|
Post by kirby101 on May 24, 2018 12:48:52 GMT -5
On Thor #193 and FF #116. both had 34 pages of story. Thor is Art by John and Sal Buscema, so most likely it was layouts, but it still looks great. Probably because Sal always did his best for big bro. FF is Buscema pencils and Sinnott inks. Looks like the usual superlative art from that duo. ![](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/cd/69/05cd6904c9b7d6f3a241733240f88029.jpg) ![](http://www.collectededitions.com/marvel/mm/thor/images/THOR193021_col.jpg) ![](https://readcomics.io/images/manga/fantastic-four-1961/116/2.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 12:59:51 GMT -5
Ok proboards ate this post the first time around making a half hour or research and data collection go poof into the ether, so we'll try again. Here's an example of Buscema breakdowns... ![](http://www.inkwellawards.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/3JohnBuscemaBreakdowns_BobMcLeodFinishes.jpg) the image on the left is what the page looked like when Buscema was done drawing it, the one on the right after Bob Mcleod did finishes and inks. here's a second example of the same thing with Buscema breakdown and McLeod finishes shown. ![](http://www.bobmcleod.com/co122p5.gif) here's another example of Buscema breakdowsn from SSOC 198... ![](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2a/43/cb/2a43cb00885c2b939b26a0cb6aadb7db.jpg) and for comparison what a Buscema page looks like when he does full pencils rather than breakdowns... ![](http://art.cafimg.com/images/Category_13989/subcat_140043/uuppTP5E_2901151729031.jpg) obviously much tighter finished drawing which would take more time to produce than just the breakdowns. By comparison, here's a page of full pencils by a more contemporary artist, Jason Fabok... ![](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-smStwyvh4f8/TjgbHV_omFI/AAAAAAAAAEw/HbDvql_8a5w/s1600/bmdk-jfabok-4-pg-13.1.jpg) whether you like his work or not, it's obviously a product that took much more time to produce because of the tightness of the pencil and the level of detail in the background. That doesn't make it inherently better or worse, just more time consuming to produce. Whether you like that level of detail or not, it is the current industry standard and what the market/audience demands, which is differnet form what the market/audience demanded of artists in the Silver and Bronze Age. Could Buscema have produced quality work at that level of detail, most certainly. Would he have been churning out 2-3 books a month while doing it? Doubtful. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 13:18:26 GMT -5
And as for Perez, looking at the credits on GCD, at DC around 1980 when he was doing New Teen Titans and JLA he was doing breakdowns only not full pencils on either, the inkers were doing finishes not just inking, on Wonder Woman he did full pencils for 1-8 then starting with 9 was doing layouts only (which is even looser than breakdowns in most cases). And those FF issues he was doing the same time as his "regular" Avengers run were breakdowns only too. It generally takes less time to do layouts or breakdowns than full pencils, which makes it easier to do more than one book in a month. You generally do not see publishers today having their pencillers do just layouts or breakdowns (unless it is someone like Keith Giffen who is a veteran of a different era and who does his writing via layouts not script usually). Different eras, different expectations, so comparisons between the two that don't take those differences into account are moot.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 13:19:58 GMT -5
and for reference, here's a Perez breakdown page... ![](http://art.cafimg.com/images/Category_82763/subcat_124715/ActionComicsBreakdown_by-GeorgePerez.jpg) -M
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 24, 2018 14:46:38 GMT -5
Big fan of Russ Andru's tenure on ASM here too. I've said it before, but reading ASM at the time, I found the transition from Romita/Kane to Andru jarring, only tolerable with the occasional Romita inking. However, Andru's long-jawed Peter Parker (and just about everyone else in the cast), odd anatomy usually leaning in the bony, pointed knees and long arms direction-- ![](https://i.imgur.com/lporG0K.jpg?1) --was such a departure from what was the "Spider-Man" look that had such a symbiotic relationship with the stories, the overall emotional development of the characters of that period, that if not for the pure strength of the arcs in place as Andru started, I'm not sure if I would have continued with the title. I'm betting that I am not the only long-time reader of a title to face that kind of issue.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 24, 2018 15:33:26 GMT -5
tark, I also found Andru's work following Romita and Kane to be lacking. I just never warmed up to it and didn't find the stories then anywhere as appealing as what had come before.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 24, 2018 20:01:49 GMT -5
Big fan of Russ Andru's tenure on ASM here too. I've said it before, but reading ASM at the time, I found the transition from Romita/Kane to Andru jarring, only tolerable with the occasional Romita inking. However, Andru's long-jawed Peter Parker (and just about everyone else in the cast), odd anatomy usually leaning in the bony, pointed knees and long arms direction-- I'm coming around to Andru a little bit, but I agree with a lot of this, too. His anatomy was wonky and he wasn't great at dramatic staging. Although I DO see how people like Andru better than Romita. (Not me) Andru paid a lot of attention to the spacial relationships between the characters and his environment, and gave Spider-Man web-swinging over Manhattan a sense of depth and scope. Romita didn't care at all about that stuff - as Jim Shooter noted, John Romita's Spidey would be web-swinging and it would be physically impossible for his web to be attached to anything. Unlike Ditko or Andru, the space that Romita's characters operated in didn't make any sense. I mean, neither did Kirby's but the fact that Romita was surrounded by Ditko, Kane, and Andru makes his world-building look sloppy by comparison. And I liked Andru a lot better on the Giant-Size Spider-Man team-up stories, not JUST because they were a team-up book, but maybe because they were a little darker... and more reliant on mood and/or creating real-world verisimilitude than over-the top action scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 24, 2018 20:02:37 GMT -5
Or it might be that I just really don't like Esposito over Andru. *Shrug*
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 24, 2018 20:53:25 GMT -5
While I'm not versed on Andru, but I've always liked "contortionist" Spidey. Seems fitting for his namesake. Do you not know how hard those little bastards are to kill when they can literally squeeze away from you into thin air?
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 24, 2018 21:27:31 GMT -5
Comics needed real pros like Dillan, Sal Buscema and Ross Andru to faithfully, if not spectacularly churn out monthly titles. I have nothing but respect for them, but they don't rise to the level of a Neal Adams, J Buscema and more of the top shelve artists. But we needed both types year?in the Silver/ Bronze Age in order to keep the industry afloat. Can you imagine if we had the artists of today who can't even turn out 8 books a year working in that era? just to point things out, JLA was an 8 times a year book not monthly for a chunk of Dillin's run. So were many DC books. Many were bi-monthly t0o, same with Marvel. A lot of those runs happened when books were not monthly, so be careful when you start criticizing guys in today's market for not producing monthly books like the "old-timers" did, because many of the books the old timers worked on weren't monthly books. -M Wasn't JLA a giant-size title for part of that run, though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 21:32:33 GMT -5
just to point things out, JLA was an 8 times a year book not monthly for a chunk of Dillin's run. So were many DC books. Many were bi-monthly t0o, same with Marvel. A lot of those runs happened when books were not monthly, so be careful when you start criticizing guys in today's market for not producing monthly books like the "old-timers" did, because many of the books the old timers worked on weren't monthly books. -M Wasn't JLA a giant-size title for part of that run, though? JLA 110-116 were extra sized giants, but the extra pages were reprints and back ups not extra long stories by the main creative team. It was still only 20 pages by Dillin. -M
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 24, 2018 22:41:51 GMT -5
Wasn't JLA a giant-size title for part of that run, though? JLA 110-116 were extra sized giants, but the extra pages were reprints and back ups not extra long stories by the main creative team. It was still only 20 pages by Dillin. They were giant again for #139-157.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 23:36:29 GMT -5
JLA 110-116 were extra sized giants, but the extra pages were reprints and back ups not extra long stories by the main creative team. It was still only 20 pages by Dillin. They were giant again for #139-157. You're right. Dillin did extra pages for those, but that stretch also resulted in the only fill in issues during his run (153 was by George Tuska, 157 had 8 pages by Tuska the remaining 20 some odd pages by Juan Ortiz) and they went back to normal size after those missed issues by Dillin. I remember Steve Englehart talking about those issues at the panel of his I attended earlier this year at em City Comic Con and he mentioned Dillin didn't like doing the extra pages but he responded the way any company man does when the boss dumps extra work on you, you do what you need to to get the work done and he contacted Englehart to apologize a few times to say it wasn't his best work but he did what he had to to get the extra pages done. But there was also tension because Englehart wanted to work Marvel style and Dillin wanted to work from full scripts. -M
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 25, 2018 0:32:23 GMT -5
By the time JLA went to Giant-size with #139, it was already a monthly book. I'm not sure about the first issue or two of the Giant format, but within a few months Dillin was regularly producing an average of 33 or 34 pages per month on JLA. This lasted until #157, the last 60-cent Giant-size issue. #158 was when DC's books went to 50 and had 25 pages of story. This lasted three months, and the non-Dollar Comic books all dropped to 40 cents with 17 pages of story. JLA was an exception, however, because unlike most books like Action Comics or Flash (which had 17 pages in a lead story followed by an 8-page backup story), JLA ran full-length stories and several more had been completed with the 25-page format in mind before the sudden reversion to 17 pages across the line. So unlike other books which simply dropped the backup feature and otherwise carried on as normal, the next several issues of JLA ran 22 or 23 pages in length, until with #166 it finally fell into the 17-page format, where it stayed until 1980, when DC went to 50 cents and 25 pages again. At which point Dillin's art began appearing in places like DC Comics Presents fairly frequently. As for fill-ins, issues 153 and 157 did have guest artists. However, Mark Evanier stated that in the case of #153, Dillin was not behind schedule. From this post, where he answered the question of "Which writer or artist has had the longest streak working on one comic book?" - Evanier did not mention why Juan Ortiz drew most of JLA #157, with Dillin only contributing a framing sequence. All this to say, Dick Dillin was really belting out the pages. By the by, I always really liked Dillin's art, especially on JLA.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 25, 2018 6:28:59 GMT -5
I would rate Andrus' artwork more pleasing to the eye than Dillans. But to answer an rhetorical question posed by mrp, I don't think any of today's artists can do two books, breakdowns or not. One of the posts has a very detailed penciled page and I understand that these days some comics are produced from the pencils sans inking.
|
|