|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 3, 2017 22:18:07 GMT -5
At the time I thought the inking on Cockrum's second X-Men run (by Bob Wiacek?) wasn't quite as good a fit for his style as it had been in his earlier stint, but after seeing some of those issues again recently, they look better than I remembered.
It's too bad he didn't get to do more Avengers issues with Steve Englehart. That's my favourite Avengers period for the writing but the art was inconsistent a lot of the time, and it's a welcome relief when you get to an issue by Dave Cockrum, or the George Perez ones at the end of Englehart's time on the series.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 22:21:42 GMT -5
some people outside of this board would forget or not bother to know what a star Cockrum was. the success of Cockrum, in today's market, would be a toss-up... on one hand, you have hipster-#$%!!'s who go for anything vaguely 'retro' which will score them some coitus at a Con Party, so going for art like Cockrum's would allow for them to score that, and also fill in some blog-entries, or a dozen tweets. on the other hand, as Cockrum's work was so deliciously organic (vs. byrne's), and would exemplify truly natural body-types and deny 'powergirl' fantasy types, while doing the same for male physiques - compare his Colossus to byrne's, or jim lee's - he'd have some serious troubles there. As natural body types aren't as popular as they should be. I mean, male pec implants still happen. and as Cockrum was also an inker as well as a penciller, again, his work was very line oriented, and not compatible with with a lot of 'digital fellatio' we see dominating comic art markets today. I hate to admit it but Cockrum was another artist that in my younger years I never liked. My first Cockrum art I saw was when I was about 14 or so and it was his second run on Xmen and I had been "spoiled" by John Byrne's Art. Maybe 10 years ago or so much like Kirby I really learned to appreciate his art. And not so much on Xmen as on Capt Marvel and his other books. I'm glad my thread is generating some good conversation. One artist who I personally think wouldn't get a sniff at Marvel and DC is Kirby. I really think he'd be all over the Creator owned companies Image, Boom Etc. with his 4th World and Miracle Man. completely understand where you're coming from, re Cockrum, as that's how I was with Ditko and Infantino. but, for your reading enjoyment, i'd ask you to peruse some good copies of Cockrum's early-to-late 1970's work, his Legion work and 1st run on x-men, because the inking on those pages was SO different, and inking makes all the difference (just compare Adams inked by Giordano on his dc stuff, vs being inked by Verpoorten on his marvel inhuman stuff). Cockrum is always worth the time. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 22:27:41 GMT -5
At the time I thought the inking on Cockrum's second X-Men run (by Bob Wiacek?) wasn't quite as good a fit for his style as it had been in his earlier stint, but after seeing some of those issues again recently, they look better than I remembered. It's too bad he didn't get to do more Avengers issues with Steve Englehart. That's my favourite Avengers period for the writing but the art was inconsistent a lot of the time, and it's a welcome relief when you get to an issue by Dave Cockrum, or the George Perez ones at the end of Englehart's time on the series. well spotted, well said. on Cockrum's second X-Men run, Wiacek inked many, Rubinstein inked many (Rubinstein was better, imho), but the best inker on Cockrum was Cockrum; second best was Grainger, both on Cockrum's initial x-run. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2017 22:28:46 GMT -5
completely understand where you're coming from, re Cockrum, as that's how I was with Ditko and Infantino. but, for your reading enjoyment, i'd ask you to peruse some good copies of Cockrum's early-to-late 1970's work, his Legion work and 1st run on x-men, because the inking on those pages was SO different, and inking makes all the difference (just compare Adams inked by Giordano on his dc stuff, vs being inked by Verpoorten on his marvel inhuman stuff). Cockrum is always worth the time. Thanks. I have definitely read his Xmen runs. And thought they were brilliant in retrospect. Always found the colors seemed to really pop, especially the reds in Colossus' costume, and greens in Banshee's In a way they didn't in Other artists work including Byrne. Who was the colorist? As for Legion this is a title I really never read. I'm familiar with the characters but can't think of ever really reading the title. After I finish reading the Essential Spider-Man ( on volume 5 now). I think I'll start on the Legion. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 3, 2017 22:34:22 GMT -5
well, nightcrawler was supposed to be a legion character (Cockrum had done the designs for him for Legion, and others whom became x-men) but dc did the wrong thing by him, so he walked, went to marvel, rest is history.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2017 22:54:11 GMT -5
well, nightcrawler was supposed to be a legion character (Cockrum had done the designs for him for Legion, and others whom became x-men) but dc did the wrong thing by him, so he walked, went to marvel, rest is history. was Hobgoblin(think that was his name) Dc's answer to Nightcrawler. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 4, 2017 0:19:09 GMT -5
I think Kirby would thrive in the creator owned market.
And exceptional draftsmen like Buscema and Colan would do well.
Most of the EC crowd would still appeal to today's readers.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 4, 2017 0:38:39 GMT -5
I feel strongly that digital inking and coloring has completely changed comic book art. There were subtleties evoked in classic analogue comics that digitally produced ones just cannot replicate. Seems to me many modern day artists go for simpler, cleaner lines that work better with this process but lose so much expression as a result. It's like Vince Colletta is inking every single book, erasing all those extra lines for the sake of efficiency. My point in all this being that a lot of that pre-digital talent would go to waste now; it just wouldn't look anywhere near as good. Case in point: Neal Adams is one of my favorite cover artists of all time, but when he returned to comics in the past decade, his art looked nowhere near as good. I've seen Adams pencil in person -- he hasn't lost anything -- but those finished covers miss the depth of his pencils entirely.  This cover would have looked AMAZING had it been produced twenty years ago but, as it stands, nothing pops. Even with a bold attempt to burst through the fourth wall, every element in this cover shares equal space -- the inking and coloring force it flat. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 4, 2017 6:44:48 GMT -5
i agree with shaxper 100%.
Sienkiewicz would do well, Williamson would not,
Wendy Pini would succeed, as many ppl unwittingly ape her stuff anyway, and many buy that aped-stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 4, 2017 8:51:57 GMT -5
I first saw Cockrum's work in fanzine or two, mainly drawing the Fawcett characters, and it was really good. I don't know if it was the inkers or the reproduction or what, but his pro work never looked as good to me as that earlier work.
As for classic artists starting out today: they'd be different people with different influences. Assuming they had the same talent, they'd be doing different things with them.
Mainstream comics today--and this is just going from images I see online--it's either too photo realistic or too stylized. It doesn't hit the middle ground that feels both dynamic and believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 4, 2017 9:06:26 GMT -5
This might be blasphemous , but I think the artists of today are much better than the ones of yesteryear. There are a few exceptions, but the books being released now have really talented people. I think only Adams and Kirby ( because of his larger than life layouts) would compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 4, 2017 9:51:06 GMT -5
you are correct. BLASPHEMY!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 10:21:41 GMT -5
This might be blasphemous , but I think the artists of today are much better than the ones of yesteryear. There are a few exceptions, but the books being released now have really talented people. I think only Adams and Kirby ( because of his larger than life layouts) would compete. Disagree. A lot of today's artist look good because they draw "pin ups" they don't tell a story. Everyone "feels" like they are posing for a photo shoot. They lack to ability to convey action & tell a story. I hate to be a broken record but Joe Kubert is the ultimate story teller. I'm sure his art looks "rough" compared to Jim Lee's but Kubert's art could tell the story without any words. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 4, 2017 11:37:33 GMT -5
BTW I am not a fan of today's animation with gross out humor & "distorted" drawings. I really miss a show like the Flintstones. Same here. I also hate-hate-hate computer game-style animation the like of which we can see in the Clone Wars cartoons. Good thing there are so many B&W Disney shorts on Youtube... and I always return to my Fleisher Popeye and Superman DVDs! |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 4, 2017 11:41:06 GMT -5
and Nelvana stuff!  |
|
