|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 21, 2007 22:36:37 GMT -5
This is a continuation of a discussion on silver age artists (which started oddly enough in the Definitive Henry Pym thread!).
One thing I have noticed in reading these posts, is that often an artist we disliked when we were young, we have developed an appreciation of later in life. For me, I could say this about Joe Kubert. As a kid, I thought his art looked way too sketchy. Now, I look back at his Hawkman and Enemy Ace work (among others), and I really find myself drawn to it. It seems to have a weight and realism that is very appealing.
I also can see the power and dynamism of Kirby much better now than as a kid. I used to complain about his unrealistic anatomy, but now it seems to lend a certain liveliness to whatever he's depicting.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jan 21, 2007 23:22:24 GMT -5
Frank Robbins I probably appreciate a great deal more now than I did then.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 22, 2007 8:37:13 GMT -5
In regard to Frank Robbins, I remember just despising the Invaders book when he took over the art (which was very early in the title, not long after the VERY GOOD Liberty Legion crossover). My disdain lasted until right near the end of the run when they switched up artists and started telling some Young Allies-type stories (Kupperberg maybe became the penciller??). I mention this because about a month ago I was in a shop and considered picking up Vol. II of the Cap and Falcon Secret Empire tpb. When I saw that Robbins followed Sal Buscema on the last few issues, I put it back. Sorry, but I have said time and again, FOR ME, bad art ruins good writing. I know almost everyone else here feels the opposite, but that's how it works for me.
I have warmed to Gil Kane through the years, but I still wouldn't say I "like" his work. Tolerate, maybe even appreciate... but not completely "like".
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 22, 2007 9:34:20 GMT -5
Feeling guilty after the unkind things I said about Mr. Robbins. If he were to work on horror titles, I feel his art would be very appropriate. His facial expressions, contorted bodies, etc. would fit nicely with, for example, the old EC books. But not super-heroes.
I neglected to give an opinion on Joe Kubert. As a kid I found his work very scratchy, and sometimes plain (depending what book I was looking at -- his Tarzan paled in comparison to Buscema's Marvel version). However, as time has passed and I've matured in my appreciation for the older masters (and a lot of that comes from simply being dissatisfied with some of the art output of the past generation (15+ years?) -- although some has been very good) Kubert has improved in my eyes. Looking through the recently-released Tarzan Archives from Dark Horse, one sees a simplicity in Kubert's art that engenders a realism not found in work of other artists. To think that much of his body of output concerned either Tarzan or DC's war books, he was the right guy. While a Joe Jusko painted Tarzan is a work to drool over, Kubert's more simple, lithe version is in a separate but equal category.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 22, 2007 13:13:02 GMT -5
I have to confess that Frank Robbins is also on my list of least favorite artists (although I did continue to buy Cap and Invaders when he drew them!). RSC, what changed your mind or what have you found in his art that you can now appreciate?
I guess my favorite silver age artists would be Romita, Buscema (although one could argue he really had more of a hand shaping Marvel's bronze age), Adams, and Kirby. I am sort of on the fence about Kane; there are times where I like him but often his style feels forced to me. I also don't like looking up everyone's nose!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 22, 2007 18:00:51 GMT -5
Good point about Buscema. Since he came to Marvel circa 1967, he certainly fits in the Silver Age (which we considered on another thread, maybe the Hank Pym one (?), to end around 1970 when Kirby left for DC). However, the bulk of the work for which many remember him is his Thor, Conan, Tarzan, and FF -- all early 1970's.
So, to speak of the "true" Marvel Silver Age, we have to discuss guys like Heck, Ayers, Ditko, Roth, and a gal named Severin. Over at DC, you're looking at Infantino, Swan, Anderson, Cardy, etc.
Of those, I really don't like Werner Roth's X-Men. It is no wonder they canceled that book, even with the fantastic rescue put on by Neal Adams and Roy Thomas near the end. I am sure the sales had sunk so far that Adams was probably come and gone before anyone knew he was doing the book -- coupled with the bimonthly shipping status, poor art probably killed the book.
Heck I can take early; later, no. Ditko -- I'm just not crazy about his style, although I do find it heavily influencing what McFarlane and Bagley did much later. Never cared for Dr. Strange as a character, so Ditko's work on Strange Tales is neither here nor there for me.
I don't care for Dick Ayers as a penciller. Although very close to the early-Marvel Kirby in style, substance was an issue. Of course, when you're doing books like Giant-Man and the featured villain is The Human Eraser, you're swimming upstream right from the get-go (I've referenced this story before -- does anyone have it? Talk about a Silver Age DC story that ended up at the House of Ideas!! Sheesh!).
I like Marie Severin. Good, solid stuff. Her Sub-Mariner work is very nice.
Over at DC...
I came to Carmine Infantino when he got to Marvel (mainly Man Called Nova), and thus was not very impressed with his declining powers. Later discovering his early Flash stuff, I appreciated him (not so much on Batman, but then I'm picky on Batman artists).
Murphy Anderson -- great stuff!! Very solid.
Curt Swan -- one of the absolute best, and very underrated.
Nick Cardy -- fantastic cover artist, beautiful women. Early Teen Titans work, despite being so dated now and from what I understand just silly even when contemporary, is pretty to look at!
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jan 22, 2007 22:44:49 GMT -5
I have to confess that Frank Robbins is also on my list of least favorite artists (although I did continue to buy Cap and Invaders when he drew them!). RSC, what changed your mind or what have you found in his art that you can now appreciate? That's tough to give a simple answer to. I started buying the Invaders out of the quarter bin in the early 80s -- only back then it was the nickle bin. I was a WWII junkie even as a 10 year old, something that's still with me strongly today. The Invaders had me right off from that respect. I remember looking down my nose at Frank's art as a kid, particularly when I started to find Kupperberg's stuff in the later issues. Kupperberg himself is quite competent, but by no means distinctive. He was simply easier to like. At the time, the storytelling and the subject matter probably kept me interested to an extent in spite of the art. And make no mistake, I loved this book back in the day as much as I do now. What changed for me with the art? Perhaps I grew to value other factors beyond "prettiness" in art as I got older. Frank's style was highly dynamic -- something which today's hot artists have almost forgotten about in pursuit of photorealism. It was highly distinctive, and for better or worse, you would never not be able to recognize his work. His sequential storytelling was great -- something that carried over from his extensive newspaper strip experience. Like the better artists of his era, he could tell a story visually in a page that would take most artists today the better part of an issue. And I'm not just talking about today's decompressed writing. Artists today simply don't know how to tell a story clearly and economically, because they haven't had to. He was a great draftsman on backgrounds -- WWII ships, planes, guns, etc. were all accurate and highly detailed. He put extral effort into drawing the ladies -- Spitfire always looked great. I've seen his newsstrip work and it's the same in this respect -- the guys usually look stylized and the ladies look beautiful. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 23, 2007 10:48:51 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to discuss Robbins RSC. I thought it was very interesting when you mentioned story-telling ability. This is something that I frequently complain about with today's artists. Sometimes I'll be reading a book, and despite the very pretty art, I find myself thinking I skipped a page or something, because the story just doesn't flow. You should be able to look at the page and get the general idea of what is going on without reading any of the words. I can do this with most silver age stuff, even if the art is crude by today's standards. But a lot of the current crop of artists seem to be lacking in the storytelling department.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jan 23, 2007 11:35:32 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to discuss Robbins RSC. I thought it was very interesting when you mentioned story-telling ability. This is something that I frequently complain about with today's artists. Sometimes I'll be reading a book, and despite the very pretty art, I find myself thinking I skipped a page or something, because the story just doesn't flow. You should be able to look at the page and get the general idea of what is going on without reading any of the words. I can do this with most silver age stuff, even if the art is crude by today's standards. But a lot of the current crop of artists seem to be lacking in the storytelling department. This is something I've discussed at length on another board regarding Steve Epting's work. His art on a panel-for-panel basis is fantastic, the best Cap has had in a very long time. Unfortunately, when it comes to action sequences he just looks lost. Mr. Epting's fight scenes tend to be a jumbled collection of snapshots without a clear, flowing connection from one panel to the next. It really -- IMO -- handicaps his effectiveness as an artist from someone who could be great to merely good. (Bryan Hitch is another good example of someone with beautiful art, but a poor sense of sequential storytelling.) I've often contrasted Epting's work with that of Kieron Dwyer, one of my all-time favorite Cap artists. Dwyer's work is not nearly so "pretty," but his grasp of sequential storytelling is fantastic, and his action is incredibly dynamic. If you happen to have access to the issues, compare, say, Epting's Master Man fight in issue #20 with Dwyer's Crossbones fight at the end of the Bloodstone Hunt. You will see what I mean. In my mind, Dwyer is more effective as a comic artist than Epting. RSC
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 23, 2007 11:56:42 GMT -5
Dwyer's prowess might have something to do with the fact that John Byrne is his stepfather. Byrne can tell a story!
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jan 23, 2007 22:05:16 GMT -5
One thing I liked about Dwyer’s Captain America art is that you could tell which costumed Captain you were looking at (Steve Rogers or John Walker) just by looking at him. In most artists’ hands, they would have looked identical in identical costumes. (The topic is drifting again…
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 23, 2007 22:16:38 GMT -5
Brining it back: how about if someone comments on my comments on SA artists, or shares their own list of evaluees.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 24, 2007 16:01:59 GMT -5
Brining it back: how about if someone comments on my comments on SA artists, or shares their own list of evaluees. OK, I'll bite. Early Don Heck I can handle. There's nothing exciting about his artwork, but he does a good job of presenting the story. I agree, his later work was not much to my liking. I like Ditko, but it has been an acquired taste. I will always think "John Romita (senior)" when I think of Spider-Man, so going back and seeing Ditko's version was a shock at first. But during his run he actually did some outstanding work. It's probably an over-used example, but the sequence in Spider-Man 33 where Spidey gradually lifts this huge peice of machinery is just fantastic. You really feel him straining, both physically and emotionally, to free himself. I always thought Marie Severin had a very nice style. Nothing spectacular but very solid, especially with character's facial expressions. I didn't read much DC silver age, so I haven't much to say about those artists. I've never cared for Infantino's stuff - no particular reason, it just doesn't appeal to me. I think Curt Swan may be the definitive Superman artist - there's something about his Superman that just projects authority and strength. Although probably not really silver age, I feel like Jim Aparo drew the definitive Batman. His Batman was sleek and mysterious, yet very human.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 24, 2007 16:03:10 GMT -5
Okay, I'll bite...(note: tan---great minds think alike! We must've composed/posted at around the same time...this is intended as a response to dlw's post...)
The SA Sub-Mariner strip had some of the most interesting SA artists: Colan, Buscema and Severin. Buscema, the classicist, probably would have been perfect on any book; but Subby and its underwater scenes seemed to bring out the best in Colan and Severin. Marie's work had an old-fashioned look to it, Gene's was dark; and both styles worked well with the "otherworld" aspect of the book. Neither Severin nor Colan was what you would call a master at anatomy or proportions or "realism"; but they very effectively transported the reader to the world of the characters.
Werner Roth is one of the strangest cases; he drew for years over layouts by Heck, or Kirby, and never seemed to improve. In fact, I'm not sure if he ever drew on his own (in the X-Men book). But I do know his art wasn't terrible when inked by Sinnott (in #52) or Palmer (not sure, I think it was #65).
I'm not familiar with Ayers' penciling work except, of course, on Avengers #16. When I first read that issue I thought the credits meant that Kirby had penciled the book and Ayers had inked it (I misunderstood the concept of the layout artist). I remember thinking, wow, these sure don't look like Kirby faces...
As I've probably mentioned before, when I think of the Marvel SA, I think of Kirby/Sinnott...John B...Romita. Buscema was obviously the best draftsman of the three, but they each had a classic, distinctive, accessible style that spoke to the reader. And they were storytellers. The yeomen artists like Heck and M. Severin were also important. Then there were the artists who cannot be neatly categorized: Adams, Steranko (even given his minuscule body of work) and Colan (despite being from a different generation than Neal or Jim). These three artists made up their own rules and paved the way for the expansion/acceptance of various comic art styles going into the 70s.
DC: You know, even though once I became a diehard Marvel fan I basically dropped DC, I always remained impressed by the SA DC covers (I'm speaking of prior to the Adams cover takeover). Years later I found out that most of the covers I'd admired were done by Carmine Infantino and inked by Murphy Anderson. The covers just had such strength, wonderful shading, artful use of body positioning, etc. I mean, has anyone not seen f that Superman-Flash (first) race cover?? And any of those amazing covers with the Spectre on it (usually Showcase and Brave and the Bold). Those covers were imaginative, dramatic and powerful. Much better, in general, than the stories/art contained within (yes, I would occasionally read the issues when visting my cousins, who were DC fans). I also loved Gil Kane's Atom covers; there's one in particular, with the Golden Age and SA Atoms, that made such an impression on me back then (not sure of the issue number). When Adams took over many of the DC covers, I felt the covers became homogenized...they all had the same look: someone would have their mouth open, in surprise....the bodies were slightly skinner than I was used to... there were raised eyebrows...someone was usually pointing a finger, etc. I suppose this was all in the name of "realism" but something was lost for me. The covers seemed to be trying too hard at this point. And, it didn't help that by the time Adams was doing most of the DC covers, word balloons were being used more. I thought that lessened the impact of the cover art.
Cardy's work on the Titans, Aquaman--exquisite and evocative and unique. As has been often noted, great women.
Last and definitely not least, Mr. DC--Curt Swan. I enjoyed Swan's work, especially on the Legion. No complaints with his work, except perhaps (at times) a bit static. But the definitive version of Superman and that family.
BTW, there's a book scheduled to be published soon, about Andru and Esposito. The book is available for pre-order on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 24, 2007 16:56:27 GMT -5
Ross Andru -- as a waif, MY definitive Spider-Man artist, replaced much later by JR Sr. Andru was another guy who had a hand in several books at both of the Big Two; most of his Marvel work outside of ASM seems to be as a fill-in artist. I've seen a couple FF issues when he subbed for Buscema -- talk about a drastic change in feel from one month to the next! While Andru was perhaps no less the storyteller, his angular bodies and crazed facial expressions were quite a departure from Buscema's realism.
I think there is a definite break in Gil Kane's DC work and his Marvel work. I'm not sure what it would be attributed to, but his Marvel stuff seemed much harsher, much more expressive. And that's often with Romita's softening inks on him.
Reading early Legion stuff from the Archives hardcovers, I felt the team got some much needed artistic stability when John Forte took over the full-time art. Then Curt Swan came along -- an even greater improvement! Swan's stuff is just beautiful, leaving behind the big barrel-chests of Wayne Boring. Facial expressions were Curt's specialty. If anyone has the Les Daniels DC coffee table book, there is a model sheet in it of about 20 Superman faces. Just great stuff.
Characters like Angel and Hawkman always lent themselves toward great covers, didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 25, 2007 13:56:33 GMT -5
Speaking of the Angel...
George Tuska?
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 25, 2007 23:08:41 GMT -5
If anyone has the Les Daniels DC coffee table book, there is a model sheet in it of about 20 Superman faces. Just great stuff. Characters like Angel and Hawkman always lent themselves toward great covers, didn't they? Yes! I should have included Hawkman when mentioning the great Silver Age DC covers, along with the Atom. Those 60s covers always had movement...Kubert's Hawkman was great, but Murphy Anderson's Hawkman made me feel like I was in the sky with him. I did not really get the same sense from cover shots of the Angel, perhaps because of his silly costumes...though I did like Steranko's rendition of him on the cover of X-Men #49 (great job on the wings). Tuska's art was pleasant to look at, but nothing about it ever made me look twice. I think my first exposure to him was in Avengers #48, so he may have started at a disadvantage with me--how can anyone look good after several John Buscema-drawn issues? He did a pretty good, basic Angel (dlw, was it you who was going to pick up the Champions tpb? Decent 70s Tuska artwork, as I'm sure you know). And he was certainly versatile and worked on a lot of great books. For Tuska fans, I recommend "The Art of George Tuska" (Two Morrows). Along the lines of the Curt Swan sheets: check out "Hero Gets Girl", about Kurt Schaffenberger. There's a reproduction of Kurt's tryout page containing sketches of Lois, Clark and Superman heads. And according to the book, the original is owned by Graham Nash (for you young 'uns: as in Crosby, Stills, Nash and sometimes Young). I suppose it's difficult for non-comics fans to understand why this sort of art is so darn appealing, but it's nice to know that we're in good company with Graham!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 26, 2007 9:38:54 GMT -5
It was the same Champions tpb that inspired me to ask about Tuska! His work on Avengers circa the late #130's (including my oft-referenced #139, the first time Yellowjacket grows) was very good, and not really out of place after the Bob Brown issues and a little Sal Buscema. Tuska, like Ross Andru, just had an angular look to his figures. I think he, again like Andru, might have been guilty of the "stock pose" -- that is, you can look at several of his books and see some of the same action pictures. Different characters, same figures.
I believe my first exposure to the Angel was in the X-Men reprints of the early 70's. I'm not sure if the team had "graduated" to the individual costumes or if they were still wearing the blue/yellow uniforms. At any rate, what struck me about that particular issue was the origin of the Angel in the back of the book. I was just amazed that Warren Worthington had these wings sprouting out of his back! Man, I checked my shoulder blades for days hoping that could be me!!! I liked his first Champions outfit with the headband, and then the streamlined red and white suit was cool, too.
Every now and then you hear about people in pop culture who are comics fans. I know Gene Simmons of Kiss was a huge comics fan, as evidenced by the songs "God of Thunder" and "Flaming Youth" on the Destroyer album!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 28, 2007 20:59:33 GMT -5
I was just amazed that Warren Worthington had these wings sprouting out of his back! Man, I checked my shoulder blades for days hoping that could be me!!! Boy, can I relate to that! As a child I was convinced I had telepathic and telekinesis powers (I was a big X-Men fan and Prof. X and Jean's powers really intrigued me. I read everything I could on ESP). In class, while the teacher was droning on, I would concentrate hard and I swear, I could see that pencil (on my desk) move. About another SA artist: I know he is vilified--shortcuts, not inking backgrounds, etc.-- but I like how Vince Colletta inked many artists, including Tuska (examples are shown in the Champions tpb). I guess it depends on the book; Colletta on FF wasn't very effective (because it required a slick, polished inker like Sinnott to give it a high tech look), but I thought his inks gave Thor the fairytale look it needed. In particular I liked his work on Avengers #44 (Buscema pencils) and #45 (Heck). I think Colletta did a good job inking characters; Vince's inks were effective in rendering hair texture, body countours, and eyes (though he would on occasion draw characters with what looked like crossed eyes, like Thor in Avg. #45!).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 29, 2007 10:57:34 GMT -5
In regard to Heck, I posted some comments on Avengers #28-33, which I've recently re-read. Heck was probably at the height of his Avengers work in terms of quality in these issues. However, there are glimpses of the strange faces and stiff figures that would (in my opinion) doom him in the not-too-distant future.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jan 31, 2007 12:35:48 GMT -5
In regard to Heck, I posted some comments on Avengers #28-33, which I've recently re-read. Heck was probably at the height of his Avengers work in terms of quality in these issues. However, there are glimpses of the strange faces and stiff figures that would (in my opinion) doom him in the not-too-distant future. You know, DLW, I have not been a big fan of Don Heck either, but I went back and looked at those issues you mentioned. They actually look pretty nice. Very basic 60's comic work, but clean, good story-telling technique, and some very effective action sequences. I think most of my negativity towards Heck is from the work (much of it fill-in) that he did in the 70's (and perhaps 80's?). I think it also has to do with the artists I was comparing him to at that time - John Buscema and the young George Perez, for two. Heck's abilities had definitely declined and his work just couldn't stand up to guys like that. But you're right, those early Avengers really don't look bad.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 31, 2007 12:57:46 GMT -5
If you've ever seen his DC work from the later '70's, it is bad. Particularly his Wonder Woman.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jan 31, 2007 21:25:08 GMT -5
On those early Avengers issues, Heck's work was helped immeasurably by the inkers--Wally Wood, Giacoia, Ayers, Romita (#25--most beautiful Scarlet Witch ever), and as mentioned, I even liked Colletta (#45). I didn't like it when he began to ink himself (#32 and after)--his art began to look increasingly sloppy, unfinished and crude. (Not crazy about George Bell/Roussos on Heck, either.) And when Heck returned to the Avengers, in the early '70s, I could barely recognize his work. It seemed very sketchy, and not in a good way. I will say, though, despite Heck's limited (IMHO) artistic skills, somehow during his first run he manged to imbue the Avengers with different looks or "qualities", at a time when most comic artists were practitioners of the "Betty and Veronica" technique (different characters, different hairstyles, same face). I have noticed this while reading the black and white Essentials (vols. 1 and 2). I don't know how he did it, but during his original run on the Avengers he managed to make Wanda look like a beautiful but unsophisticated foreign woman; Natasha a glamorous, sophisticated, intelligent, sharp, analytical, thinking foreign woman; and Jan a glamorous, sophisticated, American, warm woman. It may be how he drew each woman's eyebrows, or mouths, or expressions- -I really can't really pinpoint it--but I could usually see the differences between them (apart from the hair, coloring and costumes, of course). Whereas Buscema (a far superior draftsman) would give them all the same cheekbones, wide rounded jaw, and extremely full lower lips; they had the same smile (as in #46, for example). The men, too, at least in Cap's Kooky Quartet--the set of Cap's jaw and mouth looked different from Hawkeye (even with their masks on) and their jaws/mouths/expressions etc. both looked different from Pietro's. Hawkeye's eyes always had a glint (or something) to them that was usually not found in Cap's, and definitely not in Pietro's. Now, it's possible I may just be imagining these visual facial differences and I may just be "reading" into the faces, based on my knowledge of the characters. But in reading the Essentials, I have developed a greater appreciation of Heck's Avengers work.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 7, 2007 15:44:56 GMT -5
Interesting observation -- it makes me want to scrutinize that era's issues!
And of course, Perez became the master of individuality during his run in Volume III. Each character, male or female, took on unique facial traits that he carried over into the Avengers/JLA story. While I didn't care for some of his interpretations, I did appreciate the effort to, as sharkar stated, get away from the "Betty and Veronica" cookie-cutter look.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 7, 2007 20:40:39 GMT -5
You know, I still don't know how the heck Heck did it . Maybe I need new contact lenses?? As DLW states, later artists such Perez deliberately gave characters distinctive, individual faces (and bodies), but Heck's art always looked rushed and scratchy--like he wasn't spending any extra time on it. Yet as I mentioned, during that particular period he drew the Avengers, he made Wanda look naive and like someone "just off the boat" (no insult intended), and Jan and Natasha sophisticated and more knowing (and between them, Jan a nicer person, and 'Tasha more cerebral). Maybe it was the brows, the width of the mouth, the chin, I don't know. Hawk, Hank and Cap (even with masks on) all exuded distinct personas back then too (when Buscema took over, the guys all exhibited the same square-jawed, he-man look--a small quibble, given the virtuosity, beauty and power of John's pencils). I liked how Heck drew Happy and Pepper originally; one of the more interesting aspects in the Iron Man Essentials (the stories are kind of blah). I guess at some point someone told Heck to make them more conventionally attractive.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 8, 2007 13:15:13 GMT -5
Who typified the look and feel of a book for you? That is, when you think of comics from your youth, who was drawing it? For example:
Marvel Team-Up -- Sal Buscema. Even though Byrne had a nice run when I was in junior high, I still see Sal's earlier work when I think of the book.
Amazing Spider-Man -- Ross Andru
Avengers -- Sal Buscema or George Perez
DD -- Bob Brown
FF -- Rich Buckler
Thor -- John Buscema
X-Men -- Dave Cockrum
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 11, 2007 20:07:56 GMT -5
Amazing Spider-Man: Romita Sr.
Fantastic Four: Kirby
Thor: Kirby
Avengers: J Buscema
Sub-Mariner: J Buscema/M Severin
X-Men: Adams
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 12, 2007 9:53:54 GMT -5
Back to Heck for a moment.
I mentioned a few days ago that I thought he was very strong on the Sons of the Serpent arc, as well as the issues before (really dating back to #19 up). However, as I read the Living Laser and Ultroids stories that come right after the "Serpent" issues, I was struck with a "here is the Don Heck I don't care for" feeling. The faces begin to seem unnatural, the bodies stiffer. The pacing and overall storytelling are there, but the pretty pictures have begun to fade.
Wanting to do some additional research on my memories, I looked at Avengers #110-111 (the Magneto stories, guest-starring DD and the Black Widow, as well as the X-Men) and found that in this story Heck was even further declining. However, in issue #157 (the Black Knight of stone), when inked by Pablo Marcos he is better. You can still tell it's Heck, but Marcos appeared to attempt to maintain some consistency between the previous arc (Attuma, Tyrak, Dr. Doom) drawn by Perez and the subsequent arc (Vision vs. Wonder Man and Graviton) drawn by Sal Buscema.
As mentioned elsewhere and earlier, the issue inked by Wally Wood (maybe 20-22?) and the one inked by Romita (24 or 25 IIRC) are Heck's best.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Feb 14, 2007 4:03:53 GMT -5
For me it would be
Amazing Spider-Man: Romita Sr.
Fantastic Four: Kirby
Thor: Kirby
Avengers: Perez (early run. I appreciate his attempt to give everyone a distinct appearance in V3, but I didn't like some of those appearances very much, especially Jan).
X-Men: Byrne
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 20, 2007 20:31:46 GMT -5
Back to Heck for a moment. Okay, I'll bite. In the latest Avengers Assemble Vol. 4 hardcover, there's a great pin-up of Cap's Kooky Quartet, it's a take-off of the famous "Spirit of '76" (or "Yankee Doodle") painting...you know, marching figures with a fife, a drum, a flag, etc. Anyway, the Quartet drawing bears the names of Heck and (Jerry) Ordway, and another name I can't decipher--Smith? Paul Smith?- - and the date "6/2001." Don died in 1995...so I don't know if this is someone else's work over a Heck photostat, or what. But it was nice to see something in the style of Heck when he was at his best (early days on the Avengers). The pin-up captures the Quartet's idealism and innocence: Cap, Hawkeye, Pietro in his original green Quicksilver costume, Wanda with that huge headdress. I'd be much obliged if anyone fill me in about this drawing, where it first appeared, etc. As mentioned previously, Heck's work when inked by a strong artist (like Wood or Romita) was good; but he didn't do himself any favors when he started to ink himself (Avengers #32), the work just seemed rushed (understandable, since he was now doing double duty) and sloppy. And while Heck was busy penciling Avengers Annual #1, Roy needed someone for the regular book and had Buscema step in. Once Roy saw John's work, he insisted John be the regular penciler- - and it was all over for Heck. In interviews with Roy, RT as much says that after this move to Buscema, Heck's stock diminished considerably (at Marvel). Roy always seems a bit guilty when he relates this (or maybe I'm reading this into his interviews), because by all accounts Heck was a nice guy and a workhorse who could meet deadlines and who never begged off an assignment (unlike some other artists). He may not have been the greatest draftsman, but he served the book well, during one of its most important phases.
|
|