|
Post by dlw66 on May 29, 2007 13:52:00 GMT -5
THAT scarred you?? Try this!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 29, 2007 14:16:50 GMT -5
ya know, I actually have read that issue of JLA. My uncle had it and I must have been about 8 when I saw it. I recall thinking at the time it was pretty weird that Batman was thinking of Robin...but my young, innocent mind didn't dwell on it!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on May 29, 2007 14:27:16 GMT -5
OMG,... did you pick that out intentionally,... that's just funny.
Is he worried about the recent past or the things he's done to Robin over a long period of time?
Sorry,... that's just too much. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 29, 2007 14:40:26 GMT -5
Go to www.superdickery.com and click on the galleries. Then scroll down a bit until you see "Seduction of the Innocent"... I about spit my Coke all over the laptop on a few of those!!
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 29, 2007 15:34:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 29, 2007 21:01:59 GMT -5
"Superdickery" is one of the greatest sites..ever. The infamous JLA panel, Jimmy as a girl, the Joker's boner, Batman and Robin's relationship...classics all. That JLA panel was on some other website a while ago and it unfolds hero by hero...like a film or commercial. It's side-splitting when it gets to Batman. Amazing how many issues of Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane are cited...and the really terrible thing is I was a faithful reader of those books and never missed an issue (until I discovered Marvel, thank God)!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 29, 2007 21:32:42 GMT -5
Does it ever cease to amaze how far ahead of DC Marvel was in the 1960's? That is one stupid, ridiculous cover! Goofy-cool, though, isn't it?? I think cover art was the only area in which DC could compare favorably with Marvel in the mid-60s. The DC covers from that time were magnificent and eye-catching--not talking about the silly cover text, but the artwork itself. The covers of books like Atom, Hawkman, Aquaman, anything with the Spectre on it, Batman...all strong, powerful and captivating (can't say the same for the Superman family covers). The DC covers outshone the content of the books. Unlike many Marvel covers (excepting Steranko, some Kirby, some Romita, some Ditko), the DC covers seemed more abstract or at least contained a strong design element. In retrospect I've discovered that most of the DC covers I've admired from that period were from the team of Infantino-Anderson (Kane did a lot of the Atoms). I just remember being transfixed by those DC covers as a kid. I didn't buy the books because after a while I'd realized the stories never lived up to the covers- -but those covers were always memorable and intriguing. The Spectre vs. the astral Flash! Batman and that horrifying Scarecow! The two Atoms in the clutches of the Thinker! Sadly, I've never actually read these stories--but I remember the covers. When Neal Adams--a great artist--started doing most of the DC covers, I felt something was lost. Almost every cover looked alike: people with surprised expressions (open mouths, etc.), pointing, gesturing, etc. The covers may have become more realistic, but something--the heightened drama, I guess--was lost (except for a few Batman covers).
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 30, 2007 9:29:12 GMT -5
From the Kree-Skrull War!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 30, 2007 11:47:42 GMT -5
oooh, nice!!
I notice Adams has pencilled in the title he wanted to use at the bottom - "Three cows shot me down" !!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 30, 2007 12:10:07 GMT -5
This X-Men watercolor is currently up for auction on Ebay by George Tuska's art representative.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 30, 2007 18:50:57 GMT -5
If that kid’s crying now, wait till the “Man of Steel” is finished…
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 30, 2007 21:26:59 GMT -5
If that kid’s crying now, wait till the “Man of Steel” is finished… gee, thanks Phantom for making that image even more disturbing!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 31, 2007 8:09:47 GMT -5
With some discussion of the JLA on this thread lately, would anyone care to comment on the work of Dick Dillin? The Comic Book Database Project turns up this bibliography, with images for many of the listings. www.comics.org/search.lasso?type=penciller&query=Dick+Dillin&sort=alpha&Submit=SearchI always felt that Dillin was somewhat of a poor man's Mike Grell; Dillin's work also resembles Dick Giordano's pencilled work. I thought he was very serviceable -- not great, but an able storyteller whose style was right for the JLA and DC in general. That being said, I don't know that he would have fit in well at Marvel where the art of that period (late '60's-early '70's) was much more dynamic. Dillin's characters seemed a bit stiff at times.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 31, 2007 10:10:10 GMT -5
A couple of pages ago, when you asked about artists that we associate with one title, I listed Dillin with the JLA. He was the artist on the book when I started buying it. I would agree that his figures could be kind of stiff. Certainly, for someone like me, who idolized John Buscema, Dillin's work seemed lacking in drama. But overall I think he did a pretty solid job. Anyone who can handle a team book, with all those characters, gets points with me. He definitely knew how to tell a story, which is one of my biggest complaints with current artists, many of whom seem more focused on making "pretty pictures" than driving the story.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 31, 2007 10:38:55 GMT -5
Not to bounce around so much (which I am -- Tana, I'll get back to Dick Dillin later!), but I found this cover to Marvel Triple Action #34, and compared it to the originally published work. Why do you suppose they had someone draw a new Goliath??
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 31, 2007 10:57:56 GMT -5
Upon closer inspection, I would say that Hawkeye was cut from the original and merely touched up. It also appears that only the upper torso, arms, and head of Goliath are "new" -- the lower torso and legs appear to be from Buscema's original!
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 31, 2007 12:04:48 GMT -5
Is it possible that they just couldn't make the original, with its larger image of Goliath, fit onto the cover? The logo for Marvel Triple Action is about a half a page, and Goliath took up 3/4 on the original cover. They had to then rework it to make sense at a smaller size (with Goliath only slightly larger than the others, his original pose doesn't work as well).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 31, 2007 22:16:35 GMT -5
True -- the mastheads are stats that are put in place, thereby making the available size for artwork limited. Rather than reduce Buscema's work altogehter, they took this route. If I recall, the Comic Book Database Project credited Ron Wilson with a contribution to the Marvel Triple Action cover in question.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 31, 2007 22:17:21 GMT -5
Tana -- back to Dick Dillin:
Do you find his work somewhat similar to that of Bob Brown, who we've recently discussed?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 1, 2007 9:52:07 GMT -5
That's funny dlw, I almost did mention Bob Brown in my last post! Yes, I think there are definitely similarities. They both have that stiffness we talked about, and the work is professional-looking, but not exciting. Of course, Dillin was on JLA for what seems like forever, while Brown had a pretty short run on Avengers.
I was thinking about that Marvel Triple Action cover as well. In the past I have sometimes gone back and compared the reprint book (whether MTA, or Marvel's Greatest Comics, or Marvel Tales) to the original and often wondered why the cover was changed. Typically the original covers are so much better - no surprise, since you had Kirby, Romita, etc doing them. But now I wonder if part of it was the size of the masthead. I feel the need to begin digging through the stacks again...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 1, 2007 10:01:58 GMT -5
Yes, often a new cover was used altogether. I wonder if those were occasions when a young artists was given a try-out.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 1, 2007 17:34:02 GMT -5
If that kid’s crying now, wait till the “Man of Steel” is finished… gee, thanks Phantom for making that image even more disturbing!! My… pleasure…
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 1, 2007 20:44:05 GMT -5
CBR has an interesting commentary on how Kirby's artwork was changed at DC: goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/05/31/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-105/I had heard about this for years. It still perplexes me: why hire the guy if you don't like the way his stuff looks? It also reminded me of the ubiquitous "Romita heads" one would see on covers and sometimes interior art too at Marvel in the 70's. One famous one that springs to mind is on Starlin's Captain Marvel, can't recall the issue number but it was a full figure shot of Mar-Vell, but with a very obvious Romita head!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 2, 2007 10:41:38 GMT -5
There is a controversy concerning the Superman/Spider-Man treasury edition in this light, as well.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 4, 2007 10:30:05 GMT -5
COVERS How important is the cover of a comic book to you? We've talked about reprint covers, gorilla covers, different artists doing interior art and others on the covers, word balloons, floating heads, etc., etc. Does the cover "sell" you on a book, does it make you open the book to check out the insides? How disappointed are you when you have, say, an Alex Ross cover and interiors by "some other guy"? Personally -- I always disliked (for the most part) the Gil Kane covers. As mentioned earlier, I've grown to appreciate the man's work if not fully like it, and my like/disdain for his work is certainly subjective to what period we're talking about. It's about a polar effect -- a Kane cover and a Romita interior vs. a Romita cover and a Kane interior -- oppositve effect on me. That is not to say that I wouldn't have purchased Amazing Spider-Man one way or the other, but I was more excited to put down my quarter for the Romita cover. Kane was a good storyteller, no doubt, but my problems with him were always more of form. Certainly there have been some memorable covers. Of recent memory is the black cover with only the energy projecting from Ultron's face (Vol. III #19). That would be a grabber!! But, generally speaking, I was/am going to buy a book because it's something I would buy anyway, not just because of the cover. I suppose back in the '60's when many books (particularly DC) were done-in-one stories, covers were more important to their marketing. I've just always felt that Marvel has generated such a rich continuity in their characters that they didn't really need to market their books to me -- as I said, I was going to buy them anyway. That being said, Michelangelo himself could do the covers for Avengers books these day and sadly I still wouldn't be interested.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 5, 2007 15:59:02 GMT -5
Does anyone have any ideas on this Buscema pencil rough? It's on sale on Ebay...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 5, 2007 18:20:44 GMT -5
COVERS How important is the cover of a comic book to you? We've talked about reprint covers, gorilla covers, different artists doing interior art and others on the covers, word balloons, floating heads, etc., etc. Does the cover "sell" you on a book, does it make you open the book to check out the insides? How disappointed are you when you have, say, an Alex Ross cover and interiors by "some other guy"? Personally -- I always disliked (for the most part) the Gil Kane covers. As mentioned earlier, I've grown to appreciate the man's work if not fully like it, and my like/disdain for his work is certainly subjective to what period we're talking about. It's about a polar effect -- a Kane cover and a Romita interior vs. a Romita cover and a Kane interior -- oppositve effect on me. That is not to say that I wouldn't have purchased Amazing Spider-Man one way or the other, but I was more excited to put down my quarter for the Romita cover. Kane was a good storyteller, no doubt, but my problems with him were always more of form. Certainly there have been some memorable covers. Of recent memory is the black cover with only the energy projecting from Ultron's face (Vol. III #19). That would be a grabber!! But, generally speaking, I was/am going to buy a book because it's something I would buy anyway, not just because of the cover. I suppose back in the '60's when many books (particularly DC) were done-in-one stories, covers were more important to their marketing. I've just always felt that Marvel has generated such a rich continuity in their characters that they didn't really need to market their books to me -- as I said, I was going to buy them anyway. That being said, Michelangelo himself could do the covers for Avengers books these day and sadly I still wouldn't be interested. I think for me the cover is important primarily if it is a title I don't normally buy. A great cover will get me to look at a book and take a chance. I think one of the things that really bothers me is the move over the last decade or so to very generic covers - we've all seen these, Marvel is especially guilty of this. Usually it's just the star or stars of the book on the cover in some action pose. It has no relationship at all to the story inside, and tells you nothing about the book. Heck, most of the New Avengers covers can be put in this category.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 5, 2007 19:17:31 GMT -5
DC is guilty of this as well. They've gotten Alex Ross to do character portraits for JSA. Generally the covers for Batman and Detective are painted or some kind of wash.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 5, 2007 21:54:08 GMT -5
Does anyone have any ideas on this Buscema pencil rough? It's on sale on Ebay... This has been driving me crazy all day. I finally found it though: check out Avengers #131 (I think you have that on dvd). On the letters page is an ad for Marvel's subscription service. Below it is the poster, a bonus for spending $10 - boy, that was a long time ago...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 5, 2007 22:18:52 GMT -5
Great research! I will certainly look this up.
I have several Buscema roughs, and the process that went into his work is interesting. Even with these loose pencils, you can just see Big John all over the place. I understand that by the time he was finishing up his final run on Avengers, most of what we were seeing was Tom Palmer over thumbnails even looser than this.
|
|