|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 20, 2006 19:07:59 GMT -5
Hey, guys -- I have been pushing Back Issue magazine for some time. On the preview for this month's issue they have one of their articles online in PDF format. I thought you'd like a look at what you've been missing out on (assuming you're not reading it). As always, your local comic shop can order the mag through Previews, or you can buy direct at www.twomorrows.com. The link takes you to a Spidey/Green Goblin story about the Death of Gwen Stacy. twomorrows.com/media/BI18Goblin.pdf
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 22, 2006 10:50:35 GMT -5
Articles featured in this month's Back Issue include the above interview with Gerry Conway and John Romita, a Peter David interview on his tenure with the Hulk, Neal Adams on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, and Mike Grell on the Green Arrow makeover for Longbow Hunters. There is also a J'onn J'onzz story, and tons of pencil artwork and unpublished covers. Great stuff!!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 25, 2006 19:49:04 GMT -5
dlw, thanks for the recommendation and the link. I read the Romita/Conway article and it's absolutely fascinating...loved how Romita cited Caniff's advice to kill off female characters every couple of years ago to make it a "real shock." Also shows how involved artists were (at least at Marvel) in terms of plotting, characters, etc. I will definitely buy this issue of Back Issue...you're a great salesman!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 26, 2006 9:51:29 GMT -5
I just finished reading the Peter David interview. While not a Hulk fan, I did like what he had to say about keeping the character fresh. Working within the framework of the Hulk/Banner's psychology, David was able to really use the whole multiple personalities shtick to make the book interesting. There are numerous samples of McFarlane and Keown pencils accompanying the article. I can attest to the fact that I enjoyed McFarlane on Spidey moreso than on the Hulk (from what I've seen).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 14, 2006 15:54:13 GMT -5
A few days ago I polished off the Neal Adams interview. I've read several stories about/interview with him before. Anyone else out there think his pomposity almost outweighs his artistic talent?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2006 16:16:46 GMT -5
I miss the teasers at the bottom of each page in early '70's Marvels. I also miss the Bullpen Bulletins and how Stan and Roy just brought the reader in and made him/her feel a part of the family. Was FOOM a money maker for them? Sure, but it made you feel like you were an insider. House ads for new books were cool, too. Now we get gaudy 4-page previews of Manga art...
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Oct 17, 2006 19:30:56 GMT -5
A few days ago I polished off the Neal Adams interview. I've read several stories about/interview with him before. Anyone else out there think his pomposity almost outweighs his artistic talent? I agree with you 100%, dlw...in almost interview I've read he comes across as pretty arrogant. He rarely has a good word to say about his fellow artists' skills, except perhaps for Tom Palmer and Dick Giordano. And I've read a number of interviews in which he belittles not only Kirby's drawing ability, but also Kirby's role in the revival of superhero comics in the early 60s. In Neal's defense, though, his overwhelming self-confidence was probably an asset when he fought for Siegel and Shuster and when he tried to get better conditions for artists. Will Eisner's Shop Talk book contains an interesting interview with Adams, in which they discuss technique as well as artistic philosophy. The book also contains Eisner interviews with Caniff, Lou Fine, Kirby, Gil Kane and others.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 17, 2006 21:25:34 GMT -5
And don't get me going on Adams' take on the evolution of the world, Pangea, etc. Whoo-boy...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 2, 2006 14:35:32 GMT -5
MARVEL LEGACY 1980S HANDBOOK $4.99 Ships November 8th, for you young'uns. The 80's were a strange decade for me. I began the decade as an 8th-grade graduate and swore off comics throughout my high school years because they "weren't cool". Towards the end of my freshman year in college (circa 1985) I got back into them when I discovered my first comic shop. I spent every last dime I had catching up with Avengers, Amazing Spider-Man, and FF. I missed the first Secret War, but was on board for the Beyonder and Crisis on Infinite Earths. The decade ended with me as a newlywed and buying around 30 books a month plus lots of trades, hardcovers, etc. and starting to get into action figure collecting. Anyone else with some memories of the Reagan Era? And, as my usual plug for Back Issue magazine, check out this preview article -- issue #19 ships next week, too. www.newsarama.com/TwoMorrows/BackIssue/19/GSNT_UP.html
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 6, 2006 5:44:59 GMT -5
The 80s ? Spent 2 years as non existing vacuum, probably 4 or so crying, and the rest after He-Man and Marshall Bravestar Not much from the comics side, except Mickey Mouse. I started to read them in the early 90s (even though the stories were from the 80', due to a decade when marvel comics were not published in Italy... there was a lot to catch up !).
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 7, 2006 8:44:29 GMT -5
A few days ago I polished off the Neal Adams interview. I've read several stories about/interview with him before. Anyone else out there think his pomposity almost outweighs his artistic talent? I agree with you 100%, dlw...in almost interview I've read he comes across as pretty arrogant. He rarely has a good word to say about his fellow artists' skills, except perhaps for Tom Palmer and Dick Giordano. And I've read a number of interviews in which he belittles not only Kirby's drawing ability, but also Kirby's role in the revival of superhero comics in the early 60s. Actually I agree with Neal Adams about Kirby . And let´s be honest, Adams can be pretty arrogant, but someone who has that level of talent can talk that way about the work of others. When I see people talking about Jim Lee as a great comic book artist, well, looking at the work of Adams one can really undestand what the words comic book artist mean.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 7, 2006 14:42:13 GMT -5
There's no denying Neal's astonishing technical prowess; he was one of a kind and had a huge, positive impact on comics. He's a fantastic draftsman (even as far back as on his Ben Casey work, some of which is reprinted in books about Adams). And his uber-realistic style is practically the polar opposite of Kirby's stylized approach, so I can almost understand why Adams disses Kirby's ability. AS you state, Adams is definitely in a position to analyze and critique Kirby's technique. (As for his personality, according to other Silver Age artists who knew him, Neal had the kind of confidence in himself that inspired admiration in some and envy in others.) But... to downplay the King's influence in the 60s re-birth of comics--as Adams does, in interviews-- is just wrong.
I have always enjoyed Adams' work. The only flaw (for me) with Neal's Silver Age work is that his female faces seem indistinguishable. There was an X-Men issue back then that had a panmel with a large close-up of Jean Grey and Lorna Dane's side-by-side faces, and they were absolute twins (except for the hair color): identical eye shape, lip shape, cheekbone projection, etc. And in GL/GA, except for hair-parting, black-haired Carol Ferris and black-haired Dinah Lance (sans her Black Canary wig of course) were dead ringers for each other!
While I know most artists back then practiced the "Betty and Veronica" technique for expediency and other reasons, you'd think someone who prided himself on being so realistic would make some attempt at facial differentiation.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 8, 2006 8:25:13 GMT -5
Jack Kirby had a big (doesn´t mean a good one) influence in Marvel´s Silver Age (not in DC´s), but many other artists shaped the Silver Age as well, and are almost forgotten today (Gil Kane, Bruno Premiani, Nick Cardy only to name a few). Could Marvel exist without Kirby? IMO yes, Atlas in the 50´s had many great artist so good or even better than The King. And who drew the definitive Spiderman (Marvel´s flagship character)? You can choose between Ditko and Romita Sr., but no Kirby here. The Avengers? John Buscema and Don Heck were more important to the team than Kirby. Daredevil? Kirby was not even the artist in his series. And in the early 70´s (since this is the Groovy 70´s thread ) Adams was redefining the industry with his work and Kirby was doing such things like New Gods (a series which comic creators and artists seem to love, but the general reading public never cared much for) and Jimmy Olsen (in which his faces were redrawn by Curt Swan...).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 8:46:36 GMT -5
I would have to disagree. I think the main issue with Kirby is that his work doesn't stand up to today's standards, whereas artists like Buscema, Heck (early,and when inked well), Romita, Cardy, and even Kane can still have a place on the modern comics rack. When Kirby came back to Marvel in the mid-70's, his covers were among those most reviled by this middle school-aged consumer. By then, we were into Perez, Keith Pollard, Byrne, etc.
I would never discount the creative genius or storytelling ability of the King. One need only read the classic Lee/Kirby FFs (in the context of their original time) to fully appreciate this master.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 8, 2006 9:02:39 GMT -5
Interesting POV, Doug. But someone whose work doesn´t stand up to modern standarts (and let´s not forget that Liefeld is still drawing, so the bar is not that high) can still be called a master? Many Silver Age artists are even better than today´s generation.
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Nov 8, 2006 9:32:40 GMT -5
I think "standards" is the wrong way to put it. It seems to be that it's more about fashion. But I also didn't come to Kirby until recently. As a kid in the 80s, we all used to make fun of Kirby's work. I just didn't get it then, but now I dig his storytelling ability and can see past the realism or lack of it in his figures.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 10:25:15 GMT -5
I agree with each of you, bored and vonbek, as to the cartoony look of Kirby's work. I don't dispute that for a second, as I had the same impressions of him when I came to his work upon his return to Marvel. While he was at DC, I was exposed to him through Marvel's Greatest Comics and reruns of the '60's Marvel Super-Heroes cartoon show. Yeah, there was a definite demarcation between Jack and others (also to mention Gulacy, Adams, Ploog, Wrightson, Steranko, Sal Buscema, -- even Andru and Tuska...). My original rebuttal was to vonbek's statement that the Marvel Silver Age would have been just fine without Jack. Even the books that were cited (Avengers, DD, etc.) had a Kirby influence, and that was the "Marvel method". Marvel books, unlike DC's of the day, were both art and story driven, with Stan playing off the various artists and the artists just unleashed in their creativity. If you look at the vast pantheon of characters Jack created, which in term evolved into the Marvel mythos we know and love today (in hindsight, I guess -- that mythos seems to have changed nowadays ), you can't deny that he was Marvel's Silver Age catalyst, as much as Julie Schwartz was DC's.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 8, 2006 12:39:54 GMT -5
Stan Lee´s first choice for the main artist for Marvel´s superheroes line would have been Joe Maneely, but he had that tragic accident. So, do you guys think a Maneely Fantastic Four or Hulk would have been better than Kirby´s? Worse? Or just different?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 13:04:56 GMT -5
Not sure -- I didn't look through the link too much, but it seemed like most of what was on there were covers. I'd need to see some of his interiors.
In regard to Kirby, perhaps a bigger question concerning the FF is: what if Joe Sinnott had never come along? Kirby inked by Chic Stone, Dan Adkins, et al. was, in my opinion, not nearly as good as he was with Sinnott.
In addition, early Silver Age Kirby pales in comparison to late (1966 and on) Kirby.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Nov 8, 2006 16:35:25 GMT -5
In addition, early Silver Age Kirby pales in comparison to late (1966 and on) Kirby. Funny you should say this dlw, I just got Marvel Masterworks vol. 3 in the mail today, which covers F4 21-30. Kirby's art seems so sketchy - especially the Thing. The inkers are George Roussos and Chic Stone. I now turn to yet another Marvel Materworks, with F4 issues 41-50. Sinnott comes on board with issue 44, and it's remarkably better looking. Sharper and more detailled, which I credit to Sinnott, although I also think Kirby was becoming a more dynamic story-teller at this point too. I don't consider myself a big Kirby fan (for silver age, I always prefered John Buscema), but it's hard to imagine how the MU would have developed without Kirby's influence.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 8, 2006 19:24:00 GMT -5
...it's hard to imagine how the MU would have developed without Kirby's influence. Exactly. When artists came to Marvel in the early-to mid-60s, they drew over Kirby layouts (Heck, Ayers, Romita, Tuska, and even Steranko!) or were given his work to study (by Stan)--John B and Kane. The only exception that I know of to this was Gene Colan; according to an interview with Stan, Gene's style was "too unique, too different" and drawing over Kirby's layouts would have "handicapped" Gene. And I don't know if Kirby influenced Ditko, that other Marvel pioneer. But many artists who worked at Marvel during that time, including the supremely talented, prodigious Buscema, have acknowledged their debt to Kirby. John B has said he learned "storytelling" (at least the Marvel version) from studying Jack's books. Of course, later on, in mid '68 when our friend Neal Adams came to Marvel, he was on his own... No Kirby layouts for him! The point dlw made about Sinnott is dead on. His work elevates Kirby considerably. The FF's Silver Age look was really established with #44, when Joe started inking it regularly (I know he also did #5 way back when). I was shocked when I saw Kirby's work inked by Chic Stone in Amazing Adventures #1 (in 1970, so see--we're back on topic!)--no comparison. While Stone's inks may have been charming in the early 60s, they seemed out of place--at least on Kirby--in the early 70s. Joe, with Stan's blessing, used to "pretty up" the faces of the characters and imparted a much sharper, crisper look to the FF book. Sinnott made such an impression that when Jack left Marvel, Joe inked Buscema on the FF, providing some sort of visual continuity as mighty Marvel marched into the 70s. Joe has an interesting website: www.joesinnott.com/home.html
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 20:47:32 GMT -5
And Joe inked Jazzy Johnny right after Kirby left, as well. Sinnott had a free reign with FF faces, Romita with Spidey characters, and Swan with Superman faces.
Have you ever heard that in the first Spider-Man/Superman crossover (yep, back in the Groovy '70's again!) that Romita "fixed" the Marvel faces and Neal Adams and Terry Austin the Superman faces over Ross Andru's pencils? For the full story, check out Back Issue #11 (August 2005).
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 8, 2006 21:16:36 GMT -5
John Verpooten inked Romita's inaugural FF issues (#103-#105) right after Kirby left, but you're right, Sinnott was Romita's inker for #106 (after which the Buscema-Sinnott team took over). I love Romita's work, but he was not a good fit for that book (not even when inked by Joe)...as he himself has admitted.
The Back Issue article sounds like an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 8, 2006 23:48:45 GMT -5
You are correct on J.V., and that should have been fresh in my mind since I just read those issues off the ROM a couple of weeks ago! Point well taken on Romita on the FF -- it wasn't a good fit. But, as John Buscema brought the Avengers to new glory, he did so again with FF. I have been recommending Back Issue to you folks forever!! You can buy all of the back issues (no pun intended ) at www.twomorrows.com. It's a nice webstore with descriptions and cover images of all of their products. I think a single issue is $9 postpaid. Not too bad -- they are $6.95 retail. Since we're on the 70's-80's teeter totter a little bit in this thread, did anyone pick up the Marvel Legacy: The 1980's Handbook? It's OK -- lots of obscure stuff that I don't recall. Some Epic imprint characters, the New Universe characters, and some other magazine-based entries. I bought it, yes, but had I to do it again I probably would have passed. I leafed through it and gave it to my 15-year old. Figured he can get educated on comics history.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 8, 2006 23:58:26 GMT -5
Since we're on the 70's-80's teeter totter a little bit in this thread, did anyone pick up the Marvel Legacy: The 1980's Handbook? It's OK -- lots of obscure stuff that I don't recall. Some Epic imprint characters, the New Universe characters, and some other magazine-based entries. I bought it, yes, but had I to do it again I probably would have passed. I leafed through it and gave it to my 15-year old. How strange…you seem to treat “lots of obscure stuff that I don’t recall” as a flaw, rather than a raison d’être!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 9, 2006 8:35:49 GMT -5
Joe Sinnott inking Big John gave us one of the best versions of the FF ever. And while I find Kirby´s Fourth World character designs and stories (except for Darkseid - one of the best cosmic villains ever) a bit too campy, I like his other works for DC in the 70´s (Demon, Kamandi, Omac), but oddly enough I just started liking it as an adult, I hated it as a kid.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 9, 2006 9:25:56 GMT -5
Phantom --
I gave a review from my perspective. How would I know what anyone else's perspective is? I qualified what was in the book. Whether or not it has a justification for existence is strictly up to the individual reader. After all, a forum is a place to voice one's opinions. That is what I did. If you want to see the book for yourself, by all means...
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Nov 9, 2006 9:55:29 GMT -5
I have immense respect for Kirby's work in establishing the Marvel Universe. For that alone, he is pretty much head and shoulders above everybody. But Kirby was always erratic in terms of art quality--I'd guess the reason being he was drawing about a thousand books per month at one point. In the mid 70's I think Kirby had lost it completely. His art really declined. I can barely stand to think of Devil Dinosaur and his Black Panther run. All of that stuff seemed really dated to me. My friends and I would make fun of Kirby's art on the school bus every morning. What a little brat I was!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 9, 2006 10:18:22 GMT -5
And now, you're just a big brat... Of course, our Wisconsin readers will interpret that as you're a big sausage , and no, I don't want to go there...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Nov 9, 2006 18:39:19 GMT -5
Phantom -- I gave a review from my perspective. How would I know what anyone else's perspective is? I qualified what was in the book. Whether or not it has a justification for existence is strictly up to the individual reader. After all, a forum is a place to voice one's opinions. That is what I did. If you want to see the book for yourself, by all means... I already own a copy and have read a little bit of it. Of course you’re entitled to evaluate its worth to you personally and to comment about it here (or in, uh, “The Awesome ’80s”? ). But it seemed like the thrust of your disappointment was that the handbook lived up to its ostensible purpose in being a handbook. I found that strange, since I imagine that people who dislike handbooks would ordinarily avoid buying and reading them. Maybe you were expecting something else? or maybe I misunderstood the reason for your disappointment (e.g., you felt it was sloppily researched and written)?
|
|