|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 15, 2007 16:41:44 GMT -5
I was wondering, what do those Visonaries books consist of? Is it just reprints of classic stories, or is there any interview material, sketches, etc?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 15, 2007 22:47:48 GMT -5
Tana -- do a search for them on amazon.com. I think you can just type in "Marvel Visionaries". The product description tells you exactly what material is reprinted. To the best of my knowledge there is no supplemental text, which is a drawback. Introductory material in the vein of the old Origins of Marvel Comics, Son of Orgins, etc. would have been welcome.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 16, 2007 14:27:26 GMT -5
Quick thumb-through review of the Joe Sinnott book (which I took off my porch mere moments ago!):
Slick paper, LOTS and LOTS of samples of Joe's pencils and inks over artists such as Kirby, Windsor-Smith, Buscema, Frenz, etc. Also tons of his illustration work from advertising (including the original art to a Thor Hostess ad -- most samples from advertising are non-comic, though), many family photos as well as pix of Joe with other creators (Lee, Kirby, Heck, Buscema, Hogarth...), and a color section in the middle.
Cover price is $17.95; I bought my copy from amazon.com for around $12.50.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 17, 2007 9:30:29 GMT -5
After two sittings yesterday, I'm about halfway through the text of the book. I find it, to say the least, somewhat disappointing. I am a history teacher as most of you know, so you can imagine that I like my reports written in a for-the-most-part linear fashion. Uh uh -- this book is written very globally. Sure, there are chapter headings and sub-headings throughout, but every page just seems to ramble, to go off on tangents...
You should also be aware that this is a tribute book to Joe (and deservedly so for his body of work and longevity in the field). Consequently, there isn't a whole lot of objectivity in the writing. For instance, we've remarked elsewhere that John Buscema really didn't like anyone else's inks over his work sans his own or his brother Sal's. Joe in this book just raves about how great John's pencils were and how easy it was to know what he wanted in the finished product. It would have been nice to have been able to read John's response to such a posit. Likewise, there are a few anecdotes about inking Neal Adams. We all know what an egotist Adams is -- a dissenting opinion from Neal would give us a much truer picture (no pun intended)...
My other complaint about the book (and please -- overall I think it's a good book and I am glad I purchased it. I guess I'm slipping into editorial mode here...) is that there are no examples of the pencils prior to Joe's inks. To really measure the impact of Joe's talent, don't you think we should be able to judge that for ourselves? I know The Jack Kirby Collector, put out by the same publisher, always has examples of Jack's uninked pencils. Why weren't some of those included in this tome, with the "after" depicted right next to it? That is a detail sorely lacking in this volume.
But again, overall a nice collection of Sinnott's work, and a worthy addition to my bookshelves. I would still recommend it, but with minor regrets.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2007 20:33:46 GMT -5
I was wondering, what do those Visonaries books consist of? Is it just reprints of classic stories, or is there any interview material, sketches, etc? Do you mean the hardcover Visionaries volumes? I have Jack Kirby Volume 1. It's pretty glossy and contains a bit of his Golden Age work (including the original Vision!)... plus the usual Silver Age suspects such as Avengers #4, the Galactus saga (FF #48-#50, plus #51 "This Man, This Monster"), a few Thors, including one of my favorite stories, when Jane Foster becomes an immortal in #136. The color is a bit too bright, and for the most part the stories are available elsewhere. BUT...there are a few pages of reproductions of his pencils, from FF #49, complete with his margin notes, and a couple of other goodies, such as that Jack Kirby self-portrait that was used as a poster way back when. I also have Visionaries paperbacks highlighting Steranko and Adams, but I don't know if these are part of the Visionaries collection, as the Kirby volume is or the hardcover Lee, Buscema or Thomas Visionaries (I don't have these last three). The Steranko and Adams books are slender softcovers and are fascinating. Much if not all of Steranko's Marvel work is included, including his work on Cap, Nick Fury, X-Men and a love comic. The Adams volume focuses on his X-Men work. The Adams contains commentary by Adams and IIRC, Tom Palmer. Both paperbacks are worth owning. EDIT:Okay, I just checked my copy and the Adams book is actually titled X-Men Visionaries: Neal Adams...so, strictly speaking, it is not part of the "Marvel Visionaries" series. The other books mentioned (including the Steranko) are part of the "Marvel Visionaries" series.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2007 20:56:07 GMT -5
I'll be heading to the San Diego Comic Con in less than 2 weeks, and I've started putting together my list. Of course I will stop at the Twomorrows booth, and probably pick up the Romita book, and maybe a few others. Any of you silver age buffs have any other book suggestions for me? I’d recommend picking up any of the TwoMorrows-produced DC "Companion" series (JLA, Legion, Teen Titans); if I had to oick just one, I'd say the JLA one, which has a lengthy Roy Thomas interview and info on the Squadron Supreme as well as a comparison of the Vision vis-à-vis (sorry!) the Red Tornado. Very interesting reading. (I don’t have the Companion volumes for All-Star, Krypton and the Batcave—not yet anyway-- but I’m sure they are worth owning too!) Also, for late 60s comics info, try the Dick Giordano and/or Carmine Infantino books. (I'm pretty sure the Giordano book is a TwoMorrows publication; not sure about the Infantino book.) Interesting how DC responded to Marvel’s dominance in the 60s; artists Giordano and Infantino assumed editorial duties and were called upon to try and stop the Marvel juggernaut. Fascinating examination of what was going on at both DC and Marvel at that time. Plus, these books contain DG and CI's artwork--not too shabby. The Gene Colan book is also highly recommended. He was a maverick, as much as Steranko and Adams, in style (if not in personality). As far as I know, he was the only artist who, when he started to draw superhero books for Marvel, did not have to do so over Kirby layouts, because his style (per Stan) was “too different" and drawing over Kirby layouts would have hampered him--imagine someone being hampered by Kirby! But Colan was a true original. Have a great time at the Comic Con!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2007 22:07:24 GMT -5
You should also be aware that this is a tribute book to Joe (and deservedly so for his body of work and longevity in the field). Consequently, there isn't a whole lot of objectivity in the writing. For instance, we've remarked elsewhere that John Buscema really didn't like anyone else's inks over his work sans his own or his brother Sal's. Joe in this book just raves about how great John's pencils were and how easy it was to know what he wanted in the finished product. Interesting. I too would have liked some more criticism, or analysis, instead of "raves." Joe seems like a genuinely nice guy, not the least bit critical of others' abilities...which makes for a bland interview. Oh well. In the Alter Ego interview, Joe does admit that Buscema felt that Sinnott's inking was too slick (for John's pencils)...but as you state, Joe enjoyed inking JB all the same! In the Jack Kirby Collector interview, he at least talks about the changes he made to Jack's work, he admits he made it "better" or prettier (instructed by Stan); and as you mentioned, there are always some great before and afters in that periodical, which really illustrate how Joe's inks enhanced/changed the King's work. Too bad the book does not contain such shots. Something I read a while ago was that at some point, Joe made the deliberate choice to stop prettying up Jack's work; he did not want to "subvert" or distort the original beauty of Jack's pencils. To me, it looked cruder, less detailed. I would guess this occurred around FF #70 or so. The faces in particular really look different from the preceding issues inked by Joe; more Kirby-ish and less Sinnott-y. Joe stopped making Kirby's art conventionally beautiful and let Jack's more primitive quality shine through. (Unfortunately, by the end of their collaboration (FF#102), the art just looked worn out and rushed. ) I am interested to see if, in the book, Joe refers to this change in artistic philosophy. Thanks for the review! Still looking forward to reading this book, even if my expectations are lowered.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 17, 2007 22:37:06 GMT -5
In the Alter Ego interview, Joe does admit that Buscema felt that Sinnott's inking was too slick (for John's pencils)...but as you state, Joe enjoyed inking JB all the same! In the Jack Kirby Collector interview, he at least talks about the changes he made to Jack's work, he admits he made it "better" or prettier (instructed by Stan); and as you mentioned, there are always some great before and afters in that periodical, which really illustrate how Joe's inks enhanced/changed the King's work. Too bad the book does not contain such shots. Something I read a while ago was that at some point, Joe made the deliberate choice to stop prettying up Jack's work; he did not want to "subvert" or distort the original beauty of Jack's pencils. To me, it looked cruder, less detailed. I would guess this occurred around FF #70 or so. The faces in particular really look different from the preceding issues inked by Joe; more Kirby-ish and less Sinnott-y. Joe stopped making Kirby's art conventionally beautiful and let Jack's more primitive quality shine through. (Unfortunately, by the end of their collaboration (FF#102), the art just looked worn out and rushed. ) I am interested to see if, in the book, Joe refers to this change in artistic philosophy. Thanks for the review! Still looking forward to reading this book, even if my expectations are lowered. I am just about done -- "done" enough to give some almost-final thoughts. It's funny you mention Joe leaving the King's work more "true". That is not mentioned of Sinnott, but it is mentioned concerning Mike Royer's inks of Kirby at DC!! Commentary suggests that Royer gave the reader what Kirby was drawing at the time with little if any correction or enhancement; it's said earlier that toward the end of the FF run by Kirby/Sinnott that Joe was working from looser lay-outs and often had to line up eyes, etc. There is a chapter of nothing but tributes, all of which are of course glowing. Those contributing to this section of the book include Steranko, Thomas, Royer, Windsor-Smith, Mooney, Anderson, Stern, Adams (who says he begged Stan to let him do something with Sinnott), Arlen Schumer (who has some wonderful insights -- he is the source of the Royer story above), and many others. If you are looking for Stan Lee, he did the intro., and Mark Evanier provided an Afterword. I mentioned in an earlier post that much of Joe's advertising work is sampled. What I came across this evening blew me away! Did anyone know that it was Joe's pencils and inks on the Evel Knievel Stunt Cycle ads that ran on the back of Marvel Comics circa 1973-4???
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 18, 2007 22:10:19 GMT -5
Thanks Sharkar and Doug - now I am trying to prioritize exactly which books I want to get! Between that and my ever-expanding want list (this is the year I find a F4 # 54 that doesn't have a browned cover!), I am sure I will be hitting the bank account a bit too hard!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 19, 2007 8:53:36 GMT -5
Chicago is just a few weeks away for me, as well -- and yes, prioritizing between hardcovers, Marvel Legends, and whether or not to buy a DVD-ROM is tough! Of course, after the initial outlay of cash for tickets, gas, tolls, food for my sons (ouch! teenagers!!), and parking I don't know if there'll be anything left for me!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 19, 2007 16:10:33 GMT -5
A couple of John Buscema offerings on ebay right now (too pricey for me, however $$$ ):
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 19, 2007 16:14:57 GMT -5
By the way: Who is the editor at DC named Stephanie Buscema? I ran a Yahoo search and turned up someone by that name who is an artist, though not a comic book artist. She has a page on the Comic Book Database, but there is no info. posted. Does anyone know if she's related to John and Sal??
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 19, 2007 18:28:50 GMT -5
I just did a search, and she may be his granddaughter. I found some "Stephanie" references in a couple of JB's obits from a few years ago, such as: "As for his family, John's granddaughter Stephanie Czerwinski is now taking up comic art and has been an inker series from Slave Labor Graphics. John's son John Buscema Jr. is a race car driver with his own website. " So maybe she is now using her given name (I assume Czerwisnki is or was her married name) and has moved from art into editorial. Back to the Visionaries series--and Big John--I'd love to get a copy. From what I've heard, the collection suffers because his most celebrated work (Conan) is not included--because Marvel does not own rights to the character or something like that. I guess as a consolation, Avengers #75-#76 is included (Arkon's debut). And there's some of his western and romance stuff as well, plus Silver Surfer, Thor, FF, etc. But it also includes Avengers #277...didn't he just do the layouts there and Palmer the finishes? It was....interesting, but that's not really vintage Buscema- -not to me, anyway. What really intrigues me is the inclusion of his Hulk stories from Tales to Astonish #85-#87; some of his earliest Silver Age work for Marvel, and by all accounts--including his own--not very good. The story's been told often: how, after those TTAs, Stan then gave him a stack of Kirby books, John pored over them and then tackled Avengers #41...and the rest is history. John has always given Jack the credit for "teaching" Marvel storytelling. As I've never seen John's art in those Hulk tales, it should be interesting to compare his work in the TTAs to his work in Avengers #41 (which is also included in the Visionaries book). So Tana or dlw--or anyone else-- if you do get the Buscema Visionaries book, I'd be interested in your reactions.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 19, 2007 18:55:48 GMT -5
Between that and my ever-expanding want list (this is the year I find a F4 # 54 that doesn't have a browned cover!), I am sure I will be hitting the bank account a bit too hard! FF #54 is one of my all-time favorite issues of any comic! That cover is so memorable, one of the few "floating heads" covers I've ever been moved by. The expressions on the faces--the personalities were conveyed perfectly. As a kid, I came across this issue about a year or so after I'd started reading FF on a regular basis ...but until then, I'd had no idea that the Inhumans had been trapped, or that Johnny and Crystal had been separated, or that the Black Panther was anything but an Avenger, or I didn't know who Wyatt Wingfoot was...this issue really filled in a lot of backstory for me. The atypical (for a superhero book) opening with the baseball game, the magnificent celebration in Wakanda, then the desolate scenes with Prester John (what a character to find in a comic book!), that ending.... I had never encountered a seemingly stand-alone issue that contained so many different elements. And that panel--in which Johnny thinks of Crystal, and Kirby has that image of her superimposed--I just had never seen anything like that in comics before. One of the first issues I bought when I got back into comics a few years ago was--of course-- FF #54 ( I think it is a VG copy, but I bought it for reading not for collecting.) After all these years, it still holds up; the Kirby-Sinnott art was at its peak, I think; and the story and characters still move me. Tana, I hope you find a great copy!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 19, 2007 20:04:00 GMT -5
That Fantastic Four 54 has been a quest of mine for at least the last 3 years! It has a terrific cover -as you said, "floating heads" - but it has the white background, and like many older books, the white tends to start browning. I've seen plenty of copies but I haven't been able to find one that is mostly white still. So that will be high on my list.
I'm glad my brief mention brought back so many memories! That's a big part of what I love about this board: we can all share our fond recollections of reading certain books!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 19, 2007 22:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 20, 2007 9:25:10 GMT -5
So we're to assume one can go further in the comics biz with the last name "Buscema" as opposed to "Czerwinski"? They always say it's not you, it's who you know ;D!!
I may pick up the Buscema Visionaries book. I have most of what is included, but as we've said of the DVD-ROMs -- one of the major drawbacks is that they're difficult to curl up with. I will let you know what I think (yeah, like I wouldn't like a Buscema book...) if and when I purchase it.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jul 22, 2007 17:30:46 GMT -5
it has the white background, and like many older books, the white tends to start browning. That’s how you know it’s done—mmmmmmm- HMM!! Pass the salt, will ya?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 22, 2007 21:30:20 GMT -5
it has the white background, and like many older books, the white tends to start browning. That’s how you know it’s done—mmmmmmm- HMM!! Pass the salt, will ya? You want the ends? They're nice and crispy!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 24, 2007 19:50:03 GMT -5
I'll be heading to the San Diego Comic Con in less than 2 weeks, and I've started putting together my list. Of course I will stop at the Twomorrows booth, and probably pick up the Romita book, and maybe a few others. Any of you silver age buffs have any other book suggestions for me? Tana-- another one you might want to pick up is TwoMorrows' "Kirby Unleashed", originally published in 1971. This contains Kirby reproductions from the 1930s through 1970. I just came across it on their website and I may send away for it myself!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 25, 2007 11:53:23 GMT -5
Here is an image from the aforementioned Kirby Unleashed ...beautiful work.
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Jul 25, 2007 12:07:44 GMT -5
Why doesn't Granny Goodness always look that awesome?
That is some amazing Kirby artwork.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 28, 2007 21:02:09 GMT -5
That's just a great Kirby self-jam! See, when commenting on the Sinnott book earlier, this is the kind of thing I wanted to see -- pencils first, then the effect of Joe's inks (which obvioulsy aren't on the picture above).
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 29, 2007 16:15:34 GMT -5
Why doesn't Granny Goodness always look that awesome? ;D Those contributing to this section of the book include...Adams (who says he begged Stan to let him do something with Sinnott)... dlw, Something about the way you phrased that made me laugh...and then I realized, well, despite Adams' fabled ego, it's true. From what I've read, Neal wanted to prove he could conquer the Marvel style and be as much a star at Marvel as he was at DC. Figuring the only way to accomplish legitimacy at Marvel was to work with Stan the Man (at that point, Neal had "only" worked with Roy the Boy, on the X-Men issues), he asked to work on a Stan book: Thor. And to further prove he could work in the Marvel style, he insisted on Sinnott--Mr. Marvel House Style--as inker for those issues.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 29, 2007 18:54:17 GMT -5
So you thought I'd made a reference worthy of the aforementioned superdickery.com?
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 30, 2007 18:49:11 GMT -5
;DI thought it was funny...the way you put it, I could just picture ol' Neal- -that great master artist- -on bended knee, begging Stan for a chance to work with Sinnott. Nice post overall, and obviously memorable, since I returned to it many days later (hmmm, is that an exalt I see in your future?)
And you know what? Hard to believe, given his virtuosity and status in the industry, but basically Neal did have to beg to get into comics!! He has said over and over again after he graduated high school (a visual arts high school) in the late 1950s, he took his portfolio to DC and they wouldn't even let him in the door. Archie Comics turned him down too; until he traced some Archie comics and submitted those, and they said, okay, we'll give you some work. But steady comic work was scarce so he turned to the advertising world. He started to assist on the syndicated newspaper comics and when he was given his own strip (Ben Casey), that really made his name. He did some Warren horror books, approached DC again (we're talking maybe 1967, 1968 here), and this time, the stars were in his favor. He soon became established at DC, and at Steranko's urging, also offered his services to Marvel. He certainly was persistent--and we, his fans, are the beneficiaries of his persistence!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 30, 2007 19:17:03 GMT -5
We've known forever how stuck-in-the-mud the powers-that-be at DC were back then. Imagine, turning down Neal Adams! In a similar vein, one of my favorite exhibits at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame was a two-paper collection of rejection letters by two different record labels of U2!! Tana, so what did you buy at San Diego?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 30, 2007 21:01:54 GMT -5
I actually spent most of my allotted dough on silver age books. I finally got my coveted Fantastic Four 54 with a beautiful creamy white cover! I also got a Fine copy of F4 Annual # 6, with the first appearance of Annihilius and the birth of Franklin. I have never read these stories before, not even in reprint form, so when I have a chance to sit down with them, it will be a real treat. Thor's 132, 133, and 135 also came home with me, as well as a bunch of Captain Americas, Forever People #1, and some other good stuff. But that was just about it for me wallet-wise! I did make it to the Twomorrows booth and picked up several Back Issues. I got a chance to speak with a couple of the guys there and expressed my appreciation for their coverage of the comic scene of the 70's. They were really cool and we had a nice chat.
The con was much more fun this year, partly because they limited the crowd size on Saturday (last year there were so many people the fire marshal made them stop selling new admissions by noon). The highlight was probably the very exciting and encouraging Iron Man footage I saw on Thursday. I believe it has been posted here on the Film board. Suffice to say, the clip had the audience going nuts and I really thought it looked fantastic. I'll post a few pics over there later, although I am sure everyone has seen the Mark I suit somewhere by now.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 31, 2007 18:41:25 GMT -5
I am going to Wizardworld Chicago on the 12th. I am still formulating my want-list!
FF Annual #6 is such a great story!!! You'll love it!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 1, 2007 18:29:39 GMT -5
I actually spent most of my allotted dough on silver age books. I finally got my coveted Fantastic Four 54 with a beautiful creamy white cover! I also got a Fine copy of F4 Annual # 6, with the first appearance of Annihilius and the birth of Franklin. I have never read these stories before, not even in reprint form... Tana, wait, are you saying that you've never read FF Annual #6 or FF #54 before (or just that you've never read Annual #6)? If you've never read #54 before, I apologize if my earlier reminiscences spoiled anything for you ...I assumed you'd read it already and were just looking for a copy in better condition (and I'm glad you were successful in your quest!) Like dlw said, FF Annual #6 is great...a scary, suspenseful, satisfying story...with great Kirby-Sinnott art.
|
|