|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 22, 2008 14:17:41 GMT -5
As long as we're waxing reminiscent about the Bronze Age in the "Creative Rostering" thread, let's look at THE event which many historians mark as the beginning of that period -- Jack Kirby's departure from Marvel for DC Comics. Let me ask the following two questions of you: - Was Jack Kirby's departure from Marvel more important than his arrival at DC?
- Was Jack Kirby's departure from DC more important than his return to Marvel?
Historically, as his creations have come to the modern day and as both publishers exist in the present, how do you perceive these watershed events in the industry?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Nov 23, 2008 12:00:20 GMT -5
I've been trying to gather my thoughts to answer your questions. As you well know Doug, I recently read Tales to Astonish by Ronin Ro, all about Kirby and his experiences with Marvel and DC. I've also read several magazine articles, in Alter Ego and Write Now, that discuss the history of Marvel. So I have developed some strong opinions. 1) Was Jack Kirby's departure from Marvel more important than his arrival at DC? Yes, it was. Without Kirby, there would not have been the foundation laid at Marvel, there would not be a Marvel "as we know it" if he had not been there. At Marvel, Kirby had a magnificent body of work: Fantastic Four, Thor, the early Avengers, TOS-Captain America, and so on. He co-created numerous characters that have become mainstays of the Marvel universe and comic book archetypes. So his impact on Marvel, and comics in general, is huge. I would say that his impact at DC was significantly less. Yes, he created the New Gods, but let's remember that these Fourth World books were not successful at the time, and it really has been only due to the love so many comics pro have for Kirby that those characters continue to endure at DC. His other creations - Kamandi, OMAC, the Demon, etc - have never been more than third stringers. While he was still wildly creative, his work at DC never really coalesced into the powerful concepts he formed while at Marvel. 2)Was Jack Kirby's departure from DC more important than his return to Marvel? This is a more difficult question to answer, as I feel like Kirby's work once he returned to Marvel pales in comparison to his previous work there. I believe this is due in large part to the fact that Kirby was scripting and editing his own material. Many people now question how much of a role Stan Lee played in writing the early Marvel books. They argue that Kirby really wrote the books, Stan just dialogued them. That may be true some or all of the time. But I will take a Stan Lee "dialogued" book over a Kirby written book any day. Just look at Kirby's own writing in books like Captain America or Eternals. Honestly, it is terrible, almost unreadable. So whatever Stan did, he did a d**n good job of it! But to answer the question, I think his return to Marvel was more significant if only that it highlighted how Marvel had moved on since he left. When he returned, his work (to me at least) seemed incongruous with what I knew to be Marvel at that time. The torch had been passed and new artists like George Perez, Rich Buckler, Dave Cockrum, Mike Ploog, Jim Starlin, etc had appeared and were taking Kirby's foundations and building upon them. Kirby's own art had become almost a parody of itself, as characters became even bigger and more dramatic than ever before (it seemed like every issue of his Captain America had people screaming in every panel). His return only made obvious that his time had passed. Let the discussion/arguments begin!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 23, 2008 15:07:55 GMT -5
I think if we look at just the departure of Kirby (I would never dispute what you've said, Tana, about his co-creation of the entire Marvel Universe -- it actually galls me that some still hold to the belief that it was Stan and Stan alone...), the question becomes a bit more murky.
There is really no doubt that if you look at his body of work right around 1970 (leading up to his departure that year), Jack's creativity was waning. Now, whether that's attributed to the arguments he'd been having with Stan, the way he felt he was personally slighted financially in terms of licensing, or the restrictions he felt were put on him in regard to wanting and not being allowed to write and edit his own work -- it's difficult to say. Bottom line is, though, that he'd not created a meaningful/lasting character during his last 18 months or so for the House of Ideas. So, as you mentioned, his departure perhaps opened the door for the next wave of talent to come in. That being said, I think we could all agree that the Fantastic Four neither in the immediate time to follow nor to the present for that matter ever reached the creative zenith that Stan and Jack attained in the issues numbering roughly #'s 40-90. That may be the best 4-year run on any title at any time in all of comics history.
His arrival at DC is a little easier to pin down. Your point about DC editorial and creators in the years since paying homage to the Fourth World for the sake of keeping it alive may be Kirby's only legacy at the company (other than characters he created during his first stint, in collaboration with Joe Simon). But when Kirby arrived to DC and was given Jimmy Olsen and the opportunity to create his own universe, editorial often had other house artists redraw the faces of the Superman family of characters. Kirby was never told this was going on, and only found out when he saw the finished product. In other words, some of the same frustrations and lack of apprecition that had darkened him in his last days at Marvel merely followed him across town.
Of his departure from DC -- he got out years before most of his work would have been imploded in 1978 with much of the rest of the line. Leaving when he did, a few years earlier, only spared him further embarassment and anguish.
Of his return to Marvel, while the company used his name to trumpet a new era in several books, he was basically given some freedom and as you again capably pointed out -- the results weren't pretty. Of his third run at Marvel, one could argue that his output has a cult-following at best. I'm pretty sure that Overstreet doesn't recognize Devil Dinosaur or 2001: A Space Odyssey as highly-priced and highly-sought material.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hank Pym on Nov 24, 2008 21:19:17 GMT -5
I am now the proud owner of the above shirt... it looks GREAT in person! My only complaint is that they should've traded in Wolverine's head for Medusa's, or even Crystal's! Heck, or even Sue's! And now, on to these interesting questions...: Yes. It was one of the biggest things that led to the end of the Silver Age. An artist of that magnitude now-a-days would've been given HUGE press in comic book magazines and websites. Kirby's style was one of the best of its time, and many of the artists wouldn't even bother and try to emulate it. Kirby's art was considered THE guideline for "How to Make a Successful Comic Book". Kirby was considered the best, most popular and most famous artist of the early Silver Age. Letters to Marvel would often mention Kirby in the same importance level as they would Stan. Also, Kirby was the artist and a consultant of one of the most popular comic magazines of all time, The Fantastic Four. The late Ahmet Ertegun, founder of Atlantic Records, used to always tell a story. Whenever a new band or singer would show him a demo reel of a hit single. Ertegun would tell them "Yours is good, but I want you to listen to something better." Then, Ertegun would play an early demo reel of Phil Collins' "In the Air Tonight" and say "Yours is good, but you want to go for a song as good as this one!" That's what I always think of when I think of early Jack Kirby. Everyone who was a comic book artist back then more than likely had to try and emulate Jack Kirby's success. I consider Kirby's return to Marvel more important, because it shows to me how much the times had changed. In the 60's, Kirby's arrival would've probably been big news. While it was big news back then, his return produced little fanfare, little sales, and little notice. By the time the 70's rolled along, Kirby became "Just another artist." He still "had it," as they would say, and every now and then the old Kirby would show, but he wasn't the same. Times changed, art changed and Kirby was a member of the "old" movement. The newer artists had flair, style and spunk, and while Kirby was still a talented artist, his worked looked out of style. His writing was also questionable, at best. Kirby's second run with Marvel reminds me of when a sports team brings back a retired played. Take Michael Jordan for example. When he came back from his second retirement to play for the Washington Wizards in 2001, he was still a fantastic player. One of the best. But top ten? That'd be stretching it. Jordan's legs were weaker then he thought, he saw himself huffing and puffing after a younger, hungrier and at that point better player would run past him for an easy lay-up or dunk. While it's nice for the nostalgia, the total product, after all of the extraneous nostalgia is depleted, has many weaknesses. "Chinks in the armor", as they would say. Kirby represented not only the standstill median for a "Great comic book artist", but also represented the sign of the times when he made his big return to Marvel Comics.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Nov 26, 2008 10:38:31 GMT -5
I wonder, if we had seen Kirby go on to collaborate again with a good writer, if we would think so poorly of his later work? Stan had the good fortune to work with a number of talented artists, so his work with Kirby was just one part (although the cornerstone) of his Marvel work. Stan had solid runs on Spider-Man, the Avengers, Hulk, etc, and I don't think we would attribute that success purely to the art. Stan's writing was a big part of it.
On the other hand, due to Kirby's insistence that he write and edit his own work, that work stands or falls based on his skills alone. Unfortunately, his writing was no where near as strong as his ambitions. I wonder what a strong writer or editor could have done with the New Gods? Or how cool would it have been to see Kirby draw the Invaders, scripted by Roy Thomas? How much of Kirby's later failure can be placed squarely on his own desire to get out from the (perceived) shadow of Stan Lee?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 26, 2008 11:18:47 GMT -5
But do you think some of it has to do with his style, which in my opinion had fallen out of vogue? I have seen Frank Robbins work from earlier decades and it's passable. But that didn't make me like him later on Cap nor the Invaders, and he had Englehart and Thomas scripting, respectively. Kirby in the '70's was just blocky to me -- especially his fingers.
I also find it interesting that in the Ronin Ro book, there are several anecdotes referring to Kirby's want to give up part of his creator responsibilities and have other writers or artists take over.
And speaking of great artists who fancied themselves as writers: has anyone picked up the recent Kingdom Come special that Alex Ross wrote and pencilled (no painting in this issue)? I know he's provided plots for tremendous portion of his body of work, but writing is a different animal altogether. I was just curious how that issue played to your ear? I know any of his stuff plays to the eye...
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hank Pym on Nov 28, 2008 14:01:50 GMT -5
But do you think some of it has to do with his style, which in my opinion had fallen out of vogue? Yes, he represented the old style, very heavily, and he looked "out of place" in the 70's. Story and art-wise!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Nov 29, 2008 11:20:53 GMT -5
I think Kirby's later Marvel work did appear to be rushed and as I said earlier, almost a parody of his early work, in that it was even more exaggerated and distorted. But I could probably deal with it, if there had been better stories to go with it.
It often seems like we see this decline in success in later years with artists in various fields - I always think of bands or musicians who have phenomenal success in their youth but never quite seem to capture that magic later on. Surely it is a combination of the times changing and the artist getting locked into a formula.
With Kirby I think it's also a case of his partnership with Stan, producing so many memorable works, that it would be hard to match that kind of creativity again. This was a Lennon-McCartney type of pairing, with the sum being greater than the parts. Certainly the little writing Stan has done since 1972 or so hasn't exactly set the world on fire.
It is interesting that Kirby wanted to be more of an editor at DC, essentially running his own little line of comics. I can't help but think that his main reason for this was to try to place himself (at least in his own mind) on the same footing as Lee, who had overseen everything Marvel for so long.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 15, 2009 20:41:34 GMT -5
My wish has come true-- Essential Sub-Mariner is coming in September!!!! ;D Any word on what's in this? I would assume it will contain Tales to Astonish and perhaps go up to Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1. If so, I will hold off until volume II when the Big John art begins! I loved John's art in black & white in the Essential Silver Surfer. Well, Essential Sub-Mariner was delayed a year and is finally slated for release this September 2009. (But I'll believe it when I see it on the shelves...) The contents include Namor's Tales to Astonish run and--as dlw surmised all those months ago--the one-shot Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1, as well as some other stories in which Namor guest-starred back then... AND it will also include Sub-Mariner #1 (1968), which features the glorious art of John Buscema!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 12, 2009 11:40:37 GMT -5
This is a continuation of the John B discussion that started over on the "Battle of The Titans! Avengers' Arch Enemies" thread... Sharkar--if any single comic artist is responsible for my 35 year love affair with comics and the Avengers in particular, it is John Buscema! In the 3rd grade I had a friend named Francis Rhineheart and he had an older brother who was into comics. He had tons of old 60's issues of the Avengers, so naturally Francis and I always sneaked into his room to read them! I distinctly recall that one late 60's Avengers issue where the Vision just calmly walks down through a sidewalk, intangible, and I thought that was so incredibly cool! I couldn't wait to find out more about him! Then--I think in the same issue--you had Yellowjacket clinging to a brick wall at insect size, and I wanted to know more about him too! Then when the Black Panther smashed through a car windshield, capturing two thugs--it was all over. I hear you, bob--it's amazing how indelibly etched in our memories these panels are! The art is so evocative and powerful.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 12, 2009 11:41:44 GMT -5
If you folks haven't already, you should check out Alter Ego #13 from March 2002. Roy Thomas tries to interview John Buscema about the Avengers stories they collaborated on, but Big John has no recollection of anything! Every time Roy asks a question, whether it is about the design of a costume or evolution of a character, John has a cranky "I don't recall" answer. It's kind of funny, you can sort of feel Roy's frustration as it goes along. It's also clear from the interview that John didn't enjoy doing comics and had no interest in them, aside from Conan. He says the only comics of his he saved were Conan ones. He said one of the reasons he didn't save anything is that "other people were inking my stuff, and that is not my work. I can't look at it. The ones I inked, yes, I keep. Anything with super-heroes, I'm not interested. Only the Conans." BLASPHEMY!! I loved what Tom Palmer did with JB's work!! Man JB certainly was a character! What a diva! Yeah, he comes across as quite prickly in most of the interviews I've read. That Alter Ego JB issue is one of my treasured resources...also the John Buscema Sketchbook. In every interview I've read, John consistently denounces many of the inkers who've inked his pencils. He likes his own inking, of course (personally I didn't care for it, for example in Avengers #49--too loose and scratchy for my taste), but looking at that issue gives you a good idea of how he wanted his art to look. He seemed to feel that many inkers were merely "tracers." In his estimation, this category seemed to include Sinnott and George Klein (who I think was the definitive Buscema inker). He has on occasion mentioned other inkers he thinks are "okay", such as Frank Giacoia, Dan Adkins (because as JB said, "he could draw"), and Sal. The John-Sal combo is just about perfect to me, as in Captain America #115 and several Silver Surfer issues. I have also read he didn't mind Palmer's inks. Personally, I think Palmer overpowered Buscema, even back when the Buscema-Palmer team first debuted in Avengers #74 and Buscema was still doing full pencils. Not a bad effect, just not what I think of as vintage Buscema. EDIT: typos
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 12, 2009 11:52:28 GMT -5
Oh good heavens. . . . wrote & posted an informed response to this thread. . . . but missed the bus over here! It's-uh- still dangling dejectedly back with those arch-enemies. . . . .
cripes- HB
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 12:14:13 GMT -5
I guess I don't blame JB for considering work inked by somebody else to not be his. I read about one inker (I don't remember his name) who was active in the 60's and 70's who was the guy you called if you wanted something inked REALLY FAST. He had a habit of erasing some of the penciller's stuff so that he could finish more quickly. If you're erasing some background detail, that's one thing. However, one time, he actually erased somebody's head! I think it was in Thor, or Journey into Mystery. I wonder is somebody could get away with that today??
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 12, 2009 12:25:37 GMT -5
I guess I don't blame JB for considering work inked by somebody else to not be his. I read about one inker (I don't remember his name) who was active in the 60's and 70's who was the guy you called if you wanted something inked REALLY FAST. He had a habit of erasing some of the penciller's stuff so that he could finish more quickly. If you're erasing some background detail, that's one thing. However, one time, he actually erased somebody's head! I think it was in Thor, or Journey into Mystery. I wonder is somebody could get away with that today?? Vinny Colletta!! Take it away, Sharkar!!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 12, 2009 12:25:51 GMT -5
I guess I don't blame JB for considering work inked by somebody else to not be his. I read about one inker (I don't remember his name) who was active in the 60's and 70's who was the guy you called if you wanted something inked REALLY FAST. He had a habit of erasing some of the penciller's stuff so that he could finish more quickly. If you're erasing some background detail, that's one thing. However, one time, he actually erased somebody's head! I think it was in Thor, or Journey into Mystery. I wonder is somebody could get away with that today?? The famous/infamous Vince Colletta. I always liked his inks, not only on Kirby's Thor (gave it a real old-fashioned fairy tale look, as has been noted by many people), but also on Buscema (Avengers #44 and #46), Heck (Avengers #45), M. Severin's Sub-Mariner, and elsewhere. EDIT: Vinny Colletta!! Take it away, Sharkar!! dlw, looks like we posted at the ;D same time! I don't really have much to add that I haven't posted elsewhere, but I will add that even though I'm aware of Vinnie's work habits (and giants like Kirby and Adams did not want him anywhere near their work), it doesn't diminish my admiration for the finished product. Some time ago I posted a link to an article someone had written (not sure who) in defense of Vinnie, I'll see if I can find it and post the link here again. EDIT again: here it is! thenostalgialeague.com/cr/tb/cr-tb15.html
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 13:05:46 GMT -5
As far as DC redrawing Kirby's faces on Superman material, I believe the reason they did so is because they wanted the faces to be consistent across their entire line of comics. I think hey did the same thing to other artists. Not that this would make it any less gaaulling to JK. That guy had to put of with a lot of s#$t at both Marvel and DC!
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 12, 2009 13:58:39 GMT -5
well I'm an artist for a living myself, and I love collaborating with other artists--as long as they aren't the diva type. If you actually do art for a living, you will eventually learn that you must not expect to get your artistic fulfillment at work. Really young artists tend to be volatile and moody because they think, when hired by a company, that the company is there to satisfy their creative urges and it's not.
Also--art is extremely subjective and your career will suffer if you don't learn to compromise. I have seen video games take seven or eight years to make, when they should take roughly two years, just because the prima donna artists could not agree on a "look." I once saw two video game artists almost come to blows over whether some stupid house in a huge scene should be yellow or blue. I mean that's how petty it can get.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 14:06:10 GMT -5
Humanbelly, welcome aboard, fellow newbie!
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 14:06:52 GMT -5
I hope the guy with the blue house won. Just kidding. Woohoo! My 100th post.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 12, 2009 14:17:51 GMT -5
Nobody won! The game was canceled. It was Clive Barker's "Demonik" and David finch did concepts for us. He did amazing work and he's a very nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 14:24:51 GMT -5
David Finch? Cool in spades! I assume you mean the artist, not the director. :-)
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 12, 2009 14:25:50 GMT -5
By the way, I LOVE that tee shirt! I especially love the fact that is has so many B list heroes on it.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on May 12, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5
That's David Lynch--the director. He is another of my idols! We were just talking about him here at work last night!
I love the t-shirt too and I share your love for the B-listers! Most of them are on my A-list!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 12, 2009 16:29:58 GMT -5
Aha! Found a way to copy/paste the delinquent John B thread over to here, where it's appropriate. (Figuring this out is a triumph for me. . . . don't be gettin' all superior. . . !) This was written when the discussion was focusing on JB's dissatisfaction w/ his work as a superhero illustrator:
It's probably worth reminding ourselves that, as a rule, Art (capital "A") is bigger than its respective Artist. And I mean across the board. The artist's relationship w/ his or her own work has, I think, no bearing at all on how that work moves or effects or speaks to the viewer/listener/reader/observer. It's almost cliche' for an artist to be disdainful of his most popular works, because he/she feels it isn't representative of his/her core artistic genius. Or it's not perfect enough. Or it's tainted because it was simply done for commercial reasons. Or whatever. Doesn't matter, though-- if a bittersweet song makes me cry, I don't care a lick what the composer's estimation of that particular piece was. It moves me. And you do have to have a touch of pity for that mindset (an inability to recognize or acknowledge one's own good work)-- really, the only person it effects is the bearer of that self-directed derision. It would make it so hard to ever have any sense of satisfaction or self-worth--- especially when it's driven by an apparently hefty ego.
You know, Sal Buscema lives- or used to live- in my area, and by all accounts of folks I know that have bumped into him (he was active in local community theater), he is just about the nicest guy you could ever hope to be around, and has always embraced the work he does. I've never felt his artistic gifts were as far below brother John's as folks always suggested--- and lord, he more than accounts for it in reliability and versatility--- but he's clearly an artist at peace with his body of work.
Wow, we're wildly off-topic-thread. I'm too new a member to know how much a transgression this might be. (haven't even figured out what this Karma thing is. . . . or how to copy those internal quotes. . . or any of that other cool stuff. . . . . )
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 12, 2009 16:32:38 GMT -5
As to Vince Colletta--- my first knowing look at him was, unfortunately, on top of Don Perlin in Werewolf by Night. And that was just about as unfortunate a pairing as could be imagined. It just soured me to see his name on anything after that. (Unfair, but the truth.)
HB
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 12, 2009 21:31:26 GMT -5
I think I've expressed my feelings about Colletta's work before. I thought it worked on Thor, but not on the FF. In general, his work was a bit too scratchy for me.
As for Big John, I have to admit, I was saddened when I read that he did not enjoy drawing comics. It still sort of casts a shadow over his work now when I see.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 12, 2009 21:41:21 GMT -5
By the way, I LOVE that tee shirt! I especially love the fact that is has so many B list heroes on it. I love the t-shirt too and I share your love for the B-listers! Most of them are on my A-list! Hmmm, looks like the link I'd originally used for the FF #54 cover (from ffplaza.com) is disabled, so there was no image of the cover next to the shirt. I have just reposted the cover (thanks to Mile High Comics this time--a great vendor!).
|
|
Doctor Bong
Reservist Avenger
Master of belly dancing (no, really...)!
Posts: 167
|
Post by Doctor Bong on May 13, 2009 4:29:43 GMT -5
I think I've expressed my feelings about Colletta's work before. I thought it worked on Thor, but not on the FF. In general, his work was a bit too scratchy for me. As for Big John, I have to admit, I was saddened when I read that he did not enjoy drawing comics. It still sort of casts a shadow over his work now when I see. It is mindboggling, isn't it...? To think that someone can be so good at doing something and yet not care about it... mysteries of the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 13, 2009 6:43:56 GMT -5
Hmmm, looks like the link I'd originally used for the FF #54 cover (from ffplaza.com) is disabled, so there was no image of the cover next to the shirt. I have just reposted the cover (thanks to Mile High Comics this time--a great vendor!). Ah, now that I see the FF cover, I undertand the comment about wishing it was Medusa's head instead of Wolverine's head.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 13, 2009 10:05:42 GMT -5
I think I've expressed my feelings about Colletta's work before. I thought it worked on Thor, but not on the FF. In general, his work was a bit too scratchy for me. As for Big John, I have to admit, I was saddened when I read that he did not enjoy drawing comics. It still sort of casts a shadow over his work now when I see. It is mindboggling, isn't it...? To think that someone can be so good at doing something and yet not care about it... mysteries of the human condition. yeah, it just leaves me with a big lump in my throat. I mean, my dad used to come home from work tired and hating his job, but he was a machinist! I could understand why he wished he could do something else. But to think that John Buscema might be in the same emotional place - hating his work - it just blows me away. He did so much beautiful art and yet it seems like he never considered it worthwhile. Except possibly for the Conan stuff. Just hard to imagine that instead of sitting at the art board enjoying himself he was wishing he was doing something else.
|
|