|
Post by Ozymandias on Feb 17, 2021 2:30:05 GMT -5
Here's a high resolution version without watermark, it might not last as long as the LS version.
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Feb 17, 2021 14:39:34 GMT -5
The color looks to have reproduced in muddier tones on the cover as well, which doesn't help (and added trade dress never helps but is a necessary evil in publication). -M The Lonestar repro is misleading IMO ... I have an old, now crumbling copy of this, bought from a street vendor, which I bought oh must be, what, 12 or so years ago--and the colors are not as even or smooth as the Lonestar image makes it seem. The brown is brown, not as dark and unvaried as shown in the LS image. The clothing and the mist are effective too on the published cover. The brushstrokes and "textures" are evident. But I agree that usually, something's really lost in the process and I usually admire the original painted versions I've seen (online) more than the finished product that appears on covers.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 17, 2021 15:27:20 GMT -5
The color looks to have reproduced in muddier tones on the cover as well, which doesn't help (and added trade dress never helps but is a necessary evil in publication). -M The Lonestar repro is misleading IMO ... I have an old, now crumbling copy of this, bought from a street vendor, which I bought oh must be, what, 12 or so years ago--and the colors are not as even or smooth as the Lonestar image makes it seem. The brown is brown, not as dark and unvaried as shown in the LS image. The clothing and the mist are effective too on the published cover. The brushstrokes and "textures" are evident. But I agree that usually, something's really lost in the process and I usually admire the original painted versions I've seen (online) more than the finished product that appears on covers. That is probably due to the scan. I scan originals all of the time, at work, to reproduce them and the color will show tonal shifts, because the digital scanner can only interpret the color. Scanning from an original, at high resolution tends to produce something truer, but, there will still be shifts, due to digital coloring processes and formulas. Those original covers were printed on offset printers, in ink. For digital, you would need to adjust the color in Photoshop or Illustrator or similar software.
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Feb 20, 2021 21:02:48 GMT -5
The Lonestar repro is misleading IMO ... I have an old, now crumbling copy of this, bought from a street vendor, which I bought oh must be, what, 12 or so years ago--and the colors are not as even or smooth as the Lonestar image makes it seem. The brown is brown, not as dark and unvaried as shown in the LS image. The clothing and the mist are effective too on the published cover. The brushstrokes and "textures" are evident. But I agree that usually, something's really lost in the process and I usually admire the original painted versions I've seen (online) more than the finished product that appears on covers. That is probably due to the scan. I scan originals all of the time, at work, to reproduce them and the color will show tonal shifts, because the digital scanner can only interpret the color. Scanning from an original, at high resolution tends to produce something truer, but, there will still be shifts, due to digital coloring processes and formulas. Those original covers were printed on offset printers, in ink. For digital, you would need to adjust the color in Photoshop or Illustrator or similar software. There's also the monitor you look at it on to think about. I have a dual monitor display with two different types of monitor (one Dell, one HP) and no matter how hard I try I can't get them to display exactly the same. When I colour my comics in Photoshop I usually have the tools on the right hand display and the art on the left solely because the left hand monitor is turned portrait and the art fits better. Dragging the art over to the right hand monitor it always looks a lot paler, flatter, and washed out than on the left hand one.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 22, 2021 7:09:50 GMT -5
Did John Buscema write the Avengers? Did Gene Colan write Daredevil? Did Herb Trimpe write the Hulk ?
Why do some members here insist on saying that Kirby Wrote the FF and Ditko wrote Spider-Man ?
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 22, 2021 8:31:11 GMT -5
Did John Buscema write the Avengers? Did Gene Colan write Daredevil? Did Herb Trimpe write the Hulk ? Why do some members here insist on saying that Kirby Wrote the FF and Ditko wrote Spider-Man ? I prefer saying they plotted the stories or were co-writers. With Kirby you have more than enough proof he was writing and conceiving more than other artists in that he actually WROTE inside the word balloons what characters were all saying as well as writing between panels. Pick up any issue of Twomorro's Jack Kirby Collector for proof. I don't really know with Ditko, as I haven't seen much of his pencil pages saved and shown as Kirby over the years but when you consider that 90% of Ditko work he was the writer and his comics all carried forth his thoughts concepts and ideology I am more than willing to bet he wrote Spidey and Stan was providing dialogue changing the intent and characters. Probably why he finally got tired of the struggle against Stan's constant changes and walked away out of frustration.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 22, 2021 8:56:43 GMT -5
Who came up with the initial concept of the FF and Spider-man ? Some would have you believe that he never participated in the plotting of any stories. Stan felt a close affinity to the Silver Surfer character, so much so , that he didn't allow anyone to write a solo story until Byrne did in the 1982 one shot.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 22, 2021 9:45:38 GMT -5
Stan was tasked with coming up with a team book. Both he and Kirby had input, with Kirby using his own Challengers of the Unknown as a touchstone. If you look at the FF at a certain point it just says, by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, because Kirby was coming up with complete stories that Stan just scripted. I am sure Stan gave some guidance, like use this character or have them do this, but it was a lot more Kirby at some point. The Silver Surfer was created solely by Kirby, Stan first saw him in that panel in FF #48. It's how we got "For want of a Better name." I think the ownership Stan felt came from the '68 series with Buscema, that is where Stan laid his claim on the character. And it was not how Kirby envisioned him. Kirby thought of the Surfer as his creation, and Stan taking him for his own was probably one of the reasons Kirby decided to leave Marvel. I loved the 60s SS series, beyond the all time great Buscema art, it spoke to my teenage hippie view of mankind. Stan probably thought it was some of his best writing, and though it didn't sell as well as he wished, the fans loved it. If you look at the 70s graphic novel by Jack and Stan you will see Jacks version, a creature created whole by Galactus who slowly learns to have humanity. Stan turned him into an alien who gives up his humanity to save his planet, and then grapples with that loss. As for Spider-Man, Stan admitted in the infamous Herald tribune article that his relationship with Ditko had gotten so bad that Steve was turning in complete books for Stan to dialog, without them really talking to each other.
For artists that weren't Kirby or Ditko, Stan had more elaborate story conferences, but the artist still had a lot of latitude on how the story was done.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 22, 2021 11:21:48 GMT -5
A couple of people from Marvel have described Stan & Jack's sessions as both throwing out ideas for a plot, but often not really hearing what the other is saying. Then, Kirby went off to draw the thing according to the plot in his head. When Stan got the finished pages, which included Kirby's dialogue written in the margins (seen in many originals in the Kirby Collector), he wrote the dialogue, based on the plot in his head. Often, the dialogue didn't exactly reflect what was happening in the art, as the Kirby Collector has demonstrated with several stories. With the FF, it appears to have been more of a mix of Stan and Jack; but, famously, Kirby was sole creator of Silver Surfer, as Kirby felt Galactus needed a herald, but had never talked about it with Stan. Stan, himself, remarked that he didn't know of the character until he saw the art and then was inspired by it. Kirby's conception was that he was an energy being, created by Galactus, who learned to be human. Stan threw that out when he wrote the Surfer's own series, making him an alien transformed by Galactus.
At the same time, most have said that Kirby was pretty much plotting Thor on his own, with little input from Stan (after the initial stories) as he was the one with greater interest in mythology. This was said to be especially true of the Tales of Asgard series, which pretty much everyone at Marvel said was Kirby, with Stan just dialoguing.
By the same token, Stan and Steve had more collaboration on Spider-Man, until their relationship broke down and Ditko wasn't directly communicating with Stan. It is quite obvious in several stories that Ditko's plot and intent has been altered by Stan's dialogue, especially with political things, like student protests, in one issue. Similar to Kirby, Dr Strange was pretty much Ditko's baby, plotting it on his own, with Stan dialoguing.
Both artists had a history of creating their own stories and it is more than likely that Stan might suggest a villain return or a setting for the story, but little else, until the art came back and he started writing the dialogue. With other artists, he was writing a plot synopsis, some loose, some detailed, depending on the artist.
Now, in my opinion, things like the FF and Spider-Man are collaborations, featuring a synthesis of the partners, while Thor and Dr Strange are definitely more the work of the artists; but, that doesn't mean Stan's dialogue didn't constitute writing, as it did much to shape the personalities of the characters. I don't buy into the concept of "written by artists" and "dialogue by Stan Lee". Stan is writing on those stories, however you want to classify it. I do think the artists should have had more credit for the plot and that the best solution was to credit the stories to writer and artists, just as in book publishing or European comics, rather than breaking down functions.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 22, 2021 11:29:12 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind that there exists a script for at least the first part of Fantastic Four #1. So while we don't know exactly what may have gone in to the creation we know that Stan Lee scripted at least the first part of the book.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Feb 24, 2021 6:25:01 GMT -5
There are several examples of Stan admitting that the artists were plotting, pacing, and picking the scenes that would convey the story. Here's something from the Bullpen Bulletins I came across during my Western Team-Up explorations that puts Don Heck and Dick Ayers in the same boat as Jack Kirby: Dick Ayers did receive some explicit credits for plotting some of his work, notably on the first few issues of Marvel's GHOST RIDER (1967), but I don't recall Heck ever getting any credit beyond this bit of fine print. And here's the entirety of one of the existing type-written "plots" that Stan assigned to Kirby: "Dr. Doom and the Surfer get involved--maybe Doom wants the board, so defeats the Surfer somehow and the Surfer wanders off without the board. This can be spread over a few issues. Meanwhile, the Torch continues to follow Lockjaw."
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,627
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 24, 2021 6:52:14 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind that there exists a script for at least the first part of Fantastic Four #1. So while we don't know exactly what may have gone in to the creation we know that Stan Lee scripted at least the first part of the book. There's also a script for FF #8 that Stan wrote that was in the possession of comic historian Jerry Bails.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 24, 2021 7:23:18 GMT -5
What I believe is that they both contributed ideas and concepts at the beginning and, as Stan began to expand Marvel comics with other titles, he had Kirby contribute more of the ideas and plots. Also, In my opinion, the dialogue and script is very important to the finished product. . Kirby and Ditko went on to DC and other companies and the writing and dialoging was subpar.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 24, 2021 9:24:28 GMT -5
I think there're plenty of reasons to admire Stan Lee. The argument seems to be: what are you admiring him for?
If you compare Stan's role at Marvel to Feldstein at MAD, there's plenty to admire: they built international brands, fostered top-quality talent, got the books out on time, and a lot more. In addition, Stan wrote dialog and captions that established a distinct voice that many still associate with Marvel.
Most fans discount the role of editors, but they set the tone, especially through the Silver Age; a Schwartz superhero story reads much differently than a Weisinger superhero story, but a Schwartz superhero story reads a lot like a Schwartz western.
Here're the credits for a latter-period Spirit (from GCD):
Is it an Eisner story? I'd say yes; he set the tone, guided the development, may have done the layouts.
So is Stan responsible for the Marvel Universe? You bet! Did he establish and develop (I'm purposely not saying create) all of the characters and stories that built the foundation? He enabled it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Feb 24, 2021 20:49:00 GMT -5
... And here's the entirety of one of the existing type-written "plots" that Stan assigned to Kirby: "Dr. Doom and the Surfer get involved--maybe Doom wants the board, so defeats the Surfer somehow and the Surfer wanders off without the board. This can be spread over a few issues. Meanwhile, the Torch continues to follow Lockjaw." Interesting --thanks. Do you have a source for this or recall where this is from, MW? Is there a copy of this somewhere online or in a book/periodical?
|
|