The Colletta Problem

[drdroom]

I'm inclined to believe that Vinnie was exercising his right, as an artist, to have his own imprint on the finished art.

 

Tracing Kirby's pencils, via the application of ink, would hardly have been much of a challenge for someone who also penciled his own stuff.

 

I wouldn't call what any inker does 'tracing' exactly.

 

-Aaron

 

If the inks match, exactly, the pencils, I would definitely liken it to more of a tracing job than a true collaboration (where the inker makes artistic choices to embellish).

 

In that case my opinion is that Mike Royer made the best artistic decision in comics history when he decided to ink Jack accurately!

 

Of all the stories Mike has told me of his time with JK, the one I remember most is when Mike once changed the face of Big Barda in order to make her look more feminine. When Jack saw it he made it clear, "Do- NOT- change- the- faces!"

And he never did again. The King had spoken :shrug:

 

And while I believe Mike was the most loyal to JK's pencils, he still cleaned a lot of it up in the process. And to ink AND letter 3 of Kirby's pages per day was amazing.

 

 

I wonder if Jack Kirby ever said "Do- NOT- change- the- faces!" to Vinnie Colletta? It appears not. Royer probably couldn't improve women's appearances as well as Colletta did. Vince certainly did make Sif into a looker!

 

First, I completely disagree. Kirby drew some of the most stunning women in comics (what can I say? I like 'em powerful & busty! Don't judge me). Second, I think it is well known that Jack didn't love Colletta's inking but didn't want Vince to lose work. Kirby's values were deeply humane, even sometimes to the detriment of his work. I don't think he thought Vince was skillful enough to ink the pencils accurately. Also, the Fourth World represented a period when Jack was taking full solo control of his vision for really the first time. His mindset was very different than it was in the sixties under Lee's editorship.

[original art-migration]

Jack was a big boy who demonstrated that he had no problem speaking up which, to me, means either he would have asked Marvel to make an inker change or confronted Vince with an either/or proposition. Don't know where that "Kirby didn't want Vince to starve" story came from as I never read it or heard it said by Jack himself. IMO, when Jack saw that first Tales of Asgard story that Colletta inked he probably fell off his chair - just like 99% of comic book fans did. People forget how highly regarded that art team was.

[drdroom]

Au contraire. Jack was a little guy with a class inferiority complex which has been much commented upon. When he finally did speak up, in the 70's, he sounded over the top bitter and tried to deny Stan any credit at all for doing anything at all. This suggests a long-burning resentment to me (not due to Colletta, of course!). Your speculation that he liked the first Tales of Asgard story is interesting, but my impression is that he didn't look at the inked pages much. I recall a story of Steve Sherman & Mark Evanier bringing the short-comings of Colletta-inked comics to his attention, & perhaps that is a source of the compassion theory. If I get a chance later I'll see if I can find it.

[original art-migration]

It's hard to believe that, with all the comparisons being made to Hal Foster's art, the number of excited fans writing in and how pleased Marvel obviously was, that Kirby didn't take time to notice this little gem that was Tales of Asgard.

 

 

[drdroom]

Found an interesting comment about the Soul Love pages this thread all started with:

 

CBA: From my point of view, Soul Love was, arguably, one of the worst things he ever did.

 

MARK EVANIER: Did you ever see the penciled versions of those stories? I liked the material better, much better in pencil than I did inked. And that was not just because Colletta toned down the ethnic qualities of the faces. It was some of the best art Jack had ever done, there was something in the drawings that...

 

[interviewer interrupts here unfortunately. But they go on to discuss publisher influence on the pages which it makes it appear the white-out on the gal's face and other things I have complained about were not completely Vinnie's decision:]

 

ME: ....As I said, the material for the book underwent a number of revisions. Jack wasn't entirely sure what he was doing, and a number of different people at DC and Independent News had their ideas about the material, although I don't think any of them were Black. They went to a consultant, or maybe it was a distributor with some supposed expertise in marketing material for Black audiences. Out of this came a directive to Vince Colletta to tone down the ethnic qualities in the characters' faces. We were told that Colletta was making the men all look like Sidney Poitier, and all the women had to look like Diahann Carroll."

 

The whole interview is here:

http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/spevanier.html

[drdroom]

Here's Evanier on Kirby's attitude:

 

"Jack never thought Colletta did anything but poor work but he also believed that everyone has to make a living. He also felt that inking wasn't all that important. Even a bad inker — and Jack had many — usually retained the essentials of the storytelling, which is what Jack felt comics were all about. Being a Depression-era kid, he required a little urging before he felt at ease about taking away a source of income from someone else.

 

(I'd also be lying if I took major credit for him finally making the switch. What really pushed Jack to replace Colletta was the inker's personal behavior. Vince was showing Jack's finished DC art around the Marvel offices, despite being admonished not to do that. More significantly, when Jack and Vince had an in-person meeting about their working relationship, Colletta offended Kirby with his attitude, which Jack said was along the lines of, "Hey, for what this company pays, I just knock it out as fast as I can and you should do the same.")"

 

the whole column is here:

http://www.povonline.com/notes/Notes050507.htm

[MB1952]

the whole column is here:

http://www.povonline.com/notes/Notes050507.htm

 

thanks for posting, really nice read.

[Prince Namor]

This story always cracked me up:

Mark Evanier said, "In 1970 when Steve Sherman and I met Steve Ditko, he asked us about the new Kirby books that were then about to debut at DC. When we told him Colletta was handling the inking, he winced and said that he would probably not look at the comics. Back when he was working for Marvel, Ditko said he'd pick up the latest issues in the office and always check the credits before taking the comics home. If he found Colletta's name — especially as Kirby's embellisher — he would make a point of putting the comic back, or even in a wastebasket. And he'd make sure Stan [Lee] saw what he was doing and knew the reason why."

[drdroom]

This story always cracked me up:

Mark Evanier said, "In 1970 when Steve Sherman and I met Steve Ditko, he asked us about the new Kirby books that were then about to debut at DC. When we told him Colletta was handling the inking, he winced and said that he would probably not look at the comics. Back when he was working for Marvel, Ditko said he'd pick up the latest issues in the office and always check the credits before taking the comics home. If he found Colletta's name — especially as Kirby's embellisher — he would make a point of putting the comic back, or even in a wastebasket. And he'd make sure Stan [Lee] saw what he was doing and knew the reason why."

 

Ouch! After reading Evanier's comments on Adams, Toth, Colan, Buscema and Romita I have to wonder: Was there any pro who wanted to be inked by Colletta?

[Unca Ben]

Are there any direct quotes from Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko disparaging Vince? Or do they all come through the filter of Mark Evanier?

 

Given the amount of time Kirby, Ditko, and Colletta were contemporaries at Marvel, I would think there would be plenty of comments by Kirby or Ditko made at the time, and for the record, so to speak.

 

It's also interesting that artists like Adams, Toth, Colan, Buscema, Romita, Ditko, and Kirby needed someone like Evanier to voice their disapproval.

 

Is there anyone here who wrote to Marvel complaining about Vince, or anyone who personally knows of someone who wrote such a letter at the time? I'm talking 1960's period.

 

It sure appears most of this bandwagon vitriol for Colletta is ex post facto, and anecdotal.

 

What a great guy Mark Evanier is by bringing to light the atrocities of Vince's inking, the previously undisclosed opinions of Colletta's peers, and the dispelling of the myth that many fans loved Colletta's inks, contrary to the many positive comments in the letter cols of JIM and Thor.

 

It had to be done, and Mark found it necessary to do.

 

Mark is my hero and I can't begin to stand in his shadow, easy as that would be.

 

For the record, I loved Vince's inks in JIM, Thor, and FF 40-43. I didn't care for his inks on Buscema's Thor, and his later work in the 70's and 80's was usually sub-par.

 

Oh, and for the record, I think Mark Evanier is a butt-hole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[original art-migration]

Is there anyone here who wrote to Marvel complaining about Vince, or anyone who personally knows of someone who wrote such a letter at the time? I'm talking 1960's period.

 

As a lad in the 70s, Fred Hembeck wrote a disparaging letter to Marvel recommending that Vince be replaced by a different inker although I don't recall which book it appeared in.

 

Later on, as a grown-up person, he once again did some Colletta bashing in public, something about Vince, who was art director at DC comics at the time, advising him that his art wasn't right for DC which Fred highly resented "coming from a hack like Colletta." Can anyone imagine what a superhero comic illustrated by Fred Hembeck would have looked like? Ugh.Evanier sounds like someone who might carry a similar lifelong resentment toward people. Wasn't he also involved in some silly-type comic book ala Hembeck?

 

I feel that, as comic book fans, we can be as critical as we like about Colletta and that goes for Mssrs. Hembeck and Evanier. As professionals, however, those two guys were on the lowest rung of the publishing ladder and really should have kept their fanboy opinions to themselves.

[rrichards]

I think Ucleben’s comments are interesting . I have read just about everything that has ever been written about Jack Kirby including most recently “Hands of Fire “ (by the late C.Hatfield if you haven’t read it RUN to Amazon and pick it up!) and no where ,that I can recall ,have I ever read that Kirby himself derided V. Colletta , it has always been second and third hand info.

In that regard I would offer that we are big boys (and girls) , who know what we like, so do we really care what others think especially in regards to art. The question I would like to pose is:

Would you NOT bid on a Kirby page that was inked by Colletta?

Personally , I would take a Kirby page no matter who inked it . These three “Soul Love “pages are detailed and beautifully drawn and maybe some of the best work that he was doing at that time ,if you can look past the idea that they are not super heroes.

I’ve noticed that the Colletta inked Kirby “Thor” pages have lagged behind (price wise) his other work .

That seems to be changing . “Thor” pages that were $3000 two years ago are now routinely offered at $5000-$6000. If Colletta’s presence on a Kirby page allows the ever rising prices of Kirby artwork to remain some what affordable , I say all the better!

I’ve heard Joe Mannarino from All-Star Auctions lecture on collecting and his take was that in collecting

the condition of a page should be the last thing of several things that one should consider. His thinking was that these comic art pages are one of a kind and even if a page is stained or torn , you are not going to find that page in a better condition. For those of you that think that Colletta’s work stained Kirby’s efforts ,I would ask if that dislike is enough to stop you from pursuing some of these Kirby/ Colletta pages that are available?

I think you would be making a mistake as I think any affordable Kirby page is a great investment artistically and financially and history will forget this Colletta conversation and the brilliance of Jack Kirby will continue to shine through!

[delekkerste]

I’ve heard Joe Mannarino from All-Star Auctions lecture on collecting and his take was that in collecting

the condition of a page should be the last thing of several things that one should consider. His thinking was that these comic art pages are one of a kind and even if a page is stained or torn , you are not going to find that page in a better condition. For those of you that think that Colletta’s work stained Kirby’s efforts ,I would ask if that dislike is enough to stop you from pursuing some of these Kirby/ Colletta pages that are available?

I think you would be making a mistake as I think any affordable Kirby page is a great investment artistically and financially and history will forget this Colletta conversation and the brilliance of Jack Kirby will continue to shine through!

 

The whole "one of a kind" argument is overblown - it's really just a sales technique meant to justify any price for art. The fact is, Kirby was the most prolific artist in comic book history, so there is really no shortage of his work if you are willing to pay the going rate, and many pages are very quite comparable.

 

As for whether Colletta's work would keep me from pursuing the Kirby/Colletta pages that are available, I would have to say yes. I was in the market for a number of Kirby pages last year and passed over a number of Kirby/Colletta combinations because I thought the inking was simply sub-par. If I had come across a rare Kirby/Colletta successful effort, the Colletta name would not have stopped me from buying the page, but, that was never the case. The inks were generally just poor. As such, the one JIM example I bought was inked by Stone, who I thought did a much, much better job inking Kirby on the series.

 

Similarly, I almost bought a 2-page Kirby FF fight sequence last year, but just couldn't get over the atrocious George Bell (Roussos) inks, which totally ruined it for me, despite the exceptional content of the pages.

[Jeffro.]

It's kind of a moot point as Kirby art is out of my league price wise, however given the op (at the same price) to buy a Kirby/Colletta piece, or a Kirby/whomever piece, I would be strongly motivated to go for the Kirby/whomever piece.

[KirbyJack]

Considering how dearly I love Jack Kirby's work on JIM/Thor, I'd love to own a Colletta-inked page. I might even prefer it, as he inked my favorite (the best ever) Thor stories.

 

And I'd trade two Royer-inked Kirby pages to get one.

 

 

 

[jimjum12]

It's kind of a moot point as Kirby art is out of my league price wise, however given the op (at the same price) to buy a Kirby/Colletta piece, or a Kirby/whomever piece, I would be strongly motivated to go for the Kirby/whomever piece.

 

......I just can't generalize like that. But then, Kirby is at the top of the heap for me. There are some Kirby / Colletta Thor pages that I would take over almost anything else....but those are mainly splashes and full page threads....but then the Chic Stone pages are awesome to me....even though many relegate them to the back burner. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[stinkininkin]

I think Ucleben’s comments are interesting . I have read just about everything that has ever been written about Jack Kirby including most recently “Hands of Fire “ (by the late C.Hatfield if you haven’t read it RUN to Amazon and pick it up!) and no where ,that I can recall ,have I ever read that Kirby himself derided V. Colletta , it has always been second and third hand info.

In that regard I would offer that we are big boys (and girls) , who know what we like, so do we really care what others think especially in regards to art. The question I would like to pose is:

Would you NOT bid on a Kirby page that was inked by Colletta?

Personally , I would take a Kirby page no matter who inked it . These three “Soul Love “pages are detailed and beautifully drawn and maybe some of the best work that he was doing at that time ,if you can look past the idea that they are not super heroes.

I’ve noticed that the Colletta inked Kirby “Thor” pages have lagged behind (price wise) his other work .

That seems to be changing . “Thor” pages that were $3000 two years ago are now routinely offered at $5000-$6000. If Colletta’s presence on a Kirby page allows the ever rising prices of Kirby artwork to remain some what affordable , I say all the better!

I’ve heard Joe Mannarino from All-Star Auctions lecture on collecting and his take was that in collecting

the condition of a page should be the last thing of several things that one should consider. His thinking was that these comic art pages are one of a kind and even if a page is stained or torn , you are not going to find that page in a better condition. For those of you that think that Colletta’s work stained Kirby’s efforts ,I would ask if that dislike is enough to stop you from pursuing some of these Kirby/ Colletta pages that are available?

I think you would be making a mistake as I think any affordable Kirby page is a great investment artistically and financially and history will forget this Colletta conversation and the brilliance of Jack Kirby will continue to shine through!

 

I've said before that IMHO while Colletta wasn't ALWAYS bad, more often than not he WAS bad, and his inks over Kirby absolutely would discourage me from buying any given Kirby page (or anyone else he inked for that matter). His inks have DEFINITELY kept me from picking up Kirby art before. And if a Kirby/Colletta piece ever found it's way into my collection, it would be IN SPITE OF Colletta's contribution. I think the only reason Kirby/Colletta art is well regarded such as it is, is due to the power of Kirby himself and in spite of the inks. The fact that there are Colletta fans, what few there are, if just fine. We all like different stuff for different reasons. But I keep going back to a previous observation which asks what would we think of all those Kirby/Colletta Thor jobs had Sinnot or Stone or pick your other favorite Kirby inker performed the inking chores? Thy head doth swoon.

 

Scott

[drdroom]

Of course, Colletta inks would keep me from paying market value for a Kirby page. OF COURSE. Almost every time. Check out the JIM pages in the ComicConnect Feb auction for example. These were certainly strong pages as drawn, now relatively flat and lifeless by Kirby standards.

 

 

[Niblos!]

As I suggested before, everyone should grab a copy of "THE BLACK THIN LINE" and judge for yourself. When it comes right down to it, I think a lot of this "hate" comes from second or third person stories and Colletta bashing seems to be extremely popular at the moment in the world of original art.

 

While some of the later stuff like Dazzler tends to leave me cold, the gorgeous stuff Colletta did with Kirby seems to hold a special place in my heart. Again, while I tend to LOVE Royer's lettering such as the title pages, his work doesn't really excite me in any way. I second the notion of trading two Royer's for one Kirby/Colletta masterpiece!

 

But then again, I really can't imagine throwing any KIRBY pages out of bed ; )

[drdroom]

Are there any direct quotes from Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko disparaging Vince? Or do they all come through the filter of Mark Evanier?

 

Given the amount of time Kirby, Ditko, and Colletta were contemporaries at Marvel, I would think there would be plenty of comments by Kirby or Ditko made at the time, and for the record, so to speak.

 

It's also interesting that artists like Adams, Toth, Colan, Buscema, Romita, Ditko, and Kirby needed someone like Evanier to voice their disapproval.

 

Is there anyone here who wrote to Marvel complaining about Vince, or anyone who personally knows of someone who wrote such a letter at the time? I'm talking 1960's period.

 

It sure appears most of this bandwagon vitriol for Colletta is ex post facto, and anecdotal.

 

What a great guy Mark Evanier is by bringing to light the atrocities of Vince's inking, the previously undisclosed opinions of Colletta's peers, and the dispelling of the myth that many fans loved Colletta's inks, contrary to the many positive comments in the letter cols of JIM and Thor.

 

It had to be done, and Mark found it necessary to do.

 

Mark is my hero and I can't begin to stand in his shadow, easy as that would be.

 

For the record, I loved Vince's inks in JIM, Thor, and FF 40-43. I didn't care for his inks on Buscema's Thor, and his later work in the 70's and 80's was usually sub-par.

 

Oh, and for the record, I think Mark Evanier is a butt-hole.

 

 

The Adams story speaks a bit louder than words, don't you think? It wasn't Mark Evanier who redrew the whole story for no pay. And then, Kirby DID fire Colletta from the Fourth World titles, for SOME reason. That is not a made-up fact.

 

I recognize Evanier's testimony is not as good as having the artists themselves publishing disparaging comments on the record about a fellow pro, but I believe most of them were more inclined to speak nicely or not at all. You often find them in interviews praising their fellow pros, so allow me to turn the evidentiary challenge back on you: can you show me some artists who liked being inked by Colletta? Doesn't have to be the greats of the industry. Any pro that endorsed Colletta will be interesting.

 

As for FAN appreciation of Colletta, I don't think anyone has questioned that. This thread makes it plain that we have folks on both sides today as there were in the '60s.