|
|
Post by brutalis on Jun 7, 2020 12:39:39 GMT -5
I am with codystarbuck in a great cover is splendid but what's inside matters more. He nailed it with "subtle" as ALL artists he mentioned put story and flow above all else. I would add Heck, Tuska, Aparo to the aforementioned making me a comic fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 12:42:03 GMT -5
Not to mention almost any modern day variant cover where all the stops are pulled out on the cover, especially if it's a sexy female. But the inner artwork females? Mwah
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jun 7, 2020 12:50:44 GMT -5
I don't remember disappointment, but I do remember covers that were a very different style to the interior, like George Perez covers on Ditko Legion of Super-Heroes and Brian Bolland on Green Lantern with Joe Staton inside. I guess it was slightly disappointing to see those gorgeous Jack Kirby covers on some '70s Avengers and Fantastic Four but not have him inside. I would've loved to see a '70s Kirby Avengers run but I think he was into writing and scripting perhaps as well then. I guess X-Men #49 with the amazing Steranko cover and no Steranko inside wins for me even though he did do the next two issues completely.  |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jun 7, 2020 13:14:59 GMT -5
I don't remember disappointment, but I do remember covers that were a very different style to the interior, like George Perez covers on Ditko Legion of Super-Heroes and Brian Bolland on Green Lantern with Joe Staton inside. I guess it was slightly disappointing to see those gorgeous Jack Kirby covers on some '70s Avengers and Fantastic Four but not have him inside. I would've loved to see a '70s Kirby Avengers run but I think he was into writing and scripting perhaps as well then. Huh, I was actually going to mention the Legion issues with the beautiful Perez covers and the Ditko art inside - and I'm saying that as someone who generally loves Ditko. Those issues of LoSH he did contain what I consider the most lackluster work he'd ever handed in. Also couldn't disagree with you more about the Kirby covers on Avengers and FF, esp. when the art inside was often by Perez. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 7, 2020 14:06:23 GMT -5
Same here. He was a workhouse who did a lot of art. JLA was a tough book to draw. I wonder how many different artists did Avengers during Dillin's tenure on JLA? Maybe it was over 5 or 6 but All of them were better than Dillin. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 14:16:41 GMT -5
Same here. He was a workhouse who did a lot of art. JLA was a tough book to draw. I wonder how many different artists did Avengers during Dillin's tenure on JLA? Maybe it was over 5 or 6 but All of them were better than Dillin. Did my own research. From Aug 1968 - Oct 1980 Dillin was artist (until his death) on JLA from #64-#183.
(Not counting one issue fill ins) Avengers (in that time period) from #55-#200 had 12 artists! Granted some were better (7) but some were not (5) IMO. They were John Buscema. Gene Colan. Barry Windsor Smith. Sal Buscema. Neal Adams. Rich Buckler. Don Heck. Bob Brown. George Tuska. George Perez. John Byrne. Dave Wenzel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 7, 2020 14:29:20 GMT -5
I would only take Dillin over Wenzel.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jun 7, 2020 15:24:48 GMT -5
I appreciate variety myself. For every Kirby, Ditko, Adam's, Byrne or Perez I just as much adore Ayers, Heck, Tuska, Trimpe, Swan, Brown, Dillin, Novick, Delbo and others. It's variety which is the spice of life in foods, drink, comic, movies & music or anything. And great as the "hotshot" artists might be (many seem to have a few problems producing a regularly monthly comic), it is the diligent, devoted hard working reliable go to artists (and writers) that keep comics going. Sure and steady produces good comics and often great comics if you give em a chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 7, 2020 15:30:31 GMT -5
So I'm the odd man out cuz I like Dillin artwork on the League. Never was one to run with the lemming's off the cliff. As much as the Adams covers, though? That gets to a crucial point: cover and interiors are both telling a story designed to appeal/interest the potential reader; the interior artist should hold up what is his or her responsibility in being as much of a visual draw as the cover, or you're back at square one, of a reader knowing the cover was the bait to get some kid to drop down the coins or dollars, but end up dissatisfied with the rest of the book. No one--not cover or interior artist should ever get off of the hook in creating a comic of quality. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jun 7, 2020 15:31:29 GMT -5
Also couldn't disagree with you more about the Kirby covers on Avengers and FF, esp. when the art inside was often by Perez. That's true of the Fantastic Fours I have, #164 & 165 and not disappointing at all, but some of those Avengers were Sal Buscema and Don Heck inside which was okay but those Kirby covers are some of my all-time favorite covers... same with Iron Man which was usually George Tuska inside. I don't want to say any of them were truly disappointing art-wise because they weren't. Perez inked by Marcos definitely was always above average. I suppose The Micronauts with lavish Golden covers but inside were Chaykin breakdowns finished fairly blandly. Who wouldn't want Golden to 'correct' #13-18!    |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 7, 2020 15:32:11 GMT -5
I am with codystarbuck in a great cover is splendid but what's inside matters more. He nailed it with "subtle" as ALL artists he mentioned put story and flow above all else. I would add Heck, Tuska, Aparo to the aforementioned making me a comic fan. Except Aparo delivered great covers as well as interiors. He knew how to bring much of a plot and/or its emotion to a cover. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 7, 2020 16:08:50 GMT -5
Same here. He was a workhouse who did a lot of art. JLA was a tough book to draw. I wonder how many different artists did Avengers during Dillin's tenure on JLA? Maybe it was over 5 or 6 but All of them were better than Dillin. Sometimes you are in the mood for vanilla. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 7, 2020 16:09:58 GMT -5
Well said. I love Dillins professionalism, but not the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 7, 2020 16:19:21 GMT -5
You can name a dozen artists who were "better" or flashier, or more successful, or got to work on better stories, or produced classic images. My point is that was their work, that has nothing to do with what I see in Dillin's work. It's an aesthetic, completely subjective. I appreciate what Dillin brought to Justice League, as much to his Blackhawk work (for which he had both more youth and enthusiasm). I can appreciate him separate for the others, for what he brings to the story. Just like I can read and enjoy a Ron Goulart novel and Mark Twain. Goulart wasn't writing classic literature, to be studied and admired for the ages. He still wrote a pretty good yarn, which is the main reason there was ever more than one Tekwar book (which, I never read, because of Shatner's name on them).
Sword & Sorcery? Everyone talks about Conan and Howard; I prefer Leiber and Fafhrd & Gray Mouser. Moorcock books and stories? It's always Elric, Corum and Jerry Cornelius. I prefer Oswald Bastable and Sir Seaton Begg.
To use a wrestling analogy, fans talk about Ric Fl;air vs Ricky Steamboat, Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant, Stone Cold Steve Austin vs Bret Hart, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels, whatever.....
I still like to watch Brad Armstrong in a match. He wasn't the big star; but, he never had a bad match and was smooth as silk.
To me, that's Dick Dillin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 7, 2020 18:11:12 GMT -5
More examples of this Great cover/ lousy interior than of great cover/ great interior and lousy cover/ great interior, that's for sure. But here's one I think of from when I was a kid:  Oh, man, did I want to see how Batman came to look like that! Here's what I got:   |
|
