|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 29, 2024 8:50:39 GMT -5
Isn't Kirby jumping the line with that third panel with the reverse shot of Johnny vs. Ben? No, not in any way. In the wordless image, it is very clear that that is the next shot from the Thing rolling up the carpet in the first panel.
Stan's mistake is glaring, Kirby's action is easily read. Kirby is using cinematic language with a two camera shot of the Torch and thing. His clear storytelling of the conflict is apparent. My only question is were their margin notes that Stan ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 29, 2024 9:06:02 GMT -5
But he clearly establishes the 180 degree line with the establishing shot and crosses it for the third panel.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 29, 2024 9:35:47 GMT -5
Yes, but a reverse camera shot was par for the course. Could you show me where a single camera is usually the way he drew things.
In fact, in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, by Stan and John Buscema, which is really Drawing Comics the Kirby Way. Pages 122-123, Buscema is showing how the reverse camera angle is the more dynamic way to tell a story. As well as the next two sections on laying out a page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 29, 2024 9:37:04 GMT -5
There was an entire comic book dedicated to errors called , the No prize book. I forgive all those errors since Lee was running everything dealing with the universe and continuity. Everyone makes mistakes in their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 29, 2024 9:39:53 GMT -5
I also don't think these little things are a big deal. It just is more evidence of who was really writing the stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 29, 2024 10:00:33 GMT -5
There was an entire comic book dedicated to errors called , the No prize book. I forgive all those errors since Lee was running everything dealing with the universe and continuity. Everyone makes mistakes in their job. In publishing, the reason that you have an editor is usually to MINIMIZE mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 29, 2024 12:27:47 GMT -5
There was an entire comic book dedicated to errors called , the No prize book. I forgive all those errors since Lee was running everything dealing with the universe and continuity. Everyone makes mistakes in their job. In publishing, the reason that you have an editor is usually to MINIMIZE mistakes. Which might be why Jim Shooter was so set against the concept of a writer-editor (the very point of contention that caused Roy Thomas leaving Marvel, as I recall, much to my chagrin as a Conan reader). |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 29, 2024 12:44:31 GMT -5
You think that's bad, imagine what DIDN'T get through!! (I have no idea what did or didn't).
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 29, 2024 13:17:28 GMT -5
Was it Kirby or Colletta who left off Mangog's horns. And why didn't the Editor catch it? My favorite is the one where Colletta erased Laufey’s head in the origin of Loki. But I have to admit. I read that story in Bring on the Bad Guys when it first came out, and I didn’t notice Laufey had no head until years and years later when somebody was discussing it in the fan press. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 29, 2024 13:24:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 29, 2024 16:32:33 GMT -5
Was it Kirby or Colletta who left off Mangog's horns. And why didn't the Editor catch it? My favorite is the one where Colletta erased Laufey’s head in the origin of Loki. But I have to admit. I read that story in Bring on the Bad Guys when it first came out, and I didn’t notice Laufey had no head until years and years later when somebody was discussing it in the fan press. I wouldn't have noticed either. Even knowing today that Laufey's head should be there, I find nothing glaringly wrong with the inked image; it's as if the head is beyond the edge of the panel, on the right, or perhaps at such an angle that the left shoulder hides it. That's no reason not to ink what the penciller drew, of course, but this particular omission wouldn't bother me as a reader. Surtur's disappearing horns, now, that was another matter... |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 29, 2024 16:41:12 GMT -5
There was an entire comic book dedicated to errors called , the No prize book. I forgive all those errors since Lee was running everything dealing with the universe and continuity. Everyone makes mistakes in their job. Of course, but if some are hell-bent on trying to condemn Lee for occasionally missing something (i.e., grasping at straws), then the reality of occasional errors by any editor is swept aside in favor of something...else. It will never erase the creative impact of Lee in the history of Marvel, and how its more than doubtful the publisher would even produce comics (or survive) over the course of the 1960s if not for Lee's insight and undeniable writing talent. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 29, 2024 17:11:35 GMT -5
Yes, but a reverse camera shot was par for the course. Could you show me where a single camera is usually the way he drew things. In fact, in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, by Stan and John Buscema, which is really Drawing Comics the Kirby Way. Pages 122-123, Buscema is showing how the reverse camera angle is the more dynamic way to tell a story. As well as the next two sections on laying out a page. It's the only time he uses a reverse angle in the two page sequence. It doesn't seem like a particularly good choice by Kirby. I also can't understand how Ben lifts the rug up that Sue and Reed are both standing on if we're getting picky. It is crappy scripting, though. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 29, 2024 18:37:15 GMT -5
Yes, but a reverse camera shot was par for the course. Could you show me where a single camera is usually the way he drew things. In fact, in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, by Stan and John Buscema, which is really Drawing Comics the Kirby Way. Pages 122-123, Buscema is showing how the reverse camera angle is the more dynamic way to tell a story. As well as the next two sections on laying out a page. It's the only time he uses a reverse angle in the two page sequence. It doesn't seem like a particularly good choice by Kirby. I also can't understand how Ben lifts the rug up that Sue and Reed are both standing on if we're getting picky. It is crappy scripting, though. The story telling is clear and Stan thinking Reed is Johnny is a mistake. Anything else is just fog to obscure what a careless editor and scripter Stan could be.
Does anybody else here have any problem with Kirby's reverse angle in panel 3? Or is it a red herring.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 29, 2024 18:51:21 GMT -5
I take it back. Every panel Kirby ever drew is beyond reproach.
|
|
