|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 19, 2007 15:56:10 GMT -5
I e-mailed Velluto at the address from his website (thanks, Shiryu!! . Here is what I sent, and I'll let you know if and when he replies. I'm not too optimistic, however, as it looks like the most recently updated part of his site was in 2005! Hey, Sal -- I recently purchased the Marvel Visionaries: John Buscema hardcover and was excited to see some pencils of John's that you apparently contributed to the editors for the book. I am specifically referring to the 4-page Silver Surfer/Thor story that was to have been published by Marvel Italia. I actually have a pencil and what looks to be ball point pen rough by John of page 3 to that story (Thor has laid out the Surfer, the Surfer strikes back, and Odin's eyes appear in the last panel). I, as well as other fans who frequent the message boards at www.avengersassemble.us, would like any background info. you could give us on the rough I have or the story in general. Did John sketch out pages and then lightbox them to finish the pencils? Was this story during the latter stage of John's career when he stopped with breakdowns? Were the pencils depicted in the book his or your finishes? Why was the story not published? Again, any insight you can give us would be greatly appreciated, and thanks very much for your time!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 20, 2007 16:10:29 GMT -5
Fingers crossed for a reply then! I did some further research, but he seems to have disappeared off the face of the web after 2003. No more interviews, mentioning... nothing. He is not dead, is he? The only positive thing is that the website is still around. Web domains often need to be renewed every year or 2 years, so if the site is still there, he should be looking after it occasionally at the least.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 21, 2007 22:06:37 GMT -5
I'll let you know if and when he replies. I'm not too optimistic, however, as it looks like the most recently updated part of his site was in 2005! Maybe he’s been too busy answering e-mail to update the site…!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 22, 2007 17:54:18 GMT -5
Speaking of artists, reading through the old issues in the DVD I noticed something: since Perez took over, in the Englehart run, there have been 2 fill ins, a reprint and 3/4 of a reprint in a relatively small number of issues, whereas before his joining there had hardly been any. Does anyone know if it was coincidence or was he slower than the other artists at the time?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 24, 2007 18:14:48 GMT -5
As a regular buyer of most things Marvel in those days, fill-ins became somewhat commonplace in the second half of the 1970's. In the Avengers, the 2-part Assassin story in #'s 145-46, as well as the partial reprint of Avengers #16 that filled-out the latter half of issue #150 (boy, was that disappointing!!!) come to mind. Over in the FF, I believe FF #180 was a reprint, and I'm certain there was at least another around the same time. I don't recall any Spidey fillers or reprints, but there was perhaps one in there somewhere around '77 or '78.
My assumption toward your question about Perez is that deadlines might have been an issue, as he was very new at that point. I would also like to know if the Heck-drawn Assassin story had been "in the can" waiting to see print, or if Heck was specifically tapped because they didn't feel Perez could keep up.
EDIT: I knew there was a Spidey reprint -- it just pops into my head that very early in the Peter Parker book they reprinted the early Marvel Team-Up story that involved Spidey, the Torch, and Morbius. It must have been around PPTSSM #5 or 6, which I really thought to be odd given that a) Sal Buscema, who was known for being fast was the regular series penciller and b) the book was so new.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 24, 2007 23:15:00 GMT -5
I've often wondered lately, which is worse: getting a reprint/fill-in story but keeping the book on schedule, or waiting 2,3,4 or more months for a book? I really don't know. But it was rare when we got reprints or fill-ins for more than 2 months in a row. How long did we wait for that last issue of Ultimates?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Aug 25, 2007 10:30:05 GMT -5
For me the order would be
Fill-in Wait Reprint
A fill-in may turn out interesting... sometimes even really good. Avengers #280 (I think, the issue where Jarvis remembers his past after the beating in the Mansion Siege storyline) was a fill-in, and yet an excellent issue, and the same IMO goes for the 2 issues Avalon story between Shooter's and Stern's run.
Waiting is very annoying. In a way it makes things build up, but if it goes for too long makes me stopping care about the story.
A reprint is a way to get a few coins out of our pocket without giving much back, especially in these days where we already have DVDs, masterworks, TPBs etc
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 27, 2007 16:49:26 GMT -5
Perez, especially in his early days, was notorious for being a slow penciler... he frequently missed deadlines, which is why he would jump from book to book. But his work was so good, Marvel wouldn't hesitate to give him a book to try.
But frequently, Perez had to have fill in artists to help him catch up on deadlines... which is why John Byrne did some work in the 160s...
If anyone is lucky enough to own a copy of X-Men annual #3, some of his best work is on those pages... Terry Austin does the inks, which give the book even more life... and is Akron is awesome, especially when he makes his appearence in the book.
There was time when Perez was actaully trying to match Dick Dillon's run on JLA and Kirbry's run on the FF with the Teen Titans, but he fell way short because his work was so time consuming.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 27, 2007 18:07:24 GMT -5
My assumption toward your question about Perez is that deadlines might have been an issue, as he was very new at that point. I would also like to know if the Heck-drawn Assassin story had been "in the can" waiting to see print, or if Heck was specifically tapped because they didn't feel Perez could keep up. Yes, you're correct, dlw. From what I've heard, the the Heck artwork was "in the can"...intended for Giant-Size Avengers #5. I'll do some looking around and see if I can find confirmation of this. Speaking of artists, reading through the old issues in the DVD I noticed something: since Perez took over, in the Englehart run, there have been 2 fill ins, a reprint and 3/4 of a reprint in a relatively small number of issues, whereas before his joining there had hardly been any. Does anyone know if it was coincidence or was he slower than the other artists at the time? As a regular buyer of most things Marvel in those days, fill-ins became somewhat commonplace in the second half of the 1970's. In the Avengers, the 2-part Assassin story in #'s 145-46, as well as the partial reprint of Avengers #16 that filled-out the latter half of issue #150 (boy, was that disappointing!!!) come to mind. Re #150: In the letter column of #151, Marvel brass printed an apology/explanation for the reprint material. To be sure, it's related to meeting deadlines, but on the part of the writer (Steve Englehart), not the artist. According to Marvel, Steve failed to finish the story, Jim Shooter stepped in and contributed a few pages, but the book was still not finished. So at the last minute the reprint material was included, and then Gerry Conway worked with Perez to make sure the new material made sense. (Those of you with the DVD ROM--or the actual issue--can check out the explanation in #151, for more details.) On Englehart's own website, he is more succinct and says bluntly he disagreed with new Marvel management. In his words:"I was halfway through scripting this issue when an editorial shift at Marvel drove me and several other writers out the door, so the last half of the book is a reprint."
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 27, 2007 19:34:44 GMT -5
As a regular buyer of most things Marvel in those days, fill-ins became somewhat commonplace in the second half of the 1970's. In the Avengers, the 2-part Assassin story in #'s 145-46, as well as the partial reprint of Avengers #16 that filled-out the latter half of issue #150 (boy, was that disappointing!!!) come to mind. Re #150: In the letter column of #151, Marvel brass printed an apology/explanation for the reprint material. To be sure, it's related to meeting deadlines, but on the part of the writer (Steve Englehart), not the artist. According to Marvel, Steve failed to finish the story, Jim Shooter stepped in and contributed a few pages, but the book was still not finished. So at the last minute the reprint material was included, and then Gerry Conway worked with Perez to make sure the new material made sense. (Those of you with the DVD ROM--or the actual issue--can check out the explanation in #151, for more details.) On Englehart's own website, he is more succinct and says bluntly he disagreed with new Marvel management. In his words:"I was halfway through scripting this issue when an editorial shift at Marvel drove me and several other writers out the door, so the last half of the book is a reprint." When I discovered Englehart's website in January after we voted him into our Avengers HofF, I recall seeing the quote you cite. I just love the intrigue that is sometimes present among creators! And by the way, if I could get back to the above-mentioned Back Issue Spider-Man Wedding roundtable for a second... if you haven't found the issue yet, do take the time to scout it up and read that interview. Shooter just comes off as such a jerk!! (And, for those of you not near a comic shop or who don't feel like subscribing -- TwoMorrows is going to offer a special on-line subscription rate where their magazines will be available in pdf format. Check it out on their website!) And Hourman, in addition to the X-Men annual you reference (to which I say thee, YEA!!), I also love Perez on the Avengers Annual (#8, IIRC) where Jan succumbs to Dr. Spectrum's power prism. Beautiful work throughout.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 28, 2007 7:28:42 GMT -5
And Hourman, in addition to the X-Men annual you reference (to which I say thee, YEA!!), I also love Perez on the Avengers Annual (#8, IIRC) where Jan succumbs to Dr. Spectrum's power prism. Beautiful work throughout. Upon further review last night after I typed this, my memory was refreshed -- the art is not nearly as good as I had remembered! I think that is due in large part to the inks of Pablo Marcos. Sorry, Pablo, but less of you and more of George would have been better.
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 28, 2007 11:49:11 GMT -5
Avengers Annual #8 is a good example of Perez's problems at Marvel... there are some pages where it is obvious that he spent a lot of time working on it (i.e. the opening page where you see YJ's reflection in nearly every facet of Spectrum's power prism), and pages where his work is a bit rushed, and the inkers (was it just Marcos, or didn't other inkers work on the book?) took over (i.e. the pages where Jan confronts Iron Man)...
I like Perez's work on Annual #6 better, but with the glaring exception of Annual #7 (Jim Starlin's artwork is the best I've ever seen for almost any annual from those days), the art on most of the annuals is pretty skimpy. Annual #10 has the most unusual combination I can recall -John Byrne and Steve Ditko...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 28, 2007 12:40:04 GMT -5
Yes, I believe Marcos had a "partner-in-crime", but I don't have any resources in front of me at present.
Isn't it funny, in our discussions about inkers, how we've praised some (Joe Sinnott) for exerting their influence, and chastised others (Colletta, Adkins (for me)) for getting in the way??
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 28, 2007 14:03:50 GMT -5
Heh. It all depends on how well the inker's style fits in with the artists... Joltin' Joe Sinnott worked well to give that classic Kirby feel, Joe Rubenstein gave the artwork that finished that allowed the artist's best work come forward, and de-emphasized the weaker aspects (ie. his and Byrne's run on Captain America).
And Terry Austin's work speaks for itself.. the ultimate detail inker for the detail-oriented artist.
I also loved Tom Palmer's work with Big John back in the day...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 29, 2007 14:17:28 GMT -5
Yes, you're correct, dlw. From what I've heard, the the Heck artwork was "in the can"...intended for Giant-Size Avengers #5. I'll do some looking around and see if I can find confirmation of this. Kind of funny how they used the Heck story as a fill-in to avoid a reprint in the main title, and then reprinted Avengers Annual #1 in Giant-Size Avengers #5!! Of your experiences with the Giant-Size issues of various titles, do any stand out to you? Did you like the Silver Age reprint material, or did you skip those particular issues that were largely unoriginal work? GS Avengers #'s 2-4 were obviously special to me as they comprised important chapters in the Celestial Madonna epic. Also of note was Giant-Size Super-Heroes #1 with a Gil Kane-drawn Spidey/Morbius/Man-Wolf story (recently reprinted in the tpb Giant-Size Marvel). And of course, GS X-Men #1 left me a wide-eyed 8-year old!!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 29, 2007 21:10:44 GMT -5
Kind of funny how they used the Heck story as a fill-in to avoid a reprint in the main title, and then reprinted Avengers Annual #1 in Giant-Size Avengers #5!! Good point! And I really liked the art in Avengers Annual #1. I am probably one of the few people here who liked Heck's take on the Avengers, except for those issues when he inked himself. As I have probably mentioned, I feel he managed to make the faces different and individual. Sure, his style was relatively static and old-fashioned (better suited for the Golden Age?) but I enjoyed his work on the book in the '60s. Here's what I could dig up on-line regarding the Heck fill-in issues: check out this link (below), and scroll down until you get to answer #2, by someone calling himself "Batroc" (I don't think it's anyone here, is it?) I don't know how reliable this is, or if "Batroc" is an insider or "just" a fan...but the explanation he gives fits with what I've read elsewhere: that the Heck art was intended for a giant size issue. To quote "Batroc": "What is ironic about this thread pertaining to Giant Size Marvels is that the Tony Isabella/Don Heck stories presented in Avengers #145 and #146 were to be published in Giant Size Avengers #5 as advertised, I believe, in Giant Size Avengers #4. Of course, the project with new material was scrapped. The EIC put these Isabella/Heck stories in the midst of the Englehart/Perez Kang War epic, contending that Stainless Steve was behind deadline. (Steve still contends to this day that he was not!) and these two stories were published to help Steve “catch up”. Steve’s revenge? To ignore these two issues, leaving Marvel historians to scratch their heads and not be able to place this story in continuity. It contained both the Beast and Hawkeye who would not meet at Avengers Mansion until Avengers #172,,, years later. " goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2005/08/25/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-13/Of your experiences with the Giant-Size issues of various titles, do any stand out to you? Did you like the Silver Age reprint material, or did you skip those particular issues that were largely unoriginal work? Interesting question. The Annuals (for me, in the late '60s) were truly events. I was a regular reader of the FF and the Avengers back then. FF Annual #5: Inhumans, Black Panther, Sue announces her pregnancy plus a solo Surfer story...a year later, FF Annual #6, the FF in the Negative Zone, Annihilus, Sue gives birth. I even found an old copy of FF Annual #3 : the wedding of Sue and Reed. Avengers Annual #1: first time all the Avengers--except for Hulk--got together (Swordsman also appeared, but as one of the villains)...a year later, #2: a different core team featured in an ambitious alternate time story, battling against an earlier version of the Avengers. These were epics and I for one eagerly awaited the summer Annuals! They were real treats, unlike DC's "silly" (as I thought then) 80 page giants, which contained reprint material. Marvel's "giants" gave us real stories, in the here and now! Then in 1969 (FF Annual #7, Avengers Annual #3), the Annuals resorted to reprint material. Quite a shock! I mean, the Marvel Universe wasn't that old then. Why reprint material that was only a few years old? Of course, my opinion is probably colored by the fact that I was also able to collect "backwards" (there was a great collectibles store that carried old comics, right on my block!), so I was reading the older issues anyway. And the older FF issues were already being reprinted in Marvel Collectors' Items Classics (always preferred that title to Marvel's Greatest Comics). For me, the reprint material in the Annuals was not desirable...though of course, as an avid completist collector, I still bought those Annuals! But the Annuals became less of a special event and just another reprint book. I understand it was probably due to economics, and deadlines, but I was gravely disappointed as a child... The '70s Englehart Giant-Size issues were a Bronze Age innovation (directly connecting with the monthly issues), and as I missed practically the entire Bronze Age (my last "real time" Avengers issue was #105, 1972) I did not read these Giant-Sizes until a few years ago. Incredible how much is packed into these issues! And to think these were issued what, quarterly? Imagine producing these issues, along with the regular monthly issues. I can see why Englehart and/or the artists may have had problems making deadlines! EDIT:Unfortunately I have not read any of the other Giant-Sizes, except for the Avengers issues and the famous X-Men one, so I really cannot comment on other books' Giants. Sounds like you enjoyed them. And by the way, if I could get back to the above-mentioned Back Issue Spider-Man Wedding roundtable for a second... if you haven't found the issue yet, do take the time to scout it up and read that interview. Shooter just comes off as such a jerk!! I guess you saw my recent ode to Shooter... I have ordered the issue from TwoMorrows and as soon as I read it, dlw, I'll post my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 30, 2007 9:17:22 GMT -5
I like Heck on the Avengers from around #19 through #40. Anything before or after I don't really care for.
Heck's form could have passed for what was in JLA at approximately the same time, with the exception of the Kirby-training all Marvel artists had received. Marvel's look was just so much more dynamic than DC's.
Sharkar, the "original material" annuals you cite above are true gems! It is a shame that there was that period when both annuals and then later GS books contained no new material. Particularly in light of the existence of Marvel Collector's Item Classics, Marvel's Greatest Comics, Marvel Triple Action, Marvel Tales, etc.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Aug 30, 2007 9:48:33 GMT -5
Regarding GS Avengers 2, I really liked the story, the art not that much (was it Don Heck? - and inked by whom?), and it was interesting how the less powerfull team took the more powerfull Avengers down, but the end with the Watcher was pretty confusing
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Aug 30, 2007 12:22:46 GMT -5
I liked Heck in the early days, which was indeed pretty consistent with the type of artwork being produced in that era.
Heck's weakness was battle sequences, where he could do great indivdual poses, but trying to create the illusion of combat between tow beings -especially if that involved weapons that shot energy beams, he was far more limited.
But early work with the Avengers was quite good... it's just John Buscema really raised the bar as far as action sequences.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 30, 2007 16:00:19 GMT -5
I just could never figure out why Heck's figures were so stiff? Even when Quicksilver's running, he's stiff.
Heck was one of those artists who had certain poses that were just characteristic of his work. Tuska's another one. You could show me a single figure in one of those trademark poses, and I'd just know who had drawn it.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Aug 30, 2007 20:57:14 GMT -5
Sharkar, the "original material" annuals you cite above are true gems! Yes, I think anyone's who's read these feels the same way. Come to think of it, didn't a few of us (including you) recently mention FF Annual #6 in this very thread? Memorable, memorable issue...for a lot of reasons. But that's how those (original material) Annuals were back then... In 1970, FF Annual #8 contained a reprint of FF Annual #1 (1963, featuring the FF vs. the Sub-Mariner, Kirby/Ayers art). Kirby had just left Marvel or was about to leave, so the cover of Annual #8 was drawn by John Romita (who had just become the FF regular artist). Subby was guest-starring in the regular FF issues (#102-#104) at that time ( and Romita did the covers for these 3 issues, as well as the interior art for #103-#104). Anyway, I recall at least one letter from a fan, who thought Annual #8 was part of the then-current arc and was taking place in the here and now (1970). This fan pointed out "flaws" in the Annual story (such as Sue and Reed not being married). In their printed response, Marvel very politely explained that the Subby story in the FF Annual was a reprint. Particularly in light of the existence of Marvel Collector's Item Classics, Marvel's Greatest Comics, Marvel Triple Action, Marvel Tales, etc. I read Marvel Collectors' Items Classics religiously, and at times, Marvel Tales. I bought MCIC for the old FF stories, but it also introduced me to the histories of Iron Man, Hulk and Dr. Strange. In fact, I think my first issue of MCIC contained the IM story that introduced the Black Widow (before she'd adopted a superhero costume). Since I just knew her from the Avengers, seeing how she had started out was fascinating. And some MCIC issues later, Hawkeye made his debut in IM. As mentioned, I preferred the formal-sounding title "Marvel Collectors' Item Classics", more than the flashy name the book adopted later (Marvel's Greatest Comics)..."MCIC" made it sound as if these stories belonged in a museum, the Smithsonian or something! Regarding GS Avengers 2, I really liked the story, the art not that much (was it Don Heck? - and inked by whom?) The art is credited to Heck and Werner Roth (inks by Colletta). Heck probably did the layouts and Roth finished up (this was the same approach taken by that same team on some X-Men issues around that time, too). IMO, the resulting art from the Heck-Roth team was never very pleasing. Also, this Annual has that great, justly-famous cover by Buscema (plus a few JB panels from #56 in the story itself).
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Aug 30, 2007 23:54:27 GMT -5
Sharkar, the "original material" annuals you cite above are true gems! Yes, I think anyone's who's read these feels the same way. Come to think of it, didn't a few of us (including you) recently mention FF Annual #6 in this very thread? Memorable, memorable issue...for a lot of reasons. But that's how those (original material) Annuals were back then... I picked up a copy of FF annual 6 at comic con but only got to read it a couple of weeks ago. It was really enjoyable, partly due to nostalgia but also because of the relationships between the characters. You just knew that any of them would gladly walk through hell itself for the others. Granted, it came off a bit sappy at times, but the FF really felt like a family totally devoted to each other.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Aug 31, 2007 7:35:40 GMT -5
Agreed, and Tana's purchase and "promise to read soon" was the conversation at the time. Tana, you need to post again very soon, so as to lose the pointed horns and forked tail, my dear!!
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 2, 2007 2:35:39 GMT -5
Agreed, and Tana's purchase and "promise to read soon" was the conversation at the time. Tana, you need to post again very soon, so as to lose the pointed horns and forked tail, my dear!! Who, me??!! ...should I even dare to mention that I am just now getting around to reading those old Thor back issues I also got at Comic Con?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 2, 2007 19:23:52 GMT -5
My problem as well -- I buy stuff with the best of intentions to read it right away, and six months later I see it in the "still waiting" pile in my comic room. I did use the summer to get current on Supergirl and the Legion, and I would say that I like that title. I finished the Marvel Visionaries: John Buscema and am about to begin the Roy Thomas volume. Great stuff, and I'll recommend again any of you to check out www.instocktrades.com for some nice deals!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 5, 2007 10:20:03 GMT -5
Comments?
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Sept 5, 2007 10:26:55 GMT -5
That's Sal's art (with Grainger's inks), and is roughly based on the final page of Avengers #71... I could have sworn that appeared in one of those oversized treasuries, but my memory might be fading now...
I've got a cool poster from Big John from the 1970s.. it features Clint as Goliath as well as the FF, Conan and Howard the Duck in the center... I'll see if I can dig it up...
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 5, 2007 18:22:13 GMT -5
That's Sal's art (with Grainger's inks), and is roughly based on the final page of Avengers #71... I'd always wondered why--in that last panel of #71, at the conclusion of the story-- Jan was shown wearing a green costume instead of the short, brown-checked mini-coat/dress she'd sported throughout the entire story (#69-#71). (I know Jan likes to change costumes, but geez--) I just chalked it up to "artistic license." Now I see that she is wearing that coatdress on the Marvelmania cover! (dlw--thanks for posting this image.) Makes me think that what was used in #71 for the story's last panel may have been intended for the Marvelmania cover (or a poster or for some sort of promotional material)...and what was used for the Marvelmania cover was, in fact, the art that was meant to be the final panel of #71, since it depicts Jan in the attire she wore in that story. I really liked the S. Buscema/Grainger team...to me, this was a perfect pairing that resulted in a clean, classic look, sort of like the effect achieved by the J. Buscema/Klein team. Neither Grainger nor Klein were as "slick" as Sinnott, but I think all three inkers were similar in that they did not distort or bury underlying pencils.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 5, 2007 23:43:55 GMT -5
Very cool picture DLW!! ;D
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Sept 6, 2007 13:51:46 GMT -5
That's Sal's art (with Grainger's inks), and is roughly based on the final page of Avengers #71... I'd always wondered why--in that last panel of #71, at the conclusion of the story-- Jan was shown wearing a green costume instead of the short, brown-checked mini-coat/dress she'd sported throughout the entire story (#69-#71). (I know Jan likes to change costumes, but geez--) I just chalked it up to "artistic license." Now I see that she is wearing that coatdress on the Marvelmania cover! (dlw--thanks for posting this image.) Makes me think that what was used in #71 for the story's last panel may have been intended for the Marvelmania cover (or a poster or for some sort of promotional material)...and what was used for the Marvelmania cover was, in fact, the art that was meant to be the final panel of #71, since it depicts Jan in the attire she wore in that story. I really liked the S. Buscema/Grainger team...to me, this was a perfect pairing that resulted in a clean, classic look, sort of like the effect achieved by the J. Buscema/Klein team. Neither Grainger nor Klein were as "slick" as Sinnott, but I think all three inkers were similar in that they did not distort or bury underlying pencils. I agree about the Buscema/Grainger work... Grainger really made Sal's work look a lot cleaner and distinctive, just like Palmer made Big John even better. And yeah, it's always sort of bothered me that they put a costume on Jan (which she never wore again), but I chalked it up to "Hey, here's a great poster for your wall..." then you see this picture and wonder what happened. I suspect that there may have been a last minute editorial decision to change the poses for a pin-up... but I like the Vision's pose better here as opposed to his folded arms on the other one.
|
|