JACK!

My humble tribute to the King of Comics.
(Jim Steinman-original audio sadly removed due to copyright warning20th of August 2011)

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• jack
• kirby
• comic
• book
• master
• golden
• silver
• age
• fantastic
• four
• new
• gods
• surfer
• hulk
• x-men
• jim
• steinman
• audio
• removed
• due
• to
• copyright
• warning

[thumbsaloft]

I became a cartoonist because of Jack Kirby. His pencil work is unmatched!

[itzjoeymac]

Alright, I will drop it. How about that Buscema tribute you talked about? Lots of good stuff to choose from!

[jmedia1]

@Tabish29 I didn't discount anything! (For a broader scope watch my 100 favorite comics here on yt, if You like).

[Tabish29]

@jmedia1 You're a Marvel fan that's y u discount Batman and Superman, without who there may not have been all these other super heroes. Didn't Dark KNight take in more overall than Spidey? What about how Neal changed the way comic books were drawn period? One man comes along to a medium and then the entire industry is saying huh? Oh God. Now this is one heck of a standard he's set that we are going to have to live up to. 

[jmedia1]

@Tabish29 What about the impact and importance to popular cluture outside comics: Without Jack's co-creations there wouldn't have been all those worldwide Hollywood-Blockbusters HULK, X-MEN, FANTASTIC FOUR, IRON MAN, CAPTAIN AMERICA, upcoming AVENGERS, THOR etc. pp.

[Tabish29]

@jmedia1 You keep bringing up the output. Neal worked on B$B, Batman, Deadman and GL/GA probably not at the same time. However since he IS an illustrator, and Kirby was a concept storyteller, his work took more time. Not rareity, rather to take an established figure and define it as THE look takes immeasurable talent and creativity as well as creating them from scratch.

[jmedia1]

@Tabish29 Some strange conclusions there, Tabish29: So - the other way round - Jack HAD to invent most of modern comic book world - because he couldn't illustrate...?!

OK, next point: OUTPUT: While Jack was producing 3 to 4 books a month for decades, You sometimes had to wait YEARS for another one book from Neil. Please don't fall for the misconception, that everything rare is excellent and everything 'common' out of productive people is 'hack'...

[Tabish29]

@jmedia1 Neal was an illustrator. I already mentioned that he didn't introduce new characters to the comics universe. But such was his skill and power that he did not have to. He took on existing characters and rendered them such that his version(on Batman at least) is to this day, still considered the definitive look. Some Batfans would argue about him vs Rogers. You chose outputs as the criterion. I am choosing images and illustration. Neal wins that round hands down.

[jmedia1]

@Tabish29 That's because Jack wasn't an illustrator in the first place, but a creator and a storyteller, a concept guy and a groundbreaking visionary; he didn't care about pretty pictures or anatomic accuracy too much. His point was to get his story and message across and just to create new characters, new worlds, new modern myths. So a comparison on illustration techniques or skills alone isn't really helpful, I feel. What about comparing - more fact-focussed - their outputs?

[Tabish29]

@jmedia1 I think Neal's first work for a major player was the X-Men and some Avengers work before moving onto DC. Kirby scores a point there. What about anatomy? Realism? Consistency of characters looks and appearances.I hold those more important than historical significance.Because Neal and Aparo were my first artists in DC on my favorite title. In Marvel,Buscema was and still is the master for me. His work leapt out at me. Starlin's run on Captain Marvel is still a sentimental fav for me

[jmedia1]

@Tabish29 You're absolutely right, T29... but evaluation of it can come close to. Ok, for example: 1) What about historical significance... For instance: What genres/comic book universes/coherent worlds of lasting importance to fictional history did Neal CREATE (not innovate, he was a proven master THEREof)?

PS: Now we're already in this game, which I don't like very much...:-)

But am with You 100 % that communication is impact, not intention, if I got You right.

[Tabish29]

@Tabish29 Art is never objective. Yes there is some criteria and you sound like you know what they are more than I do but I go by how the art affects me. I think that's what art is supposed to do. To see if they fill the criteria, you would have to compare them which would be like pitting them against each other as you say. BUt Don't see it like that. So what's your 1st criterion?