Kaare Andrews On CB Cebulski And The Speed Of Production

[ApeLieUproar]

But you don't see comics. You see the occasional single page floating on the internet, per your own admission earlier. I ask this as politely as possible: would you kindly please remove the foot from your mouth and the stick from your ass? Doing only one or the other just won't be sufficient.

Hm. Well, I'd suggest conferring both foot and stick to you, only in reverse — but since your request was so polite...

Anyway, I said "once in a while." How long have comics been late an/pr decompressed now? "Once in a while" still amounts to quite a few examples. Also, see my earlier post to keith.

[ApeLieUproar]

I think in the instance of "legitimate art" or "disposability" he's talking more about public perception than what the artists themselves considered it to be.

1) Where do you get this impression, given Andrews doesn't mention it at all?
2) Assuming you do somehow read this in Andrews' article, where does he get this impression?

Note his entire point is about the demands of the fanbase, and again, I'd agree with him.

Only, he then contradicts himself and asserts it has nothing to do with the amount of detail but with favorite characters doing important things. The most popular artists, he also contends, are the ones who do several pages a day.

[ApeLieUproar]

As far as the thing about breakdowns, we've had people in this thread say they've seen beautifully detailed Kirby pencils, and some fairly basic ones too. So possibly Andrews is presenting something of a skewed argument for the purposes of his argument.

It's not only Kirby, it's also people like Joe Sinnott, who hardly ever missed an issue (if he missed any at all) during his entire run as FF inker, yet he always produced the same quality output. And that wasn't his only gig.

[ApeLieUproar]

Yes, that's one reason, but it's not the only reason. You are aware that different movies have different budgets for a reason, right?

Yes, but people don't go to the movies to see the backgrounds, say. Ultimately, the reason they are there is to see a bunch of frames strung together in some sort of logical sequence.

[ApeLieUproar]

They work hard, but they work efficiently. They are the types that Blade alludes to in a later comment: they seem to leave work for the colorist to fill-in. That would be leaving an opening for someone else to push the medium.

Whoever you're describing, it's not Romita Jr. or Bagley.

[Locusmortis]

Doesn't sound much like criticism to me. I agree with him that if Kirby came along today drawing exactly as he did back in the day, he'd probably struggle to find work at Marvel or DC. But that's not the situation. Kirby, as you rightly say, was one of the artists who built the foundation of modern comics, but that was then. I'm not saying I dislike Kirby (I fucking adore Kirby), but the point Andrews is making is that we live in a different world. And he's right. Saying that say, Laurel and Hardy movies wouldn't be as successful if they were released in today's movie industry isn't the same as dissing Laurel and Hardy. It's an acknowledgement of reality...

Its a fundamental flaw in the argument though, Kirby's art developed from the origins of the comics industry back in the 30's. If however Kirby were coming on to the market now, he'd be drawing be drawing like an artist now, only better because of his innate talent.

As for his comments about more modern artists, I could go either way on the reality of the situation, but it still doesn't sound to me like he's taking a pop. Down to interpretation of his words, I suppose.

I suppose it is down to interpretation and to me it does sound like he's taking a pop at fast artists. All I can say is back when I was buying Marvel comics I would if possible avoid books drawn by artists like Andrews, Frank and yes Hitch because they were imo more about style over substance whereas artists like JR Jr and Bagley were better storytellers while also producing appealing art. Thats a matter of personal taste and one mans marmite may be another mans caviar.

[Joe Kalicki]

Dude. . . Laurel and Hardy movies are way funnier than most comedies they come out with these days!

[Comicsfan101]

Yes, but people don't go to the movies to see the backgrounds, say. Ultimately, the reason they are there is to see a bunch of frames strung together in some sort of logical sequence.

You do remember your original assertion that started this ridiculous merry-go-round, right? If someone is going to see, for example, an explosions car-chase movie then, for many people, the quality of the explosions and car chases is at least as important as the quality of the story. Hell, there is an entire genre of movies that argue those qualities are more important than the story. Yet you flat out dismiss the idea that the "extra detail" might be important to people, not you. People really do look for different things in movies, TV shows, and yes even comics than you do.

[thekeith82]

1) Where do you get this impression, given Andrews doesn't mention it at all?
2) Assuming you do somehow read this in Andrews' article, where does he get this impression?

The truth is that the level of detail demanded on a page has risen dramatically. Comics aren't 10 cent disposable newsprints anymore. They are a legitimate art form. Paper stock is slick, coloring is high tech, and you can now print as many tones, in as many shades, with as much detail as you can imagine.It's expected from the fans.

That doesn't strike you as being about public perception? Comics were regarded as largely cheap and disposable, and printed accordingly. Do you think he's arguing that comics were printed cheaply because the art was substandard? Because that's not what I'm reading...

[ApeLieUproar]

Comics were regarded as largely cheap and disposable, and printed accordingly. Do you think he's arguing that comics were printed cheaply because the art was substandard? Because that's not what I'm reading...

It does seem rather that way me, yes (especially with comment about "breakdowns"). Also, as I mentioned before, he contradicts himself later in the article about the level of detail that's required today.