|
Post by rberman on Feb 26, 2019 11:58:24 GMT -5
I always thought Dillin was a far better artist than his inkers on JLA allowed him to be. Giordano (who only filled in a couple of times) and Frank McLaughlin had similar styles: sharp-edged, thin lines and with a tendency to make Dillin's already long heads, faces and bodies look even longer. Neither added much in the way of detail to faces or expressions, which made it difficult to tell individuals from each other. Dillin also tended to draw thick bodies, which flew in the face of the leanness with which Infantino had drawn both Flashes, characters Dillin never got quite right. I was pleasantly surprised to see what Dick Giordano could do left to his own devices and, presumably, given more time and money. Here's a sample of his work on pencils and ink from the adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula as found in Dracula Lives #5:
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 26, 2019 12:18:43 GMT -5
The only way I could tolerate Dillan's art was when he was inked by Giordano. I totally respect his work ethic but that book deserved better artwork.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 26, 2019 12:36:50 GMT -5
I'm not 100% sure; but, I believe this was the only DC appearance of Mr Scarlet & Pinky. Bullet Man and Bullet Girl appeared in one or two Shazam stories (I know one was during the Worlds Finest Dollar Comic phase); might have been Spy Smasher's, too. Not really sure about Ibis, as I think he got a story or two elsewhere; but, he was pretty similar to Sargon, in appearance, so I may be mis-remembering. Not seen here was Minute Man, who got an appearance late in the Shazam run, before the comic ended. Kid Eternity would have to wait for the Worlds Finest back-ups, when he met up with brother Freddy Freeman (beautifully handled by Don Newton), though there was at least one Kid Eternity story in one of the DC 100-Pg comics. Bridwell had hoped to fit a Minute Man/Hourman team-up into this JLA story, but there wasn't room. The Dollar Comic of which you speak is World's Finest #254, in which Bridwell gives the Fawcett pantheon a two panel cameo. There is a separate story with Mary Marvel and Bulletgirl, in WF #255.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 26, 2019 12:46:17 GMT -5
Why couldn't DC have found a more suitable inker for the guy? DC wasn't exactly overflowing with great inkers during this time. I was pleasantly surprised to see what Dick Giordano could do left to his own devices and, presumably, given more time and money. Here's a sample of his work on pencils and ink from the adaptaion of Bram Stoker's Dracula as found in Dracula Lives #5: More and more, I like Giordano on his own than as an inker. And, really, he's at his best at things besides superheroes (Batman being the exception, since his adventures are usually--and best when--kept at "ground level"). As an inker, he tends to overpower.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 26, 2019 14:58:41 GMT -5
(Notice I'm not mentioning the banality of the years of Ernie Chan covers?) Of course you mean brilliance.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 26, 2019 15:52:51 GMT -5
The only way I could tolerate Dillan's art was when he was inked by Giordano. I totally respect his work ethic but that book deserved better artwork. Agreed. It was (supposed to be) the grand group title of comics in general--one of the more influential books of the early Silver Age, yet it suffered often, and in the Dillin era, the art was a sketchy, rough mess only kept afloat by the brief runs of certain great writers, and some occasionally fantastic covers, but that was not enough of a counterbalance to what was happening inside that book.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 26, 2019 16:10:45 GMT -5
To all you folks going on and on about Dillin's mediocre or boring artwork in Justice League of America: DILLIN was the DC man at the time who was WILLING to do a team book with a multitude of characters when NOBODY was willing to take on that type of comic book. I don't believe there was anybody at DC ASKING for the responsibility of JLA and DC chose Dillin, who was a strong and solid artist capable of producing a Team comic book without fail that was/is a top seller for the company. There wasn't anyone better artistically who wanted or desired to take on Team books, especially at DC. Marvel had the better artists on Team books because they did what Stan told them to or they wouldn't get any work. Buscema never really wanted to do Avengers. Nor did Romita want to do FF after Kirby or Buscema want FF after Romita. They too were "COMPANY" artists who did as they were asked to receive a paycheck. In those days outside of the occasional superstar coming along it was consistency in artist and writers that sold the comics for DC. Yes, it is likely he wasn't very invested or interested in the stories coming his way but he got the product out for the company rather than some untested/untried new artist who probably would never stay on the title for very long. I will take Dillin, Heck, Tuska, Swan and Brown who produced monthly solid comic books over any of the current overly detailed, outrageously late or come in for a run of 3-5 issues and are gone. This is a big part of why comic books are NOT selling like they could today. CONSISTENCY in every way. End of rant
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 26, 2019 16:23:36 GMT -5
To all you folks going on and on about Dillin's mediocre or boring artwork in Justice League of America: DILLIN was the DC man at the time who was WILLING to do a team book with a multitude of characters when NOBODY was willing to take on that type of comic book. I don't believe there was anybody at DC ASKING for the responsibility of JLA and DC chose Dillin, who was a strong and solid artist capable of producing a Team comic book without fail that was/is a top seller for the company. There wasn't anyone better artistically who wanted or desired to take on Team books, especially at DC. Marvel had the better artists on Team books because they did what Stan told them to or they wouldn't get any work. Buscema never really wanted to do Avengers. Nor did Romita want to do FF after Kirby or Buscema want FF after Romita. They too were "COMPANY" artists who did as they were asked to receive a paycheck. In those days outside of the occasional superstar coming along it was consistency in artist and writers that sold the comics for DC. Yes, it is likely he wasn't very invested or interested in the stories coming his way but he got the product out for the company rather than some untested/untried new artist who probably would never stay on the title for very long. I will take Dillin, Heck, Tuska and Swan who produced monthly solid comic books over any of the current overly detailed, outrageously late or come in for a run of 3-5 issues and are gone. This is a big part of why comic books are NOT selling like they could today. CONSISTENCY in every way. End of rant I think this is the gist of what I was saying. Mad props, a big kudos, and a thousand thanks to Dick Dillin; all I'm saying is that DC coulda put a little flash into the inking to help him out. My beef is that with all the reasons for Dillin's being on JLA acknowledged, couldn't DC have tried to find someone who could give his pencils a little oomph? I agree that there wasn't much good art happening in DC's superhero titles in the 70s, including the bland consistency of Dillin's work on JLA, and I suppose DC figured that if kids were buying the book as it was, there was little reason to spend any more money or time on it, but still...
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 26, 2019 16:42:20 GMT -5
To all you folks going on and on about Dillin's mediocre or boring artwork in Justice League of America: DILLIN was the DC man at the time who was WILLING to do a team book with a multitude of characters when NOBODY was willing to take on that type of comic book. I don't believe there was anybody at DC ASKING for the responsibility of JLA and DC chose Dillin, who was a strong and solid artist capable of producing a Team comic book without fail that was/is a top seller for the company. There wasn't anyone better artistically who wanted or desired to take on Team books, especially at DC. Marvel had the better artists on Team books because they did what Stan told them to or they wouldn't get any work. Buscema never really wanted to do Avengers. Nor did Romita want to do FF after Kirby or Buscema want FF after Romita. They too were "COMPANY" artists who did as they were asked to receive a paycheck. In those days outside of the occasional superstar coming along it was consistency in artist and writers that sold the comics for DC. Yes, it is likely he wasn't very invested or interested in the stories coming his way but he got the product out for the company rather than some untested/untried new artist who probably would never stay on the title for very long. I will take Dillin, Heck, Tuska and Swan who produced monthly solid comic books over any of the current overly detailed, outrageously late or come in for a run of 3-5 issues and are gone. This is a big part of why comic books are NOT selling like they could today. CONSISTENCY in every way. End of rant I think this is the gist of what I was saying. Mad props, a big kudos, and a thousand thanks to Dick Dillin; all I'm saying is that DC coulda put a little flash into the inking to help him out. My beef is that with all the reasons for Dillin's being on JLA acknowledged, couldn't DC have tried to find someone who could give his pencils a little oomph? I agree that there wasn't much good art happening in DC's superhero titles in the 70s, including the bland consistency of Dillin's work on JLA, and I suppose DC figured that if kids were buying the book as it was, there was little reason to spend any more money or time on it, but still... <iframe width="17.700000000000045" height="15.840000000000032" style="position: absolute; width: 17.7px; height: 15.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_62390433" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="17.700000000000045" height="15.840000000000032" style="position: absolute; width: 17.7px; height: 15.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 831px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_56872982" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="17.700000000000045" height="15.840000000000032" style="position: absolute; width: 17.7px; height: 15.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 721px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_20901980" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="17.700000000000045" height="15.840000000000032" style="position: absolute; width: 17.7px; height: 15.84px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 831px; top: 721px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_26487122" scrolling="no"></iframe> Yep, good old Corporate thinking. As long as it sells why try to make it "the best it can be" in hopes of increased sales? You gotta spend money to make money but Corporate heads ALWAYS go the opposite direction of this thought preferring to sail along on whatever is easier or cost effective as long as THEY receive their payoff.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 26, 2019 16:48:47 GMT -5
I remember reading something kind of terrible along those lines for Marvel. They were of the opinion that you didn't have to put anyone special on Spider-man because it was a top seller and there was nothing you could do to harm the sales. In a way, DC was right. The book wasn't canceled nor in danger of being canceled , although it was Bi-monthly until the mid 70's.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 26, 2019 16:55:54 GMT -5
JLA's sales dropped precipitously in the second half of the 1960s and continued to decline substantially through the 1970s, which makes me surprised that (1) they didn't try something different with the art, and (2) they increased the publication frequency of a book with falling sales. It probably didn't help that the price kept jumping around as they experimented with different reprint/bonus material strategies across the line.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 26, 2019 17:23:04 GMT -5
Icctrombone and rberman, FWIW, I stopped buying JLA regularly after the reprints stopped, didn't read it again until the Engelhart issues and then bid it farewell again after he left. For me reprints were always a key attraction in many a title I would never have bought otherwise in those days.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 26, 2019 17:56:11 GMT -5
I was never a regular JLA reader. Like PH, I stayed for the reprints.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 19:35:47 GMT -5
I was a regular JLA Reader until the time that Justice League Detroit came on board; when they shift gear to Detroit ... I stopped reading Justice League and haven't read any JLA until Grant Morrison came on board. That's was pretty bad considering that I'm a JLA fanatic from the Original 7 to the Satellite Era. After the Satellite Era ... I was a no show and pretty disappointed in the JLA except the Grant Morrison Era and the New 52. I did not buy any books from the end of the Satellite Era to the time the Hyperclan Saga came into play.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 27, 2019 1:05:56 GMT -5
Why couldn't DC have found a more suitable inker for the guy? DC wasn't exactly overflowing with great inkers during this time. I was pleasantly surprised to see what Dick Giordano could do left to his own devices and, presumably, given more time and money. Here's a sample of his work on pencils and ink from the adaptaion of Bram Stoker's Dracula as found in Dracula Lives #5: More and more, I like Giordano on his own than as an inker. And, really, he's at his best at things besides superheroes (Batman being the exception, since his adventures are usually--and best when--kept at "ground level"). As an inker, he tends to overpower.
Amen; loved his work on The Human Target and he did a bang-up adaptation of the first Modesty Blaise novel, at DC.
|
|