| Author |
|
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 6:01pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Perez and Wolfman did a "forgettable" Teen Titans book? Must've
missed that one, 'cause the NEW TEEN TITANS book that I read
stands out in my memory to this day.
I love Curt Swan and applaud DC for keeping him on the Superman
books as long as they did. However, I believe that much of the time
they saddled him with some very lackluster inkers. Tex Blaisdell, Frank
Chiaramonte and Vince Colletta come to mind. I believe work like
theirs muddied and dulled Swan's pencils. I loved Murphy Anderson,
Dan Adkins and Bob Oksner over Swan. Joe Rubinstein inked a story
or two and the combination was beautiful! I can only imagine how
amazing Wally Wood or Joe Sinnott's work would've looked. JB and
George Perez' inks over Swan's pencils yielded stellar results to my
eyes.
I enjoyed the Wolfman/Kane ACTION run. They really seemed to be
pushing Gil Kane as a Superman artist in the 80s. My thoughts were
always along the lines of keeping Swan on one of the books and
giving another to Keith Pollard, JL Garcia-Lopez, Rich Buckler or Jim
Starlin, all of whom did some really exciting stuff with the character in
DCCP and elsewhere.
Edited by Eric Smearman on 08 December 2012 at 6:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4639
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Chad Carter wrote:
| If Superman is "boring," I can only ascribe it to the pre-CRISIS Swan era of art. I really respect people who love Swan, and I've read great Swan stories, but Swan wasn't the kind of dynamic artist Marvel was pumping out, nor Perez or Adams or Byrne. If any character had ever needed a dynamic artist, it was Superman. |
|
|
I disagree. I think that in general, people who feel that Swan wasn't dynamic enough, or that Superman is too powerful, or that Superman needs foes he can go "toe-to-toe" with in a fistfight, are coming from a strong Marvel perspective, and basically wanting to see Marvel-style stories about Superman. Which is fine, I guess, but that's not what appeals to me about Superman. He isn't a Marvel character, and I don't really want to see him in Marvel-style stories.
My favorite Superman era is the late 50's through the early 70's. This was a period when DC Comics were notably different than Marvels, and the main difference was that Marvels featured nonstop action and fighting, whereas DCs (particularly Superman books) did not. The formula for Superman in the 60s was: Superman is confronted with a problem and has to solve it, while simultaneously dealing with the complications said problem creates. This formula yielded dozens of great stories, and Swan (and Wayne Boring) were perfect for the sort of psychologically-based interpersonal dilemmas in these stories. The first Lori Lemaris story, "Superman's Return to Krypton", "Superman Under the Red Sun", "The Death of Superman"... these are my favorite Superman stories ever. And you can count on one hand the number of times Superman was involved in a fistfight during this period.
Over the past 25 years or so DC has become pretty thoroughly Marvelized in their approach so I guess there's an expectation now of nonstop action in Superman stories. I don't mind a bit of that, but it's certainly not what drew me to the character in the first place. I miss the distinction between Marvel and DC.
Regarding Jack Kirby... he drew a respectable Superman, but boy, his approach to the character itself was completely and thoroughly wrongheaded. A Superman who feels lonely and out of place on earth and longs to live with other superpowered beings? That's not the Superman I know.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 137143
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 7:02pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
If Superman is "boring," I can only ascribe it to the pre-CRISIS Swan era of art. I really respect people who love Swan, and I've read great Swan stories, but Swan wasn't the kind of dynamic artist Marvel was pumping out, nor Perez or Adams or Byrne. If any character had ever needed a dynamic artist, it was Superman.++ I disagree. I think that in general, people who feel that Swan wasn't dynamic enough, or that Superman is too powerful, or that Superman needs foes he can go "toe-to-toe" with in a fistfight, are coming from a strong Marvel perspective, and basically wanting to see Marvel-style stories about Superman. •• You'd have to go a long way to find someone who has a greater respect and admiration for the work of Curt Swan than I do. One of the great pleasures of my career was getting to meet him, work with him, and tell him how much I had enjoyed his work over the years. That said, "dynamic" is not a word that comes to mind when thinking of Curt's work. He was a strong realist, but unlike others of that school, like Neal Adams, or Joe Kubert, or Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Curt's grounding in reality was so strong that he was unable to step "outside" for the sometimes extreme elements demanded by superhero comics. Coincidentally, Paul Kupperberg and I were discussing Curt's work just this morning, and were in agreement that, for example, he was not really able to draw monsters. Or, more precisely, when he was called upon to draw monsters, a staple of superhero fare, they tended to be very tame monsters. Same with his aliens. Ask him to draw a bank robber in a suit and hat, packing a tommy gun, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could do it better. But the more outlandish elements....? Sometimes I found myself thinking Curt was just TOO GOOD for the kinds of stories he was often asked to draw.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I remember Curt pinch-hitting on an early issue of NEW TEEN
TITANS - #5, I think - and loving it for the most part. But this issue
introduced Raven's father and uber-Titan foe Trigon and Swan's
rendition of him was, well...less than fearsome...
I loved Swan's faces! His faces for Superman and his supporting cast
looked like actual, living, breathing, flesh-and-blood people When he'd
draw a crowd of Metropolis' citizens looking up in the sky, each and
every last face looked REAL! It was uncanny and bowls me over to
this day!
Edited by Eric Smearman on 08 December 2012 at 7:44pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4639
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 9:15pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I guess that's my point. Swan wouldn't have been dynamic enough for Marvel, or for a Marvel-style story involving a multi-page fistfight between hero and villain. But his style was perfect for the weird psychological dramas that made up the Weisinger era. I can't imagine anyone drawing "The Death of Superman" better than he did. A greater level of dynamism wasn't needed, and in fact wouldn't have worked as well on stories like that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5833
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 9:38pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
JB: Coincidentally, Paul Kupperberg and I were discussing Curt's work just this morning, and were in agreement that, for example, he was not really able to draw monsters. Or, more precisely, when he was called upon to draw monsters, a staple of superhero fare, they tended to be very tame monsters. Same with his aliens. Ask him to draw a bank robber in a suit and hat, packing a tommy gun, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could do it better. But the more outlandish elements....?
********
SER: I often thought Swan's monsters looked like guys in rubber suits.
Like you, I'm a tremendous Swan fan: I loved his work in the late-50s through the '60s and his late 60s/early 70s work with Murphy Anderson was amazing.
However, by the late-70s, early-80s, there was a clear difference between a Swan-drawn SUPERMAN comic and what you were seeing in, say, UNCANNY X-MEN of the same period.
JB lured me and many others to SUPERMAN because of the dynamism of the art, but there was something else that I can't put my finger on. So much of it was subtle but made a huge impact: Clark was no longer 45 but in his 20s and dressed accordingly. Lois's hair and wardrobe especially reflected the period. There was a visible excitement on each page.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Chad Carter
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 June 2005
Posts: 9584
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:16pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Perez and Wolfman did a "forgettable" Teen Titans book? Must've
missed that one, 'cause the NEW TEEN TITANS book that I read
stands out in my memory to this day.
Naturally, I'd expect a missed point. Especially since I said I too loved the book. But looking back, wouldn't it have been better for all those brilliant Wolfman/Perez Titans stories and character beats to have been written for the Justice League of America? And wouldn't comics have been better off for it, instead of what we received, to this day: lame Titans proto-porn for knock-off X-Men fans unable to let go?
I think you could argue the ascension of the New Teen Titans basically predicated the need for CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS and the corporate hand-wringing of everyone at DC Comics, trying to "beat" Marvel and specifically the X-Men.
What the Titans popularity brought to the table was not good for superhero comics or comics in general, I don't think. It was the beginning of a mistake, of Marvel and DC to legitimize their "Arms Race" as anything more significant than a publishing rivalry. No longer was the focus on good stories and unforgettable characters, but fads and superficial stylizing, of which the Titans were the prow in front of the X-Men's massive ice-breaker.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36533
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:26pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
DC was Marvel's bitch long before Wolfman/Perez's TEEN TITANS saw the light of day. One could argue it started with FF #1 and after that DC was always trying to play catch-up. What I think is absurd is saying that their run was "not good for superhero comics or comics in general". It's what made this long-time Marvel fan stand up and take notice of DC. Whatever "arms race" happened thereafter certainly can't be leveled on an excellent run with terrific stories and mindblowing art. That's like blaming JB and Chris Claremont for writing "The Death of Phoenix". What people do after is their problem and what they have to live with. Don't wish to retroactively deny that enjoyment to literally millions of fans because of what other less skilled people have done in the wake of those stories and/or runs.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Chad Carter
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 June 2005
Posts: 9584
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:35pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Swan wouldn't have been dynamic enough for Marvel, or for a Marvel-style story involving a multi-page fistfight between hero and villain...I can't imagine anyone drawing "The Death of Superman" better than he did. A greater level of dynamism wasn't needed, and in fact wouldn't have worked as well on stories like that.
I agree on that, but comics art had been changed irrevocably soonafter 1961 when the story was published. Keeping Swan on Superman all through the '70s and '80s was the creative equivalent of John Deere tractors painting all their equipment yellow and green. Superman had become a product, like Brycreem and Ovaltine, with the only creative input going into the "Imaginary" stories about Superman. As if Superman had become such a staunch, rigid product, devoid of imaginative flash, only wild "imaginings" were allowed--clear distinction between the product and any attempt to revitalize the character.
So to me, Superman became "boring" only by his steady longevity, coupled with the sophomoric, which tarnished the character.
And it should be noted, DC Comics had the perfect, infallible vehicle for utter creative change in their comics via SUPERMAN THE MOVIE. A movie which was outstanding, a massive hit in 1978. Yet DC did nothing with this golden lottery ticket, except hang it on the wall with all of their other fading accolades, and continue pumping out minor, inconsequential Superman stories, driving the company into slash-and-burn mode in six years. This despite the gargantuan success of the knock-off superhero comic of the decade, in NEW TEEN TITANS; as exciting as that time was in my reading lifetime, I rue that DC hadn't the true creative innovation of Jack Kirby, yet merely followed in Marvel's tainted X-trail.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Smearman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5880
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:36pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"...lame Titans proto porn for knock-off X-Men fans unable to let go..."
What...?
"I think you could argue the ascension of the New Teen Titans
predicated the need for CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS..."
You might argue that but I'd disagree. CRISIS answered a
(mistakenly) perceived need to streamline the DCU and it's continuity.
The success of NTT arguably gave Marv Wolfman the juice to get the
project greenlit but that's about it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36533
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:40pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
As far as Superman is concerned, I have to be honest when I say that I never connected with him until JB's work. Even as a Marvel kid, an incredible fan of Spider-Man, I found Batman to be compelling and cool. Superman? I didn't get his appeal and not for lack of trying. I had early collections of his stories. I certainly knew who the players were and their importance in that world. But none of it clicked until MOS. I stuck with him long after JB left and finally stopped buying stories about him about a year after "The Death of Superman". I again have to be honest in saying that in all that time, it's still only JB's work that resonates with me. Before and after, people just don't seem to know what to do with him. I accept that it just may be me, that it's my problem that I can't find something to latch onto. It may certainly be a case of the stories just being bad and not the character. For my money, I'd love to find that feeling of connection to such an iconic character. It just hasn't happened except for a brief period of time.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Chad Carter
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 June 2005
Posts: 9584
|
| Posted: 08 December 2012 at 10:44pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
What I think is absurd is saying that their run was "not good for superhero comics or comics in general". It's what made this long-time Marvel fan stand up and take notice of DC.
Actually, Conway and Perez on JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA made me take notice of DC, and Perez's presence on NEW TEEN TITANS a kind of grudging acceptance that Perez wasn't working on "real" superheroes. to Wolfman/Perez's credit, they completely supplanted my prejudices on TITANS--at least for a long while.
Yet still, the argument is this: would DC Comics and the DCU and the direction of the superhero comic in general have been altered by a successful, mind-blowing run on JLA? The Brotherhood of Evil as JLA villains? Brother Blood? Deathstroke vs the JLA?
Everything great about TITANS could easily have been transposed to JLA and reinvigorated Bronze Age DC. We'd still be talking about it, instead of waxing about the Titans, the pale shades of the JLA.
Edited by Chad Carter on 08 December 2012 at 10:45pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|