|
Post by electricmastro on May 10, 2020 16:34:25 GMT -5
Jack Cole’s Plastic Man #1 (1943) compared with Gil Kane’s Plastic Man #1 (1966). Whereas Cole gives Plastic Man a pointed chin, Kane gives his chin an angular square style.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 10, 2020 16:43:09 GMT -5
I really enjoyed seeing different artistic takes on the heroes & villains during the 70s & 80s. It was always a kick to see all the various styles versus who was the main artist most recognized on them. Each artist gave a different insight to a character with their own unique style. Almost like how Byrne defined Galactus looks different to every world he encounters based on their frame of reference, I feel like we see our "heroes/villains" in our own ways when we read their adventures. Batman inspires a more fearful representation to criminals as Superman is a more powerful imagined heroic ideal to many. Captain America the inspiring patriotic symbol of hope & perseverance will seemingly stand prouder, taller, stronger than other heroes. Hulk the uncontrollable "monster" is ever larger and monstrous in our eyes. Dracula can be both seductive alluring hidden evil and a monstrously ugly bloodsucker even as Frankenstein's monster may be seen as horribly scarred & horrific or surgically enhanced human perfection.
We see what we want to see when looking at our heroes, villains & monsters or others and ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on May 10, 2020 16:54:59 GMT -5
Ditko's original X-Men was pretty good (inked by Reinman), but his Iron Man wasn't too impressive... Why did both Kirby and Ditko draw Bobby like some sort of snowman?
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 10, 2020 16:59:40 GMT -5
Ditko's original X-Men was pretty good (inked by Reinman), but his Iron Man wasn't too impressive... Why did both Kirby and Ditko draw Bobby like some sort of snowman? I suspect that it was meant to really drive home the idea of him being made out of ice, but I suppose they eventually realized it can be important to show facial expressions, so they changed that up. Oddly enough though, Stan Lee and Charles Nicholas had earlier created the ice character of Jack Frost, who showed his facial expressions from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on May 10, 2020 17:05:46 GMT -5
Why did both Kirby and Ditko draw Bobby like some sort of snowman? I suspect that it was meant to really drive home the idea of him being made out of ice, but I suppose they eventually realized it can be important to show facial expressions, so they changed that up. Oddly enough though, Stan Lee and Charles Nicholas had earlier created the ice character of Jack Frost, who showed his facial expressions from the start. Didn't they also run into the same predicament with the Human Torch both past and present?
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 10, 2020 18:19:47 GMT -5
JLA had a mixed bag of cover artists. Batman first appeared with the extra-long cape around mid-70 there, too, but again, that changed depending on the artist. Tough to make him look very mysterious on a JLA cover, which by its nature, tended toward less moody, more explanatory covers. Marvel often had the problem with visual consistency during periods where in-universe, the character had not changed his appearance, but the artists delivered very different interpretations, such as the covers of Captain America and the Falcon #214 (October, 1977) & illustrated by Kirby with Giacoia inks) and Captain America and the Falcon #215 (November, 1977, by Kane with Sinnott inks).. By this time in the run, everyone was used to how Comeback Kirby's Cap appeared (issue #214 being his last for the title), but the very next issue's cover has the typically lean, white-out eyed, flared boot Kane version, so for some readers, this was a big night and day visual transition.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 10, 2020 19:18:35 GMT -5
I remember this being Jarring. Bill Sienkiewicz is a great artist but didn't really fit for the World's Greatest comic Magazine.
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 10, 2020 19:21:33 GMT -5
JLA had a mixed bag of cover artists. Batman first appeared with the extra-long cape around mid-70 there, too, but again, that changed depending on the artist. Tough to make him look very mysterious on a JLA cover, which by its nature, tended toward less moody, more explanatory covers. Marvel often had the problem with visual consistency during periods where in-universe, the character had not changed his appearance, but the artists delivered very different interpretations, such as the covers of Captain America and the Falcon #214 (October, 1977) & illustrated by Kirby with Giacoia inks) and Captain America and the Falcon #215 (November, 1977, by Kane with Sinnott inks).. By this time in the run, everyone was used to how Comeback Kirby's Cap appeared (issue #214 being his last for the title), but the very next issue's cover has the typically lean, white-out eyed, flared boot Kane version, so for some readers, this was a big night and day visual transition. When was the point that Marvel really started to move away from the Kirby house style? I suppose it was either with Neal Adams or Bill Sienkiewicz.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 10, 2020 21:29:09 GMT -5
Marvel often had the problem with visual consistency during periods where in-universe, the character had not changed his appearance, but the artists delivered very different interpretations, such as the covers of Captain America and the Falcon #214 (October, 1977) & illustrated by Kirby with Giacoia inks) and Captain America and the Falcon #215 (November, 1977, by Kane with Sinnott inks).. By this time in the run, everyone was used to how Comeback Kirby's Cap appeared (issue #214 being his last for the title), but the very next issue's cover has the typically lean, white-out eyed, flared boot Kane version, so for some readers, this was a big night and day visual transition. When was the point that Marvel really started to move away from the Kirby house style? I suppose it was either with Neal Adams or Bill Sienkiewicz. That depends on who you ask. From a visual standpoint alone, artists such as Romita ( The Amazing Spider-Man, Captain America and just about anything he touched), Buscema ( The Avengers & Conan the Barbarian), Steranko ( Captain America, Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.E.I.L.D), Colan ( Daredevil & The Tomb of Dracula)and others already broke new ground in the 1960s/70s, taking the language of comic art in directions not really fitting into a fixed house style, which is why each was so revolutionary on any runs they had.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 10, 2020 21:33:45 GMT -5
Marvel often had the problem with visual consistency during periods where in-universe, the character had not changed his appearance, but the artists delivered very different interpretations, such as the covers of Captain America and the Falcon #214 (October, 1977) & illustrated by Kirby with Giacoia inks) and Captain America and the Falcon #215 (November, 1977, by Kane with Sinnott inks).. By this time in the run, everyone was used to how Comeback Kirby's Cap appeared (issue #214 being his last for the title), but the very next issue's cover has the typically lean, white-out eyed, flared boot Kane version, so for some readers, this was a big night and day visual transition. When was the point that Marvel really started to move away from the Kirby house style? I suppose it was either with Neal Adams or Bill Sienkiewicz. I would say in one sense, that happened earlier, as these two comics came out in the middle of or perhaps eve towards the end of Kirby's second stint at Marvel, in the 70s. But in another sense, Kirby till had a ot of influence at Marvel and on superhero comcis in general as his dynamic, action-oriented approach changed superhero comics forever. I think that even superhero artists who never looked at his work much were influenced indirectly and are to this day.
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 10, 2020 22:21:35 GMT -5
Jack Kirby and Werner Roth’s art of Beast and Iceman for X-Men #14 (November, 1965): compared with Neal Adams’ art of Beast and Iceman for X-Men #58 (July, 1969):
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 11, 2020 6:26:32 GMT -5
No doubt Neal Adams was a game changer. He spawned many an imitator but I don't think he overpowered the Kirby Style.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 11, 2020 7:51:53 GMT -5
Adams and Steranko were the exceptions, not the rule IMO. While their artwork is unique they still more or less followed the already existing guides, just done in their style. They were both strong enough artistically and both stood up for themselves with speaking out against altering their work much more than others of their time.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 11, 2020 10:04:01 GMT -5
I remember this being Jarring. Bill Sienkiewicz is a great artist but didn't really fit for the World's Greatest comic Magazine. I don't understand what's wrong/different about it.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on May 11, 2020 11:08:34 GMT -5
I remember this being Jarring. (...) Bill Sienkiewicz is a great artist but didn't really fit for the World's Greatest comic Magazine. I don't understand what's wrong/different about it. I didn't like the Moench/Sienkiewicz run on FF, but that was because I just didn't like the writing; I thought the art looked fine.
|
|