|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 2, 2015 12:08:07 GMT -5
The Goblin turns out to be an even better villain when unmasked because he turns out to be completely nuts. Sure, Ock suffered from some brain damage in his origin, The Looter had to be on the Spectrum and Joe Smith had dramatic personality shifts but Norman Osborn is the first villain to be truly crazy. He’s not just “I’m going to take over the world, muahahaha!” He’s a sweating, ranting, unstable lunatic who gets lost in his own delusions and is viable to snap at any moment. Osborn’s characterization and Peter’s predicament is actually scary. Pete is at the mercy of a man who has lost his grip on reality. Osborn’s mental illness makes the very cliched story work. The Green Goblin holds Spider-Man captive, tells him his entire life story and instead of killing the hero when he can tries to face him in one-on-one combat. The biggest cliche is the amnesia ending, which is the laziest “How do we get out of this impossible situation?” solution out there. The Goblin being Norman makes sense but the events of this issue are pretty unoriginal, which is a shame. Aunt May’s plot is a bit silly. By this point Peter is a nineteen-year-old who is taking what I assume is a grueling science program at a college in the city. He is no longer a child yet him staying out late makes Aunt May so worried that her doctor has to come and administer a sedative! And in the end she is cheered up by being able to candy Peter’s ass and spoon feed him! This part of the series is getting quite dated already and it needs to change quickly. Osborn's mental health, may provide for an explanation to his cliched behavior, but there was no prior indication as to those problems, in the Ditko era. This is all Stan, and I can't say is for the better. Unfortunately, the only way the Aunt May situation is going to be relieved, is with the moving out, on Peter's part. Everything else will remain the same, for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 2, 2015 12:50:08 GMT -5
I've always considered the Romita Sr. version to be "my Spider-man." I never cared for the Ditko artwork on the series. I love Ditko's stuff but it's hard to look at Romita's and not think "Thats Spider-Man." It's the iconic version and artists followed in his mold for decades. John Byrne, whose known for the back to basics approach, drew Spider-man less muscular and closer to the Ditko version. That's not a compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 2, 2015 13:07:05 GMT -5
Osborn's mental health, may provide for an explanation to his cliched behavior, but there was no prior indication as to those problems, in the Ditko era. This is all Stan, and I can't say is for the better. To be fair, Osborn was barely in the Ditko era and there wasn't much time to establish characterization. I doubt it's something Ditko would have gone for but I can't agree that the mental illness is a downgrade. It's something that makes the Goblin more interesting than a mere criminal mastermind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 2, 2015 14:10:19 GMT -5
Artwise Romita immediately proves his worth as Ditko's successor. For starters, he’s a stronger draftsman. Ditko is quite good but Romita’s faces fit together better, things are tighter while Ditko was a little sloppier. His rendition of Peter is much more conventionally handsome (again, he is now an assertive man and girls had previously noticed his good looks) while his girls are more attractive. I think Romita had a slicker style pulled directly from advertising art, but I'd still call Ditko the (slightly) better draftsman and (not-even-slightly) the better artist. I prefer Romita's human figures, but he wasn't as good at overall panel composition - he uses more interesting, shapes, designs, angles. Romita's all about telling the story, but Ditko's panels are interesting compositions in and of themselves. (Also Ditko's pacing and world-building are much stronger, and he's leagues better in terms of creating mood - although he's leagues better than damn near anyone, really.) I totally see why Romita's stuff was more popular at the time - it's prettier! - but there's also a reason that Ditko's considered a much better artist amongst comic nerds - 'cause he's a much, much better artist. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 2, 2015 15:02:12 GMT -5
Osborn's mental health, may provide for an explanation to his cliched behavior, but there was no prior indication as to those problems, in the Ditko era. This is all Stan, and I can't say is for the better. To be fair, Osborn was barely in the Ditko era and there wasn't much time to establish characterization. I doubt it's something Ditko would have gone for but I can't agree that the mental illness is a downgrade. It's something that makes the Goblin more interesting than a mere criminal mastermind. I'm not saying a criminal mastermind, has to be preferred over a madman, both archetypes are valid. The problem is that in its previous appearances, as few as they were, the character was seen as the former and not the latter. The fact that we were privy to both Norman and the GG's thoughts, made it even more evident. In the end, it was him being bonkers what made him stand out, but at the time, it was an easy solution to a difficult problem. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 2, 2015 15:02:18 GMT -5
Artwise Romita immediately proves his worth as Ditko's successor. For starters, he’s a stronger draftsman. Ditko is quite good but Romita’s faces fit together better, things are tighter while Ditko was a little sloppier. His rendition of Peter is much more conventionally handsome (again, he is now an assertive man and girls had previously noticed his good looks) while his girls are more attractive. I think Romita had a slicker style pulled directly from advertising art, but I'd still call Ditko the (slightly) better draftsman and (not-even-slightly) the better artist. I prefer Romita's human figures, but he wasn't as good at overall panel composition - he uses more interesting, shapes, designs, angles. Romita's all about telling the story, but Ditko's panels are interesting compositions in and of themselves. (Also Ditko's pacing and world-building are much stronger, and he's leagues better in terms of creating mood - although he's leagues better than damn near anyone, really.) I totally see why Romita's stuff was more popular at the time - it's prettier! - but there's also a reason that Ditko's considered a much better artist amongst comic nerds - 'cause he's a much, much better artist. I totally agree with Reptisaurus re: the artwork. But I also think there's a difference in motivation: Ditko wanted to drive the story creation and the characters; Romita was more or less a hired hand. Always professional, to be sure, but he would've been just as competent, professional, slick and attractive on any other book Stan gave him. But lacking a certain spark. The jump from Ditko to Romita is almost analogous to the jump from Shuster to Boring (and later, Swan), or from "Bob Kane" to Infantino--the work becomes more conventionally slick, professional, and "correct," but loss some uniqueness and energy. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 2, 2015 15:30:54 GMT -5
Artwise Romita immediately proves his worth as Ditko's successor. For starters, he’s a stronger draftsman. Ditko is quite good but Romita’s faces fit together better, things are tighter while Ditko was a little sloppier. His rendition of Peter is much more conventionally handsome (again, he is now an assertive man and girls had previously noticed his good looks) while his girls are more attractive. I think Romita had a slicker style pulled directly from advertising art, but I'd still call Ditko the (slightly) better draftsman and (not-even-slightly) the better artist. I prefer Romita's human figures, but he wasn't as good at overall panel composition - he uses more interesting, shapes, designs, angles. Romita's all about telling the story, but Ditko's panels are interesting compositions in and of themselves. (Also Ditko's pacing and world-building are much stronger, and he's leagues better in terms of creating mood - although he's leagues better than damn near anyone, really.) I totally see why Romita's stuff was more popular at the time - it's prettier! - but there's also a reason that Ditko's considered a much better artist amongst comic nerds - 'cause he's a much, much better artist. Oh I agree that Ditko is a more creative artist and definitely has more atmosphere but I don't think theres a comparison when it comes to the pure fundamentals of figure drawing (although Ditko made a few massive leaps as he progressed on the title). Two artists with very different strengths and priorities. Thanks for that link, it looks like a fascinating read. I'm not saying a criminal mastermind, has to be preferred over a madman, both archetypes are valid. The problem is that in its previous appearances, as few as they were, the character was seen as the former and not the latter. The fact that we were privy to both Norman and the GG's thoughts, made it even more evident. In the end, it was him being bonkers what made him stand out, but at the time, it was an easy solution to a difficult problem. That can easily be chalked up to Spidey throwing Harry in Norman's face as soon as he unmasks, since that is what really sets him off. When he doesn't have to deal with that reality he is able to be the cool and cruel crook we saw previously. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 2, 2015 15:35:35 GMT -5
I think Romita had a slicker style pulled directly from advertising art, but I'd still call Ditko the (slightly) better draftsman and (not-even-slightly) the better artist. I prefer Romita's human figures, but he wasn't as good at overall panel composition - he uses more interesting, shapes, designs, angles. Romita's all about telling the story, but Ditko's panels are interesting compositions in and of themselves. (Also Ditko's pacing and world-building are much stronger, and he's leagues better in terms of creating mood - although he's leagues better than damn near anyone, really.) I totally see why Romita's stuff was more popular at the time - it's prettier! - but there's also a reason that Ditko's considered a much better artist amongst comic nerds - 'cause he's a much, much better artist. Oh I agree that Ditko is a more creative artist and definitely has more atmosphere but I don't think theres a comparison when it comes to the pure fundamentals of figure drawing (although Ditko made a few massive leaps as he progressed on the title). Two artists with very different strengths and priorities. Thanks for that link, it looks like a fascinating read. That I'll agree with - but I don't think that figure drawing is the only (or even the most important!) part of draftsmanship. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 2, 2015 16:01:57 GMT -5
That I'll agree with - but I don't think that figure drawing is the only (or even the most important!) part of draftsmanship. Not the only part, but as I understand it draftsmanship is distinct from artistry and is based on how accurately something can be drawn. Draftsmanship encompasses the technical side of drawing, things like anatomy, perspective, value, etc. It's being able to create a representation of an object on a 2D plane and the term "draftsman" traditionally refers to artists who create technical drawings like blueprints, diagrams, etc. These skills are used by artists to express their creativity. Thats just the definition I see and hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 2, 2015 16:27:41 GMT -5
That I'll agree with - but I don't think that figure drawing is the only (or even the most important!) part of draftsmanship. Not the only part, but as I understand it draftsmanship is distinct from artistry and is based on how accurately something can be drawn. Draftsmanship encompasses the technical side of drawing, things like anatomy, perspective, value, etc. It's being able to create a representation of an object on a 2D plane and the term "draftsman" traditionally refers to artists who create technical drawings like blueprints, diagrams, etc. These skills are used by artists to express their creativity. Thats just the definition I see and hear. Huh. I generally use it to mean "illustration skills" in general - I wouldn't call ability to create mood as part of draftmanship but use of pleasing lines and symmetry and abstract drawing skills I would. Like I think Alex Toth is a masterful draftsman, even though his figure drawings are fairly abstract and non-representative. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 2, 2015 17:08:13 GMT -5
Oh I agree that Ditko is a more creative artist and definitely has more atmosphere but I don't think theres a comparison when it comes to the pure fundamentals of figure drawing (although Ditko made a few massive leaps as he progressed on the title). I counted three (ASM #3, 13 & 16). |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 2, 2015 18:24:02 GMT -5
Huh. I generally use it to mean "illustration skills" in general - I wouldn't call ability to create mood as part of draftmanship but use of pleasing lines and symmetry and abstract drawing skills I would. Like I think Alex Toth is a masterful draftsman, even though his figure drawings are fairly abstract and non-representative. I think you can look at drawing with two questions: "What are you doing?" and "What are you doing with it?" I would file anatomy, form, perspective, value and other fundamental skills under the first question and things like composition, color and symbolism under the second. An artist might be able to draw a perfectly realistic rendition of a human figure from imagination but unless they have the creativity to do something with it they can't take it to that other level. In the case of comic book art, draftsmanship is the difference between a Jim Lee and a Rob Liefeld. Both artists have similar styles but Lee is an excellent draftsman and Liefeld is not. With Toth it's clear that he was a fantastic draftsman, his vision just didn't align with realism. In other words, he was a master of both. Thats not to say this is a matter of style, style is how the artist chooses to execute their image. An artist who is only style without the foundational skills is not going to produce good work (see: Liefeld). What makes me think Ditko isn't as good a draftsman as Romita is that he makes errors that don't serve the image, like eyes that don't fit into the skull properly. In terms of "What are you doing?" Romita has more skill. But as far as "What are you doing with it?" goes Ditko is legendary and far beyond Romita. Frank Miller is another example of an artist who isn't the greatest draftsman but has a fantastic and unique vision and knows how to express it. I counted three (ASM #3, 13 & 16). I'd choose the Annual over #16 (I believe the Annual was produced first) but the timing is what matters. As I see it, Ditko started settling into the character around #3 and started doing more extensive study in early 1964 which led to the noticeable boost in quality over the course of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Mar 2, 2015 21:47:10 GMT -5
Ahhh the ole Ditko vs. Romita debate. For me, Ditko is the simple artist. His artwork is a little rough but there is an idea, a feeling, a sort of strange awkwardness to it that fits the early days of the character. Romita was all flash and glamour and I mean that in the best way. His faces were done well and his villains were crafted beautifully. The artwork has a bit more pop and the colours are always great. It was the perfect direction to go in after Ditko left. Spidey was growing up and I feel the art did as well. I honestly have not found an issue I did not enjoy from about #39-105. Sure, some stories were a little off but the art more than makes up for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 2, 2015 23:17:26 GMT -5
Ahhh the ole Ditko vs. Romita debate. For me, Ditko is the simple artist. His artwork is a little rough but there is an idea, a feeling, a sort of strange awkwardness to it that fits the early days of the character. Romita was all flash and glamour and I mean that in the best way. His faces were done well and his villains were crafted beautifully. The artwork has a bit more pop and the colours are always great. It was the perfect direction to go in after Ditko left. Spidey was growing up and I feel the art did as well. I honestly have not found an issue I did not enjoy from about #39-105. Sure, some stories were a little off but the art more than makes up for that. However Ditko and Romita compare, it was definitely the best possible move for the character to make as Peter started college life. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 3, 2015 3:21:11 GMT -5
I'd choose the Annual over #16 (I believe the Annual was produced first) but the timing is what matters. As I see it, Ditko started settling into the character around #3 and started doing more extensive study in early 1964 which led to the noticeable boost in quality over the course of the year. There's no cover date for the Annual, and though the Marvel Comics Database lists it for October, I consider it to go before #16. As you say, it gives the impression that it was drawn before, at least to me it looks like less polished, like overtime. Once he got that extra load of work out of the way, the monthly title instantly improved. |
|
