|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 1, 2007 22:43:50 GMT -5
I actually spent most of my allotted dough on silver age books. I finally got my coveted Fantastic Four 54 with a beautiful creamy white cover! I also got a Fine copy of F4 Annual # 6, with the first appearance of Annihilius and the birth of Franklin. I have never read these stories before, not even in reprint form... Tana, wait, are you saying that you've never read FF Annual #6 or FF #54 before (or just that you've never read Annual #6)? If you've never read #54 before, I apologize if my earlier reminiscences spoiled anything for you ...I assumed you'd read it already and were just looking for a copy in better condition (and I'm glad you were successful in your quest!) Like dlw said, FF Annual #6 is great...a scary, suspenseful, satisfying story...with great Kirby-Sinnott art. No worries, Sharkar, there is no way your post could spoil this book for me! F4 #54 is one of the significant gaps in my F4 reading. Due to Marvel's Greatest Comics and the collection of my uncle, I read most of the FF stories from around 42 and up. But for some reason, I never got this issue in reprint form. The same goes for Annual 6, but then, the annuals were reprinted less frequently, if at all. When I got older and could afford back issues, I started buying FF in the 50's. So this one has been on my list for some time. I am really looking forward to taking some time this weekend and just sitting and reading these books.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 2, 2007 18:32:57 GMT -5
FF Annual #6 is such a great story!!! You'll love it! It’s so good, I wept the first time I read it. The relationships were top-notch.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 8, 2007 10:50:46 GMT -5
Last night I read one of the comics I picked up at San Diego. It was Forever People # 1. As I am sure you all know, this was one of Kirby's New Gods titles. Superman however was prominently featured in the issue. I had always read that the powers that be at DC disliked Kirby's Superman and had it redrawn. But wow, I was really shocked when I read this issue. I mean, it looks like every single panel of Superman or Clark Kent was redrawn. It's really amazing. It was actually sort of jarring, to have the obviously different styles on the same page.
I'm interested in any comments or observations you all might have on this.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 8, 2007 11:18:59 GMT -5
I have virtually no experience with the New Gods, even when drawn by Kirby. I've thought, for posterity's sake, that I should consider buying the new Omnibus editions of his work (vol. I is currently out), but after leafing through one at a Borders the other day I can see why I've stayed away for so long. Kirby's art style by the time he got to DC (and even moreso upon his return to Marvel) had degenerated to the point that I find it hardly tolerable. The action, the storytelling is all still there, but the form and facial expressions that he was so good at only a few years earlier seemed to have deserted him by the time he got to DC. Or, perhaps Joe Sinnott should get even more credit than he has for maintaining the look of the FF through the later 1960's.
And on a side note, there was an argument raging elsewhere in the General section between Doom and bendisbites concerning the coming expulsion/death of the New Gods from the DCU. While I can say that in my personal scheme of things that I don't really care, in the larger picture I say it would be a pity, as Kirby did truly create a universe in and of itself and that given it's four decade proliferation it would be a loss if they just trashed it all.
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 8, 2007 15:57:35 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the total decay of Kirby's art toward the end... all the proportion was lost, and it just looked like a giant rush job. Take a look at some of the "Super Powers" covers from DC, for example.
Joltin' Joe Sinnott does deserve a fair share of credit for his masterful inking job, though... When he and Ron Marz had their run on Thor's book in the late 80s/early 90s, they had very Kirby-esque covers/art, coupled with the Stan Lee alliteration on the cover blurbs.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 8, 2007 18:02:00 GMT -5
I recall when Kirby returned to Marvel and was working on Captain America, I was really not happy with the book. Not only did I not like his art, but the writing...! My previous exposure to Kirby had all been through reprints of Fantastic Four and Thor, so this new work was quite a let-down.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 8, 2007 22:11:06 GMT -5
I have virtually no experience with the New Gods, even when drawn by Kirby. I've thought, for posterity's sake, that I should consider buying the new Omnibus editions of his work (vol. I is currently out), but after leafing through one at a Borders the other day I can see why I've stayed away for so long. Kirby's art style by the time he got to DC (and even moreso upon his return to Marvel) had degenerated to the point that I find it hardly tolerable. The action, the storytelling is all still there, but the form and facial expressions that he was so good at only a few years earlier seemed to have deserted him by the time he got to DC. Or, perhaps Joe Sinnott should get even more credit than he has for maintaining the look of the FF through the later 1960's. Doug, I think that's an excellent point you make regarding Sinnott's influence on the art. There seems to have been a huge improvement in the art of FF when Sinnott came on board. The classic FF look was maintained by Sinnott long after Kirby left, and while this may indicate that Sinnott was a "heavy" inker (ie redrawing the work), whatever the case may be, the FF looked better when Sinnott inked Kirby than when someone else did (IMO). This reminds me of a discussion I had with the BF awhile back (if I have mentioned this before, my apologies). We were looking at John Byrne's work where he inked himself and comparing it to Byrne inked by Terry Austin. Clearly, Austin brought a LOT to X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 9, 2007 9:14:49 GMT -5
That's an excellent point about Byrne. If I recall, he inked some of his own stuff when he went to Dark Horse. I believe that was the advent of the "scratchy" Byrne.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Aug 9, 2007 9:31:19 GMT -5
Yes, a good inker can save the art. Sinnott inked Byrne during the FF guest starring issues of X-Men Hidden Years and the art looks great, a classic feel without being 'dated'. The rest of Byrne´s run in XMHY was saved by Tom Palmer, another amazing inker.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Aug 9, 2007 9:36:06 GMT -5
And on a side note, there was an argument raging elsewhere in the General section between Doom and bendisbites concerning the coming expulsion/death of the New Gods from the DCU. While I can say that in my personal scheme of things that I don't really care, in the larger picture I say it would be a pity, as Kirby did truly create a universe in and of itself and that given it's four decade proliferation it would be a loss if they just trashed it all. I was involved in the debate regarding the New Gods too, and I clearly don´t understand why it would be a loss if DC get rid of them (specially in a Starlin cosmic epic). Just because Kirby created them doesn´t make them interesting. To me the New Gods seem like someone got high, read some pages of the Bible and decided to script a story. Jack Kirby needed Stan The Man back...
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 9, 2007 10:31:52 GMT -5
I have virtually no experience with the New Gods, even when drawn by Kirby. I've thought, for posterity's sake, that I should consider buying the new Omnibus editions of his work (vol. I is currently out), but after leafing through one at a Borders the other day I can see why I've stayed away for so long. Kirby's art style by the time he got to DC (and even moreso upon his return to Marvel) had degenerated to the point that I find it hardly tolerable. The action, the storytelling is all still there, but the form and facial expressions that he was so good at only a few years earlier seemed to have deserted him by the time he got to DC. Or, perhaps Joe Sinnott should get even more credit than he has for maintaining the look of the FF through the later 1960's. Doug, I think that's an excellent point you make regarding Sinnott's influence on the art. There seems to have been a huge improvement in the art of FF when Sinnott came on board. The classic FF look was maintained by Sinnott long after Kirby left, and while this may indicate that Sinnott was a "heavy" inker (ie redrawing the work), whatever the case may be, the FF looked better when Sinnott inked Kirby than when someone else did (IMO). This reminds me of a discussion I had with the BF awhile back (if I have mentioned this before, my apologies). We were looking at John Byrne's work where he inked himself and comparing it to Byrne inked by Terry Austin. Clearly, Austin brought a LOT to X-Men. Something happened to Byrne in the late 80s -I don't know if he was overworked doing so many books (at one time he was doing fill-in work on the Avengers, the X-Men and the FF), but when he was given the FF full-time he got (for a lack of a better term) "lazy" as the art became more two dimensional and lost a lot of its depth/distinction. Indeed, one of the biggest criticisms of Byrne's later work is everyone looks exactly the same -see West Coast Avengers where the Original Human Torch, Hank Pym and an unmasked Hawkeye look virtually identical. Take a look at Alpha Flight where he reprinted pages from X-Men #109 to show the battle from Weapon Alpha/Vindicator/Guardian's point of view -it's a jarring transition to see the depth in just the background work from back then vs. the then-current work.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 9, 2007 20:31:07 GMT -5
Not only did I not like his art, but the writing...! To me the New Gods seem like someone got high, read some pages of the Bible and decided to script a story. Jack Kirby needed Stan The Man back... He had a prodigious imagination and talent for telling stories visually, but sadly his talents did not extend to scripting dialogue--in addition to what you have all cited, take a look at the Inhumans stories he scripted in Amazing Adventures #1 and #2 (1970). Pretty awful. Or, perhaps Joe Sinnott should get even more credit than he has for maintaining the look of the FF through the later 1960's.. It sure seems like that, doesn't it? Kirby-Sinnott is a completely different animal than Kirby-Stone, Kirby-Ayers, etc.- -FF#44 (Kirby-Sinnott) looks nothing like FF #43, or #35, or #27... To return to those Inhumans stories in AA: Kirby inked by Stone, quite a shock--very unfinished. What looked charming and interesting in 1965 (when Stone was of one of Kirby's regular inkers) seemed hopelessly outdated in 1970. Joe made Jack's work look quite beautiful and polished, which really cannot be said of non-Sinnott Kirby. And as dlw points out, it was really Joe who became the torchbearer of the Marvel house style after Jack left; Sinnott's unmistakable style provided the continuity for the books back then. On a related note, as I mentioned in another thread recently, Kirby's contributions to the flowering of the Silver Age cannot be overlooked--his sheer volume of his output, his creativity (characters, storylines), his influence on the other Marvel artists (he continued doing layouts for other artists until '67 or so). It's a shame he felt so undervalued at Marvel and was frequently at odds with Stan, as they really produced some great work together.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 10, 2007 9:02:27 GMT -5
Kirby Black Panther. Nuff said!! Ouch!
I would argue this: In the Marvel Silver-Bronze Age of in-house influential artists, Kirby would sit atop the pyramid. The second tier would include Romita, Sinnott, and John Buscema. And then everyone else. Comments?
We've discussed creators' faulty memories, creators' egos, etc. for a long time. Grab yourself a copy of this month's Back Issue and check out the "round table" of Spidey creators discussing Peter and Mary Jane's 20th "anniversary". Included are Stan, Shooter, Romita, Sr., Salicrup, DeFalco, Frenz, and others. The interview was obviously (although not stated) conducted via e-mail or individual phone calls -- the respondents were certainly not in the same room for a group interview. There are some interesting comments, not the least of which come from Jim Shooter. If anyone around here thinks Quesada is too big for his britches, then you haven't read anything from the former teen-wonder!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 10, 2007 9:04:34 GMT -5
It's a shame he felt so undervalued at Marvel and was frequently at odds with Stan, as they really produced some great work together. Lennon and McCartney? Martin and Lewis? Simon and Garfunkel? How many great duos last? Any of the above have certainly stood the test of time, but how often is the fan/consumer "cheated" out of wonderful output that never had the chance to happen?
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 10, 2007 9:17:53 GMT -5
Kirby Black Panther. Nuff said!! Ouch! I would argue this: In the Marvel Silver-Bronze Age of in-house influential artists, Kirby would sit atop the pyramid. The second tier would include Romita, Sinnott, and John Buscema. And then everyone else. Comments? You have to throw Jim Sterenko and Neal Adams in there... yeah, they didn't stick with any one title for any length of time, but their style made those books explode with life. Marshall Rodgers work on Batman in Dectective Comics (teamed with Terry Austin) in the late 70s was simply amazing as well...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 10, 2007 12:44:16 GMT -5
Lots of interesting comments people!
Doug, I did read that Back Issue interview and I would agree, Shooter comes across as quite the egotist! But that's nothing new. There are tons of stories out there regarding Shooter and his tenure at Marvel. Although he does have his defenders. I recall recently reading some blogs on Christopher Priest's website regarding Shooter (sorry, don't have the site address) that were at least somewhat supportive.
Regarding Lee and Kirby, I had the same thoughts (Lennon and McCartney!). The two together were far greater than the two apart. When you look at the massive creative work they did in Fantastic Four from about issues 40-70, it's just overwhelming. They really created the foundations of the entire Marvel Universe there. This may have been the greatest creative run in any comic, ever.
As far as inkers on Kirby, I would say Sinnott was the very best. For some reason, I also don't mind Vince Colletta's scratchy penwork on the early Thors. It seems to fit. But a lot of Kirby's early work on FF, Thor, Hulk, Avengers, looks very unfinished to me. I really wonder how much credit we have to give the inkers? I don't have any of those Jack Kirby Collector magazines, but I'd be interested in seeing more of his pencil work.
Although Kirby definitely was a creative force, as others have said, dialog was not his forte (much like George Lucas). When he came back to Cap it seems like every panel had people screaming at each other and every sentence ended in a exclamation point.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 10, 2007 14:55:24 GMT -5
Jack was even rougher in the Timely days, if you happen to have seen the Classic Captain America collection.
Hourman, I thought of Steranko and Adams as I was writing that post. That's why I chose to limit my posit to "in-house". No doubt Steranko and Adams were heavily influential, but in my mind I was thinking of them as "guests" because, as you stated, they didn't stay in any one place for too long. But I would never deny their impact on the time or the genre in general!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 10, 2007 15:59:49 GMT -5
As far as inkers on Kirby, I would say Sinnott was the very best. For some reason, I also don't mind Vince Colletta's scratchy penwork on the early Thors. It seems to fit. I agree, I liked his work on Kirby too; their collaboration imparted a fairy tale feel to Thor. More of Jack's qualities were retained when he was inked by Colletta, or Stone, or others...but when inked by Sinnott, the work took on a very different look. To me, it looked more homogenized, more conventional (I don't mean this in a bad way, as it was beautiful...but some of the rawness covered by prettiness). Sinnott-inked Kirby was less "quirky" than Kirby inked by anyone else, and more mainstream. I have got to read that Shooter interview. The early Legion stuff he did remains a highlight of my childhood comics reading.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Aug 11, 2007 13:52:42 GMT -5
I have got to read that Shooter interview. The early Legion stuff he did remains a highlight of my childhood comics reading. Shooter has many defenders too (including myself ). Not only is the guy one of the best comic writers Marvel and DC ever had, his tenure as EiC saved Marvel back in the late 70s and brought a new golden age to the company and the books.
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 13, 2007 9:40:21 GMT -5
I have got to read that Shooter interview. The early Legion stuff he did remains a highlight of my childhood comics reading. There was a time that I hated Jim Shooter for what he did to Hank Pym and insisting that Jean Grey/Phoenix had to die for what she did. However, looking back at his work, I have to agree that he was one of Marvel/DC's best writers. His Legion stuff, while not on par with Marvel because of the conventions of the time (DC a far "happier" universe with stories far more black-and-white), was quite good and the Mike Grell artwork was enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 13, 2007 9:41:04 GMT -5
While you're waiting for me to post some book reviews (which I promised in another thread -- I don't have time right now ), check out this vendor who I've done business with at the Chicago con each of the past three years. Very nice guys, and worth a look from you!! www.instocktrades.com/default.aspx
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 13, 2007 16:55:58 GMT -5
OK...
At WizardWorld Chicago yesterday I plunked down some cold, hard cash for the following four books: Comics Gone Ape from TwoMorrows, and the Marvel Visionaries hardcover volumes for John Buscema, John Romita, Sr., and Roy Thomas.
I had read the multi-page preview for the gorilla book when it was online and looked forward to purchasing the whole thing. The guys at the TwoMorrows booth were very friendly, and I made sure I encouraged them to keep doing what they're doing for the benefit of those of us who are still in love with the Silver and Bronze Ages. They seemed appreciative of the sentiment.
I am very excited that I bought the Visionaries books. I won't post the exact contents here, but you should know that a simple search on amazon.com will reveal that information for you for all of the volumes in the series. You should know, too, that these books are larger than the Masterworks volumes, and cost A LOT less!
Of the three, the John Romita, Sr. book is perhaps the most redundant to my collection. I have the John Romita Sketchbook as well as a John Romita hardcover published by Marvel several years ago (which I bought firsthand from the Jazzy one at an art gallery when he was in Chicago hyping the giclee that he and Alex Ross did of Spidey vs. the Goblin). Anyway, much of the material in this Visionaries volume was reprinted there, as well as the oft-reprinted ASM 39-40 and 50. Of note, however, is some 1950's Captain America work, as well as some Cap stuff from the late '60's-early '70's. Two issues of his FF run immediately after Kirby left are also in the book; it's funny to see that Romita (or Sinnott) tried to ape Kirby's look rather than let John work his own magic. This is an essential volume because of the nice package and survey of all periods of John's work; but like I stated earlier, there really isn't any surprising material.
Of the remaining two volumes, if I'm ranking, I guess I'd place the Roy Thomas edition second. And that's tough to say -- there are some great stories in it!! What strikes me, however, is what a great survey of Marvel art this volume presents! The work of Gene Colan, Marie Severin, Don Heck, John Buscema, George Klein, Dan Adkins, Mike Esposito, Gil Kane, Tom Palmer, Neal Adams, John Verpoorten, Herb Trimpe, John Severin, Joe Sinnott, Barry Windsor-Smith, Alan Weiss, Dick Giordano, Frank Robbins, Vince Colletta, George Perez, and Jackson Guice is all between the covers, and wonderfully reprinted in fine color (not too bright, as is often my complaint). Essential stories are, of course, Avengers #'s 57-58 and Sub-Mariner #8, which again are often reprinted. The treat in the book for me, though, is Amazing Adventures #8 featuring Neal Adams art on the Inhumans and the Avengers. We just don't see that type of thing in reprint form! Some of Roy's black-and-white work is in here as well, but alas (as is the case in the Buscema volume) no Conan.
Lastly, to no one's surprise as my favorite, is the John Buscema volume. The editors made great choices for this -- it truly is the essential John Buscema. And what strikes me most about this book (and to a lesser extent the Romita book) is that what I hold in my hands is truly an evolution of John's work. His late '50's stuff is very rough compared to what we came to know and love in the Silver and Bronze Ages. I think Buscema hit his stride after the examples in the book where he drew over Kirby's lay-outs. I have read in multiple resources that John did not like to have to do that, but when looking at his work in a linear, historical fashion there is no mistaking the King's influence (on Romita, too). Also vital to the Buscema fan is the effect of different inkers on John's pencils. Inkers here include Giacoia, Tartaglione, Esposito, Roussos, Sal Buscema, Romita, Sr., Palmer, Sinnott, Verpoorten, Shores, Nebres, Sienkiewicz (my least favorite, bar none), and Cerwinski (as we've discussed earlier, John's granddaughter!). John's first Avengers work (#41-42) is here, as is the pin-up from Annual #2. Later, #'s 75-76 are reprinted, in my mind to pay homage to John's Conan work (Dark Horse currently holds the licensing to Conan and Tarzan properties, and this volume suffers because of it), as that story included Arkon. The treasure in the volume may be Marvel Spotlight #30, with the Warriors Three; Sinnott remarks in his Brush Strokes With Greatness that this was the first time he inked Buscema when John turned in loose breakdowns and Joe had to finish the job. The end result is striking, and it's neat to see Sinnott "do" John Buscema -- there's no mistaking John's presence on the page. One more thing -- Silver Surfer #4 is in here, too, and is in my humble opinion John's standard, his masterpiece. All comic art should be compared to that single issue. Wow...
So, I am looking forward now to completing this "series" of hardcovers. Do yourself a favor and look through one the next time you come across it!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 13, 2007 21:11:54 GMT -5
Essential stories are, of course, Avengers #'s 57-58 and Sub-Mariner #8, which again are often reprinted. Ah, Sub-Mariner #8. One of my favorite stories from that era. I was just going to post some thoughts about it in a different thread, the recently-revived "New Silver Age Resource", but since you mentioned it I'll post here instead. In the other thread I wrote about Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe, in which he lists his top 50 Marvel moments. Included of course are Cap's 1960s revival in Avengers #4, and the Kree-Skrull War arc, which contains--as von Bek recently pointed out in another thread--Roy Thomas' homage to the Golden Age Timely-Atlas heroes. To my surprise, Subby #8 was not included in Stan's list, even though it too contains a beautifully-executed "meeting" of the Golden and Silver Ages. But unlike the Cap revival and the Golden Age heroes' appearance, Subby #8 is far from a celebration of an era gone by; instead it's a reminder of mortality...so maybe Stan didn't want to include such a "downer" about the good ol' Golden Age in his feel-good book. Anyway, I'm glad it's reprinted in this Visionaries volume. IMO it's one of the most moving Marvel stories from the late 60s. BTW, here's the link to the Amazing Marvel Universe thread, if anyone wants to know more about Stan's book: vplexico.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1160068725 As for the rest of your fantastic post, dlw, you've given us fodder for weeks. Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 13, 2007 22:24:00 GMT -5
To my surprise, Subby #8 was not included in Stan's list, even though it too contains a beautifully-executed "meeting" of the Golden and Silver Ages. But unlike the Cap revival and the Golden Age heroes' appearance, Subby #8 is far from a celebration of an era gone by; instead it's a reminder of mortality...so maybe Stan didn't want to include such a "downer" about the good ol' Golden Age in his feel-good book. Anyway, I'm glad it's reprinted in this Visionaries volume. IMO it's one of the most moving Marvel stories from the late 60s. Are you referring to the battle between Namor and the Thing (#8) or Namor and the Original Human Torch (#14)? Both are reprinted in the volumes I purchased. Subby #8 is in the Buscema volume and #14 is in the Roy Thomas volume. My access to #8 previously was in a Marvel Treasury Edition ironically entitled "Marvel's Greatest Super-Hero Team-Ups"... ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 13, 2007 23:16:03 GMT -5
I mean #8 (which is in the Roy Thomas edition, right?); and yes, much of the issue is devoted to the battle between the Thing and Namor--but the Golden Age element I'm referring to what happens in the last couple of pages (I don't want to spoil it in case others have not read the story).
Namor comes face to face with his Golden Age past, so to speak, but it's not the typical heroic Golden Age connection, which is why it's so affecting. Because the ending was considered unusual at the time, I was surprised Stan did not include it in the 50 greatest moments.
I used to have a copy of #8 but it's long gone. Sub-Mariner was the only non-team book I read on a regular basis and I collected "backwards" as much as I could, so I had a bunch of early issues (though I never had any of the Astonish issues). I wish someone at Marvel would wise up and publish a Namor Essentials!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 14, 2007 9:50:46 GMT -5
I mean #8 (which is in the Roy Thomas edition, right?); and yes, much of the issue is devoted to the battle between the Thing and Namor--but the Golden Age element I'm referring to what happens in the last couple of pages (I don't want to spoil it in case others have not read the story). Namor comes face to face with his Golden Age past, so to speak, but it's not the typical heroic Golden Age connection, which is why it's so affecting. Because the ending was considered unusual at the time, I was surprised Stan did not include it in the 50 greatest moments. Of course you are correct -- Subby #8 is indeed in the Thomas volume. The fact that #8 was drawn by Big John just threw me a bit when I typed my first reply to you above, and I thought it was in the Buscema volume (which interestingly does not have a Sub-Mariner story included!). And, yes, upon further review I do know to what you refer when you say his "Golden Age past" . An additional comment on these volumes: There is little text in any of them. I believe Roy takes a few pages here and there to comment on the issues included in his volume. He also writes a lengthy introduction to the Buscema volume. A nice touch in the Thomas book is the inclusion of the letters page from FF #176 (where the Impossible Man goes berserk in the Marvel Bullpen) where Roy explains the impetus for that issue. All volumes in the series have dust jackets with additional art and minor commentary; the right side of the jacket has writer/artist profiles. At the conclusions of the Romita, Sr. and Buscema volumes there are some original pencils, watercolors, and character drafts that add a nice touch. However, these types of things only add 3-4 pages to the book and are not to be considered as an expansive sketchbook, et al.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 14, 2007 22:43:18 GMT -5
Yes, that's a very silly grin on my face right about now... Shiryu, I may need your expertise here. Let me fill you in: Tonight I started to read the MV: John Buscema book. First off, whoever the editor for this series is should know that the consumers who might purchase this book have a good chance to be advancing in age. The 6-point type in Roy's introduction could have been a little larger... But, my grinning countenance comes from the "extra" pages at the back of the book, which I refer to above. There is a four-page story, credited as unpublished but intended for a magazine called "Marvel Italia". The exhibit in the book is a reproduction of John's pencils for the story, which included Loki, Thor, and the Silver Surfer. The pages come courtesy of Sal Velluto, who was the intended inker. So, where do I come in? I have a pencil and ball point pen rough on sketch-paper to page 3 of this story!!!! It is obvious that John sketched it out, liked it, and using a light box reproduced the page onto comic artboard. And there it was, right in the book in my hands! A quick trip to the basement to gather the portfolio in which I keep my non-framed art and viola! My wife was quite impressed... Incidentally, I've mentioned in other threads that I have a small original art collection. The page referred to was purchased from a dealer on Ebay some years ago. I don't even remember what I paid for it... So, Shiryu: any ideas about this magazine? There is another reproduction in the book of a Surfer story, inked by and courtesy of Velluto, from Marvel Italia.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 15, 2007 21:56:13 GMT -5
His Legion stuff, while not on par with Marvel because of the conventions of the time (DC a far "happier" universe with stories far more black-and-white), was quite good and the Mike Grell artwork was enjoyable. My exposure to Shooter's LSH is from his first go-round with the team, waaay back on Adventure in the late '60s. It's funny, I was a DC fan (because of the Batman TV show) but once I discovered Marvel, I dropped DC like a hot potato. DC was just too formulaic and "black-and-white" as Hourman puts it. BUT one of the few DC books I continued to read was Adventure with the LSH...because the stories were more "Marvel-like" than most other DC mags I'd read. My first LSH story was "The Ghost Of Ferro Lad" (Adventure #357) and this story started almost in medias res, just like Marvel stories did. Sure, there was the obligatory flashback scene for information, but this issue really gave the impression there was a rich backstory here. To me, this was similar to what I'd find in a Marvel book. Shooter's scripts back then emphasized character and not mere action or stock premises. He was able to have, say, half a dozen or more LSH characters in a story and he managed to make them individuals, even if a character only had a couple of lines of dialogue in a given story. (I've read he based a lot of the Legion characters' personalities on his schoolmates; he was so young and green a writer that he thought that was "cheating.") One story I really liked was when some Legionnaires were poisoned and only had 24 hours or so to live. They each decided to spend their last hours in their own way and they agreed to meet up at the end, and they would die together. There were several pages devoted to each character's time alone. This was a very character-driven, contemplative story. (And part 2 of the story, in the next issue, went off in a completely different direction. As mentioned, this was not your run-of-the-mill DC book.) I enjoyed Secret Wars for this reason too; the interplay between the heroes...and the interplay among the villains. Shooter didn't ignore cosmic menaces or big plot elements, but he also made sure stories worked on a more human level- - through the characters. I have told this sad story many times so let me apologize in advance for repeating it here ...but I was so enamored of the LSH in Adventure, I begged my parents to let me subscribe to it. They finally relented and I was in seventh heaven. A scant two issues into the subscription, my Adventure arrived in the mail, its cover emblazoned with "now starring Supergirl!" The LSH had been dismissed to a few pages in the back of Action comics, and given the space limitations, only two or three Legionnaires could be featured. Apart from a Shooter story about Light Lass and Timber Wolf (the first "drug" story, before Spidey and GL/GA), the team lost its appeal for me and I stopped reading Action--and the LSH-- after a few issues. I really have to get some of those Grell issues. Not only is the guy one of the best comic writers Marvel and DC ever had, his tenure as EiC saved Marvel back in the late 70s and brought a new golden age to the company and the books. I agree...it's well-known that he was not a popular editor in chief, probably due to his youth, his personality (not warm and fuzzy from all accounts), the condition of the company when he became EiC (inmates running the asylum, from what I've read), etc. He came to Marvel at a time when they needed a strong hand and IMO he succeeded in righting the ship, as von Bek says. He's a seminal figure in comics. Check out the Legion Companion (TwoMorrows publication), which contains a couple of interviews with him. Of course it's events told from his point of view but you'll be amazed by what he had to go through.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 16, 2007 8:03:00 GMT -5
So, Shiryu: any ideas about this magazine? There is another reproduction in the book of a Surfer story, inked by and courtesy of Velluto, from Marvel Italia. What an interesting story... Marvel Italia is the name of the publisher of all Marvel material in Italy. Usually it justs translates and adapts normal comics, but there are a few original Italian stories (the 2 most recent being "Spider-Man: secret of the glass" (featuring Spidey in Venice) and a "Captain America & Daredevil". Unfortunately, I can't recall anything about Sal Velluto, but I found his original website: www.velluto.com/ with some quite nice stuff in it. I suppose you could try to e-mail him directly.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 16, 2007 17:01:39 GMT -5
I will see if there's any further backstory to the particular rough/unused story of which I was writing. Stay tuned!
|
|