|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2022 11:29:12 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the original Marvel Star Wars run (for the umpteenth time), and remembering how even as a kid, Infantino's pencils did not quite fit what I thought Star Wars should look like. The very obvious reason is having the first movie as an actual visual reference, but also his style was a bit stylized that point compared to a lot of the Neal Adams type illustration common to that era I was used to in other titles.
But I still loved the series, it was the ONLY Star Wars I knew after the first movie and I still love it for what it was. As I look back on it, I really don't believe Infantino was the best fit at the time, but now I can't imagine those issues drawn by anyone else. And in fact, because he WAS a great artist, I'm now actually appreciating more all of his skill that was embedded in the panels.
Another briefer example for me would be some of the Superman covers Gil Kane did around 1983. It was still very much Kane's familiar style, but there was a little something extra going on style-wise to my eyes at that time, you could see it in Sword of the Atom he did that year as well (which I loved). It just seemed slightly out of place to the smoother (if tamer) covers you'd normally see around that period. Likewise though, a great artist and I can't imagine these covers now being different.
Curious if others have examples of art you either thought at the time and/or later on that maybe looked a bit out of place to your thinking, but now is some happy history you wouldn't change even if you could? I'm going to extend this to include inkers as well.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 25, 2022 12:39:36 GMT -5
Jim Aparo's work on the original Batman: A Death in the Family. I've always felt his Joker, in particular, is too exaggerated and weird looking:  And yet, I suspect most folks who chime in to this thread will invoke the power of nostalgia, and I guess I'll be the first to do so. Death in the Family was the first superhero comic I ever read and understood as a child, and it's since become a very personal favorite to me, even in spite of its many flaws. I've probably read it twenty times and own it in five languages. You can skip much of the massively decompressed story and still get the same impact, but I absolutely couldn't imagine a frame of it without Aparo's pencils at this point. His faces are the definitive Batman franchise faces for me, and I've even come to accept his exaggerated Joker chin as almost perverted, reflecting the perverted soul who could do what he ends up doing to Jason Todd. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 25, 2022 13:01:39 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the original Marvel Star Wars run (for the umpteenth time), and remembering how even as a kid, Infantino's pencils did not quite fit what I thought Star Wars should look like. The very obvious reason is having the first movie as an actual visual reference, but also his style was a bit stylized that point compared to a lot of the Neal Adams type illustration common to that era I was used to in other titles. Infantino knew how to perfectly capture what Star Wars had been with the first film: science fantasy. He was extremely adept at blending the technical and organic to make a sweeping, sci-fantasy adventure as seen with his sci-fi work for DC, and his characters were always in motion, never appearing like cutouts slapped in one panel after another, or was so bizarre (Chaykin and Cynthis Martin) that it bore next to no visual or emotional resemblance to the film. Its no surprise that Infantino and Goodwin's run was the best-selling for the Marvel series, with every creative team to follow seeing a decline in sales, even as Star Wars--from a pop-culture aspect--ballooned in overall popularity. What's your example of a "tame" cover from that period? Not really. If I thought a certain artist did not fit at the time the titles were published, I still maintain that belief now, such as Dillin on Justice League of America, Andru on The Amazing Spider-Man or Bob Brown on The Avengers. Usually, if I consider the new artist poor compared to a great, defining predecessor on the title (e.g., Andru following Romita and Kane), that new artist is never going to capture the characters and environment at their best. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,042 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 25, 2022 13:42:40 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the original Marvel Star Wars run (for the umpteenth time), and remembering how even as a kid, Infantino's pencils did not quite fit what I thought Star Wars should look like. The very obvious reason is having the first movie as an actual visual reference, but also his style was a bit stylized that point compared to a lot of the Neal Adams type illustration common to that era I was used to in other titles. But I still loved the series, it was the ONLY Star Wars I knew after the first movie and I still love it for what it was. As I look back on it, I really don't believe Infantino was the best fit at the time, but now I can't imagine those issues drawn by anyone else. And in fact, because he WAS a great artist, I'm now actually appreciating more all of his skill that was embedded in the panels. Yeah, no disagreements from me there. Infantino was a fine artist, but not a very good fit for Star Wars at all. This was exacerbated by the highly stylised and painfully angular art style that he began to introduce into his work generally in the 70s and 80s. It is my firm belief that his artwork drove away a lot of SW fans who would've otherwise stayed on board with the comic for years. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence in the form of reader's letters, comments made by those who worked on the book, sales figures (which began to decline under his pen and never recovered), and the opinions of modern day commentators which can be interpreted as supporting that opinion. We also know from comments that Roy Thomas and Al Williamson made that George Lucas didn't like Infantino's art on Star Wars either. However, like you, though I disliked his art on SW a lot as a kid, I can judge it more fairly now. I mean, I still think it's a bad fit, but it's very well drawn technically, from a storytelling perspective. It is also so indelibly entwined with my childhood memories of Star Wars that nowadays I find that Infantino's art is comfortingly nostalgic. BTW, you maybe already know this, Supercat, but I reviewed the whole series issue-by-issue here: classiccomics.org/thread/1039/star-wars-marvel-reviews-confessorI also discussed the series at length with Crimebuster over in the Classic Comics Podcast section, if you are interested. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2022 14:07:50 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the original Marvel Star Wars run (for the umpteenth time), and remembering how even as a kid, Infantino's pencils did not quite fit what I thought Star Wars should look like. The very obvious reason is having the first movie as an actual visual reference, but also his style was a bit stylized that point compared to a lot of the Neal Adams type illustration common to that era I was used to in other titles. Infantino knew how to perfectly capture what Star Wars had been with the first film: science fantasy. He was extremely adept at blending the technical and organic to make a sweeping, sci-fantasy adventure as seen with his sci-fi work for DC, and his characters were always in motion, never appearing like cutouts slapped in one panel after another, or was so bizarre (Chaykin and Cynthis Martin) that it bore next to no visual or emotional resemblance to the film. Its no surprise that Infantino and Goodwin's run was the best-selling for the Marvel series, with every creative team to follow seeing a decline in sales, even as Star Wars--from a pop-culture aspect--ballooned in overall popularity. What's your example of a "tame" cover from that period? Not really. If I thought a certain artist did not fit at the time the titles were published, I still maintain that belief now, such as Dillin on Justice League of America, Andru on The Amazing Spider-Man or Bob Brown on The Avengers. Usually, if I consider the new artist poor compared to a great, defining predecessor on the title (e.g., Andru following Romita and Kane), that new artist is never going to capture the characters and environment at their best. I think Confessor summed up my thoughts on the Infantino part. But regarding the Superman covers, think tame as literally just somewhat smoother lines, more the "usual look". Nothing drastic, but enough to jump out at me a little as a kid. Take for example a typical Ross Andru cover like this from that time:  And then some months later how Gil's cover art looked:  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2022 14:14:01 GMT -5
I've been re-reading the original Marvel Star Wars run (for the umpteenth time), and remembering how even as a kid, Infantino's pencils did not quite fit what I thought Star Wars should look like. The very obvious reason is having the first movie as an actual visual reference, but also his style was a bit stylized that point compared to a lot of the Neal Adams type illustration common to that era I was used to in other titles. But I still loved the series, it was the ONLY Star Wars I knew after the first movie and I still love it for what it was. As I look back on it, I really don't believe Infantino was the best fit at the time, but now I can't imagine those issues drawn by anyone else. And in fact, because he WAS a great artist, I'm now actually appreciating more all of his skill that was embedded in the panels. Yeah, no disagreements from me there. Infantino was a fine artist, but not a very good fit for Star Wars at all. This was exacerbated by the highly stylised and painfully angular art style that he began to introduce into his work generally in the 70s and 80s. It is my firm belief that his artwork drove away a lot of SW fans who would've otherwise stayed on board with the comic for years. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence in the form of reader's letters, comments made by those who worked on the book, sales figures (which began to decline under his pen and never recovered), and the opinions of modern day commentators which can be interpreted as supporting that opinion. We also know from comments that Roy Thomas and Al Williamson made that George Lucas didn't like Infantino's art on Star Wars either. However, like you, though I disliked his art on SW a lot as a kid, I can judge it more fairly now. I mean, I still think it's a bad fit, but it's very well drawn technically, from a storytelling perspective. It is also so indelibly entwined with my childhood memories of Star Wars that nowadays I find that Infantino's art is comfortingly nostalgic. BTW, you maybe already know this, Supercat, but I reviewed the whole series issue-by-issue here: classiccomics.org/thread/1039/star-wars-marvel-reviews-confessorI also discussed the series at length with Crimebuster over in the Classic Comics Podcast section, if you are interested. Yeah, and that Williamson and Garzon art on the Empire Strikes Back issues was just stunning, it was like the characters and overall movie just jumped to the comic books. I appreciate the references, and on the review thread, I don't think I've commented there before, but I have on many occasions enjoyed diving into that one and really liked your review work. However, I had not seen the Podcast before, very interested and will be heading over there to check out, thanks! As an aside, I hadn't ever mentioned this before, but since we're on the topic and with your avatar in mind...Jaxxon rules!! |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 25, 2022 14:50:13 GMT -5
I hated Infantino's art as a kid--it was much too stylized for my young eyes--but I love it now, including Star Wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 25, 2022 15:40:50 GMT -5
Curious if others have examples of art you either thought at the time and/or later on that maybe looked a bit out of place to your thinking, but now is some happy history you wouldn't change even if you could? I'm going to extend this to include inkers as well.
John Buscema and Ernie Chan on Conan come to mind!!!
I became a Conan fan with Barry Smith at the drawing table, and his Conan was the real deal as far as I was concerned. I thought Buscema's barbarian was too stocky, and the backgrounds weren't as elaborate.
I grew to love Big John's interpretation, of course, especially when it was inked by Neal Adams (something that happened all too infrequently, alas). Chan was always a good fit too, even if he made Conan look even stockier, and naturally the Buscema-Alcala combo was magnificent.
Next on the list is Ernie Colon, whose work I discovered on John Carter. Needless to say, going from Kane/Nebres and Infantino/Nebres to Colon/Springer was quite a shock. Ernie's style is much more fanciful than Kane's, and I was very unhappy with the result. Strangely enough, just a few months later, I read the John Carter-like backup story drawn by Ernie that was in the Marvel Super Special featuring Star-Lord and thought it was great! That one was inked by Colon himself, and it was a thing of beauty. I would eventually become a big Ernie Colon buff!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 25, 2022 15:54:00 GMT -5
Jim Aparo's work on the original Batman: A Death in the Family. I've always felt his Joker, in particular, is too exaggerated and weird looking: And yet, I suspect most folks who chime in to this thread will invoke the power of nostalgia, and I guess I'll be the first to do so. Death in the Family was the first superhero comic I ever read and understood as a child, and it's since become a very personal favorite to me, even in spite of its many flaws. I've probably read it twenty times and own it in five languages. You can skip much of the massively decompressed story and still get the same impact, but I absolutely couldn't imagine a frame of it without Aparo's pencils at this point. His faces are the definitive Batman franchise faces for me, and I've even come to accept his exaggerated Joker chin as almost perverted, reflecting the perverted soul who could do what he ends up doing to Jason Todd. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has paid attention to me talking about that era of Batman, I think Death in the Family is a pretty crap story. Not in any way due to Aparo, but because Starlin is in my top three or four least favorite Batman writers (there are many I haven't read, particularly in the last 25 years). I will agree that those panels are pretty egregious in the elongation of Joker's face. But it's been so long since I've read it that I don't remember if it was that bad all the way through. On the plus side of Death in the Family, it got rid of the absolutely abysmal second iteration of Jason Todd. So that was a good thing. Now I want my damn dollar back since they brought the little puke back to life. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 25, 2022 20:07:40 GMT -5
Unsurprisingly to anyone who has paid attention to me talking about that era of Batman, I think Death in the Family is a pretty crap story. Much of it, yes. The middle sections (just before and just after the death) are mostly quite strong, but the rest is largely unnecessary and poorly done. Even then, the entire thing certainly has flaws and was more of an agenda Starlin had than a story that needed to be told, but it's my childhood, and there's just no arguing with nostalgia. I dug deep into the whole thing a long while back and rated it as follows: Chapter 1: B-Chapter 2: D+Chapter 3: B-Chapter 4: A- (the death)Chapter 5: B+ (the immediate aftermath)Chapter 6: CI don't think he did a poor job writing, but I do think he had very little grasp on who these characters were and very little passion for what he was writing. Batman is about to go over the edge. Oh wait, no, Robin is. No, Batman is. No, Robin is; and the Joker is a totally practical criminal who makes zero jokes and just wants money. That being said, if you could get past the characterizations, there were some good stories to be found within. I'd choose Starlin over David V. Reed any day, at least. Yup. It was. Post-Crisis Jason Todd never really got a chance. Max Collins made him a street urchin just to rationalize why it was a sane choice for Bruce to take him in (he's safer as Robin than as an underage thug in Crime Alley) and quickly evolved him out of that mode so that, by the end of Collins' brief run, Jason was pretty close to his Pre-Crisis characterization and in-line with what Mike W. Barr had been writing in 'Tec. Then Starlin came along and, at first wrote Jason pretty much the same but with a slightly violent side, and then totally transformed him into a detestable cretin at the start of Death in the Family, throwing in ample backstory to make it seem like he'd always been that way, in order to stack those phone-in votes in his favor. Here's the full break-down of Jason Todd's various depictions by different writers. My apologies for the excessive self-promotion, but I've spent A LOT of time on this topic and have a lot to share about it  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 25, 2022 21:41:47 GMT -5
I was okay with Infantino's Star wars art, at the time. I preferred Chaykin and Al Williamson & Carlos Garzon; but, Carmine was more dynamic that Williamson and it fit those stories of Archie's in those comics. Williamson & Garzon fit the longer form stories Archie told in the newspaper strip. Now, my favorite artist was Walt Simonson, who, at that point, did the one fill-in issue, introducing Vallance, the cyborg bounty hunter. I would have loved to have seen Walt do the series up through Empire. He came on as a regular a little later; but, that was the time where I felt Archie was really on fire, before Lucas' shift in direction, brought on by the redrafting of Empire, kind of undercut what he had been doing (same for Alan Dean Foster). Still, I always found Carmine's art to be very action packed and didn't mind the angular nature, when Steve Leialoha was inking. Every once in a while, there would be a panel that bugged me and his near refusal to draw the blasters from the films irked me; but, other than that, I was cool with it.
Aparo did, like Carmine, get more stylized in his later years and on characters like Joker, he could get a bit rubbery. However, if you look at his work from the decade before, you'd be hard pressed to find complaints. I am in the camp that Death in the Family wasn't a particularly good story and I wasn't overly wowed by Starlin's previous stories. KGBeast wasn't anything to write home about, either, but it was popular, spawning the NKVDemon. I was waiting to see who was next, the CHEKA-Mate? GRUesome? SPETSNAZzy Dresser? It wasn't only Starlin. I wasn't overly wowed by a lot of the Bat book stories, until LOTDK, other than some of Mike Barr's stuff, especially the Ra's al Ghul stuff. Doug Moench's earlier stuff, yeah. Year 2 was okay.
For me, John Romita JR was all kinds of wrong for X-Men, though I also felt Claremont was out of gas and just recycling the same plot lines. I dropped the book when Paul Smith left, as it was a good breaking point, at the end of an extended storyline; but, seeing JRJR's art just made me glad I wasn't still reading it. Loved him on Iron Man, circa Demon in a Bottle; but, not this stuff. Not a big fam of Man Without Fear, either, either Romita's art (though better than X-Men) or Frank's rehashing of things. It wasn't horrible; but I didn't really think it was that big of a deal. Just kind of a retread.
Didn't like Gene Colan on Avengers. He was better with swashbuckler types, like Daredevil and Captain America. I would enjoyed him on Moon Knight, for a long run.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 25, 2022 21:52:05 GMT -5
I am in the camp that Death in the Family wasn't a particularly good story and I wasn't overly wowed by Starlin's previous stories. KGBeast wasn't anything to write home about, either, but it was popular, spawning the NKVDemon. I was waiting to see who was next, the CHEKA-Mate? GRUesome? SPETSNAZzy Dresser?  I still enjoyed Ten Nights, as well as "Elmore's Lady"Yes, there was a definite plunge in quality when O'Neil assumed the editorial reigns. He capitalized on the success of DKR and the 1989 film and made everyone a lot of money with savvy marketing strategies that transformed the industry (for better or worse), but he wasn't even reading those scripts and nearly admitted as much on several occasions. Wagner/Grant and Barr turned in some great stuff, and Wolfman really tried to do some heavy Post-Crisis universe-building, but these were the few exceptions amidst a glut of unfiltered, unedited content, very little of which was in any way substantial. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 26, 2022 4:18:13 GMT -5
I was okay with Infantino's Star wars art, at the time. I preferred Chaykin and Al Williamson & Carlos Garzon; but, Carmine was more dynamic that Williamson and it fit those stories of Archie's in those comics. Williamson & Garzon fit the longer form stories Archie told in the newspaper strip. Now, my favorite artist was Walt Simonson, who, at that point, did the one fill-in issue, introducing Vallance, the cyborg bounty hunter. I would have loved to have seen Walt do the series up through Empire. He came on as a regular a little later; but, that was the time where I felt Archie was really on fire, before Lucas' shift in direction, brought on by the redrafting of Empire, kind of undercut what he had been doing (same for Alan Dean Foster). Still, I always found Carmine's art to be very action packed and didn't mind the angular nature, when Steve Leialoha was inking. Every once in a while, there would be a panel that bugged me and his near refusal to draw the blasters from the films irked me; but, other than that, I was cool with it. That point about Lucas and redrafting of TESB is an interesting detail, with its effect on the Marvel title; although Marvel had no choice but to follow LFL directives (with the inexplicable exception of Luke still possessing a lightsaber immediately after TESB's adaptation, and run-ins with Vader, when ROTJ was supposed to be the first time the two faced off since TESB, etc.), the series was better off when Goodwin (with Infantino, of course) built on that aforementioned science fantasy template from the 1st movie. The title being Marvel's 2nd best seller in that pre-TESB period attests to the success of Goodwin's approach. Post TESB, the title was trying to re-capture that film's beats time and again, until ROTJ dropped, forcing the book to go off in another direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2022 7:54:34 GMT -5
I was okay with Infantino's Star wars art, at the time. I preferred Chaykin and Al Williamson & Carlos Garzon; but, Carmine was more dynamic that Williamson and it fit those stories of Archie's in those comics. Williamson & Garzon fit the longer form stories Archie told in the newspaper strip. Now, my favorite artist was Walt Simonson, who, at that point, did the one fill-in issue, introducing Vallance, the cyborg bounty hunter. I would have loved to have seen Walt do the series up through Empire. He came on as a regular a little later; but, that was the time where I felt Archie was really on fire, before Lucas' shift in direction, brought on by the redrafting of Empire, kind of undercut what he had been doing (same for Alan Dean Foster). Still, I always found Carmine's art to be very action packed and didn't mind the angular nature, when Steve Leialoha was inking. Every once in a while, there would be a panel that bugged me and his near refusal to draw the blasters from the films irked me; but, other than that, I was cool with it. That point about Lucas and redrafting of TESB is an interesting detail, with its effect on the Marvel title; although Marvel had no choice but to follow LFL directives (with the inexplicable exception of Luke still possessing a lightsaber immediately after TESB's adaptation, and run-ins with Vader, when ROTJ was supposed to be the first time the two faced off since TESB, etc.), the series was better off when Goodwin (with Infantino, of course) built on that aforementioned science fantasy template from the 1st movie. The title being Marvel's 2nd best seller in that pre-TESB period attests to the success of Goodwin's approach. Post TESB, the title was trying to re-capture that film's beats time and again, until ROTJ dropped, forcing the book to go off in another direction. I've always assumed that the theatrical re-releases of Star Wars in 1978 and 1979 kept some of that popularity going (again, no knock on Goodwin/Infantino). It was wave after wave of merch during that time as well, the action figure line kept expanding, trading cards, heck, my collection of Burger King glasses. You could have grabbed a stack of free Smokey Bear fire safety pamphlets and put Star Wars logo stickers on them and made some coin during that time. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 26, 2022 16:39:56 GMT -5
That point about Lucas and redrafting of TESB is an interesting detail, with its effect on the Marvel title; although Marvel had no choice but to follow LFL directives (with the inexplicable exception of Luke still possessing a lightsaber immediately after TESB's adaptation, and run-ins with Vader, when ROTJ was supposed to be the first time the two faced off since TESB, etc.), the series was better off when Goodwin (with Infantino, of course) built on that aforementioned science fantasy template from the 1st movie. The title being Marvel's 2nd best seller in that pre-TESB period attests to the success of Goodwin's approach. Post TESB, the title was trying to re-capture that film's beats time and again, until ROTJ dropped, forcing the book to go off in another direction. I've always assumed that the theatrical re-releases of Star Wars in 1978 and 1979 kept some of that popularity going (again, no knock on Goodwin/Infantino). It was wave after wave of merch during that time as well, the action figure line kept expanding, trading cards, heck, my collection of Burger King glasses. You could have grabbed a stack of free Smokey Bear fire safety pamphlets and put Star Wars logo stickers on them and made some coin during that time. The title was popular due to content. Remember, merchandising and other ancillary material did not automatically share customers. Someone who was interested in a SW comic may not have bought toys/games, etc. (especially if they were an older reader). I knew fans like that, just as I knew kids who played with SW toys, but never had an interest in SW as a comic (or any comic, for that matter). Moreover, the release of TESB and ROTJ did not send Marvel's Star Wars comic back to the top of Marvel's sales chart to compete with their top superhero titles, as the book had with The Amazing Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk from '77 - '79. Even as SW as a film series and pop culture subject grew (with more SW exposure than anything seen for the 1st film), the comic never reached the height of the Infantino/Goodwin period again. |
|
