|
|
Post by foxley on Feb 2, 2024 0:56:03 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. 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.
Hard to see how else to interpret:
except as an attack on BWS, given that is not what he was saying at all. After which people leapt to his defence. Surely there would have been no need for a spirited defence if there had never been an attack.
But my main point is that this thread is supposed to be for people to ask a quick a question and (hopefully) get a quick answer, and not read long posts about which inkers were the best on Kirby, or whether he should never have been inked at all and why we should looking only at his original pencils, etc.
I read this thread to see what questions have been asked and whether I can supply an answer, and sometimes to post a question of my own. A dedicated Kirby thread would mean people could praise Kirby to their heart's content I would know I would never have to poke my nose in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 2, 2024 2:30:53 GMT -5
Actually I think the poster who made that mistaken statement meant it as an attack on Kirby: he sincerely thought that that was what BWS was saying and he agreed with it. So in that case it was a matter of defending Kirby by pointing out that BWS hadn't said that. But it was an honest mistake.
The attack on BWS himself had more to do with his disparaging comments about Stan Lee, the Image guys, Buscema, etc., as far as I can tell. And yes there was some argument against that.
But you're right, the discussion has run its course and as usual everyone is exactly where they were before it started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 2, 2024 12:21:13 GMT -5
Actually I think the poster who made that mistaken statement meant it as an attack on Kirby: he sincerely thought that that was what BWS was saying and he agreed with it. So in that case it was a matter of defending Kirby by pointing out that BWS hadn't said that. But it was an honest mistake. The attack on BWS himself had more to do with his disparaging comments about Stan Lee, the Image guys, Buscema, etc., as far as I can tell. And yes there was some argument against that. But you're right, the discussion has run its course and as usual everyone is exactly where they were before it started.I have seen many threads here, where the people have altered their opinions based on the conversation. That's what makes this forum a cut above the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Feb 2, 2024 14:46:03 GMT -5
Actually I think the poster who made that mistaken statement meant it as an attack on Kirby: he sincerely thought that that was what BWS was saying and he agreed with it. So in that case it was a matter of defending Kirby by pointing out that BWS hadn't said that. But it was an honest mistake. The attack on BWS himself had more to do with his disparaging comments about Stan Lee, the Image guys, Buscema, etc., as far as I can tell. And yes there was some argument against that. But you're right, the discussion has run its course and as usual everyone is exactly where they were before it started.I have seen many threads here, where the people have altered their opinions based on the conversation. That's what makes this forum a cut above the rest. I also think discussing and debating points, even vigorously, can be done without the intent of converting the other guy, and opinions not having been changed doesn't mean failure. It's can still be an enjoyable conversation to have (or read). |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 2, 2024 20:15:54 GMT -5
Yes, I was being a little overly cynical there, apologies to all. This particular issue, the whole "Kirby couldn't draw" thing, does get me down sometimes, so I should probably stay away from it when it comes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 12, 2024 19:55:04 GMT -5
Star Wars Crimson Empire question: I see there is a single volume collection out now as well as the previous 3-volume set. For anyone who's seen both, how do they compare? Any advantages or disadvantages to one over the other?
Right now I think I can order either for roughly the same price, $56 for the one-volume and around $20 each or just under for the the older books. having it one book sounds convenient, but then some of these thicker books have trouble with the bindings after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 12, 2024 21:45:01 GMT -5
Star Wars Crimson Empire question: I see there is a single volume collection out now as well as the previous 3-volume set. For anyone who's seen both, how do they compare? Any advantages or disadvantages to one over the other?
Right now I think I can order either for roughly the same price, $56 for the one-volume and around $20 each or just under for the the older books. having it one book sounds convenient, but then some of these thicker books have trouble with the bindings after a while. I'm not sure this helps (I have the single comics) but there were 3 mini series (Crimson Empire, Crimson Empire II: Council of Blood and Crimson Empire III: Empire Lost), and... it might be the 3 volume is each series separately and the larger one is all 3. Based on page count I suspect the one titled "The Crimson Empire Saga" is probably the whole thing. Pretty sure Kir Kanos got a one shot at some point to that may or may not be in there. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 12, 2024 22:19:34 GMT -5
Star Wars Crimson Empire question: I see there is a single volume collection out now as well as the previous 3-volume set. For anyone who's seen both, how do they compare? Any advantages or disadvantages to one over the other?
Right now I think I can order either for roughly the same price, $56 for the one-volume and around $20 each or just under for the the older books. having it one book sounds convenient, but then some of these thicker books have trouble with the bindings after a while. I'm not sure this helps (I have the single comics) but there were 3 mini series (Crimson Empire, Crimson Empire II: Council of Blood and Crimson Empire III: Empire Lost), and... it might be the 3 volume is each series separately and the larger one is all 3. Based on page count I suspect the one titled "The Crimson Empire Saga" is probably the whole thing. Pretty sure Kir Kanos got a one shot at some point to that may or may not be in there.
If I have the page counts right, the three separate books add up to a total of 472 pp while the single volume has 496: maybe the difference is due to that one-shot you mentioned. Was Gulacy the artist on it? It's largely for his artwork that I was interested in Crimson Empire in the first place.
edit: Now that I look again, it seems the third of the three collected miniseries isn't as readily available as the first two, so it looks like the best option right now is to go for the 496-page single volume.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 13, 2024 0:42:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure about the art... I got these when I was buying everything EU related regardless of what it was... I remember the 1st series being really good, the 2nd one being ok and the finale disappointing.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218 
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 13, 2024 6:16:05 GMT -5
I thought the three Crimson Empire minis were OK-ish stories, with nice art in them. I bought them when they came out and I've re-read them a number of times, and, while they are definitely entertaining as you're reading them, they are also rather forgettable overall. I mean, if you were to ask me now, I couldn't tell you a damn thing about the plot of any of the mini-series or even the name of the central protagonist. And that's after having read both the first two mini-series at least four times since the early 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 13, 2024 11:24:46 GMT -5
I'm a bit of a Gulacy completist so that's my main motivation to buy a copy of Crimson Empire in some form. I haven't read any Star Wars comics since the first year or two of the original Marvel series with Howard Chaykin, so I'm not necessarily expecting too much there - although I'd be disappointed of course if I found the story or writing to be of really low quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Feb 13, 2024 14:08:23 GMT -5
Anyone know if this is a commission, or from a story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2024 14:35:14 GMT -5
Anyone know if this is a commission, or from a story? It's a variant cover for New 52 Action Comics #31. I believe it was Batman '66 Theme month. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Feb 13, 2024 14:41:24 GMT -5
Thanks,
You see, this is another reason I detest variant covers: false advertising. When I saw that image, I got excited at the thought that there’s a Superman story where he faces those four rogues. Now I know it’s a gimmick.
I know superhero comics are not focused on gaining new readers now (it seems so), making the following point moot, but I’ll make it: how many lapsed readers, including some who might not have picked up a comic in decades, could be mislead in so many ways? I mean, if you are a lapsed reader, you might see Captain America on the cover of an Alien comic - and believe it’s a Cap vs Alien story. Yet you’ll find out it’s just part of a Cap Theme Month or something.
Hard to imagine this happening in other forms of entertainment. I just can’t imagine a rock band releasing Beatles-themed variant album covers to commemorate the 60th anniversary of their appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. Only in comics. It’s not a big issue, but like I said, I thought that maybe there was a Superman/Batman ‘66 story rather than a variant, so I’m disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2024 14:45:52 GMT -5
I guess the flip side is that because of these theme month variants, we got something like 20 Mike Allred covers of him illustrating different characters that he may never have a chance to draw again.
I'm personally glad that they had done a Darwyn Cooke month, because he left behind so many amazing illustrations of the DC characters and even stuff like Masters of the Universe (which DC was publishing at the time).
|
|
