|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 18, 2014 20:52:42 GMT -5
Does anyone know how Archie Comics were created. How much input did the artists have. Were they drawn from detailed full script, or more like Marvel Method with artist doing the plotting? The only thing I know that seems to be the case is that Archie Comics usually had a separate scripter from penciler, a state of affairs in common with much of mainstream comics assembly line production. I thinks it's important when asking the question "Who is the most prolific artist?" that all comic artists get equal consideration, that no style is privileged above another. Thus we ask , all things being equal, the creative and technical aspects of completing a page, how fast or how prolific can an artist claim to be? However in answering this question, even with all getting a fair shake, the various roads taken do diverge, and can affect the outcome in the "prolific" count. A guy like Curt Swan, bred in the bone of the DC system, has been statistically shown to have the most output of pages under his belt. However, Swan, without taking away the autonomy of composition, was not a conceptualizer or pure storyteller like say Kirby could shown to be. Swan worked from full scripts given to him by a DC system which tended to be more balanced toward the writer/editor side of the equation.Kirby thought of himself as a storyteller first and a penciler (artist) second. What drove him was the creative side, the high concepts, the plots he dreamed up. Once he had that it was relatively easy for him to put the drawing on the page. John Buscema was somewhere in between. Also, for much of his career, having to work in Marvel Method, and imaginatively break down the plots he would draw, Buscema was still not a creative power in the Kirby mold. Roy Thomas and John Buscema had a different relationship than did Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Kirby was creating universes, John was revealing its form. Both were creating beautiful comics. I don't where in the cradle to grave of comic page production DeCarlo falls, but while everyone must be counted and no one discounted, based on level of detail rendered, the basic stats DC Indexer graciously supplies, do not necessarily tell the whole prolific tale As I mentioned before-Some artists used assistants who did a lot of work, some artists had none Some artists used swipe files and traced, some did not Some artists (like Mac Raboy) used photostats of key characters in many different poses and just pasted them, some artists did not Some artists did tight pencils, some did lose pencils Some artists habitually used 6,7,8,9 or more panels a page. Some averaged much less Some artists did tons of work outside the Big 2 companies and as DCIndexer says are not credited on his list There is no such thing as an even playing field in answering this question |
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Oct 19, 2014 0:59:39 GMT -5
Does anyone know how Archie Comics were created. How much input did the artists have. Were they drawn from detailed full script, or more like Marvel Method with artist doing the plotting? The only thing I know that seems to be the case is that Archie Comics usually had a separate scripter from penciler, a state of affairs in common with much of mainstream comics assembly line production. I thinks it's important when asking the question "Who is the most prolific artist?" that all comic artists get equal consideration, that no style is privileged above another. Thus we ask , all things being equal, the creative and technical aspects of completing a page, how fast or how prolific can an artist claim to be? However in answering this question, even with all getting a fair shake, the various roads taken do diverge, and can affect the outcome in the "prolific" count. A guy like Curt Swan, bred in the bone of the DC system, has been statistically shown to have the most output of pages under his belt. However, Swan, without taking away the autonomy of composition, was not a conceptualizer or pure storyteller like say Kirby could shown to be. Swan worked from full scripts given to him by a DC system which tended to be more balanced toward the writer/editor side of the equation.Kirby thought of himself as a storyteller first and a penciler (artist) second. What drove him was the creative side, the high concepts, the plots he dreamed up. Once he had that it was relatively easy for him to put the drawing on the page. John Buscema was somewhere in between. Also, for much of his career, having to work in Marvel Method, and imaginatively break down the plots he would draw, Buscema was still not a creative power in the Kirby mold. Roy Thomas and John Buscema had a different relationship than did Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Kirby was creating universes, John was revealing its form. Both were creating beautiful comics. I don't where in the cradle to grave of comic page production DeCarlo falls, but while everyone must be counted and no one discounted, based on level of detail rendered, the basic stats DC Indexer graciously supplies, do not necessarily tell the whole prolific tale As I mentioned before-Some artists used assistants who did a lot of work, some artists had none Some artists used swipe files and traced, some did not Some artists (like Mac Raboy) used photostats of key characters in many different poses and just pasted them, some artists did not Some artists did tight pencils, some did lose pencils Some artists habitually used 6,7,8,9 or more panels a page. Some averaged much less Some artists did tons of work outside the Big 2 companies and as DCIndexer says are not credited on his list There is no such thing as an even playing field in answering this question Yeah, I get all that. But my question above had to with the division of labour between the the writer/scripter and the penciler. From what sort of detail in the script were the typical Archie artists working from? Was it, more like DC with full script or Marvel Method, penciling from a mere premise? |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Oct 19, 2014 2:37:52 GMT -5
My problems with Beck's tirades were never with what he was saying, just that he was SUCH a curmudgeonly old..."unit" in his presentation.  I always wondered back in the day about the breakdown issue...did the inkers actually FINISH the pages in pencil, or did they go right to town with the ink? I assume it depended, but I wonder which was more prevalent. It never, say, looked like a Mike Esposito did as much "finishing" as, say, a Mike Leialoha. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 19, 2014 7:57:16 GMT -5
I'm 99.999999% sure Archie Comics (the teen humor titles, anyway) are produced from a full script, and some of the scripters also provide loose layouts complete with stick figures (though the only Archie writer I've ever personally known did not). Still, the possiblity remains that I'm wrong, so...
Cei-U!
I hedge my bets!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 19, 2014 8:03:15 GMT -5
I'm 99.999999% sure Archie Comics (the teen humor titles, anyway) are produced from a full script, and some of the scripters also provide loose layouts complete with stick figures (though the only Archie writer I've ever personally known did not). Still, the possiblity remains that I'm wrong, so... Cei-U! I hedge my bets! .0000001 is a pretty short hedge.  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 19, 2014 8:09:54 GMT -5
As I mentioned before-Some artists used assistants who did a lot of work, some artists had none Some artists used swipe files and traced, some did not Some artists (like Mac Raboy) used photostats of key characters in many different poses and just pasted them, some artists did not Some artists did tight pencils, some did lose pencils Some artists habitually used 6,7,8,9 or more panels a page. Some averaged much less Some artists did tons of work outside the Big 2 companies and as DCIndexer says are not credited on his list There is no such thing as an even playing field in answering this question Yeah, I get all that. But my question above had to with the division of labour between the the writer/scripter and the penciler. From what sort of detail in the script were the typical Archie artists working from? Was it, more like DC with full script or Marvel Method, penciling from a mere premise? It would be interesting to know if it was an easier job to have full script or harder. I imagine a full script would force you to research objects and maybe poses that you aren't used to drawing , while doing it the Marvel method would allow you to use stock poses and less imaginative pages. If you're the storyteller, you can be lazier in the Marvel method. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 19, 2014 9:00:17 GMT -5
Speaking from my limited experience, working from a script is easier than Marvel Method by orders of magnitude. Among other advantages, you don't have to structure the story or work out the plot beats, and you can draw your figures' facial expressions and body language to match the emotional tone established by the writer. Not every artist is comfortable making the big storytelling decisions the Marvel Method requires, preferring to focus on panel composition and draftsmanship (one of the reasons Don Heck's work looked better when Lieber or Bernstein was scripting than when working from a Stan Lee plot synopsis), while others thrive when freed from the straitjacket of a full script (Kirby, Colan). Some writer/artists even fully script the stories they themselves are illustrating (Kubert was one of these, if memory serves).
Cei-U!
I summon the two schools of thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2014 9:28:41 GMT -5
Most of the artists working Marvel Method would at least break the story down. But not Gene the Dean. Which is why a ton of his Marvel work seems to have a zillion things stuffed in the last couple of pages. He'd run out of story and have plot left that he had to cram into the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 19, 2014 9:51:04 GMT -5
Dick Ayers was guilty of that, too, much more so than Colan. Look at the last page of any Sgt. Fury issue.
Cei-U!
I summon the poor pacing!
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Oct 19, 2014 11:16:49 GMT -5
Speaking from my limited experience, working from a script is easier than Marvel Method by orders of magnitude. Among other advantages, you don't have to structure the story or work out the plot beats, and you can draw your figures' facial expressions and body language to match the emotional tone established by the writer. Not every artist is comfortable making the big storytelling decisions the Marvel Method requires, preferring to focus on panel composition and draftsmanship (one of the reasons Don Heck's work looked better when Lieber or Bernstein was scripting than when working from a Stan Lee plot synopsis), while others thrive when freed from the straitjacket of a full script (Kirby, Colan). Some writer/artists even fully script the stories they themselves are illustrating (Kubert was one of these, if memory serves). Cei-U! I summon the two schools of thought! That two schools of thought summation I think explains it well. It really depends on the artist as well as the writer. A writer who is only a writer, without an artist's visual sense, and gives a richly detailed full panel by panel script can be gift or a curse to an artist, again depending on the artist and what they are asked to do. They might go, "What! You want me to draw that! No way, that would take a lifetime!". Or they might go, "Sweet! Full script! Saves me the hassle of breaking down this damn plot down first" An artist given just a summary "go with it" sort of plot, like in Marvel Method, and who has a keen creative storytelling aspect to his/her skills will probably thrive, when at liberty to build the the sort of comic they best envision natively. The artist lacking this sort of visual precognition, or start from almost scratch premise, will feel naught but misery in trying to draw a comic out of "nothingness". I think in general, the tougher task is Marvel Method. Or not necessarily tougher, but if you are new to this sort of non-conventional assembly line approach (with the role of writer and artist sort of blurred) it can take considerable adjustment. I know John Romita found it very hard at first to get used to drawing in Marvel Method. But Jack Kirby, who considered himself largely a storyteller in the first place, thrived on it. On the other hand for Kirby to draw from full script would have been a deadening experience. |
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Oct 19, 2014 11:20:15 GMT -5
I'm 99.999999% sure Archie Comics (the teen humor titles, anyway) are produced from a full script, and some of the scripters also provide loose layouts complete with stick figures (though the only Archie writer I've ever personally known did not). Still, the possiblity remains that I'm wrong, so... Cei-U! I hedge my bets! You are probably right, which is why it is called Marvel Method and not Archie Method! |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Oct 19, 2014 21:11:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I get all that. But my question above had to with the division of labour between the the writer/scripter and the penciler. From what sort of detail in the script were the typical Archie artists working from? Was it, more like DC with full script or Marvel Method, penciling from a mere premise? It would be interesting to know if it was an easier job to have full script or harder. I imagine a full script would force you to research objects and maybe poses that you aren't used to drawing , while doing it the Marvel method would allow you to use stock poses and less imaginative pages. If you're the storyteller, you can be lazier in the Marvel method. It really depends on the artist. For example, both Walt Simonson and Matt Wagner prefer to work "Marvel style" as both writers and artists because it frees them to interpret the work differently and pursue avenues not in the plot when it comes time to finish the story. (Wagner's a bit of a cheat as he's only worked for two other writers that I know of-- James Robinson and Brian Bendis-- but his commentary with Jamie Rich on how working with different artists would open up so many fruitful new paths for the story is quite illuminating. He was speaking specifically on how seeing Amy Reeder's art on Madame Xanadu completely changed where he was going with the series a few times.) They work quicker under those conditions because they don't feel they have to strictly follow the script.
Howard Chaykin, on the other hand, doesn't like Marvel style at all. He'd prefer full script, and the only time he's agreed to work "Marvel style" since he became a big name was with Simonson on Hawkgirl because they're friends and that's how Walt likes it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Oct 20, 2014 14:51:59 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. Surprised this is so high - I thought Big John was mostly working for Dell in the '50s, with only an occasional job for MarvelTimelyAtlas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Oct 20, 2014 15:00:12 GMT -5
And I'm wondering where Warren Kremer would rate - He had a decades long career (still drawing for Marvel in the '80s) and there were a LOT of Richie Rich books out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2014 16:08:58 GMT -5
And I'm wondering where Warren Kremer would rate - He had a decades long career (still drawing for Marvel in the '80s) and there were a LOT of Richie Rich books out there. Ernie Colon did a ton of work for Harvey also. Along with his work for DC. |
|
