|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 29, 2024 8:42:48 GMT -5
For me Robbins has his moments, but his crazy gumby action positions throw me right out of the story every time. Why people bending at unnatural angles is worse that flying and having laser beam eyes I can't say, but it is.
I wonder if Robbins could take credit for the illustrations in the old Stretch Armstrong ad, or the illos in the coloring book?
I only see two feet in that illo. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 29, 2024 8:47:07 GMT -5
I have no horse in the Robbins race as I was never aware of him, but based on what I'm seeing, I would not have been a fan. I don't like the distorted positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on May 29, 2024 8:54:49 GMT -5
Frank Robbins is always on my short-list of least favorite Marvel comic artists. I never cared for his work. I understand why Roy Thomas used him on The Invaders as he wanted that Golden Age feel Robbins had from his Scorchy Smith strips but his work has always been irksome (at least to me). As a fan of the Invaders but mainly for the writing but his style was always not to my liking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 29, 2024 11:06:38 GMT -5
I wonder if Robbins could take credit for the illustrations in the old Stretch Armstrong ad, or the illos in the coloring book?
I only see two feet in that illo. These must be Colletta inks... though he didn't quite get all of that kid in the background. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 29, 2024 11:39:52 GMT -5
For me Robbins has his moments, but his crazy gumby action positions throw me right out of the story every time. Always. Stylized as some artists could be, there was the expectation of human characters actually appearing as if they were of this world, and not the residents within some cracked, funhouse mirror, in other words, Robbins' art. Frank Robbins is always on my short-list of least favorite Marvel comic artists. Agreed. The Invaders was one of those definitive "hit and miss" Marvel books--a hit with most of the stories, and a complete miss with Robbins' art. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 29, 2024 16:23:34 GMT -5
Despite being adeptly adapted by Roy Thomas, and beautifully drawn by John Buscema, Marvel's Tarzan fails to match Kubert's Tarzan, in spite of the latter being a mess editorially. Interestingly, in Roy's final issue he says he hasn't quite enjoyed writing Tarzan as much as he thought he would (I believe he says it was more enjoyable in "contemplation than execution"), and basically states that he's more passionate about Conan so he's going to focus his non-superhero writing endeavors on the monthly Conan books. I thought Roy did a competent job, albeit perhaps with an overly long adaptation of Tarzan and The Jewels of Opar, but perhaps his lack of passion is one reason why the book doesn't match the raw power of Kubert's Tarzan. Speaking of Kubert, I've moved onto Tor and have been impressed by the lengths Kubert has gone to to make it visually different from Tarzan. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 29, 2024 16:27:41 GMT -5
Early Tor or the 90s mini from Marvel?
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 29, 2024 16:32:56 GMT -5
Early Tor or the 90s mini from Marvel? I'm reading the the short-lived 70s book atm. |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on May 29, 2024 16:39:25 GMT -5
Early Tor or the 90s mini from Marvel? There's also Joe's 2008 mini at DC returning to the character and his world. albeit a slightly different take from Joe incorporating much of what he has learned both about the craft of comics and the Stone Age world, during the course of his career.  -M |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 29, 2024 17:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 3, 2024 9:26:08 GMT -5
Not sure which thread to post this in, but here is just a s good.
On our Zoom meeting we discussed Gene Colan leaving Marvel.
Here is an excerpt from the Comics Journal.
Now we do know that Shooter was a pain in the ass to a lot of artists, but also the older artists had their way of working. We also know a lot of the new writers were assholes. The stories of how they treated Kirby alone are pretty grim.
But what I want to do is actually look at the work Colan was doing before he left for DC. In 1979-1980 Colan was finishing up Tomb of Dracula, Howard the Duck, a run on Dr. Strange and a 5 issue return to Daredevil.
I challenge anyone to look at those books and say Colan was "phoning it in". There might have been a clash of ideas or generations, but Gene's work in retrospect was first rate. As it was when he went to DC.
And BTW, Sal Buscema had the same complaint about Shooter and the young writers telling him how to draw a story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 3, 2024 9:46:22 GMT -5
Not sure which thread to post this in, but here is just a s good. On our Zoom meeting we discussed Gene Colan leaving Marvel. Here is an excerpt from the Comics Journal. Now we do know that Shooter was a pain in the ass to a lot of artists, but also the older artists had their way of working. We also know a lot of the new writers were assholes. The stories of how they treated Kirby alone are pretty grim. But what I want to do is actually look at the work Colan was doing before he left for DC. In 1979-1980 Colan was finishing up Tomb of Dracula, Howard the Duck, a run on Dr. Strange and a 5 issue return to Daredevil. I challenge anyone to look at those books and say Colan was "phoning it in". There might have been a clash of ideas or generations, but Gene's work in retrospect was first rate. As it was when he went to DC. And BTW, Sal Buscema had the same complaint about Shooter and the young writers telling him how to draw a story. It's kinda sad to see the "Marvel Method" deteriorate over time. And if the 79 to 80 timeline is accurate, I think Colan's work on Captain America #256 (which is honestly one of my favorite issues) and Captain America Annual #5 from 81 might have been one of his next to last jobs   I truly loved Colan's style, especially in HTD. It kind of had this pulpy, almost noir quality to it that I think is far better appreciated in B&W than it is in color |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jun 3, 2024 10:06:46 GMT -5
Colan had an abbreviated run on Avengers at the end of his time at Marvel as well ('81) in issues 206-208, 209-210, which honestly is not my favorite example of his work. There was no set writer during that run (Mantlo, Budiansky/Fingeroth did issues before Shooter took over for a run that started with #211, Colan's last issue). Neither the stories nor the art was very good in that stretch, as everything seemed a bit lackluster (and with Perez having left again just prior to it, it was a hard act to follow and suffered by comparison). But then that kind of team super-hero book is not one that I think of as playing to Gene's strengths as a storyteller. He was paired with Dan Green as inker, whom he had worked with previously on Dr. Strange, and I liked the pairing on the Strange issues, but not so much on Avengers. Whether that was because someone was phoning it in, the stories themselves were uninspiring, deadlines were an issue, or what, I don't know, but that's not a run I'd hold up to show off the strengths of any of the creators involved.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 3, 2024 10:43:04 GMT -5
Not sure which thread to post this in, but here is just a s good. On our Zoom meeting we discussed Gene Colan leaving Marvel. Here is an excerpt from the Comics Journal. Now we do know that Shooter was a pain in the ass to a lot of artists, but also the older artists had their way of working. We also know a lot of the new writers were assholes. The stories of how they treated Kirby alone are pretty grim. But what I want to do is actually look at the work Colan was doing before he left for DC. In 1979-1980 Colan was finishing up Tomb of Dracula, Howard the Duck, a run on Dr. Strange and a 5 issue return to Daredevil. I challenge anyone to look at those books and say Colan was "phoning it in". There might have been a clash of ideas or generations, but Gene's work in retrospect was first rate. As it was when he went to DC. And BTW, Sal Buscema had the same complaint about Shooter and the young writers telling him how to draw a story. This final page from AVENGERS 207 might be an example of the (obviously exaggerated) "16 panels on the last page." It does appear that Colan's preceding pages didn't get around to conveying a lot of plot points that the scripter (Bob Budiansky) probably expected to see illustrated more directly in the prior pages (which featured a whole lot of fighting and not much story). Some of his other issues of AVENGERS do feature "a lot of big, easy pictures", but those strike me as exactly the sort of clear, simple, and frankly pedestrian composition that Shooter himself preferred: medium, full body shots, no crazy perspectives or exaggeration or distracting frills.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 3, 2024 10:56:36 GMT -5
Seems to me the Avengers proves my point. 6 issues with 4 different writers, and mediocre stories. And Shooter wants to blame the artists? Sounds more like lipstick on a pig. Meanwhile the better work mentioned above shows the problem wasn't Colan. Cap #256   |
|
