See the back for Stan Lee's brainstorming for the title of this issue.
Scans of original art are from the Kirby Museum's Original Art Digital Archive.
Scans of pencil art photocopies for the Kirby Museum's Pencil Art Photocopy Archive courtesy of the Kirby Family, with thanks to TwoMorrows Publishing.
Please do not copy any images or content from this site without permission.
… I would ink Kirby.
"The hammer and the holocaust!" is the perfect description for Colletta's inking.
Because I was gonna say that I thought this was a reasonably pleasant looking Colletta-inked THOR page, I'm glad Krackles doesn't have a hammer that he can toss across the Atlantic from France to Canada -- 'cause if he did, I'd probably be thunderstruck by now!
If it's any consolation to you Johnny S., I like this page too. This is the inking style of Vinnie that I preferred from him. The thin inking instead of that varying line weight he tried doing in future issues of Thor. He has a little line weight here and there to give separation but nothing robust.
...but we'd better watch out, 'cause I think I can hear that hammer flying towards us (or maybe it's just a couple of stale croissants)!
You guys are nuts, I'll crack open that skull of yours and, finally, put some sense in it!
Look at what he did to Jane Foster, totally redrawn as a Colletta's love and romance inept girl.
Pay attention to the way he inked the cape. The foldings are spineless, the cape looks as cheap as a sheet from a supermarket.
His modeling on Thor's arms eviscerated Kirby's pencils lines.
I agree with Frankie, there's nothing robust at all with Colletta's inking.
Okay, Krackles, whatever you say (lol).
i just thought the layout on this splash was a bit flat. i wouldn't think it would be a good place to pass any judgement on poor ol' vinnie.
Are you seriously saying that if anything is wrong with this page it would be Kirby's fault?
That's kind of a preposterous statement.
Could it be that Colletta followers have run out of valid arguments? (If ever they had any to begin with).
What a revoltin' development!
We're looking up at Thor and there's no perspective on Jane Foster--she's straight on. If one was to finish the drawing at the bottom--Jane would need to be standing on a box in order to work with the perspective established. Sure, it's dynamic but Thor has a huge melon compared to Jane's so it's hardly perfect.
I don't mind Colletta's inks here. They do add something even as he likely simplified the buildings in the background. Thor's arms look cool--even if they aren't 100% what Jack would have done. There's something about Vinnie's inks that worked for me--especially at this period.
Looks plenty ugly to my eyes.
I don't get your "melon" comment, Erik, especially since I'm pretty sure Colletta redrew Jane.
I think Erik is referring to Thor's head. And yes, it looks like Jane was mostly redrawn by Colletta. As far as the perspective being off: sure it is -- but so what? Since when was Kirby ever about perfect drawing? As I'm sure Erik is aware, Kirby was about storytelling, first and foremost; and about dramatic effect, second. If the perspective had to be skewed in order to maximize both, as here, then he ususally didn't hesitate to do it.
John is correct. The idea that Kirby's later work suffers from weird distortions not found during the Marvel Silver Age is undercut by page after page of his work from the Silver Age era. Jack put it this way:
“I’ve been told at times to draw like a photograph. In
other words some people feel an artist should draw realistically. I
feel that telling a story is no matter what kind of style you have is
more important than having a nice drawing to look at.
I don’t have to be Michelangelo to be effective.”
Cartoonist Frank Santoro said this about that quote from Kirby:
"truly a modern, 20th century view, no?
He regained the 'magic" of the artist that was lost with the advent of photography somehow...Picasso talked about this: being in opposition to the camera."
In that I like cartooning, and expressive artwork I've got no more interest in seeing inkers "fix" Kirby's work than I would like to see Guernica fixed.
I thought she was one the sidewalk and Thor was standing in the street. Sidewalks just aren't big enough for gods.
I'm with Krackles on this one. Personally, I don't think the layout is flat at all. In fact, I think it's a fairly effective worm's-eye-view (which Kirby didn't use often), combined with a good three-point perspective and three definite, individual compositional elements (Thor, Jane Foster and the buildings), all arranged nicely to enhance the effects of drama and, especially, depth-of-field.
yep, that's right....flat.
i'm saying kirby coulda spared the splash page for some hammer-twirling, rather than the soapy-drama.
c'mon jack; panel pages are for ripe-melodrama & splashes are for ripe-skull-bustin'.
but i don't see anything that vinnie diminished here. his inkin' looks like his standard FILL_IN_THE_BLANK job.
i always liked the cross-hatching/fine-lines (whatevah you call it) he used on his arm.
face it, krackles, if his cape was flared, you wouldn't see jane.
the detail i do like about it (not to say that i don't like it period) is how big thor's hands are.
that's kirby right there.
I love the things Kirby does with proportions. Check out this page:
Those are either some really small feet, or that's one HUGE ant.
Kirby did things like that all the time, and it was for dramatic visual storytelling.
If the shoes were in proportion to the ant they would be so large they would almost fill the panel, obscuring the man reaching down to grab the hero.
If the ants and Ant-Man were were drawn in scale to the shoes they would be so small they would have no impact.
Thank god Greg Theakston didn't ink this Thor page, he would have "corrected" it by making the hands smaller and more "realistic."
TASB, don't you agree Kirby knew a thing or two about storytelling?
What's diminishing here is precisely, Colletta's standard.
By the way, I didn't mention anything about a flared cape.
The way Colletta inked the cape's foldings and Jane is the problem.
I call Colletta style : ink splashing fly's hairy legs running aimlessly.
without a doubt.
but i'd love to see this dialogue as a panel page instead of using the real-estate of the splash for thor's heavy emotional baggage.
and yes, folds, not flare. my mistake.
do you think colletta's inks on thor's legs/arms, for example, look like fly's hair?
i'm just asking...see if i understand your issue.
I like Colletta's inking more seeing the original art here on this site and today's high quality reprints with digital coloring like the Tales of Asgard book. The original comics not so much since the art was muddied up a lot of the time. Old school printing made guys like Chic Stone shine.
I don't know where you guys get this idea that Vinnie redrew Jane. He may have prettied up the face, but I don't think he redrew the whole figure. You think Vinnie who goes out of his way to take things out and simplifying backgrounds is gonna go in and redraw things? No--those figures are all Jack. And according to THAT perspective, if Jane were standing next to Thor she'd be about a foot taller than him. Yes, Jane is standing on the sidewalk and Thor is standing in the gutter of the street. But like you say Johnny S., it was more about the storytelling with Jack. Regardless--I still like this pic a lot.