Anti-Nostalgia

[Mister Trent]

Mcfarlane's art just looks cool,plain and simple...his storytelling (well he gets by) and anatomy sucks but you honestly can't look at the cover to Spider-Man #1 or ASM #316 and say that doesn't look cool. The Hulk isn't ugly,he's awesome.

 

Well, the cover to # 316 hurts my optic nerves, but I agree that the cover to Spider-Man # 1 is cool.

[snappahead]

We have some common ground now Trent...I hate fake titties too . I can't agree with you on the Romita thing though. Had he been around from day one on Spidey, the characters would still be there....they'd just look different. Can't say that's a bad thing either cause the only reason Ditko's stuff looks right is cause we grew up knowing these character as Ditko drew them. Yeah...that's right I said rape . If we were talkign about Dr. Strange, then yeah, Ditko would be better than Romita...Spidey....nu uh. As you said though..eye of the beholder.

 

I love McFarlane. Can't help it. I do. I'd also probably take a McFarlane over a Romita. Not because McFarlane's better..(he aint), but because I was such a McFarlane fan growing up...That nostalgia thing.

[Mister Trent]

We have some common ground now Trent...I hate fake titties too . I can't agree with you on the Romita thing though. Had he been around from day one on Spidey, the characters would still be there....they'd just look different.

 

Disagree. It's my belief that once Ditko took on the book he was instrumental in creating and developing all the really enduring villains and characters.

 

Without Ditko, I very much doubt that you'd have had the same stable of weird and wonderful characters. Other than offering some suggestions, I don't think Romita was actually very active on the writing side of the book?

 

You seem to miss my point that when Romita took over the book we were no longer treated to more than a very few (notable) new villains. What does that tell you?

 

Also, at the beginning of Romita's tenure, he did a very good job (in partnership with Lee) in deconstructing everything that worked about Spider-Man.

 

Green Goblin (in effect) gets killed off within two issues . . . and later on they realize how badly they f*cked up, and have to keep re-inventing their top (Ditko co-created) villain . . .

 

Peter Parker suddenly metamorphosed into a handsome 'babe magnet' . . . hell, even his old sparring partner Flash Thompson began to like him (see ASM # 47, page 20, panel 5, as Pete and Flash shake hands and bury the hatchet - Say what???).

 

Romita was a good artist . . . but Ditko was a good artist and creator . . .

[KingOfRulers]

Peter Parker suddenly metamorphosed into a handsome 'babe magnet' . . . hell, even his old sparring partner Flash Thompson began to like him (see ASM # 47, page 20, panel 5, as Pete and Flash shake hands and bury the hatchet - Say what???).

 

Romita was a good artist . . . but Ditko was a good artist and creator . . .

 

This has always been my biggest problem with the book after the Ditko days. Wasn't the major appeal of Spider-man, the fact that he was often a failure? Over the years they have turned him into a whole new character essentially. I hate the fact that they married him off with MJ in 87'. That was when it really went down hill. Since when can the average reader relate to marrying a supermodel?

[NightGallery1]

Just a few comments and a question -

 

Does anyone here remember reading a letters page or bullpin column published in the '70s, shortly after Frank Robbins began working at Marvel in which someone (possibly Roy Thomas) wrote a little piece in defense of Mr. Robbins' work? The writer basically conveyed that they (Marvel) had been receiving many strongly worded letters that were highly critical of Robbins artistry. The columnist went on to say that Mr. Robbins was a very nice gentleman as well as a fine craftsman. He urged readers to give him some time, and that if they did so, he was sure that they would begin to appreciate his work.

 

I spoke with one of my brothers earlier today, and while he did recall the column, he wasn't sure what comic it appeared in. He did mention FOOM, but I think that that had ceased publication prior to Robbins working at Marvel. Oh well - probably lost to the mists of time.

 

I don't like to be critical of any artist. It must have been difficult for some to meet the deadlines and still please as many fans as possible. That being said, it's hard to forget how I felt about his work the first time I saw it. My brothers and I did get a chuckle looking at the contorted anatomy and couldn't bring ourselves to pick up anything with his name on it.

 

As far as Jack Kirby... I guess I prefered his earlier work with Sinnott overall, though I liked Royer inking his pencils too. The thing is, later on in his career, didn't it seem that every character he drew had broken kneecaps or something? =) Hey, he's still the king, but those knees do bother me.

 

Have a great weekend everyone!

 

Bill

[Jeffro.]

I don't think McFarlane's art is ugly. But definitely not as good as Ditko or Romita.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Some people like women with surgically-enhanced titties.

 

I like natural titties.

 

To me, a pair of silicone titties, with ugly scar tissue looks repulsive . . .

 

[off topic]

I like how the language filter on this board *spoon*'s the word cr@p but titties gets through. [/off topic]

 

Getting back on track.....

Count me as one who prefers Romita to Ditko. Just a personal preference. I love Romita's clean, non cluttered style.

[Jeffro.]

Disagree. It's my belief that once Ditko took on the book he was instrumental in creating and developing all the really enduring villains and characters.

 

Without Ditko, I very much doubt that you'd have had the same stable of weird and wonderful characters. Other than offering some suggestions, I don't think Romita was actually very active on the writing side of the book?

 

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but is there documentation anywhere that states that Ditko helped Stan Lee create characters for ASM? yes, I know he co-created Spiderman but that doesn't mean he co-created every Spiderman villian up until he left the book. I'm curious if such proof exists.

[Sal]

Perez is my single favorite artist of all time. I've never heard of anyone saying his art was dull That's baffles me When I think of Bronze Age art I think of five guys that composed the golden standard (at least as far as Marvel goes): Bob Layton, Dave Cockrum, John Romita JR and George Perez. People might still point to Kirby, but I think Kirby's stuff from the 60's to 70's was like night and day. His work is great in the 60's, but I think is work in the 70's is horrid.

 

that's only four. i assume you just mistakenly left out John Byrne...although for the life of me, i can't think of JR JR as a Bronze Age guy.

 

People really bash Colletta. I see him as just another one in the bunch. Just average.

 

Vinnie Colletta, no matter what good he did in the 50s and such, is the single worst artist to ever grace the pages of a Bronze Age book. this is non-debatable. some of the stuff he did in the 60s is semi-excerable, but the vast majority of it is utter garbage. and everything he touched in the 70s turned to *spoon*. regardless of his ability to "make a deadline" or no, as this point is also debatable, based on what i've read

[Drummy]

Now that this topic has turned to likes and dislikes, I have to say my favorite nostalgia-driven artists are (in no particular order):

 

George Perez

John Buscema

John Romita Sr.

Sal Buscema

John Byrne

Dave Cockrum

 

All preferably with Sinnott, Giacoia, Austin (for Cockrum) or Esposito inks! Staton also did a nice job with Sal's work. Despite Sal's gaping mouths, I always thought his art had lots of energy and emotion.

 

Dan

[tth2]

I hated Robbins as a kid, but also kind of like it now - except for the awkward leg poses he seemed fond of. But if I were going to collect OA - I'd look for a nice Johnny Hazard piece from the 40s or 50s.

Why bother? Just save up and spend the extra money on some Milton Caniff OA, because Robbins, even in his prime, was nothing but a 5th-rate Caniff wannabe.

[rjpb]

I hated Robbins as a kid, but also kind of like it now - except for the awkward leg poses he seemed fond of. But if I were going to collect OA - I'd look for a nice Johnny Hazard piece from the 40s or 50s.

Why bother? Just save up and spend the extra money on some Milton Caniff OA, because Robbins, even in his prime, was nothing but a 5th-rate Caniff wannabe.

 

A beg to differ - he was more of a second-rate Canniff wannabe, or at the least third rate.

 

I should have put "I were going to collect his OA". If were to collect any OA - there is a lot of stuff I'd look for before I got to Robbins, but his early stuff is still more interesting to me than much of the stuff from the Bronze Age that gets a more favorable comparison.

[tth2]

I hated Robbins as a kid, but also kind of like it now - except for the awkward leg poses he seemed fond of. But if I were going to collect OA - I'd look for a nice Johnny Hazard piece from the 40s or 50s.

Why bother? Just save up and spend the extra money on some Milton Caniff OA, because Robbins, even in his prime, was nothing but a 5th-rate Caniff wannabe.

 

A beg to differ - he was more of a second-rate Canniff wannabe, or at the least third rate.

[KingOfRulers]

 

that's only four. i assume you just mistakenly left out John Byrne...although for the life of me, i can't think of JR JR as a Bronze Age guy.

 

Substitue JRJR for Byrne, and then add John Buscema.

 

 

Vinnie Colletta, no matter what good he did in the 50s and such, is the single worst artist to ever grace the pages of a Bronze Age book. this is non-debatable. some of the stuff he did in the 60s is semi-excerable, but the vast majority of it is utter garbage. and everything he touched in the 70s turned to *spoon*. regardless of his ability to "make a deadline" or no, as this point is also debatable, based on what i've read

 

I think it's debatable I don't really know of any "bad" inkers that Marvel had on BA books. Some were far better then others, but generally Marvel has always had good inkers. For that matter, Marvel art in BA books was pretty much all quality material. That's why BA Marvel books are my all time favorite to read--I think during that time period comics saw their greatest quality in both writing and art. By the time the 80's and of course 90's rolled around, Marvel had a great deal of poor art and writing. I see Colletta as more of an SA inker then a BA one anyway. Either way, he's not that bad. His work on Thor looks just fine to me.

[snappahead]

Well, Mister Trent. I can tell we're never going to resolve this one. I'll never convince you Romita was better and vice versa. I do think we're getting outside of the artistic argument and more into the creative argument here though. I'm speaking strictly about the art. Romita's just better IMO. I don't knwo the details about how these characters were crreated back then. I know the basic ideas for the characters usually came from Stan, but the artist had a great deal of input too back then. Keep in mind though, that by the time John took over the art chores, Spidey already had a huge villians gallery. Maybe he didn't need alot of new villains by this point? I mean, generally speaking, a good majority of a characters villians are created and introduced early in a series. Then, they just keep reusing the ones that seem to work the best. No?

 

Um..sorry to the thread creator..we've kinda hijacked your thread here. Hehe.

[Mister Trent]

Well, Mister Trent. I can tell we're never going to resolve this one. I'll never convince you Romita was better and vice versa. I do think we're getting outside of the artistic argument and more into the creative argument here though. I'm speaking strictly about the art. Romita's just better IMO. I don't knwo the details about how these characters were crreated back then. I know the basic ideas for the characters usually came from Stan, but the artist had a great deal of input too back then. Keep in mind though, that by the time John took over the art chores, Spidey already had a huge villians gallery. Maybe he didn't need alot of new villains by this point? I mean, generally speaking, a good majority of a characters villians are created and introduced early in a series. Then, they just keep reusing the ones that seem to work the best. No?

 

Um..sorry to the thread creator..we've kinda hijacked your thread here. Hehe.

 

It would be difficult to establish some sort of break-down as to any division of (creativity) labor used in the early (formative) SPIDER-MAN issues (this bit being for Jethro's benefit - is that Jethro Bodine, by any chance?). Stan Lee likes to talk about himself and is not exactly camera-shy when it comes to publicizing his life and achievements. On the other hand, Ditko is a well-known recluse and steadfastly refuses to talk about his career - preferring to let his work, "speak for itself".

 

The clues are there, for anyone who wants to look beyond such things as, "Gee, John Romita drew purty pictures, and Ditko was kinda cartoony." In fact, here's what Romita himself had to say about Ditko (direct quote):

 

"When you talk about artists like Steve Ditko, you have to put them in a special category. They are creators. The rest of us are paid illustrators - we illustrate as close as we can to what the editor wants us to do." JOHN ROMITA

 

Snapperhead talks about there not being much need to create much new following on from the early issues, as the villains seem to be sufficient to be re-used over and over again.

 

That's a croc of sh*t . . .

 

Ditko was involved in just 38 issues of ASM . . . 2 Annuals . . . and the introductory story in AF # 15.

 

That equates to several years' worth of work. Not very much when you consider the character's been in comic-books spanning a period of 45 years . . . I mean, if 38 issues' worth of books is sufficient for the title to re-use (over and over again) the established line-up of characters and villains . . . then how come something like FANTASTIC FOUR (with another major co-creator named Jack Kirby - if you've heard of him?), could still keep coming up with new enduring villains and characters way past the first few years of the book? Galactus, Silver Surfer, the Inhumans anyone???

 

If Stan Lee was the more important of the two (getting back to ASM) . . . how come he didn't come up with anything that achieved the same level of creativity as that during his short collaborative period with Steve Ditko? Surely this proves my point that Ditko was involved a heck of a lot more than simply drawing those issues? Even someone like the Kingpin (whom I've previously acknowledged to be one of the few noteworthy post-Ditko villains) was essentially a re-working of previous Ditko villains like The Big Man . . .

 

In fact, with the advent of ASM # 25 . . . Ditko begins to get majory credit acknowledgements as being heavily active on the writing/plotting side of those books. Here's a blurb from the splash page of ASM # 25:

 

"Sturdy Steve Ditko dreamed up the plot of this tantalizing tale, and it's full of unexpected surprizes! So, turn the page and see if you can guess what's coming next...!"

 

Then in ASM # 26 Ditko begins to receive full credits as plotting and drawing ASM . . .

 

From what I understand, Ditko would go away, plot the issues, draw them and come back with the pages for Lee to write dialogue for the letterer . . .

 

But now it's down to a simple comparison of artwork (as you no longer want to dwell too much on the bigger issues).

 

Yes, Romita drew purty pictures.

 

But Ditko was so much more . . .

[snappahead]

Mister Trent..is your real name Steve Ditko? Why are you getting so worked up about this? It's just a discussion. There's no right or wrong in this argument. Not to my knowledge anyways. Arguing over who's the better Spidey artist is kinda like the great "who'd win in this fight" arguments from childhood. It's not something anyone should get pissed about. It's just for fun..At least I thought it was. I'm stickin by my opinion. But that's all it is. An opinion.

 

I'd never deny Ditko's significance in comics. He's a legend and contributed enormously to Marvel's success. My argument from the beginning was simply an artistic preference and nothing more. Who would I rather draw Spidey if given the choice...for me it's Romita without question. That's all I'm sayin.

[Mister Trent]

Mister Trent..is your real name Steve Ditko? Why are you getting so worked up about this? It's just a discussion. There's no right or wrong in this argument. Not to my knowledge anyways. Arguing over who's the better Spidey artist is kinda like the great "who'd win in this fight" arguments from childhood. It's not something anyone should get pissed about. It's just for fun..At least I thought it was. I'm stickin by my opinion. But that's all it is. An opinion.

 

I'd never deny Ditko's significance in comics. He's a legend and contributed enormously to Marvel's success. My argument from the beginning was simply an artistic preference and nothing more. Who would I rather draw Spidey if given the choice...for me it's Romita without question. That's all I'm sayin.

 

Not getting worked up (never was) and, no, my real name's not Steve Ditko. If I put some more Graemlins in my posts, would that keep you happy?

 

Here's a nice big buncha flowers for ya.

 

And a couple of smiley faces.

 

If you cast your mind back to one of your earlier posts, you tried to put words into my mouth and came up with with other posts that went beyond a simple comparison of artistic styles/merit.

 

That generated responses from me, that's all. Maybe you're not used to something a little more in-depth?

 

It's not called argument . . . it's called discussion .

 

That's the point of these forums, yes? To discuss, debate, enthuse . . . disagree, even.

 

Okay, I'll try to keep my posts nice and simple and something akin to your own . . .okay?

 

How about . . .

 

Man . . . Ditko rapes Romita.

 

That okay for ya?

 

Oops, nearly forgot:

[snappahead]

Ok forget I ever said anything. I'm not sure what I said to make you mad at me, but whatever it was, I apologize. I'll have to go back and look at what I posted to figure out what your'e referring to. I didn't think I said anything to put words in your mouth, but again, that wasn't my intention if I did. Thought you UK guys were more laid back than this. My bad.

 

PS you said you were giving me a big bunch of flowers and that's clearly only one.

[Mighty Hal]

Mister Trent, you're hammering snappahead too hard.

 

I find this weird because, as a rule, it's great to read your posts. Snappahead colored a little outside of the lines, he apologized, and you STILL hammered the guy.

 

C'mon. You are two of the good guys. If we don't want a site where every discussion is dominated by the Bill-O faction, we've got to cut a little slack for the other guy.

[snappahead]

Hal, I appreciate the support, but I have to ask, when did I color outside the lines? What did I say? I must be missing something here. This argument (to me at least) has been over opinions. How can an opinion be wrong? Trent's not wrong and neither am I. I was merely apologizing, cause I felt like I'd made him mad somehow and didn't think it was necessary to make someone mad over what started as a casual artistic debate.

 

Just to put it out there. It was never my intention to suggest Romita had a greater impact on Spidey than Ditko and I never once said it. It wasn't my intention, cause I don't believe that. I KNOW Ditko left a greater print on the character and the book as a whole. If I gave that impression, it wasn't intentional. From the beginning, I was simply saying I liked Romita better. That's all.