|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 9:07:21 GMT
It makes a big difference to how I view a multi-part story as a package if it has one (good) artist drawing the whole thing from start to finish. It somehow strikes me as being more polished. A multi-part (or, even worse, single-part) story which changes artists just comes across as a bit messy - pages that don't really match one another.
John Ridgway, Mike Collins and Jeff Anderson shared the art duties on the early UK stories - 'Man of Iron', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Raiders of the Last Ark' - but kept to a very consistent style so that one didn't really notice where they switched. This cannot be said of the later artistic styles. So, Parts 1 and 3 of 'Dinobot Hunt' (Will Simpson) look very different from Parts 2 and 4 (Barry Kitson). To me, this makes the story as a whole feel less polished than Kitson's 2-parters ('The Wrath of Guardian/Grimlock', 'The Icarus Theory' and 'Robot-Buster'), 'Devastation Derby' (both parts drawn by Simpson) and 'In the National Interest' (all four parts drawn by Simpson).
I think it looks particularly messy when a story no longer than 22 pages (i.e. a UK 2-parter) isn't owned by a single artist.
What do others feel? Do you prefer a single artist to 'own' a complete story, or are you happy when the artist and art style change from chapter to chapter?
Trivia challenge: 'In the National Interest' was four consecutive issues containing 11-page UK stories, all drawn by the same artist. Is this 44-pages of artistic consistency matched at any other point in the UK comic's run? (US story reprints don't count.)
(I don't know the answer.)
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 17, 2009 10:06:21 GMT
It was a weekly disposable comic with stories meant to be printed once, possibly twice in a special. Practicalities of production meant the art had to change from week to week as few artists can churn out 11 pages a week. It's just the way comics were made. Considering it otherwise, to be perfectly honest, makes no sense to me.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 12:04:50 GMT
Practicalities of production meant the art had to change from week to week That's not true. Marvel UK only had to produce an average of 22 pages per month to fill the gaps in the US story. The US artists (including Andy Wildman, near the end of the run) managed 22 pages a month just fine. And 22 pages a month from the same artist isn't even what I was looking for - just the same artist throughout a single story, and then perhaps a different artist for the next story. In addition to the ones I mentioned, Jeff Anderson did some 2-parters ('Grudge Match', 'Enemy Action'). But then other 2-parters were shared ('Prey', 'Fallen Angel', 'Wanted - Galvatron Dead or Alive', 'Burning Sky', 'Hunters', 'Fire on High') and don't look as good in my eyes as a result. In fact, I don't understand why those last four stories were titled as 2-parters, given they formed a continuous eight-part story, with artwork switching half-way through each 2-parter. 'City of Fear' was better planned. The 'City of Fear' 2-parter was all drawn by Dan Reed. Both parts of 'Meltdown' were drawn by Robin Smith, 'Legion of the Lost' was Jeff Anderson's baby and Dan Reed had by then had enough time to do the entirety of 'Deadly Games'. It's not rocket science. But then, if caring at all about this makes no sense at all, perhaps sometimes even when it was easily arranged they didn't consider it worth arranging. I'm sure we all have little niggles. This is one of mine. It's like switching the cast for different actors half-way through a movie. But it all pales before Marvel US G2 #2. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Oct 17, 2009 13:09:15 GMT
I'd guess that deadlines were a major factor. When comics run late now it's so standard I doubt it's a major concern for the publisher, but if a kid's weekly comic in the mid 1980s had to keep skipping weeks it'd be a major issue. Taking the risk that an artist would get the 22 pages done in time everytime, as opposed to two artists doing 11 each...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2009 16:18:04 GMT
At first, I didn't care for example Dan Reed's pencils. His work didn't fit into story arcs especially compared with Jeff Anderson or Geoff Senior. That said, I noticed that some arcs were better with his visceral style. If the story called for something nasty, Dan Reed fit the bill. Course, I'm not sure where the fangs come from but hey I'm no artist. ;D
Will Simpson's work appears more, I don't know, organic.
Would the same inker made any difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 16:53:06 GMT
Supposing, just supposing you were back in the '80s and commissioning artists to draw the Marvel UK comics. You can't get rid of ones you don't like, nor give your favourites more work, but you can match them up better to stories that suit them. And you don't have to worry about scheduling, as that's taken care of by magic. Would you, for example, take Robin Smith and Jeff Anderson off 'Meltdown' and 'Legion of the Lost' and give Dan Reed the entire zombies arc to have as his own, because his artwork is more scary? Would you give Geoff Senior the whole of 'Target: 2006' rather than just some parts? Would you let Lee Sullivan draw Galvatron's maniacal grin in every issue of 'Time Wars'? Would the stories stand up better if owned by particular artists, or is their hotch-potch nature part of their charm? (Try not to let nostalgia bias your answer!  ) Martin |
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Oct 17, 2009 17:18:32 GMT
I think, in general, I'm not that concerned with changing art styles in a story (it helps if the art is always good, though!). I'd say the tone of the story comes from the writer, and stories with multiple writers are less satisfying, rather than multiple artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 17:24:01 GMT
I'd say the tone of the story comes from the writer Ooh! Controversial!  Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 17, 2009 18:02:18 GMT
Practicalities of production meant the art had to change from week to week That's not true. Martin I'm knowledgeable enough about comic book production to be fairly sure of my assertions. But let's leave it at that. I can't be bothered getting into an arguement. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 18:07:11 GMT
Sorry Ralph, certainly wasn't looking for a fight. Sure we both mean different things.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Oct 17, 2009 18:17:00 GMT
The lead times given would vary between stories I would wager and certain artists might need more than others. I know that most of the Marvel UK artists were juggling other gigs as well as Transformers and there are very few artists who could churn out eleven pages a week. Off the top of my head I can only pull out four names (the late Jack Kirby, John Romita Jnr, Carlos Ezquerra and Mark Bagley) The then industry spec was something like five to six pencilled and inked pages in a week.
To be honest the switching of artists has never bothered me, the G2 issue 2 being one of the few exceptions. I love the varied interpretations we got as a result.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Oct 17, 2009 18:27:27 GMT
The lead times given would vary between stories I would wager and certain artists might need more than others. I know that most of the Marvel UK artists were juggling other gigs as well as Transformers and there are very few artists who could churn out eleven pages a week. Off the top of my head I can only pull out four names (the late Jack Kirby, John Romita Jnr, Carlos Ezquerra and Mark Bagley) The then industry spec was something like five to six pencilled and inked pages in a week. That matches my expectation, but I think I must have expressed my original point badly, for which I apologise. I'm not aware that any of the 80 Marvel US TF comics changed art team within their 22 pages, and a lot of the time the same artist produced 22 pages a month for several months running. The UK comic only had to produce as much original material each month as the US comic, so I just puzzled that the UK comic had so many broken 2-parters and only one 4-parter in its entire run with the same artist throughout. But never mind - it's just something that strikes me as a pity with hindsight. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Oct 17, 2009 18:38:56 GMT
I think that was to do with the traditional division of labour in the US comic market in that the pencilling and inking were separate jobs aside from when Geoff Senior was on the title. Though there were issues that had many hands on it. Issue 9 has multiple inkers as it obviously was nearing the dreaded deadline doom. Issue 6 also appears to have a second inker in bits. Probably one of Marvel's bullpen (Romita's Raiders).
Andy
|
|
primenova
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 6,057
|
Post by primenova on Oct 17, 2009 20:17:31 GMT
It was whoever was free to meet deadlines for the strips - or with #114, story just altered so Geoff not free to do this part.
When Andrew started inter-art strip work - did 2 issues then moved to covers while Dan & Lee finished the story. Seeing that covers have to catch peoples eye.
From #198-212 [15 issues] Wildman covers - 10 issues
|
|
)
