Title : SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...?
link : SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...?
SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...?
 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Following on from my relatively recent repost about Vince Colletta (here), I thought I'd show you an example of why I think he often gets a 'bum rap' for ruining Jack Kirby's pencil art by missing things out. As I said before elsewhere, I don't think that it was always a case of him taking shortcuts just for the sake of it, but probably because - at least on some occasions - of him applying his own artistic sensibilities to certain panels because he thought it improved their composition.
Take the panel which opens this post. To my eyes, the figure at the back of the crowd in Jack's pencils is too small in relation to Loki, given the seeming short space between the two - and the pavement (sidewalk) looks to be on the same level as the god of mischief's chest, but running up at a slight angle, as opposed to receding away from him at its proper perspective. By removing the almost prostrate figure, the proportions of the fleeing crowd in relation to Loki appears more realistic, the seeming upward slant is lessened, and the general layout improved.
There's no doubt that Vince sometimes simplified or omitted detail that he didn't consider necessary in order to ink the job quicker, but, like I said, I believe there were times when he thought it improved the overall look of the art. Sometimes he misjudged it, but, on balance, I think he usually gave more to the strip (in terms of a pleasing visual appearance) than he took away by leaving anything out.
Stan Lee was presumably (mainly) happy with the results (though I can think of one exception), otherwise he simply wouldn't have given Vince his best artist's pencils to ink. At the end of the day, Thor reportedly sold better when Vinnie inked it than when Bill Everett or George Klein did, so I'd say that surely counts for something. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter - you'll have your own.
'Nuff said.
There's no doubt that Vince sometimes simplified or omitted detail that he didn't consider necessary in order to ink the job quicker, but, like I said, I believe there were times when he thought it improved the overall look of the art. Sometimes he misjudged it, but, on balance, I think he usually gave more to the strip (in terms of a pleasing visual appearance) than he took away by leaving anything out.
Stan Lee was presumably (mainly) happy with the results (though I can think of one exception), otherwise he simply wouldn't have given Vince his best artist's pencils to ink. At the end of the day, Thor reportedly sold better when Vinnie inked it than when Bill Everett or George Klein did, so I'd say that surely counts for something. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter - you'll have your own.
'Nuff said.
Thus Article SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...?
that is all articles SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in a post on other articles.
You are now reading the article SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...? the link address https://tellingguidefor.blogspot.com/2020/09/so-still-thor-at-vince.html
0 Response to "SO - STILL 'THOR' AT VINCE...?"
Post a Comment