Krackles's picture
Posted by: Krackles | December 1, 2012

Dig a Hole…

…Dig a Mole!

ken bastard's picture
Posted by: ken bastard | December 1, 2012

Big Ben

Love Mr. Grimm's foot breaking the panel.

Krackles's picture
Posted by: Krackles | December 2, 2012

Do the Right Thing!

Love the way Kirby does the Thing.
Nobody could tailor convincing facial expression and body language like Jack did.

Erik Larsen's picture
Posted by: Erik Larsen | January 17, 2014

It wasn't often that Jack drew characters breaking the border--

But there he goes with the Thing's foot stepping out of the panel!

Rand HOPPE's picture
Posted by: Rand HOPPE | January 17, 2014

Foot

Zooming in, it looks like could be Sinnott fixing an awkward alignment, no?

drdroom's picture
Posted by: drdroom | January 18, 2014

Could easily

...have been Sinnott's decision. Interesting that golden-age Kirby was all about breaking frame and flexible panel layout, while SA Kirby is so much the opposite. Someone must have written a piece about this, right?

Krackles's picture
Posted by: Krackles | January 19, 2014

Breaking the Borders

Charles Hatfield did write about it in « Hands of Fire ».

Erik Larsen's picture
Posted by: Erik Larsen | January 19, 2014

You're right--I hadn't zoomed.

It looks like it was a Sinnott call, trying to address a pesky tangent.

ken bastard's picture
Posted by: ken bastard | January 19, 2014

This may...

...have been covered elsewhere but exactly what issue did the change in artwork size occur for the FF and Thor? I'm asking because as a student of Kirby and Sinnott, and, yes, Colletta, it always amazes me at how loose the inking really is on these pages. You can see it clearly when you zoom. Time was of the essence and your livelihood was on the line. When you look at these pages as they were printed in the 60's there is a tightening up of the line when it was reduced. This happens nowadays, of course, even with digital. I guess what I am asking is were these guys aware of the "tightening up" of their line after reduction or not?
I can remember Bernie Wrightson complaining about the loss of detail in the printed work he was doing in the 70's and it was one of the reasons he started doing work for Warren not long after Swamp Thing.
Jack, being one of the grandfathers of comics going back to the Golden Age, was well aware of how his stories would look upon reproduction and tailored his work accordingly--- until the change in paper size-- which apparently threw him for a loop at the time.
What made me think of this was a visit to the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge MA. When I saw his actual paintings in front of me I saw that they were painted much looser(sic) than they appear on the printed page. Even in expensive Coffee Table Books. Great gashes of very on-purpose strokes of paint. Painted on a surface that measured 3'x5' meant for reproduction at 10"x15".
These guys were long-time pro's so I'm assuming they were aware of how the art would look on the page.
I guess I've answered my own question. I'm rambling because I'm trying to find the "Sweet Spot" where the line I draw is the line that appears upon reproduction... I've also had a few Jameson's on a nice Sunday afternoon so be kind!

Krackles's picture
Posted by: Krackles | January 19, 2014

Seize the Size

If I remember correctly, with the Fantastic Four as a reference point, it happened right after the « Him » storyline.
That would be with issue 68 that the use of the smaller size artboard started.

Erik Larsen's picture
Posted by: Erik Larsen | January 19, 2014

Thor 146 is the first smaller

Thor 146 is the first smaller art issue. FF #68 is the first smaller art issue. I also think Tales of Suspense #95 is the first with smaller art although I can't be sure about Gene Colan's part. The clues are bigger lettering and gutters and more consistent grids. The earlier art tended to have a taller top tier.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.