|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 12, 2018 19:46:55 GMT -5
Gonna have to agree to strongly disagree on that one. Robbins was an excellent storyteller who had a feel for the period and made it look like something out of the Golden Age, while keeping it exciting and dynamic. His fluid, rubbery style made the characters come alive and the series pretty much goes downhill, visually, when he departed. His best work was when paired with Frank Springer. He also proved to be a damn good writer, on Batman, as well as his newspaper strip, Johnny Hazard. His style gave it a nice, pulpy feel that Golden Age Timely had, especially Alex Schomberg's covers (which largely inspired the series). His battle sequences with Captain America were some of the most dynamic, this side of Kirby and Namor and the Torch also shown well under his pencil. I do think his Captain America work in that series is a little wonky and doesn't work nearly as well; but, still had more personality than many of the artists who graced that work, post-Kirby. Robbins was the reason I read the series in the 70s and collected it, in college, in the 80s, when I found a comic shop. The Golden Age also had artists with illustrations not as stiff and twisted as that of Robbins, including the talents leading each row of comparisons to Robbins (including one you mentioned). Using Namor and Bucky for comparison... ![](https://i.imgur.com/bsb4QPk.jpg?1) One can see the work of artists with (in some cases) very different styles, yet at the time of each cover and/or story, there was more artistic coherence than what Robbins typically delivered to The Invaders. Its not just a matter of certain artists' work "looking better", but each knew how to tell a story effectively--with dynamism and emotion, taking the story (and reader) from start to finish, sans the jarring, start and stop of Robbins' kind of work. NOTE: The Steranko section features Rick Jones from Captain America #111. I'm using the image of Jones, since it was established (early on) that Jones was a look-alike of Bucky, so the panel makes the cut. Regarding Robbins' work as a writer--that's not in question. I never had a problem with his fine DC stint as a writer. Only two of those pictures are actually from the Golden Age.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 12, 2018 19:56:58 GMT -5
The Golden Age also had artists with illustrations not as stiff and twisted as that of Robbins, including the talents leading each row of comparisons to Robbins (including one you mentioned). Using Namor and Bucky for comparison... ![](https://i.imgur.com/bsb4QPk.jpg?1) One can see the work of artists with (in some cases) very different styles, yet at the time of each cover and/or story, there was more artistic coherence than what Robbins typically delivered to The Invaders. Its not just a matter of certain artists' work "looking better", but each knew how to tell a story effectively--with dynamism and emotion, taking the story (and reader) from start to finish, sans the jarring, start and stop of Robbins' kind of work. NOTE: The Steranko section features Rick Jones from Captain America #111. I'm using the image of Jones, since it was established (early on) that Jones was a look-alike of Bucky, so the panel makes the cut. Regarding Robbins' work as a writer--that's not in question. I never had a problem with his fine DC stint as a writer. Only two of those pictures are actually from the Golden Age. I never said there were more. In fact, I pointed out that the image leading each row of comparisons were from the Golden Age-- --since that period was used to support the style of Robbins' work on the title in question. The Invaders was not created or published during the Golden Age, so Robbins' work can (and should be) be compared to what were then more contemporary Silver & Bronze Age examples, as posted above. Many of the artists featured had illustrated flashback and/or retconned stories set in the Golden Age as well (some not pictured), especially Buscema, Kirby and Romita, and their work flowed as always, never losing the effect that their stories were set in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 12, 2018 20:16:35 GMT -5
He never really worked for me on Invaders, but I really liked Robbins on the Shadow. Surprisingly great at mystery/noir. Yup. In fact, I like his Shadow better than Kaluta's. And Robbins is one of my favorite Batman artists. But I enjoy Invaders in spite of his art, not because of it. The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's. Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens!
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 12, 2018 21:16:26 GMT -5
Only two of those pictures are actually from the Golden Age. I never said there were more. In fact, I pointed out that the image leading each row of comparisons were from the Golden Age-- --since that period was used to support the style of Robbins' work on the title in question. The Invaders was not created or published during the Golden Age, so Robbins' work can (and should be) be compared to what were then more contemporary Silver & Bronze Age examples, as posted above. Many of the artists featured had illustrated flashback and/or retconned stories set in the Golden Age as well (some not pictured), especially Buscema, Kirby and Romita, and their work flowed as always, never losing the effect that their stories were set in the past. Okay. I read it three times and didn't parse what you were getting at.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 12, 2018 21:17:07 GMT -5
He never really worked for me on Invaders, but I really liked Robbins on the Shadow. Surprisingly great at mystery/noir. Yup. In fact, I like his Shadow better than Kaluta's. And Robbins is one of my favorite Batman artists. But I enjoy Invaders in spite of his art, not because of it. The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's. Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Well we know that Woody wouldn't have lasted more than a half dozen or so issues on the book.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 12, 2018 22:16:19 GMT -5
Blasphemy!
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 12, 2018 22:32:39 GMT -5
So I've been told, repeatedly, over the last forty years. The truth is I've never warmed up to Kaluta's work. Cei-U! I summon the unpopular opinion!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 12, 2018 23:16:26 GMT -5
Gonna have to agree to strongly disagree on that one. Robbins was an excellent storyteller who had a feel for the period and made it look like something out of the Golden Age, while keeping it exciting and dynamic. His fluid, rubbery style made the characters come alive and the series pretty much goes downhill, visually, when he departed. His best work was when paired with Frank Springer. He also proved to be a damn good writer, on Batman, as well as his newspaper strip, Johnny Hazard. His style gave it a nice, pulpy feel that Golden Age Timely had, especially Alex Schomberg's covers (which largely inspired the series). His battle sequences with Captain America were some of the most dynamic, this side of Kirby and Namor and the Torch also shown well under his pencil. I do think his Captain America work in that series is a little wonky and doesn't work nearly as well; but, still had more personality than many of the artists who graced that work, post-Kirby. Robbins was the reason I read the series in the 70s and collected it, in college, in the 80s, when I found a comic shop. The Golden Age also had artists with illustrations not as stiff and twisted as that of Robbins, including the talents leading each row of comparisons to Robbins (including one you mentioned). Using Namor and Bucky for comparison... ![](https://i.imgur.com/bsb4QPk.jpg?1) One can see the work of artists with (in some cases) very different styles, yet at the time of each cover and/or story, there was more artistic coherence than what Robbins typically delivered to The Invaders. Its not just a matter of certain artists' work "looking better", but each knew how to tell a story effectively--with dynamism and emotion, taking the story (and reader) from start to finish, sans the jarring, start and stop of Robbins' kind of work. NOTE: The Steranko section features Rick Jones from Captain America #111. I'm using the image of Jones, since it was established (early on) that Jones was a look-alike of Bucky, so the panel makes the cut. Regarding Robbins' work as a writer--that's not in question. I never had a problem with his fine DC stint as a writer. Nope; not convinced we are talking about anything other than a subjective reaction to style. I find nothing wrong with this image... ![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_NFKRmaItM4/TnVFnCoX9DI/AAAAAAAAjKs/z5m2Lpjs40I/s1600/Invaders_08_01.jpg) From which the Namor image was drawn. Scenes like these were favorites... ![](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/07/ee/e3/07eee32bc373a77c2e360818760b8ec0--union-jack-superheroes.jpg) I don't see a problem there. Robbins adapted himself to the exaggerated Marvel style and it worked fine for me. I prefer his Batman and Shadow and prefer Johnny Hazard over all, since that was his more natural style. In the end, though, it is my reaction to his work. He evokes an emotional response with me, an intellectual curiosity in his details, an appreciation of his moody lighting, his POV shots, everything. He handles quiet moments well, and bombastic stuff. For me, that is all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2018 0:56:56 GMT -5
This is not simply about style, as noted earlier.
For me, there has to be an visual coherence that believably tells the story just as well as the script. Robbins' work was so jarring and erratic, that it was often a distraction from the story--the number one "Do not" of a medium where image and word must succeed together. Moreover, in each artist example I presented, there are clear differences in execution, yet their abilities worked hand-in-hand with the script to take the reader along whatever fantastic journey was published that month, leaving no one feeling the story would have been better off in novel form, rather than a comic. For a writer as strong as Thomas was in this period, his dedicated travels on the road to fleshing out Golden Age tales were constantly side-swiped by the chaos of Robbins pencils.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2018 1:14:42 GMT -5
But I enjoy Invaders in spite of his art, not because of it. The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's.Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! Severin's work would have been a unique alternative to the more expressive superhero illustrators of the day, perhaps emphasis on "realistic" costuming, with subtleties in character expression as seen on his brief run on The Incredible Hulk, working with Trimpe and Giacoia. The then-existing contrast of Invaders' art were found on the covers, where one could see just how the title could have been handled.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 13, 2018 1:33:08 GMT -5
This is not simply about style, as noted earlier. For me, there has to be an visual coherence that believably tells the story just as well as the script. Robbins' work was so jarring and erratic, that it was often a distraction from the story--the number one "Do not" of a medium where image and word must succeed together. Moreover, in each artist example I presented, there are clear differences in execution, yet their abilities worked hand-in-hand with the script to take the reader along whatever fantastic journey was published that month, leaving no one feeling the story would have been better off in novel form, rather than a comic. For a writer as strong as Thomas was in this period, his dedicated travels on the road to fleshing out Golden Age tales were constantly side-swiped by the chaos of Robbins pencils. Sorry; but "jarring" is an emotional response to the imagery. The fact that it doesn't work for you doesn't make it wrong; just unsuited to your tastes and responses. I find Robbins' looser style allows the action to flow, while also capturing the mood and emotion of the scene. In that, he is following in the traditions of cartoonists like Roy Crane (Wash Tubbs), Elzie Segar (Popeye), and VT Hamlin (Alley Oop). I don't see anything chaotic in his work, except deliberate chaos of the battle sequences. I don't, generally, care for Impressionist and "modern art" imagery, tending to prefer the works of the great illustrators. However, a Monet is not wrong because it doesn't feature a clear representation of a scene, nor does a Picasso fall apart because of weird perspective. It just doesn't invoke the same response from me as someone who does love it. There is no right or wrong in that, no matter how many pompous art critics try to sway you in one direction or another. Art is about expression and reaction and is purely a subjective form of communication. There are no absolutes. We can go round and round about this and we will never come to the same conclusion because we are approaching Robbins' work from different perspectives, neither of which can be proven right or wrong. Everything is a rationalization of our responses to his work.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 13, 2018 6:32:53 GMT -5
He never really worked for me on Invaders, but I really liked Robbins on the Shadow. Surprisingly great at mystery/noir. Yup. In fact, I like his Shadow better than Kaluta's. And Robbins is one of my favorite Batman artists. But I enjoy Invaders in spite of his art, not because of it. The book would've worked much better, in my opinion, with a more illustrative, classic approach like Wally Wood's or John Severin's. Cei-U! I summon the might-have-beens! I think you need some sleep...
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 13, 2018 7:59:43 GMT -5
So I've been told, repeatedly, over the last forty years. The truth is I've never warmed up to Kaluta's work. Cei-U! I summon the unpopular opinion! And I have friends who just don't like chocolate. It takes all kinds. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Mar 13, 2018 8:03:11 GMT -5
I agree with tarkintino about Robbins on the Invaders. But I also agree with cody that is a matter of aesthetics and subjective taste.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 9:49:11 GMT -5
Nope; not convinced we are talking about anything other than a subjective reaction to style. I find nothing wrong with this image... ![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_NFKRmaItM4/TnVFnCoX9DI/AAAAAAAAjKs/z5m2Lpjs40I/s1600/Invaders_08_01.jpg) From which the Namor image was drawn. Scenes like these were favorites... The only thing wrong with the above scene? That Namor & Toro were allowed at the table WITHOUT SHIRTS! Terrible table manners!
|
|