The Most Important Figure in Comic Book History?

[supapimp]

Bill Jemas- I know almost every hates him, but he made a big difference of the comic industry today. The only reason that your golden, your silver and bronze comics are still valuable because the comic industry is still alive. Besides Batman series without Marvel Ultimate line and other great titles what will happen to the comic industry. Just take a look at the Previews for the past two years, checked out the consistency of the top 10 titles sold every month, at least 7 from Marvel Titles and we are talking about 800,000 to 1 million books monthly. Just imagine that you take Marvel ongoing comic books away from the equation, do you think a new would be collectors be collectors that would relate the current books and appreciate the golden, silver or bronze books, most likely No. I know that there are other great series out there from other companies but that few titles, would you think that would keep the industry alive?

I know other people have their own take on this one but I just want to share what I think, not to offend fellow collectors.

 

if your going to name bill jemas, then you're going to have to place avi arad ahead of him. look at what he's done for the marvel franchise since marvel characters has hit the BIG screen!

[rob_react]

Does Eisner fit #4? "4: Someone whose acheivements equals more than just a single (great) comic run (or character creation)."

He had The Spirit. Did he ever create any other "superheroes" outside of The Spirirt's world, or do any other crime books?

He drew some (of the first) graphic novels. That's something big, but really, not huge.(Not huge in the sense that the comic industry would've crumbled without the appearance of the graphic novel).

Does he meet this requirement # 4 because he influenced some better artists? (As did many others).

Have you ever read any of his non-Spirit work? It's great. So, not only did he draw some of the "first graphic novels" (which IS huge,) but those same graphic novels just happen to be some of the best comics being done in the here and now. Also, as Zilla pointed out, Eisner is the single most important person EVER in terms of the art of making comics. There is no question about this whatsoever. Kirby was influential of course, but never in the same way Eisner was. Eisner did influence, like Kirby, by doing (as in his work spoke for itself), BUT, he also influenced intellectually, by writing and teaching. His Comics and Sequential Art and Graphic Storytelling books are practically required reading for people serious about doing good comics (and I stress Good.) But, even before he had committed his theories to paper, Eisner influenced scores of the best the industry has to offer. Just the people that worked under him in his studio is a pretty impressive list: Jules Feiffer, Lou Fine, Jack Cole, Wally Wood, etc.And then there are the Frank Miller's of this world who just aped Eisner long enough to pick something up...

[rob_react]

Just as an aside to my previous post, the people I mention as having worked under Eisner are ranked as follows in the THE 100 GREATEST COMIC ARTISTS list:

 

#19 JACK COLE

#10 LOU FINE

#6 WALLY WOOD

 

The only one missing, Jules Feiffer, of course, transcends comics in his influence.

 

Eisner, by the way, is at #2 on that list, only behind Kirby.

[Zonker]

Nick Cardy, who also got his start in the Eisner studio, is Number 83 on that same list.

 

Anyone doubting the Eisner influence on Cardy?

 

[Illiterati-migration]

Nick Cardy, who also got his start in the Eisner studio, is Number 83 on that same list.

 

Anyone doubting the Eisner influence on Cardy?

 

 

Did they really need "Aquaman" on there THREE times? Wasn't the scaly orange shirt clue enough?

[Elvis]

 

Have you ever read any of his non-Spirit work? It's great. So, not only did he draw some of the "first graphic novels" (which IS huge,) but those same graphic novels just happen to be some of the best comics being done in the here and now.

 

Also, as Zilla pointed out, Eisner is the single most important person EVER in terms of the art of making comics. There is no question about this whatsoever.

 

Kirby was influential of course, but never in the same way Eisner was. Eisner did influence, like Kirby, by doing (as in his work spoke for itself), BUT, he also influenced intellectually, by writing and teaching. His Comics and Sequential Art and Graphic Storytelling books are practically required reading for people serious about doing good comics (and I stress Good.) But, even before he had committed his theories to paper, Eisner influenced scores of the best the industry has to offer. Just the people that worked under him in his studio is a pretty impressive list: Jules Feiffer, Lou Fine, Jack Cole, Wally Wood, etc.

 

And then there are the Frank Miller's of this world who just aped Eisner long enough to pick something up...

 

You guys really make a great case for Eisner. He has definitely been a consistant quality producer for decades. What really blows my mind is that he is still at that level TO THIS DAY... And the names you mentioned that he influenced is a who's who of the industry. He is really brilliant. Its a tough call. One thing is for sure, we have produced a top 5 list that is pretty much irrefutable.

[read_em-migration]

Heh heh, it's so easy to get Eisner people riled up. Sure I wanted to stir things up a bit, but I was serious about wondering if he really qualified for Requirement # 4. (And hey, I never said the criteria was perfect, it's just what we were working with). But I am convinced he meets the requirements for Criteria # 4, mainly because Comics and Sequential Art and Graphic Storytelling is number 3 on his list of achievements. Like Elvis said, you guys really make a great case for Eisner.I'm not some 15 year old Image fanboy - I gave Eisner an objective chance when I first read his stuff in my late 20's. I had heard he was so great so I was ready, happily, to enjoy his work. But I was disappointed - his art just didn't excite me and the stories were just decent (too dated for me?) . Maybe because I didn't grow up reading his stuff, but none of his art grabbed me by the short hairs (some nice splash pages, though). I'm not saying he sucks, but he's definitely not in my Top 10 artists list. And I am just speaking of his art here, not his contributions to comics in general. But I can't separate the two when trying to decide "The Most Important Figure in Comic Book History"

(And of course my criteria mentioned here is not for people like Julius Schwartz or Stan Lee, who never drew anything at all. That's one reason the decision is so tough).

[Foolkiller]

For those of you who read my original beginning to the thread... Let me just concede now that I made no sense in arguing for Jim Shooter at #1 (although I would rank him in the top 10, based mostly on the creator royalties move)...

 

 

[read_em-migration]

You could go back and edit it??

[Foolkiller]

I could, but I just wanted to do something to kick start the discussion... I actually picked up a little info on Will Eisner and some others so I thought it was worthy discussion... thanks for responding all!

[PovertyRow]

I gave Eisner an objective chance when I first read his stuff in my late 20's. I had heard he was so great so I was ready, happily, to enjoy his work.

 

What Esiner did you read? For me, the Sunday Supplements were absolutely astonishing (yes, I know he was away during the war years) but the Spirit stuff he did was so far beyond anything (in my opinion). I once asked him if he was influenced by movies in the way he laid out his panels and was quickly put into my place by his informing me (in a very nice way) that panelology ame before cinematography. (Yes, I blushed).

[Crowzilla]

For me, the Sunday Supplements were absolutely astonishing

 

Same for me - sitting down and reading a huge stack of these at one time was when I really started to gain an appreciation for him.

One thing you have to remember when looking through these is that everything we take for granted today about layout and perspective in comics was started by Eisner. So you might look at a Spirit section from 1940 and think - "I don't see anthing new and exciting here, it looks like everything else I've seen" - until you realize that he was the first one doing all of these things.

 

Take a look at your average art in an early Golden Age comic (ie Batman, Superman, More Fun) and then take a look at Eisners work from the same time period and tell me he didn't just raise the bar, but placed it on a whole new level.

Then take a look at the influence his students/shop had - many people consider Lou Fine to be the finest illustrator to have worked in comics (and he directly inspired people like Streranko), and I think we've all heard of his star pupil by the name of Jack Kirby.

 

[Aman619]

I once asked him if he was influenced by movies in the way he laid out his panels and was quickly put into my place by his informing me (in a very nice way) that panelology ame before cinematography. (Yes, I blushed).

 

geeez. POV. thats kinda a rude retort he made to you. Was he stating that HE predated cinematography too??? Cause he'd have to have, not to have been influenced by movies AT ALL, wouldnt he??

[Zonker]

I once asked him if he was influenced by movies in the way he laid out his panels and was quickly put into my place by his informing me (in a very nice way) that panelology ame before cinematography. (Yes, I blushed).

 

geeez. POV. thats kinda a rude retort he made to you. Was he stating that HE predated cinematography too??? Cause he'd have to have, not to have been influenced by movies AT ALL, wouldnt he??

 

Yeah, that seems kind of an over-the-top thing for Eisner to say. I remember an interview with Jerry Robinson talking about seeing all the then-current Warner Bros movies (1940-41) and working that into the early Batman stories. More likely Eisner, Robinson and others were influenced by the great movies of the 1930s, took that inspiration to open up the rigid panel format inherited from the comics strips, and in Eisner's case pushed the form to its zenith. What I can believe is that Eisner's Spirit did lots of film noir effects even before the actual cinema did in the 1940s/early 1950s.

 

Cheers,

Z.

[Aman619]

What I can believe is that Eisner's Spirit did lots of film noir effects even before the actual cinema did in the 1940s/early 1950s.

 

that sound about right. good point.