|
Post by impulse on Mar 30, 2023 9:35:24 GMT -5
Great example. The original art is striking, and I bet the inked page before color is at least just as stunning.
In fairness, sometimes the completed work comes together spectacularly. My favorite example off the top of my head is Invincible by Robert Kirkman and drawn by Ryan Ottley before they changed color teams around...oh, issue 70? Just spectacular IMO peak superhero art.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 30, 2023 10:04:43 GMT -5
George Perez--or rather Marvel--did not have likeness rights in their adaptation of 1976's Logan's Run, but Perez still captured the essence of the film's characters (and everything else), despite his "superhero-ing" of the actor's physiques: (...)
The Logan's Run comic - specifically the issues based on the movie - is another instance of an adaptation transcending its purpose. If I'm being honest, I'd say it's actually better than the movie, even if I like the movie in all of its campy glory. I like it so much that I had my copies of the entire Marvel series bound. I love both, with the comic being something very rare for many Bronze Age adaptations: successfully adapting a film, and not appearing slapped together just to collect a buck off of IP, which Marvel and Charlton were guilty as charged in the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 30, 2023 10:16:27 GMT -5
The Logan's Run comic - specifically the issues based on the movie - is another instance of an adaptation transcending its purpose. If I'm being honest, I'd say it's actually better than the movie, even if I like the movie in all of its campy glory. I like it so much that I had my copies of the entire Marvel series bound. I love both, with the comic being something very rare for many Bronze Age adaptations: successfully adapting a film, and not appearing slapped together just to collect a buck off of IP, which Marvel and Charlton were guilty as charged in the 70s. I was wondering the other day whether Two Morrows or someone had ever done a deep dive into the history of comic adaptations of movies. In the 60s, they seemed to be the province of Dell and Gold Key, which put out pretty by-the-numbers conversions. In the 70s-80s, Marvel started jumping on pretty much any movie that might have some appeal to its audience (Xanadu, For Your Eyes Only), but really nothing special going on.
It was Heavy metal with Alien, Outland, and 1941, where a publisher thought about making an adaptation something special in it's own right.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 30, 2023 10:28:41 GMT -5
I love both, with the comic being something very rare for many Bronze Age adaptations: successfully adapting a film, and not appearing slapped together just to collect a buck off of IP, which Marvel and Charlton were guilty as charged in the 70s. I was wondering the other day whether Two Morrows or someone had ever done a deep dive into the history of comic adaptations of movies. In the 60s, they seemed to be the province of Dell and Gold Key, which put out pretty by-the-numbers conversions. In the 70s-80s, Marvel started jumping on pretty much any movie that might have some appeal to its audience (Xanadu, For Your Eyes Only), but really nothing special going on.
It was Heavy metal with Alien, Outland, and 1941, where a publisher thought about making an adaptation something special in it's own right.
I know that Back Issue has done at least one issue focusing on them for the period the magazine covers. And then they've had scattered articles on certain ones throughout the run. I'm running to the jail or I'd try to look them up. I don't think there's been an overarching book dealing with the entire genre, but it's a good idea.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,586
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 30, 2023 10:50:19 GMT -5
I love those original art books, though they're pretty pricey. I have all three of the Marvel Star Wars-related ones. The first features Howard Chaykin and others' art from the original movie adaptation and handful of subsequent issues; the second features original art by Al Wiliamson; and the third features Walt Simonson's stuff. I'm still waiting for a fourth volume featuring Carmine Infantino's work on the series, but I dunno, maybe there's less demand for that??? I'd definitely buy it if they did one though. A Ron Frenz/Tom Palmer one would be nice too, but I'd probably pass on a Cynthia Martin volume though! Anyway, here are a few choice pages by Williamson and Simonson...
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 30, 2023 11:02:16 GMT -5
Western had the advantage of their offices in Los Angeles, and their established contacts with the studios, via their licenses with Disney, MGM, Warner and the Walter Lantz Studio (plus Hanna-Barbera). DC had some contacts, but seemed more interested in the reverse, of Hollywood adapting their characters. Marvel had a few fits and starts, before really focusing in on it. That seemed to coincide with Stan heading out West and their own efforts to adapt their characters. I suspect that newer access to LA was a big factor in their expansion into things. That, plus Western's decline, by the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 30, 2023 12:14:08 GMT -5
I know that Back Issue has done at least one issue focusing on them for the period the magazine covers. And then they've had scattered articles on certain ones throughout the run. I'm running to the jail or I'd try to look them up. Uh... don't rush on my account (at least you're not running from the jail). Western had the advantage of their offices in Los Angeles, and their established contacts with the studios, via their licenses with Disney, MGM, Warner and the Walter Lantz Studio (plus Hanna-Barbera). DC had some contacts, but seemed more interested in the reverse, of Hollywood adapting their characters. Marvel had a few fits and starts, before really focusing in on it. That seemed to coincide with Stan heading out West and their own efforts to adapt their characters. I suspect that newer access to LA was a big factor in their expansion into things. That, plus Western's decline, by the 80s. Yeah, but what i was really trying to get at was that until Heavy Metal got into it, adaptations were seen as cash-grab knock-offs, not a book that creators would try to do something interesting with.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 30, 2023 15:24:39 GMT -5
I know that Back Issue has done at least one issue focusing on them for the period the magazine covers. And then they've had scattered articles on certain ones throughout the run. I'm running to the jail or I'd try to look them up. Uh... don't rush on my account (at least you're not running from the jail). Western had the advantage of their offices in Los Angeles, and their established contacts with the studios, via their licenses with Disney, MGM, Warner and the Walter Lantz Studio (plus Hanna-Barbera). DC had some contacts, but seemed more interested in the reverse, of Hollywood adapting their characters. Marvel had a few fits and starts, before really focusing in on it. That seemed to coincide with Stan heading out West and their own efforts to adapt their characters. I suspect that newer access to LA was a big factor in their expansion into things. That, plus Western's decline, by the 80s. Yeah, but what i was really trying to get at was that until Heavy Metal got into it, adaptations were seen as cash-grab knock-offs, not a book that creators would try to do something interesting with. Warren--in keeping with the theme of its horror magazines--did adapt a few films such as Universal's The Mummy and The Mummy's Hand, for Creepy and Monster World, so I'd see that as something a bit more legitimate (artistically speaking) than the kind of genre-jumping / grab and film or TV series methods of 1970s Marvel and Charlton.
|
|