Kirby fantastic four question

[Chris Thomas]

I recently bought my kid a FF t-shirt from a local department store.

it looks like this:

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2947400?tuid=000006cb-006f-0861-6c61-726765727669&id=7342271&largeImg=0


Doc doom, the thing, invisible girl and human torch all appear to be from issue #10 of the fantastic four.


http://www.comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/50/28026_20060307225359_large.jpg


but clearly reed isn't. it looks like a Reed from a later issue--in my opinion the style is different than the Reeds Kirby drew then (from perusing other issues around that date.) this cover says it was by Kirby and Sinnot--and it looks like the same Reed!


http://www.comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/67/28572_20060428130009_large.jpg



was issue 200 a tribute to an earlier Kirby drawn issue--or is it a new thing all-together? and is that the same Reed?

and what was the plot of issue #10? (I actually have #200 from my youth..)

[Ravenheart]

FF#10 was the issue where Doom switched minds with Reed wasn't it?

[InfoBroker]

In Fantastic Four #10, Doctor Doom does indeed switch bodies with Reed Richards, and in fact, the scene on the t-shirt with Sue, Ben and Johnny grabbing Doc Doom, it is actually Reed inside that suit, so in essence, Reed is depicted twice.

There is also a fun bit set in the Marvel Bullpen with Stan and Jack working out the plot for the next issue of the FF when Doctor Doom pops into their office.

-jb the (They even get to see DD take off his mask) ib-

[Red Oak Kid]

I recently bought my kid a FF t-shirt from a local department store.

it looks like this:

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2947400?tuid=000006cb-006f-0861-6c61-726765727669&id=7342271&largeImg=0


Doc doom, the thing, invisible girl and human torch all appear to be from issue #10 of the fantastic four.


http://www.comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/50/28026_20060307225359_large.jpg


but clearly reed isn't. it looks like a Reed from a later issue--in my opinion the style is different than the Reeds Kirby drew then (from perusing other issues around that date.) this cover says it was by Kirby and Sinnot--and it looks like the same Reed!


http://www.comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/67/28572_20060428130009_large.jpg



was issue 200 a tribute to an earlier Kirby drawn issue--or is it a new thing all-together? and is that the same Reed?

and what was the plot of issue #10? (I actually have #200 from my youth..)


You pretty much answered your own question. That shirt is a combination of the images on FF 10 combined with the Kirby/Sinnott Reed from FF 200, only the Reed image has been flopped left to right.

Here is a description of the contents of FF 200:

http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=32766

[Kirk G]

The original cover for FF #10 features a close-up of Reed, grinning evily as he walks away from the fight clinching his fist. It does not represent either Reed as Mr. Fantastic (stretching) nor is he in characters....(Cause it's Dr. Doom possessing his body.) Most of the story revolves around Reed in Doom's armor trying to convince his teammates that he's Reed...while Doom in Richard's body continually "discovers and disarms traps, weapons and threats" that Doom had in his armor.

Eventually, Sue Johnny and Ben have a confab about how something doesn't sound right, as Reed begins to tune up his shrinking ray to permanently dispose of Dr. Doom once and for all. Doom continually protests his innocense but conveniently fails to think of something that only Reed and the FF would know of or have experienced together...

Johnny uses his heat mirage power (don't ask) to bend the light rays from a construction site down the street and 35 floors below (I said, don't ask) and cause a mirage of the lighted fused TNT to appear before the five of them.
Doom leaps forward to smother it and defuse it to protect the team, while Reed attempts to slither away through a pipe... but Ben grabs him, saying "That sounds like the Doom I know, buddy..."

Confronted by the four, Reed (Doom) looses his mental grip on the transfer, and reverts back to his body infront of them all. He fires at Reed but strikes his shrinking ray, and is bathed in the ray...shrinking fast to seeminly nothing... (until issue #17, when he strikes from Sub-Atomica, once again and causes the FF to team up with Ant-Man to shrink down and find the despot again.)

Is this clear enough? Oh yeah, Stan and Jack again are appearing as themselves (faceless, al la Steve Ditko's depiction of the unmasked Goblin) as they plot the latest FF comic book with Reed. This is the first indication that the Marvel books are somehow real, or thinly veiled versions of real FF adventures.

[Chris Thomas]

thanks for replies.

the Kirby Mr. fantastics are quite different. is that just a maturation of Kirby's style, a 'more grown up' reed richards or influence from Sinnot? was Sinnot the inker? or did he add to pencils?

[T GUy]

Chris, from memory it's a combination of the inker and a variation in Kirby's style. On FF 10, Kirby is working his way up and just figuring out that he's on for the long haul and able to do a lot of things he wants to on this new title. On FF 200 he's doing a work for hire impersonation of Jack Kirby.

[Red Oak Kid]

thanks for replies.

the Kirby Mr. fantastics are quite different. is that just a maturation of Kirby's style, a 'more grown up' reed richards or influence from Sinnot? was Sinnot the inker? or did he add to pencils?

Kirby's style did evolve during the 60s. His figures became taller and more muscular. However the Reed of FF 200 doesn't look much different from the Reed of FF 70-100.

But he is different from the Reed of FF 10. Partly because of the change in Kirby's style and partly due to the difference in the inking style of Ayers(FF 10) and Sinnott. Sinnotts' slick style of inking is perfect for a book like FF that has so much high tech equipment and science fiction type locations.

On the other hand, Ayers' style was perfect for Kirby on Sgt. Fury.

[InfoBroker]

A few other things to add to ROK's list:

Kirby was producing more pages of material per week/month/year in 1962.

The look'n'feel for the characters was still be explored in issue ten, iconized by issues published in 1965 (when Sinnott began his long run inking FF). Issue 200 abides by this later style.

Kirby and most comic book artists were drawing twice up in the early 60s, until the edict came down to draw at 1 and 1/2 up circa 1968.

Sinnott circa 1978 was do a lot more "finishing" work for a lot of the material he was inking. This means he was working from what would have been called breakdowns or layouts in the 60s from the pencillers he worked on.

Joe also was called upon to "clean up" and delineate artwork from newer artists to conform to the icon images established, including Reed here.

<and here's where I have decided to challenge the GCD>

I have some very serious doubts that the cover to issue #200 was penciled by Jack Kirby. It is very heavily derivative of Jacks work, especial the material he did with Joe Sinnott in the late 60s on the FF, including a smaller line weight of backgrounds as they appeared in printed form in that time frame (see the twice-up comment above).

By 1978, Jacks pencils where generally thicker and definitely more fluid than this cover. In fact, Jack's work was always pretty fluid, and the tightness here suggests to me that someone was working to mimic his forms, shapes and structures. They seem to reflect a tightness that happens in that process.

The background objects and environment are Kirbyesque in essence, but they reflect a lot of stuff seen in the 60s, not the late 70s. They also do not conform to the 3D skills of Jack's work. They are flatter in nature, and lack a cohesive common structuring.

To me, the depiction of cloth do not reflect Jack's better knowledge and skill of how these material behave in 3D space, and the poses of both Dr. Doom and Reed seem like composites of previous poses by Jack (and for doom perhaps others). They have a clumsy nature to them, again not reflective of Jack's skills and craftsmanship.

For a sampling of contemporary Kirby pencils inked by Sinnott:

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/2387/400/2387_4_11.jpg

One minor note, the final Jack Kirby issues of Devil Dinosaur and Black Panther were released one month prior to FF #200. They marked the third and final departure of Jack from the Marvel "bullpen". Yes unpublished material of Jacks might have still been in the Marvel Studios, but I am doubtful that this is one of them.

I'm leaning towards it being early George Perez pencilling, and lots of Sinnott overshadowing.


If the signature letter above the "/S" is a "K" and not a "P" it would be my only reason to doubt that Kirby was the main penciler on this cover. If a "K" then I am favoring that Joe worked from a very loose and barely roughed in sketch by Jack, and I thinking it had little to no background material. I'm thinking its a "P" but it is difficult to tell from the jpg scan from the GCD.

-jb the ( "take a peek at the "K/S" signature on the BP comic for comparison") ib -

[Red Oak Kid]

I had never seen the cover of FF 200 till I looked it up while trying to answer the question about the shirt.

The moment I saw it, a little voice in my head said it didn't look like Kirby, but I didn't really think about it, since my main focus was trying to find out if this image of Reed was the one on the shirt.

After reading IB's post I went back and looked at it, and I agree it doesn't look like any of the other covers Kirby did for Marvel at that time.

The Dr. Doom figure doesn't look like Kirby's style at all. The machines in the background are lame.

I could probably be talked into believing Kirby had something to do with the Reed figure tho.

Maybe this cover was based on a rough sketch by Kirby and then someone at Marvel redrew it and changed the DD figure before sending it out to Sinnott for finishes.

I think Kirby had "some" kind of involvement with this cover since after all it was the 200th issue, but since he was in Calif. it looks like it was heavily art directed by the editorial side in NYC.

[InfoBroker]

I could probably be talked into believing Kirby had something to do with the Reed figure tho.

I think the reason for your feeling that ROK, is because this is the heavest "lift" of Kirby in the set. My memory banks are centering on images of Reed from his Negative Zone/Sub-space exploits in FF 51, 61 and or 62, mixed with a image of Reed grabbing Ben's "pizza eating arm" from FF 58.

My FF comics are still locked away in boxes (down in the garage at least, not in a storage shed), so I can't verify.

Like you, I feel Doom is completely contrived as are the background objects. And if I could get at my FFs and a couple of Thor's I'll bet I could find the source reference material for the composite of most of them.

-jb the (procrastinating on getting at his comics, my priorities really need to be fixed) ib -

[T GUy]

I've just looked at the FF 200 cover on the GCD and react as follows with my initial impressions:

Reed figure is too clumsy to be Kirby

Shadows on the Reed figure aren't solid enough to be Kirby from the late '70s unless there's some severe inker initiative on display - on some shadows but not others (i. e. unlikely). Also, my memory is that Kirby tended to draw vertical shadows only on Reed's chest

Reed's head is Sinnott (maybe he or even John Romita drew this?)

Doom figure is too stiff and detailed to be Kirby (I'd go along with the suggestion of Perez from the evidence of this figure)

The background machinery is straight from the Marvel Guide to Drawing Like Jack Kirby book; any house artist could have produced this - Sal Buscema, Rich Buckler, Ron Wilson, et cetera

So this is not one of Kirby's Kirby impersonations that we find on Marvel covers from 1976-8.

If only Mark Evanier were not Campbelling at the moment.

[Red Oak Kid]

Reed's head is Sinnott (maybe he or even John Romita drew this?)

.

I had the same reaction to Reed's head. Much too detailed and looking like it was pasted on over the original.

First, DC covered up Kirby's Superman heads and now this! Sheesh!:eek:

[T GUy]

Oh, while we're at it, I have long wondered who the artist on this cover is (http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=29828&zoom=4) - The Avengers 147, May '76. Buckler and Adkins, as per the GCD? Because there are bits of it which are a better Kirby impersonation than other bits.

[Cei-U!]

Guys, I hate to rain on your parade but shouldn't the fact that the cover of Fantastic Four #200 is signed with the same K/S signature that all the other Kirby/Sinnott covers of this era bear count for something? It's right there between Doom's legs.

Cei-U!
I summon the dead giveaway!

[InfoBroker]

I already mentioned the signature in my initial append, and added an edit to a section to acknowledge that the signature would add legitimacy to Jack being involved in this cover in some capacity if it is indeed a "K" above the the "/S".

I can't tell from the scan provided of #200 on the GCD. I welcome others who may have this issue to provide more detailed scans of at least that area.

I also spent some time looking at other Sinnott inked FF covers from this timeframe, studing the various signatures and the art, to see if I could find some common pedigree.

Many(most) of us have acknowledge, myself included, that Jack may have had involvement in this cover. I maintain that if he did, then this comic is heavily doctored, or filled in from what would have been a very basic sketch, and it is more than just Joe's inking (or finishing) that is involved here.

I don't think we are off base challenging the art authorship of this cover.

-jb the still doubtful ib -

[Lone Ranger]

For what it's worth, there are plenty of Golden Age covers signed 'Simon & Kirby' that neither of the gents worked on.

[InfoBroker]

Oh, while we're at it, I have long wondered who the artist on this cover is (http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=29828&zoom=4) - The Avengers 147, May '76. Buckler and Adkins, as per the GCD? Because there are bits of it which are a better Kirby impersonation than other bits.

I'm pretty sure its all Rich Buckler, who was doing a lot pose swiping in that time frame. It was the inking bothered me about that cover. It's more feathery and detailed than Dan Adkins usually does, and then like a light bulb, it hit me...

Craig Russell worked with and was helped into the field by Dan. Might be his early pen and brushwork in there as well.

-jb the (Val Mayerik and Paul Gulacy were also "protogee'd" by Dan) ib -

[Lone Ranger]

Re. Avenger #147

How about a Rich Buckler/Frank Giacoia?

[Kirk G]

If only Mark Evanier were not Campbelling at the moment.

What does this mean? I'm stumped!:confused:

[InfoBroker]

Re. Avenger #147

How about a Rich Buckler/Frank Giacoia?


Could be. When did the Art Director title switch from Frank Giacoia to John Romita?

-jb the (Frank was given the AD title in 1972 when Stan took on the title of Publisher) ib -

[Cei-U!]

For what it's worth, there are plenty of Golden Age covers signed 'Simon & Kirby' that neither of the gents worked on.

Good point! Since Jack and Marvel had pretty much parted company by the time this cover saw print, maybe it's a sketch done for a fan prettied up by Sinnott. I freely concede this has a pretty slapdash feel to it but I just can't see Joe signing it thus if Kirby wasn't somehow involved.

Cei-U!
I summon the speculation!

[Lone Ranger]

I just can't see Joe signing it thus if Kirby wasn't somehow involved.


I tend to agree - that Sinott his style (say it fast, then groan).

[Red Oak Kid]

Maybe this cover was based on a rough sketch by Kirby and then someone at Marvel redrew it and changed the DD figure before sending it out to Sinnott for finishes.

I think Kirby had "some" kind of involvement with this cover since after all it was the 200th issue, but since he was in Calif. it looks like it was heavily art directed by the editorial side in NYC.

For those who missed it the first time.

[Halloween Jill]

FF #200 cover definitely Kirby. Machinery in background quite sparse, but I've yet to see a Kirby imitation that evokes the esoteric, random design ideas quite so well.

Sinnott very often did redrawing on heads in particular, even during the original FF run, esp earlier on. He's certainly done a lot of tweaking on the Doom figure.

Hey, Kirby was fed-up with Marvel and about to jump ship. They pestered him to do the cover because it was #200, yada yada yada. He tossed out a quickie for a few bucks. No big mystery.

[InfoBroker]

FF #200 cover definitely Kirby. Machinery in background quite sparse, but I've yet to see a Kirby imitation that evokes the esoteric, random design ideas quite so well.

I have seen better and worse (much worse). One of the many betters have been by George Perez whose style and skills in this timeframe match up interestingly with this cover.

Also Walt Simonson and Steve Rude quickly come to mind. And they did it without the feeling of it being "lifted"

Hey, Kirby was fed-up with Marvel and about to jump ship. They pestered him to do the cover because it was #200, yada yada yada. He tossed out a quickie for a few bucks. No big mystery.

The focus of my observations has been on the cover itself, and dissecting the artwork on the merits of the structures, the styles, the line quality, composition, skills and craft in anatomy, the essence of the anatomy as it relates to cartooning. and other aspects of the techniques and craft of the artist.

I would like to keep away from speculations about what a person or company might or might not have felt and done, as those tend to be endless in variation. First hand knowledge, or a pointer to first hand knowledge is always appreciated.

Thanks.

-jb the ib -

[Rob Allen]

If only Mark Evanier were not Campbelling at the moment.

What does this mean? I'm stumped!:confused:

When Mark is too busy to do any fun stuff online, he posts a picture of a can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup on his blog (http://newsfromme.com). Mark has been blogging since before it was called blogging, and his site should be on every fan's Favorites list.

[Halloween Jill]

Depends on what you mean by 'better'. I've never seen a single drawing by any of those names that I'd identify as Kirby for even a nano-second. So-so Kirby might not be as good (arguably, though I'd generally prefer it), but it still has something of the man about it that none of the imitators or hommagers can nail down.

I don't think the Kirby Collector has printed the pencils for this one. Maybe someone should ask them if they will. I'd certainly be interested to see what Kirby did with Doom that would warrant that amount of revision... I imagine he just got it a bit too far off-model from his appearance within the book, if he drew it as a quick piece he didn't give a damn about...

But you only have to look, if not at the machinery, then at the loopy way the legs on Reed are drawn to know that it's Kirby. It's really bad drawing, technically, but it works because it's Kirby. There are some late-Kirby habits creeping in, such as the excessively long lower leg. Kirby imitators don't tend to ape Kirby's later bad habits.

[benday-dot]

I have scanned in my copy of FF#200 at the best size here permitted and the best resolution I could attain.

As to the signature I think for certain it's a K and not a P... it looks very much like the K/S that appears on JB's Black Panther cover.

Is it Kirby?

Well, I think ROK and the others are likely close to the truth on this one.

Stepping away from JB's acute artistic analysis for a moment...

There is zero mention of Kirby's involvement with this issue in the Bullpen Bulletin... only plaudits to the inrerior artists... Keith Pollard and Joe Sinnott.

Not exactly evidence contrary to Jack's involvement, but one would like to think that the reunion of the Kirby/Sinnott team on the title that "started it all" would merit some sort of honourable mention.

I looked through some Joe Sinnott interviews's from the JKC and when asked (from #9), "When Jack went back to work for Marvel in the mid-70's, did you ever request to ink his work?" Joe responded, "I never called Stan and said 'Why don't you put Jack and I together again?" Sinnott then goes on to say he never understood why they (Marvel) didn't put Jack back on the FF." The lack of Sinnott's recollection of any work on FF with Kirby may be just that "lack of recollection", but it could just as likely mean that Sinnott really did do the bulk of the work, post thin layouts on this piece, and so pretty much obliterated from mind this collaboration(Jack's last reputed FF work for Marvel). Kirby traditionally handed in near finished work to be inked by Joe or whichever inker was assigned to his fully realized pencils, and if something more ressembling a loose sketch was forwarded to Sinnott, it may not have served to merit much of a recollection.

As to the art, my observations (in agreement and acknowledgement with others who have said the same or similar)

--Reed's hair does not seem Kirby to me (was Pollard involved here?)
--The Kirby squiggles on Doom seem contrived
--The machinery takes a stab at Kirby abstractions, but fails to convince
--Doom's clothes seem like Kirby must have contributed but the roughest breakdown.

If Sinnott signed the J/K I think it is proof enough that the King must have layed this cover out, but it would seem that Kirby's most famous FF inker did the yeoman's work on this one.

Nice eye for kicking this debate off JB

[MDG]

Also Walt Simonson and Steve Rude quickly come to mind. And they did it without the feeling of it being "lifted"

I was impressed by the Mr. Miracle special Rude did many years ago. The storytelling and panel compositions were pure Kirby, but I never got the feeling he was swiping specific drawings.

(Unlike a Thor artist where it was easy for a Kirbyphile friend of mine to put his finger on the source panels in a couple of minutes)

MDG

[Halloween Jill]

Sinnott's recollections mean nothing. He inked about half a dozen Kirby FF covers during the '75-78 period, as well as a load of covers for other titles, including the What If #11 cover.

Seriously doubt Kirby did a 'layout', as on these covers where he didn't draw the interior, a layout was generally handed to him (by people like Marie Severin). Whether that was so here, who knows. The artistic changes are clearly Sinnott tweakings. There's a lot of similar stuff in the Surfer GN of the same period, tho not as severe as on the Doom figure -- I still think that was probably the editor whinging that Doom didn't look the same as inside the book and asking Joe to tweak accordingly.

Machinery looks fine to me, just not very inspired. That seems to sum up Kirby's feelings about Marvel in mid-'78 quite well.

I own the book and it is a K. Honestly, though this is kind of interesting, it's also a major-league non-mystery.

[InfoBroker]

Depends on what you mean by 'better'. I've never seen a single drawing by any of those names that I'd identify as Kirby for even a nano-second.

Hmmmm... while I won't try to claim a nano-second, its' why I said...

And they did it without the feeling of it being "lifted"

And my point in mentioning Walt and Steve was to provide examples of artists who have been influenced by Kirby, and have taken aspects of his work, in this case your reference to ultra-exaggerated machinery design, assimilated it and pushed it into something solid and interesting, not just "lifted" from Jack's printed work. In re-reading, I see I mis-read your viewpoint that concentrates exclusively on the imitators.

I don't think the Kirby Collector has printed the pencils for this one.

Now that would be interesting, 'cause I would love to see just how heavily this cover has actually been doctored and who was doing the doctoring.

But you only have to look, if not at the machinery, then at the loopy way the legs on Reed are drawn to know that it's Kirby. It's really bad drawing, technically, but it works because it's Kirby.

Guess it depends on what you call bad. I think Kirby's form of anatomy works not because it's Kirby, but because Kirby understands the mechanics of how the body works, what it does and the visual impressions that are mentally registered when it is in action, and then exaggerates that to extreme points to provide the exciting framework for his storytelling. Others (like Simonson and Rude) can make it work (in their own style and manner) because they understand and have worked hard (like Kirby) to present it in a believable fashion.

To me, that is the essence of cartooning as an art form, and I don't find anything bad in that at all, technical or otherwise.

-jb the ib -

[InfoBroker]

I have scanned in my copy of FF#200 at the best size here permitted and the best resolution I could attain.

As to the signature I think for certain it's a K and not a P... it looks very much like the K/S that appears on JB's Black Panther cover.

Thanks B-D. Based on your scan and the one I found at Joe Sinnott's website, I concur that is "K" and what was throwing me was the high postion of the "/" and the fuzzy nature ofthe GCD scan.

So I position myself leaning on the last parts of my initial comment on this cover

]If the signature letter above the "/S" is a "K" and not a "P" it would be my only reason to doubt that Kirby was the main penciler on this cover. If a "K" then I am favoring that Joe worked from a very loose and barely roughed in sketch by Jack, and I thinking it had little to no background material. I'm thinking its a "P" but it is difficult to tell from the jpg scan from the GCD.

But unlike Halloween Jill, I think more that Joe's hands were at work on this cover.

I looked through some Joe Sinnott interviews's from the JKC and when asked (from #9), "When Jack went back to work for Marvel in the mid-70's, did you ever request to ink his work?" Joe responded, "I never called Stan and said 'Why don't you put Jack and I together again?" Sinnott then goes on to say he never understood why they (Marvel) didn't put Jack back on the FF."

I'm interpreting that to mean that Joe is wondering why they didn't put Jack back on the FF series as the full time, regular penciller of the issues, not that he doesn't remember doing some Kirby covers.

Sinnott's recollections mean nothing.

Not to me they don't. Joe's recollections seem to be good enough to have his official site include several Sinnott/Kirby 70s covers, including FF200. He also kept written records of the comics he has worked on, the net of which was used to compile the checklist for this just published book (http://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=544&zenid=703458ce1b6e8b7c5e9866c2a1141d1c) from Two-morrows Publishing.

I'm never one to pass up a plug of a good book on comical history, and I am looking forward to this one arriving soon.


Nice eye for kicking this debate off JB

Thanks - I think due to doctoring (heavy in my opinion) of this cover, it leaves a lot open to speculation and just where the Kirby parts start and stop.

-jb the (I am probably still the one that minimalizes it most) ib -