|
Post by urrutiap on Feb 15, 2019 17:00:08 GMT -5
Duragizer, I said the new writers working at Marvel.
Do they even know who Valance is at all? I grew up with some of the old issues of Marvel's Star Wars when I was a little kid in 1983 on to 1985 and I still know who Valance is along with some of the other minor characters.
Was issue 107 even the last issue back then? Cant remember if it was but with this new 108 issue, I hope these new writers do a good job of brining back Valance for this new one time issue.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 15, 2019 17:18:08 GMT -5
Was issue 107 even the last issue back then? Cant remember if it was but with this new 108 issue, I hope these new writers do a good job of brining back Valance for this new one time issue. Yes, #107 (September, 1986) was the final issue.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 15, 2019 19:17:11 GMT -5
Duragizer, I said the new writers working at Marvel. I meant to say that if I know who the character is (I'm 31 years old now; first read the comics in my early/mid-20s), then it's likely writers in my age group would, too.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 15, 2019 20:50:00 GMT -5
Duragizer, I said the new writers working at Marvel. I meant to say that if I know who the character is (I'm 31 years old now; first read the comics in my early/mid-20s), then it's likely writers in my age group would, too. Especially if they've got the job of writing a new SW comic book, set in the original Marvel continuity. It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to learn about him: Valance only appeared in 3 or 4 issues, after all, plus they'd have a read of his article on Wookieepedia.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 15, 2019 20:53:57 GMT -5
I meant to say that if I know who the character is (I'm 31 years old now; first read the comics in my early/mid-20s), then it's likely writers in my age group would, too. Especially if they've got the job of writing a new SW comic book, set in the original Marvel continuity. It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to learn about him: Valance only appeared in 4 or 5 issues, after all, plus they'd have a read of his article on Wookieepedia. He was also way cooler than most of the Extended Universe and new movie characters!!!
|
|
|
Post by urrutiap on Feb 15, 2019 21:03:03 GMT -5
Im surprised that the old Marvel Star Wars series was still going on until 1986. Guess I was too busy with elementary school and watching PBS, the usual repeats of Bixby Incredible Hulk on TBS/WGN and watching cartoons on Saturday mornings.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 20, 2019 13:54:55 GMT -5
Just for you Confessor with love. Had read this in the Carmine Infantino: penciler, Publisher, Provocateur book from TwoMorrows. When asked about drawing Star Wars Carmine replies: for Marvel, Star Wars was my best stuff. George Lucas loved my Star Wars work. I was told he requested me. It was a good series to be associated with. And Terry Austin Gave me great inks. Asked as to how much research material was he given for Star Wars? Some. Archie Goodwin said "Just go see the film". He (Archie) sent me (Infantino) some movie stills. Not having seen the 1st movie Archie said, "Carmine, I think you should go see it." So I went and I picked up on it right away. Then you could see how I developed the characters. Lucas liked the stuff I did very much. I was allowed to stray away somewhat from the films with the human characters, the ships and droids and such had to remain on model. Austin ended up doing most of the detail work.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 20, 2019 19:43:27 GMT -5
Wow! Thanks for this, brutalis . This is really interesting and there's a lot to unpack here, but let's start with this... When asked about drawing Star Wars Carmine replies: for Marvel, Star Wars was my best stuff. I...I...don't know what to say. George Lucas loved my Star Wars work. I was told he requested me. Ummm...I don't know how to tell you this, Carmine, but I don't think he did. Both Archie Goodwin and Al Williamson have stated in interviews that the reason why Lucasfilm requested that Williamson draw The Empire Strikes Back adaptation was because George Lucas didn't like the way that Carmine Infantino drew the SW universe. Actually, Williamson was always Lucas's first choice for a SW comic, with the director having initially approached him as early as 1975, way before Marvel even had the license. I don't doubt that Carmine was told by someone at Marvel (Goodwin maybe?) that Lucas had requested him and that Lucas loved his work, but that doesn't jibe with comments that Goodwin and Williamson made in the mid-80s, when memories would've been fresher. It was a good series to be associated with. And Terry Austin Gave me great inks. I agree that Terry Austin gave Infantino great inking. Unfortunately, Austin was only on the series for five issues. Most of Infantino's art was inked by Bob Wiacek or Gene Day, neither of whom jelled as well with him as Austin did, IMHO. Asked as to how much research material was he given for Star Wars? Some. Archie Goodwin said "Just go see the film". He (Archie) sent me (Infantino) some movie stills. Not having seen the 1st movie Archie said, "Carmine, I think you should go see it." So I went and I picked up on it right away. Then you could see how I developed the characters. Lucas liked the stuff I did very much. I was allowed to stray away somewhat from the films with the human characters, the ships and droids and such had to remain on model. Austin ended up doing most of the detail work. Infantino's memory seems to be a little faulty here, since, as mentioned above, Austin only inked five issues of Infantino's art. Day and Wiaceck inked a lot more. The above is really interesting though because I've long been of the opinion that Infantino wasn't particularly interested in drawing the ships and vehicles of the SW universe like they appear in the film. This was the reason why, when Louise Jones came on board as the editor on Star Wars, she had inkers like Tom Palmer "correct" Infantino's ships to make them look more like the versions seen in the movies. Reading the above, it seems that Infantino saw the first film once and was given some movie stills. Reading in-between the lines, I get the sense that he wasn't overly concerned with researching what he was drawing. The fact that Infantino says "the ships and droids and such had to remain on model" boggles my mind, because of all the artists who worked on the comic, Infantino definitely had the shakiest grasp of how to draw the various ships and vehicles correctly. I mean, just look at this X-Wing fighter from issue #20... The inaccuracies in this depiction of an X-Wing include – but are not limited to – it having the wrong number of engines; the engines in the wrong places; no droid socket; incorrectly shaped "S-foils"; and no visible cockpit canopy. Now compare that to the depiction of X-Wings below by Howard Chaykin and Rick Hoberg from much earlier in the run (issue #6, to be precise)... Clearly there's no contest, in terms of movie-like accuracy. The Chaykin/Hoberg X-Wings are much closer to the ILM models. Not that attention to accuracy necessarily makes the art "better" -- that's a matter of personal taste -- but, it does illustrate that Infantino is talking out of his hat when he says, "the ships and droids and such had to remain on model." His drawings of the SW ships did anything but that. Does it say in which year Infantino made these comments? Given that he seems to be misremembering how involved with the comic Terry Austin was, I'm wondering if it was in the early 2010s, some 30+ years after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 21, 2019 7:52:56 GMT -5
Wow! Thanks for this, brutalis . This is really interesting and there's a lot to unpack here, but let's start with this... When asked about drawing Star Wars Carmine replies: for Marvel, Star Wars was my best stuffI believe Infantino was speaking of just his MARVEL artwork from around that time, primarily being for Spider-Woman, Nova, Star Wars and various filler issues. Does it say in which year Infantino made these comments? Given that he seems to be misremembering how involved with the comic Terry Austin was, I'm wondering if it was in the early 2010s, some 30+ years after the fact.The book was printed 2010, so gotta figure the interview would likely have been around 2008/2009? So I too believe that Infantino like any of was "remembering" things the way he thought or felt them to be and not necessarily as accurate as they could be. We all color our memories to our favor in most respects don't we?!? As to Infantino using reference's...I know he has stated in interviews he has a large reference file he can utilize but you can tell he mostly does his own interpretation of anything and uses references if only to provide basic's and not for accuracy. He is content as long as the art "suggests" or looks similar enough for telling the story.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 21, 2019 13:30:10 GMT -5
I...I...don't know what to say. Say "Carmine Infantino--is a master!!" Then again, I've read Goodwin say Lucas did not like the "Marvel superhero" look applied to his creation (in the way of Marvel's other film adaptations up to that point), not anything about Infantino in particular. Compared to the horror that was the Chaykin adaptation of the first film, Infantino was a major boost to the monthly title. Yet Infantino was accurate & very detailed oriented when it came to adapting the look of the film, as in the examples posted some time ago-- From costume details most artists would never pay attention to, to the wealth of scale-enhancing, so-called "greebles" he always applied to vehicles to match that of the filming miniatures (as seen on the Star Destroyer), Infantino did not simply take on Star Wars like some fill-in artist. He made it his own and captured so much of the unique visual language of the film in a way that was nearly unheard of with film or TV adaptations up to this point in comic book history (with notable exceptions being Perez on Marvel's Logan's Run or Giolitti on Gold Key's Beneath the Planet of the Apes). Aside from creative license with the Millennium Falcon's gun turrets (above), the essence of the weapon and how its used was faithful to the film. Its difficult to argue--in the face of examples--that he was not concerned with the subject he was bringing to the page. Again--artistic license, which can certainly be applied to Al Williamson's Falcon, which he--in turn--based of the very inaccurate Kenner diecast toy from 1979-- ..or the interpretation of Lightsaber hilts--certainly a very distinctive design for each constructed for the Original Trilogy, but rarely did non-Infantino artists ever make it appear to be nothing more than a smooth vacuum cleaner attachment, or glorified flashlight compared to the film props-- Unless they were basing a panel on a very familiar publicity still, the weapon was as generic as those cheap, noisemaker knockoffs sold in grocery stores. The point is, that Infantino knew what he was doing and the content's demands. It was one of the reasons he had one of the longer runs on the title (25 issues before the Empire Strikes Back adaptation), with few gaps. He brought one the most distinctive runs any Star Wars comic ever enjoyed, and I argue that Marvel's series would have launched from the right platform if Infantino had adapted Star Wars instead of what we ended up with: the bizarre scribblings of Chaykin.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 21, 2019 18:38:16 GMT -5
Both Archie Goodwin and Al Williamson have stated in interviews that the reason why Lucasfilm requested that Williamson draw The Empire Strikes Back adaptation was because George Lucas didn't like the way that Carmine Infantino drew the SW universe. Actually, Williamson was always Lucas's first choice for a SW comic, with the director having initially approached him as early as 1975, way before Marvel even had the license. Then again, I've read Goodwin say Lucas did not like the "Marvel superhero" look applied to his creation (in the way of Marvel's other film adaptations up to that point), not anything about Infantino in particular. Compared to the horror that was the Chaykin adaptation of the first film, Infantino was a major boost to the monthly title. Well, obviously you and I are never gonna agree on this, because you're a crazy Infantino zealot! But just to correct you, Goodwin didn't say that Lucas "did not like the 'Marvel superhero' look"; what Goodwin said was that Lucas wanted something different to the "Marvel superhero" look for the ESB adaptation. Both Williamson and Goodwin, however, say that Lucas was not a fan of the regular artist on the SW comic in the late '70s. Although no name was given by either of them, it's obvious that Lucas was referring to Infantino, given that he was the regular artist on Star Wars from early 1978 up until the publication of the ESB adaption in mid-1980. Add to that the fact that Lucas was a big fan of Chaykin's work already, and had been pleased that he was on board for the adaptation of the first SW film, and I don't see how Lucas can have been talking about anyone but Infantino. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Yet Infantino was accurate & very detailed oriented when it came to adapting the look of the film, as in the examples posted some time ago-- Except that he wasn't all that accurate. Other than that textured piping down the sleeves, there's lots wrong with the rest of that Rebel flight suit, if you look closely. Also, it should be noted that in that second example, Infantino isn't depicting the Millennium Falcon's gun turret. Luke is sitting in a turret on board the experimental Imperial ship Staraker. Though clearly Infantino was influenced by the Corellian freighter's gun ports as seen in the SW film. As for that final panel of the Star Destroyer, that's some of the wonkiest art that Infantino ever published on SW. The perspective is really messed up on it. The ship seems to be simultaneously coming towards the viewer and going away from the viewer. It's like some weird M.C. Escher drawing. From costume details most artists would never pay attention to, to the wealth of scale-enhancing, so-called "greebles" he always applied to vehicles to match that of the filming miniatures (as seen on the Star Destroyer), Infantino did not simply take on Star Wars like some fill-in artist. I don't doubt that Infantino took his work on SW seriously. But I think he was less interested in depicting the SW universe as it appeared in films faithfully, preferring instead to put his own stylised spin on it. The examples you give above about costume details, detailing on starships etc are not unique to Infantino: the same was done by other regular artists on the book, like Chaykin, Walt Simonson, Ron Frenz and Al Williamson, and done much better, in my view. He made it his own and captured so much of the unique visual language of the film in a way that was nearly unheard of with film or TV adaptations up to this point in comic book history (with notable exceptions being Perez on Marvel's Logan's Run or Giolitti on Gold Key's Beneath the Planet of the Apes). I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I'm afraid. Again--artistic license, which can certainly be applied to Al Williamson's Falcon, which he--in turn--based of the very inaccurate Kenner diecast toy from 1979-- Well, Williamson only used the Kenner toy as a guide in SW #98, "Supply and Demand". Not for his adaptations of ESB or ROTJ. But regardless, it's still a hell of a lot closer to the ILM model of the Falcon than the way Infantino often drew the ship. The point is, that Infantino knew what he was doing and the content's demands. It was one of the reasons he had one of the longer runs on the title (25 issues before the Empire Strikes Back adaptation), with few gaps. He brought one the most distinctive runs any Star Wars comic ever enjoyed, and I argue that Marvel's series would have launched from the right platform if Infantino had adapted Star Wars instead of what we ended up with: the bizarre scribblings of Chaykin. Well, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think Chaykin's adaptation was fine. Not amazing, mind you, but it was perfectly serviceable. He just wasn't overly interested in Star Wars, so he dialed it in somewhat. The inking of Steve Leialoha, Rick Hoberg et al on issues #2-6 made a world of difference to Chaykin's somewhat substandard efforts, and resulted in the majority of the adaptation looking rather nice. It's really only issue #1 that sucks, artwise. On the subject of Infantino, as I said a post or two back, whether or not you liked him playing fast and loose with the look of the various ships, weapons, and droids of Star Wars; or his bizarre design choices, like drawing the blasters in a strangely elongated fashion, or giving Luke Skywalker a Conan the Barbarian-esque mane; or all the hard angles and weird, ungainly poses he put his characters in, is largely a matter of taste. I personally hated the way that Infantino drew SW back in the day, when those issues were coming out, but these days I've mellowed somewhat. I've said it before, but let me just repeat it: Infantino was a master comic book artist -- no doubts there! His panel composition and the "camera angles" he chose always told the stories very well. I just don't believe that he was overly interested in getting the look of George Lucas's universe particularly accurate. Having said that, it should be remembered that, from roughly issue #27 up until the ESB adaptation or so, Goodwin was actually providing very basic sketches for every single panel in the comic for Infantino to follow. So, an awful lot of the story beats and panel composition in those later, pre-ESB issues must've originated with Goodwin, rather than with Infantino. Goodwin was essentially "storyboarding" each issue.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 23, 2019 3:59:17 GMT -5
Well, obviously you and I are never gonna agree on this, because you're a crazy Infantino zealot! Hurls Il Libro di Infantino at Confessor's head! You are referring to one source. I have read Goodwin stating Lucas did not like the "Marvel supehero style" and did not want that on Star Wars. One interview does not necessarily cancel out the other. Being "on board" and the finished work are two different things. The fact he was interested in Williamson before the Marvel adaptation stands as a conflict of his desires, since all that he would have wanted out of Williamson stood in the most extreme contrast to the squiggly mess that was Chaykin at that time. There's no artistic middle ground between Williamson and Chaykin. You've made my point for me: even if that was not the Falcon turret, it clearly shows Infantino was not unaware of the distinctive technical trappings of the Star Wars universe, but in fact, built a consistent technology design one would expect in a shared universe. One splash. There are others showing just how accurate to SW detail he was. Its all there, especially in his early issues (e.g. #15, 19, 29-21, etc.). While I rate Williamson as one of the top 10 greatest comic artists in history, there's no excuse for using a clearly inaccurate toy, especially since he had greater access to photo references of the full-size mock up and miniatures than anyone could imagine, yet he still used the Kenner toy. Either that was gross oversight, or he did not care, thinking "It'll do." It did not, as I was taken out of the story the second I first set eyes on that version of the Falcon, thanks knowing what it was based on. One of the points of comic book film adaptations is not just be "serviceable," but to capture the heart of what made the film appealing in the first place. They are trying to attract anyone (comic readers and the curious) familiar with the film in the hope that they will re-live the film's energy and impact in the illustrated format. As noted before, up to 1977, most film or TV adaptations, from nearly every publisher had been substandard (that's holding back in what kind of analysis they truly deserve) with the exceptions of the two titles mentioned yesterday. Chaykin failed to live up that criteria in the extreme--not only in basic execution, but he seemed to lack an understanding of what he was adapting, as if he jettisoned any attempt to grasp the movement & language of film and how this one in particular was presented in favor of endlessly bizarre angles, facial expressions (rarely fitting the characters in the relevant scenes), and a complete lack of capturing the essence of specific technical look and feel of the film. All one needs to do is look at issue #1--at the Imperial attack on the Blockade Runner--its an erratic mess going nowhere near the detailed, clean design of ship interiors, costuming, and worst of all, Darth Vader. The fact that drastic inking embellishment had to be brought in for the remainder of the adaptation is hard evidence that Chaykin's original work was subpar. On that note, the rest of the adaptation (#2-#6) tossed Star Wars back into common Marvel "hero art" without anything capturing the "living" space-operatic feel of that film. Speaking of fast and loose, you skipped over this specific example of inaccuracies in the non-Inafantino Lightsabers-- Really? Let's take a look at the way some non-Infantino artists handled Luke's hair in comparison to Hamill during the three movie-influenced periods-- Not very accurate to say the least, and this was a consistent issue, as opposed to a one-off mistake. What you're saying does not add up: no one would spend that amount of time adding movie details to the work as seen in both Infantino's US and UK versions of the property if they did not have an interest in bringing the film world to "life" on the page. If he had been disinterested, we would have ended up with rushed, accuracy challenged work such as Chaykin or Martin's "contributions" to Marvel's Star Wars. If one talks about a lack of accuracy to the films. look no further than Cynthia Martin.
Her Bizarro Planet Star Wars ships-- ...and arguably the worst illustration of Luke Skywalker ever committed to board, right next to what had to have been her wrongheaded inspiration-- ...and while you charge Infantino with a lack of visual fidelity with the source, let's look at just a small sample of Chaykin's glaring errors--
A: I see a wedge shape piled with greebles, but its not even close to being screen-accurate, not on the main body, or the missing bridge section. B: Aside from the incorrect Falcon cockpit window & control panels, since when did the cockpit become open concept with the ship's hold? Did Chaykin pay any mind to the photos or see any footage to notice a very clear separation between the cockpit and hold?
C: Where to begin? Nevermind Luke's helmet being completely wrong, but how did Chaykin, et al., see any images (still or actual film) of the training remote (inset, left) only to transform that into the equivalent of an underwater mine (inset, right)? D: The TIE Fighter? Take your pick with the small "wing"/panels, the misshapen cockpit...
With Chaykin wrong-footing the series from the start, its shocking that after so many top artists--actually a few legends in between--that the PTB behind Marvel's Star Wars brought in the completely unqualified Cynthia Martin to handle one of the biggest licensed properties of that era. Since she was the artist when the title was cancelled, her run serves as a terrible bookend, with Chaykin's inaccurate scribblings forming the other end--both truly wrong for what Star Wars needed as a comic adaptation. I'm aware of Goodwin's comments about that, but how much they were followed (if at all) is wide open for serious debate, as Infantino's SW work shared the same, distinctive look of character expression, scene angles and action set pieces Infantino had mastered long before Goodwin was in the industry. This was a guy who not only mastered the art of comic book illustration in too many ways to count, but laid out covers for the likes of Neal Adams, easily moved to Warren, etc. with nothing less than success, so the level of followed input from Goodwin seriously inspires a raised eyebrow of doubt.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 1, 2019 10:05:54 GMT -5
...and arguably the worst illustration of Luke Skywalker ever committed to board, right next to what had to have been her wrongheaded inspiration-- I'd bet three donuts that this was primarily the work of Whilce Portacio. I think we've gone down the Star Wars inception rabbit hole, no offense to Jaxxon. I'm trying to defend Cynthia Martin in a thread where you're defending Carmine Infantino. Poor Confessor is going to have a coronary.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Mar 6, 2019 16:31:07 GMT -5
How do you guys think the original Marvel Star Wars run compares to the two other attempts at ongoing classic trilogy Star Wars comics? The 2013 Dark Horse series only lasted for twenty issues when Disney (and Marvel) got the Star Wars rights. There was some lovely anime style art in the early issues, but I found the stories were a bit too heavy and lacking in action and adventure. It attempted to give a bit more depth to the characters, such as having Leia deal with losing Alderaan, something the original Marvel run did as well. Then you've got the current ongoing Marvel series, which started in 2015. The artwork is absolutely first class, including the likes of Lenil Yu and Stuart Immonen, and the writing almost perfectly captures the seat-of-the-pants Star Wars vibe. On the other hand, there's a lot of fan service, with scenes like Boba Fett hunting down Luke and Dengar hunting down Chewie, and Han, Leia and Chewie fighting with lightsabers; and it doesn't invent new characters and stories to anything like the same degree as the original Marvel series. Interestingly though, it does follow the original Marvel series by flashing back to old adventures of Obi-Wan. I would say this series is for anyone who thought the original Marvel Star Wars was too off piste, it's incredibly authentic.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 6, 2019 16:46:45 GMT -5
How do you guys think the original Marvel Star Wars run compares to the two other attempts at ongoing classic trilogy Star Wars comics? I found both Dark Horse's and Marvel's latter-day series' worthless. Chalk it up to burnout and ennui.
|
|