Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Büge]

Kirby: King of Comics and Innocence and Seduction: The Art of Dan DeCarlo.

The parallels were fascinating. Both giants in the field, both had distinctive styles, both trailblazers defining the look of their genres... And they were both vastly unappreciated in their time and both were given the shaft by companies they did their best work for.

Just looking at the work Kirby had done, the way he'd pushed his skills by constantly working, drawing from dawn to dusk, always refining his style... honestly, it's amazing. It contrasts nicely with DeCarlo's art too. One had an ever-evolving style, the other found his niche and stuck with it. I can understand why Kirby had such a beef with Marvel now, too. A lot of his artwork and ideas were scrapped or miscredited, or in some cases, redone completely by other artists. Les Daniels's Five Fabulous Decades paints a rosier picture than this one, but I don't know... We may never learn just how much influence Kirby had on story and dialogue.

Dan DeCarlo's name was excised from the comics he'd worked on. That's pretty bad, and it reflects on the comment made a few days ago about comics and the Mafia. Him being "out of the family" as it were. That being said, I think it's neat that he's one of the few comic artists who did both "naughty" and "nice" cartoons and wasn't ashamed of it. Frankly I don't think he had room not to be, his artwork is so iconic. My favorite anecdote is how he was so pleased with Bruce Timm's inking in a Harley Quinn story they'd collaborated on, but disappointed when he learned Bruce used an overlay because he couldn't bring himself to ink directly on Dan's pencil work.

Both books would make an excellent read for anyone who enjoys comics. But don't take my word for it!

 

[Thad]

Dan DeCarlo's name was excised from the comics he'd worked on. That's pretty bad, and it reflects on the comment made a few days ago about comics and the Mafia. Him being "out of the family" as it were.

FffffffUCK.  And I thought the days of taking creators' names off a work out of spite went out with bell bottoms.  Fuck Archie SO HARD.

This could probably be a threadsplit.  Needless to say, I have some opinions on the subject that I could go into some detail on.

But right now, I'm going to go buy comics.

Thanks for the recommendations; they sound pretty great!  One of these days I'll get around to posting my thoughts on The Ten-Cent Plague, but I'm kind of hoping to get my blog properly migrated first.  (It may be a two-parter!  I can totally see talking about the book and then going for the parallels to the current video game scapegoating.)

[Thad]

...and I would add: doing something like that is ESPECIALLY dickish if you do it after the artist is dead.  I mean, DC's involved in YEARS of legal wrangling with the Siegel family, but that hasn't stopped them from raising money to fix up his old house.  (Actually, that DOES make me wonder if Mike DeCarlo's got any pending legal actions against Archie.)  Hell, even Bob Kane managed, after Bill Finger's death, to suddenly remember to tell everybody "Oh hey, this guy pretty much did most of the actual work of creating Batman."  (Sometimes I wonder if, had the shoe been on the other foot and Robinson passed away and Finger stuck around, if Kane would have spent his later years praising Robinson's contribution and denying Finger's role.)

I'd like to think that the negative PR Archie has suffered over this has cost them far more money than the pittance they'd have given Dan from a film that flopped, but of course that assumes that adults read Archie Comics.

...who the fuck DOES read Archie Comics, anyway?  Do they still sell the digests at checkout counters?  I don't remember seeing any lately.

[McDohl]

Isn't Sonic the Hedgehog still being distributed under the Archie Comics label?

[Mongrel]

I still see them in all the finer supermarket checkout counters.

They look awful.

[Büge]

I still see Archie digests at the checkout counters at work. They're really trying to push the Dynamic New Look. If you don't know, it's a stylistic shift they experimented with in a Betty and Veronica series a while back.

I'll read them if they end up in the employee washroom, but I wouldn't pay money. Their gags are tired and their messages are preachy.

EDIT: I'd like to amend that. I still find Samm Schwartz's work to be clever and funny.

EDIT EDIT: Harry Lucey too. He draws characters with lots of energy and expression.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Interesting. I had to dig deep to find some of the better artists. Archie Comics really doesn't want individuals credited.

OKAY OKAY LAST EDIT I PROMISE: Seems like the Stan Goldberg work is the stuff I see in the non-digest section, and to a large extent on the digest covers. Really, he seems to be the one who imitates DeCarlo's stuff the most. If my instincts are correct, it is he whom Iron_Mongrel is referring to. The characters all look puffy-faced and their mouths are too big.

Additionally, here's some images just as a refresher.


Samm Schwartz


Harry Lucey

[James Edward Smith]

I still see Archie Comics in the supermarket, yeah. I have no idea why though. Who reads Archie? I mean, It's like Spiderman except he's not Spiderman AND he IS the good looking jock that the girls want to go to make out point with. Any troubles Archie has with women are because he's a dope, not because he's shy or anything. Who the hell wants to read that?

Of course, I never understood why people liked Saved by the Bell or Boy Meets World either so maybe I just really don't have anything in common with most of the population.

Still though, look at those panels. I mean, if it was actually meant to be set in the 60s and had a sort of toned down Mad Men sort of feel to it then fine, but, and correct me if I am wrong about this, it seems like it's just trapped in that period while trying to actually reflect contemporary teens and that just seems so weak and weird to me. How can that approach be successful enough to still be in circulation?

Even if I was a kid, I'd rather read a comic about two jagged, eye poking sticks than one about Betty and Veronica fighting over Archie.

[Mongrel]

I did like the old reprint stories at one time. They have a lot of character to them (that Samm Schwartz panel is a great example). But there's no point in buying anything new or paying money for the things. Archie would probably be much more highly regarded if it died and all the old series were reprinted by time period (instead of the big jumble of snippets it is now).... and you basically threw out everything that had been done in the past 10-20 years.

Anyway, Archie comics as a company is the biggest laugh to me, because of Sonic. It's basically the most mainstream furry comic out there, with a readership that's got to be about 99% furries, but they still market the damn thing as a kid's comic to save face. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention grotesquely awkward.

The one thing I wonder is just how much the Archie execs are ware of this, like do they have no clue at all? Are they fully aware of it and just pretend to save face? Or are they trapped in some ghastly half-awareness, where they continuously stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and shout "LALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENING" just to stay sane?

[Brentai]

God knows what the Sonic comic even is any more.  Is it supposed to be funny now, or are they trying to be dark and edgy again?  Is the cast mostly SEGA characters or Archie characters?  Are the animals all still showing their naked boobs all the time?  Someone else look at the thing and let me know.

[SCD]

Something from that line caught my eye the other day:  A Betty and Veronica magazine shouting out the phrase "We're not shopping, we're helping stimulate the economy". 

I was dumbfounded.  This is the sort of hyperbole that magazines such as Adbusters use for their props, and it was right in front of my eyes. 

I've seen less preachy military propaganda.. 

[Brentai]

I'm not sure if you're saying that keeping in mind that Betty and Veronica are meant to be caricatures of themselves or not.

[Thad]

Anyway, Archie comics as a company is the biggest laugh to me, because of Sonic. It's basically the most mainstream furry comic out there, with a readership that's got to be about 99% furries, but they still market the damn thing as a kid's comic to save face. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention grotesquely awkward.

The one thing I wonder is just how much the Archie execs are ware of this, like do they have no clue at all? Are they fully aware of it and just pretend to save face? Or are they trapped in some ghastly half-awareness, where they continuously stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and shout "LALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENING" just to stay sane?

I find it pretty hard to believe that a MAJORITY of the people reading Sonic comics are adult furries, but sure, there are more than a few of them.

As for the "do they know about the furries?" question, I don't know about the publishers, but the creatives have always been pretty in touch with the fandom and in fact they've hired a few fan artists over the years.

God knows what the Sonic comic even is any more.  Is it supposed to be funny now, or are they trying to be dark and edgy again?  Is the cast mostly SEGA characters or Archie characters?  Are the animals all still showing their naked boobs all the time?  Someone else look at the thing and let me know.

Apparently Drazen still reviews the things, despite threats to the contrary.  I'd poke through one of his reviews as they're quite a bit more intelligent and entertaining than the comics themselves.  ...I WOULD, but I'm not going to.  Maybe later.

Huh.  #200's coming up.  That's...pretty fucking amazing, really, for ANY series.  Let alone one that's managed to keep a monthly schedule since day one.

I'm not sure if you're saying that keeping in mind that Betty and Veronica are meant to be caricatures of themselves or not.

Eeyeah, SCD, that's pretty clearly a joke.  Or what passes for one in an Archie comic.

...anyway.  Split.  Was sort of hoping this thread would be more about comics history and how artists get shafted; maybe it can veer back that way at some point.

[Rosencrantz]

Was sort of hoping this thread would be more about comics history and how artists get shafted; maybe it can veer back that way at some point.

My two cents on the subject: the fact that Don Rosa isn't allowed to put his name in his Disney Duck comics is a crime. He does, however, hide the word DUCK in the artwork on first page of every comic that he draws (and usually on his covers, as well) - DUCK being an acroynm for Dedicated to Unca Carl [Barks] from Keno [Don Rosa].

[Büge]

No artist in Disney's employ are allowed to put their names on anything they do.

[Brentai]

Apparently Drazen still reviews the things, despite threats to the contrary.  I'd poke through one of his reviews as they're quite a bit more intelligent and entertaining than the comics themselves.  ...I WOULD, but I'm not going to.  Maybe later.

A cursory glance suggests that it is now StH G2, and everybody's as dense as Megatron.

[Mongrel]

Suggestion for thread title: "...And stay outta Riverdale!" (with a subtitle of your choice, descriptive or otherwise).

[SCD]

I'm not sure if you're saying that keeping in mind that Betty and Veronica are meant to be caricatures of themselves or not.

Not sure what that means, but no.

[Thad]

I still see Archie Comics in the supermarket, yeah. I have no idea why though. Who reads Archie? I mean, It's like Spider-Man except he's not Spider-Man AND he IS the good looking jock that the girls want to go to make out point with. Any troubles Archie has with women are because he's a dope, not because he's shy or anything. Who the hell wants to read that?

The American comics industry at this point is largely about carving out a niche.  Archie has been really damn successful at doing that.

First of all, in a world of action comics for adults, it's a humor comic for kids.  Its blandness is actually an asset in that parents can buy it for their kids without worrying that there's going to be anything controversial in there.

Second, the mere fact that it's the ONLY comic you're likely to see on the impulse-buy rack at a supermarket checkout counter (for now -- Disney's got some plans to move back into that space) is also an asset.  Most people don't go to comic stores.  But if a kid sees a brightly-colored comic book and points to it and asks Mommy to buy it, odds are pretty good it's going to be Archie.

Third, it's a brand with 60 years of history.  It's recognizable.  For my dad's generation, you see Archie Andrews and it makes "Sugar Sugar" start playing in your head.  It's one of those things people have a soft spot for even if it's not very good.

And finally, and here's where we came into this conversation, whether or not the stories are actually interesting or engaging, there's been some great damn art on the series over the years.  DeCarlo was one of the greats, and they're still reprinting the hell out of his work.

All that said, I don't think I've ever purchased an Archie comic myself.  (Unless you count Archie-published licensed comics like TMNT and Sonic.  In which case I haven't purchased an Archie comic in...ten years?)

[Mongrel]

So apparantly Archie is going to marry Veronica.

Hm.

Didn't they already do that in the shitty movie they made in the late 80's?

[McDohl]

I thought Archie has been in high school for the last few decades.

Except for, you know, spinoffs like "The New Archies" or "Li'l Archie".