|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Mar 10, 2015 16:14:04 GMT -5
Okay, here's a question for more experienced Kirbyphiles than I. In The Dingbats of Danger Street (First Issue Special #6 - June 1975) on each and every page one panel has a heavier frame line than the others. Just one panel on each page. diversionsofthegroovykind.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/sunday-funnies-jack-kirbys-dingbats-of.htmlGoing through the other Kirby books I own I see that he (or his inkers) did vary the weight of the frame line occasionally but in none of the books does he do it it so consistently. Any ideas why? or is it something he did often and I just haven't read enough of his books? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 13:36:21 GMT -5
Superman Jack Kirby  These are the only two that I will ever own of Jack Kirby's work of Superman. I'm a little disappointed in these two pictures but I brought them anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 15, 2015 13:41:47 GMT -5
I thought Dubbilex was a 90s creation? Guess not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 13:41:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 15, 2015 16:04:22 GMT -5
I thought Dubbilex was a 90s creation? Guess not. You, sir, should probably read Fourth World. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 15, 2015 16:29:55 GMT -5
Heh... I will at some point. I've read a bit of it, but mostly more 'modern' stuff. I mostly know Dubbilex as Superboy's sidekick/housekeeper in the post-Reign series.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 15, 2015 20:23:02 GMT -5
Okay, here's a question for more experienced Kirbyphiles than I. In The Dingbats of Danger Street (First Issue Special #6 - June 1975) on each and every page one panel has a heavier frame line than the others. Just one panel on each page. diversionsofthegroovykind.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/sunday-funnies-jack-kirbys-dingbats-of.htmlGoing through the other Kirby books I own I see that he (or his inkers) did vary the weight of the frame line occasionally but in none of the books does he do it it so consistently. Any ideas why? or is it something he did often and I just haven't read enough of his books? I've never noticed it before.Right now, the pages to that Dingbats story are loading too slowly to go through them conveniently, but from the few I saw they do seem to be random, although you might be able to make a case that some of them were panels he wanted to emphasise for some reason - of the four or five I looked at, some where first panels, some wordless action frames, one was the only captioned panel, ... Of course, you'd have to look at a lot of pages from a lot of stories to discern a pattern, if there is one. Also, Kirby was notorious for emphasising words in his speech-balloons in, shall we say, a somewhat non-intuitive (to the reader) manner, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if the reasoning, if any, behind the occasional heavier than normal panel border is not obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 16, 2015 10:19:18 GMT -5
Of course, you'd have to look at a lot of pages from a lot of stories to discern a pattern, if there is one. Also, Kirby was notorious for emphasising words in his speech-balloons in, shall we say, a somewhat non-intuitive (to the reader) manner, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if the reasoning, if any, behind the occasional heavier than normal panel border is not obvious. It's pretty weird--The heavy borders aren't really different enough to call attention to a casual reader. I thought they might be corrected paste-ups, but having one per page in a whole book doesn't seem logical either. Also, does Kirby adhere as strictly to a 2 x 3 panel grid on other books around this time as he does here? |
|
dale
Junior Member
Posts: 13 
|
Post by dale on Mar 16, 2015 12:37:28 GMT -5
Mecha, I believe the Invisible Girl pic is by John Romita and the others by John Buscema.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Mar 16, 2015 13:48:20 GMT -5
The Thing pic is John Buscema & Joe Sinnott, from the cover of FF #116:  |
|
dale
Junior Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by dale on Mar 17, 2015 17:15:30 GMT -5
Much as I admire and enjoy John Buscema's art, I never cared for his version of the Thing. Too cartoony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 9, 2016 18:37:24 GMT -5
Felt like this thread deserved a bit of a "bump" I've personally never really found Kirby's artwork all that "ugly" except his later stuff, namely OMAC. Seriously, when I was younger, I thought everybody looked like thickly inked globs of lifeless playdough  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 9, 2016 18:52:51 GMT -5
I just saw this thread since it was bumped up. I thought Mike Royer was Kirby's best inker at DC. I was disappointed by the inks of D. Bruce Berry near the end of Kirby's stint at DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 9, 2016 19:01:47 GMT -5
I just saw this thread since it was bumped up. I thought Mike Royer was Kirby's best inker at DC. I was disappointed by the inks of D. Bruce Berry near the end of Kirby's stint at DC. I don't think any ink job was at fault, the truth was that Kirby's artistic ability was kind of deteriorating over time |
|
|
|
Post by Red Oak Kid on Mar 9, 2016 19:19:03 GMT -5
I believe you are correct. I read an interview with Berry and he said he was just inking what was on the page.
In hindsight it is obvious that Royer was investing a lot of time and energy into his inks on Kirby.
|
|
