 |
| Art FRANK BELLAMY. Characters copyright relevant owners |
Every serious comics aficionado of a certain age knows the name Frank Bellamy. I learned only relatively recently that apparently, Alan Fennell, editor of TV Century 21, originally wanted him to illustrate Stingray for the new weekly, but he was still involved with Eagle at the time and had no room in his schedule so the job went to Ron Embleton instead. All I can say is - phew, thank goodness for that.
Now there's no question that Frank was a good artist, but I was never too impressed by his Thunderbirds pages when he eventually joined TV21 in early 1966. Sure, he painted pretty skies, but his Thunderbird craft didn't always match their TV counterparts, and his reference material for TB2 seemed as though it might be the Dinky toy, which was far from an accurate representation of the vehicle.
 |
| Art MIKE NOBLE |
Then there was the 'style' he used, similar to John Burns' artwork later published in Countdown. You know what I mean - figure details filled on only one side, with the other rendered in coloured 'shadow'. Maybe Bellamy had too much work at the time and had to rush his TB pages to meet deadlines, but I think they were less impressive than Mike Noble's art on Fireball XL5 and Ron Embleton's on Stingray.
Every panel by Noble pulled the reader into the action, and Embleton's pages were objects of beauty that were a delight to gaze upon. (He was no slouch in the action stakes either, though Noble had the edge.) Bellamy's pages came a poor third to those of his artistic stablemates and were less involving. With Noble and Embleton, you had front row seats, with Bellamy it all seemed to be happening at a distance.
 |
| Art RON EMBLETON |
Of course, that doesn't quite cover things as it's likely more complicated than that, but I find it difficult to articulate precisely what I mean, though it's the best I can do given my ongoing brain-fog. What do you think, readers - am I being too harsh on Bellamy or do you agree with my assessment? Feel free to record your thoughts, theories, and fancies in our (hopefully) controversial comments section.
8 comments:
I'm older than most of your readers and knew Bellamy for his b/w work such as Robin Hood. His early colour work on Eagle with the WW2 Montgomery and Churchill was visually exciting but his attempt at changing Dan Dare as ordered was just awful. Even 65 years later I agree with my then decision to not read Eagle any longer, Dare went from benign looking to anguished in every panel.
His later work, Heros the Spartan etc seemed too distracting visually, comic art should enhance the script not rattle the eyeballs of the reader, his colour work all seemed too bright from the inks he used.
On the other hand, his time on Garth in the Daily Mirror was a revelation after the art to John Allard.
Both Ron and Gerry Embleton were preferable to my eye.
Hope you are well mate.To be honest,these comics were the elite amongst the usual Valiant,Lion,Thunder,Jet etc.They seemed to me to be works of art due to the colours,paper quality and my love for all the Gerry Anderson shows.One of those rare occasions were I did not mind who drew the stories but I can see the difference in styles you are pointing out.We were blessed that these comics ran for years even with a fairly expensive price tag.Any idea how much the artists were paid?There was a certain 'Labour of Love' in my mind about the finished product.Best wishes.
Well, you've expressed exactly what I always say. I know, you're flabbergasted that the 'so-called' expert on Bellamy says such a thing!
It wasn't until I saw his work in Radio Times which struck me as very 'designery' that I appreciate his construction. His artwork in spot illustrations use the space so competently and interestingly.
BUT when it came to "Heros the Spartan" - my first regular Bellamy strip and then "Thunderbirds" I found his artwork too 'dirty'. "Heros was not printed in the earlier photogravure on nice paper, but still those shadows that FB did!!
Now Noble, I saw as drawing 'realistic' figures and machinery and they were 'primary colours' so to speak. My nursery brain loved them.
Now here's the stinger. I never loved Embleton as I do Noble and Bellamy. His work was always so glossy, with that sheen about it - every time! There are some exceptions - his end credit illos for the TV series "Captain Scarlet" worked very well and his victorian illos (see https://bookpalace.com/book-palace-books-publications/art-books-1/info_embletondickens on offer half price!) only because they were illos - not strips. Yet even some of his Look and Learn turns me off!!
You allowed me to ramble.....! Now to wait for the flak!
I do actually like Bellamy's work in the main, T47, and his line work on Garth is excellent, but there's just something about the way he composed his Thunderbirds pages which was lacking in some way, and they weren't as visually appealing as Noble's and Embleton's. Still, at least we had the three of them to choose from in the same comic.
Norman would be the man to ask about page rates, Triple, F, 'cos if I ever knew, I've long since forgotten. It probably wasn't as much as we'd perhaps imagine, as comics always tried to keep the costs down to a minimum. I've already pre-ordered the Thunderbirds 60th Anniversary Comics Anthology (Vol 1), so obviously I'm not quite so averse to Bellamy's art as I might sound. Best wishes to you (and everyone), too.
I remember seeing Embleton's Victorian street urchins prints in Boots many, many years ago, NB, and they were very nicely done. His Stingray art is so colourful and easy on the eye, and his brother Gerry's art when he took over the strip just wasn't in the same class, despite them being kind of similar. No flak from me, as there's room for all opinions on Crivens. In the main I agree with you, though I've a higher opinion of Ron Embleton's work than you do.
An interesting post, Kid. I don't have enough familiarity with the work of the artists on TV21 to draw any meaningful comparisons (despite collecting a few TV 21's in the sixties).
Looking at the three examples you posted, my preference is for the work of Noble(?) on Fireball XL5. It seems to have more dynamism than the other examples from Bellamy and Embleton - but of course, it's a small selection to draw on. (btw...Could you caption each image with the relevant artist's name when you get the chance?).
Question: did Embleton always draw his two page strips as one wide page, rather than the two separate pages drawn by Bellamy and Noble? It seems quite innovative, but difficult to read for me.
Any thoughts/knowledge of the influence of American comic book illustrations on the style of these British artists? Or did they influence the artwork of US comic book artists? To me, the British and American styles are radically different.
I'll add their names underneath the pages once I've finished this reply, B. The reason Stingray was a centrespread was because it was the latest Gerry Anderson TV show at the time, hence the centrespread in the middle pages of the comic. Once Thunderbirds became the 'main' strip, Stingray was shunted onto two separate pages elsewhere in the mag and Thunderbirds took over the middle colour pages, with a third page in b&w after the centrespread.
As for who influenced who in regard to UK and US pages, I'm afraid I wouldn't have a clue about that. It's entirely possible I have a book which touches on the subject, but if so, I've forgotten all about it.
Post a Comment