|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 30, 2017 20:01:23 GMT -5
I also want Mary Jane to look like Mary Jane, not just "generic buxom comic-book girl #23, only with red hair". Just to clarify - when I praise Mcfarlane's Spider-Man, I'm referring to the character and not everything he happened to draw while penciling the series. I think he absolutely nailed most of Spider-Man's Rogues Gallery but I wouldn't claim that Mary Jane was one of his strong points. He,like Jack Kirby never had a grasp on human faces. This is why McFarlane excelled with Spidey (masked), Lizard, Hobgoblin, Demogoblin, Wendigo, Ghost Rider, Wolverine (masked) and Morbius. Also why Kirby was excellent on Marvel's monster titles and Thor. Their strengths to me were proportionately contrasted by their weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 30, 2017 20:37:20 GMT -5
Just to clarify - when I praise Mcfarlane's Spider-Man, I'm referring to the character and not everything he happened to draw while penciling the series. I think he absolutely nailed most of Spider-Man's Rogues Gallery but I wouldn't claim that Mary Jane was one of his strong points. He,like Jack Kirby never had a grasp on human faces. Whacha talking bout Willis?
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 30, 2017 20:52:13 GMT -5
I never saw that Kirby , at his peak, had any weaknesses. I find that some of the posters on this forum key on his later work when he was past his prime.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 30, 2017 20:59:55 GMT -5
Just to clarify - when I praise Mcfarlane's Spider-Man, I'm referring to the character and not everything he happened to draw while penciling the series. I think he absolutely nailed most of Spider-Man's Rogues Gallery but I wouldn't claim that Mary Jane was one of his strong points. He,like Jack Kirby never had a grasp on human faces. This is why McFarlane excelled with Spidey (masked), Lizard, Hobgoblin, Demogoblin, Wendigo, Ghost Rider, Wolverine (masked) and Morbius. Also why Kirby was excellent on Marvel's monster titles and Thor. Their strengths to me were proportionately contrasted by their weaknesses. Though I disagree with you about Kirby and faces, he never really seemed to get a handle on Spider-Man. Other than the very first time he drew him for the cover of AF 15 his Spider-Man just looks wrong for reasons which go beyond my not being used to seeing a Jack Kirby Spider-Man. Oddly, Ditko was his polar opposite in that, to me, his first attempt at drawing Spider-Man looked wrong (for the cover of AF 15) but thereafter rendered the character expertly every time. Actually, I don't think Kirby got him wrong so much as off. Fascinatingly off. ![](http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kirby-vision/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/02/spider-01-w.jpg_effected.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 30, 2017 21:27:50 GMT -5
I totally get I'm in a minority if not the only poster here that is not a fan of Kirby's work as a whole. And don't mean to point it out in deragatory fashion. His humans just don't look human to me. Just like McFarlane. For Christ sakes his humans in Invasion! looked as grotesque as the many alien species in that story.
Kirby's monsters were amazing. Groot, Fing Fang Foom; did he do It! (?) and many other generic monsters. He had a knack for it like Wrightson does horror. It was like 50's monster flicks in comics.
To that Spidey picture ..... about all I can say is he looks more spider than man.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 30, 2017 21:30:48 GMT -5
I agree that Kirby's Spidey didn't seem right. He never got the flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Oct 30, 2017 22:31:51 GMT -5
Kirby's Spidey looked OK on the cover of AF #15 because Ditko inked it.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 31, 2017 2:43:53 GMT -5
I never saw that Kirby , at his peak, had any weaknesses. I find that some of the posters on this forum key on his later work when he was past his prime. The interesting thing about Kirby is that his peak came much later in life than your typical mainstream comic book artist. For me, Kirby was at his "peak" roughly from 1964-1974. He would have been 47 in 1964, an age when a lot of guys seem to lose steam, stop innovating and become parodies. Kirby, on the other hand, exploded creatively, more so than just about anyone else in the history of comics. His work got better and better. At least at Marvel I think a lot of it had to do with newer artists coming along and lessening his workload, allowing him to spend more time on his art and storytelling. Even though I prefer his best Marvel work (particularly 1965-68) I think he reached his zenith as an illustrator (I think it looked better overall) on stuff like New Gods and The Demon.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 31, 2017 5:15:27 GMT -5
I totally agree. I find his Fourth World books to be his Mona Lisa for his career. I think when he returned to Marvel the quality of his work began to decline. There's no shame in that, considering all that he had contributed to the medium.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 31, 2017 5:16:43 GMT -5
He,like Jack Kirby never had a grasp on human faces. This is why McFarlane excelled with Spidey (masked), Lizard, Hobgoblin, Demogoblin, Wendigo, Ghost Rider, Wolverine (masked) and Morbius. Also why Kirby was excellent on Marvel's monster titles and Thor. Their strengths to me were proportionately contrasted by their weaknesses. Though I disagree with you about Kirby and faces, he never really seemed to get a handle on Spider-Man. Other than the very first time he drew him for the cover of AF 15 his Spider-Man just looks wrong for reasons which go beyond my not being used to seeing a Jack Kirby Spider-Man. Oddly, Ditko was his polar opposite in that, to me, his first attempt at drawing Spider-Man looked wrong (for the cover of AF 15) but thereafter rendered the character expertly every time. Actually, I don't think Kirby got him wrong so much as off. Fascinatingly off. ![](http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kirby-vision/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/02/spider-01-w.jpg_effected.jpg) I'm guessing this is a sketch that was inked by Larsen and colored way after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 31, 2017 7:31:20 GMT -5
Yep. ![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_fXuljN_0GI/VboE3oMfqHI/AAAAAAAAEFM/sWFqnHBp6Pc/s1600/1967%2BJack%2BKirby.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 31, 2017 11:17:04 GMT -5
I never have read any of Todd McFarlane's comics but have of course seen lots of samples of it online (though apparently not enough to have an idea of what his Mary Jane looked like). I think his stuff is far, far from the worst of that era of superhero comics art but still a part of the whole aesthetic that prevailed at the time, and as such not my kind of thing at all. Here's what I mean... ![](https://s6.postimg.org/fur77wegh/Mary_Jane.jpg) Three of these artists can draw a distinctive face.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 31, 2017 11:50:08 GMT -5
I never have read any of Todd McFarlane's comics but have of course seen lots of samples of it online (though apparently not enough to have an idea of what his Mary Jane looked like). I think his stuff is far, far from the worst of that era of superhero comics art but still a part of the whole aesthetic that prevailed at the time, and as such not my kind of thing at all. Here's what I mean... ![](https://s6.postimg.org/fur77wegh/Mary_Jane.jpg) Three of these artists can draw a distinctive face. And one of them can't draw normal human arms, either. Let's leave aside where his left hand is and just what he's doing. What a mess...
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,701
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 31, 2017 18:36:52 GMT -5
I also want Mary Jane to look like Mary Jane, not just "generic buxom comic-book girl #23, only with red hair". I did quite like McFarlane’s Spidey at the time — especially how he rendered the webbing — but what he did to MJ really was the worst aspect of his art. Under his pencil she really did just become generic T&A. ...and not even T&A that looked very much like Mary Jane, other than she had red hair, of course. McFarlane also simply wasn’t in the same league as Ditko or Romita (or Andru for that matter) as a draftsman or a visual storyteller. Still, as I say, I thought his art was kinda interesting, but yeah...let’s not compare him to the all-time great Spider-Man artists.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 18:49:41 GMT -5
I also want Mary Jane to look like Mary Jane, not just "generic buxom comic-book girl #23, only with red hair". I did quite like McFarlane’s Spidey atvthe time — especially how he rendered the webbing — but what he did to MJ really was the worst aspect of his art. Under his pencil she really did just become genetic T&A. ...and not even T&A that looked very much like Mary Jane, other than she had red hair, of course. McFarlane also simply wasn’t in the same league as Ditko or Romita (or Andru for that matter) as a draftsman or a visual storyteller. Still, as I say, I thought his art was kinda interesting, but yeah...let’s not compare him to the all-time great Spider-Man artists. McFarlane's art = gene therapy? I liked McFarlane's Batman in the issues he did of Year Two in 'Tec, and I liked the kinetic feel of McFarlane's Spidey and Micheliene's stories early on in the run, (I am less concerned with realistic anatomy than some as I actually like art a little more towards the abstract/cartoony end than the photo-realistic end on Scott McCloud's pyramid (though I do like some of the more photorealistic stuff too) but I was pretty much done after a year (mostly because of the poor visual storytelling others have mentioned already) of them on ASM and haven't had a desire to really revisit it since (though I did acquire the omnibus in a trade at some point). By the time he got to doing the new adjectiveless Spider-Man book I had zero interest in anything he did. I did pick up the Spawn issues by Sim, Gaiman and Moore at some point to check them out but they were the only Spawn I ever got (and that was out of dollar bins long after they came out). I think part of the attraction early on for me was that McFarlane wasn't just aping the same house style based on Romita model sheets that just about everyone working on the book since Romita had done, and it felt like a breath of fresh air when it hit, but then it just fizzled for me because, although it was different, it wasn't that good in the ways it needed to be to fuel interest in the stories being told. -M
|
|