|
|
Post by driver1980 on Feb 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
When, if ever, was Doctor Doom’s face first shown? (I realise so many questions I ask could be answered via Google, but I don’t want to kill the art of conversation; I hate how society is heading towards chatbots in banks, government departments, etc; I’d much rather ask here) We saw his face in FF annual #2, but that was when he was younger and still handsome as they come. His badly disfigured face... I have never seen it clearly. In Fantastic Four #200, Doom is unmasked in a room full of mirrors, and we get to see a blurred (or hatched) version of it: he's still got two eyes, a nose, a mouth that's normal, so his injuries are probably only skin-deep. In FF #278, "True Lies", we see him after his original lab accident; he only had a big scar across a cheek, but was in no way horrible to look at. His ego wouldn't stand anything less than perfection, though, and so he considered himself disfigured; later in the same story, he has his still-hot newly forged mask laid straight on his features, causing them to go pshhhhhhhh. (This last bit reflects his origin as told in FF#2, although then the mask just looked painfully hot; not flesh-melting scalding.) Over the years we got glimpses of his face, and the flesh around his eyes seem very bumpy and burned... hamburger-like, as is the case for some patients being treated for skin cancer. If we were ever treated to a clear view of his ruined features, I do not know. Thanks. Ego, you say? Sounds like WWF wrestler Kane - supposedly disfigured by a fire, but when he unmasked, no burns at all. |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Feb 1, 2024 15:10:49 GMT -5
Maybe it is time for 'Kirby is God' thread so this thread can return to being about answering quick questions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 1, 2024 15:21:49 GMT -5
Maybe it is time for 'Kirby is God' thread so this thread can return to being about answering quick questions? Kirby was God (or something pretty close) in an issue of Fantastic Four by Waid and Wieringo!  Good thing too, because he allowed Ben Grimm to come back from the dead! |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 1, 2024 15:49:17 GMT -5
Maybe it is time for 'Kirby is God' thread so this thread can return to being about answering quick questions? I agree that this one question is taking up too much of this general thread but is that really how the discussion looks to you? As one-sided as that? Mind-boggling. |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Feb 1, 2024 16:06:04 GMT -5
Maybe it is time for 'Kirby is God' thread so this thread can return to being about answering quick questions? I agree that this one question is taking up too much of this general thread but is that really how the discussion looks to you? As one-sided as that? Mind-boggling. It is what all discussions of Jack Kirby inevitably turn into. And given the cry to crucify Barry Windsor-Smith for pointing out that, at certain stage of his career, Kirby drew limbs that did not resemble actual limbs, I don't think I am unjustified. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 1, 2024 16:12:46 GMT -5
I agree that this one question is taking up too much of this general thread but is that really how the discussion looks to you? As one-sided as that? Mind-boggling. It is what all discussions of Jack Kirby inevitably turn into. And given the cry to crucify Barry Windsor-Smith for pointing out that, at certain stage of his career, Kirby drew limbs that did not resemble actual limbs, I don't think I am unjustified. Well there's also the "shame on BWS for having the audacity to criticize anyone." Because everyone must always be sweetness and light. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2024 16:16:02 GMT -5
Maybe it is time for 'Kirby is God' thread so this thread can return to being about answering quick questions? Kirby was God (or something pretty close) in an issue of Fantastic Four by Waid and Wieringo! Good thing too, because he allowed Ben Grimm to come back from the dead! Clever , Mr. Raider. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2024 16:20:44 GMT -5
It is what all discussions of Jack Kirby inevitably turn into. And given the cry to crucify Barry Windsor-Smith for pointing out that, at certain stage of his career, Kirby drew limbs that did not resemble actual limbs, I don't think I am unjustified. Well there's also the "shame on BWS for having the audacity to criticize anyone." Because everyone must always be sweetness and light. Well, BWS is on the same team as Byrne , in that they say whatever is on their minds. That's not a good thing. And BWS showed himself to be an ungrateful person for criticizing Jim lee after he was given a job in Wildstorm. Barry Windbag is accurate. As for Groth, I have no respect for him. He loved bashing Marvel and Dc for publishing tripe and turned around and had a porno line of comics that he sold. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 1, 2024 16:34:21 GMT -5
I don't think it'll change anyone's mind because everyone's opinions seem so hard-set on this subject, but for readers who don't think Kirby could draw and that he needed Sinnott or Romita to make his artwork passable, I'd encourage them to look at Kirby's un-inked pencils from the '60s period. I've seen a great deal of his un-inked 60s (and 70s) pencils, and again, what the readers viewed--what was intended for their pleasure is what is being analyzed, and the best of his published work through the embellishments of the aforementioned inkers should not be as underestimated/valued as they seem to be, since most of us have seen some pencils from the books in question, and obviously, the published work is the version which resonated with innumerable readers and did help build Kirby's artistic aura at Marvel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Feb 1, 2024 17:23:58 GMT -5
there doesn't seem to be anything superior about the 2-volume unless one has a preference for hardcovers. You can strap one to each end of a weight bar and get a pretty good workout. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Feb 1, 2024 17:31:36 GMT -5
Man does BWS say some unflattering things about other artists in that CBJ interview. I actually have no idea how BWS can be so judgmental of other comic book artists. He didn't insult Kirby, but I side with George on this one. You side with George even though you admit BWS didn't say anything bad about Kirby? Which is the only point of contention. Wha??? George's original contention was that BWS was a wind bag and full of himself. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Feb 1, 2024 17:39:59 GMT -5
On BWS, I don't have a problem with anything he says about the Image guys since I more or less agree with it, from the samples I've seen. He's entitled to his opinion on the artistic merits of his colleagues' work and as an accomplished artist himself, that opinion is an informed one - though that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. On Buscema, I think he acknowledges his ability but feels he spent his career drawing stuff he didn't particularly care for: IOW it was a business career to him, not an artistic calling. I don't think it was quite that simple but it's a defensible POV. Saying he saw through Steranko, coitizing Joe Kubert for the way he drew Fax from Sarajevo, saying that everything Buscema ever drew was vapid... give me a break. That type of attitude just makes me want to turn the screws on Windsor-Smith. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 1, 2024 18:05:47 GMT -5
On BWS, I don't have a problem with anything he says about the Image guys since I more or less agree with it, from the samples I've seen. He's entitled to his opinion on the artistic merits of his colleagues' work and as an accomplished artist himself, that opinion is an informed one - though that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. On Buscema, I think he acknowledges his ability but feels he spent his career drawing stuff he didn't particularly care for: IOW it was a business career to him, not an artistic calling. I don't think it was quite that simple but it's a defensible POV. Saying he saw through Steranko, coitizing Joe Kubert for the way he drew Fax from Sarajevo, saying that everything Buscema ever drew was vapid... give me a break. That type of attitude just makes me want to turn the screws on Windsor-Smith. Well, like I said, you don't have to agree with him but I don't see that him expressing his honest opinion makes him a bad guy. Undiplomatic, sure. James Joyce and Marcel Proust reportedly hated each other's work: does that mean anyone who likes Joyce has to hate Proust or vica versa?
I'm a huge fan of Steranko's art but I can see where BWS is coming from. I believe one or both of the Hernandezes have expressed a similar opinion on his stuff, and possibly on Buscema as well, though I'm not sure I can trust my memory in the latter case. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Hernandezes or BWS 100%, much as I love their work. And it certainly doesn't make me feel they're nasty people for expressing their honest opinion of another artist's work.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 1, 2024 18:11:58 GMT -5
I agree that this one question is taking up too much of this general thread but is that really how the discussion looks to you? As one-sided as that? Mind-boggling. It is what all discussions of Jack Kirby inevitably turn into. And given the cry to crucify Barry Windsor-Smith for pointing out that, at certain stage of his career, Kirby drew limbs that did not resemble actual limbs, I don't think I am unjustified. I think you are, since the contention was that Kirby drew limbs that way because he was incapable of doing otherwise, which is demonstrably not what Windsor-Smith was saying, as has been pointed out with the appropriate quotations by several people.
A statement like this makes me wonder - have you actually read through the discussion or just skimmed it? Because far from BWS being crucified he was being defended.
edit: BTW, sorry if that came across as snarky. That wasn't my intention at all, I was just trying to find a reason why you somehow got the impression that BWS was being piled onto by the Kirby defenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Feb 1, 2024 18:22:11 GMT -5
Saying he saw through Steranko, coitizing Joe Kubert for the way he drew Fax from Sarajevo, saying that everything Buscema ever drew was vapid... give me a break. That type of attitude just makes me want to turn the screws on Windsor-Smith. Well, like I said, you don't have to agree with him but I don't see that him expressing his honest opinion makes him a bad guy. Undiplomatic, sure. James Joyce and Marcel Proust reportedly hated each other's work: does that mean anyone who likes Joyce has to hate Proust or vica versa?
I'm a huge fan of Steranko's art but I can see where BWS is coming from. I believe one or both of the Hernandezes have expressed a similar opinion on his stuff, and possibly on Buscema as well, though I'm not sure I can trust my memory in the latter case. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Hernandezes or BWS 100%, much as I love their work. And it certainly doesn't make me feel they're nasty people for expressing their honest opinion of another artist's work.
The trouble is that BWS isn't Art Spiegelman. He didn't create the great American comic book. This is the same guy that created Weapon X and he's talking about other people doing vapid work. |
|
