure... in the same way Moore's work can be reduced to fanfic. The thing fascinating about much of his later work is the same thing that makes his earlier work so endlessly fascinating... his command of the medium itself. I may be giving an old man too much credit when I say this, but he found a way to make poetry using the form of the medium itself. Around the late Oughties, his dialogue became minimal and abstract while still conveying all they needed to for a given story. It's not for everyone's taste, but it's fascinating. Even in his old age, he went places with the medium others hadn't yet ventured into.
Love the Velvet Underground references.
A friend told me Spider-Man makes more sense if you consider it as a horror book rather than a superhero book. Most of his books really resonate more if you look at them as horror books.
Can you elaborate on that a little? I think I kind of get what you mean, the Ditko comics definitely do have that vibe, and as a lifelong horror fan, Spider-man has been the only superhero I can get into.
@@EvilDick1995 The style of the Spider-Man books drawn by Ditko is very much like what he did on the Charlton horror books. They are really dark. For quite a while, the only person who treats Peter like a person who has value is Aunt May. He gains confidence as Spider-Man, but then has the many grotesque villains dragging him down. When Romita took over artist duties it seemed like the sun came up on the book!
Steve Ditko was a unique artist, but he was not an easy person to deal with, and he had serious issues. Anyone who views everything in terms of black and white only is not easy to deal with, because they expect you to see things from Their perspective of what black and white is.
It's not necessarily that they expect you to see things in equally black and white terms but rather they likely judge you that way. By many accounts Ditko was pleasant to work with and was not overbearing in conversation. But he probably grew more strident over the years. His Ayn Randian philosophies are both naïve and disturbing and the revisionist take that he was just this odd and wonderful guy often seems part of the revisionism that emanates from both the Kirby and Ditko fanatics whose sole purpose in life is to demean Stan Lee. There's this snippet from Ann Nocenti talking about doing one story with Ditko and it sounds like he was a bit over the cliff by this point th-cam.com/video/zvQtwceDILI/w-d-xo.html
I agree with Alan... I left Spiderman ...when Ditko did.!!
I may have seen Lee/Ditko's Spidey beforehand in the Fireside Books like Origins of Marvel Comics. But the first copy of Spidey I ever remember seeing was 136 which had a Romita cover with the Green Goblin and Ross Andru/Frank Giacoia art. Read it to pieces. Still have it.
WatchMen writer. Didn't know who he was, but he asked what size a certain shoe was, at a store, in Downtown L.A.
o.0
Sounds like Rorschach.
I mean, Rorschach is based on The Question, who was created by Steve Ditko.
@@elketerbentzadik That's right!
That's no coincidence. Rorschach was created to be full fledged mocker of the objectivist ideals that Mr. A and the Question embody.
@@Ash-Winchester Yeah well, he clearly did a bad job. I know that in the comic he tries to make Rorschach look worse than in the movie basically making him more racist and also defending what the Comedian did. But both of those instances are horrible writing and have nothing to do with Steve Ditko's objectivist philosophy. Objectivism detests cowardice in the face of evil (the comedian) and is fundamentally against racism in any form. The entire philosophy stands on the ground equality of outcome.
If you subtract those things from Rorschach you get a guy who murdered a Roman Polanski cosplayer. Who Frankly would have continued to do the horrible things he was doing once he was let out as well as someone who exposed a mass murderer who honestly was so arrogant that his carelessly would have inevitably allowed his master plan to be exposed anyways so all the killing was for nothing regardless, who knows he might have even killed more to contain his secret.
Look at the justice system today in the real world, not comic books. In Califonia, New York, and Chicago people can't even prosecuted for looting stores because it happens so much that the justice system has given up on the problem. Riots break out constantly. Jonathan Lewis was just beaten to a death a few weeks ago in what was 100% a hate crime but social justice and liberal politics will protect all 15 of those little murderers and this evil will be permitted to repeat itself again like the vile disease it is. The constant leeching of criminals on the naive and sanctimonious narcissism of the common liberal will be the death of civilization.
Steve Ditko saw the disease we are experiencing today when it was only an embyro, but now it is an infestation. He was right, compassion fails. Understanding criminals does nothing more than give them the ability to abuse that understanding. They must be punished, they respond only to fear.
@@mikethaison432 I'm not reading that wall of bullshit.
Wow the top comments are really trying to rewrite history
Where was this interview come from?
Jonathan Ross's In Search of Steve Ditko which ran on the BBC in 2007.
@@GodLovesComics Thank you.
What is this from?
From Jonathan Ross's BBC special In Search of Steve Ditko (2007).
I want to hang out with Alan
However hard it may be to befriend Alan Moore, it it unquestionably hard it seems to stay friends (or collaborators).
@@GodLovesComics He's stayed friends and did colabs with a ton of different people like Karen Berger, the late Steve Moore and Kevin O'neill, Eddie Campbell, Ian Churchill, Rick Veitch, Ian Gibson, Marat Mychaels, Michael Moorcock, JH Williams III, the controversial Dave Sim when no one else wanted anything to do with him, and so on. People only focus on those strained relationships that were embroiled with shitty companies' practices Watchmen & Dave Gibbons and Image & Rob Liebfeld. And Liebfeld still likes Moore. Then there's the Grant Morrison situation where the Scot openly admitted to have derided Moore because he was searching for a spotlight. Not many writers can maintain a great relationship with their artists like Moore did with O'neill since 1999 until his recent passing.
@@Ada_deor Yes, I'm a big fan of Alan's so I'm not bashing him (although anyone can accept criticism). I have a short posted recently where Moore is talking about how no one else could have done LOEG except O'Neil. And yes, often his fractured friendships revolve around working for publishers. But he did cut ties with Gibbons, Steve Bissette, John Totleben and many others who he once flourished with praise. And has diminished their work recently by disparaging all the silly "superhero" comics he did and taking a veiled poke at Gibbons' drawing Green Lantern. Additionally, Liefeld speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He admires Moore's talent while saying that Moore's entire persona is just "schtick". he also said something like "maybe Alan was even more creative than I was? MAYBE??? Meanwhile Liefeld has spent the last 30 years constantly adjudicating his own contributions to comics and telling anyone who will listen how well he paid "his" artists, over and over and over and over. Of course wrestling fans who grew up with Image never tire of Liefeld's "shtick." I seriously doubt Moore has "stayed friends" with the likes of Marat Mychals. Which would be like Einstein touting his friendship with a gnat. Nevertheless Alan seems to have built up a lot of animosity towards his comics work (perhaps because he's far better known for it than for his novels), and so anyone he associates with former comics collabs may be in the line of fire.
@@GodLovesComics In an industry where every single creator gets bummed in the gob to this very day, Liebfeld patting himself on the back for having paid them well (which no artist has ever denied) is something that needs to be howled, growled, yelled and spray-painted on every studio wall for decades to come. *"Nevertheless Alan seems to have built up a lot of animosity towards his comics work (perhaps because he's far better known for it than for his novels), and so anyone he associates with former comics collabs may be in the line of fire."* I don't think this is the case at all. Have you watched his recent BBC MAESTRO Storytelling course? He loves the medium and never ranks it below anything else. It's more that he's disgusted to see his works, which were targeted mostly for teens and young adults, getting revered as some sort of specialized philosophy course at an advanced level by 40 year olds on an extreme political spectrum.
@@Ada_deor I should have specified his "superhero comics work." But I don't think it's solely because of misconceptions about Rorschach, nor do I think Watchmen or even most of his comics work (outside of the Image stuff) was primarily targeted at teens and twenty-somethings (even if Alan explicitly said they were, which I don't think he has). I think it is unquestionable that well-adjusted and intelligent "40 years olds" can get ample enjoyment and food for thought out of Watchmen. I think they can out of Swamp Thing and LOEG as well. I think it's also clear that the amount of work Moore poured into his scripts for all of those series proves that he himself was intellectually engaged and stimulated by their creation (which I wouldn't say for something like say his work on Spawn). I do know he still loves comics as a medium and presumably still values the comics work that he doesn't feel has been tainted by either its ties to corporations or Hollywood's appropriations. And one would think he's still proud of From Hell, regardless of the movie adaptation. Regardless, the point stands that he cut ties with a number of artists with whom he did some of his best work with (and of course with some like Liefeld with whom he didn't). Which of course is his prerogative and in no way makes him a bad person or anything of the sort. But it does fit the narrative that Moore frequently burns bridges.
Questionable.
Not sure how to take him seriously when he calls John Romita's Spider-Man "sort of dull".
@Robbie H Todd has frequently said he came in on Spider-Man and brought it up-to-date to reflect the times and made it "sexier" by drawing more modern styles and making MJ's hair look like his own wife's. I used to take that as a slam on Romita, but in him saying the comic had gotten boring it may have been more about the artists who preceded McFarlane--Alan Kupperberg, Al Milgrom, Jim Mooney, and Ron Frenz-- when the comic looked staid and was just going through the motions. Todd certainly injected life into the book, but I think the ultimate irony is that his versions of the Spidey cast--Peter MJ, etc.--look very dated to the 90's now, while Romita's still look timeless in their cool sixties attire.
Moore is a very disturbed, messed up individual. Yeah he's brilliant and creative and gifted, but there's something deeply, deeply wrong inside him.
You derive that about Moore, but not about Ditko? I feel like Alan Moore is a very well-adjusted and insightful person with a normal, happy family life in the quiet shoe-making town of Northampton. he may have his quirks and I certainly wouldn't agree with him (or anyone) about everything, but he appears very rational.
@@GodLovesComics Have you not read his writing? Especially recently???
@@christophertaylor9100 Fiction or non-fiction? But no, I haven't read anything of his recently.
@@christophertaylor9100 Care to give examples as to why he's disturbed and apparently has something deeply wrong inside him?
@@ther-si-tesThe man really thinks he was a wizard and thought he could've talk to his characters and his grey morality is so overblown and pretentious is laughable yeah I'm talking about the end of watchmen
Steve Ditko being infinitely smarter than Alan Moore is still priceless. Evidenced by the fact that Moore tried to parody Ditko with Rorschach and everybody ended up liking Rorschach more than any other character in that thing.
Not everybody, because that is hyperbole, not data. And by that logic because not everyone understood General Relativity, it means "everybody" (and Newton) were infinitely smarter than Einstein. Sometimes stupid people just dont know what they are dealing with.h What you really mean is that you sympathise with that ideology, and anyone who doesn't, or who creates the most influential modern comic that has highlighted the problems with that ideology and ignited a million intermet debates about it, is less smart than you.
Not "everybody", no. Only people who missed the point. Or had, themselves, the kind of morals the character was designed to parody. It's an interesting character, but anyone who considers Rorschach a "hero" is very much mistaken.
@@davidcauley9400 You're wasting your breath, he will never learn the difference between what he likes and others like. He will also never be able to tell what's different between liking a character and supporting that same character's ideology.
@@krank23 Those readers have a desperate need to angrily pick a side in every situation, so they argue that not siding with Rors invariably translates to siding with Ozy -- and by extention project that Moore's intent was to make Ozy the hero thus "he lost to Ditko."
Nuance is completely alien to them.
You will never address anything that was written ITT because you never even read Watchmen.
Ditko's black and white view of the world left him with nothing but sneering contempt for the idea of the "flawed hero". I have to wonder where he would have found a perfect hero in history.
That’s his whole point, our historical heroes are all flawed.
Ditko saw art as an opportunity to show heroes that were flawless. A model for complete moral good. He thought we should all hold ourselves to the highest standard, even if its impossible.
@@joes-jv9hk Our historical heroes are flawed, but Ditko's fictional characters are flawless? And who decides what "complete moral good" is?
@@c.a.t.732 I’m not saying all his heroes were flawless, but the idea is that they always do the right thing in the end.
“Who gets to decide what moral good is?”
Artists! That’s Ditko’s point, that artists have the power and responsibility to show us what’s right and what’s wrong.
If you think that’s too simplistic then who is the one actually sneering here?
@@joes-jv9hk You think Mr.A, for instance, a character with zero compassion or humanity, always does the right thing? I find that astonishing. Just as heroes aren't perfect, neither are the bad guys all bad. But in Ditko's view, since their are no shades of gray, a character like Mr. A, who is a thug and a sociopath, is justified in destroying anyone he wants to.
Artists have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't make them right.
I think of Mr A as an embodiment of justice, not a literal vigilante. I don’t think Ditko believes criminals should be left to die or treated inhumanly.
I think Ditko is just trying to say the world would be better off if everyone was honest and did right by each other all the time. People who do bad things only make it more difficult for everyone else to do the right thing.
For example: corrupt people who make others live in poverty cause the poor to steal from each other. Everyone acts out of self greed. Those poor people would all benefit from judging the corrupt rich person, but instead they choose to do wrong because they were all wronged.
Again, its pretty much impossible for everyone to be good, but its the standard we should all strive for and judge ourselves by. We all have done something bad before, but we shouldn’t accept ourselves as morally grey, we should try again to be good tomorrow and the day after that.