|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 13, 2014 18:00:04 GMT -5
Neal Adams is still around some 50ish years later... Even at his peak Adams wasn't terribly prolific. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 18:16:52 GMT -5
Neal Adams is still around some 50ish years later... Even at his peak Adams wasn't terribly prolific. Well maybe just a bit  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 18:21:57 GMT -5
Even at his peak Adams wasn't terribly prolific. Well maybe just a bit Adams had a rep of being terribly slow and missing deadlines. Not a recipe for being prolific. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 19:45:09 GMT -5
1. Archie Comics artists.
2. Kirby
And Irv Novick does NOT get enough accolades for his Batman & Flash work.
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Oct 13, 2014 21:52:36 GMT -5
Kirby at his best could do 15 pages a week. He drew over 20 000 published pages in his lifetime. With very few breaks he was drawing comics from 1940 to 1993. That is damn prolific.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that younger brother Sal Buscema was actually as or more prolific than John. Sal had some incredibly lengthy runs on comics throughout the bronze age and beyond.
I agree with Cei-U that Curt Swan is also right up there.
I can't even fathom the Archie artists.
As to Neal Adams... though still very vital, I am sure he is not even in the ball park of any of the above luminaries, despite most of them being deceased for years now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 14, 2014 0:42:11 GMT -5
Carl Barks has to be high up there when you factor in all the stuff he did for Disney comics. I'd bet that John Byrne ranks pretty high as well. I agree that Sal was more prolific than John. His runs on the Hulk and Spectacular Spider-Man alone are a good career for most artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by dcindexer on Oct 14, 2014 2:06:52 GMT -5
Actual numbers: These account for mostly just material from the big 2 (Marvel/DC). Though Kirby's numbers do include his work for Harvey, Prize, Fawcett, and a few other publishers. | Rank | Name | Stories | Pages
| Covers
| | 1 | Curt Swan
| 1415 | 18865
| 1012 | | 2 | John Buscema
| 813 | 17899
| 588 | | 3 | Jack Kirby
| 1326 | 17310
| 1634 | | 4 | John Byrne
| 735 | 15143
| 741
| | 5 | Gene Colan
| 1148 | 14940
| 416 | | 6 | Sal Buscema
| 672 | 13517
| 348 | | 7 | Carmine Infantino
| 1053 | 12810
| 490 | | 8 | Gil Kane
| 923 | 11964
| 1556
| | 9 | Ross Andru
| 873 | 10669
| 543 | | 10 | Dan Jurgens
| 461
| 10556
| 432 |
I completely agree that DeCarlo and other humor artists would make this list. I just haven't compiled numbers for them. However, everyone is missing the #1 guy on the list. The OP said "artist", not just penciller. Vinny Colletta was the man with 1590 stories, 20689 pages, and 559 covers. If you want to extend the definition of "artist" to include colorists, Bob Sharen ranks #1 with 33650 pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 14, 2014 2:35:54 GMT -5
I'm slightly surprised that John did more pages than Sal. Dan Jurgens making this list is also a surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 14, 2014 6:20:37 GMT -5
I'm sure this will offend a few but I wouldn't count any of the Archie artists. Those pages had barely any detail and was too simplistic therefore making them easier to churn out more pages a day than a standard "action" comic book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 6:51:10 GMT -5
I'm sure this will offend a few but I wouldn't count any of the Archie artists. Those pages had barely any detail and was too simplistic therefore making them easier to churn out more pages a day than a standard "action" comic book. If lack of detail discounts it, then let's discount all the Buscema pages he only did breakdowns on because they looked like this....  and since many, many, man of his pages were only breakdowns where the finsher/inker did the bulk of the detail allowing him to churn out more pages, it was the lack of detail that contributed to the volume of his work and made it capable for him to be as "prolific" as he was. Here's a comparison of Buscema break down to finished rt on the page....  Not a lot of detail there either on Buscema's part even though it's an "action strip" so should we discount his output as well then? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 14, 2014 7:42:09 GMT -5
I'm slightly surprised that John did more pages than Sal. Dan Jurgens making this list is also a surprise. I'm not. John's comics career began in the late '40s, Sal's in 1969. Cei-U! I summon one heck of a head start! |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 14, 2014 7:47:41 GMT -5
That makes sense, but I'm extremely unfamiliar with John's work pre-Marvel. Is it safe to assume that Sal would beat John when comparing Marvel page counts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 14, 2014 8:08:30 GMT -5
I'm sure this will offend a few but I wouldn't count any of the Archie artists. Those pages had barely any detail and was too simplistic therefore making them easier to churn out more pages a day than a standard "action" comic book. If lack of detail discounts it, then let's discount all the Buscema pages he only did breakdowns on because they looked like this.... and since many, many, man of his pages were only breakdowns where the finsher/inker did the bulk of the detail allowing him to churn out more pages, it was the lack of detail that contributed to the volume of his work and made it capable for him to be as "prolific" as he was. Here's a comparison of Buscema break down to finished rt on the page.... Not a lot of detail there either on Buscema's part even though it's an "action strip" so should we discount his output as well then? -M Buscema was doing Conan while he was doing the Avengers title. But even the breakdown page you posted has more detail than your average Archie book. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 14, 2014 9:41:34 GMT -5
If lack of detail discounts it, then let's discount all the Buscema pages he only did breakdowns on because they looked like this.... and since many, many, man of his pages were only breakdowns where the finsher/inker did the bulk of the detail allowing him to churn out more pages, it was the lack of detail that contributed to the volume of his work and made it capable for him to be as "prolific" as he was. Here's a comparison of Buscema break down to finished rt on the page.... Not a lot of detail there either on Buscema's part even though it's an "action strip" so should we discount his output as well then? -M Buscema was doing Conan while he was doing the Avengers title. But even the breakdown page you posted has more detail than your average Archie book. No. No it really doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 14, 2014 9:42:34 GMT -5
I'm surprised at how many covers Colan had. He hated doing covers.
|
|
