Garney & the art of today
Snowlock
he can do in a year and why:
"Well hell, I'd like to do all twelve - but realistically probably nine,"
said
Garney, asked his personal expectations for yearly output. "I know a
lot of the fans out there criticize the fact that most aren't getting all
twelve - but the fact is in this market now, to be competitive
artistically speaking it takes a little longer. These aren't six-panel grids
anymore."
Garney's JLA: Our Worlds At War... 38 pages... 80 panels.
Elof
issue yet).
But I personally prefer a comic book to be more than just a set of pin-ups
pasted together over 20 or so pages. That's probably why Avengers is still
one of my favorite comic books out there.
This makes me think: Why is it that back in the 80s (oops, this sure does
date me) artists used to do more than one book a month (Byrne, Perez, Zeck,
Buscema and I'm sure that there are others I just can't remember) - at least
that was my impression - but these days, one book every other month is not
that surprising anymore. Are the workhorses dead or what? Or does that have
something to do with the way books are being produced these days?
Elof
Snowlock schrieb in Nachricht ...
DomDawes
<< Why is it that back in the 80s (oops, this sure does
date me) artists used to do more than one book a month (Byrne, Perez, Zeck,
Buscema and I'm sure that there are others I just can't remember) - at least
that was my impression - but these days, one book every other month is not that
surprising anymore. Are the workhorses dead or what? Or does that have
something to do with the way books are being produced these days?>>
a) lack of work ethic among present generation of artists. Garney's comment is
a classic example of this. Buscema, Kirby, Heck, Romita Sr., Ditko, Colan got
up in the morning, said "I've got work to do" and did it!
b) lack of backbone among present generation of editors. You think Stan Lee or
Julie Schwartz would let a book slide two-three months because an artist was
slow? Hell, no! If a book was monthly, a book was MONTHLY! (The classic Marvel
example was Captain America #112. Jim Steranko was late, VERY late. With the
book due at the printer in a week, Lee got Jack Kirby (Who was already
penciling two books per month) to lay out an entire 20-page issue over a
weekend, Lee himself scripted it overnight (while scripting several other books
AND editing the entire line!), and George Tuska (who was also penciling a
monthly book and inking another!) inked it in four days. Let's see them do THAT
today!) If an artist is late, he's replaced! Also, since every editor is using
his friends as artists, they're afraid to crack the whip regarding deadlines!
And, look at the present EiC! What was the last deadline HE met? Leading by
example indeed!
I'm sorry if you think I'm ranting. But, I've been a Marvel fan since Avengers
V.1 #6, and I'm saddened at the state of the industry today.
See ya at San Diego. I'll be the one wearing the sackcloth shirt. ;-)
GrapeApe
>Lee or
>Julie Schwartz would let a book slide two-three months because an artist
>was
>slow? Hell, no! If a book was monthly, a book was MONTHLY! (The classic
>Marvel
>example was Captain America #112. Jim Steranko was late, VERY late. With
>the
>book due at the printer in a week, Lee got Jack Kirby (Who was already
>penciling two books per month) to lay out an entire 20-page issue over a
>weekend, Lee himself scripted it overnight (while scripting several other
>books
>AND editing the entire line!), and George Tuska (who was also penciling
>a
>monthly book and inking another!) inked it in four days. Let's see them
>do THAT
>today!) If an artist is late, he's replaced! Also, since every editor is
>using
>his friends as artists, they're afraid to crack the whip regarding deadlines!
>And, look at the present EiC! What was the last deadline HE met? Leading
>by
>example indeed!
Its all Neal Adams fault. Artist Rights indeed! Back to the Galley, Slave!
Carlos Hernandez
>a) lack of work ethic among present generation of artists. Garney's comment is
>a classic example of this. Buscema, Kirby, Heck, Romita Sr., Ditko, Colan got
>up in the morning, said "I've got work to do" and did it!
Can't really argue with that...
>b) lack of backbone among present generation of editors. You think Stan Lee or
>Julie Schwartz would let a book slide two-three months because an artist was
>slow? Hell, no! If a book was monthly, a book was MONTHLY! (The classic Marvel
>example was Captain America #112. Jim Steranko was late, VERY late. With the
>book due at the printer in a week, Lee got Jack Kirby (Who was already
>penciling two books per month) to lay out an entire 20-page issue over a
>weekend, Lee himself scripted it overnight (while scripting several other books
>AND editing the entire line!), and George Tuska (who was also penciling a
>monthly book and inking another!) inked it in four days. Let's see them do THAT
>today!) If an artist is late, he's replaced! Also, since every editor is using
>his friends as artists, they're afraid to crack the whip regarding deadlines!
>And, look at the present EiC! What was the last deadline HE met? Leading by
>example indeed!
...but I can't agree with this. That's real cool of Stan to get his
buddies Jack and George to crank out a comic in four days, but I prefer
quality over speed. I'm sure all the 1960's fanboys appreciated getting
their books on time, but forty years later it's Steranko's work that gets
remembered fondly, not that Kirby/Tuska rush jobs.
Ideally, publishers should wait until they've got an issue in hand before
they solicit, and should keep slow artists on specials, minis, or discrete
arcs. Naturally, that's not economically feasible all the time. So if you
get into a situation like Daredevil, or NXM, I say let it slide. I'd
rather have a whole story by Quesada or Quitely than to get a new artist
in the middle.
A perfect example is X-men: Children of the Atom from last year. Started
off with gorgeous Steve Rude art, but by the third issue was months late.
At that point Marvel should have bit the bullet, said it'll come out when
it's ready, and made us wait. Instead, they switched artists twice. So
what we got was a book that was still way late, with three distinct art
styles. When people read it ten years down the road, they're not going to
think "Thank God Marvel got this out in May and not August," they'll think
"What happened to the art between chapters two and three?"
--
Carlos Hernandez Fisher | "Hi! I'm Troy McClure's sig file. You
cahe...@nospam.sfu.ca | may remember me from such messages as
remove 'nospam' to reply | 'Re: Mtg' and 'This is so funny!'"
Jason Michael
"Carlos Hernandez" <cahe...@nospam.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:9ikseg$3vc$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> A perfect example is X-men: Children of the Atom from last year. Started
> off with gorgeous Steve Rude art, but by the third issue was months late.
> At that point Marvel should have bit the bullet, said it'll come out when
> it's ready, and made us wait. Instead, they switched artists twice. So
> what we got was a book that was still way late, with three distinct art
> styles. When people read it ten years down the road, they're not going to
> think "Thank God Marvel got this out in May and not August," they'll think
> "What happened to the art between chapters two and three?"
> --
> Carlos Hernandez Fisher | "Hi! I'm Troy McClure's sig file. You
> cahe...@nospam.sfu.ca | may remember me from such messages as
> remove 'nospam' to reply | 'Re: Mtg' and 'This is so funny!'"
I still think it's hilarious that the-powers-that-be at the time replaced
Steve Rude with Paul Smith - now there's a speed demon! I'm sure Smith has
blown twice as many deadlines over his career as Rude.What were they
thinking?
Jason Michael
GrapeApe
>Steve Rude with Paul Smith - now there's a speed demon! I'm sure Smith has
>blown twice as many deadlines over his career as Rude.What were they
>thinking?
"Who's available and appropriate?"
BritReid
>>
Good example! remember the bi-ANNUAL Ms. Mystic?
-B
John C. Baker
> I'm sure all the 1960's fanboys appreciated getting
> their books on time, but forty years later it's Steranko's work that gets
> remembered fondly, not that Kirby/Tuska rush jobs.
I don't know what art circles you live in, but Kirby is very, very, very
much admired and cited as an influence among today's fans and artists.
Elof
myself disenchanted with what's going on and open up an older book from the
60s - 80s. It goes so far that I have been buying more backissues from that
period than I've been investing in new titles. And I'm buying my backissues
cheap (50 cents a piece). This does not mean, of course, that everything
Marvel (or DC for that matter) did in said time span to be the
non-plus-ultra, sometimes far from it, but it was still a very far cry from
over-gimmicked special issues or stories running through every title
including the newspaper in the cat's litter box that combined nearly
bankrupt me if I want to follow the complete story - but are read in a lot
less than half the time it takes to eat a salad or a sandwich. I'm buying
comic books to read them - not to invest or resell them at a later time.
Now who's ranting here? :-)
DomDawes
or
>Julie Schwartz would let a book slide two-three months because an artist was
>slow? Hell, no! If a book was monthly, a book was MONTHLY! (The classic Marvel
>example was Captain America #112. Jim Steranko was late, VERY late. With the
>book due at the printer in a week, Lee got Jack Kirby (Who was already
>penciling two books per month) to lay out an entire 20-page issue over a
>weekend, Lee himself scripted it overnight (while scripting several other
books
>AND editing the entire line!), and George Tuska (who was also penciling a
>monthly book and inking another!) inked it in four days. Let's see them do
THAT
>today!) If an artist is late, he's replaced! Also, since every editor is using
>his friends as artists, they're afraid to crack the whip regarding deadlines!
>And, look at the present EiC! What was the last deadline HE met? Leading by
>example indeed!
...but I can't agree with this. That's real cool of Stan to get his
buddies Jack and George to crank out a comic in four days, but I prefer
quality over speed. I'm sure all the 1960's fanboys appreciated getting
their books on time, but forty years later it's Steranko's work that gets
remembered fondly, not that Kirby/Tuska rush jobs.>>
1) According to you, 2001 fanboys DON'T appreciate getting their books on
time/schedule?
2) I fondly remember that Kirby/Tuska rush job.
3) It was done as a stopgap and designed so that the next Steranko issue picked
up exactly where the previous Steranko issue left off. You'll note that the
Baxter reprint of the Steranko storyline the issues ran 110/111/113 with the
Kirby/Tuska issue (112) left out with no loss to the plotline! (Of course, in
the next CA Essential, I expect to see #112!)
Now that's the way to solve a deadline problem!
Johanna Draper Carlson
> 2001 fanboys DON'T appreciate getting their books on time/schedule?
Some do. Some would rather wait and not get a fill-in or substitute artist.
Also, a big distinction between then and now is that books that aren't
shipped as solicited now can be made returnable, which can really screw up
the plans and profits.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
GrapeApe
>Baxter reprint of the Steranko storyline the issues ran 110/111/113 with the
>Kirby/Tuska issue (112) left out with no loss to the plotline! (Of course, in
>the next CA Essential, I expect to see #112!)
>Now that's the way to solve a deadline problem!
Actually I use this as fodder in my recurrent argument for more standalone
stories. Its okay to let all important continuity fall to the wayside on
occasion. Standalone stories are the thing.
My idea is for a company (once a company is back in black and Snidely Whiplash
isn't going to call their note on their farm) to regularly solicit standalone
stories to use as file stories. Don't make them filler junk hacked out
overnight to get something to the printers. If they are standalone thay can be
done in advance. They can be done by the creators who may not have time for a
full series. They can be some of the best stuff a title may have ever seen.
They can allow a creator who has always wanted a shot at a book, but didn't
have time in their schedule, or the book had a regular artist already, to get
that shot.
You solicit perhaps 14 15 stories per monthly title per year. The rest, 2 or
three extra, become file stories, to fill in on in case of impending deadline.
If a year passes and some are left over unused, print them. If for some reason
ALL the file stories for a title are pulled into play on a title (they should
be replaced as soon as they are printed) you have to pull a story for an
entirely different character. Now wouldn't that be a kick in a head. Iron Man
featuring DareDevil. Or they could be even shorter stories. Eightpagers if need
be. Not bound by continuity. Standalone. Character based. Even "elseworld".
But I'm deadly serious. The use of a backlog of stories is a regular practice
at most magazines, and it guarantees that a deadline is met, because there is
always material on hand. It should be a regular part of policy, and it should
be attempted to be as high caliber as possible in quality. Once the slush pile
overflows, you print them in trades (just being careful not to deplete the
cushion too much)
Johanna Draper Carlson
> The use of a backlog of stories is a regular practice
> at most magazines, and it guarantees that a deadline is met, because there is
> always material on hand.
It's a very sensible policy. Unfortunately, for comics to do that would
require changes in the entire solicitation structure. Time Magazine can
change its cover story because it isn't promising a particular piece to its
retailers two months in advance. Comic retailers order based on what's
supposed to be in a particular issue.
KRothst402
So that's slightly more than two panels per page. To me, this comic must be a
total waste of time because the artist is limiting the amount of story that can
be told due to his insistance in trying to draw as few plot points (new items
in succeeding panels) as possible.
I know Garney received praise for his CAPT AMERICA initial run, but from where
I was sitting, it was fairly poor. Each issue contained half an issue's worth
of story, and yet the price remained the same. And then he would choose
bizarre things to highlight in his pin ups; once he even devoted what seemed
like a half a page to a belt buckle.
Of course, the king of the idiotic panels has to be Salvador Larocca, who
instead of showing the faces of Namor and Sue as they spoke (which is after all
where the drama is in a conversation), decided to show their legs in FF #6 I
think. Yeah, that shin of Namor's really added a lot to the personal drama.
Paul O'Brien
<kroth...@aol.com> writes
>
>Of course, the king of the idiotic panels has to be Salvador Larocca, who
>instead of showing the faces of Namor and Sue as they spoke (which is after all
>where the drama is in a conversation), decided to show their legs in FF #6 I
>think. Yeah, that shin of Namor's really added a lot to the personal drama.
You evidently have not read Larroca's influential textbook, "The
Evocative Shin: Conveying Emotion Through The Lower Legs." It's
changed the face of European comics. Many books consist entirely
of pictures of the characters' feet, though there is a school of thought
that says this is too extreme.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Because my viewpoints are inherently fascinating.
Patrick MARCEL
> You evidently have not read Larroca's influential textbook, "The
> Evocative Shin: Conveying Emotion Through The Lower Legs." It's
> changed the face of European comics. Many books consist entirely
> of pictures of the characters' feet, though there is a school of thought
> that says this is too extreme.
...You should check out the brand-new TEN TOES OF FURY book. It's created a
small sensation over here. In my opinion, it all goes downheel with the
inclusion of an arch-villain...
Patrick
--
Reason is only a drug, and its effects cannot be permanent.
- Hope Mirrlees -
Matt Adler
news:+Ax3dgAQ...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In article <20010714180200...@ng-mq1.aol.com>, KRothst402
> <kroth...@aol.com> writes
> >
> >Of course, the king of the idiotic panels has to be Salvador Larocca, who
> >instead of showing the faces of Namor and Sue as they spoke (which is
after all
> >where the drama is in a conversation), decided to show their legs in FF
#6 I
> >think. Yeah, that shin of Namor's really added a lot to the personal
drama.
>
> You evidently have not read Larroca's influential textbook, "The
> Evocative Shin: Conveying Emotion Through The Lower Legs." It's
> changed the face of European comics. Many books consist entirely
> of pictures of the characters' feet, though there is a school of thought
> that says this is too extreme.
Would this technique be as effective with characters with hideous or
seriously deformed feet? How many such characters are there anyway? Gorgon,
although he probably thinks his hooves are quite spiffy...
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
Elayne Riggs
>>Garney's JLA: Our Worlds At War... 38 pages... 80 panels.
>
>So that's slightly more than two panels per page. To me, this comic must be a
>total waste of time because the artist is limiting the amount of story that can
>be told due to his insistance in trying to draw as few plot points (new items
>in succeeding panels) as possible.
And it would seem to go against his nostalgic praise for a six-panel
grid, if that's indeed what it was. A sequential 6-panel grid takes
way longer to draw than a 2-page "pose" spread.
- Elayne
--
www.soulmateproductions.com
remove "OSPAM" from e-mail address to reply
Yenrag
story for twenty two pages. Period. It was written by Jeph Loeb with splash
pages for all intensive purposes to have a cinematic feel to it --had it been
written with ten panels a page I would have done that. And I never 'insisted'
anything--You know some of you guys should really stop inventing statements
about creators that are just arent true. As far as the 'belt buckle'-I have NO
idea what your talking about, since its clear to me that neither do you.
DomDawes
his/her point of view.
Second, please consider that the opinions presented by the people here are
about the work as published, not you. Please don't take them personally.
That said, you offer an interesting take on the story mentioned.
Quote Ron...
<< I drew what was given to me, written in the
story for twenty two pages. Period. It was written by Jeph Loeb with splash
pages for all intensive purposes to have a cinematic feel to it --had it been
written with ten panels a page I would have done that.>>
Is this to say that Jeph didn't do a "Marvel style", but a full script?
(Marvel-style: page-by page plot detailing what had to happen on a given page,
but not specifying "camera" angles, pacing, etc. You would pencil the art,
incorporating your ideas of flow, camera angles, etc, then he would dialogue
it. Full-script: like a tv or movie shooting script with dialogue and camera
angles as well as number of panels specified per page.)
Again, thanks for entering into the discussion. I hope you can clear up any
misconceptions about the process.
Scott Zeller
> GrapeApe at grap...@aol.comjunk wrote:
>
> > The use of a backlog of stories is a regular practice
> > at most magazines, and it guarantees that a deadline is met,
> > because there is always material on hand.
>
> It's a very sensible policy. Unfortunately, for comics to do that would
> require changes in the entire solicitation structure. Time Magazine can
> change its cover story because it isn't promising a particular piece to its
> retailers two months in advance. Comic retailers order based on what's
> supposed to be in a particular issue.
Has the current solicitaion structure always been the case, or did it
come about as a result of the Direct Market?
I don't want to sound (too) ignorant, but I miss the days when I
didn't know what was coming in 2 or 3 months. Sure, I can not read
previews, religiously avoid spoilers, and take place in discussions
that only concern past issues. However, there seems to be more
concern about what's coming rather than what's been, so I think I'd
feel a bit lonely in my discussions.
Why do retailers have to know the specifics of what is coming? Why
can't they just order based on past sales and be done with it?
Thanks,
Scott (who can't pass a spinner rack without a wave of nostalgia)
ShadZ
>
> > The use of a backlog of stories is a regular practice
> > at most magazines, and it guarantees that a deadline is met, because there
> > is always material on hand.
>
> It's a very sensible policy. Unfortunately, for comics to do that would
> require changes in the entire solicitation structure. Time Magazine can
> change its cover story because it isn't promising a particular piece to its
> retailers two months in advance. Comic retailers order based on what's
> supposed to be in a particular issue.
So those particular issues would be returnable. That's only a problem
if they don't sell as well as retailers thought the original solicited
contents would, and the retailers do return them. If sales are the same,
everyone is happy. It's an experiment worth trying . . .
(Note: we are talking about only comic book store sales here. This plan
would cause no problems on newsstands)
ShadZ
ShadZ
I really think JLA: OWAW was written that way from the start. And maybe
it did take Garney less time than his usual assignments. Taking a
generalization Garney made about his work in general and applying it to
one (and only one) specific example isn't really fair . . .
ShadZ
James Moar
> Why do retailers have to know the specifics of what is coming? Why
> can't they just order based on past sales and be done with it?
One problem is that a reader who's avidly devouring, say, Busiek's
AVENGERS may not be too interested in buying a fill-in by J.
Randomhack, and a retailer who has to order blind would tend to get
left carrying the can for any blip in sales that such a thing would
cause. Conversely, if there's something (like a new creative team, a
big event, or a crossover) that causes an unexpected rise in reader
demand, underordering would mean that the retailer has to reorder and
keep readers waiting, or not order at all - frustrating demand either
way.
for the company, advance information's a good promotional tool - it
brings things to the attention of the retailer and the reader which
they might well not have ordered blind.
I think there probably are downsides to having so much advance
information floating around. Making people jaded with things that
don't live up to the hype probably isn't good for things that do, for
instance. But I can see some reasons why it might be done.
--
James Moar
We were all put on Earth for a purpose. Yours is target practice.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> So those particular issues would be returnable.
Yes, and the current market really isn't set up for those. Change scares
people.
Scott Zeller at s2ze...@netscape.net wrote:
> there seems to be more concern about what's coming rather than what's been
I know, and it's a shame. When I ran the Legion chats on AOL, the creators
sometimes tried to lead the discussion to talking about why they did
something or similar past-oriented discussions, but fans only wanted to know
what was up next.
Maybe it's due to this being an information-based economy. Knowing something
coming up makes you seem more "important" or "clued-in".
> Why do retailers have to know the specifics of what is coming? Why
> can't they just order based on past sales and be done with it?
Past sales don't predict spikes for creator changes, significant events,
crossover, and the like ... especially with no reorders available from
Marvel.
KRothst402
>idea what your talking about, since its clear to me that neither do you.
I am sorry you have decided to take things personal, but that is your right.
If you want to see your close up of a belt buckle, I suggest you go back and
take a look at your initial run of Capt America. Further, if you do check out
those issues, you will find that as with the "war" comic cited in this thread,
you have a knack for drawing quite a few pages with 2 or 3 panels, as well as
single panel pages.
How do I know this? I bought them. As for whether you insist or not, while
you probably don't do so verbally, you and many artists working with such large
and few panels has resulted in comics that can be read in mere minutes, if not
moments. So perhaps it is the trend in modern comic artwork which "insists"
and not you personally, but then you come across someone like George Perez who
goes the opposite route, throws in a zillion panels, and thus there is more to
look at, and more often than not, more to read.
Just my opinion.
Elayne Riggs
> I drew what was given to me, written in the
>story for twenty two pages. Period. It was written by Jeph Loeb with splash
>pages for all intensive purposes to have a cinematic feel to it
Too bad it didn't work. For comics that do work with a "cinematic
feel" check out some of Bryan Hitch's stuff. Yeah, he does 2-page
spreads at times, but not like 3 or 4 of them in a row. Sorry you
were apparently saddled with such an impossible storytelling task.
Yenrag
>his/her point of view.
Thank you Dom, Its a pleasure to be here...
>Second, please consider that the opinions presented by the people here are
>about the work as published, not you. Please don't take them personally.
Well normally I dont--but what I have issue with is when people state what
actually took place during a process, how hard I work,name it as fact, when
they actually have no idea what was in my head at the time.NOONE knows how many
work hours I put in, or why something on a book happened the way it did, unless
they ask and get it from me, or whoever else was on a book. I work extremely
hard at what I do, as do other creators, and any form of commentary about that
without getting it from the horses mouth is blind, ignorant, speculation.
>Is this to say that Jeph didn't do a "Marvel style", but a full script?
Correct! I personally dont like doing full scriptsas much as plot, in that it
takes too much control away from what is one of the more enjoyable aspects of
the job for a penciller--but in the interest of making it easier on the writer
to save him time, if thats what the writer desires,Im open to it, and in this
case thats what Jeph wanted.
Best
Ron G.
Dale Hicks
says...
>
> Well normally I dont--but what I have issue with is when people state what
> actually took place during a process,
Right. One instance where you didn't choose the amount of panels, and
you get blasted for insisting on doing so. I happen to agree with
KRothst on the disturbing trend, and that's always why I've never been a
big fan of yours (that, and the rough style), but it's tough to throw
around accusations like that. Esp. after seeing some of Loeb's other
books (SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE LONG HALLOWEEN).
And I looked for that belt buckle, but couldn't find it on a cursory
scan. The burden of proof shifts to Mr. KRothst.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Yenrag
>take a look at your initial run of Capt America.
You made the remark--I suggest you find it, to back up your statement. I have
nothing to prove. And even if there is a closeup of a "belt buckle"--Ill bet i
had a darn good reason.
>you have a knack for drawing quite a few pages with 2 or 3 panels, as well
as
>single panel pages.
I think my friend you have knack for not reading what I wrote or at least not
understanding it. I just previously stated in my post, that the script ASKED
for that. And furthermore when I draw from Plots instead of full script--I am
proud of the fact that everything that is in the writers plot is there and
more. FYI the last THREE writers I have worked with worked from full scripts,
to my dismay. But, regardless of how I arrange panels , or spreads, they are
never done gratuitously so. Meaning I use them as devices for timing and
impact. But NEVER have I put less in than what the writer has asked for.
>you and many artists working with such large
>and few panels has resulted in comics that can be read in mere minutes, if
>not
>moments
I cant speak for other artists, but as far as my work is concerned see above
and speak with the writers on my issues then--
>George Perez who
>goes the opposite route, throws in a zillion panels, and thus there is more
>to
>look at, and more often than not, more to read.
>
Sometimes the writers working with George might know that about his OWN writing
and write their scripts tailored to what he likes to do. If given a zillion
panels in a plot, Id draw a zillion panels and have added more than my share in
my long career. Please do not pigeonhole my work based on what you dont know
about the process.
Best,
Ron Garney
>>I am sorry you have decided to take things personal, but that is your
right.<<
P.S. My work is very personal--the amount of hours I spend in a room drawing
is personal--the fact that these drawings come from within ME is extremely
personal-- Any kind of creative process is personal to the person creating.
Please try to understand that when voicing opinions about a creators work.
Take care
Yenrag
>feel" check out some of Bryan Hitch's stuff. Yeah, he does 2-page
>spreads at times, but not like 3 or 4 of them in a row. Sorry you
>were apparently saddled with such an impossible storytelling task.
>
>- Elayne
>--
>
Im very familiar with Bryan Hitches work thank you--but again there are two or
three of them in a row because thats what Jeph wanted. He had his reasons. And
I had fun drawing them nonetheless.
Ron G.
Yenrag
>it did take Garney less time than his usual assignments. Taking a
>generalization Garney made about his work in general and applying it to
>one (and only one) specific example isn't really fair . . .
>
>ShadZ
>
paneled page.It all depends really. Generally when posed with the idea of doing
a spread--I tend to spend alot of time on the layout and camera angle of the
page. If you look at HULK ish number 1--The spread in the beginning with the
tractor trailer was painstakingly redrawn a few times to try to get the best
most unique angle I could out of it without choosing the easy way out and doing
a straight on shot. On that spread i ended up with a worms eye view and it
wasnt easy but I was inevitably happy i spent the time on it to get it right..
Take care
Ron G.
KRothst402
I'll have to dig out my old CAPs if I still have them (or I'll buy one if
people insist), but in the very same post I also commented on a Sal Larocca
panel from some issue he did of FF from when he first started. If you check
that out, you'll see I didn't make that up (check #5 or 6 or whatever the issue
was where Sue is swimming in a pool and Namor pays a visit). If I didn't make
up one, why would I make up the other?
Anyway, if this thread turns into a heated flame war or something silly like
that where people insist I find proof or admit to being something horrible and
evil, then yeah, I'll go find the comic at some shop and tell you the number.
As it is, I'd rather not buy a comic for something as silly as a thread on
Usenet, and am content to offer no proof at this time.
KRothst402
I do understand that, but Usenet is the approprate place for me to voice those
opinions. I would not be so rude as to call you up and rag on you "I didn't
like CAPT AMERICA #whatever, or "Why is every page a ___" because that is
intrusive. But at Usenet, where we are all invited to speak about comics, I
can't start editing my every post out of politeness or some fear that some
random artist or writer might one day read it.
If it will make you feel better, I think you draw dynamic and great figures. I
think you draw better figures than most artists working today. But you draw
large panels, splash pages and sometimes two-page spreads all in the same issue
(at least you did back on your initial Cap days which is what I spoke of, and
presumably the way you got to 80 panels in 38 pages in this DC project the
initial poster was talking about)
I no longer own the Capt America comics you drew a few years ago (I throw out
my comics periodically for space reasons), but if you want I will try to track
some down and tell you the issue number.
Snowlock
Snowlock
of your first Cap run. I like your sense of pacing, I like how you can draw
a panel to convey a high octane event. I like your style, and dramatic
flair. I had been looking forward to your run on Uncanny X Men, but when I
read your interview on Newsarama, to which I excerpted the quote, I was
angry. It seemed to me like you were excusing yourself from working hard.
I work every single day pretty much of the year. I'm getting sick and tired
of prima donna (not necessarily you, but from your interview, that's what I
got out of it) artists who are calling themselves "creators", as in Gods,
who think they don't have to work as often as the rest of us. I'm sick of
spending my money and not getting what I'm paying for.
Forget your theory of making a Cinematic effect; in JLA Our Worlds At War, I
was PISSED because I read a $3 comic, an integral part of a cross-over and
it took me at best 5 minutes. Major DC characters died, and there was
absolutely no detail given to the events artistically to make it worth
while, or even memorable. If I were you, I would be embarassed to have been
a part of that.
I was mad because I got ripped off; and I'm getting sick of getting ripped
off. I'm sick of artists and writers jumping ship on a book mid stream of a
story and/or after less than one year. Sick of comics with no background
art, shoddy design, few panels. And I'm sick of excuses. The artist blames
the writer, the writer blames the editor, the editor blames marketing, and
then a black hole. And from your article, whether it was your intent or
not, that's what I got out of it; excuses. And like the millions before me
from the last decade, I'm ready to walk. You're not a creator, any more
than any other person working on a comic book is. I love what you do when
you devote the level of attention to a given page that is within your
amazing abilities, but when the day is done, you're just a commercial
artist, not a god... I don't want picasso, I don't want the Mona Lisa. I
want my money's worth. I'll pay what they ask me to pay, but god dammit, it
better be worth it. That's your job. Now get to work. :-)
Captain America 444 -- 22 pages, 78 panels. Under 4 per page.
445 -- 22 pages, 76 panels - even less
448 -- 37 pages, 136 panels - under 4 panels per page
Yenrag wrote in message <20010716235335...@ng-cv1.aol.com>...
Snowlock
Snowlock wrote in message ...
Snowlock
and
>>take a look at your initial run of Capt America.
>
>You made the remark--I suggest you find it, to back up your statement. I
have
>nothing to prove. And even if there is a closeup of a "belt buckle"--Ill
bet i
>had a darn good reason.
well, being an insomniac lately, I looked through the entire first run, no
big belt buckle shots. Still love the cover of 452..
Yenrag
>those
>opinions. I would not be so rude as to call you up and rag on you "I didn't
>like CAPT AMERICA #whatever, or "Why is every page a ___" because that is
>intrusive.
did I say it was against the law to voice youre opinion anywhere? For the
record--I have no problem with you not liking a ton of splash pages. As a
matter of fact I questioned Loeb about it myself when we did this book
together! His response to me was "..I want to make it look like a movie screen
on the page as the camera scans left to right and you do that better than
anyone else.." and my response was"...Well I do storytelling just as well.."
However, its his story and I have a responsiblity to the integrity of that and
what he wants, in the interest of respectful collaboration. As far as
statements here are concerned, what I DONT approve of is someone, anyone,
throwing accusations around that are totally unfounded. For instance
..."Garneys INSISTENCE on drawing large panels.." is a complete fallacy. So
maybe you should just take responsibility for your irresponsible comments,
instead of throwing up defensive smokescreens like "well if this board starts
accusing me of being evil blahblah.." You made the comments, so back them
up.Usenet doesnt excuse anyone of responsiblity for anything, just because its
a forum. Saying--"Garney insists on this" or Garney thinks that " is not an
opinion of the work, its an irresponsible statement on what im thinking or
doing that you have no knowledge of. Just face up to it.
>> But at Usenet, where we are all invited to speak about comics, I
>can't start editing my every post out of politeness or some fear that some
>random artist or writer might one day read it<<
with no foundation about me professionally and on some level personally when
you claim to know what Im thinking or how I work. It makes no difference here
or anywhere else. Theres no such thing as freedom without responsibility. If
you think that then youre horribly wrong.
>If it will make you feel better, I think you draw dynamic and great figures.
>I
>think you draw better figures than most artists working today. But you draw
>large panels, splash pages and sometimes two-page spreads all in the same
>issue
>(at least you did back on your initial Cap days which is what I spoke of, and
>presumably the way you got to 80 panels in 38 pages in this DC project the
>initial poster was talking about)
Youre very tricky. You keep shifting emphasis from your irresponsible comments
and avoiding responsiblity for them by trying to draw attention away from you
and focus all of it onto my artistic ego. I dont need to be made to 'feel
better' about my work---But thanks for the compliments! On that note--Ill say
about spreads that I like doing them--but I agree with you that there were too
many in JLA-and there can be too many elsewhere--I dont agree however on your
references to Cap. I think that spreads are a fun device for visual impact.And
I never do them gratuitously.Most of the time, I use them when ever a hero is
making a grand entrance to evoke a feeling about the character. Whether it be
Hulk, Cap, Surfer Xmen or Superman. Also, I have never done them unless the
script called for at least a single page splash--Then I fully admit that I
might--MIGHT turn that into a double page, for instance, my reference to the
tractor trailer truck in HULK #1 is a perfect example of that. That was written
as a single pager which I felt would be better as a double. I also think
storytelling and lots and lots of panels have their place and have done them as
well. But I think that people tend to remember the splashes because they're
more in your face and I also think the reader feels as though he or she is
being cheated when the read goes too fast. If you referenced my work, I think
you'd find throughout my career an equal attention to storytelling though
whenever given the opportunity to do so because I have just as much fun doing
that.
>I no longer own the Capt America comics you drew a few years ago (I throw out
>my comics periodically for space reasons), but if you want I will try to
>track
>some down and tell you the issue number.
>
Well thats up to you! But if you want people to take what you say seriously it
would be good for you to back up your statements with tangible evidence.
Best
Ron G.
Yenrag
>of your first Cap run. I like your sense of pacing, I like how you can draw
>a panel to convey a high octane event. I like your style, and dramatic
>flair.
>> I had been looking forward to your run on Uncanny X Men, but when I
>read your interview on Newsarama, to which I excerpted the quote, I was
>angry.
It seemed to me like you were excusing yourself from working hard.<<
its tough to keep up doing twelve issues a year based solely on the demand of
the fans(and myself) that need for it to be good.If you read the interview
there was a paragraph where I stated how hard it was to give up a page to the
editor when I know it can be better.You want me to do all twelve fine. Then in
a year youll be complaining that the work seems rushed, which at times happens
as well anyway-- The level of craft has changed since the days you guys are
pining for. Thats all Im saying..Its all in what your looking for. If your
looking for Adam Hughes--then forget getting a monthly. If your looking for a
solid guy like Ron Frenz who can do thirteen issues a year then great but your
not going to get your fix of flashy style. If you want something inbetween,
then youre going to get someone who will do roughly nine or ten issues a year.
Thats simply the way it is.
>I work every single day pretty much of the year. I'm getting sick and tired
>of prima donna (not necessarily you, but from your interview, that's what I
>got out of it) artists who are calling themselves "creators", as in Gods,
>who think they don't have to work as often as the rest of us. I'm sick of
>spending my money and not getting what I'm paying for.
guy-- could possibly get this much anger out of the way an artist works on a
comic book,or even that you call us prima donnas--I hate to say it that sounds
like a prima donna fan talking--- especially when you have no idea of the long
hours we work, pulling all nighters, trying to meet schedules, forgoing family
events,friends, weekends, working ten to fifteen hours a day, every day of the
year just about, sitting in a room by ourselves with no social outlet,at the
same time trying to keep up a level of quality to the work, some days the
drawing just frustratingly wont come out well, all while your watching the
clock and know youve just spent eight hours on a figure that wont work, never
getting vacation time or paid for it--except to come to a convention to meet
you guys--and even then alot of the time we are rushing back to the hotel room
to work--freelancers struggling to even GET a job--sitting so much that your
actual health starts to wane, shall I go on? Its INFURIATING to hear you
complain about how angry you are when fans like you have NO IDEA what its like
to do the job we do!!!!! What do you think we are living in some golden hall
somewhere drinking ambrosia and every now and then walking over to a table and
putting a line on a page then scurrying back to our wonderful Idyllic life
??????????And if you think we are calling ourselves 'Gods' by calling ourselves
'Creators' then i think maybe you need to rethink what you're saying. We ARE
creators--not of life--thats for 'God' or 'Gods' depending on your beliefs
--But we ARE 'creators' of art and characters and fantasy and modern day
mythology--taken in the best context of loving what we do --that is what we
ARE. Did Jack Kirby not 'create' Xmen??????? Did Seigel and Schuster not
'create' Superman????? And Yes--we are also draftsmen and craftsmen in this
field.
>Forget your theory of making a Cinematic effect; in JLA Our Worlds At War, I
>was PISSED because I read a $3 comic, an integral part of a cross-over and
>it took me at best 5 minutes. Major DC characters died, and there was
>absolutely no detail given to the events artistically to make it worth
>while, or even memorable. If I were you, I would be embarassed to have been
>a part of that.
feel truly sad that you feel that way. Unfortunately some things are out of my
control. As far as it being cinematic--that wasnt my 'theory'--its what Jeph
was trying to do and I tried to accomplish that as best I could visually--If
you're not happy with that then I completely accept your opinion of it,
understand it, but will not apologize for it.
>I was mad because I got ripped off; and I'm getting sick of getting ripped
>off. I'm sick of artists and writers jumping ship on a book mid stream of a
>story and/or after less than one year. Sick of comics with no background
>art, shoddy design, few panels. And I'm sick of excuses. The artist blames
>the writer, the writer blames the editor, the editor blames marketing, and
>then a black hole. And from your article, whether it was your intent or
>not, that's what I got out of it; excuses. And like the millions before me
>from the last decade, I'm ready to walk. You're not a creator, any more
>than any other person working on a comic book is. I love what you do when
>you devote the level of attention to a given page that is within your
>amazing abilities, but when the day is done, you're just a commercial
>artist, not a god... I don't want picasso, I don't want the Mona Lisa. I
>want my money's worth. I'll pay what they ask me to pay, but god dammit, it
>better be worth it. That's your job. Now get to work. :-)
I dont answer to you and you need to get over yourself because its seems like
you're the one trying to be God here. Smiley face or no. The market is what its
become unfortunately, and I think you could almost call it a microchosm of the
larger picture of whats wrong with America in general--the need for immediate
gratification--style over substance--and think about this, if there wasn't a
need for those things by the consumer I just mentioned maybe youd be a happier
camper. Unfortunately the corporations are to blame as well. Weve become a
nation of pushers and peddlers and the consumer's the one who gets addicted to
the point where he sounds--well, angry. Think about it. and while I agree you
have some valid complaints, i.e. no backgrounds, panels, artists or writers
jumping ship, etc.if youre that sick of it and that angry then maybe you should
reconsider spending your hard earned money on something else. I dont mean that
sarcastically either.Its not healthy. If you got nothing out of my article than
'excuses' then thats not my problem either --I think you're reading things into
what I said based on other things, like your anger. I know what I do, am proud
of what I do, and dont have to explain myself any further than I already have
but tried to in the interest of, well, YOU the fan.
>
>Captain America 444 -- 22 pages, 78 panels. Under 4 per page.
>445 -- 22 pages, 76 panels - even less
>448 -- 37 pages, 136 panels - under 4 panels per page
Well I guess you'll just have to accept those numbers.
Best
Ron Garney
Yenrag
>big belt buckle shots. Still love the cover of 452..
Thank god.;) And thanks about the cover.
BritReid
You said...
<< The level of craft has changed since the days you guys are pining for. >>
I'm afraid I both agree and disagree with you on this.
Agree: The amount of "detail" has increased.
Disagree: The level of draftsmanship has decreased.
Compare almost any artist (Liefield, Lee, Choi, etc.) today with Lou Fine, Reed
Crandall, Wally Wood, Mac Raboy.
Equal amount of "detail" inking.
Incredibly bad draftsmanship, today, though.
Today, perspectives are poorly done (if at all), panel-to-panel continuity is
nonexistant.
But, in your case, you do seem to lean closer to the "classic" artists than the
Image-clones. There's a lot of good elements in your art.
Note: most of today's artists only have other comic artists as influences.
In the past, most comic artists were classically-trained commercial or pulp
artists before switching to comics.
Which are you?
Respectfully,
-B
Joe Ankenbauer
> No--It seemed like I was saying because I work so hard at doing good work that
> its tough to keep up doing twelve issues a year based solely on the demand of
> the fans(and myself) that need for it to be good.If you read the interview
> there was a paragraph where I stated how hard it was to give up a page to the
> editor when I know it can be better.You want me to do all twelve fine. Then in
> a year youll be complaining that the work seems rushed, which at times happens
> as well anyway-- The level of craft has changed since the days you guys are
> pining for. Thats all Im saying..Its all in what your looking for. If your
> looking for Adam Hughes--then forget getting a monthly. If your looking for a
> solid guy like Ron Frenz who can do thirteen issues a year then great but your
> not going to get your fix of flashy style. If you want something inbetween,
> then youre going to get someone who will do roughly nine or ten issues a year.
> Thats simply the way it is.
Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen, and managed to do OK with 12
issues (and an annual) of several books a year.
JMA
KurtBusiek
with 12
issues (and an annual) of several books a year.>>
And Alex Toth was a pretty good draftsman, and couldn't match their output,
even back then. Mac Raboy couldn't match Toth's. And so on.
Archie Goodwin couldn't match John Broome's output, or Stan Lee's. Didn't make
him any less a wonderful writer.
Jack Kirby worked backbreaking hours, and produced an incredible amount of
work. Other artists worked equally punishing schedules and produced much, much
less.
Creative work is not yard goods -- different craftsmen work at different
speeds. An artist who can't produce 12 issues a year isn't necessarily
slacking, just because Kirby coulda done it. He may be working just as long
and hard, but not be blessed with Kirby's speed.
And even if he isn't working the kind of schedule Kirby did, that doesn't
necessarily make him a slacker either. Few people not holding down two or more
jobs work the kind of hours Kirby did...
kdb
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen, and managed to do OK
> with 12 issues (and an annual) of several books a year.
If you want to talk trends, it's a better idea to compare the average
worker, not the giants. An analogy would be me saying "Julia Roberts makes
$9 million a film, so obviously, actors don't starve" -- looking at the top
of the heap ignores the experience for the majority or the average.
GrapeApe
>do OK
>> with 12 issues (and an annual) of several books a year.
>
>If you want to talk trends, it's a better idea to compare the average
>worker, not the giants. An analogy would be me saying "Julia Roberts makes
>$9 million a film, so obviously, actors don't starve" -- looking at the
>top
>of the heap ignores the experience for the majority or the average.
As much as people might worship Alex Toth for various reasons, if you look at
his page production rate for comic books over the length of his career, you
might get an entirely different picture of his 'gigantism"
He is relaitvely difficult to collect.
Anyone feel like making a list of those artists whose output is less than a
book per month?
Is any artist successfully carrying two books a month these days? We know John
Byrne has tried. It may have ruined him but he tried.
Snowlock
Yenrag wrote in message <20010717105703...@ng-dd1.aol.com>...
>>It seemed to me like you were excusing yourself from working hard.<<
> No--It seemed like I was saying because I work so hard at doing good work
that
>its tough to keep up doing twelve issues a year based solely on the demand
of
>the fans(and myself) that need for it to be good.If you read the interview
>there was a paragraph where I stated how hard it was to give up a page to
the
>editor when I know it can be better.You want me to do all twelve fine. Then
in
>a year youll be complaining that the work seems rushed
Okay, fair enough, never said it was easy :-) What I took exception to
though specifically, was the context of only doing 9 issues a year. You had
said (I'm paraphrasing) "that it takes longer now because there is more
detail. We're not doing 6 panel grids anymore".
But when I look at your work, and the work of many of your peers, I'm seeing
fewer than six panels, so your explanation to me comes off as an excuse.
>which at times happens
>as well anyway-- The level of craft has changed since the days you guys are
>pining for. Thats all Im saying..Its all in what your looking for. If your
>looking for Adam Hughes--then forget getting a monthly. If your looking for
a
>solid guy like Ron Frenz who can do thirteen issues a year then great but
your
>not going to get your fix of flashy style. If you want something inbetween,
>then youre going to get someone who will do roughly nine or ten issues a
year.
>Thats simply the way it is.
It certainly is the way it is. Can't argue with you there. But I would say
since that is the way it is, it's a good explanation for the contraction of
the industry. There are ways around this. If it takes an artist 2 months
to draw a book, then give him enough lead time. Just like in many other
work for hire industries, there should be contracts, drop dead dates, and
monetary penalties for late work. If Adam Hughes can't do his work on time,
he shouldn't be doing this type of work.
>>I work every single day pretty much of the year. I'm getting sick and
tired
>>of prima donna (not necessarily you, but from your interview, that's what
I
>>got out of it) artists who are calling themselves "creators", as in Gods,
>>who think they don't have to work as often as the rest of us.
>????!!!Y' know--I dont know where a guy like you --and you seem like a nice
>guy-- could possibly get this much anger out of the way an artist works on
a
>comic book,
Oh, there's no anger here. It's passion and frustration. I've got quite a
bit of perspective. I'm not going to be on top of a bell tower any time
soon with a rifle shouting "There was only four panels!!" *click, boom*
There was only four panels!!" *click, boom* I derive a lot of enjoyment
from comics, but I'm not taking them over sex or cigarettes or a pickup
basketball game or anything. But like anyone, it's frustrating to purchase
something and not get your money's worth. Nobody likes to feel cheated.
That JLA issue, I felt cheated.
>or even that you call us prima donnas--I hate to say it that sounds
>like a prima donna fan talking---
Don't think of it as fans. You're not a football star. You are providing a
service for which we pay. Not a fan as much as a customer. When all is
said and done, this is business. I'm looking for value on the dollar. I'm
paying what I already believe is an inflated price, and not getting a whole
lot out of it.
>especially when you have no idea of the long
>hours we work, pulling all nighters, trying to meet schedules, forgoing
family
>events,friends, weekends, working ten to fifteen hours a day, every day of
the
>year just about, sitting in a room by ourselves with no social outlet,at
the
>same time trying to keep up a level of quality to the work, some days the
>drawing just frustratingly wont come out well, all while your watching the
>clock and know youve just spent eight hours on a figure that wont work,
never
>getting vacation time or paid for it
It's called building a career. I'm a project manager for a
telecommunications company. My projects can be very similar in concept to
creating a comic book in many respects. I have to deliver a product to my
customer base with a certain level of proficiency (good thing it doesn't
involve spelling) and on time, most often in a team environment. And my
social life and even health sometimes suffers for it. It's part of the
trade off. You won't see any sympathy from me here.
>Its INFURIATING to hear you
>complain about how angry you are when fans like you have NO IDEA what its
like
>to do the job we do!!!!! What do you think we are living in some golden
hall
>somewhere drinking ambrosia and every now and then walking over to a table
and
>putting a line on a page then scurrying back to our wonderful Idyllic life
>??????????
Like I said in the post to which you are responding, and I was very careful
to word it as such, that is the PERCEPTION I got from your interview. It's
a perception that is pervasive in this industry. Joe Mad puts out two books
a year. The Kubert bros are lucky if they do three books in a row. George
Perez leaves a book after 3 years saying that was a long run, Sean Chen
switches books after two years. And don't even get me started on your EIC.
To me, this speaks of a lack of discipline.
>And if you think we are calling ourselves 'Gods' by calling ourselves
>'Creators' then i think maybe you need to rethink what you're saying.
Given the attitudes, given the fact that we are asked to simply accept what
is coming and like it for what it is and how dare we ask for better,
absolutely that's what I think. Hell, Hemmingway isn't even called a
creator.
>--But we ARE 'creators' of art and characters and fantasy and modern day
>mythology--taken in the best context of loving what we do --that is what
we
>ARE. Did Jack Kirby not 'create' Xmen??????? Did Seigel and Schuster not
>'create' Superman?????
Did George Lucas not create Star Wars? Did Tom Clancy not create the Hunt
for Red October? Did DaVinci not create the Mona Lisa (Didn't he? Well, if
he didn't, you get the point) They're not calling themselves creators.
Directors, authors, artists. Creator sounds arrogant to me. It conveys an
arrogance in this industry that is almost palpable. You're screaming for us
to save you. "Buy more books, tell a friend, etc etc" But at the same time
you're saying, "But butt the heck out. We may be in Chapter 11, but we know
what we're doing."
>>Forget your theory of making a Cinematic effect; in JLA Our Worlds At War,
>>If I were you, I would be embarassed to have been
>>a part of that.
> Well --Im not embarrassed--I did the Job, and if your not happy with it
then I
>feel truly sad that you feel that way. Unfortunately some things are out of
my
>control.
But no one ever will take responsibility. That's the frustration.
>As far as it being cinematic--that wasnt my 'theory'--its what Jeph
>was trying to do and I tried to accomplish that as best I could
visually--If
>you're not happy with that then I completely accept your opinion of it,
>understand it, but will not apologize for it.
I guess I look at you (and Jeph by extension I guess) saying it was
cinematic to a person trying to sell a run down house as a "fixer-upper".
>>I love what you do when
>>you devote the level of attention to a given page that is within your
>>amazing abilities, but when the day is done, you're just a commercial
>>artist, not a god... I don't want picasso, I don't want the Mona Lisa. I
>>want my money's worth. I'll pay what they ask me to pay, but god dammit,
it
>>better be worth it. That's your job. Now get to work. :-)
>I dont answer to you and you need to get over yourself because its seems
like
>you're the one trying to be God here.
No, by extension you do answer to me. Defiant comics answered to me.
Tundra comics answered to me. Awesome, Valliant and Malibu all answered to
me. Me as a member of a group of consumers. Me not as a fan bitching in a
forum, but me as a customer, saying I expect better for my money. And if
I'm not getting it, don't hand my a bunch of excuses. In my profession
it's exactly the same. I have to stand up in front of my customers all of
the time and listen to their likes and dislikes. Can you imagine if I told
them, "you have no idea how hard this is, and quit trying to play God" ????
>Smiley face or no.
No, really, I was kidding at the end there, and if I offended at that point
where I said "get to work", I apologize. Actually, I'm hoping I'm not
offending at all. Like I said, I've loved a lot of your work and you
personally always had a spot in my heart for the way you were treated on
Cap. Just don't expect me to not hold you accountable for what I perceive
as substandard work or bad practices.
>The market is what its
>become unfortunately, and I think you could almost call it a microchosm of
the
>larger picture of whats wrong with America in general--the need for
immediate
>gratification--style over substance--and think about this, if there wasn't
a
>need for those things by the consumer I just mentioned maybe youd be a
happier
>camper. Unfortunately the corporations are to blame as well. Weve become a
>nation of pushers and peddlers and the consumer's the one who gets addicted
to
>the point where he sounds--well, angry.
I'm sorry, but that is the best line of bs I've heard in a while... "I'm
sorry mister customer that you didn't find our product acceptable, but if
you would just accept what we're giving you, it'd make it easier on all of
us. Believe me, all you have to do is go and change society, and you'll be
alot happier." LOL Come ON... That may work on the kids, but that one
isn't even close to flying with me.
>Think about it. and while I agree you
>have some valid complaints, i.e. no backgrounds, panels, artists or writers
>jumping ship, etc.
>if youre that sick of it and that angry then maybe you should
>reconsider spending your hard earned money on something else.
And that doesn't scare you? Especially given the amount of customers in the
last ten years who have already made that decision?
> I dont mean that sarcastically either.
I know that, that's what scares me.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> If it takes an artist 2 months
> to draw a book, then give him enough lead time.
How, exactly, does that work on a monthly?
Seriously, that's one reason I'm excited to see more alternative formats,
like original graphic novels, miniseries, and so on. They allow people to
work on different time scales.
> If Adam Hughes can't do his work on time,
> he shouldn't be doing this type of work.
And he isn't -- he does covers only now, most of the time.
> Don't think of it as fans. You're not a football star. You are providing a
> service for which we pay. Not a fan as much as a customer.
Not really. The artist provides a service to the publisher, who pays him or
her for it. The retailers are the publisher's customers.
> I'm looking for value on the dollar. I'm
> paying what I already believe is an inflated price, and not getting a whole
> lot out of it.
Then take it up with the people deciding on formats and prices, which in
this case, *isn't* the artist.
> You won't see any sympathy from me here.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. :)
> Creator sounds arrogant to me.
What's a better term to use for the group of writers, pencillers, inkers,
etc. taken as a group? Seriously, I've been looking for one -- "creator" is
the best one I've found.
Ralf Haring
>Is any artist successfully carrying two books a month these days? We know John
>Byrne has tried. It may have ruined him but he tried.
JRjr was doing AMAZING and THOR for a while and is now doing AMAZING
and HULK (with semi-frequent fill-ins on HULK).
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Elayne Riggs
>Agree: The amount of "detail" has increased.
>
>Disagree: The level of draftsmanship has decreased.
>
>Compare almost any artist (Liefield, Lee, Choi, etc.) today with Lou Fine, Reed
>Crandall, Wally Wood, Mac Raboy.
Aren't you still picking out the "cream of the crop" when you talk
about these artists, though? In which case you'd need to pick today's
best draftsmen to compare with them.
Elayne Riggs
<anken...@home.com>:
>Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen
And also the exceptions to the rule.
Elayne Riggs
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com>:
>Snowlock at snow...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Creator sounds arrogant to me.
>
>What's a better term to use for the group of writers, pencillers, inkers,
>etc. taken as a group? Seriously, I've been looking for one -- "creator" is
>the best one I've found.
Try "storyteller." That's one I've started using a lot, and I've
begun to notice it in credit boxes as well.
GrapeApe
>> to draw a book, then give him enough lead time.
>
>How, exactly, does that work on a monthly?
to get the bi-monthly guys on a monthly title, that title will either have to
be like Strange Tales and have two features and two creative teams, or the
monthly book will have to switch creative teams every other month.
You want to see your favorite slowpokes more often? Bring back anthology titles
with 3 8 pg stories or two 11 pagers. Or do the same thing without letting
anyone know, such as ABCs Tom Strong.
Elayne Riggs
>>Too bad it didn't work. For comics that do work with a "cinematic
>>feel" check out some of Bryan Hitch's stuff. Yeah, he does 2-page
>>spreads at times, but not like 3 or 4 of them in a row. Sorry you
>>were apparently saddled with such an impossible storytelling task.
>>
>>- Elayne
>
> Im very familiar with Bryan Hitches work thank you--
Wow, and he's so... so obscure! Amazed that you've heard of him! :)
Sorry, just trying to lighten things up. It was your use of the word
"cinematic" that brought Bryan's work to mind, because that's how he
describes it too. Me, I kinda question the whole desire on the part of
many comics writers and artists to be cinematic in the first place;
it's always tricky when you take a storytelling process that's done
better in another medium and try to adapt it to comics. It can be
very round-peg-in-square-hole sometimes.
> but again there are two or
>three of them in a row because thats what Jeph wanted. He had his reasons.
I'm sure he did. I'm sorry those reasons didn't translate for me into
good visual storytelling.
Snowlock
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote in message ...
>Snowlock at snow...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> If it takes an artist 2 months
>> to draw a book, then give him enough lead time.
>
>How, exactly, does that work on a monthly?
If you know it's going to take him 2 months, let him build up a years worth
of issues before launch. It would involve some intricate planning if it was
a transition from one artist to another, but it could be done.
>> Don't think of it as fans. You're not a football star. You are
providing a
>> service for which we pay. Not a fan as much as a customer.
>
>Not really. The artist provides a service to the publisher, who pays him or
>her for it. The retailers are the publisher's customers.
I see your point of view, but if Harrison Ford gives a poor performance, you
don't blame the movie theater, who's the distributors customer. And you
don't blame the studio.
>> I'm looking for value on the dollar. I'm
>> paying what I already believe is an inflated price, and not getting a
whole
>> lot out of it.
>Then take it up with the people deciding on formats and prices, which in
>this case, *isn't* the artist.
Well, like I said later, I'll pay what they ask me to pay. They arn't going
to change that much. But if they want me to pay a certain price it better
be worth it. If U2 put out a bad album (as if that could happen), I
wouldn't blame Island Records, nor the producers, definately not the store
to which the CD was sold.
>> Creator sounds arrogant to me.
>
>What's a better term to use for the group of writers, pencillers, inkers,
>etc. taken as a group? Seriously, I've been looking for one -- "creator" is
>the best one I've found.
Oh, I know... I find myself using it too. but I really hate it. Creative
talent, Storytellers, producers, or just artists and writers...
Dale Hicks
says...
> >well, being an insomniac lately, I looked through the entire first run, no
> >big belt buckle shots. Still love the cover of 452..
>
> Thank god.;) And thanks about the cover.
Was that the tattered uniform on a twig? That was my favorite. Although
the first two in the run were pretty good as well.
As for belt buckles, I looked yet again, and the only times there are
buckles prominent in any shot are (1) the flashback to the Super Soldier
sequence and (2) when Sharon gets unbuckled from her ejection seat by
Cap.
Like I said the style's not for me, but looking at the storytelling while
scanning the books, I can tell that Garney knows his chops there. The
only panel that was unclear in the run was one shot of Kirby machinery
when Cap comments on Sharon stealing the cosmic cube. I suppose that's
where it was resting before?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Dale Hicks
says...
> Thats all Im saying..Its all in what your looking for. If your
> looking for Adam Hughes--then forget getting a monthly. If your looking for a
> solid guy like Ron Frenz who can do thirteen issues a year then great but your
> not going to get your fix of flashy style. If you want something inbetween,
> then youre going to get someone who will do roughly nine or ten issues a year.
> Thats simply the way it is.
I'm looking for George Perez (pre-health problems), Alan Davis, Leonard
Kirk, Paul Pelletier, Greg Land, and John Romita Jr.
Plus waiting patiently on Mack to put out KABUKI.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Snowlock
Dale Hicks wrote in message ...
>In article <20010717105846...@ng-dd1.aol.com>, yen...@aol.com
>says...
>> >well, being an insomniac lately, I looked through the entire first run,
no
>> >big belt buckle shots. Still love the cover of 452..
>>
>> Thank god.;) And thanks about the cover.
>
>Was that the tattered uniform on a twig? That was my favorite. Although
>the first two in the run were pretty good as well.
It was cap trying to get sharon out of an ejection seat, sun behind clouds
as a background. Not THAT was cinematic. The uniform on a stick was very
cool too.
Dale Hicks
joh...@comicsworthreading.com says...
> Snowlock at snow...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > If Adam Hughes can't do his work on time,
> > he shouldn't be doing this type of work.
>
> And he isn't -- he does covers only now, most of the time.
And, although it's not really my business, how does he stay afloat
financially? Is he paid enough for just that output, based on the powers
that good covers have? Or does he do non-comics work?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Snowlock
Snowlock wrote in message ...
>
Dale Hicks
> >big belt buckle shots. Still love the cover of 452..
>
> Thank god.;) And thanks about the cover.
Oh, forgot to mention that the comics search let me see a stereogram for
the first time ever -- there was a spidey-villains advert in the center
of a couple of them, so I buckled down and stared until I saw 'em. Now I
no longer accuse the world of being in collusion over the matter.
Although outlines only? I thought from the hulabaloo, you could see
entire images. What a letdown.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
GrapeApe
>If you know it's going to take him 2 months, let him build up a years worth
>of issues before launch. It would involve some intricate planning if it
>was
>a transition from one artist to another, but it could be done.
There is only so much lead time and advance money a publishing entity can
afford for a project before publication is made necessary, especially for
periodicals.
And eventully the back log would catch up, unless it was a limited series
already.
Similarly you could have more than one artist work on a title at a time, except
the writer would have to do the advance work and hope the artists stay
slavishly to his script, if you wanted the art for concurrent issues. Again,
better for the mini series format.
Other ways of speeding someone up, is have Mr. Fast do the layouts, and hope it
works out for a nice blend.
I loved it when P.Craig Russell was doing a lot of inking work on other folks
pencils and really laying it on thick, often for a sum that was better than the
sum of its parts.
Dale Hicks
snow...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> It was cap trying to get sharon out of an ejection seat, sun behind clouds
> as a background. Not THAT was cinematic. The uniform on a stick was very
> cool too.
Actually, it was the characters filling the entire panel, with the buckle
being positioned in the lower 1/4 of a panel covering 1/3 of 2/3 of the
page. Not at all "once he even devoted what seemed like a half a page to
a belt buckle."
And it was a function of storytelling, as well.
I'd simply turn tail and start apologizing now. Else you're going to
lose people's respect. Face it, Garney called you (or KRothst -- you
both seem to be arguing as one person) on it.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
BritReid
Reed
>Crandall, Wally Wood, Mac Raboy.
Then elaine.riggs utters...
<<Aren't you still picking out the "cream of the crop" when you talk about
these artists, though? In which case you'd need to pick today's best
draftsmen to compare with them.>>
And they would be...??? I thought Liefield, Lee, etc. WERE considered the best
of today's artists. You mean they're NOT??? [Claude Rains imitation] I'm
shocked! SHOCKED!
-B
thad a doria
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>>Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen, and managed to do OK
>with 12
>issues (and an annual) of several books a year.>>
>
>And Alex Toth was a pretty good draftsman, and couldn't match their output,
>even back then. Mac Raboy couldn't match Toth's. And so on.
And Toth is a legend with a mere fraction of Kirby & Ditko's page
count. And Mac Raboy, lord, he was brilliant. WHY isn't there a Captain
Marvel Jr. Archive yet?
>Archie Goodwin couldn't match John Broome's output, or Stan Lee's. Didn't make
>him any less a wonderful writer.
>
>Jack Kirby worked backbreaking hours, and produced an incredible amount of
>work. Other artists worked equally punishing schedules and produced much, much
>less.
>
>Creative work is not yard goods -- different craftsmen work at different
>speeds. An artist who can't produce 12 issues a year isn't necessarily
>slacking, just because Kirby coulda done it. He may be working just as long
>and hard, but not be blessed with Kirby's speed.
Hardly anyone is blessed with Kirby's speed. But I dare anyone to look at
Dave Stevens's art and say it sucks.
--
"When all else fails...THROW ROCKS!" -T'Challa
thad a doria
Byrne and JR Jr. have done the two-books-per-month thing for extended
periods. Can't think of anyone else in the past few years. Though if the
reports are to be believed, Chuck Austen's new computer-aided style can
handle 10 pages per *day*! (That's why War Machine is weekly.)
Scott Zeller
> Scott Zeller wrote:
> > Why do retailers have to know the specifics of what is coming? Why
> > can't they just order based on past sales and be done with it?
>
> One problem is that a reader who's avidly devouring, say, Busiek's
> AVENGERS may not be too interested in buying a fill-in by J.
> Randomhack, and a retailer who has to order blind would tend to get
> left carrying the can for any blip in sales that such a thing would
> cause.
Well, as one who follows characters and not creators, I would
typically buy the book regardless of whether it is a fill-in or not
(heck, I even bought that execrable Maximum Security tie-in).
> Conversely, if there's something (like a new creative team, a
> big event, or a crossover) that causes an unexpected rise in reader
> demand, underordering would mean that the retailer has to reorder and
> keep readers waiting, or not order at all - frustrating demand either
> way.
Again, a change in creative teams is not all that interesting for me.
As far as a big event or crossover, this could be easily handled by
telling retailers that it is coming and what books are affected (but
leaving out any plot details).
If readers could be assured of getting either a reorder or later TPB,
then I know of at least one reader that would not mind waiting.
Marvel is finally cluing in that people actually want to read their
backstock and would pay money for it. I hope we get to see more
Masterworks and Bronze Age (rather than a steady diet of recently
released material).
> for the company, advance information's a good promotional tool - it
> brings things to the attention of the retailer and the reader which
> they might well not have ordered blind.
Since I don't order, this doesn't make a difference to me. Are there
numbers on what percentage of the readership does order? Of those
that do order, would they like the ability to return books? I guess
what I'm getting at with the last question is that sales figures may
be incorrect in that a preview looked good but the actual product
stunk up the place (which is why I don't pre-order since I only end up
purchasing maybe 20% - at most - of what looks good in Previews).
Thanks,
Scott
Yenrag
>Wow, and he's so... so obscure! Amazed that you've heard of him! :)
>Sorry, just trying to lighten things up. It was your use of the word
>"cinematic" that brought Bryan's work to mind, because that's how he
>describes it too. Me, I kinda question the whole desire on the part of
>many comics writers and artists to be cinematic in the first place;
>it's always tricky when you take a storytelling process that's done
>better in another medium and try to adapt it to comics. It can be
>very round-peg-in-square-hole sometimes.
fantasizing were making a movie. Thats where the word 'cinematic' plays into
it. Its about trying to have fun.
>> but again there are two or
>>three of them in a row because thats what Jeph wanted. He had his reasons.
>
>I'm sure he did. I'm sorry those reasons didn't translate for me into
>good visual storytelling.
Take care
Ron G
Yenrag
>In the past, most comic artists were classically-trained commercial or pulp
>artists before switching to comics.
>
>Which are you?
Well I was a painter growing up--oils and acrylics--And and had alot of other
artistic influences before comics. (Like my late grandmother who was a terrific
painter/artist! )
Ron G
Michael Dalriada
thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Wug57.2$_4....@news.uchicago.edu...
<snip>
> And Toth is a legend with a mere fraction of Kirby & Ditko's page
> count. And Mac Raboy, lord, he was brilliant. WHY isn't there a Captain
> Marvel Jr. Archive yet?
Or a complete collection of the first four or five years of his Flash Gordon
newspaper work? Some of that was just awesome, in spite of the inane Don
Moore storylines (like the giants who Flash knew were from Saturn because
they had a ring tattooed around their nipples . . .). Don't forget the cool
Bob Rogers-drawn space ships in that stuff too!
Snowlock
on here and also commented that I liked the cover to issue 452, it's one of
my favorites, and then in the post you're replying to, I described it.
Dale Hicks wrote in message ...
James Schee
>> Creator sounds arrogant to me.
>
>What's a better term to use for the group of writers, pencillers, inkers,
>etc. taken as a group? Seriously, I've been looking for one -- "creator" is
>the best one I've found.
(breaks out online thesaurus)
Architects, authors, generators or makers.
Brains or masterminds, could also probably be used.
Eh I think I still like "creators " best.
James
Yenrag
>said (I'm paraphrasing) "that it takes longer now because there is more
>detail. We're not doing 6 panel grids anymore".<<
I dont think I said "because there is more detail"...although sometimes thats
the case. But to elaborate---The panel structures and the storytelling have
become more complex--and the stylizations have definately changed and become
more diverse. The coloring has improved, the inking styles have become more
diverse.The one thing that hasnt changed is TIME. You're complaining--but you
cant increase or decrease 'time'.We can speed up or slow down our output but
you cant change the evolutionary process that has taken place in comics which
requires more TIME. So we adjust by putting in fill ins or what have you. All
of this had lead to my comment "these arent six panel grids anymore.."
>But when I look at your work, and the work of many of your peers, I'm seeing
>fewer than six panels, so your explanation to me comes off as an excuse.<<
Well whatever 'comes off' as an excuse to you is in truth simple reality that
you dont want to accept to me--maybe because you think if you do accept what we
say as truth then you'd be deferring to what you have referred to as our 'god'
like egos. And Im sure thats your worst nightmare isnt it? However I agree that
there are alot of books that have alot of splash pages--but on the same
token--there are alot of books that have alot of panels.If either are done
gratuitously then its not a good thing.I could put alot of meaningless panels
just to fill up space but then Im not being true to what the writer has asked.
>>which at times happens
>>as well anyway-- The level of craft has changed since the days you guys are
>>pining for. Thats all Im saying..Its all in what your looking for. If your
>>looking for Adam Hughes--then forget getting a monthly. If your looking for
>a
>>solid guy like Ron Frenz who can do thirteen issues a year then great but
>your
>>not going to get your fix of flashy style. If you want something inbetween,
>>then youre going to get someone who will do roughly nine or ten issues a
>year.
>>Thats simply the way it is.
>
>since that is the way it is, it's a good explanation for the contraction of
>the industry. <<
No, that would be a poor explanation. You cannot possibly blame the contraction
of the industry as a whole on the fact that there are artists trying to do
better work and it takes them longer. Does it make some measure of difference?
Yes, probably,I dont have statistics but I can quite safely contend that its
not the reason the industry is in the shape its in. If you want to get into
why, thats a topic for another discussion, but in short you would have to blame
the handling of the comics industry by the people in the companies who took
them over many years ago who had no interest in the longevity of the industry
and had more interest in making quick money by basically raping it,
brainwashing speculators. and faulty, suspect marketing practices.
>> There are ways around this. If it takes an artist 2 months
>to draw a book, then give him enough lead time. Just like in many other
>work for hire industries, there should be contracts, drop dead dates, and
>monetary penalties for late work. If Adam Hughes can't do his work on time,
>he shouldn't be doing this type of work.>>
First of all Marvel has tried all of those things and those strong arm
tactics havent worked all that well--simply because its a creative industry
that has evolved creatively. However you are correct about the lead time--
which is what DC comics does and I believe they are in better shape schedule
wise wise than Marvel, which isnt to say DC doesnt have their problems as well.
That said-- thats why Adam Hughes wont do monthlies however. Because its
impossible for him just by the nature of it---to perform at the artistic level
of work he does MONTHLY. Its amazing to me you dont get that. And yet you'll
still compare the guys who do monthlies and then complain you're not getting
Adam. Or whoever your favorite guy is that month who might be an even lesser
skilled artist. Or NEWSFLASH!!!! We can put fill ins in and then youll get the
best of both worlds.Not perfect worlds I know but this one isnt. Hey I have an
idea--since I am a GOD I now hereby decree that there are only NINE MONTHS in a
year!!! There you go!! Problem solved. Now your getting your years worth.
>>>I work every single day pretty much of the year. I'm getting sick and
>tired
>>>of prima donna (not necessarily you, but from your interview, that's what
>I
>>>got out of it) artists who are calling themselves "creators", as in Gods,
>>>who think they don't have to work as often as the rest of us.
>
>>????!!!Y' know--I dont know where a guy like you --and you seem like a nice
>>guy-- could possibly get this much anger out of the way an artist works on
>a
>>comic book,
>
>Oh, there's no anger here. It's passion and frustration.<<
Which leads to anger.
>> I've got quite a
>bit of perspective. I'm not going to be on top of a bell tower any time
>soon with a rifle shouting "There was only four panels!!" *click, boom*
>There was only four panels!!" *click, boom*<<
Now thats funny but I think you had everyone a little worried there.
>> I derive a lot of enjoyment
>from comics, but I'm not taking them over sex or cigarettes or a pickup
>basketball game or anything. But like anyone, it's frustrating to purchase
>something and not get your money's worth. Nobody likes to feel cheated.
>That JLA issue, I felt cheated.
Fair enough! I absolutely agree noone likes to feel cheated and you have every
right to feel "passionate and frustrated" about that. But dont pigeon hole
entire careers and make blanket statements about creators(thats right I said
it)and their thought processes, their work habits etc. based on a job you
didnt like.
>>or even that you call us prima donnas--I hate to say it that sounds
>>like a prima donna fan talking---
>
>Don't think of it as fans. You're not a football star. You are providing a
>service for which we pay. Not a fan as much as a customer. When all is
>said and done, this is business. I'm looking for value on the dollar. I'm
>paying what I already believe is an inflated price, and not getting a whole
>lot out of it.<<
Oh please spare me.Football stars??? You know-- You're way too concerned with
and have spent way too much time on this subject trying to keep us 'creators'
(there I said it again) of comic art in 'our place' in your head.The problem
with you though is that paranoid attitude towards us is invalidating the few
good points that you're trying to make. You just worry about yourself, and stop
worrying about what our perception of ourselves is. And tell it to all of the
fans who deem themselves so(fans)--Im sure they would disagree with your
interpretation of what comics mean to THEM.
>>especially when you have no idea of the long
>>hours we work, pulling all nighters, trying to meet schedules, forgoing
>family
>>events,friends, weekends, working ten to fifteen hours a day, every day of
>the
>>year just about, sitting in a room by ourselves with no social outlet,at
>the
>>same time trying to keep up a level of quality to the work, some days the
>>drawing just frustratingly wont come out well, all while your watching the
>>clock and know youve just spent eight hours on a figure that wont work,
>never
>>getting vacation time or paid for it
>
>It's called building a career. I'm a project manager for a
>telecommunications company. My projects can be very similar in concept to
>creating a comic book in many respects. I have to deliver a product to my
>customer base with a certain level of proficiency (good thing it doesn't
>involve spelling) and on time, most often in a team environment. And my
>social life and even health sometimes suffers for it. It's part of the
>trade off. You won't see any sympathy from me here.<<
None expected- However you're the one making blanket statements about how hard
we work--Noone criticizes in a public forum what you do for a living --So dont
you DARE demean the hard work we put in or lecture us about it with your silly,
arrogant attitude towards what you have deemed is our place in the Grand scheme
of things.
>
>>Its INFURIATING to hear you
>>complain about how angry you are when fans like you have NO IDEA what its
>like
>>to do the job we do!!!!! What do you think we are living in some golden
>hall
>>somewhere drinking ambrosia and every now and then walking over to a table
>and
>>putting a line on a page then scurrying back to our wonderful Idyllic life
>>??????????
>
>Like I said in the post to which you are responding, and I was very careful
>to word it as such, that is the PERCEPTION I got from your interview. It's
>a perception that is pervasive in this industry. Joe Mad puts out two books
>a year. The Kubert bros are lucky if they do three books in a row. George
>Perez leaves a book after 3 years saying that was a long run, Sean Chen
>switches books after two years. And don't even get me started on your EIC.
>To me, this speaks of a lack of discipline.<<
Hmm Ok Spock--well lets see--ALL of those guys are some of the best guys
working in comics--their level of craftsmanship has reached a point where its
difficult for them to do monthlies. But then oh yes they are your favorites
though arent they--because theve reached that level of craftsmanship that takes
them longer. But if they werent doing that level of craftsmanship that takes
them longer they simply wouldnt be your favorites would they? So maybe you
should stop whining so much and enjoy the level they're offering you or find
other favorites who arent as good to read monthly. Tough choice isnt it? Mike
friggin Mignola couldnt do a monthly--but when he does do something its great
and you appreciate it dont you? If of course you are a 'fan' of his work.Look
at it that way, see the cup as half full. Oh but--thats right your not a 'fan'
of comic book art because were not 'football stars'God forbid we think we have
fans.
>>And if you think we are calling ourselves 'Gods' by calling ourselves
>>'Creators' then i think maybe you need to rethink what you're saying.
>
>Given the attitudes, given the fact that we are asked to simply accept what
>is coming and like it for what it is and how dare we ask for better,
>absolutely that's what I think. Hell, Hemmingway isn't even called a
>creator.<<
Who said 'how dare you ask for better???"You hear what you hear and read into
what you read into based on your insecurity about us percieving ourselves as
gods. And even though Hemingway may or may not have been called a
creator--thats exactly what he was. A creator of stories.
>>--But we ARE 'creators' of art and characters and fantasy and modern day
>>mythology--taken in the best context of loving what we do --that is what
>we
>>ARE. Did Jack Kirby not 'create' Xmen??????? Did Seigel and Schuster not
>>'create' Superman?????
>
>Did George Lucas not create Star Wars? Did Tom Clancy not create the Hunt
>for Red October? Did DaVinci not create the Mona Lisa (Didn't he? Well, if
>he didn't, you get the point) They're not calling themselves creators.<<
Yeah So?? Its wrong for us to??Because they arent calling themselves
that???-and how do you know for sure they dont??
>Directors, authors, artists. Creator sounds arrogant to me.<<
Thats YOUR problem. Not everything is about YOU or how anything sounds to YOU.
Thats YOUR issue with YOURSELF.
It conveys an
>arrogance in this industry that is almost palpable. <<
maybe just to YOU.
>> You're screaming for us
>to save you. "Buy more books, tell a friend, etc etc" But at the same time
>you're saying, "But butt the heck out. We may be in Chapter 11, but we know
>what we're doing."
Yeah were screaming for you to save us. Now thats arrogant--that under
different circumstances youre suggesting you could run the industry better. You
dont have that kind of control my friend--noone does--and you saying that is
purely speculative. And nowhere has anyone said you cant voice your
complaints.Would we like you to buy more books?? Absolutely! But stop avoiding
the issue which was, your false blanket generalizations about, well--my, and
others work ethic and what we are thinking. If you want to wield your mighty
flaming sword of blame--at least do it responsibly. Anything else is
deconstructive.
>
>>>Forget your theory of making a Cinematic effect; in JLA Our Worlds At War,
>>>If I were you, I would be embarassed to have been
>>>a part of that.
>
>> Well --Im not embarrassed--I did the Job, and if your not happy with it
>then I
>>feel truly sad that you feel that way. Unfortunately some things are out of
>my
>>control.
>
But no one ever will take responsibility. That's the frustration.<<
I will not take'responsibility' for your irresponsible commentary about what
frustrates you.
>
>>As far as it being cinematic--that wasnt my 'theory'--its what Jeph
>>was trying to do and I tried to accomplish that as best I could
>visually--If
>>you're not happy with that then I completely accept your opinion of it,
>>understand it, but will not apologize for it.
>
>
>I guess I look at you (and Jeph by extension I guess) saying it was
>cinematic to a person trying to sell a run down house as a "fixer-upper".
I never said it was cinematic. I said that a cinematic feel was what Jeph was
going for by putting splash pages in the script and that I tried to do as best
job drawing I could given that. Maybe you think Jeph Loeb was lying about that
as an excuse to put less into the job.I dont know for sure but I dont think so
because I talked with him about it before the job happened and he is a
screenwriter and was thinking in terms of a movie.You didnt like it. Fair
enough-- But I never tried to 'sell' any of my work the way you're insultingly
describing and dont have to explain it to you..
>>>I love what you do when
>>>you devote the level of attention to a given page that is within your
>>>amazing abilities, but when the day is done, you're just a commercial
>>>artist, not a god... I don't want picasso, I don't want the Mona Lisa. I
>>>want my money's worth. I'll pay what they ask me to pay, but god dammit,
>it
>>>better be worth it. That's your job. Now get to work. :-)
>
>
>>I dont answer to you and you need to get over yourself because its seems
>like
>>you're the one trying to be God here.
>
>No, by extension you do answer to me.
Sigh. No.I don't.And you are not what you are trying to think you are.
Defiant comics answered to me.
Sigh. No they didnt.
>Tundra comics answered to me.
Sigh. No they didnt.
Awesome, Valliant and Malibu all answered to
>me.
Sigh.No they didnt.
Me as a member of a group of consumers<<.
No. Unfortunately, We live in a 'buyer beware' country. You take responsibility
for what you pay for. If you want a better product, great. If you want to offer
your opinion on how to make it better, great. However, Comic books were not
made because YOU hired people to do so or because you invented them or even the
idea of them. Comics were made before you--you came across them, looked at them
and made the choice to spend your money on them.The company does
--technically-- NOT as owners of the characters and the comics have to listen
to you about ANYTHING. Do we want your business?? Of COURSE.Do we Value your
opinion??OF COURSE.Do you have a right to want a better product??
ABSOLUTELY.But the bottom line is we DO NOT force you to spend your money on
them. Thats the cold, hard business , fact that you speak of. And make no
mistake --WE and the companies--do not answer to YOU.You did not create the
medium or own the characters.. All you can do is offer suggestions on what you
think could be better and hope someone is listening.
<<Me not as a fan bitching in a
>forum, but me as a customer, saying I expect better for my money.
>I'm not getting it, don't hand my a bunch of excuses. <<
>> In my profession
>it's exactly the same. I have to stand up in front of my customers all of
>the time and listen to their likes and dislikes.<<
Comics are not a car dealership or some other such profession where you can fix
the order after its been placed or bought-- they dont come with a money back
warranty. All we can tell you is" well we still would like you to keep buying
and we try to do the best job, most of us,but we are always trying to improve
but are bound to to come out with a lemon every now and then." Thats not excuse
--that is FACT and you are living in a dream world if you think its going to be
perfect without recognizing the hard work some people put into their craft.
Its the same thing as going to a movie, You have good ones and bad
ones---except they have more time with more money to make them.
>> Can you imagine if I told
>them, "you have no idea how hard this is, and quit trying to play God" ????
Now that was an amazingly hypocritical analogy. Read your posts. All youve
done is accuse us of playing God. And you're going on and on about how I and
all of the other companies answer to you.
>>Smiley face or no.
>
>No, really, I was kidding at the end there, and if I offended at that point
>where I said "get to work", I apologize. Actually, I'm hoping I'm not
>offending at all. Like I said, I've loved a lot of your work and you
>personally always had a spot in my heart for the way you were treated on
>Cap. Just don't expect me to not hold you accountable for what I perceive
>as substandard work or bad practices.<<
Thank you for the compliments but tough again--you're the one being held
accountable here for your irresponsible accusation and commentary which you
couldnt back up.
>
>>The market is what its
>>become unfortunately, and I think you could almost call it a microchosm of
>the
>>larger picture of whats wrong with America in general--the need for
>immediate
>>gratification--style over substance--and think about this, if there wasn't
>a
>>need for those things by the consumer I just mentioned maybe youd be a
>happier
>>camper. Unfortunately the corporations are to blame as well. Weve become a
>>nation of pushers and peddlers and the consumer's the one who gets addicted
>to
>>the point where he sounds--well, angry.
>
>I'm sorry, but that is the best line of bs I've heard in a while... "I'm
>sorry mister customer that you didn't find our product acceptable, but if
>you would just accept what we're giving you, it'd make it easier on all of
>us.<<
There you go again--rewriting what was actually said. Noone asked you to accept
bad work.But--its not a part that can be replaced that month and that doesnt
excuse YOU from irresponsible commentary about the people who do it.
>>. Believe me, all you have to do is go and change society, and you'll be
>alot happier." LOL Come ON... That may work on the kids, but that one
>isn't even close to flying with me.<<
Thats because you see through our evil, godlike, egostistical veils of deceit
and treachery. Us big bad comic creators cant put one over on you, no sir.
You're just too smart. But again, you missed the point.It was about being
desensitized to the point where nothing can make you happy.In an artistic
context.
>
>>Think about it. and while I agree you
>>have some valid complaints, i.e. no backgrounds, panels, artists or writers
>>jumping ship, etc.
>>if youre that sick of it and that angry then maybe you should
>>reconsider spending your hard earned money on something else.
>
>And that doesn't scare you? Especially given the amount of customers in the
>last ten years who have already made that decision?
No--Im scared for you. Nothing happens overnight--but if it doesnt for you,
who knows what the hell youll do to yourself.
My last words on the subject.
Verdammt
news:20010718143330...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
>Hey I have an
> idea--since I am a GOD I now hereby decree that there are only NINE MONTHS
in a
> year!!! There you go!! Problem solved. Now your getting your years worth.
LOL!!!! Can you make a 3 day work week also?
--
Verdammt
You can't win until you are not afraid to lose. --Jon Bon Jovi
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Verdammt
And what words they were. I couldn't agree with you more. If you don't like
it, don't buy it.
Sal Orlando
Sal
In article <20010718133040...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
james...@aol.comNOSPAM (James Schee) wrote:
--
Reality Equals Infinite Resolution
Joe Ankenbauer
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:18:13 GMT, quoth Joe Ankenbauer
> <anken...@home.com>:
>
> >Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen
>
> And also the exceptions to the rule.
The point I was trying to make was that Kirby and Ditko drew what was
necessary to tell not the story, instead of drawing every vein in a
hero's forearm.
JMA
GrapeApe
>it
>on here and also commented that I liked the cover to issue 452, it's one
>of
>my favorites, and then in the post you're replying to, I described it.
I think belt buckle deserves its own comic.
GrapeApe
>handle 10 pages per *day*! (That's why War Machine is weekly.)
What does this look like? Any web samples?
I've often wondered, because I have seen some artists get pretty reliant on
photoreference and using posing mannikins, when someone would start to use
Poser or some other 3d software to stage layouts for the purposes of tracing
(or even final rendering)
Of course sometimes its best just to lay the pencil to the page and draw, no
breakdowns layouts or sketches.
I'm surprised there hasn't been an attempt at a Toy Story comic for instance,
although Pixar and Disney would probably not license such anyway. Even with
flat coloring rather than full 3d rendering.
GrapeApe
>of
>>work. Other artists worked equally punishing schedules and produced much,
>much
>>less.
>>
I always wanted to see a graph of Kirbys daily or monthly page rate as charted
against the ages of his children. I'm sure it would be telling.
Dale Hicks
snow...@worldnet.att.net says...
> me?!? I never made the claim as to the belt buckle.
I misread your post, confusing the two pseudonyms. Sorry.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Dale Hicks
says...
> Yes, probably,I dont have statistics but I can quite safely contend that its
> not the reason the industry is in the shape its in. If you want to get into
You're new here. We have that discussion here before we eat breakfast.
I think every possible explanation has been put forward.
> >Oh, there's no anger here. It's passion and frustration.<<
>
> Which leads to anger.
Which leads to the dark side.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Snowlock
Yenrag wrote in message <20010718143330...@ng-mk1.aol.com>...
>>You had
>>said (I'm paraphrasing) "that it takes longer now because there is more
>>detail. We're not doing 6 panel grids anymore".<<
>I dont think I said "because there is more detail"...
Your quote again:
Hmmmmm, I went back to the newsarama site to pull the quote and get a little
more from it, where you are discussing the reasons are because of less
detail, but the quote's changed. That's funny. Here's the original:
"Well hell, I'd like to do all twelve - but realistically probably nine,"
said
Garney, asked his personal expectations for yearly output. "I know a
lot of the fans out there criticize the fact that most aren't getting all
twelve - but the fact is in this market now, to be competitive
artistically speaking it takes a little longer. These aren't six-panel grids
anymore."
Here's what's there now:
"I don't think they allow as much for a timely schedule if you're looking
to do twelve issues a month. Let's face it - we're not doing six panel,
'draw the Marvel way' grids anymore."
Also, the passages where you went in depth as to why, arn't there either. I
must have been an older newsarama interview where you are discussing your X
Men assignment from July 13th. Or maybe a part II? How strange.
thad a doria
GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
>> Chuck Austen's new computer-aided style can
>>handle 10 pages per *day*! (That's why War Machine is weekly.)
>
>What does this look like? Any web samples?
I think the newsarama site still has samples of War Machine up. If you
know your 3-D, it's done as a "toon render". It does have the manga look
Austen was aiming for.
>I've often wondered, because I have seen some artists get pretty reliant on
>photoreference and using posing mannikins, when someone would start to use
>Poser or some other 3d software to stage layouts for the purposes of tracing
>(or even final rendering)
IIRC, Austen makes the models and compositions himself and the rendering
is done by some outside studio.
Nathanln
about these posters! You sound angry man!
I think Marvel may have a problem. It's being run by an artist who was always
late and fully sympathizes with artists who can't meet deadlines.
Unfortunately, many of the artists Marvel uses aren't as talented as Joe, or
are drawing superhero books that aren't really in their style range.
Personally, I'd put all the Quitely and churchill types on oneshots and annuals
(they may be more popular with bigger artists on them) and turn over the
monthlies to creators like Garney, Grummett, Capullo and Hitch--people who can
handle 9 or 10 bboks a year. And get artists who blend in with the regular team
for fillins.
On the positive side, I may buy the X books with ron Garney--haven't bought
many outside of Kubert and Davis issues over the last few years. Really loved
his Hulk and Surfer!
nathan linley
Snowlock
one, "How dare you?!?!?!?!?"
Thank you, Captain Credibility.
Snowlock wrote in message ...
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>
>Which leads to anger.
And anger lead to hate. And hate leads to ... suffering!
Sorry, couldn't resist. 8^)
Anyways, the original poster made alot of good points and its unfortunate
the artist, Garney, didn't really address them. Oh well. It doesn't
surprise me the industry is in such bad shape. It doesn't sound like
the people with the power are really listening at all.
All readers want are readable, enjoyable books. This "cinamatic" style
is producing alot of books that are hard to follow at times. And it is
a huge turnoff to people when they pick up a book for $2.25 or more and
are finished reading it in 5 minutes, 2 minutes of which are spent trying
to figure out how one panel flows to another or what the heck just
happened in one panel. The JLA: OWAW book is a good example of this
style of drawing that leaves readers scratching their heads. And I do
understand from Ron Garney's explanation that the writer had alot to
do with this.
Is it possible this industry has evolved itself into extinction? It is
looking like that is the case, but we'll have to see how the "big
push" that the industry is going through right now pans out. I am
hopeful.
Thanks,
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Sorry, but I wanted to follow up with what I said. I mentioned in another
post, possibly in an earlier thread, that in the "old days" (60s and 70s)
an editor would have an artist redraw pages to make the story more
readable. Do editors still do this? Or do they avoid a conflict
with an artist due to egos, lateness of the work, etc.?
If you look through some of the many magazines about the "old days", you
can see examples of art pages Stan Lee has rejected by Kirby, Ditko,
Colon, etc. that, while beautiful to look at, are not easy to follow, so
Stan Lee had the artist redraw the pages.
Again, my personal opinion is there is alot of books today that are hard
to follow. And this has nothing to do with artist preferences, etc., but
simple storytelling techniques.
Thanks,
RJRJR
TJ7512
--I like your work and felt the JLA Special was great in the artistic dept.
Tony
Elayne Riggs
<anken...@home.com>:
>Elayne Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:18:13 GMT, quoth Joe Ankenbauer
>> <anken...@home.com>:
>>
>> >Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were pretty good craftsmen
>>
>> And also the exceptions to the rule.
>
>The point I was trying to make was that Kirby and Ditko drew what was
>necessary to tell not the story, instead of drawing every vein in a
>hero's forearm.
Oh certainly, but many of these posts are in the context of comparing
artists of yore with today's crop, and I think overall the folks
who've been initiating those comparisons have been pointing at the
best of the best-- as I said, the exceptions, who would stand out in
any age-- rather than comparing like with like. If you can even do
that, considering each artist is different.
- Elayne
--
www.soulmateproductions.com
remove "OSPAM" from e-mail address to reply
Elayne Riggs
>However you are correct about the lead time--
>which is what DC comics does and I believe they are in better shape schedule
>wise wise than Marvel...
By around a month or so, it seems. But now that Marvel has Bob
Greenberger, I can envisage that situation gradually turning around to
a longer lead time. Bob's an absolute scheduling whiz.
>That said-- thats why Adam Hughes wont do monthlies however. Because its
>impossible for him just by the nature of it---to perform at the artistic level
>of work he does MONTHLY. Its amazing to me you dont get that.
I think at some level there's a fan insistence that because Artist A
can do something Artists B, C, D, etc. should all be able to do the
same thing. It's hard for some to imagine that people do creative
jobs at different paces.
- Elayne
--
www.so30 3teproductions.com
Elayne Riggs
>>> but again there are two or
>>>three of them in a row because thats what Jeph wanted. He had his reasons.
>>
>>I'm sure he did. I'm sorry those reasons didn't translate for me into
>>good visual storytelling.
> I feel bad it didnt for you--.
Hey, I liked your Hulk stuff, and of course Cap, I thought those
layouts worked very well. Can't win 'em all! :)
- Elayne
--
www.soulmateproductions.com
Jim Wilkerson
"Elayne Riggs" wrote:
> Hey, I liked your Hulk stuff, and of course Cap, I thought those
> layouts worked very well. Can't win 'em all! :)
And let's not forget his Surfer run. The best of all these examples IMO.
Jim Wilkerson