Thanks to Charlie Horse 47 and Killdumpster for their sponsorship of this post, via the magic of Patreon.
***
 |
| Image by Tumisu from Pixabay |
Hark!
What is that sound?
Why, I do believe it's the sound of flags, cheering and booing.
It can only mean the World Cup of football is well and truly upon us.
It's the no-holds-barred return of the feature in which you The Reader get to decide what is to be the day's topic of debate.
That topic may be that very World Cup itself or it could be something so unrelated to it that the human mind itself will have to bend itself back upon itself to achieve the necessary directional change.
That is entirely up to you.
Therefore, feel free to get in there while the iron is hot and launch that topic. And we shall see just what is unleashed upon us all.
Posts
13 comments:
George Perez & his Art
(Some uninformed speculations)
With “50 Years Ago” featuring the Avengers' 'Squadron' tales, George Perez deserves a second glance, to my mind.
In my final Marvel years, George Perez ( neck-and-neck with Byrne), was at his zenith (Bill Sienkiewicz just starting to appear! ) Which Perez pieces shone? Captain Britain vs Spider-man's cover ( MTU # 65). The UK re-printed that George Perez masterpiece bigger, and with brighter colours, in1980(?), on Captain Britain's second Summer Special cover. A 'Perez cover-Byrne interior' winning formula, for MTU # 65, also worked for X-Men # 112 (my first & favourite X-Men), and Avengers # 166 ( Nefaria), & its predecessors.
Other Perez masterpieces? Possibly George Perez's greatest masterpiece is Ultron's first arc finale (Avengers # 162.) 'The Bride of Frankenstein' & the Oedipus complex were combined (!) by Jim Shooter & George Perez, whilst anticipating the Korvac Saga's ending ( Avengers seemingly 'dying' – for tragic impact – with the team's victory helped by their antagonist's bride! )
In the UK, Marvel Superheroes Monthly featured that story ( December 1979 – the 'White Issue' – following 'the Black issue' – Ant-Man – the month before. Opposite colours powerfully delineating landmark Marvel Superheroes issues! Incidentally, the Black issue's on Kenny Everett, one episode, held by a dancer! ) Avengers # 162 ( UK's 'White Issue') being absolute top, the prior two George Perez issues shone, too. All were incredible!
( Despite George Perez's ground-breaking brilliance, on the Avengers, I just wished he'd have given Captain America a larger shield, though. Knuckle-to-elbow, Cap's shield resembled a big frisbee. A much larger, Cap # 215 George Tuska-shield's bullet-fire protection would ge greater! )
In MTIO # 64, Perez's Stingray was brilliant, too. Likewise, in the same month, his Taskmaster (Avengers # 196). Regarding Taskmaster fighting multiple opponents simultaneously, with martial arts strikes, George Perez's experience on 'Deadly Hands of Kung Fu' obviously informed that! It taking years to become “an overnight success”, was lost on 9 or 10 year old me, unfortunately! ( And, in turn, George Perez's Taskmaster experience informed Deathstroke the Terminator, whose costume wasn't entirely dissimilar! )
George Perez's best art had a novelty to it, compared with his predecessors. A special quality – something ineffable – hard to put into words. To recognize that novelty, George Perez's art needs comparing with previous, not later, art. That perspective won't be obvious, for modern readers; it just can't be. ( a similar point b.t. tactfully expressed to me, a while back, in respect of Marshall Rogers – whom I'd only read years later – taking over Batman. )
Regarding George Perez's Stingray, next issue's finale ( MTIO # 65), unfortunately, wasn't Perez-finished. ( MTIO # 65 losing Perez – c.f. Defenders # 25's finale losing Bob McLeod; and Avengers # 177 losing Perez for Korvac's conclusion; likewise, Power Man & Iron Fist # 53 – the Deadly
Nightshade Trology's finale - Zeck swapped for Sal. Winning art-teams absent from the field, for a continuing storyline's ending, seemed a 70s/80s occupational hazard! Or, the spinner-rack missed the conclusion altogether. Yes, X-Men # 137 - I mean you! )
To backtrack – art quality, not chronology, being the focus! - my first ever George Perez comic was The Complete Fantastic Four's final issue ( The Thing vs Power Man.) A good, solid issue, art-wise, by George Perez, with a terrific, bright cover. But, Perez's Ultron art brilliance being the high-bar – his Fantastic Four wasn't equivalent, at all. The Frightful Four's try-outs (Texas Twister, Ultra- man,Tigra, etc, ) likewise, good, solid work – but Ultron standard? Not at all.
Comparing 'The Inhumans' (in Blockbuster Monthly) with 'The Avengers', aged 10/11, I didn't connect their art at all, despite George Perez drawing both. Flatness / two-dimensionality rears its ugly head, in 'The Inhumans'! Black Bolt's as flat as pancake, in Blockbuster # 4, his fallen body crowed over, by a triumphant Shatterstar. Not Ultron-quality, at all. ( Shatterstar was well depicted, though, helmeted characters – c.f. Stingray - being a Perez forte! )
Nevertheless, digression's the ultimate sin, so...
My starting point, for George Perez, was the Squadron Avengers issues.
Here's my problem. George Perez was outstanding, artistically, in Ultron's first arc ( Starhawk vs Korvac likewise.) Those Squadron issues, however, were not outstanding! Good, solid issues, not masterpieces. Don't get me wrong. Classic Perez is there – the Vision vs Lady Lark/Hyperion, for example. Nevertheless, his art's uneven over the issues, taken as a whole.
So, the problem's what, exactly? From recent memory (sister blogs) – not close observation – here's some quick observations:
1.) Some “shots” appear flat/two dimensional. There's no background – figures just set against
plain white. No context for the featured character, in other words.
2.) Round/square faces plague many characters, with chins of great width – the women included! Those rotund faces hog entire small panels, sometimes!
3.) Some characters get a “cartoony” look, with 'cutesy' features/mouths.
4.) In group shots, characters 'profiled' to the “camera”/reader - or facing away. Emotion/expression thus being absent!
5.) Drawing main characters at a room's very back (“Long-shots” ), robbing faces of expression – c.f. facing away. For me, “Long shots” are a particular bug-bear. ( In his Copperhead Daredevils, Bob Brown even drew “long shot” fights. Unlike Colan & Palmer whose DD, readers never had trouble making out! )
6.) Just occasionally, is cramping/crowding a slight problem, perhaps?
Was Vince Colletta to blame ( Colletta's eraser reputation? ), with plain white backgrounds, behind figures, in certain panels? ( Vinnie being the 'impossible deadlines' inker, your scratchily-inked issue hit the spinner rack, at all, via Vinnie's eraser! ) It's possible, but Vince Colletta can't always be blamed. The Squadron issues involved other inkers, too! Nor can rotund faces, face-orientation, long shots, etc, be blamed on the inker.
( Inkers can, perhaps, bear responsibility for facial features, however. A later Ultron issue – Avengers # 202 – also in a Marvel Pocket book, as “This Evil Undying!” – had Esposito, not Pablo Marcos, inking George Perez. Cap's facial features suffer, significantly, as a result – right from the first splash/panel – as do Jan's, later in the comic! )
Luckily, in Ultron's first arc finale(Avengers # 160-62), the above problems didn't rear their ugly heads! Flatness, and 2-dimensionality disappear, through George Perez's 'foregrounding'. In front of the main characters, Perez places an Avengers chair-top, at a panel's bottom, or a large fraction of a character watching them, for a distinct foreground, and background. ( The technical term being 'overlapping/interposition', according to the internet! ) Overlapping/interposition's employed right from page one, in the Ant-Man issue, with Ant-Man's figure, watching in the foreground, in front of the Avengers, in the background! With that trick, complex “perspective lines”, like John Buscema's in “How To Draw Comics the Marvel Way”, are probably unnecessary! Interposition also solves the “long shot” issue of characters, at a room's far end, with faces readers need a magnifying glass to see. Just draw regular size figures ( i.e. fairly large), then sketch an Avengers chair-top, or part of a head/torso/arm in front, a false “foreground” providing depth to the scene!
Cramping/crowding problems? Writing and art both solve it! Few Avengers crowd the page, many being 'off the table'/ hors de combat!( Ultron's encephallo ray 'killed' – supposedly - the Vision, Cap, Wanda, etc! ) Jim Shooter used that trick again, when the Collector started spiriting Avengers away. As a kid, the writer preventing his story looking cramped on the page, through such plot-devices, never occurred to me!
In Avengers # 162 (Ultron's first arc finale), George Perez also solves crowding/cramping with character 'pairings'. In the lab, you get the Ant-Man & Ultron depicted together. Likewise, Jan & Jocasta, the life-energy transference happening. Next, the Avengers are split into Iron Man and the Black Panther, then Wonder-man & Thor. Perez's characters, in pairs, are large enough for plenty of detail, from himself and Pablo Marcos – something impossible, with lots of Avengers in panels. ( The final battles's a trio – Thor, Wonder-man & Iron Man - vs Ulron. But, that's do-able.)
Clearly, 'pairing' was frequent. Starhawk vs Korvac, I mentioned earlier (inadvertently.) Whilst Ms. Marvel & Cap bantering together, in a later Perez Avengers, Sean & I discussed, a while back.
This “pairing trick” is nothing new, I know. Cockrum employed it, in Giant-Sized X-Men # 1, the Krakoa/Living Island story (a sister blog pointed this out, a while back). The Avengers/Defenders clash also springs to mind.
'Pairing' being a stock trick or not, George Perez nevertheless carries it off with aplomb, in Ultron's first arc. Like George Perez's 'Squadron Avengers', King-Sized X-Men Annual # 3 also lacked Ultron's brilliance. K-SXA #3 being the Arkon story ( but with Storm instead of Wanda/Thor!). To me,
K-SXA #3 was a puzzle! X-Men # 112 ( 'Magneto Triumphant!' ) had a Perez cover I loved. And, on the Avengers, Perez & Marcos being a match made in heaven, following Byrne & Austin's brilliant X-Men run, Perez & Austin seemed an obvious combination to try. And, in K-S XM # 3, Perez & Austin's talents fimally, historically, combine! Unfortunately, King-Sized X-Men Annual
# 3's art is distinctly “off ”, to me, some great depictions of Storm, and Wolverine, notwithstanding! One of the BITBA gang nominated K-SXM '3 his all-time fave, I recall! Sadly, I couldn't concur.
To me, flatness/2-dimensionality plagued K-SXMA #3's panels, in many instances. Was it the wide, horizontal panels – Danger Room long shots, perhaps? ( In the Avengers, large interior spaces, like 'Drydock', didn't trouble Perez, at all! ) Or the Arkon's homeworld battle-scene, with Colossus commandeering a dragon, perhaps? Yet other flat/2-D scenes abounded too, besides! Did fore-grounding's absence make some of K-SXMA #3's scenes flat? Weren't X-Men chair-tops positioned at panel bottoms, etc? No, foregrounding of certain kinds is achieved. A rather odd problem's happening, to my eye. Background subjects are sized equal to, & sometimes larger than, similar foreground subjects. Ignoring perspective like that creates a flat look, to certain scenes. Even panels just featuring heads, have background heads sized at least equal to foreground heads!
Did George Perez have perspective problems in Jim Shooter's Avengers as well, me just being too young to notice it? I got the Grim Reaper Avengers story out to settle the point, once and for all! No perspective problems here, even looking with adult eyes. Absolutely fantastic Perez art's all over the place! A kneeling Vision, cradling the 'dead weight' of Wanda's (seemingly comatose) body, one of the stand-outs!
Here's the crucial point. Foreground faces are larger than background faces, with perspective correctly applied, as it should be. So, why's George Perez's art so brilliant here, but not in K-SXMA # 3, or the Squadron Avengers? Jim Shooter said he sketched little stick-figures, showing his artists what camera angles he wanted. Did the difference happen there? Did Pablo Marcos help? Or, were inferior issues rushed by Perez, with time the decisive factor?
Does anyone else have opinions about Perez, or any other artists?
Redartz & dangermash's art backgrounds make for more informed comments, compared with mine.
b.t. & Sean's context's wider.
Charlie's been to sophisticated European capitals.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Phillip
Not seen too much of him to be honest but I just took a quick look and Avengers #162 and Avengers Vol3 #19.
Liking what I see in #162. Reminds me a lot of Kirby comics vaguely around FF #50-100 and maybe even Dave Cockrum in some of those early new X-Men issues. Pablo Marcos inks over the top are clean and heavy, like Chic Stone, very nice. Classic silver age style artwork still around in the bronze age.
Not so keen on what I see in Vol3 #19. Too much detail, too much "violence and destruction" in the artwork for my tastes. But that was the trend at the time. The same trend that in a Todd McFarlane Spider-Man comic would have me moaning about teeth, saliva and individual webbing fibres. The artist inside me is wondering whether detailed subjects with less detailed backgrounds would be better on the eye - it's generally a mistake to create a painting with a similar level of detail everywhere. In this issue Perez might have benefited from. Giacoia style inker simplifyng his backgrounds.
And, taking a look back at #162 afterwards, yeah, that seems more detailed than the Kirby and Cockrum artwork that preceded it now I think about it.
Didn't notice any of the problems that you talked about. I wasn't deliberately looking out for them though - just thought I'd look through and see if any problems jumped out at me.
dangermash - Thanks for giving it a once-over, with your trained eye! Giacoia's always interested me - but his earlier stuff, I didn't grow up with. On Nova's Firefly issue, I thought Giacoia's inks absolutely outstanding. Giacoia's DD issue (inking Buckler), with Angar, impacted me greatly, too. But, on other occasions, I found Giacoia ordinary. b.t. pointing out Giacoia's eyes had life in them, whereas Esposito's didn't, made me notice an obvious point I'd missed. I'll look at Giacoia's backgrounds more closely, now you've highlighted it!
Phillip
Giacoia -> Coletta
Sorry Phillip - I meant Coletta not Giacoia
i was never a Giacoia fan. Hated his inking over Kane. Kane with Romita inking was great, Kane with Giacoia grating. I do remember checking some old issued after b.t. made that point about the eyes, though, and he was bang on.
dangermash - Oh, right! As regards V.C. - I'd NEVER pair him George Perez, given the choice. Pablo Marcos, through proven experience, is definitely best.
Phillip
Alas Charlie cannot offer a meaningful contribution because he has had minimal exposure to Perez but through his Teen Titans as far as he can recall.
My general feelings 45 (?) years ago were that his work was not as bombastic (?) as Kirby, Buscema, et al. of the preceding decade or two.
But it must have been good enough because i did have a run of TT of like 20 issues? Please nobody fact check me; I am going on recall.
PHILLIP- as always thank you for your wrritings! I learn a lot from them!
Big Joe
Joe - I had a couple of those Perez Teen Titans, with Deathstroke. To me, they were pretty good, but not Avengers level, by any stretch of the imagination. If you're a bit hazy on them, I'm guessing they probably didn't impact you massively, either. I just remember Deathstroke's combat training tip, about learning to think in circles!
Phillip
Post a Comment