|
Post by brutalis on Oct 16, 2019 17:21:20 GMT -5
This is around the time I began to find issues of MOKF on the spinner racks. My "1st" issue was a Sal Buscema issue #32 from my uncle's barbershop that was fairly well torn up so he let me have it. Then I had managed a trade across the fence with the neighbor boy behind me for issue 30 that had Gulacy pencils. Those were it for awhile. Then suddenly I find issue 51 on the spinner in the Korean market in my neighborhood. Something with the distributors occurred or the sales went up enough for it being a worthwhile series in sales to get higher distribution? Who knows?!? But now I was finding the series pretty regularly every month at this Korean Market (irony or what?) and was all kinds of happy.
So I had no realization of the birth or growth of MOKF and how "IMPORTANT" the Moench/Gulacy team was turning the comic into such a big sales beast. For me those 2 early issues had no connection or continuity for me, I just knew that this series was right up my alley of interests and something more exciting than regular super hero comic books. This is around the same time I began to find out from the new kids playing the old timers sandbox; becoming aware of Starlin, Gulacy, Steranko, Wein, Wolfman, McGregor, Englehart, Russell and their compatriots.
The Gulacy covers were simply stunning and amazing compared to what was appearing on other comic books. And While Craig may have been a bit rough I quickly warmed to his style while becoming interested in seeking out any and all MOKF that I might be able to find anywhere. I was able to trade a bit with a few neighbors and a cousin in getting some more random Gulacy issues. But the monthly issues from Craig and Zeck was the start for me of really collecting the series and searching every month for issues and the very 1st series in which I wanted enough to actually hold back 50 cents so I wouldn't miss a new issue!!!
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 16, 2019 17:48:01 GMT -5
I think Craig was and is under-rated. It was admittedly a big style adjustment for the reader from Gulacy to Craig, but apart from that I like his work on the book.
Minor trivia point: Jim Craig appeared as a guest on the Canadian game show Headline Hunters around this time and the story was his being hired as regular artist on MoKF! Not that the average viewer would have had a clue about the series or even much about comics in general, but any time a Canadian achieved some success in the US, no matter how minor in what medium, it was a bit of a story.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 16, 2019 17:54:13 GMT -5
I remember when #50 came out, and being shocked that Mike Esposito had done, to my eyes, the BEST ink job he'd done in a whole lot of years. His thing tended to be "tracing" whatever was there, without adding anything to it, unless he got sloppy. He didn't get sloppy here.
On the other hand, quite a few years later, I decided to re-read my entire MOKF collection, and when I got to #50 the 2nd time, my impression was, the inks WEREN'T as good as I remembered. Oh well.
I've seen a number of books from Jim Craig, 2 series at Marvel, 2 elsewhere. I tended to like his work, and he fit in nicely among a number of other up-and-coming artists who seemed to be learning and improving on the job (George Perez, Bob Hall, Keith Giffen, etc.). He had 2 problems, as I saw it. One was inappropriate inks. Pablo Marcos with Gulacy was "okay" to me, but never a favorite. Over Craig, it was over-powering and not really helping much.
Then there was John Tartaglione. I'm afraid that, until I got my hands on the ESSENTIAL DAREDEVIL collections, I saw far more lousy inks from him than decent ones. And I can't be sure if it was just him, or the printing, or something else, but his inks over Craig were not only lacking, but inconsistent.
The other problem... and I've seen other artists fall into this trap exactly as he did (including George Perez!!) was, he made the serious mistake of taking on TWO projects at the same time, and I feel that's what screwed him and the book over as far as deadlines went. The other project was the 3-issue mini-series in MARVEL PREMIERE, "3-D MAN". If memory serves, those were inked by Dave Hunt ("Joe Sinnott-lite"), and looked TERRIFIC. Better, to me, than anything else Craig ever did.
I thought I'd spell this out, as I've seen Craig catch nearly non-stop hell over the decades, and I don't think it a lot of it was really his fault.
One more point: there as this one day when I played hooky from work and went to NYC to visit the Marvel offices-- without an appointment. I lucked out, as they sent someone out to talk to me, look at my work, and before I left, give me a tour of the offices. Among the things that happened as a result were, I got to briefly meet Marie Severin; I got to meet John Romita while he was in his corner office, working on the SPIDER-MAN newspaper strip; and I saw some UN-INKED pages lying around, waiting to be inked. And some of them were by JIM CRAIG. Those pencils looked WAY better than any of the published comics did!
You know, his pencils were SO detailed... I have a feeling someone with a really sharp, "clean" style like Jack Abel might have been a pefect fit for him.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Oct 17, 2019 12:28:24 GMT -5
Master of Kung Fu #51Gulacy will come back for one issue; but, he was suffering from burnout, after the deadline grind and will pull back from regular series, doing some commercial work and some other projects. Apart from a reprint and a few excellent covers, I don't remember Gulacy returning to MOKF until the 2002 Max miniseries.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2019 13:05:17 GMT -5
Thoroughly enjoying catching up on this detailed, well written and insightful thread, codystarbuck, especially with the final Gulacy chapters, which remain a highlight of my comics reading. I stuck with MOKF for a while afterwards, but it never again quite recaptured the panache of the final Gulacy issues. Moench and Gulacy made the book so "un-Marvel" that it was a joy simply to see it because it looked and "sounded' so different form virtually every other Marvel title. It was like reading a novel. Quick question: did you/ will you ever have a final decision on who the real-world analogue for Black Jack Tarr might have been? So far, your notion that it might have been British actor Jack Watson seems about the best guess, but as M and G were much more obvious with the other main characters, I wonder if there's someone more well known who might have served as the inspiration for Tarr. There's something of Victor McLaglen in his characterization, but none of his looks. I even wonder if Tarr's look was based a bit on Sean Connery. That panel of him swinging in the mountains made me think of that possibility. (If you've mentioned this and I have forgotten it, I apologize, cody, but I ran through the thread again just now and saw nothing past the Watson possibility.)
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 17, 2019 13:12:01 GMT -5
If remembering correctly, I believe I read somewhere that the facial look Gulacy drew Tarr with is based on Lee Van Cleef?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 17, 2019 13:39:43 GMT -5
If remembering correctly, I believe I read somewhere that the facial look Gulacy drew Tarr with is based on Lee Van Cleef? Less rawboned than Van Cleef was in his younger days, perhaps, but that works. This is Van Cleef in 1980's The Octagon.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 14:59:32 GMT -5
I never came up with anything; but, I could see Van Clief. Van Clief was a deadly looking mo-fo, before The Master ruined all of that. You bought him in Escape From New York as a guy bad enough to deal with criminals like Snake Plissken. The Octagon really never explains his character, even though he steals the whole movie (helps when you are the only one who can act). He's a merc; but that's about the level of character development.
I never caught onto Victoria Principal being Gulacy's model for Black Widow, in the Bizarre Adventures story and the portfolio. Sometimes it is staring you in the face.
I seem to recall a panel or two where Fu looks like Christopher Lee; but, I seem to miss it in the re-read, or it was in my head. Chi has moments of looking like Bruce and moments of looking like the fake Bruces that were appearing in Bruceploitation films.
As far as the future, I was not a regular reader for long stretches; but, the China Seas homage was pretty good, the Gen Day streak, where Velcro comes back, The Cat reappears and such was great. I think part of the problem is Moench didn't have the same collaboration with Craig and Zeck that he did with Gulacy and seemed to have with Day.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 15:01:58 GMT -5
Master of Kung Fu #51Gulacy will come back for one issue; but, he was suffering from burnout, after the deadline grind and will pull back from regular series, doing some commercial work and some other projects. Apart from a reprint and a few excellent covers, I don't remember Gulacy returning to MOKF until the 2002 Max miniseries. That's my mistake. I was looking through credits on Mike's Amazing World to see when Craig was the primary artist and when Zeck came on as the regular and saw one more Gulacy and missed the notation of a reprint, not recognizing the cover as a reprint image.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 17, 2019 16:48:49 GMT -5
Now HERE's Lee Van Cleef. And even Steve Ditko never quite stuck too closely to this after this ONE very obvious panel in this guy's debut appearance.
When I saw this and made the connection, all of a sudden this character's entire personality made perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 17, 2019 16:59:30 GMT -5
The older Lee Van Cleef might be right for the visual, but I'd shy away from that, if only because I'd prefer Black Jack Tarr be BRITISH. A thought crosses my mind... how about STANLEY BAKER ? He's played a lot of hard cases in his time.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 17:46:03 GMT -5
Kind of doubt Stanley Baker, vs Van Cleef, for Gulacy. For one thing, outside of The Guns of Navarone, his films weren't as visible in the US. Zulu, maybe, but that doesn't have the same level of popularity as in the UK. Also doubt Zorro.
Van Cleef in the Leone films, I can see, a little bit. At the same time, he inherited the model, so it might be as simple as him styling it more to suit him, with no real model in mind. Clive Reston was intended to look like Connery, since it was alluded that he was Bond's illegitimate son. Dietrich, Brando, Niven and Morley were all deliberate and obvious.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 17:53:17 GMT -5
Now HERE's Lee Van Cleef. And even Steve Ditko never quite stuck too closely to this after this ONE very obvious panel in this guy's debut appearance.
When I saw this and made the connection, all of a sudden this character's entire personality made perfect sense to me. Not really Van Cleef's moustache or nose. Pencil moustache suggests more of a David Niven, William Powell or Ronald Coleman, not to mention the numerous actors who had that moustache, for a time.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 17, 2019 21:34:40 GMT -5
It is often difficult to notice, let alone recognize, an actor's likeness in the work of an artist with a "cartoony" style. But GOD ALMIGHTY, look at his EYES.
And read the text. And if you can't "hear" his voice in Talbot's words, you're just trying to be difficult.
It was not only seeing that panel, it was also watching "IT CONQUERED THE WORLD" that convinced me.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 18, 2019 8:31:34 GMT -5
I know Starlin wasn't utilizing any celebrity look as his Tarr was a stereotypical big boned, muscular army bloke. But Gulacy slimmed Tarr down and gave him that sleek, deadly older mercenary look. And I do believe that Gulacy, who liked using celebrity references for characters would think Van Cleef totally suited the tough and weathered "look" and style and tone he wanted to portray Tarr within the comic.
|
|