mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 Jack really was a workhorse, doing multiple character designs for a single panel that would probably never recur. KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) Reed really was such a donkey, especially to his wife. Edited July 5, 2017 by Mackenzie999 KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 Then again, maybe she kinda deserved it. KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 We have achieved full-on Kirby dots! And the very first ever glimpse of a fairly significant character that Jack just added to the mix. That man farted creativity. KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 The Thing was usually a regular kinda guy, as much as he could be, but even he wasn't above adding a little humiliation to the clobberin' mix... KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) I've heard there was debate in the bullpen about this issue's title. It was either going to be "The Coming of Galactus" or "Alicia Fixes the Silver Surfer a Sammich." And what the hell is she wearing? Edited July 5, 2017 by Mackenzie999 KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 5, 2017 Author Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 6/24/2017 at 3:34 AM, Unca Ben said: (A period which started, for me, on or around issue 35) Agreed, that's why I skipped the first FF Omnibus and went right to the good stuff! Unca Ben 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unca Ben Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/1/2017 at 11:38 AM, Aman619 said: Ok. I became more ineterested to do some followup research on my statement about early redrawn marvels s for reprints. Thanks for posting this, Aman. I had been re-reading the first ten issues of Marvel Tales myself, and you had me questioning the art a bit. It looked okay to me but after your comments I wasn't sure. I wanted to check things out for myself but that would have meant pulling down 4 longboxes that contained the early ASM, JIM Thor, Strange Tales and Tales to Astonish. Those boxes are heavy, and I'm lazy. Your follow up post saved me the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 I think, in retrospect, what happened was this. I read the original annual reprints when they came out on newstands, at least until I was caught up. Same with D.C. I never thought about the art being same as the comics or different. (Who cared back then?) many years later as newer reprints wre released, probably the milestones, I bought the early ones and noticed how horrible and different they looked. I think these images were some of the ones I have seen online too since they are easiest to come by for anyone doing research on early stories etc. i think given my overall theory that Marvel and D.C. always took the shorted and easiest path, I saw this bad artwork and assumed that they went the simplest route, that they had picked up their existing original stats from the actual comics. But, the new digital approaches were around by then. so, by the 90s, Marvel no longer had the original artwork to use (it had either been handed back to artists, or stolen years ago) so embarking on a new "permanent" digital solution must have seemed like the way to go. ( They may in fact have used some of the Marvel Tales issues since buying expensive single issues to destroy in the process would have been far more expensive ( Collectors Item Classics costs pennies compared to a copy of FF 3! anyway, I'm still guessing.. but there ought to be a few pros out there from the bullpen in the 90s who know the answer. But I think this is what I "remembered the early reprints " as being hand drawn. But, I'm still unsure what just the earliest issues looked so crappy. Or was it all of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reed_richards Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) Great thread. For some reason I don't remember now, I bought back issues of FF 44 through 70 as a teenager nearly 50 years & am very glad I've kept them to read again & again. Edited July 7, 2017 by reed_richards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirbyJack Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 On July 4, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Mackenzie999 said: Reed really was such a donkey, especially to his wife. If by donkey, you mean Real Man, then I agree 100%! mackenzie999 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 11 hours ago, KirbyJack said: If by donkey, you mean Real Man, then I agree 100%! Well I tried to make it a s s but it wouldn't let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unca Ben Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) On 7/4/2017 at 11:34 PM, Aman619 said: I think, in retrospect, what happened was this. I read the original annual reprints when they came out on newstands, at least until I was caught up. Same with D.C. I never thought about the art being same as the comics or different. (Who cared back then?) many years later as newer reprints wre released, probably the milestones, I bought the early ones and noticed how horrible and different they looked. I think these images were some of the ones I have seen online too since they are easiest to come by for anyone doing research on early stories etc. i think given my overall theory that Marvel and D.C. always took the shorted and easiest path, I saw this bad artwork and assumed that they went the simplest route, that they had picked up their existing original stats from the actual comics. But, the new digital approaches were around by then. so, by the 90s, Marvel no longer had the original artwork to use (it had either been handed back to artists, or stolen years ago) so embarking on a new "permanent" digital solution must have seemed like the way to go. ( They may in fact have used some of the Marvel Tales issues since buying expensive single issues to destroy in the process would have been far more expensive ( Collectors Item Classics costs pennies compared to a copy of FF 3! anyway, I'm still guessing.. but there ought to be a few pros out there from the bullpen in the 90s who know the answer. But I think this is what I "remembered the early reprints " as being hand drawn. But, I'm still unsure what just the earliest issues looked so crappy. Or was it all of them? There have been some discussions about changes made in Marvel's Masterworks, Essentials, and Omnibus lines.Here's an old CGC topicand here's a blog referenced in the CGC topicanother blog from 2014and here's the hyaena gallery by artist Michael Kelleher, who recreated art for the Masterwork series through digital reconstruction and physically redrawing pages. And here is the artist's Marvel Masterworks art for sale Finally, here's Michael's response on the Masterworks message board concerning Masterworks art restoration. *This one is required reading, IMO. ...if you've already seen these (and of course there's more), mea culpa. If not, it's a pretty good read. Edited July 8, 2017 by Unca Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unca Ben Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Which witch is which? (From Dario Bressanini's blog) KirbyJack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
