|
Post by bobc on May 13, 2009 10:55:00 GMT -5
Tana--guys who do comic books want to do video games these days, and video games artists want to do comics.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 13, 2009 11:10:51 GMT -5
I wonder, I wonder, I wonder--- could his superhero work actually have been improved by his not being emotionally invested in it? It sounds counter-intuitive, but- if he didn't particularly care, he wouldn't have been inhibited in taking questionable artistic risks, yes? Rather than worrying about choices overmuch, he would be inclined to go with his first (intuitive) impulses (which, like, 90% of the time prove to be the best ones). Rather than question himself too deeply, the mindset would more likely be, "Sure, why not? Who cares?" And of course, risk-taking (inadvertant or not) is essential to artistic growth. ALSO-- his protests were always voiced afterwards. At some level- and I think the quality of his work bears this out- it would have to be impossible to willfully sit there and actually draw an individual figure in an individual panel BADLY simply because one doesn't care for that particular genre. "By Thunder, I WILL NOT draw the Surfer's arm correctly. . . . but I WILL do so with Conan later this afternoon!" I mean, is that level of sandbagging even possible? BobC, didn't you mention that you're an artist? Am I wildly out in left field here?
HB
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 13, 2009 15:04:05 GMT -5
Yeah I do videogames. My website is bobcooksey.net
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 14, 2009 8:15:30 GMT -5
Very, very nice, bobc-- great range of styles. Man, you've got all the talent anyone could hope for. You also provide a glimpse into the world of animation that most of us probably have no clue about (boy, I know I don't). I kind of favored your sketchbook work--- but just probably just because your hand and eye are more directly discernible for us there. Particularly liked the two tree-guy monsters.
Aaaaaand you clearly are a person who could speak to the question I was asking (albeit w/ too many words, which is a personal curse. . . . ): Do you think there's any reason an artist couldn't do great work-- maybe even his best- on a subject he's not personally inspired by? If you were commissioned to do a poster series of "Great Moments in Professional Hockey" would that inhibit you from possibly creating your personal masterpiece on it---- w/out actually intending to?
Is this too heady?
HB
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 14, 2009 8:40:30 GMT -5
That's very nice of you to say, HB--thanks. I feel very fortunate to do what I do for a living. Those tree guys were actually variations of the Ents (I think that's what they were called) for a pitch my company did for a Lord of the Rings video game. I ended up working on the "Return of the King" for EA in 2003. I never developed my coloring skills--I should work on that more.
Now to answer your question--yeah I think you can do great work on something that you aren't particularly inspired by. I think my best video game environments were for the upcoming Ghostbusters game--I did the graveyard and the Times Square environments and there are shots of it on my site. I loved Ghostbusters (the movie) but I wouldn't say it was a movie that would particularly inspire an environment artist--most of the game takes place in a library, a cellar, a cafeteria, a ballroom. Not terribly inspirational!! But my whole attitude is if you are stuck doing a cafeteria, make it the coolest looking cafeteria possible--even if it comes down to just how you light it.
That being said, I tend to pick projects, when possible, that I know something about so I can do a good job with the material. To me it's not so much about me producing "a masterpiece" as it is just wanting to be competent. I'm a writer too, and I would never want to write, say, The Legion of super-heroes because I just don't know enough about them. And if I did take such a job, the first thing I'd do is lock myself in a room and read every single issue of what came before in LSH. This is why Bendis bugs the hell out of me--he is so lazy and careless and incompetent. He can't even follow his own continuity from issue to issue. That is pure laziness. Millar, on the other hand, could NEVER have created The Ultimates without having a stellar knowledge and understanding of Avengers history. Never in a million years. Busiek is another writer who obviously had done his homework before writing the Avengers, and it showed. Busiek and Millar couldn't be any more different in style, but the underlying competence is there in both of them.
How's that for wordy?
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 14, 2009 10:40:00 GMT -5
Hey, great response. Much appreciated. On the artistic question, then, perhaps there are finally two words that nail it down (particularly as it relates to JB): Professionalism and Pride. While the first can suffice when the second is absent, the second WITHOUT THE FIRST would just beget a nightmare of an individual to deal with (well, and often does). I would wager that, while, JB was long on the Pride end, he was JUST as committed on the Professionalism meter. . . while doing the job in front of him. Once the work is finished, his feelings toward it are merely an interesting footnote. Your perspective on this is quite informative, thanks again.
And again, you're right. This does relate to Bendis' writing. It is, in fact, Pride (and the attendant arrogance) untempered by professionalism. Beyond being a lazy researcher, and an unwillingness to do the hard work that comes with a pre-existing continuity- he also seems to rely completely on what seem to be writing tricks or gimmicks. This whole "having every character talk like guys in a locker room" fixation is cheesy, sensationalist, and- ultimately- boring. It's no better at all than when Stan would have all the characters speaking w/ the same elevated/heroic style--- it's just using a different idiom (is idiom the right word, here?). The other trick is one I'm SURE he snagged from David Mamet (SPEED THE PLOW is the play I'm most familiar with), where he self-conciously has all of the characters speaking in sentence fragments and unfinished thoughts, and overlapping each others thoughts and phrases. The idea being that "this is how people really talk". The HUGE mistake is that people don't READ that way. The whole point with a play is that you HEAR the words. Mamet's scripts are an unbelievable chore to slog through as a reading exercise. The comics would have to have a book-on-tape included to make this convention work at all.
Oh, I hate it.
Okay, I MUST get these things shorter. . . . very sorry, all. . . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 14, 2009 13:08:03 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more about Bendis' "writing."
Re: JB--whether he liked doing comics or not, his work was always top notch. I happen to think JB was just a naturally gifted artist. He was incapable of drawing an awkward pose--which is something I can't say about any other artist off the top of my head, myself included.
I wonder if JB's comments about inkers meant that he and Tom Palmer didn't get along? I absolutely loved TP's style and thought it was a huge asset to JB's work. I'd be sad to learn they didn't like each other because tehy were/are two of my heroes.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 14, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5
Bob: first of all, great website. You certainly do beautiful work! Re: JB--whether he liked doing comics or not, his work was always top notch. I happen to think JB was just a naturally gifted artist. He was incapable of drawing an awkward pose--which is something I can't say about any other artist off the top of my head, myself included. Other Marvel artists marveled (!) at John's seemingly effortless ability. He himself has said that it took him a while when he first started out as a professional artist (in the 1940s), but at some point it later on it all came together. At his peak he was the envy of other comic book artists such as Romita (who by his own admission, was one of the slower artists and who labored over every line he drew). But even though he was amazingly gifted, John has admitted that when he came to Marvel in the mid 1960s, his first efforts weren't top notch (SHIELD in Strange Tales and Hulk in Tales to Astonish, I believe). He just couldn't get the hang of what Stan wanted. Stan then gave him some Kirby books, and John pored over these until he got a sense of the dynamic style Stan wanted. John always credits Kirby's work in this regard. Also, Buscema dislike of superheroes was due (at least in part) to his personal preference for drawing fanciful images (a la Frazetta); he disliked drawing prosaic things like buildings, cars, guns, etc. He really hated drawing Spider-Man because the settings were so ordinary. To him Spidey was just a guy in long underwear; and he's been quoted as saying he especially hated drawing Aunt May and her "flowered dresses" and "skinny legs." Besides Conan, he enjoyed drawing Thor and the Silver Surfer...these otherwoldly milieux were more to his liking! His preference was clearly fantasy: the gods, the cosmos, royalty, etc. He could let his imagination run wild. You know, even if John wasn't crazy about superheroes, he must have at least felt the comic book industry wasn't a bad business to get into; after all, he helped his brother amass a portfolio to show Marvel; and his (John's) granddaughter Stephanie has worked for both Marvel and DC in an editorial capacity (though she's an illustrator by training). In the 1970s and after, he also taught comic book drawing at workshops (there were ads for his classes in Marvel comics!); his lessons later became the basis of the book he and Stan cobbled together: "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way."
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 14, 2009 19:11:46 GMT -5
I wonder if JB's comments about inkers meant that he and Tom Palmer didn't get along? I absolutely loved TP's style and thought it was a huge asset to JB's work. I'd be sad to learn they didn't like each other because tehy were/are two of my heroes. Palmer was an inker who John thought was "OK" or "not bad" when inking his work. John "didn't mind" Palmer inking his work, meaning he wasn't opposed to it. This was praise coming from John! And in fact, they might not even have known each other personally--most of these these artists were freelancers and came into the Marvel office once in a while, usually to pick up/drop off work and/or collect their paychecks (Kirby and Sinnott didn't meet one another until they both happened to be at the same convention). One of the reasons John agreed to come to Marvel was so he could give up commuting into NYC as he was doing for his advertising job (another lure was that Stan guaranteed him the same salary he was making at the ad agency). So John would have only occasionally come into the Marvel office. Palmer was a freelancer too but he often did coloring so he may been on site more often. The issue with inkers was mostly due to the fact that Buscema had very definite ideas of how he wanted his art to look. He didn't like inkers who "changed" his work and so in the beginning he wanted to ink his own work. But he was too valuable a commodity as a penciler for Stan to use an inker, except for the occasional issue here or there (Avengers #49-50 come to mind). As the years went on and John became their star artist, Marvel gave him carte blanche: he could do full pencils; just breakdowns; or pencils and inks; it was up to John. Plus he had his pick of assignments (which books or special projects he wanted to do, etc.). Anyway, Palmer was on Buscema's short list of preferred ("okay") inkers, along with Sal B., Dan Adkins and Frank Giacoia. And John's favorite among these--would you believe it seems to have been Giacoia? In interviews John praised Giacoia as an inker who "could really draw." IMO their work on the first few issues of the 1968 Sub-Mariner series was spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 15, 2009 8:10:22 GMT -5
Good heavens, Sharkar, you. . . . you know. . . everything! What a vast body of knowledge. . . . Maybe this is related somehow to your mysterious "twogirlsaguyabakedpotatosixharekrishnasandsomecomicsallwalkintoabar"blogspot thingy. . . ?
This re-reading trip has definitely brought home to me the fact that the inkers have been the unsung heroes of the Avengers' long run. Exhibit A is Joe Sinnott over Al Milgrom 'wayyyyy back during a time when the stories were particularly mediocre (IMO. The forever-long storyline w/ the Eternals, Deviants, and the Uni-Mind?). I've always thought Al was a particularly limited penciller-- but Sinnott absolutely saved that run artistically. There's much to be said for the act of keeping a troubled ship afloat (and alive), even if it's not winning any races. Exhibit B is, of course, the same Mr. Palmer. Naturally we talk mostly about his work with Buscema, but geeze, he stayed on vol 1 until the end! He inked over a zillion different pencillers, but provided the book w/ enough of a consistent "feel" that it was never too jarring. I would say that his consistency bounced around somewhat (was there talk of his being assisted by others on occassion?), but again, he provided a very necessary visual anchor to the book.
HB
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 9:08:22 GMT -5
Thanks Sharkar!
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 9:14:05 GMT -5
HB--you took the words right out of my mouth again! Sharker I never knew any of that either! I really never knew anything about Marvel "behind the scenes" until very recently. My take on John B, based on extremely limited information, is that he was just a gruff, blustery kinda guy--so yeah I suppose being called "okay" by him was high praise. I can't imagine anyone disliking Tom Palmer's work. That just can't even register in my brain.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 9:19:03 GMT -5
Sharkar--I never even heard of Giacoia! He must have slipped under my radar! Is he better than Palmer? I'll have to check out those Sub-Mariner issues. I never really bought any Sub-Mariner books--I really love the character but I preferred him in team books like the Defenders and the Avengers mainly because he always shook up a team's chemistry!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 15, 2009 11:35:02 GMT -5
HB and Bob: Thanks for the compliments . I love to read about comics, comic book history, and comic book creators. (I think I like the behind-the-scenes stuff more than the actual finished product!) I have a lot of books about artists --Kirby, Buscema, Adams, Romita, Sinnott, Colan, Tuska, Andru and Esposito, Murphy Anderson, Schaffenberger, Infantino, and others--and these all give a great sense of what went on back then. In addition to the books, I have a few issues of Comic Book Artist (magazine). I also have a few books about Stan. Plus I read TwoMorrow's magazines--Alter Ego (Golden and Silver Ages), Back Issue (post-Silver-1990s), and the Jack Kirby Collector-- on a fairly regular basis. www.twomorrows.com/For Buscema info, I strongly recommend Alter Ego #13 (mentioned by Tana earlier) and the John Buscema Sketchbook (published by Vanguard).
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 12:32:10 GMT -5
Well that link certainly saves me the trouble of having to ask where you found out all that information! I don't think I'm as into the behind the scenes stuff as you are, mainly because I work in a related field and frankly I have found artists for the most part to be self-absorbed and back-stabbing. I feel really burnt out on game industry politics. There's an old show biz saying: "If you want to enjoy the show, don't go backstage." It's kind of ironic that I love to read about show business behind the scenes stuff--but never really delved into any comic industry drama.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 15, 2009 12:46:06 GMT -5
Wow, gonna bookmark this for "Dad" gifts, come Christmas time. Thanks much!
Hey, can I shift focus a touch again? We've been touching on the Hulk a bit in the Meaningless Deaths thread, and it led me to thinking about ol' Herb Trimpe, so I thought I'd hop back over here and ask a couple of questions---
First-- well, is he still with us? He truly seems to have disappeared.
Second-- is there any background info on what became of him? Why his abilities seemed to drop of so precipitously? He really WAS the definitive Hulk artist for me for so long. . . with a very unusual style (which came with some weaknesses, I must admit) that never stopped evolving. I thought he was a solid penciller up through, maybe, issue #184-- and then showed notable decline. I remember he bounced around for a bit-- Defenders, maybe Peter Parker?-- and then did some pretty awful work for some of the Avengers Annuals-- and was finally relegated to trying to copy the awful, unrealistic styles of that crop of "hot young artists" (Leifield, Erk Larson, etc) for various specials and annuals--- and then, I don't know. I pretty much felt like I was his only fan in the world---- any intel on him, Sharkar?
HB
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 15, 2009 13:09:00 GMT -5
Bob, have you ever shown your work to Marvel or DC?
BTW, I love show business (theater, film) too and have tons of books about (mostly bios) about actors, directors, Strasberg, and so on.
Talk of show biz reminds me that I'd been meaning to mention that HB's earlier comment about Bendis, Mamet and dialogue was absolutely spot-on!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 15, 2009 13:35:50 GMT -5
Sharkar--I never even heard of Giacoia! He must have slipped under my radar! Is he better than Palmer? I'll have to check out those Sub-Mariner issues. I never really bought any Sub-Mariner books--I really love the character but I preferred him in team books like the Defenders and the Avengers mainly because he always shook up a team's chemistry! You've probably seen his work, bob; he was quite prolific. He inked several Don Heck in Avengers issues in the 20s (Kooky Quartet plus Hank and Jan)...at that time I think he went by the pseudonym Frankie Ray (or Frank Ray), at least for a short while. He was never as celebrated or influential as Sinnott or Palmer (or as overpowering, which is probably why Buscema liked his work), but Giacoia was one of the main inkers at Marvel. He inked a variety of artists including Kirby (mostly on Cap...he also inked the FF story in Fantastic Four Annual #5 though it is miscredited to Joe Sinnott). He also occasionally penciled, one such example is Avengers #73 (which contained a page or two by Trimpe pencils--HB, I'll write more about Trimpe in a later post...) As mentioned, I love the work Giacoia and John did on those early Subby issues. But you know, a couple of years later, if you look at the Buscema-Giacoia pairing on, say, Avengers #85, the result is much less accomplished. It looks like on the Avengers issue John may just have been doing layouts, so we get a lot more Giacoia and less Buscema.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 14:05:52 GMT -5
Sharky--I sent my stuff to Marvel ten years ago and didn't hear back so I dropped it and went into games (I read that Mark Millar said that trying to break into comics in the 90's was a "nightmare" so that made me feel better!). I don't think I'd want to work there these days--not with Bendis running the show. That would be a fist fight waiting to happen! I wrote a ten part Doctor Doom vs the Avengers story in 2001 and I just went back and re-read it, and I have to say it is very good! Oh well. I love my current job anyway so no big deal.
If Giacola inked those Avengers issues then I definitely have seen his work! Why did he use a pseudonym? I have to say you are extremely knowledgeable about Marvel creator history! I have to learn from you! Now if you ever want to know about trashy pop-culture celebs like Michael Jackson or Patsy Ramsey, I'm your man!
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 15, 2009 14:07:43 GMT -5
PS: that Batman quote in your by-line is HILARIOUS!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 15, 2009 15:22:35 GMT -5
In addition to seeking out specific back issues, a great resource to see Big John "under the influence" of various inkers is Marvel Visionaries: John Buscema. It's available through www.amazon.com or www.instocktrades.com, and will probably set you back around $20. It's a hardcover, and extremely worth however many shekels you have to part with!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 12:25:17 GMT -5
If Giacola inked those Avengers issues then I definitely have seen his work! Why did he use a pseudonym? Even though most of the artists were freelancers, they feared angering DC if DC found out they were accepting assignments at upstart Marvel in the '60s. At the time DC was one of the major sources of employment for freelance comic book artists and writers, while Marvel was "up and coming", so the artists didn't want to jeopardize their relationships with DC. Therefore artists who usually worked for DC took to using pseudonyms when also doing work at Marvel (in the Marvel credits--never mind that the art itself would be a dead giveaway!) Besides Giacoia/Ray, some others: Gene Colan went by the name "Adam Austin" when he began penciling Sub-Mariner and Iron Man. Werner Roth used the name "Jay Gavin" (check out some X-Men comics). Mike Esposito, who did a lot of work for DC as part of the Andru-Esposito team (and they signed their work at DC), did work for Marvel under both "Mickey Demeo" and later on, "Joe Gaudioso" names (also "Mickey Dee" once or twice). Check out Avengers #60 where Buscema was inked by "Mickey Demeo" (the wedding of Wasp-YJ). George Roussos uses "George Bell" when he started at Marvel (for example on his inking of Heck in some Avengers issues in the 30s). Jack Abel used "Gary Michaels" when he began inking Colan's --I mean, Adam Austin's Iron Man Tales of Suspense stories. Gil Kane did a Hulk story using the name "Scott Edward." The one credited with crossing the picket line was none other than Neal Adams, who at the time was making a name for himself in comics with Deadman, Batman in Brave and Bold, and had become the principal DC cover artist. As Neal tells it in almost any interview I've read of his that on this topic: He spoke with Stan about doing some work for Marvel and Stan agreed. Knowing how DC felt about "their" artists moonlighting, Stan assumed Neal would want to use a pseudonym. Neal didn't want to, he wanted his own name in the Marvel credits. Stan said that just wasn't done, and Neal said OK, it's been great talking to you and got to leave. Stan capitulated and Neal's name appeared in the credits of X-Men #56 (his first work for Marvel). Now if you ever want to know about trashy pop-culture celebs like Michael Jackson or Patsy Ramsey, I'm your man! Cool--thanks, Bob, I'm going to hold you to that! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 12:37:31 GMT -5
PS: that Batman quote in your by-line is HILARIOUS!! Thanks! Glad you like it. I tend to switch bylines every so often, so keep watching...
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 12:48:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 13:42:10 GMT -5
This re-reading trip has definitely brought home to me the fact that the inkers have been the unsung heroes of the Avengers' long run. Exhibit A is Joe Sinnott over Al Milgrom 'wayyyyy back during a time when the stories were particularly mediocre (IMO. The forever-long storyline w/ the Eternals, Deviants, and the Uni-Mind?). I've always thought Al was a particularly limited penciller-- but Sinnott absolutely saved that run artistically. There's much to be said for the act of keeping a troubled ship afloat (and alive), even if it's not winning any races. Exhibit B is, of course, the same Mr. Palmer. Naturally we talk mostly about his work with Buscema, but geeze, he stayed on vol 1 until the end! He inked over a zillion different pencillers, but provided the book w/ enough of a consistent "feel" that it was never too jarring. I would say that his consistency bounced around somewhat (was there talk of his being assisted by others on occassion?), but again, he provided a very necessary visual anchor to the book. HB Excellent points, HB. Most of the time inkers (except for giants like Sinnott and Palmer) don't get the credit they're due, though in many cases they're responsible (for better or worse) for the final look of a comic. As you stated, Sinnott and Palmer were vital contributors to the look of the comics they worked on, not only providing necessary consistency but establishing a blueprint for others to follow. They were hugely influential. After Kirby left Marvel in 1970, it was really Sinnott who provided the Marvel "house look" as he inked Buscema and a host of others. I'd say his DC equivalent would be Dick Giordano--both Sinnott and Giordano provided the consistency among many of their companies' comics. Sinnott was so closely identified with the Marvel look back then that even Neal Adams--who was very particular about how his work was inked--specifically requested him when Neal accepted the Thor assignment ; Neal "didn't want to do it unless he got Sinnott's inks!" (Comic Book Artist #2 and elsewhere). Neal's stated goal with Thor was to really do a comic in the "Marvel Style", and with Sinnott he feels he achieved that goal. In the '60s Palmer was just starting out and his work was unlike any inker before him; he liked to use zip-a-tone screens a lot and he introduced a whole new vocabulary to inking: moodier, darker...perfect for the segue into the Bronze Age and the realistic turn comic book art took. I know penciled a bit for Marvel (a Dr. Strange story I believe) but the results weren't overwhelming, so Marvel soon switched him to inking heavyweights such as Colan, Steranko, Adams and Buscema... and the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 17, 2009 14:14:33 GMT -5
Heya Sharkar-
Ha! Man, we're turning you into that kid in the class that everyone else looks to for an explanation on how long division works. . . ! You are extremely generous to indulge us this way.
GENE COLAN was Adam Austin?? See, here's the thing-- the last time I was shuffling through my old Tales to Astonish, I was struck by how the art on many of the Sub-Mariner stories just jumped out as being, like, years ahead of its time. Much more realistic, and very effectively moody. And I'm pretty darned sure Adam Austin was the credited penciller on those (I could be mistaken, of course. . . ). Honestly, my thought was, "Where on earth did he disappear to? How could they let him get away??" Boy-- not to steal Neal Adams' thunder, but I think Gene may have gotten the jump on him in that move towards realistic renderings.
Now, is Tom Palmer still working? I happened to read the Hulk's "Tempus Fugit" TPB a couple of days ago (from just a few years back), which he inked over Lee Weeks, and I thought his work was, if anything, better than ever. One almost hates to start a "where are they now?" thread. . . but one can't help but worry. . . they never write. . . they never call. . . they never clean their zip-a-tones. . . (geeze, what's a zip-a-tone?).
(Ooo-- let me whisper "Herb Trimpe" to you again. No rush, mind you. Don't call in sick at work, or anything. . . . )(I'll just be sitting here at the computer. Not eating. Or sleeping. Or acknowledging my family. . . . . )
You're the best- thanks!
HB
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 14:17:40 GMT -5
Hey, can I shift focus a touch again? We've been touching on the Hulk a bit in the Meaningless Deaths thread, and it led me to thinking about ol' Herb Trimpe, so I thought I'd hop back over here and ask a couple of questions--- First-- well, is he still with us? He truly seems to have disappeared. Second-- is there any background info on what became of him? Why his abilities seemed to drop of so precipitously? He really WAS the definitive Hulk artist for me for so long. . . with a very unusual style (which came with some weaknesses, I must admit) that never stopped evolving. I thought he was a solid penciller up through, maybe, issue #184-- and then showed notable decline. I remember he bounced around for a bit-- Defenders, maybe Peter Parker?-- and then did some pretty awful work for some of the Avengers Annuals-- and was finally relegated to trying to copy the awful, unrealistic styles of that crop of "hot young artists" (Leifield, Erk Larson, etc) for various specials and annuals--- and then, I don't know. I pretty much felt like I was his only fan in the world---- any intel on him, Sharkar? HB I know he was on staff at Marvel, hired as a production person to run Marvel's then-new photostat machine--and he assisted Marie Severin, John Verpooten, Romita and others in various capacities(touch ups, paste ups, corrections, etc.). He remained on staff for quite some time...I think I've read he (and Severin)were let go when Marvel had all those problems in the '90s and they did a huge housecleaning. But back in the '60s apart from his staff job he started to take on some penciling and inking assignments. He loved aviation (had been in the Air Force) and he did a Phantom Eagle story that saw light in an issue of Marvel Superheroes. He inked Marie Severin's Hulk and then took over the penciling (that was the usual path back then; Stan would try out someone as an inker, with the intention of the inker then taking over the penciling. It didn't always pan out, as in the example of Syd Shores inking Kirby's Captain America--Stan just didn't think Syd had what it took to take over Cap). By all accounts I've read (and from photos I've seen), back then Herb was a good looking guy and he was the Bullpen "heartthrob" according to Marie and Flo Steinberg. In fact he married another Marvel staffer, Linda Fite (who was on staff as an assistant and who wrote some stories for Marvel, such as for 1970's The Cat and the Marvel Girl story that appeared as the back up feature in X-Men #57)...though I remember reading about their divorce, which I believe was not too long ago. His long stint on the Hulk was certainly an accomplishment; I think the reader benefits from teh artist's consistency and familiarity on a book. I was not a regular Hulk reader but I'd read an issue here or there, and from what I saw, while he wasn't the most polished or exciting draftsman, his art was accessible--there were no fancy or overpowering effects, instead there was a lot of solid, clear storytelling and it was easy to get into the story and the characters.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 14:28:15 GMT -5
(Ooo-- let me whisper "Herb Trimpe" to you again. No rush, mind you. Don't call in sick at work, or anything. . . . )(I'll just be sitting here at the computer. Not eating. Or sleeping. Or acknowledging my family. . . . . ) HB ;D Here's something I just came across: in 2000 Trimpe wrote about his firing... www.hulklibrary.com/hulk/info/news-herbtrimpefired.asp
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 15:32:33 GMT -5
GENE COLAN was Adam Austin?? See, here's the thing-- the last time I was shuffling through my old Tales to Astonish, I was struck by how the art on many of the Sub-Mariner stories just jumped out as being, like, years ahead of its time. Much more realistic, and very effectively moody. And I'm pretty darned sure Adam Austin was the credited penciller on those (I could be mistaken, of course. . . ). No, you're not mistaken at all! Honestly, my thought was, "Where on earth did he disappear to? How could they let him get away??" Boy-- not to steal Neal Adams' thunder, but I think Gene may have gotten the jump on him in that move towards realistic renderings. No one, but no one, is a bigger Colan fan than I am! Colan is my favorite artist bar none from the Silver Age (as I've mentioned countless times in various threads here--not that you would or should know that, HB, since you're new here)...and I agree 100% that he was exprimenting with panel layouts and the like before Steranko and Adams, though he does not normally get the credit they do! And apparently in that mid-1960s Esquire article on Marvel that helped put Marvel on the map, Colan was singled out as Marvel's best, most innovative artist (I have not read this article). For a time in the mid-60s all pencilers new to Marvel were given Kirby layouts to draw over as a way of teaching them what Stan expected. The only exception Stan made was for Colan, because Colan's style was so singular, so distinctive, drawing over Kirby would have just hampered him. I remember first seeing Colan's work in Avengers #63. Coming upon his work after several issues of Buscema-Klein classicism, Colan was a shock. Messy, exaggerated, mannerist; his proportions were off! His art wasn't "neat" like Kirby-Sinnott, or Buscema's, or Romita's, or Swan's over at DC. It took me a long time before I could appreciate Colan. As you aptly stated, his work was so ahead of its time. Dr. Strange, Cap, Subby, Iron Man, Tomb of Dracula...none of these comics looked remotely like any other artists' work. And he was inker-proof; his work retained its distinctive qualties even when inked by inkers who aren't considered top-notch. His Cap "walking sequence" in Captain America #122 is incredible. He did that "Bullitt" car chase sequence in #116. Stan hated it but readers wrote in praising it. Also his Medusa story in Marvel Superheroes #15 is simply beautiful--her hair actually looks like hair and not just a big helmet stuck on her head. He did a great, stoic Black Bolt in this story too. For this story the Colan-Colletta combo was just magical. It was posted recently that he would be doing the art for Cap #601. CAPTAIN AMERICA #601 Written by ED BRUBAKER Pencils and Cover by GENE COLAN 70th Anniversary Variant by MARKO DJURDJEVIC *Black & White Variant Also Available! A special double-sized issue featuring art by the legendary Gene Colan! Bucky and Nick Fury uncover a lost tale from Cap and Bucky's days in WW2 - a tale of horror and war and brothers-in-arms. www.newsarama.com/preview_images/marvelnew/july2009/19_captain_america_601.jpg
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 17, 2009 15:58:51 GMT -5
Now, is Tom Palmer still working? I happened to read the Hulk's "Tempus Fugit" TPB a couple of days ago (from just a few years back), which he inked over Lee Weeks, and I thought his work was, if anything, better than ever. That's a very good question--I think I remember reading he inked a Nova one-shot recently.
|
|