|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 20, 2014 14:55:45 GMT -5
Sometimes I'd like to find a personification of Destiny as they have in comics and slap 'em in the face.
Reading the best of Archie book 3 this weekend, I realized for the first time that Dan DeCarlo and Dan DeCarlo Jr weren't the same person.
I must admit that apart from the brouhaha that surrounded Dan's fight over the rights to his characters Josie & the pussycats, I didn't know much about him (apart from the obvious fact that he drew great comics). Since I haven't read much new Archie material between the early 80s and the recent "Life with Archie", the few times I came across a Dan DeCarlo Jr. signature I just assumed it was the same Dan whose art I had enjoyed in the 70s; Archie comics having adopted his style as their house style for so long, I didn't stop at a few stylistic differences.
Googling it up, I learned that Dan Jr was Dan's son, proudly walking in his father's artistic footsteps, and that he even had a twin brother names James who also worked on Archie. Cool up to now, except that...I also learned that both sons had died tragically young; one of cancer, in 1990, the other of a stroke in 1991.
Oooooh, crap. I can't think of anything more terrible than losing one's child, so... losing two??? And within a year one from the other? That's horrible beyond words.
Dan survived his boys for ten years and died in 2001; his wife Josie passed away in 2012. That a family who brought us so much pure and innocent joy should suffer so much tragedy is extremely unfair. The mistreatment of Dan by Archie Comics when he tried to get his rights over Josie recognized just added salt to the wounds, I'm sure. (I mean, it's one thing for a publisher to argue about who owns what, but to fire a pillar of the company over it? Gaaah, it makes me bloody angry).
Rest in peace, members of the DeCarlo clan; I wish I had taken the time to know you better. And thanks for the great comics.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,942
|
Post by Crimebuster on Oct 20, 2014 16:56:07 GMT -5
One of the bizarre side effects of the truly unfortunate issues between DeCarlo and Archie Comics is the creation of Ginger Lopez. Basically, because part of DeCarlo's beef was about Cheryl Blossom, Archie Comics just erased Cheryl from history for a period of a few years. Whenever they reprinted any stories that featured Cheryl, they touched up the artwork to make the character Hispanic, and re-wrote the dialogue boxes, changing the name from "Cheryl" to "Ginger." Viola, a new character - that somehow everyone in Riverdale already had a long history with even though none of the readers had ever heard of her.
Eventually, of course, they brought back Cheryl, and have since had her co-star alongside Ginger more than once, which is just weird when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 21, 2014 7:22:13 GMT -5
Sometimes I'd like to find a personification of Destiny as they have in comics and slap 'em in the face. Reading the best of Archie book 3 this weekend, I realized for the first time that Dan DeCarlo and Dan DeCarlo Jr weren't the same person. I must admit that apart from the brouhaha that surrounded Dan's fight over the rights to his characters Josie & the pussycats, I didn't know much about him (apart from the obvious fact that he drew great comics). Since I haven't read much new Archie material between the early 80s and the recent "Life with Archie", the few times I came across a Dan DeCarlo Jr. signature I just assumed it was the same Dan whose art I had enjoyed in the 70s; Archie comics having adopted his style as their house style for so long, I didn't stop at a few stylistic differences. Googling it up, I learned that Dan Jr was Dan's son, proudly walking in his father's artistic footsteps, and that he even had a twin brother names James who also worked on Archie. Cool up to now, except that...I also learned that both sons had died tragically young; one of cancer, in 1990, the other of a stroke in 1991. Oooooh, crap. I can't think of anything more terrible than losing one's child, so... losing two??? And within a year one from the other? That's horrible beyond words. Dan survived his boys for ten years and died in 2001; his wife Josie passed away in 2012. That a family who brought us so much pure and innocent joy should suffer so much tragedy is extremely unfair. The mistreatment of Dan by Archie Comics when he tried to get his rights over Josie recognized just added salt to the wounds, I'm sure. (I mean, it's one thing for a publisher to argue about who owns what, but to fire a pillar of the company over it? Gaaah, it makes me bloody angry). Rest in peace, members of the DeCarlo clan; I wish I had taken the time to know you better. And thanks for the great comics. I checked and both sons died at age 52. Yes young for their age but I was mislead when you called them boys. Do you have any scand of their artwork? Did they draw like their dad?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 21, 2014 10:44:38 GMT -5
Sometimes I'd like to find a personification of Destiny as they have in comics and slap 'em in the face. Reading the best of Archie book 3 this weekend, I realized for the first time that Dan DeCarlo and Dan DeCarlo Jr weren't the same person. I must admit that apart from the brouhaha that surrounded Dan's fight over the rights to his characters Josie & the pussycats, I didn't know much about him (apart from the obvious fact that he drew great comics). Since I haven't read much new Archie material between the early 80s and the recent "Life with Archie", the few times I came across a Dan DeCarlo Jr. signature I just assumed it was the same Dan whose art I had enjoyed in the 70s; Archie comics having adopted his style as their house style for so long, I didn't stop at a few stylistic differences. Googling it up, I learned that Dan Jr was Dan's son, proudly walking in his father's artistic footsteps, and that he even had a twin brother names James who also worked on Archie. Cool up to now, except that...I also learned that both sons had died tragically young; one of cancer, in 1990, the other of a stroke in 1991. Oooooh, crap. I can't think of anything more terrible than losing one's child, so... losing two??? And within a year one from the other? That's horrible beyond words. Dan survived his boys for ten years and died in 2001; his wife Josie passed away in 2012. That a family who brought us so much pure and innocent joy should suffer so much tragedy is extremely unfair. The mistreatment of Dan by Archie Comics when he tried to get his rights over Josie recognized just added salt to the wounds, I'm sure. (I mean, it's one thing for a publisher to argue about who owns what, but to fire a pillar of the company over it? Gaaah, it makes me bloody angry). Rest in peace, members of the DeCarlo clan; I wish I had taken the time to know you better. And thanks for the great comics. I checked and both sons died at age 52. Yes young for their age but I was mislead when you called them boys. Do you have any scand of their artwork? Did they draw like their dad? Jim was an inker so it's harder to tell... but Dan Jr drew Archie pretty much like his dad did, yeah. Here's the Lambiek page on the two artists. As for the lads' age, they died at 42, not 52 (born in 1948, died in 1990-1991). And from my geriatric point of view, 42 is damn young!!! (*Cough! Cough!* ACKH!* Ooooooh, my achin' back).
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 21, 2014 10:47:06 GMT -5
42 is damn young. Frankly, from my perspective 52 is pretty young.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 21, 2014 11:16:08 GMT -5
42 is damn young. Frankly, from my perspective 52 is pretty young. OOps, I should have attended that last math class...Yeah 42 is too young. But any parent that outlives their kids at any age is destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 21, 2014 11:54:25 GMT -5
42 is damn young. Frankly, from my perspective 52 is pretty young. OOps, I should have attended that last math class...Yeah 42 is too young. But any parent that outlives their kids at any age is destroyed. Very, very, absolutely true. Your kid remains your kid no matter what age they are.
|
|
|
Post by dabellwrites on Aug 17, 2021 14:41:22 GMT -5
I learned about Decarlo from these two articles: link, link They kinda paints Decarlo as a horndog in the 70s. Though reading some of his work on pre-code Millie The Model, I'm inclined to agree. The man just loved his ladies in the state of undress and bathing.
Not a knock against him.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 17, 2021 15:04:44 GMT -5
I learned about Decarlo from these two articles: link, link They kinda paints Decarlo as a horndog in the 70s.... I don't know that DeCarlo was a "horndog" as much as an artist who did what he did well. From what little I read, he and his wife Josie were happy throughout their marriage. Reading some of the 60s-70s Archies now, as I've been doing lately, I'm surprised at how blatant the innuendo and T&A is.
One thing I've also noticed is that it's not unusual for DeCarlo to put a "background" character in the foreground who seems to be based on a real person, like the redhead in this panel:
Also, in one of this links, the writer says that DeCarlo did cartoons for Playboy. I don't think that's true. He did plenty of stuff for "men's digests" and joke books, but I think Hef wouldn't've thought his style wasn't sophisticated enough for Playboy.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 17, 2021 15:31:58 GMT -5
I learned about Decarlo from these two articles: link, link They kinda paints Decarlo as a horndog in the 70s....
Also, in one of this links, the writer says that DeCarlo did cartoons for Playboy. I don't think that's true. He did plenty of stuff for "men's digests" and joke books, but I think Hef wouldn't've thought his style wasn't sophisticated enough for Playboy.
I don't find any evidence that DeCarlo's pin-ups and cartoons ever appeared in Playboy. Comedy, Jest, and Laugh Riot among others, but not Playboy. I wonder if the confusion comes from the fact that "The Pin-up Art of Dan DeCarlo" was reviewed in Playboy and that fact was touted in promotional material for The Pin-up Art of Dan DeCarlo, Vol. 2.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Aug 17, 2021 15:47:55 GMT -5
(...)
Also, in one of this links, the writer says that DeCarlo did cartoons for Playboy. I don't think that's true. He did plenty of stuff for "men's digests" and joke books, but I think Hef wouldn't've thought his style wasn't sophisticated enough for Playboy.
I think you're right about him not doing any work for Playboy; I'm pretty sure most of his work for adult-oriented magazines appeared in Martin Goodman's various publications in the 1950s. A lot of what I've seen posted in various places online seems like it wouldn't have been out of place in Playboy, though:
By the way, the articles in both of those links were written by the same guy (the guy posts under the name "Yeoman Lowbrow" at Flashbak is the same guy who runs the Retrospace blog), and they're basically the same piece - the one in Flashbak is just slightly abridged.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Aug 17, 2021 15:49:56 GMT -5
Sorry, didn't hit refresh before posting and so didn't see Slam's post...
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 17, 2021 16:10:19 GMT -5
I have the first Pin-Up Art of Dan DeCarlo book and would probably buy the second one too if I came across it somewhere. I much prefer it to Archie, which I've never been a big fan of, though there's no denying the quality of DeCarlo's work on those comics.
|
|
|
Post by dabellwrites on Aug 17, 2021 16:31:40 GMT -5
I learned about Decarlo from these two articles: link, link They kinda paints Decarlo as a horndog in the 70s.... I don't know that DeCarlo was a "horndog" as much as an artist who did what he did well. From what little I read, he and his wife Josie were happy throughout their marriage. Reading some of the 60s-70s Archies now, as I've been doing lately, I'm surprised at how blatant the innuendo and T&A is.
One thing I've also noticed is that it's not unusual for DeCarlo to put a "background" character in the foreground who seems to be based on a real person, like the redhead in this panel:
Perhaps "horndog" was a little too much, but the image does show the man did in fact have a type of woman he loved to draw. Again, not trying to knock the man. I love his work. Some will call him sexist, but I don't care. I actually love his ten-year run on Millie the Model.
|
|
|
Post by dabellwrites on Aug 17, 2021 16:34:20 GMT -5
(...)
Also, in one of this links, the writer says that DeCarlo did cartoons for Playboy. I don't think that's true. He did plenty of stuff for "men's digests" and joke books, but I think Hef wouldn't've thought his style wasn't sophisticated enough for Playboy.
I think you're right about him not doing any work for Playboy; I'm pretty sure most of his work for adult-oriented magazines appeared in Martin Goodman's various publications in the 1950s. A lot of what I've seen posted in various places online seems like it wouldn't have been out of place in Playboy, though:
By the way, the articles in both of those links were written by the same guy (the guy posts under the name "Yeoman Lowbrow" at Flashbak is the same guy who runs the Retrospace blog), and they're basically the same piece - the one in Flashbak is just slightly abridged. Oh really? That's interesting, same author. Now that I think about it, yeah. It makes sense. A lot of the images are the same.
|
|