Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I already posted this in page 4 of this thread. I think that this is proof enough that Miller began doing breakdowns in a different sheet from #185 on. This was published originally in The Comics Journal #72 and written by Kim Thompson. «Miller explained that he has already begun giving Klaus looser breakdowns to work from. Then, with #185, he will begin to give Janson thumbnail sketches to work with; » This was written at the same age that this happened. More specific, impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I also agree that the inker gets the complete art of an issue doesn't mean that he did all the art. Many times the penciler and inker split their share in complete issues instead of getting the inker a third of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NelsonAI Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 TEST http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1164360 Photocopy of FM pencils from Wolverine 1 page 1. Compare it with the picture posted by Ferran. FM notes on side say "I'm a hunter". I took picture of photocopy with my basic digital camera. Cheers! N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Wow, that photocopy is impressive! I never imagined that the original layouts looked like that one! Thanks for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Now that I think of it, I remember that Rubinstein told me long ago that he got all the art from #2. I should check it out with him again, but I remember that he commented it to complain that nowadays a single page is sold for more than he sold the complete issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I already posted this in page 4 of this thread. I think that this is proof enough that Miller began doing breakdowns in a different sheet from #185 on. This was published originally in The Comics Journal #72 and written by Kim Thompson. Janson is obviously aware that this is why everyone thinks that separate sheet breakdowns began with #185 (and, in fact, that's when Marvel started changing the credits to list him as penciller). And yet, he specifically says that it's wrong and that's not how it actually happened. Why would he do that? Trying to steal Frank's thunder, having a senior moment, or just correcting a misconception out there in the public? My guess is that it's the latter, but I say we ask the man himself, present the evidence as to why people think the separate sheets began with #185, and see if he has a good explanation regarding his claim. Given the clarity and specificity of his recollection to the contrary, I'll bet that he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinkininkin Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I already posted this in page 4 of this thread. I think that this is proof enough that Miller began doing breakdowns in a different sheet from #185 on. This was published originally in The Comics Journal #72 and written by Kim Thompson. Janson is obviously aware that this is why everyone thinks that separate sheet breakdowns began with #185 (and, in fact, that's when Marvel started changing the credits to list him as penciller). And yet, he specifically says that it's wrong and that's not how it actually happened. Why would he do that? Trying to steal Frank's thunder, having a senior moment, or just correcting a misconception out there in the public? My guess is that it's the latter, but I say we ask the man himself, present the evidence as to why people think the separate sheets began with #185, and see if he has a good explanation regarding his claim. Given the clarity and specificity of his recollection to the contrary, I'll bet that he does. Good to hear that you've accepted the assignment Gene! (thumbs u Take copious notes. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Good to hear that you've accepted the assignment Gene! (thumbs u Take copious notes. Scott I will seek him out if he's at the NYCC and get to the bottom of this. (thumbs u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I already posted this in page 4 of this thread. I think that this is proof enough that Miller began doing breakdowns in a different sheet from #185 on. This was published originally in The Comics Journal #72 and written by Kim Thompson. Janson is obviously aware that this is why everyone thinks that separate sheet breakdowns began with #185 (and, in fact, that's when Marvel started changing the credits to list him as penciller). And yet, he specifically says that it's wrong and that's not how it actually happened. Why would he do that? Trying to steal Frank's thunder, having a senior moment, or just correcting a misconception out there in the public? My guess is that it's the latter, but I say we ask the man himself, present the evidence as to why people think the separate sheets began with #185, and see if he has a good explanation regarding his claim. Given the clarity and specificity of his recollection to the contrary, I'll bet that he does. Well, there are a few sources from the age that point out that they started working this way from #185 on. Why correct it decades later? Why to wait so long when he got interviewed a few times since then? If Miller didn't give due credit to Janson back then according to Klaus, why start doing it now? I think that all this subject stinks since there are many economic interests involved. Sorry, but I don't believe to Klaus unless I can see some evidence otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lb jefferies Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Nothing at all "stinks" about this. Janson has absolutely no dog in this fight. He's long divested himself of this art. How about we stick to finding the truth regardless of how many of us own full Miller/half Miller/Miller-touched-it-with-his-butt-cheek pages. I, for one, am curious to get as close to the bottom of it as we can get. Better to attempt to correct the record than stick our heads in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinupcartoonguy Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Who was the editor during the Miller/Janson run? Has that person stated anything on the record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I didn't refer to Janson when I said that this subject stinks. I'm talking about art dealers and auction houses and collectors that are very interested to defend their investments and be shady about the pages not touched by Miller. We saw many cases with vague or false descriptions trying to cheat novices. I don't know why Janson suddenly started his claims that his contribution was greater than officially attributed, but this is not the first time that a part of a great creative team suddenly claim more than he used to admit for many years. We have Kirby's case, when decades later, sick of Lee's getting the full credit, started to claim that he build the whole Marvel Universe all by himself and denied credit to Lee. I don't know if Janson's change of mind has nothing to do with this, but i don't think that we'll get nothing clear unless layouts like the ones auctioned at Heritage or Nelson's photocopies show. Till then, I believe the sources from the age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Sid Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Who was the editor during the Miller/Janson run? Has that person stated anything on the record? Denny O'Neil was. He was also interviewed in the DD Chronicles book the same month as the 19 page Miller/Janson interview. He doesn't mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Sid Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Side note: I for one would love to pay "Janson" prices for a nice 179 or 181 page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Sid Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Going back to the DD Chronicles interview. Are you really telling me that Klaus gets asked to explain the differences between working with Frank and working with Gene Colan and he DOESN'T bring up the fact that his workload is doubled working with Frank because he has to enlarge and pencil everything himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I agree. It's not only what it's told back at the age, but the opportunities that Janson has to clarify what's told officially at the lettercol of the series and the credits, and he keeps in silence about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 But let's get paranoid. What if Miller and Janson had an agreement back then to say officially that Miller did full pencils and now he decides to break the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Are you really telling me that Klaus gets asked to explain the differences between working with Frank and working with Gene Colan and he DOESN'T bring up the fact that his workload is doubled working with Frank because he has to enlarge and pencil everything himself? Again, it's easy to think up any number of plausible reasons why that might be the case (I offered several theories in an earlier post). Not that any of these are necessarily so, but it's not something so inexplicable that there aren't numerous plausible reasons for his not mentioning it during that interview. Omission, to me, is not proof. And, remember, people tell interviewers things to shape perception - just look at all the recent revelations about the Robin Thicke song from last summer, "Blurred Lines". Both he and Pharrell spun a good story for the press last summer which gave Thicke (much) more than his fair share of the credit for the song. But, given the recent lawsuit from Marvin Gaye's estate, it's come to light that Pharrell was practically the sole creator (borrowing liberally from Gaye, to be sure) of the work. Similarly, who's to say that it wasn't in Miller/Janson's best interests from a sales perspective not to mention that it was Klaus, not the superstar Miller, who was actually carrying most of the artistic load at the time? The reason why I brought up the Warren attribution errors is that contemporaneous accounts reinforced the incorrect attributions and it was only 35+ years later that the real truth came out. Not saying that's definitively the case here, but it could very well be. I also wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Klaus' first-hand account, nor to assume Mitch must be mistaken as well just because there are cases when sometimes an inker will get a whole issue back due to an agreed-upon arrangement (e.g., a penciller gets 2 complete books and an inker gets 1). Just because it happens doesn't necessarily mean that it happened in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferran Delgado Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Who's to say that it wasn't in Miller/Janson's best interests from a sales perspective not to mention that it was Klaus, not the superstar Miller, who was actually carrying most of the artistic load at the time? This is what I meant in my "what if". Omission is not proof, but it might reinforce evidences of the official version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Why does this even matter? Obviously no one can tell by looking at the pages. The art is the art - Miller breakdowns and Janson finishes, regardless of who "touched" the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
