|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 16, 2007 12:23:21 GMT -5
- - but they're really making fun of the absurdity of his Goliath costume. Hmmmm, I wonder if Roy thought that costume was less than inspired? I wonder who has to take "credit" for the costume Hawkeye would wear next?? Maybe Rich Buckler? Absolutely the worst outfit Clint ever wore...maybe the worst outfit an Avenger ever wore! My theory is, this is back when he was really hitting on Wanda, so maybe he thought showing his sexy legs would seal the deal!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 16, 2007 12:39:09 GMT -5
Fans of the Old West arc will note that when Clint wanted to "blend in", he just got rid of the tunic. With this outfit he got rid of the pants!!
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 16, 2007 13:52:44 GMT -5
He wore that uniform while working in a carnival in the Balkans, so maybe Roy wanted it to look so... weird. Or maybe it was Barry Smith with Conan influences (bare legs, mini shirt, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 16, 2007 13:56:35 GMT -5
It would be tempting to chalk it to Hercules' influence, except I think he started wearing it BEFORE he found him in that carnival...
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 16, 2007 13:56:46 GMT -5
when i first read the stories with this uniform (good 20+ years ago) I tought the brazilian publisher made a mistake and the colorist colored his legs wrong (no way could I think of a pant-less superhero)
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 16, 2007 14:02:12 GMT -5
It would be tempting to chalk it to Hercules' influence, except I think he started wearing it BEFORE he found him in that carnival... Actually it was after. Before that (during the Kree Skrull War and when he landed on Earth) ha was wearing his Goliath uniform. Herc clothes in the carnival looked even weirder (a blue shirt full of white stars - a Cap influence - and a silly hat with a blonde wig )
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 16, 2007 15:05:11 GMT -5
It would be tempting to chalk it to Hercules' influence, except I think he started wearing it BEFORE he found him in that carnival... Actually it was after. Before that (during the Kree Skrull War and when he landed on Earth) ha was wearing his Goliath uniform. Herc clothes in the carnival looked even weirder (a blue shirt full of white stars - a Cap influence - and a silly hat with a blonde wig ) How corny... AND carny...!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 16, 2007 16:06:20 GMT -5
Per the title of this thread, what time frame actulla encompasses 'silver age' ?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 16, 2007 16:17:48 GMT -5
The overall Silver Age begins in 1956 with the revamping of the Flash. Of course the Marvel Silver Age begins in 1961 with FF #1. Many will argue that the Silver Age ended with Kirby's departure from Marvel to head over to DC, circa 1972 (and FF #102 approximately).
So, yes, we are straying into Bronze Age territory, to be sure!!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 16, 2007 16:23:37 GMT -5
So the Avengers only had a handful of Silver Age years? As well as Caps title (as titled 'Captain America') ?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 16, 2007 16:35:15 GMT -5
Again, if we ballpark it (and I may be off on the date -- 1970/71 might be closer), you'd be talking FF #100, Avengers #80, ASM #85, DD #65, Cap #127, Hulk #129 and so on. As I said, those are estimates. Sharkar is the resident authority on the Silver Age, so he may happen by soon and give us better targets.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 17, 2007 0:20:24 GMT -5
Well, according to the book "Baby Boomer Comics" (a highly entertaining book I recommend heartily) some people place the start of the Silver Age as early as June of 1951, with the appearance of Captain Comet in 'Strange Adventures" #9, and some as late as November of 1961, with the appearance of FF #1. It is more widely accepted, though, that it began with "Showcase" #4 (Sep/Oct 1956) and the 1st appearance of Barry Allen/Flash. As far as the end of it, some people place it as early as March of 1966 (when the campy Batman appeared on tv) and as late as March of 1986, with the conclusion of the miniseries Crisis of Infinite Earths. But, again, most people seem to place the true ending of the Silver Age at FF #102, in September of 1970, the last issue drawn by Jack Kirby.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 17, 2007 7:21:20 GMT -5
An able summation of the time, with examples no less! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 17, 2007 22:56:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the endorsement, dlw. Yes, I am quite the Silver Age fanatic (and coincidentally, I e-mailed Craig Shutt earlier this very evening about something he wrote that appears in the latest Comics Buyer's Guide--a slight mistake he made ). If I may quote from a post of mine on a thread dlw started earlier this year ("Greatest Run of the Avengers"):
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 18, 2007 5:40:08 GMT -5
I wonder who has to take "credit" for the costume Hawkeye would wear next?? Maybe Rich Buckler? Absolutely the worst outfit Clint ever wore...maybe the worst outfit an Avenger ever wore! My theory is, this is back when he was really hitting on Wanda, so maybe he thought showing his sexy legs would seal the deal! How about Moondragon's classic green outfit, Tana...? Wouldn't you say it's up there...? It always seemed to me... shall I say it...? Slutty!!! Way too revealing for a supposedly cold, cerebral lady...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 18, 2007 11:36:21 GMT -5
Absolutely the worst outfit Clint ever wore...maybe the worst outfit an Avenger ever wore! My theory is, this is back when he was really hitting on Wanda, so maybe he thought showing his sexy legs would seal the deal! How about Moondragon's classic green outfit, Tana...? Wouldn't you say it's up there...? It always seemed to me... shall I say it...? Slutty!!! Way too revealing for a supposedly cold, cerebral lady... You have a point there Bong. I guess the difference is, I have more respect for Clint than I do for Moondragon, and therefore expect him to dress better! Really, I always wanted to slap Moondragon. But then, I think that was how Englehart intended for the readers to feel!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 18, 2007 12:06:58 GMT -5
Moondragon entering the Avengers mix right after Mantis left with her tree really just continued the female-antagonist theme.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 18, 2007 20:27:59 GMT -5
How about Moondragon's classic green outfit, Tana...? Wouldn't you say it's up there...? It always seemed to me... shall I say it...? Slutty!!! Way too revealing for a supposedly cold, cerebral lady... Moonie may have been a goddess of the mind, but as a Celestial Madonna in training, she never neglected her physicality.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 18, 2007 20:28:54 GMT -5
or her hair
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 19, 2007 0:27:45 GMT -5
But she has a beautiful cranium, so she can pull it off... I, on the other hand, can't... I just look awful...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 19, 2007 8:51:44 GMT -5
So the helmet's an improvement.
Which avatar do you more resemble, the former or Doctor Bong??
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 19, 2007 10:14:16 GMT -5
I always thought the Black Knight looked pretty sharp. The dark costume, chest emblem, chain mail, helmet and cape all seemed to work well. Of course, Buscema always seemed to enjoy drawing people with swords! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 19, 2007 16:20:06 GMT -5
So the helmet's an improvement. Which avatar do you more resemble, the former or Doctor Bong?? Definitely more like the "Red Monster", dlw66...! Actually, if I were to choose a Marvel character I approximately look like, I'd say Fabian Stankowitz (just his looks, not his brain, unfortunately...) or perhaps Foggy Nelson... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 19, 2007 19:06:44 GMT -5
I always thought the Black Knight looked pretty sharp. The dark costume, chest emblem, chain mail, helmet and cape all seemed to work well. Of course, Buscema always seemed to enjoy drawing people with swords! ;D I always thought he was one of the cooler ones as well. The only thing I was never really crazy about was his school-boy crush on the wasp
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Apr 19, 2007 20:24:49 GMT -5
Actually, I liked that development. It made Dane interesting and made him a flesh and blood character for me. I liked how the Wasp was pretty oblivious to his infatuation--he never admitted his ardor to her, right?-- and how jealous he was of Paladin. Also, it made sense later on that Dane would then be infatuated with married woman Crystal. He wants these women he can't have, he's fated to have a tragic love life, very Arthurian (Lancelot and Guinevere).
I've always liked Dane's overall look too; I think it was created by Tuska (in Avengers #48), but no one can top Buscema's rendering of him!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 24, 2007 9:17:35 GMT -5
Back Issue #20 has an apologetic article written by Bob McLeod in defense of Vince Colletta (otherwise known as "6-hour Vinnie"). Below is an excerpt from a review of the magazine, written by Shawn Hill on Silver Bullet Comics - published on 19 February 2007. It ably summarizes the McLeod article; I thought it would be of interest since we've been discussing inkers both here and in regard to Nutcase's question about pencillers and inkers on another thread. Here it is: What really grabbed my attention, however, was Bob McLeod’s spirited defense of fellow inker Vince Colletta in his “Off My Chest” column. McLeod acknowledges “Vinnie’s” unfortunate reputation as “comics’ worst inker,” but with even the best of intentions there’s precious little he can muster to rehabilitate that rep. McLeod prefers Colletta's inks over Kirby on Thor, but due to nostalgia more than any compelling aesthetic reason. He acknowledges that fellow talents like Palmer, Sinnott, Janson and Giordano completely outclassed Colletta. He points out that Colletta got work not because he was good, but because he was fast, and he knows full well (as an inker of some fame himself) that speed came about due to shortcuts taken. In one especially damning anecdote we learn that Colletta’s insensitive inking actually drove Frank Giacoia from penciling, so disappointed was he in what was lost when his detailed pencils saw print under Colletta’s rough inks. What’s McLeod’s evidence for the defense? That Colletta did a better job on romance comics in the fifties, and that he got work and made a living where others failed. Faint praise indeed. There’s little that’s distinctive in the reprinted romance panels, and the Thor cover he unearths may be one of Colletta’s better ones, but the blacks are too heavy and bulky outlines serve for figural definition all too often.
There’s a reason the other inkers mentioned above have better reputations. They seemed to get steady work too. McLeod comes can’t deny what Colletta did to Perez, or Tuska, or many other artists of many of Marvel’s “House of Ideas” seventies titles. All of those artists looked better under other pens and brushes, and Colletta’s presence often meant that clever stories were marred by lackluster art. Someone that can be described as “[sacrificing] quality for quantity … [cutting] a lot of corners, blacking in details and erasing small background figures” in the interest of making more money is the definition of a hack, no matter how much one might wish the fans could be more forgiving.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 24, 2007 9:22:03 GMT -5
wow that's a lot of honesty all at one time.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 24, 2007 12:53:32 GMT -5
In follow-up to the "speed" aspect of Colletta...
In Back Issue #21 there is an article on Devil Dinosaur. In 1977 (give or take -- when Kirby returned to Marvel), his contract called for him to pencil 15 pages per week. Fifteen pages in a week!!! Many artists today are happy to be able to do a page a day...
Also, let's not forget our scribes -- in BI #20, in an article about Firestorm, Gerry Conway remarks that near the end of his DC contract (circa 1979) his page requirement was 150/month -- five books. Wow...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 24, 2007 16:33:09 GMT -5
Hey Doug, I also got Back Issue 20 and read the Colletta article. I kind of wondered, if all he could do was muster such a weak defense of Colletta's work, why bother?
But the talk about Colletta being a fast inker made me think. In years gone by, we had artists and writers who worked on 3, 4, 5 books a month! You never see that nowadays -especially not with pencillers. Heck, we're lucky to get a regular monthly book out of an artist each month. People have argued with me that artists do much more detailed work now and that is why it takes so much more time. But can't there be a happy medium?
Also, the so-called "more simplistic" art of people like Sal Buscema, John Romita Sr, and others, seems much more unique and identifiable to me than a lot of the artwork I see currently. While I think there are talented artists working out there - names like Van Sciver, Jimenez, Benes, Scott, Reis, Finch, etc - none of them seem to have such a strong style that I could look at a single small panel and know instantly who it is. Maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 24, 2007 20:35:28 GMT -5
No, I don't think it's just you -- as I may have said awhile ago, I think we see artists today who grew up with Image. It is a more detailed approach, which is not bad. But as someone commented earlier (RSC in the penciller/inker thread, in regard to Cho IIRC), so much of today's art concerns contorted females and blown-up males that style dominates substance. I think books are late because there is perhaps a fair deal of ego in today's pencillers who won't turn over any creative license to the inkers. Remember, Buscema and others complained about inkers as glorified tracers; we all know that's not entirely true, and some are wonderful artists in their own right. I wonder why, though, if some of today's pencils are so tight the production people don't just shoot straight from the bristol board as it is and skip the inking process altogether.
So I guess I don't say that the before or the current is right or wrong -- just different. Maybe page rates were so rotten 30-40 years ago that guys like Sal B. felt like they had to churn it out. Rates today might be significantly better...
|
|