New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!) 6 6

[Nexus]

Yes, of course not everything sucked in the '90s. Of course not everything was perfect in the '80s. But on balance? No comparison.

To be fair, there was one truly great release in the '90s: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS 10th Anniversary Box Set. Still the best DKR package ever put out!

 

[ESeffinga]

Hrm. I think there was probably a pretty equatable level of greatness to suckitude, personally. As there probably has been in every era. But I guess as with everything, it also depends on what you are into and what's important to each individual collector.

[Nexus]

6 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

But I guess as with everything, it also depends on what you are into and what's important to each individual collector.

That's exactly right.

This is all largely a function of age and when we were most emotionally affected by comics. I'm sure if I was 10 years younger, I'd be a staunch defender of the '90s, too. As it is, I was already too old to be wowed by big pouches, broken backs (per Pete), and shiny covers.

Along those lines, I've got a collector buddy who's 10 years older than me, who can't be bothered to hide his contempt for the '80s. It's all '70s for him!

So...to each their own. Like what you like, don't like what you don't like...why care what anyone else thinks?

[malvin]

Didn't long halloween and dark victory come out in the 90's? Those are seminal Batman storylines!

And of course, Alan Moore's Supreme came out in the 90's, I don't have to say how Awesome* that run was

Malvin

* - pun intended

[Brian Peck]

For OA collectors it wasn't just the new artists and companies in the 90s that changes things. It was the switch to digital for some aspects and the internet. Mid-90s is when lettering started to disappear from comic art pages later pencilers would scan their artwork and email it to the inkers. So now there are two separate pieces of artwork that were part of creating the comic page. Even worse pages created all digital. For the traditional comic art collector it was a big change and some were not as interested in the art because of it.

[furthur]

21 hours ago, biglouv said:

My Brush with Scott Free and a Small Mystery.

Thanks very much for the interview.  I answered and bought a partial DK page through the one time CBG ad and wondered for a long time who Scott Free really was.

My story – Like many of you, I was totally blown away by the Dark Knight and when I saw that ad, I jumped at the chance and called right away.  I was not really an art collector but I had a few pieces and was already an FM fan.  I called as soon as I saw it and spoke to Scott.  I recall the conversation and he asked me how much I was looking to spend. I told him that I was looking for a page with Batman on it.  He offered me 2 choices, 1 that was published with Batman, Robin, and Supes -- and one that FM did not use but was similar to the published piece and was almost fully inked with Batman, Robin and Alfred.  I chose the published piece and we closed the deal.  I asked if he could have FM sign it and he said no problem.  I mailed the check and a couple weeks later I got the page.  I loved it then and still love it today.

Knowing nothing about the split between FM and Klaus and having no idea of duplicate pages, I took the page a few years later to a show for Klaus to sign it.  I asked and he took a quick look at it and said “That’s a Frank page.”  I asked him that he meant Frank inked it and he said yes.   I never thought at that time to dig deeper. I wish I had because it was many years later when I learned of all the issues.

Also some years later, I asked FM at a show who Scot Free was and he just kind of shrugged and blew it off.  He was nice about it but I just assumed it had been many years and he didn’t recall the details.  Again I wish I pressed for more details.

Now the mystery.  I still have the cancelled check.  It was dated 2/19/1988 and cashed on the 25^th.  That means the ad could not have run before the 1987 SDCC.  If I dated it the 19^th, I can promise you that it was only a day or two after I spoke with Scott.  So I imagine that ad ran in a CBG the first 2 weeks of that month.  So is Benno’s picture of the 1988 SDCC? Or did Scott just mis-remember and this was run with leftover DK stock in 1988? Neither seems right but after listening to the podcast, I would love to know the correct timeline. It was 30 years ago  --  I surely don't remember all the details but I have the check.

Thanks again for the podcast.  It was a blast from the past to hear this story from Scott.

My Picture is definitely from 87-it was the only year I went until the mid 2000's. I would guess you were correct about the ads appearing after the show rather than before it. Otherwise, I can't imagine that there would have been the same volume of material from DKR 1 and 4 that was at the show-it might not have been complete, but there were certainly many key pages. Of course they could have run just before the show, but because of the slowness of getting the CBG back then, the bulk of the folks who saw it may have gotten it after the show even if it ran in an issue timed to come out before the show. Just as a historical FYI,  Bernie Wrightson's art to all of "Cycle of the Werewoif" was also sold at that show. I wanted to get my birthday month (November) which was an awesome piece of a cemetery , but it got nixed by my girlfriend for reasons best left for another day (though I did explain it in my article about Bernie for the latest issue of the  CFA-apa which will be coming out soon!)

[J.Sid]

Don't forget Preacher and 300

Edited May 16, 2017 by J.Sid

[feder241]

23 hours ago, biglouv said:

My Brush with Scott Free and a Small Mystery.

Thanks very much for the interview.  I answered and bought a partial DK page through the one time CBG ad and wondered for a long time who Scott Free really was.

My story – Like many of you, I was totally blown away by the Dark Knight and when I saw that ad, I jumped at the chance and called right away.  I was not really an art collector but I had a few pieces and was already an FM fan.  I called as soon as I saw it and spoke to Scott.  I recall the conversation and he asked me how much I was looking to spend. I told him that I was looking for a page with Batman on it.  He offered me 2 choices, 1 that was published with Batman, Robin, and Supes -- and one that FM did not use but was similar to the published piece and was almost fully inked with Batman, Robin and Alfred.  I chose the published piece and we closed the deal.  I asked if he could have FM sign it and he said no problem.  I mailed the check and a couple weeks later I got the page.  I loved it then and still love it today.

Knowing nothing about the split between FM and Klaus and having no idea of duplicate pages, I took the page a few years later to a show for Klaus to sign it.  I asked and he took a quick look at it and said “That’s a Frank page.”  I asked him that he meant Frank inked it and he said yes.   I never thought at that time to dig deeper. I wish I had because it was many years later when I learned of all the issues.

Also some years later, I asked FM at a show who Scot Free was and he just kind of shrugged and blew it off.  He was nice about it but I just assumed it had been many years and he didn’t recall the details.  Again I wish I pressed for more details.

Now the mystery.  I still have the cancelled check.  It was dated 2/19/1988 and cashed on the 25^th.  That means the ad could not have run before the 1987 SDCC.  If I dated it the 19^th, I can promise you that it was only a day or two after I spoke with Scott.  So I imagine that ad ran in a CBG the first 2 weeks of that month.  So is Benno’s picture of the 1988 SDCC? Or did Scott just mis-remember and this was run with leftover DK stock in 1988? Neither seems right but after listening to the podcast, I would love to know the correct timeline. It was 30 years ago  --  I surely don't remember all the details but I have the check.

Thanks again for the podcast.  It was a blast from the past to hear this story from Scott.

I had no idea about the different inked versions between Klaus and Frank until I got The Dark Knight Gallery Edition. Does anyone know how that worked? I always assumed that inks were done on top of the original pencilled pages. If so how you one go about re-inking something? Where the re-inked pages on top of pencilled photocopies? Since there are multiple copies of a page that's what must have happened right?

BTW great podcast Felix, keep up the great work!

Edited May 16, 2017 by feder241

[Flambit]

Finally heard Scott's podcast!  Great stuff! 

And thanks to both Felix and Scott for the shout out!

-Sam

[J.Sid]

Yeah, so for example that book 1 splash Scott is holding in the pic.... After listening to the podcast, is it safe to assume that that one would have been LIGHTBOXED by Janson? (along with pretty much everything else.)

No stats = Klaus did a good job on the page which he both lightboxed and inked, right?
Stats = Miller pencils are under the statted panels only. The rest of the page was light boxed.

 

[jjonahjameson11]

5 hours ago, Nexus said:

That's exactly right.

This is all largely a function of age and when we were most emotionally affected by comics. I'm sure if I was 10 years younger, I'd be a staunch defender of the '90s, too. As it is, I was already too old to be wowed by big pouches, broken backs (per Pete), and shiny covers.

Along those lines, I've got a collector buddy who's 10 years older than me, who can't be bothered to hide his contempt for the '80s. It's all '70s for him!

So...to each their own. Like what you like, don't like what you don't like...why care what anyone else thinks?

Felix, you and I are just about the same age and I happen to like the 90's art just as much as the 80's art.  

One thing that's been overlooked in this 80's vs 90's discussion is the rise of Valiant Comics and the huge leap forward in comics colouring by both Valiant and Image Comics.  Comics have never been cheap fodder for newsprint ever since.

[Nexus]

33 minutes ago, J.Sid said:

Yeah, so for example that book 1 splash Scott is holding in the pic.... After listening to the podcast, is it safe to assume that that one would have been LIGHTBOXED by Janson? (along with pretty much everything else.)

No stats = Klaus did a good job on the page which he both lightboxed and inked, right?
Stats = Miller pencils are under the statted panels only. The rest of the page was light boxed.

 

The art Scott is holding up is Miller/Janson, and it's the published page. There's only one. In this case, I do believe Janson inked over Miller's pencils.

In general, I believe Janson inked over Miller pencils. Where Miller redrew panels/pages, I believe he either lightboxed the art himself, or redrew from scratch. So any Janson inks (or assistant inks) would still at least be over Miller pencils.

The page below has two versions. One is the unpublished Miller/Janson version (in the scan). The other is the published all-Miller version. (I don't have scan readily available of that version, but I think it was reproduced in the Gallery Edition.) This would seem to be clear evidence that Miller redrew the art later, as the "HAHAHAHA" and "KKKRAAAK" sound effects are statted from the earlier Miller/Janson version and pasted onto the new all-Miller art.

As well, you can see the page I own in my gallery, which is a Miller/Janson page, with all-Miller patch panels. The Batman panels were redrawn by Miller and pasted over the original Janson-inked panels.

[Nexus]

16 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Felix, you and I are just about the same age and I happen to like the 90's art just as much as the 80's art.  

Look, I don't hate ALL '90s art. I'm not knee-jerk anti-'90s. I still bought comics in the '90s and *shock* I own art from then.  I do think, however, that quality-wise, it was mostly a step down from the '80s.

 

 

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Look, I don't hate ALL '90s art. I'm not knee-jerk anti-'90s. I still bought comics in the '90s and *shock* I own art from then.  I do think, however, that quality-wise, it was mostly a step down from the '80s.

 

 

I agree with that, I think its impossible not to look at it objectively and not come to that conclusion.   We've had some threads where we ranked era before and the idea that the back half of the 70s were (mostly) not very good (admittedly with some jewels amid the drek) and the front half of the 90s were not very good is just... I dunno, fact?   I mean yes its opinion but on the continuum of opinion vs fact boy its pushing right up against fact.   

The late 90s on the other hand got a lot better as they returned to focussing on story and as new properties sprung up.

The 80s, while it had good work and bad work, had no prolonged stretch of pervasively poor quality product... the whole decade was pretty good, really.   

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Bronty

[Bronty]

11 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I agree with that, I think its impossible not to look at it objectively and not come to that conclusion.   We've had some threads where we ranked era before and the idea that the back half of the 70s were (mostly) not very good (admittedly with some jewels amid the drek) and the front half of the 90s were not very good is just... I dunno, fact?   I mean yes its opinion but on the continuum of opinion vs fact boy its pushing right up against fact.   

The late 90s on the other hand got a lot better as they returned to focussing on story and as new properties sprung up.

The 80s, while it had good work and bad work, had no prolonged stretch of pervasively poor quality product... the whole decade was pretty good, really.   

 

To build on that, to me, there are clear reasons.  

In the mid 70s a lot of the most exciting talents of the early 70s were leaving comics or sharply reducing output, and the old guard (Kirby etc) were retiring.   It left a talent void, and it took a while to fill it.

In the early 90s there was also a void, of story, because of the road the industry went down, and it took a while for the industry to realize the jig was up and to fill the void by returning to basic principles of quality story.

The back half of the 50s wasn't super interesting either as whole... a void, this time of risk-taking, caused by legal scares of the comics code.  

The 80s were a relatively stable time, as were the 60s, from a business perspective, so the overall quality of the output was on average a little higher than during some of the other eras.   (Obviously each era has its exceptions).

Edited May 17, 2017 by Bronty

[J.Sid]

51 minutes ago, Nexus said:

The art Scott is holding up is Miller/Janson, and it's the published page. There's only one. In this case, I do believe Janson inked over Miller's pencils.

In general, I believe Janson inked over Miller pencils. Where Miller redrew panels/pages, I believe he either lightboxed the art himself, or redrew from scratch. So any Janson inks (or assistant inks) would still at least be over Miller pencils.

 So you think Miller was doing the lightboxing, and not Klaus?

The interview implied Klaus was instructed to lightbox copies of the pages before inking, right? Scott claims "...Frank had his pencils still..."

 

[J.Sid]

So, the lettering at the time (Dark Knight) was done before the inking, right?

[biglouv]

15 hours ago, furthur said:

My Picture is definitely from 87-it was the only year I went until the mid 2000's. I would guess you were correct about the ads appearing after the show rather than before it. Otherwise, I can't imagine that there would have been the same volume of material from DKR 1 and 4 that was at the show-it might not have been complete, but there were certainly many key pages. Of course they could have run just before the show, but because of the slowness of getting the CBG back then, the bulk of the folks who saw it may have gotten it after the show even if it ran in an issue timed to come out before the show. Just as a historical FYI,  Bernie Wrightson's art to all of "Cycle of the Werewoif" was also sold at that show. I wanted to get my birthday month (November) which was an awesome piece of a cemetery , but it got nixed by my girlfriend for reasons best left for another day (though I did explain it in my article about Bernie for the latest issue of the  CFA-apa which will be coming out soon!)

 

10 hours ago, Nexus said:

The art Scott is holding up is Miller/Janson, and it's the published page. There's only one. In this case, I do believe Janson inked over Miller's pencils.

In general, I believe Janson inked over Miller pencils. Where Miller redrew panels/pages, I believe he either lightboxed the art himself, or redrew from scratch. So any Janson inks (or assistant inks) would still at least be over Miller pencils.

The page below has two versions. One is the unpublished Miller/Janson version (in the scan). The other is the published all-Miller version. (I don't have scan readily available of that version, but I think it was reproduced in the Gallery Edition.) This would seem to be clear evidence that Miller redrew the art later, as the "HAHAHAHA" and "KKKRAAAK" sound effects are statted from the earlier Miller/Janson version and pasted onto the new all-Miller art.

As well, you can see the page I own in my gallery, which is a Miller/Janson page, with all-Miller patch panels. The Batman panels were redrawn by Miller and pasted over the original Janson-inked panels.

 

Benno - thanks very much for your reply.  

I think my confusion lies in the way Scott described the scenario with Frank being upset about some pieces being sold and him no longer being involved.  Maybe I misunderstood but since Scott was selling at the 1987 SDCC and the CBG ad was in early 1988, there was a long period of time where he was still selling FM DK art.  I had a sub for the CBG since 1986.  That ad listed in late Jan/Early Feb 1988.  There was no lengthy delay for my delivery  - of that I am certain.  Maybe I'll give a listen through the podcast again in case I missed something.  I guess it's not very important but I was curious of the timeline.

Does anybody have un-inked Dark Knight pages?  I don't ever recall seeing any.  I thought there were: 1. FM/Janson pages -- 2. pages totally redrawn by Frank -- 3.  panels that were drawn by Frank that were used over existing panels.  My partial page is scenario number 3.

It would create quite a stir if it turns out there are separate FM pencils and Janson inked pages.  I am certainly no expert but again, I don't ever recall seeing full un-inked FM pages other than in print.  I believe the Dark Knight Absolute volume shows a bunch of them but I assumed they were stats from before inking.

Thanks as well for your reply, Felix.

 

 

[delekkerste]

On 5/16/2017 at 8:24 AM, Bill C said:

Actually issues #1, 2, and 4 of this series were great- I'd love to own art from them but can't track down the artist. If anyone has any and is willing to move it, feel free to let me know.

I liked ARBBH better than TMNT.  Those early issues were HILARIOUS.  I have tried for years to track down the art.  Unfortunately, Parsonavich has fallen off the radar and does not have an e-mail account from what I was told by series co-creator Don Chin.  

Edited May 17, 2017 by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

20 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Hrm. I think there was probably a pretty equatable level of greatness to suckitude, personally. As there probably has been in every era. But I guess as with everything, it also depends on what you are into and what's important to each individual collector.

I have to respectfully disagree, Eric.  While you are certainly correct in pointing out the genuine highlights of the '90s, those series/runs were a drop in the bucket of the oceans of shyte that were being cranked out to feed the direct market machine and speculator bubble during this time.  We had D-list artists getting gigs because Marvel couldn't crank out books fast enough, many of whom were never heard from again in a published professional comic artist capacity.  You even had guys like Sal Buscema changing their style to fit the Image-esque trend of the day (HORRIBLE).  

The empirical reality is that Just the sheer volume of product produced in this decade guaranteed that the wheat/chaff ratio was much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much lower than in previous decades.  

Edited May 17, 2017 by delekkerste