Silver Age books that don't turn you on

[vaillant]

Carmine Infantino's art in the 70s and 80s is similar to Jack Kirby's art. Very stylized, very dynamic, and very distinct. If you pick up an Infantino comic in this period, you know who did the art. I can understand why some don't like it, similar to how some don't like Kirby's art. But to say it is "bad" is wrong. Not to your taste is a better way of putting it.

 

Right, but there is a big difference: Jack was suffering from the deterioration of his sight, due to an illness, while Carmine wasn’t. Jack’s drawing became more distorted, and inkers which weren’t familiar with his pencils weren’t able to improve them (like the young Mike Thibodeaux, which Jack wished to put to work because he needed so). Compare the very early issues of Captain Victory with the late ones.

 

About the Star Wars: I am unfamiliar with them, but if they are from the same time frame of the Nova and Spider-Woman, they must be great.

Right, heavily stylized, and at the beginning I had some problems with them myself, especially with Nova, but in a few issues I was already loving them (and as a kid, so no preconceived criticism).

[rjpb]

 

Also, the Iron Man half of Tales of Suspense. I was a big Captain America fan and therefore had the entire TOS run from 58-up, but most of the time I would just skim through the Iron Man half.

 

+1, even with Colan art, these stories just seemed even more like a soap opera than most Marvels and too tedious to read.

 

 

[jjonahjameson1]

Carmine Infantino's art in the 70s and 80s is similar to Jack Kirby's art. Very stylized, very dynamic, and very distinct. If you pick up an Infantino comic in this period, you know who did the art. I can understand why some don't like it, similar to how some don't like Kirby's art. But to say it is "bad" is wrong. Not to your taste is a better way of putting it.

 

Right, but there is a big difference: Jack was suffering from the deterioration of his sight, due to an illness, while Carmine wasn’t. Jack’s drawing became more distorted, and inkers which weren’t familiar with his pencils weren’t able to improve them (like the young Mike Thibodeaux, which Jack wished to put to work because he needed so). Compare the very early issues of Captain Victory with the late ones.

 

About the Star Wars: I am unfamiliar with them, but if they are from the same time frame of the Nova and Spider-Woman, they must be great.

Right, heavily stylized, and at the beginning I had some problems with them myself, especially with Nova, but in a few issues I was already loving them (and as a kid, so no preconceived criticism).

 

What illness?

[vaillant]

What illness?

 

I don’t recall – it’s chronicled in full in the Kirby biography by Mark Evanier. He was already suffering from the disease in the 1970s, but in the 1980s the situation worsened. From what I recall, it basically altered his perception so he had a tendency to draw more distortedly in the perimetral areas of drawings.

[Hepcat]

Compare something like Flash 92 with the artwork he did in the 70's or 80's.

 

Which Flash 92?

 

[AstuteObservation-migratio]

Carmine Infantino's art in the 70s and 80s is similar to Jack Kirby's art. Very stylized, very dynamic, and very distinct. If you pick up an Infantino comic in this period, you know who did the art. I can understand why some don't like it, similar to how some don't like Kirby's art. But to say it is "bad" is wrong. Not to your taste is a better way of putting it.

 

You're right, his art wasn't bad, it was horrible

(And I'm a big fan of his early Silver Age work).

[AstuteObservation-migratio]

Those books of yours are in lovely condition but it reinforces why Aquaman does not appeal to me. I don't like the artwork on any of them. I'm slightly drawn to the SHOWCASE # 33. Even the great condition would not prompt me to get into Aquaman. Definitely not a title which excites me in any way.

 

Check out the issues with Jim Aparo art, he was much better than Nick Cardy.

[conditionfreak]

Most of Carmine Infantino, and Don Heck's artwork is unreadable. Both have had some all time classic covers, but boy did they put out some terrible interior work.

 

Even Carmine Infantino's early sixties Flash and Adam Strange interiors?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She looks quite fetching to me.

 

 

Although those aren't as bad as a lot of his work, I hate the football sized heads.

I'm thinking he should of done more issues with the Hulk vs the Leader.

 

First time I have seen that interior. That ia really bad.

[tth2]

Those books of yours are in lovely condition but it reinforces why Aquaman does not appeal to me. I don't like the artwork on any of them. I'm slightly drawn to the SHOWCASE # 33. Even the great condition would not prompt me to get into Aquaman. Definitely not a title which excites me in any way.

 

Check out the issues with Jim Aparo art, he was much better than Nick Cardy.

There is no universe in which the words "Jim Aparo is better than Nick Cardy" should ever be uttered.

[Unca Ben]

For me, all Marvel. Blech.

[vaillant]

Carmine Infantino's art in the 70s and 80s is similar to Jack Kirby's art. Very stylized, very dynamic, and very distinct. If you pick up an Infantino comic in this period, you know who did the art. I can understand why some don't like it, similar to how some don't like Kirby's art. But to say it is "bad" is wrong. Not to your taste is a better way of putting it.

 

You're right, his art wasn't bad, it was horrible

(And I'm a big fan of his early Silver Age work).

 

Let’s try to exercise some objective criticism – instead of these "landmark" sentences, OK?

[vaillant]

Those books of yours are in lovely condition but it reinforces why Aquaman does not appeal to me. I don't like the artwork on any of them. I'm slightly drawn to the SHOWCASE # 33. Even the great condition would not prompt me to get into Aquaman. Definitely not a title which excites me in any way.

 

Check out the issues with Jim Aparo art, he was much better than Nick Cardy.

 

As above.

[G.A.tor]

Daredevil has never done it for me

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Daredevil has never done it for me

 

Ben Didn't help that cause

[jjonahjameson1]

Those books of yours are in lovely condition but it reinforces why Aquaman does not appeal to me. I don't like the artwork on any of them. I'm slightly drawn to the SHOWCASE # 33. Even the great condition would not prompt me to get into Aquaman. Definitely not a title which excites me in any way.

 

Check out the issues with Jim Aparo art, he was much better than Nick Cardy.

There is no universe in which the words "Jim Aparo is better than Nick Cardy" should ever be uttered.

 

Except for early Aparo DC art, where he was indeed better than Nick Cardy. Then Aparo dropped backgrounds and put less details into the main characters.

[G.A.tor]

Daredevil has never done it for me

 

Ben Didn't help that cause

Never a consideration on my part.

[Hepcat]

Check out the issues with Jim Aparo art, he was much better than Nick Cardy.

There is no universe in which the words "Jim Aparo is better than Nick Cardy" should ever be uttered.

 

Here are some samples of Jim Aparo's take on the Aquaman strip:

 

 

 

The above two renderings are from DC Calendars.

 

 

 

 

[kimik]

I love silver age comic books, but there are various titles that I have never collected, read or ever intend to, because they have simple never appealed to me.

Does anyone else feel the same? This is not meant to diss on anyone's collecting interests. Just interested if people have titles they would not touch for whatever reason. Artists/stories/covers or just never fancied.

A title that has never appealed to me in any way is BLACKHAWK. Another is WONDER WOMAN. Another is AQUAMAN. I've never owned or read one of these books.

 

Yup. Fantastic Four. As a kid that started collecting in the late 80s I could not see what the fuss over the title was. Still can't.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I love silver age comic books, but there are various titles that I have never collected, read or ever intend to, because they have simple never appealed to me.

Does anyone else feel the same? This is not meant to diss on anyone's collecting interests. Just interested if people have titles they would not touch for whatever reason. Artists/stories/covers or just never fancied.

A title that has never appealed to me in any way is BLACKHAWK. Another is WONDER WOMAN. Another is AQUAMAN. I've never owned or read one of these books.

 

Yup. Fantastic Four. As a kid that started collecting in the late 80s I could not see what the fuss over the title was. Still can't.

 

I've never been a fan of team super heroes. I always preferred Batman solo as well. Fantastic 4 is my least favorite Marvel title. I know others adore them. There are some great covers to their issues, but the concept of the FF? Nah, not for me. I read one or two, they bored me.

[Boboset]

I love silver age comic books, but there are various titles that I have never collected, read or ever intend to, because they have simple never appealed to me.

Does anyone else feel the same? This is not meant to diss on anyone's collecting interests. Just interested if people have titles they would not touch for whatever reason. Artists/stories/covers or just never fancied.

A title that has never appealed to me in any way is BLACKHAWK. Another is WONDER WOMAN. Another is AQUAMAN. I've never owned or read one of these books.

 

Yup. Fantastic Four. As a kid that started collecting in the late 80s I could not see what the fuss over the title was. Still can't.

 

I've never been a fan of team super heroes. I always preferred Batman solo as well. Fantastic 4 is my least favorite Marvel title. I know others adore them. There are some great covers to their issues, but the concept of the FF? Nah, not for me. I read one or two, they bored me.

 

Read this comic. It's guaranteed not to bore you.