RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Comic book blasphemies

I intend this as a topic for opinions about specific comic series that defy the accepted logic of what are widely considered the great and unchallenged masterworks of comics.


One time I recall when I was in a comic store in 1986, and Frank Miller's BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was on its second issue. I was having a conversation with the owner in a crowded store, not really paying attention to the others around us, and comparing it to Miller's previous work, at one point I said "Well, Miller's work in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a step above stick figures..."

And I was a bit shocked, conversation and movement in the store just stopped, and everyone stopped moving and turned toward us!



It kind of reminded me of Harlan Ellison, telling how he was speaking in front of a crowd at a Star Trek convention in the late 1970's, talking about writing the dialogue for Spock in "City on the Edge of Forever" and some kid got up and started yelling at him he was a liar and to shut up, because Spock was real!
Reminding everyone that the word "fan" stems from fanatic, and some are immersed a bit too deeply in the fantasy entertainment they love. Or perhaps were already broken before they ever ventured into it.

That despite these are just bits of mere entertainment, it's still possible to step outside morays and orthodoxy of the subculture, and create an uproar by having views too far outside the mainstream. About a comic book!

Another example for me is Dave Gibbons. I was recently looking at several works he did after WATCHMEN, such as a story in MR MONSTER ATTACKS 1 (1992), and GIVE ME LIBERTY 1-4 (1990-1991) with Frank Miller. And to me, the quality of Gibbons' art in these and other later works have evolved and become better work than his work on WATCHMEN.

For me, WATCHMEN is completely an Alan Moore show, and Gibbons' work is not particularly exceptional or attractive, just functional. I look at WATCHMEN, and I see it as a very detailed script, and Gibbons just followed the script. And that many other artists could have illustrated WATCHMEN and done the same serviceable job, or even made the series far better!

To support my argument, compare it to Moore's THE KILLING JOKE. The panel layouts by Brian Bolland are virtually identical. The same 9-panel grid on virtually every page.
I frankly think Bolland is a more talented artist than Gibbons, but again, it's clear he just followed directions and didn't deviate one iota from Moore's script.

As compared to, say, Gary Leach or Alan Davis on MIRACLEMAN, or Bissette/Tottleben in SWAMP THING, where you see a great number of innovative page layouts and outstanding visual narrative.
So... Gibbons' WATCHMEN work wasn't so great.

To me an arguable comic book blasphemy is turning comic book masterworks into super-condensed shadow-of-their-former-selves lowbrow popcorn thrillers.

The WATCHMEN movie for me is one of the best examples of that.

Here's an interesting 29-minute documentary on WATCHMEN, that talks about the creative process of making the WATCHMEN graphic novel, interviewing all the creative staff involved: Dave Gibbons, John Higgins (colorist), Richard Bruning (DC creative director), Jenette Kahn, Len Wein, Paul Levitz, (Alan Moore being noticeably absent, for his consistent PMS-bitch reasons).


It also interviews virtually all the actors, directors, producers and others involved in making the Watchmen movie, and several other outside creators.
Part insight and part puff piece, it was clearly done to promote the movie version, and promote it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Which it clearly wasn't, it was a two-star version of a five-star masterwork.

Even so, I still think the masterwork itself could have been better. Even though it's still clearly good enough to be a comics masterwork.

The lack of "innovative" page layouts was intentional on Moore and Gibbons' part:

• Gibbons said he deliberately constructed the visual look of Watchmen so that each page would be identifiable as part of that particular series and "not some other comic book".[36] He made a concerted effort to draw the characters in a manner different than that commonly seen in comics.[36] The artist tried to draw the series with "a particular weight of line, using a hard, stiff pen that didn't have much modulation in terms of thick and thin" which he hoped "would differentiate it from the usual lush, fluid kind of comic book line".[37] In a 2009 interview, Moore recalled that he took advantage of Gibbons' training as a former surveyor for "including incredible amounts of detail in every tiny panel, so we could choreograph every little thing"
  
  Structurally, certain aspects of Watchmen deviated from the norm in comic books at the time, particularly the panel layout and the coloring. Instead of panels of various sizes, the creators divided each page into a nine-panel grid.[19] Gibbons favored the nine-panel grid system due to its "authority".[37] Moore accepted the use of the nine-panel grid format, which "gave him a level of control over the storytelling he hadn't had previously", according to Gibbons. "There was this element of the pacing and visual impact that he could now predict and use to dramatic effect."[35] Bhob Stewart of The Comics Journal mentioned to Gibbons in 1987, that the page layouts recalled those of EC Comics, in addition to the art itself, which Stewart felt particularly echoed that of John Severin.[23] Gibbons agreed that the echoing of the EC-style layouts "was a very deliberate thing", although his inspiration was rather Harvey Kurtzman,[22] but it was altered enough to give the series a unique look.[23] The artist also cited Steve Ditko's work on early issues of The Amazing Spider-Man as an influence,[39] as well as Doctor Strange, where "even at his most psychedelic [he] would still keep a pretty straight page layout".[17]
  
  The cover of each issue serves as the first panel to the story. Gibbons said, "The cover of the Watchmen is in the real world and looks quite real, but it's starting to turn into a comic book, a portal to another dimension."[11] The covers were designed as close-ups that focused on a single detail with no human elements present.[16] The creators on occasion experimented with the layout of the issue contents. Gibbons drew issue five, titled "Fearful Symmetry", so the first page mirrors the last (in terms of frame disposition), with the following pages mirroring each other before the center-spread is (broadly) symmetrical in layout.

Except that it looked just like BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE, and the SUPERMAN ANNUAL Moore and Gibbons collaborated on before doing WATCHMEN.

I don't think there is anything particularly beautiful or exceptional on Gibbons' end of the collaboration. It is completely an Alan Moore tour de force that Gibbons was fortunate to be invited to be a part of.
Without that one collaboration, we probably would remember Gibbons as a third-rate illustrator on a par with guys like Joe Staton, Dan Spiegle, Pay Boyette, Ruben Yandoc and Tom Mandrake. Guys who have done some pleasant work, but are a far cry from guys like Gary Leach, Alan Davis, Bissette/Tottleben, Perez, Miller, Simonson, Giffen, Bolland, Bolton, Russell, Starlin and other top-tier innovative comics artists.

I respect the thought and concept that went into WATCHMEN by Gibbons. But it's just like those BRAVE AND THE BOLD issues by Bob Haney and Neal Adams. Whatever Haney's labors or intent, it was completely a Neal Adams show, and they are Adams issues in the eyes of any collector. Gibbons' linestyle is bland and unspectacular. Whether Gibbons planned it to be that way for WATCHMEN, Gibbons' art already was that for many years anyway.

I see the Ditko influence. But the other E.C. artists not so much. I would have guessed Joe Orlando (especially in the pseudo-E.C. "Tales of the Black Ship" segment, that is clearly a version of E.C.'s PIRACY book, and Orlando is even shown in a photo in one of the WATCHMEN backup feature articles.
A series can be enormously thought out and symbolic, and still be a dud. And art-wise that's what I think Gibbons' WATCHMEN is: art that is merely functional, and completely subservient to Alan Moore's story.

I feel the same way about Moore's FROM HELL with Eddie Campbell. Campbell's art is unspectacular, and Moore's story completely carries the series. The one thing that works about Campbell's art is it has a vaguely 19th century quality to it. Similar to Wrightson's FRANKENSTEIN illustrations, in that respect, Campbell is well selected for a series set in the late 1880's.

This is also true of Moore's LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. Where the art captures the era portrayed, but is otherwise unworthy of note. The writing carries the book, not the art.

Which he had nothing to do with. And which came out in the year after Watchmen concluded its original print run.

So, if anything, Moore told Bolland to follow the nine panel grid based on Gibbons' having used it successfully.

I thought the nine-panel pages were dull and less successful than other Alan Moore collaborations.


Either way (whether KILLING JOKE was identical in its panel arrangement to WATCHMEN, or it just happened that way) it was an Alan Moore show all the way in both cases, and the artist was completely subordinate (and arguably unnecessary and replaceable) in following the directions of an elaborate Alan Moore script.

Oddly, I'm hard pressed to think (beyond MIRACLEMAN and SWAMP THING) of an Alan Moore script where the artist wowed me with what he added to an Alan Moore script.
Maybe "Pictopia" by Moore and Don Simpson, in ANYTHING GOES 2 (1986)

Another example I thought of that was an innovative synthesis of words and pictures, that seemed like a more full writer/artist collaboration was Alan Moore and Michael T. Gilbert's story in MR. MONSTER 3 (Oct 1985).

Watchmen wouldn't have been possible without Dave Gibbons, and Moore's said as much. Most artists can't work with that level of background detail, especially on the reduced space of a 9-panel grid. In fact, it was getting paired with Gibbons on 2000AD for some time travel stories and noticing how great he was at doing background gags what got Moore thinking about the possibility of doing a comic that was constructed like a piece of clockwork, with every little detail placed there for a reason. He didn't just tailor the project for Gibbons, it was only possible because of him. Furthermore, you're racist and a piece of shit.

Moore saw him as the gift that keeps on gibbons!

Dont expect Wondy to know anything about anything. Hell he didnt even know when Killing joke came out when he was insulting Watchmen.

I have no fucking idea what he is talking about anyway.

Todd McFarlane is not a great artist--he is a great inker. Peter David is mostly overrated except on his Hulk run, and to some degree Young justice.
I understand the historical importance of Swamp thing from Wrightson to Moore, but I think Swamp Thing sucks and is boring, and certainly isn't horror......

I wouldn't call David overrated. Other than Hulk his rep as always been that of a solid if unspectacular writer and that is exactly what he is

Except for the fact that he was the first guy to make Aquaman interesting and a high seller. Hardly overrated or unspectacular.

David also had a good run on X -Factor. He also had that Fallen Angel series,I don't know how ell that did.

I have a lot of those stories reprinted in Quality's late 1980's TIME TWISTERS series.

Gibbons' art is still ugly and barely functional, and other artists could have done a better job. I just cited multiple examples of Moore collaborators who did do a better job.

The "racist piece of shit" bit is just your usual over-the-top unfounded insults.



WATCHMEN 1-12: ran from Sept 1986 to Oct 1987.
KILLING JOKE: out in July 1988.

I own both, that I bought off the stands, what exactly are you PMS-ing about?
I've listed others I thought were superior writer/artist collaborations. Like I said, no one buys BRAVE AND THE BOLD 79-86 because of the Bob Haney stories. It's completely a Neal Adams show, that Haney happened to write.
Likewise, WATCHMEN is completely an Alan Moore show. John Bolton, Brian Bolland, Alan Davis, Gary Leach, Bissette/Tottleben, these are artists whose work is savored as brilliant storytelling that vastly enhanced the script, and can be savored as individual pages or for the writer/artist collaboration.
Conversely with Gibbons' pages, there is nothing beautiful or decorative about them, merely functional to Moore's story.

Blasphemy!
I love the Wein/Wrightson run, one of the most re-read series in my collection. Beautiful art, with exceptional stories, if at times a bit overdramatic and preachy.
I still prefer and more frequently re-read the Wein/Wrightson run over the Moore run, because of its nobility, sympathetic treatment of monsters, and at many points very good writing.
I can see where others would be bored with it, or find its storytelling a bit dated. But it's still widely regarded as a classic in the field.

It either won or was nominated for best writer, best artist, best series, and best single issue for each of the years it was published.
And if you meet Wrightson in person, he's one of the most approachable and unpretentious creators you will ever meet.

Moore's SWAMP THING run was more dark and cynical, and while I enjoy it, I revisit it far less often. Particularly offputting for me are John Constantine, and scenes with rotting copses and undead filled with bugs or maggots, and people or monsters drooling. But regardless, there is undeniably some exceptional writing and prose in the series. But I still prefer the original series.
The intervening Michelinie/Redondo run, and the Pasko/Yeates run (just before Moore/Bissette took over) are also good but unspectacular runs.

David for me is a tolerably decent writer. I first discovered him in the mid-1980's writing SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN and at that time was generally unimpressed with his work. His stories had elements I liked, but he couldn't seem to bring it all together into a satisfying complete story.

David's best work for me was his HULK run, particularly the David/McFarlane issues, arguably the best work from both. I continued reading more sporadically as new pencillers took over, but never was into it like that first 15 or so issues (if I recall, 330-345).

The last thing I read by David was over 10 years ago, David's new CAPTAIN MARVEL series with artist Chris Cross. Nice art and good writing, but somehow not enough to hold my interest beyond 3 issues.

David and Perez's HULK: FUTURE IMPERFECT two-issue series, despite nice Perez art, royally sucked ass in the writing department. Annoying thug kids mouthing tough street-punk dialogue, and equally annoying made-up future-slang. Similar elements are what I dislike in most of David's work. I wouldn't call David a bad writer, but a little too modern/dark-age a writer for me, and despite often good prose, it's mixed with too many dark and offputting elements for me.

David's not here, man.

Oh so you mean when you said this:

You were suggesting that Gibbons hopped into a time machine, copied a comic book that came out 2 years later, and went back in time to publish it?

I don't know whether you're just trolling, or actually trying to make a serious point.

Regardless, WATCHMEN looks just like KILLING JOKE.
KILLING JOKE looks just like WATCHMEN.
They look exactly the same. Regardless of order of publication.
They both manifest that the artist worked from a detailed Alan Moore script, and the artist contributed no visible individual vision that broke away from that bland 9-panel per page script, in either the case of Bolland or Gibbons in their illustrating a Moore script. (As I said, I think Bolland is the more talented artist, but his collaboration with Moore did not show off his best work.)

So... it doesn't matter what order they were published in. They both demonstrate an artist not deviating from a Moore script.

As compared to other examples I gave, of Moore collaborations with Don Simpson (ANYTHING GOES 2, 1986), with Michael T. Gilbert (MR MONSTER 3, 1985) with Bissette/Tottleben (SWAMP THING 21-50, 1984-1986), with Gary Leach and Alan Davis (MIRACLEMAN 1-7, 1985-1986), with David Lloyd in V FOR VENDETTA.
All of which show much more innovative and personal artist's vision, with lavish ornately detailed illustration.
As contrasted with Gibbons' work on WATCHMEN, and Bolland on KILLING JOKE, both of which seem to follow a more cookie-cutter scripting approach.

The point is, the way you posted suggested that Killing Joke was the one that was copied. Just admit you fucked up and have no taste.
G-Man called you on the same thing earlier and you side stepped it because you know you fucked up. The only trolling here is the guy doing a Snarf and not accepting he fucked up.
Have you counted the Soul Calibur stock yet?

Also, you claimed that Gibbons was nothing to do with the creative process, then when it was pointed out how much creative input he had, you side stepped that as well.

Btw, Jack Kirby is shit. Thats not trolling either, its a fact.

Again: WATCHMEN and KILLING JOKE look exactly the same. It doesn't matter in which order they were published. They still look exactly the same, with the identical bland 9-panel page-grid, that manifests they strictly followed a script and gave relatively little input to the script as an artist. (as compared to the many other examples I gave of Don Simpson, Michael T. Gilbert, Alan Davis, Gary Leach, and David Lloyd on other Alan Moore stories, where the artist contributed noticeably to the project).

Another that follows the same 9-panel-per page Alan Moore script:
SUPERMAN ANNUAL 11 (1985) by Moore and Gibbons.
Same thing.

I frankly think Moore is being generous to Dave Gibbons, in giving Gibbons credit for what story ideas he offered, and including Gibbons in the process. But I think any other artist would have contributed similarly.
Gibbons' art is unspectacular and functional, WATCHMEN was still an Alan Moore show all the way.

Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Yeah, well... that's the point of the topic. That my opinion is considered blasphemous, relative to the mainstream of comics-world opinion.


Although I could have said it just to have Nowhereman call me a CUNT!

You THINK is not fact.
Why on Earth would Moore suggest Gibbons contributed as much as he says if he didnt? that makes no sense.
You were not privy to the creative process, and Moore was, so who are you to question that?

As for Watchmen looking like Killing Joke, I still have no idea what you are talking about. So what if they have the same page layout, the art looks nothing like each other and the stories are totally different. When I pick up a comic book all I care about is the story and the art, not how many fucking panels are on a page. And you also have no idea how much input Bolland had either. Its nothing but pure supposition on your part.

I might as well say that Jack Kirby had no input on comics he drew and didnt write, as all his shit looked the same. But I wont say that as I have no idea what input he had, cause I wasnt there.
But the one fact I do know, is I have seen stamped on dog shit that looks better than his art.

There were other topics I preferred to post to the last few days, Nowhereman, partly because I just don't know what else to say. I've already been abundantly clear in my examples.

As in many of these past topics by myself and others, of course what I think of a story is not fact. It's a story! You either have enthusiasm for it or you don't. I like WATCHMEN as much as the next guy. But who would deny that it's an Alan Moore show all the way?
Okay, sure, Moore included Gibbons in the plotting and used some of Gibbons' suggestions. But it is still completely an Alan Moore show, and another artist could have made a same or better contribution as Gibbons.

No one would hang Dave Gibbons pages on the wall the same way they would pages by Neal Adams, Berni Wrightson, Michael Kaluta, Alan Davis, Gary Leach, Bissette/Tottleben, or the other artists I listed. THESE artists manifest an innovative layout, design sense, and decorative linework that Dave Gibbons is never on the same level with.
Art functional to the WATCHMEN story (and also the same 9-panel per page formula as the 1985 previous SUPERMAN ANNUAL 11 by Moore/Gibbons) Gibbons is a competent storyteller. But he is not a master storyteller in the same class as Moore and these other artists.

I stand by my argument that however enjoyable, WATCHMEN could arguably have been even better with another artist.

I likewise wasn't overly impressed with Eddie Campbell illustrating Moore's FROM HELL. But in its quiet way, the linestyle seemed compatible and atmospheric to a story set in the late 19th century.

Likewise, I was not impressed at all with the art in LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. Or with Moore's writing on the series either. I like the concept far more than the execution. And actually enjoyed the film version more.

Dave Gibbons art for sale

Currently a Euro is worth about 1.3 US dollars, meaning that 4500 Euro piece of gibbons artwork is selling for nearly $6000.

You really think people paying that much for Gibbons artwork aren't going to display it!

Well, there are people who pay big money even for Don Heck, Gene Colan and Dave Cockrum pages. Even though it's arguably not the most decorative linework in comics history, like Gibbons' WATCHMEN pages, they're still loved by many, and still valuable as milestones of comics history.

And like Irv Novick's BATMAN and DETECTIVE work for me, I still have a nostalgic love for it, among my favorite work, despite that others might not feel the same way about it. While not Adams or Wrightson, I'd still put a Novick original page on the wall.

So I see your point. Obviously though arguably not the best art in comics history, Moore/Gibbons' WATCHMEN is still one of the arguable masterworks of comics history, so yes, someone willing to pay big money for those pages would likely frame it and put it on the wall.

That said, I still think Alan Moore collaborations with Bissette/Tottleben, Alan Davis, Gary Leach, Michael T. Gilbert and others are more beautiful and decorative pages, and more worthy of the framing.

And once again you state your opinion of art as fact.
"No one would hang a Dave Gibbons page on their wall"
Really?
I can tell you for nothing that I would hang his artwork on my wall long before I hang a Berni Wrightson picture, because I like Gibbons and couldnt give two shits for Wrightson.
Personally I think my example of Jack Kirby is a perfect example of an artist that I think is quite frankly one of the most overrated and shitty artists ever, yet people would quite happily hang his stuff on their wall. Just because I dont like it doesnt mean I would out and out say that nobody would hang his art on their wall.
Bissette is another artist I wouldnt even remotely consider gracing my wall either.

I was a fan of Gibbons before he ever worked in America, and being a huge GL fan, I was extremely happy when he got the job on the GL book in the mid 80s. But of course, no way should I like that because you are telling me I should like these other artists more.

I already partly ceded the point in my above post. Like Novick for me, who might not be a great artist for many, he is one of my favorites.

You are absolutely the first person I've ever heard say he doesn't like Berni Wrightson. Wrightson is among what I term the "comic book fine artists" movement, along with guys like Neal Adams, Barry Windsor-Smith, Michael Kaluta, Lou Fine, Al Williamson, Frank Frazetta, and a select few others. Up through the 1980's, there's very little Wrightson has done that isn't worthy of framing.

There are artists who despite not being artists I love, I can still see where their work is acclaimed by many. Such as Will Eisner. I can still see the appeal of it, and his level of influence on many other artists, despite his art not having great personal appeal to me.

I think Kirby is in that same category. You might not like his personal linestyle, but you have to acknowledge that in whatever era from the 1940's through the 1970's, Kirby both was (1) illustrating the best-selling series, as well as (2) widely imitated by other artists, especially at Marvel where he created the "house style" and damn near 100% of the characters.
Whether the popular character at the time was CAPTAIN AMERICA, BOY COMMANDOS, NEWSBOY LEGION, MANHUNTER, SANDMAN, romance comics, BLACK MAGIC or other horror comics, western comics like BOYS RANCH, FIGHTING AMERICAN, the pre-Marvel monster stories and western titles, Marvel's peak in the 1960's, Kirby's NEW GODS and other fourth world titles, THE DEMON, KAMANDI, OMAC, ETERNALS, 2001, new CAPTAIN AMERICA run, new BLACK PANTHER series, or the CAPTAIN VICTORY series for Pacific in 1981 that opened up the creator-owned alternative publishing market.

That's one hell of a winning streak for a "shitty artist".

The Spice Girls had a lot of hit singles, that doesnt make them great singers.
Fact is during Kirbys day artists would churn stuff out. Maybe not to the degree he did, but did he gain legendary status due to how good he was or how prominent he was? Prominence and popularity does not equate 100% to talent.

As for Wrightson, didnt say I didnt like his art, just said I dont give a shit about it because he never did anything I really cared about and his style doesnt appeal to me.

Kirby though I have never ever liked. Even as a kid, I thought his stuff looked terrible compared to other artists like Dick Dillin, Jim Aparo and Curt Swan, who were some of the first artists I was introduced to in American comics.

Kirby gained prominence over every decade from the 1940's to the 1970's because the books he created consistently sold well. His work was so widely imitated that he changed his style in the late 1950's. Kirby was not a Spice Girl, he was the artist that the Spice Girls of comics imitated!

At Marvel in the 1960's, Kirby's was the "house look" that every other artist had to follow. And 50 years later, most of the characters and designs for them are still the Marvel standard. That's not even getting into his Fourth World, KAMANDI, THE DEMON, OMAC and so forth, that are likewise enduring hot properties, both in comics and in other licensing.
I don't think Kirby is a fine artist the way Neal Adams or Berni Wrightson or Frazetta or Williamson are. But Kirby is a very skilled storyteller and comic book artist. I respect that you and others may not like his particular style. But the same way I see artists like Will Eisner, Berni Krigstein or Jim Lee, whose style I don't particularly care for, I can still see why they are well received by others, even though their work doesn't particularly appeal to me personally.

If you want to see some great Wrightson art, pick up SWAMP THING: DARK GENESIS or one of the other reprint versions of the Wein/Wrightson SWAMP THING 1-10. And his BERNI WRIGHTSON: MASTER OF THE MACABRE 1-3 (1983, Pacific, reprinting his very best Warren magazine work in an outstanding color version.)

I also have an affection for Aparo, Swan/Anderson, Dillin, Novick, Kubert, Kaluta, Aragones, Thorne, Ditko, Morrow, Nino, Redondo, Dezuniga, Grell, Rogers, Golden and many others. All great in their own modest way. And I don't put Kirby above them, except in the sheer quantity of memorable work he produced. And the contracts awarded to him by both Marvel and DC certainly attest to his own personal achievement in the field.

The DC work by many artists from 1968-1975 or so represents some of the best work ever done, and (as COMIC BOOK ARTIST editor John B. Cooke said) is arguably the true Golden Age of comics.

You still have not proved he wasnt a legend because of his output rather than his talent. Had another artist produced as much work as him over a period of time, who is to say Kirby would have been viewed the same if he had then produced the same amount of work as them.
For me, as much as the GA artwork sucked generally, an artist like Dick Sprang was head and shoulders above Kirby.

I certainly do not see a "Marvel Standard" thats been the same for 50 years. Most costumes he designed have changed. Nobodies artworrk looks the same as his, and even the writing is vastly different.

Simple fact is you call this comic book blasphemies, and shit all over the contributions of a guy like Gibbons and defend your comments with nonsense like "nobody would hang his art on the wall", then when someone has their own "blasphemie", you defend that with vague comments like "Marvel standards" which are laughable.
Pretty much the only character design that is the same today in the Marvel Universe is Spidey, and thats Ditkos work, which resembled Kirbys work as much as King Snarf resembles Uschi.

By the way, the Fourth world stuff at DC is probably my most despised collection of characters ever. Right up there with The Eternals at Marvel. Shitty designs, and even shittier names. (Granny Goodness, Glorious Godfrey .. gimme a fucking break).

By the 70s Kirby's art was shit.

But I have to give him his due as an influence. Along with Eisner, most of the language of comic book storytelling (the way pages were laid out, the use of dynamic foreshortening, the way action was delineated) came from Kirby.

But Nowie has a good point. You can't start a thread about comic book blasphemies and then get even mildly perturbed when someone points out problems with "the King."

The fact that the designs of Kirby are the template for the entire Marvel Universe, even 50 years later is a testament to Kirby's talent, not simply his output. His designs for the FF, Thor, Asgard, Attilan and the Inhumans, the Silver Surfer, Galactus, on and on.
The fact that the New Gods, and Darkseid in particular, are among DC's most popular characters is again proof of Kirby's talent, not just his output.



I disagree. I've had all of Kirby's 60's and 70's work for decades. In the last few years, I've sought out Kirby's pre-Marvel "Atlas Era" Marvel Masterworks hardcovers of TALES TO ASTONISH, TALES OF SUSPENSE, RAWHIDE KID, romance comics and other work.



Apparently you've never heard of George Perez, Keith Giffen, Jose Ladronn, Walt Simonson and many other artists heavily influenced by Kirby.



I didn't "shit" on Gibbons. I said that while I like his style the same way I like guys such as Pat Boyette or Dan Spiegle, and I enjoyed WATCHMEN and his work there, I think WATCHMEN could have arguably been even better with another artist with a more decorative linestyle and arguably on an even higher level of talent, such as Neal Adams, Alan Davis, or Bissette Tottleben.




Not true. I've already cited just a few designs and artists that still follow in the Kirby designs and tradion on Marvel characters. And there are some who say that Kirby was the original designer of Spiderman, before Lee gave the character to Ditko. Kirby DID do the first AMAZING FANTASY 15 cover.



Your opinion. The idea of the name Granny Goodness is to project an image with the name's childish-sounding innocence, is its ironic contrast to the brutal and monstrous torment for its "boys" that the place truly was.
If the NEW GODS series is so hated, then why has it been reprinted in three different formats so far? And the NEW GODS originals are some of the most sought-after originals by Kirby. (A recent "artist's edition" of NEW GODS original art was just released, by the way.)

I respect that we all like what we like, and that we're not all going to have the same favorites. But geez man, can't you admit the guy had considerable talent, even if his work isn't your style?

I'll concede that Kirby's work by the mid-70's wasn't what it once was, but there were still moments of greatness even in that period.

I'll concede that he wasn't drawing with the same level of detail as, say, FF 44-51, or JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY/THOR 120-130.

But a few examples that certainly weren't "shit" :
NEW GODS 5, 6, and 7.
THE DEMON 1 and 2 (origin story), and 6.
KAMANDI 1, 2 and 6.
ETERNALS 1 and 2.
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 8 (origin of Machine Man, before he moved to his own title)

All these are well-told stories with some beautiful pages, and definitely not "shit". Again, I'll grant that much of Kirby's 70's work is less detailed, but his best 70's efforts had a dynamic quality that matched or arguably exceeded his best 60's Marvel work. Certainly, it has been popular to the point that it has ALL been reprinted, much of it in multiple editions.

And I can acknowledge that many others consider his 60's Marvel work the best of his career. But there is some debate on that.
Arguably, Kirby's 70's work was his most personal, that he had the most control over, and poured more effort into. That he had the most editorial and creative control over.
Although beyond ETERNALS, I think his 1976-1978 work was overall pretty half-hearted, as was much of his DC work after 1972 (after the Fourth World books were cancelled out from under him). Kirby is well-documented to have been crushed after the cancellation of his NEW GODS titles. But there were still moments of inspired greatness from him, at both DC and Marvel in the 1970's.

I think Kirby's most clear and precipitous decline was in the 1980's, with CAPTAIN VICTORY, SILVER STAR, and the SUPER POWERS series for DC. As well as the HUNGER DOGS graphic novel that was an unrecognizable version of Kirby's original 1970's Fourth World series it was intended to conclude.



Well, that much we can agree on.



Where am I perturbed? It frankly is amusing to me that Nowie's this torqued up about it. It makes my point about "comic book blasphemies" that he's this annoyed about my opinion of Dave Gibbbons' WATCHMEN work. The irony is, I like WATCHMEN! I just think another artist could have possibly done an even better job with it.

Arguing against my own opinion, maybe WATCHMEN as done by Gibbons is better in not having an artist show off too much, but instead (with Gibbons) the story was better because the art was in service to the story, instead of filled with pin-up pages like a Jim Lee or Todd McFarlane story.
A parallel example is the Stern/Romita Jr. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN run (recently released in collected hardcover, by the way). Much as I like Romita Jr's work, it likewise doesn't draw too much attention to itself, and is subservient to the story, not filled with pin-up pages in a way that the artist would have been showing off, that would distract from the story itself. And it's better that way.

So maybe WATCHMEN is better Gibbons' way.
It's all personal preference, but I just think the Leach and Davis art on MIRACLEMAN, and the Lloyd art on V FOR VENDETTA, and the Gilbert art on MR MONSTER 3, and the Don Simpson art on ANYTHING GOES 2's "Pictopia" were (art-wise) all more interesting Alan Moore collaborations.
While WATCHMEN is an incredible Moore story, my opinion is it's purely an Alan Moore show, and the art is functional to the story, but unspectacular, and I was more impressed by the other artists in their collaborations with Moore.

And that's the fun of it. That my opinion on the subject is blasphemous, relative to the majority of opinion on the subject of WATCHMEN.

Alan Moore. Even after he fell out with Gibbons in 2012 over the Before Watchmen shit and has absolutely no reason to give him any credit he doesn't deserve, he still says the book was a group effort. We're talking about the guy who spends half his interviews violently shitting on everyone in the industry. And this is how he describes the creative process for Watchmen in 2013:



Here's the panel Moore is talking about, the one that inspired them to make Watchmen what it is: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FVXCQBs2iUU/TBjUFNjQJ-I/AAAAAAAADKw/vndChqdVwv0/s1600/watchmen5.jpg

Look at the detail on that thing. No, any artist couldn't have done that. The fact that you'd bring up Steve Bissette proves you're talking out of your ass. Here's a Bissette page: http://images.sequart.org/images/22a-660x1015.jpg

I like Bissette, but what he gains in atmosphere he loses in background detail. Huh, it's almost like different artists have different strengths. Now imagine Bissette (or Alan Davis, or anyone else) had drawn that Watchmen panel above and rather than thinking "Wait, we can play with the structure of this thing and create something awesome" Moore just say "Cool page" and moves on.

You're way off on this one, Wondy. You've never been more wrong in this forum. Except when it's about race or politics or basic human decency. But other than anything important, you've never been more wrong in this forum.