Print

[narfstar]

Heck's cover was much better

[profh0011]

X-MEN #33  /  Jun'67  /  v2. by GIL KANE

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yB1iOGqvzcs/UWY5FH6jBNI/AAAAAAAAKkU/FHIguuASeBs/s1600/XM+033_c2c_RT_HK.jpg

Kane's X-MEN cover ran into problems.  First, several changes were made, including the positions of both hands on both Marvel Girl and Cyclops, Cyclops' eye-beams were added, and a lot of minor rendering lines were added or redrawn on the main figure's hands.

But then, the Comics Code apparently thought the main figure of "The Outcast" was too frightening.  So The Outcast was replaced by The Juggernaut (who had been on Roth's cover in the first place).  Juggernaut's hands were left unchanged from the previous version.  The figures of Marvel Girl & Cyclops were replaced with Iceman and Angel, and their floating heads were replaced with the faces of Cyclops and Marvel Girl-- taken directly from Roth's cover!

Thomas & Kane would go on to collaborate on a wide variety of books, including the creation IRON FIST.


With the Werner Roth cover, I colored the figures first, then, by trial-and-error, designed the background colors for contrast and dynamic effect.  I like how the color scheme wound up looking so "pleasant" and "traditional", which was a perfect fit for Roth's art. 

For Gil Kane's cover, I started out the same way, but for contrast, my choice of colors, first on "The Outcast" and then on the background, was designed to highlight their otherworldliness and evil, as well as reflect the manic intensity of Kane's art. I didn't even bother trying to make it similar to the published version, and I specifically wanted it to be as "wild" and "demented" as possible.  I feel this manages to capture the look of the era (1967 was the "summer of love" and "psychedelia" after all) but also comes close to almost looking like a "black light" poster.

[narfstar]

Would have been eye catching on the newstand which is what they wanted

[profh0011]

First real excuse I've had so far to using "lime green" and that peculiar "neon" shade of purple.  (Stan Goldberg preferered green & purple (and orange) for villains, but not usually those shades of those colors.)

[jimmm kelly]

In terms of Stan Lee hating or not hating Gil Kane's work, I can see where both conclusions could be true. The problem with getting information second or third hand is we don't get the full context.

I know that in some of the articles I've read (probably reported by Roy Thomas), Lee didn't think it was right to pay Kane the full rate for his pencils, because Kane didn't spot the blacks on his art. He left that to the inker, so really the inker was left to do a lot more work--what one would call "finishes."

I believe RT's counter argument to Lee was that Kane's loose pencils were worth the same rate as what they would have paid others for tight pencils.

And when you consider that inkers really were given carte blanche to completely change a penciller's work--why would Gil bother to flesth out his pencils, when he probably knew that his work would be changed anyway.

So I think that Stan Lee was frustrated with Gil Kane. Stan was probably pleased with the work, but he just expected to get fuller pencils for what he was paying.

Other people don't like Gil Kane inking himself, but personally, I really like Gil Kane's own inks on his work. I'm good with Anderson or Greene on Gil's pencils--but as with other artists like Joe Kubert or Kurt Schaffenberger, I sense that the most authentic version of the art is that which Kane has inked himself.

Certainly, once he developed that new style of his (circa 1966), I feel like he was the only one who could really do justice to his own pencils. But that's probably also why he didn't do tight pencils. From what I remember in his shop-talk interview with Will Eisner, Kane would do the inks over and over and over again (on a light table) until he got the look that he wanted. So his art really wasn't complete until it had gone through his inking process.

[profh0011]

X-MEN #25  /  v.1  /  by Werner Roth & Dick Ayers

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NWKTivFg7wE/UWb4nKuhtJI/AAAAAAAAKkk/W1ItZra6bBo/s1600/XM+025_c1c_HK.jpg

Legend has it editor Stan Lee didn't like covers with heroes facing away from the readers.   More recently I've read that he really didn't like heroes whose behinds were facing him... but never mind that.

For this one, I decided to go with the gray background of the published cover, but for the glowing light, I wanted something other than just white & yellow, so I went with yellow & orange instead. While I do think Jack Kirby's published cover was more exciting than this one, it seems a shame for a book's regular artist to get shoved aside for something so trivial.  The trend, unfortunately, continued, as over the next couple years Werner Roth would be REPEATEDLY replaced by other artists on the book's interiors, including Jack Sparling, Dan Adkins, Ross Andru, Don Heck, George Tuska, Jim Steranko, Barry Smith, and, untimately, Neal Adams. 

It's a hell of a thing when an artist is reduced to being a guest-star on his own book.

[profh0011]

While Gil Kane did not "spot blacks" (a complaint I believe Joe Sinnott also slammed him with), the pencils I have seen were VERY detailed and intense. it seems to me Kane tended to TRACE what was there, as did many others, with some leeway for style.

On the other hand, you've got AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #121-124, where John Romita REDREW the pencils from scratch based on Kane's "roughs" (done at half-size), while discarding Kane's full-size complete pencils.  The difference is striking. I actually liked the results, but I'd have really preferered if Romita did FULL ART (meaning, his own layouts, full pencils AND inks).

It was only when I bought ESSENTIAL MARVEL TEAM-UP that i realized that at one point, Ross Andru & Gil Kane SWAPPED books, which is how Andru finally became the main Spidey artist (with ASM #125), while Kane was able to see his pencils inked normally again.

I would have a suspicion that Stan Lee (or perhaps Roy Thomas-- or both) may have been offended to learn that Kane was doing full pencils AND Romita was also doing full pencils.  From what I know of Lee, he probably would have liked to just have Kane do the rough layouts and only pay him for those. That may be another reason Kane got off ASM and onto MTU at that point.


By the way, I've been loking very closely at the 2 "Outsider" images I have-- the one I colored, and the other one I found online (much smaller image, not big enough to color properly). The latter, the line detail is MUCH closer to the published cover, before the figures were replaced.  I'm beginning to suspect what I just colored may have been Kane's PENCILS.  There was just TOO MANY differences, too many lines added (assuming what I colored wasn't some kind of recreation).

[profh0011]

FANTASTIC FOUR #9  /  Dec'62

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IYcF_NJH9mo/UWgqvY1-w-I/AAAAAAAAKls/Ti35zFupkdE/s1600/FF+009_cc_BP_HK.jpg

First one of these I've done in awhile.  I love the whole look of Kirby-Ayers art from this period. And now you can actually see what you're looking at (compared to other images online).

I wound up cleaning up the entire red background at the top, "filled in" art down both the left and right edges, and (to an extent) cleaned up some dark areas along the bottom edge.  (I could have done more, but you have to know when to stop.)


Jack Kirby was one of the few people who really managed to capture the look and personality of Bill Everett's SUB-MARINER.

[profh0011]

FANTASTIC FOUR #10 / Jan'63

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-boE4n3NY54U/UWl72ulTTuI/AAAAAAAAKnc/zLqSa2ReD-I/s1600/FF+010_cc_BP_HK.jpg

Another one that took quite a few hours to clean up.  I could stil do a lot more, but, again, you have to know when to say "Enough!"

I look at something like the shading of Reed Richard's dark blue uniform and wonder, HOW the heck did Stan Goldberg DO that, without airbrush?



Something subtle may have crept into the coloring on this job.  Note that "Lee" is wearing gray pants, while "Kirby" is wearing reddish-brown pants. Now look at the figures above, where Dr. Doom (in gray) is about to get punched in the mouth by The Thing (reddish-brown).  A "Freudian slip", or a deliberate comment / observation?


Now that I have a whole page worth set up, here's the first 10 covers!

http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2011/10/fantastic-four.html

[josemas]

These look really nice cleaned up, Henry.  Lovely to look at.

Thanks for going to the trouble.

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

I know you are discussing Kane's Marvel work but I have to stick up for him.  Perhaps because one of the earliest American comics I saw as a youngster was G.L., I've never forgotten the thrill of those early covers.  I loved the cover to #8   but the others were memorable also.  This isn't simply nostalgia because I believe Kane was a seriously good superhero artist. I could be showing my ignorance here but I like the cover to Avengers 37. 
As for FF 9, Sub Mariner just looks daft imo, like a business man embarrassed that his clothes have disappeared.  He looks much more serious and dangerous in 4 & 5.
None of this rambling changes the fact that your clean up of the covers is anything other than excellent.
Hope you don't mind my butting in.

[josemas]

I've read that Kane, like Alex Toth before him, felt stymied by restrictions that editor Julius Schwartz put on his artwork.  This was one of the reasons that Kane began doing work for other companies in the mid 1960s.  His figure-work became much more dynamic during this period and eventually Schwartz relented and let him use his more "dynamic" style in the DC books as well.

During his earlier DC work I also feel that he was often saddled with inkers like Joe Giella who actually dulled down his work.  When he had an inker like Murphy Anderson or inked his own work it became more vibrant.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

I tend to have 2 main problems with Gil Kane. One is a matter of "personality" that comes through in his style in every panel he ever drew. That's a matter of personal taste, so I can't do anything about it. His stuff is just, generally, too "intense" and "manic" for me. But there's also his inks. Legend has it he worked with a "Flair" pen. This produces a stable "dead weight" line with NO variation at all. It's horribly mechanical and inhuman. When I see Kane inking Kane, I just wanna run away screaming.

DC and Marvel were both known in the 60's for overpowering inkers, with DC's toning things down to a mild, dull "house style", and Marvel's each going in their own different directions.  Kane's "transitional" style didn't last too long (as I see it), and what he developed since CAPTAIN MAR-VELL remained intact for the rest of his career. Too many inkers seemed incapable of doing anything with Kane's work (Mike Esposito, Frank Giacoia), while John Romita, at least on ASM #121-124, proved even more overpowering than anyone at DC had ever been, because he REDREW Kane's pages from scratch and discarded (and ignored) Kane's full pencils!

But there were some inkers capable of taking Kane's work and "refining" it while managing to remain true to it.  That's probably what an inker really should be striving for.  I'd list Joe Sinnott, Wally Wood, Klaus Janson and Joe Rubinstein among them. (I tend to HATE Janson's inks with a passion and vengeance, but somehow, when he teamed with Kane, they both seemed to be "on the same page", so to speak-- dark and nightmarish!)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YyLEGXrgTgY/Tz1GURVPb3I/AAAAAAAABPc/qjF2kJudgOc/s1600/DEF+G02_cc_HK.jpg

[profh0011]

X-MEN #10  /  v.1  /  by Jack Kirby & Chic Stone

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kmZ5AwKB4YY/UWs_uw-3nSI/AAAAAAAAKo8/zpG4wE_JcMk/s1600/XM+010_c1b_OCAL_HK.jpg


Tarzan knock-off were a dime a dozen in the 30's & 40's, even as Superman knock-offs were.  Timely / Marvel had their own-- KA-ZAR-- first as a a pulp magazine character, then translated into the comics.  25 years later, a brand-new, totally-unrelated version cropped up in the new "Marvel Universe".  Did Martin Goodman request it, to revive and/or protect the name? It seems possible. One thing's for certain, the new character sure seemed more brain-damaged than Johnny Weismuller ever was in his TARZAN movies.

Not sure why this cover was rejected, although perhaps it was a lack of focus.  The published version had a much bigger close-up of Ka-Zar, lunging at The Beast while Cyclops once again fired those annoying eye-beams at him.

I really didn't like the gray plants & white sky in the original, so I let my own instincts dictate the color scheme.

This cover, I'm pretty sure, had already turned up on an issue of Chrissie Harper's JACK KIRBY QUARTERLY magazine some years ago.  I didn't dig that out for reference, either.

[profh0011]

In honor of the 1968 SPIDER-MAN cartoon "Neptune's Nose Cone"...

X-MEN 10  /  rejected cover /
"Ralph Bakshi-Gray Morrow" tribute version

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I3mW6Izmpv4/UWtq-Aoj6CI/AAAAAAAAKpM/o_cX-1VELaE/s1600/XM+010_c1d_OCAL_HK.jpg


Henry

[profh0011]

1976

http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-stories-1976.html


As has happened several times before, this latest incarnation of the BIBLE series featured new versions of the stories of "Jacob" and "Joseph".

One very noticeable difference, while the story of "Jacob" has been told in this series multiple times, THIS year was the first time they included the later reconcilliation between Jacob and his brother Esau, who he had so terribly robbed and cheated earlier. I would have thought that was the most important part of the story!

Similarly, in the story of "Joseph", the new version describes his being sold to the Ishmaelites BY some Medianite merchants, rather than by his brothers directly, who were surprised when he disappeared.  (What's going on here?)

[jimmm kelly]

DC and Marvel were both known in the 60's for overpowering inkers, with DC's toning things down to a mild, dull "house style", and Marvel's each going in their own different directions.

It's funny, being a DC fan, and largely looking over the fence at Marvel, my opinion is completely the reverse. DC was full of distinctive pencillers and distinctive inkers, while Marvel (after the departure of Ditko) seemed to have that dull house style. Artists who were very distinctive at DC and I could easily tell apart--Jim Mooney, Ross Andru, John Romita, Gil Kane--became very similar once they went over to Marvel.

As well, I found Spider-Man (post-Ditko) really invited a dull, generic look. Unlike someone like Batman, the character didn't invite a variety of interpretation. At least with the Kirby characters there was a degree of excitement--even if every other artist at Marvel was pressed to copy Kirby's style on those characters.

If I didn't see the credits on Mooney's Spider-Man work, I wouldn't have known this was the same artist who did so many great DC comics. Whereas very early on, I learned to tell the difference between all the pencillers and inkers at DC--who often weren't even credited on a story. And DC had all those idiosyncratic artists like Joe Kubert, Kurt Schaffenberger, Mike Sekowsky, Carmine Infantino, Bruno Premiani, Bob Oksner, George Papp, Curt Swan, and Wayne Boring.

The big DC inkers--Sid Greene, Murphy Anderson, Joe Giella, George Klein--I could spot a mile away for their unique styles. But I would admit that each of those inkers tended to overpower the pencillers they worked over to a certain degree.

Being a much bigger tent, employing many more editors and artists, DC had a wide variety of flavours--whereas Marvel had a lot of the same Lee/Kirby/Romita remixes. But I'm sure if I had been a more devoted Marvel follower, my opinion might have been different.

[profh0011]

BIBLE STORIES,  1977

http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-stories-1977.html

The latest version of the story of "Joseph" continues.  This one features an epilogue not seen in the previous versions in this series.  After, a new version of the story of "Moses" begins.

The series got another new artist-- along with a new LOGO-- for the October 1977 installment.(although it looks to me like the change in artist was only for that month.)

December 1977 saw the first "limited color" installment in several years.  I wonder what was going on there?

[profh0011]

Jim Mooney on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was doing either inks, "finishes", or pencils AND inks, but always, over John Romita's "layouts" (translation: John Romita was WRITING the stories, Stan Lee supplied the dialogue and "course-correction"). While Mooney brought much of his own talent to the series, he didn't get to shine doing his own layouts until he was teamed with other writers, like on MARVEL TEAM-UP, or on 2 short episodes of "Tales Of Atlantis" in the back of SUB-MARINER.  (Mooney did a ton of inks over a variety of pencillers on Subby, but ironically, never got to pencil Namor until one issue of MARVEL SPOTLIGHT.)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aSD46Z5tq8U/TwJBMrFv49I/AAAAAAAAA-o/La1_ezDEx8g/s1600/Spotlight+27_p01.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eubw9kA6kEA/TwJBQ0kyu2I/AAAAAAAAA_A/oqO5vG3hmg4/s1600/Spotlight+27_p13.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P714-HNrGlQ/TwJBUkwnnhI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/bRIPERmWAoA/s1600/Spotlight+27_p18.jpg

For a Romita-era Spidey comic where Mooney really got to shine, see SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #1, where Gwen & MJ almost start to look like they really were in an ARCHIE comic.

By the way, in the 60's, Mooney remains my 2nd-favorite LEGION artist (right after Curt Swan & George Klein).

[jimmm kelly]

FANTASTIC FOUR #10 / Jan'63

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-boE4n3NY54U/UWl72ulTTuI/AAAAAAAAKnc/zLqSa2ReD-I/s1600/FF+010_cc_BP_HK.jpg

Another one that took quite a few hours to clean up.  I could stil do a lot more, but, again, you have to know when to say "Enough!"

I look at something like the shading of Reed Richard's dark blue uniform and wonder, HOW the heck did Stan Goldberg DO that, without airbrush?

The colouring work is impressive. I'm a big fan of Jack Adler's work on the DC covers from the same time period. But as amazing as Goldberg and Adler were, what really astounds me is what I read some years ago in THE DC COMICS GUIDE TO COLORING AND LETTERING COMICS (Watson-Guptill, 2004). In the first few pages of that book, Mark Chiarello describes the process by which comics used to be coloured, where the production department was limited to between 63 and 124 colours, following a complex system of identification for the separator. What happened at the end of this process is what knocked me back, as Chiarello writes (p. 13):

The comic book company's production department would send out the coloring guides and original art boards to their separator, where a group of old ladies would sit around applying dark brown paint to acetate copies of the artwork. I swear it's true! A room full of women who were making minimum wage would darken in four sheets of acetate for each comic book page. Using the colorist's original color guides as a roadmap, they would apply varying shades of brown paint to the clear acetate, making camera-ready film that could then be photographed onto four metal printing plates. The four sheets would correspond to the four colors required for printing: one each for yellow, magenta, cyan, and black.

So it was really the painstaking work of these unsung women who made all these miraculous colours in our comics possible. Think about that the next time you pick up a vintage comic book.

[profh0011]

The alternative was doing it with that plastic stuff.  This is where the phrase "cutting colors" came from.  I had a bit of this in art school (1986-88), which was like, JUST before the entire computer revolution hit.  All the "mathematical" stuff I learned about typography also went right out the window as soon as you could do it on a computer.

I used to say coloring in Corel Draw was like that, except no plastic, or glue, or exacto-knives involved.  And MUCH more control.


The problem with Photoshop is, too many people who use it have no control over themselves. Dick Ayers referred to "overdone" color. He was right!

Of course, I use Photoshop now... and I STILL try to make it look like the 60's!

[profh0011]

BIBLE Stories,  1978

http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-stories-1978.html

The latest version of the story of "Moses" (the 6th time the BOYS' LIFE series had covered the material) continued all the way through 1978.  The pacing of the story is handled differently this time, with more focus on the initial confrontation with Pharaoh, but far less on the various plagues.

The April 1978 installment was done in 2-color printing. In addition, the September 1978 installment-- which lists THE TEN COMMANDMENTS--  was done in 1-color printing (B&W)!  I always wonder why they do that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9Bufz1L_FYg/UXtCtJ9g2RI/AAAAAAAAKvc/tL9kSlBMFQY/s1600/Bible+1978+09++700.jpg

[profh0011]

BIBLE Stories, 1979

http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-stories-1979.html


The latest version of the story of "Moses" (the 6th time the BOYS' LIFE series had covered the material) continued all the way through 1979.  The first 2 installments are entirely graphic, no illustrations at all, something the series had not done for some years.

I've read at Frank Bolle's website that he did work for BOYS' LIFE from 1978-1996 on various features, including the BIBLE.  Although I've usually taken note of changes in artists by differences in styles, in this case, the April 1979 installment was the FIRST time I've seen an artist's SIGNATURE on one of these-- albeit done rather sneakily-- since January 1964!!!  The April 1979 installment also happens to be the first one since May 1971-- and then September 1967 before that-- with an individual title listed (even if the new ones tend to feel more like a "description" than an actual "title").

I've had a growing suspicion that Al Stenzel was the one who decided to eliminate artists' names or signatures, from the time he took over the BL comics section account from Johnstone & Cushing.  As it happens, Stenzel passed away sometime in 1979 (BOYS' LIFE printed a memorial page in the September 1979 issue).  I suppose change was once more in the air.

By the way, from April-December I've been able to spot Frank Bolle's signature (FWB)... except in the July & August installments.  Can anyone spot his signature, or was it left out (or whited out) on those?

[profh0011]

BIBLE Stories, 1980
http://professorhswaybackmachine.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-stories-1980.html

The latest version of the story of "Moses" (the 6th time the BOYS' LIFE series had covered the material) concludes at the start of 1980, then, as usual, continues headlong into the story of "Joshua".

One thing which some may consider blasphemy for me to ask is, I sometimes wonder why every invading, conquering horde in history are considered evil barbarians... EXCEPT, the Israelites, when they storm across The Jordan, destroy the city of Jericho and kill almost everyone in it, then continue on to conquer the entire surroundng country and occupy it? POV?

This year saw some stories that had not been covered by the series before, including "Hannah" (Samuel's mother), and "The Ark" being captured by The Philistines.

Meanwhile, I've only been able to detect 3 Frank Bolle signatures among the 12 months (January, July & December)-- and I had trouble finding those.  Did someone tell him to stop including his signature, and he decided to get sneaky about it?

Also, does anyone know who's writing these, now that Al Stenzel had passed away?

[narfstar]

There were places where they wanted credit for the work to be "house" of course this was especially true for some licensed properties like Disney