 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Following on from my relatively recent repost about Vince Colletta (here), I thought I'd show you an example of why I think he often gets a 'bum rap' for ruining Jack Kirby's pencil art by missing things out. As I said before elsewhere, I don't think that it was always a case of him taking shortcuts just for the sake of it, but probably because - at least on some occasions - of him applying his own artistic sensibilities to certain panels because he thought it improved their composition.
Take the panel which opens this post. To my eyes, the figure at the back of the crowd in Jack's pencils is too small in relation to Loki (given the seeming short space between the two) - and the pavement (sidewalk) looks to be on the same level as the god of mischief's chest, but running up at a slight angle, as opposed to receding away from him at its proper perspective. By removing the almost prostrate figure, the proportions of the fleeing crowd in relation to Loki appears more realistic, the seeming upward slant is lessened, and the general layout improved.
There's no doubt that Vince sometimes simplified or omitted detail that he didn't consider necessary in order to ink the job quicker, but, like I said, I believe there were times when he thought it improved the overall look of the art. Sometimes he misjudged it, but, on balance, I think he usually gave more to the strip (in terms of a pleasing visual appearance) than he took away by leaving anything out.
Stan Lee was presumably (mainly) happy with the results (though I can think of one exception), otherwise he simply wouldn't have given Vince his best artist's pencils to ink. At the end of the day, Thor reportedly sold better when Vinnie inked it than when Bill Everett or George Klein did, so I'd say that surely counts for something. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter - you'll have your own.
'Nuff said.
(Vinnie did make a couple of changes I'm not so keen on - he made Loki's right glove look longer than his left, and the paving slab lines on the sidewalk more angled. Tsk, tsk!)
There's no doubt that Vince sometimes simplified or omitted detail that he didn't consider necessary in order to ink the job quicker, but, like I said, I believe there were times when he thought it improved the overall look of the art. Sometimes he misjudged it, but, on balance, I think he usually gave more to the strip (in terms of a pleasing visual appearance) than he took away by leaving anything out.
Stan Lee was presumably (mainly) happy with the results (though I can think of one exception), otherwise he simply wouldn't have given Vince his best artist's pencils to ink. At the end of the day, Thor reportedly sold better when Vinnie inked it than when Bill Everett or George Klein did, so I'd say that surely counts for something. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter - you'll have your own.
'Nuff said.
(Vinnie did make a couple of changes I'm not so keen on - he made Loki's right glove look longer than his left, and the paving slab lines on the sidewalk more angled. Tsk, tsk!)
22 comments:
I don't know that the notion of adjusting Kirby for a more realistic perspective will really win you a lot of converts.
Vince was never my favorite Kirby inker, but i never hated him on Kirby, either. In the end, it was still Kirby.
Not really looking to convert anyone, 3, just explaining why I think as I do. Jack's work was always better when an inker (any inker) enhanced his strengths and diluted his weaknesses, and I believe Vince was in that category.
Fair 'nuff!
And bad phrasing on my part. I merely meant to imply that a lot of Jack's fans see his unrealistic perspectives as one of his strengths, not weaknesses. So they might not view that as a compositional improvement.
How do you stand on Sinnott?
(I've been reading a bunch of Joe's stuff over in Treasure Chest Of Fun & Fact, so he's on my mind currently)
Jack's perspectives usually worked most of the time when a character was leaping out of the page at the reader, but making it look like Loki must be standing in a pit as the crowd runs away from him doesn't add anything to the overall look of the panel.
Joe was a good artist when it came to the finished look of his own strips, but used a lot of swipes when it came to figures. (He even swiped from himself.) As an inker, I liked the finish he gave to most pencillers, but I'd say that Wally Wood was Kirby's best inker, along with John Severin. Then again, Severin was the best inker on most artists.
A lot of what i've been reading were Sinnott's Biographies. I think he's working from photo references, which likely plays to his strengths.
It's hard to argue with Mighty John Severin, but i do love those Sky Masters strips with Wood on Kirby.
I don't think panel composition came so easily to Sinnott as it did to Kirby, which is why Joe used so many swipes, but his detail was meticulous.
You should take a look at the Wood-inked Challengers Of The Unknown strips if you haven't seen them already. Excellent stuff.
I’m not a fan of Vince Coletta’s inking at all, except on Kirby’s Thor which I though was excellent. However, In this particular panel I personally think that the fallen man should have been left in. Ahh John Severin his inks make almost every strip he inks look as if he drew it himself and as he is one of my all-time favourite artists that a good thing. I totally agree regarding Wally Wood on Kirby's art very nice indeed.
I think between the pencilling and inking stage the fallen man picked himself up and ran across the road, so it's his own fault he's not there, McS. (Genius, Kid.) I'd have loved (as I've said before) to have seen Severin ink Thor - that'd have been something to behold.
Sorry Kid,
I still can't agree with your high opinion of Mr Colletta.
In the panel you've featured, we see detailed figures changed to simplified silhouettes, detailed buildings changed to a serious of horizontal & vertical lines and worst of all choosing to delete a full figure! Yet another example of Vince shortchanging the fans once again.
I enjoyed reading your case for the defence, however I think we'll have to agree to differ on this subject.
Cheers,
Duncan
What we see, D, is a panel which is too busy (even a tad sore on the eyes), a superfluous figure who is too small for where he's meant to be in relation to Loki, and who distorts the visual plane on which the crowd is supposed to be situated. We see squiggly lines which are intended to portray musculature and convoluted architecture which looks like something from the 1930s. Vinnie makes it all easier on the eye and less congested, as well as making Loki's arms lean more towards an anatomically correct depiction.
Kirby & Colletta, resulting in something that is greater than the sum of its two parts. However, if you prefer undiluted, cartoony Kirby as embellished by Everett or Klein, who am I to say thee nay? I know what I prefer though.
I understand the dislike of Colletta disappearing Jack’s art. His underuse of spot blacks and scritchy scratchy inking was annoying . But as been said; it worked best on Thor. The Norse setting with wood and fur seemed to go.
Obviously, if he hadn't missed out detail and figures on occasion (though, as I say, I don't think it was always detrimental), Kirby fans who regard every line he put on paper as holy scripture might have had a higher opinion of Vinnie's inks. As you say though, PS, it seemed to work on Thor.
You make a valid point that Colletta added to the finished comics and even improved anatomy that was off. Stan Lee was also the art director at Marvel and I am guessing that carried a salary which basically meant he was cashing 3 cheques at the end of the month(no wonder Kirby was upset) . His job was to get the comics to the printers on time against deadlines so he probably had to ship mis-matched arists/inkers at certain times.(No doubt you have seen numerous teams that did not work Kid. ) However, give him some credit by matching teams that did compliment each other and there is no doubt Kirby and Colletta were perfect, just like Sinnot on the FF,Giacioa on Captain America and more.If you look at 1960s Marvel output I think there were more hits than misses. If the artwork had been bland or functional we would not be discussing them today. We were and are lucky people that there are 100's of Marvel masterpieces that we can dip into. Great Post as usual, keep up the good work mate.
That's an interesting point about Stan's role, though I'd guess that his function as 'art director' fell under the umbrella of 'editor in chief' (though that might not have been his official title) and that there was no extra money for it. After all, it was still part of the editor's job, wasn't it? He would've been paid for his scripting, but he WAS actually scripting and overseeing (and contributing to) the plots, so it's not like he was getting his money for nothing. He did try to compensate Jack and Steve for their plotting ideas by giving them rises on their page rates every so often, though they never quite saw it like that. Great observation, Triple F.
And I still think that whatever Vinnie took away from Jack's art in terms of detail and figures, he more than made up for with the overall finished look, mood, and atmosphere, a view which you also obviously subscribe to, so thanks for taking the time to say so. Another great comment - keep 'em coming.
That goes for the rest of you Crivvies as well. All comments welcome and appreciated, whether they agree with me or not.
Re the panel: its hard to say without seeing the whole page, but I find the finished panel example more confusing, with its silhouettes, and amateurish, with its childlike building lines, than the original panel. So maybe not the best example to use of how Colletta added, rather than detracted, to the original art.
Re Colletta agree with you ( and Fantastic Four follower) 100% that Colletta added to the overall look, mood and atmosphere of the Thor comic. However, as I believe I have commented before, top artists Adams, Toth, Wood and Ditko would reportedly move heaven and Earth not to be inked by Colletta. Personally, as a young comics fan I tended to avoid comics inked by Tartaglione, Roussos, Esposito, Reinman and Giacoia, not Colletta.
Re Lee use of inkers: we more hit than miss, and I liked the variety of Kirby inked by different inkers on different strips once Stan could afford the likes of Sinnott and Giacoia. It also helped avoid inker burn out, given Kirby's output, as happened with Ayers, Stone and Royer. I really liked the Kirby-Shores combination on Cap America (and of course both gentlemen worked on CA#1 in the golden age).
Re Lee's paycheck: I understand that Stan was paid for his scripts in addition to his editor salary. Whatever the amounts earned, Stan, Jack and Steve all produced wonderful stuff in the 60s and should all have earned way more. They were all indispensable to laying a base that is entertaining millions today. Stan stayed and was very well compensated. Steve left and was probably a poor man when he passed away, not that I think that that mattered to him. Jack was very poorly treated, especially in the 80s, a victim of blind corporate practice and the big business that Marvel had become.
Spirit of '64
Whereas I find the panel simpler and clearer, S64, and, to me, the removal of the figure at the back slightly improves the perspective and dilutes the seeming discrepancy between the crowd and Loki, who looks too big in relation to them. I agree, however, that it might not be the best example, but it's the only one I had to hand with a 'before' and 'after' without having to hunt for one.
It's interesting that you mention Kirby and Shores, and I'd like to hear what others think (especially Colletta haters), because Shores changed Kirby's pencils as well. Yeah, Stan would've been paid for his scripts, no argument there, but I doubt he got an art editor's salary as well, as I think that task would've fallen under his general editorial duties.
Stan was the figurehead of Marvel and on staff, so he did relatively well out of the situation, whereas Jack and Steve were freelancers, though one of the reasons for Jack continuing to freelance was because he felt he could earn more than if he was a staffer. And, of course, because of the freedom and independence he felt it gave him.
I've always felt that Stan got a bum rap, because without him singing the praises of Jack and Steve from the rooftops and his continual promotion of them, they'd probably have laboured on in relative obscurity. Superman and Batman are far bigger than their creators, and that's mainly because Jerry, Joe, and Bob didn't have a Stan to promote them in the way that Kirby and Ditko were promoted.
Interesting comment, thanks for making it.
Its a good point you make re obscurity, and we know that Carl Barks' name was unknown until the late 60's. Giving the credits was a big step forward when Marvel started providing them, and Stan should be lauded for that.
Re Jack's decision to be a freelancer: do you have some reference for that? Its the first I've heard of it.
Re inkers: good inkers extenuate the positive (to coin a phrase) and negate the week points, marrying their style with, but in subordination and respectful to, the penciller's own style and vision. Its not just a question of tracing over the lines. As Stan said to Dick Ayers when he got Ayers to ink Kirby: 'Don't follow the lines, draw'. And of course there are some combinations that just really work, Byrne/Austin, Colan/Palmer, Kirby/Sinnott, Kane/Adkins. And for me Kirby/Shores works. I like Shores' inking line, and the hay (an old Simon-Kirby term) that he provided, not just with Kirby, but also with (Windsor)Smith (I love their combination on Avengers #66), Colan and on one issue of Ghost Rider, Tom Sutton. Its such a personal tragedy that he ( as with other golden age notables like Reed Crandall) could not get more work, and, as seems to be the norm in the US, had to rely on second or even third jobs.
The inker is really important to the final look of a book; good inking over poor pencilling can save a book, poor inking can ruin a book. Did Colletta ruin the Kirby books? I don't think so, but had he applied himself more they could have been as memorable as the Sinnott inked FF comics.
Spirit of '64
Apparently, Stan asked Jack to come on staff as official art editor at Marvel, saying that he could still do freelance work as well. I don't think Stan got paid for his 'art editor' role (that just fell under his other editorial duties I believe), so it would have cost Marvel money to pay Jack for the job, and it would have deprived Stan of one of his best artists on the most popular comics. Jack rejected Stan's offer, preferring to work at home and do his own hours, rather than do a 9-5 job. That's the story anyway - no reason to doubt it, but I couldn't prove it.
Yeah, if Vinnie had applied a bit more effort, the Thor mags would've been even better, no doubt about it. As you say though, I don't think Colletta ever ruined a Kirby mag, and he often imbued them with something that they didn't quite have - to their overall benefit.
Actually Vinnie did ruin some Kirby art, but under instructions of DC management. it was on the unpublished Soul Love, where DC management reportedly told Colletta to make the Kirby drawn lips and noses bigger. Its a real mess. Such a waste as Colletta was good on faces and beautiful women.
Spirit of '64
I remember seeing those pages (unfinished and unpublished until recently if I recall correctly), but I think it was more than being told to make lips and noses bigger. Because of the way Jack sometimes rendered blacks on Negro faces (not always realistically), I think Vinnie was told to leave some of the black areas out, which affected the overall look. Also, there's one scene where Jack has a fella balancing some books on his head, and he's drawn it as if the top of the guy's head has been sawn off flat across. That obviously wasn't Vince's fault.
I'm not a huge Colletta fan, especially when he inked Sal Buscema- there was a match that just never came close to working- but I think he was rarely as awful as his reputation suggests.
It's interesting to note that, as far as I know, the majority of readers preferred Jack's Thor issues when they were inked by Vinnie. (Sales seemed to bear that out.) It was only years later when stats of the pencils surfaced and people could see the bits that he sometimes simplified or left out, that the tide of opinion turned against him in some quarters. However, no one ever looked at his inks at the time they first appeared and said that he was ruining Jack's art. (Although Stan once said in a margin note to [maybe] Sol Brodsky [or someone] that Vince had 'ruined' a panel and asked Sol to fix it.) Overall, Stan was pleased with Vinnie's inks.
Post a Comment