|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 10, 2022 10:29:49 GMT -5
I would argue that the '83 revamp didn't work because A) Wolfman was the wrong writer to assign Superman to, and B) much of the art was by a self-inking Gil Kane and therefore butt-ugly but that might just be me.
Cei-U! I summon the miscast creative team!
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 10, 2022 10:45:14 GMT -5
I would argue that the '83 revamp didn't work because A) Wolfman was the wrong writer to assign Superman to, and B) much of the art was by a self-inking Gil Kane and therefore butt-ugly but that might just be me. Cei-U! I summon the miscast creative team! That is just you. Self-inking Gil Kane is the best Gil Kane.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 10, 2022 11:02:10 GMT -5
I would argue that the '83 revamp didn't work because A) Wolfman was the wrong writer to assign Superman to, and B) much of the art was by a self-inking Gil Kane and therefore butt-ugly but that might just be me. Cei-U! I summon the miscast creative team! That is just you. Self-inking Gil Kane is the best Gil Kane. I love Gil Kane's art, but not in those later years, when he inked himself with a felt-tip pen, it seemed. I think his art was more readable in those years than Infantino's. Infantino's pencils could be too sharp and angular, even in his Flash and Adam Strange years, and when he was inking himself, Kane sometimes made all his figures look as if they'd been stripped down to muscle only. Joe Giella, who inked them both way too often for my taste, drained both of them of life. I preferred them both inked by Anderson, Greene and other inkers who could soften their pencils. A combination I would never have thought of was Kane inked by DeZuniga, but the only example I've seen of that team looked beautiful... and it was in a Western, of all places.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 10, 2022 11:25:29 GMT -5
From what I was able to discover, all of this was absolutely useless in reviving the character. The only things people remember from that time are probably Lex Luthor's armor and robotic Braniac, but I suspect that's only thanks to the cartoons and toys. My opinion was that the character was no longer salvable, COIE was one of the most necessary changes ever initiated in comics, particularly where creating a solid, structured universe was concerned. Before that, writers and editors had to deal with--or ignore--the endless silly stories, acquired characters that never fit into DC's own storylines smoothly, contradictory and/or irrelevant characterization which had gone out of favor years (or decades) earlier, and Superman checked all of those "wrong" boxes as DC attempted to straighten out its creative nightmares. Superman was already in the process of change during the events of COIE, where he left the event a more mature model than the one who entered it. That was welcome change, but I submit if you still believe post-COIE Superman was not salvageable, it was due to a kind of development or template that consistently leg-locked the character as the Weisinger kiddie brand long after writers tried to change Superman in the early 1970s. Post-COIE Superman would see the character pointed in the right direction, but his legacy loomed large in the subconsciousness of anyone reading or considering a "Superman" going forward.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 10, 2022 11:42:50 GMT -5
Joe Giella, who inked them both way too often for my taste, drained both of them of life. Interesting. For all of flack Colletta receives on this board (and I'm not a big fan of his work, either), his inking of Kane on the early 70s solo Robin and Batgirl stories from Detective Comics delivered some of Kane's finest work. Yes, that brought a softer humanity to Kane's work, rather than his solo, far-too-squiggly pencils. "Across the street," Kane's best, career-wide inker--by some considerable distance--was Romita, who understood Kane's tendencies and shared a fantastic, cinema-esque eye for layouts, whether it was an action scene or people having a conversation.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 10, 2022 11:45:24 GMT -5
Before that, writers and editors had to deal with--or ignore--the endless silly stories, I find this example very enlightening: First of all, let's remember that every single Superman story was in continuity until the last published pre-reboot issue. I don't remember many stories (almost none!) tThat explicitly contradicted something that happened during the Silver Age (perhaps the only exception was the Superboy story in which it was told that Jor-El and Lara had escaped the destruction of Krypton). So when they had to tell something problematic again, the solutions found were... well problematic too. Everyone remembers fondly (?) this scene So when Superman recalls the same scene in Dc Special 26... Notice at what point the recalling conveniently stops. It was evident that even those who worked on Superman at the time were embarrassed by his misogynist baggage, but they had no way to get rid of it... And yet, even in the most "enlightened" 70s, Sup looks like a prick because he doesn't have the courage to clearly say no to the advances of an adult woman and uses childish tricks to dissuade her.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 10, 2022 13:26:28 GMT -5
That is just you. Self-inking Gil Kane is the best Gil Kane. I love Gil Kane's art, but not in those later years, when he inked himself with a felt-tip pen, it seemed. I think his art was more readable in those years than Infantino's. Infantino's pencils could be too sharp and angular, even in his Flash and Adam Strange years, and when he was inking himself, Kane sometimes made all his figures look as if they'd been stripped down to muscle only. Joe Giella, who inked them both way too often for my taste, drained both of them of life. I preferred them both inked by Anderson, Greene and other inkers who could soften their pencils. A combination I would never have thought of was Kane inked by DeZuniga, but the only example I've seen of that team looked beautiful... and it was in a Western, of all places. Ralph Reese is the best non-Kane inker of his work, if you ask me...
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 10, 2022 13:40:14 GMT -5
tonebone , Love Reese's inks on Kane, too. Which might explain why Wally Wood's inks were so good on Kane's pencils...
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 11, 2022 9:08:46 GMT -5
From what I was able to discover, all of this was absolutely useless in reviving the character. The only things people remember from that time are probably Lex Luthor's armor and robotic Braniac, but I suspect that's only thanks to the cartoons and toys. My opinion was that the character was no longer salvable, COIE was one of the most necessary changes ever initiated in comics, particularly where creating a solid, structured universe was concerned. Before that, writers and editors had to deal with--or ignore--the endless silly stories, acquired characters that never fit into DC's own storylines smoothly, contradictory and/or irrelevant characterization which had gone out of favor years (or decades) earlier, and Superman checked all of those "wrong" boxes as DC attempted to straighten out its creative nightmares. Superman was already in the process of change during the events of COIE, where he left the event a more mature model than the one who entered it. That was welcome change, but I submit if you still believe post-COIE Superman was not salvageable, it was due to a kind of development or template that consistently leg-locked the character as the Weisinger kiddie brand long after writers tried to change Superman in the early 1970s. Post-COIE Superman would see the character pointed in the right direction, but his legacy loomed large in the subconsciousness of anyone reading or considering a "Superman" going forward. I found COIE exciting and fresh at the time, but I have always felt like it was ultimately unnecessary. You were right about how editors could "deal with -- or ignore" the past... that worked for me... I never found any of it confusing or opaque... as long as the editor and writer gave a couple of sentences of exposition. I would rather have the history intact and available for story possibilities than to declare a difinitive "it never happened". As a matter of fact, the ultimate outcome of COIE was one big giant "deal with -- or ignore" of everything. Same difference...
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 11, 2022 12:16:18 GMT -5
Well put, tonebone. While continuity can be fun, it became a burden when fans and writers made it a fetish object. Even as a kid, I knew there were many versions of the same character. When the New Look was introduced in Batman, I was about 9or 10 years old. I didn't need elaborate explanations about where Jack Schiff's dinosaurs and aliens had gone. It was as if we all simply agreed to move on form that version of Batman. Memory loss is a great aid to creative storytelling. And as I've said time and again, the multiple Earths concept was hardly confusing in addition to being a handy narrative device. And of course the irony is that for all the "confusion" the multiple Earths theory supposedly engendered, the Big Two have take it to 11. I mean, how many Marvel Earths are there now? Forget that, how many Marvel Universes are there?
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 27, 2022 18:57:39 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading a joke, possibly in Chew, about 60 issues and a TV series. Which has me wondering, what's your ideal length for a comic book series?
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 29, 2022 5:11:21 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading a joke, possibly in Chew, about 60 issues and a TV series. Which has me wondering, what's your ideal length for a comic book series? Whatever length is required for the creator(s) to complete the story they have to tell.
Cei-U! I summon the variable in that formula!
|
|
|
Post by commond on Nov 18, 2022 22:06:39 GMT -5
I've just discovered that Terry Beatty couldn't draw a baby to save his life. Byrne is infamous for drawing grotesque children. Can anyone think of other examples of artists struggling to draw a particular thing?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 18, 2022 23:09:23 GMT -5
I've just discovered that Terry Beatty couldn't draw a baby to save his life. Byrne is infamous for drawing grotesque children. Can anyone think of other examples of artists struggling to draw a particular thing? Wayne Boring never mastered the art of drawing a profile view of anyone wearing glasses, especially Clark Kent. Couldn't figure it even when I was a kid. Just finish the line of that lens, Wayne!
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Nov 18, 2022 23:20:00 GMT -5
I've just discovered that Terry Beatty couldn't draw a baby to save his life. Byrne is infamous for drawing grotesque children. Can anyone think of other examples of artists struggling to draw a particular thing? Kevin O'Neill was strangely unable to draw anything the Comics Code liked.
|
|