Frank Robbins

[Shellhead]

It's not just me, there are other people who find that the artwork of Frank Robbins often features awkward and unlikely poses. I just stumbled across this analysis of an old Robbins panel:

http://www.heromachine.com/category/onomontopowia/page/3/

http://www.heromachine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/morbius-5-multihit.jpg

"Seriously, what is up with the way that guy is hitting Morbius? I was so confused as to how that stance is anatomically possible that I diagrammed it in Photoshop:"

http://www.heromachine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/morbius-5-multihit2.jpg

"It’s just barely sort of workable, if you assume that human calves can be rotated ninety degrees sideways from the knee. And if you squint, and cover up all the difficult anatomical bits with explosions."

I realize that Frank has fans from his old newspaper work on Johnny Hazard, but his artwork is just better suited to a static medium like the old 3-panel newspaper strips, and not to a medium where readers expect more dynamic layouts, like comic books.

[T GUy]

I realize that Frank has fans from his old newspaper work on Johnny Hazard, but his artwork is just better suited to a static medium like the old 3-panel newspaper strips, and not to a medium where readers expect more dynamic layouts, like comic books.

Surely the panel you post is an example of dynamic layout?

[dan bailey]

Dynamic, yes, but indefensibly awful rendering, otherwise.

Well, given that he does have defenders here, I should replace "indefensibly" with "insanely," I guess.

"Ludicrously" suffices quite nicely, too. "Repellently" wouldn't exactly be out of place, either. And then there's "bizarrely" ...

In all honesty, given how such appallingly contorted figures are all too common in Robbins' comics work, it's enough to make me wonder if he suffered from some sort of debilitating tremor &/or could barely see the paper he was drawing on.

[benday-dot]

Surely the panel you post is an example of dynamic layout?

You took the words out of my mouth.

Robbin's manic figure work, if out of touch with anatomical correctness, are perfectly keyed to edge of the seat kinetic excitement. It's just impossible and crazy enough to, in my mind, modify Dan's pejoratives thusly: "insanely and ludricously" cool.

He freaks us out with character poses perhaps only Steve Ditko would dare.

But I do know where you are coming from Dan. I used to hate FR's art whenever I saw it, but the more I started to see it, the more I felt myself in appreciation of his inimitable style. BTW... even if someone passes on Robbins art,he or she might like his writing. He was quite accomplished, and brought us some classics.

[JKCarrier]

In all honesty, given how such appallingly contorted figures are all too common in Robbins' comics work, it's enough to make me wonder if he suffered from some sort of debilitating tremor &/or could barely see the paper he was drawing on.

More likely, he just couldn't wrap his head around the exaggerated Kirby-style action that Marvel wanted. Not being well-suited to superhero slugfests doesn't make him a bad artist. You have to wonder about an publisher who, when presented with a master of noir-ish suspense and realistic military sagas, thinks, "I know -- I'll assign him to a strip about a spandex-clad vampire!" :eek:

[KidCommando]

What crappy art, he killed the a great idea like the Invaders. His art makes me want to upchuck my lunch.

[Babylon23]

While I'm not his biggest fan, I have to admit that I loved Robbins work on Invaders. His attention to detail and historical accuracy made that book a joy to read. His exaggerated figure work seemed to suit that book really well. I was less impressed with his work on Captain America, which seemed a little jarring compared to the solid storytelling of Sal Buscema.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Put me in the love Robbins camp. Particularly his work on Batman. I'd actually go as far as to say he's my second favorite artist of all time, my first being Reed Crandall (his work on Doll Man being, I think, his finest). Call me crazy, I know some will...

[T GUy]

Put me in the love Robbins camp. Particularly his work on Batman. I'd actually go as far as to say he's my second favorite artist of all time, my first being Reed Crandall (his work on Doll Man being, I think, his finest). Call me crazy, I know some will...

I'm one of the 'some' - on the grounds that Crandall is your favourite.

[jam]

I can absolutely see how people might not like Mr. Robbins' work.

I however am a big fan. I liked his version of Batman and he *made* the Invaders work for me.

I am also a big fan of Roy Thomas, so I would probably have enjoyed the Invaders regardless, but Frank's artwork was the icing on the cake.

[MartinRedmond]

Wow, comic fans are bitching on someone great like Frank Robbins... Now I've seen everything.

[Slam_Bradley]

More likely, he just couldn't wrap his head around the exaggerated Kirby-style action that Marvel wanted. Not being well-suited to superhero slugfests doesn't make him a bad artist. You have to wonder about an publisher who, when presented with a master of noir-ish suspense and realistic military sagas, thinks, "I know -- I'll assign him to a strip about a spandex-clad vampire!" :eek:

Dingdingding. Definitely a bad fit, but one not without redeeming qualities.

Anyone who says Robbins is a bad artist yet hasn't read Johnny Hazard has no business rendering opinions.

[dan bailey]

Anyone who says Robbins is a bad artist yet hasn't read Johnny Hazard has no business rendering opinions.

By what magical process does reading "Johnny Hazard" make garbage like the above panel go away? Does selective blindness &/or some drastic alteration in perception somehow result? I'm really, really curious.

Even if "Johnny Hazard" was the best comic strip in the history of the medium, Robbins' '70s comics work is not good. I confess to being baffled by the idea that those two concepts are somehow mutually exclusive.

[Slam_Bradley]

By what magical process does reading "Johnny Hazard" make garbage like the above panel go away? Does selective blindness somehow result? I'm really, really curious.


The blanket statement that Frank Robbins is objectively wrong. Johnny Hazard is proof of that.

While the above panel may be bad, it is a single panel in a body of work spanning over 45 years. I'll accept "I don't like that panel." I'll even accept "Frank Robbins' work on super-hero comics." But saying Frank Robbins is a bad artist in the face of 33 years of a comic strip that shows he isn't, leaves me with the abiding belief that the individual making the statement has had a rectal-cranial interface.

[dan bailey]

Unfortunately, I find the panel in question all too typical of Robbins' '70s comic book work. Which, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with "Johnny Hazard," any more than, say, Philip Roth's latest novel (which I haven't read) has anything to do with, oh, "Portnoy's Complaint" (which I also haven't read ... I'm just trying to come up with a well-known creator whose work spans decades, & whose work may or may not have gone precipitously downhill in the interim -- which description may well not fit Roth, but surely it's true of some creator out there).

[Roquefort Raider]

That panel? I blame Colletta's inking. :wink:

[The Confessor]

What crappy art, he killed the a great idea like the Invaders.


Well, I don't know about killing The Invaders. I'm not sure if I own anything drawn by Frank Robbins but I've been toying with the idea of getting the two Invaders TPBs that are out currently and I've been kind of put off by people bitching about Robbins' artwork.

However, from the samples I can find online, his artwork on the Invaders series is certainly serviceable enough not to ruin the books for me. I think he's OK as an artist.

[Captain Jim]

Gotta say, I always loved Frank's work--my two favorites being Batman and the Invaders, for which he seemed especially suited, IMO. Also loved his Johnny Hazzard.

I'm not surprised that some people don't like it, though. Some people hate any stylized art; if it isn't Jim Lee or someone similar, they don't want any part of it.

[Babylon23]

Well, I don't know about killing The Invaders. I'm not sure if I own anything drawn by Frank Robbins but I've been toying with the idea of getting the two Invaders TPBs that are out currently and I've been kind of put off by people bitching about Robbins' artwork.

Don't let the detractors stop you from picking up those trades. Invaders is a great series and well worth reading.

[T GUy]

Well, I don't know about killing The Invaders. I'm not sure if I own anything drawn by Frank Robbins but I've been toying with the idea of getting the two Invaders TPBs that are out currently and I've been kind of put off by people bitching about Robbins' artwork.



Have you not been put on by people talking about how great he is?

Opinion tends to be somewhat divide don this site.

However, from the samples I can find online, his artwork on the Invaders series is certainly serviceable enough not to ruin the books for me. I think he's OK as an artist.

See, you may be in the pro-Robbins camp.

[Lone Ranger]

I love Frank Robbins' artwork. I'll buy anything he's touched.

They need to reprint The Shadow.

That is all.

[Cei-U!]

Although I'm firmly in the pro-Robbins camp, I *do* sympathize with those who find his "spastic puppet" approach to super-hero action hard to swallow. It bothers me too but I find the other aspects of his style compensate for this flaw. I tend to prefer his Batman and Shadow art (I actually prefer Frank to Kaluta on the latter) over his work for Marvel. He is clearly more comfortable working from a script (particularly his own) than "Marvel Style" (plot first), and he was not well served by many of the inkers (okay, by Vinnie the C) foisted on him. Robbins must ink his own pencils to look "right." I wouldn't seek out a comic specifically because Frank Robbins drew it but it would never keep me away.

Cei-U!
I summon the misunderstood master!

[The Confessor]

Have you not been put on by people talking about how great he is?


Well, to be honest, I think this thread is the first place that I have seen people saying complimentary things about his artwork.

You know how it is, on these boards (as with other places on the internet) the "haters" seem to sound off louder and more often than those that enjoy something. This can sometimes give the uninitiated a somewhat skewed view of things.


See, you may be in the pro-Robbins camp.


Yeah, I probably am from what I've seen. I mean, he's not the greatest comic book artist I've ever seen but he's certainly not the worst.

[dan bailey]

I'm not surprised that some people don't like it, though. Some people hate any stylized art; if it isn't Jim Lee or someone similar, they don't want any part of it.

Not sure exactly what "stylized art" means in this instance, & offhand I don't think I have any idea what Jim Lee's stuff looks like (though if he was one of the Image founders, as my memory tells me is the case, I likely have no use for his work whatsoever), but I'm pretty sure that my fondness for the work of, say, Pat Boyette, Tom Sutton, Steve Ditko, etc means your little generalization doesn't apply in my case.

As I've said before, Robbins' work is obviously an acquired taste that I've been unable to acquire, & at this late date (some 35 years, probably, after I first encountered him in the pages of either Captain America or Fear, or maybe The Invaders) it's highly unlikely it'll ever happen.

[Captain Jim]

Not sure exactly what "stylized art" means in this instance, & offhand I don't think I have any idea what Jim Lee's stuff looks like (though if he was one of the Image founders, as my memory tells me is the case, I likely have no use for his work whatsoever), but I'm pretty sure that my fondness for the work of, say, Pat Boyette, Tom Sutton, Steve Ditko, etc means your little generalization doesn't apply in my case.


Yeah, I'd have to agree. Nor was I specifically aiming it toward you. Just reflecting on a lot of stuff I've heard over the years. (I've recently had similar conversations regarding Denys Cowen.)

[dan bailey]

Hmmm. Now I'll have to go see what Cowen's art looks like ...

[Babylon23]

Hmmm. Now I'll have to go see what Cowen's art looks like ...

Check out the Question series from the 80's by Denny O'Neill and Denys Cowan. There's currently 3 trades available. It's an amazing series with excellent artwork by Cowan.

[Captain Jim]

Check out the Question series from the 80's by Denny O'Neill and Denys Cowan. There's currently 3 trades available. It's an amazing series with excellent artwork by Cowan.

And yet there are all sorts of people who say he can't draw... :rolleyes:

[Shellhead]

Check out the Question series from the 80's by Denny O'Neill and Denys Cowan. There's currently 3 trades available. It's an amazing series with excellent artwork by Cowan.

Those are the ugliest comics that I own. I loved the writing on that run, but the artwork ranged from good in an interesting way to shockingly, jaggedly bad. Some shaky anatomy, some sloppy renderings, and some bad angles. Cowan had good storytelling instincts, though, I could always follow what was happening very clearly. When Cowan took his time, his artwork was pretty good, the bad stuff just looked very rushed, like he was pulling all-nighters just before deadlines.

[dan bailey]

I don't have any Question to look at, but from looking at Cowan's Wikipedia entry I know I've got at least a couple of things he drew, like the Epic Doctor Zero mini. I'll have to check that out at home.

Although, y'know, after reading Shellhead's assessment of his art, I must confess that I'm not particularly optimistic.

[Scott Shaw!]

Denys Cowan's artwork often reminds me of Mike Sekowsky and
Dick Giordano's recently-collected run of "Diana Prince, WONDER WOMAN".

And depending upon your opinion of the "All New" WW, that could be a good or bad thing. (To my tastes, that's a plus!)

Aloha,

Scott!

[Scott Shaw!]

I've always dug Frank Robbins' art quite a bit, but agree that casting him to draw contemporary superheroes probably wasn't the best choice. (And I've gotta negatively mention the two-part FLASH story that he wrote -- Andru and Esposito's first on the series -- that featured Japanese "samaroids" and was about as racist a portrayal of Asians as ever seen during WWII.)

But the notion of expecting "realistic" or "believable" anatomy in a superhero comic? That's the most ridiculous I've ever heard!

But Robbins was perfectly cast for THE SHADOW and THE INVADERS. And on the latter title, since Robbins didn't ink himself, the issues inked by Frank Springer -- who's a big fan of Robbins' art -- was the next best thing, and certainly preferable to Colletta's mauling of his pencils. In fact, I own an INVADERS page by the two Franks that I bought from The Rascally One himself.

Speaking of fans, MANY professional cartoonists have extremely high regard for Robbins and his excellent comic strip, JOHNNY HAZZARD. I actually prefer his cartooning to Robbins' primary artistic inspiration, Milton Caniff; how's that for heresy?

Aloha,

Scott!

P.S.: Y'know, I'd like to see Frank Robbins rise from the dead -- hey, it's Halloween, after all -- and critique some of your performances as you go about your daily occupations! --SS!

[Jesse Hamm]

Robbins's Johnny Hazard is among my all-time favorites (and I share Scott!'s preference for him over the great Caniff)... but I agree that his Marvel work was pretty poor. His '60s Hazard work was already leaning toward abstraction, and when he began drawing superheroes, I think the invitation to draw in a dynamic/silly/bombastic style pushed his already quirky work into a zone of strange innaccuracies. Plus, anatomy was never his strong suit, and superhero comics tend to showcase anatomy above all else. And Colletta didn't help things.

Robbins's skills lied in staging and lighting scenes for clarity, depth, and drama, and in rendering realistic textures and details -- clothing, machinery, foliage -- to enhance the reality of a scene. His DC work on Batman and The Shadow was a better showcase for these skills, but I think his best period was late '40s - early '60s Hazard. Fans of that material are probably better equipped to appreciate his '70s comic work, looking past the anatomy and focusing on the things he excelled at.

Here are a couple of his Hazard strips. Look for the way he drops in shadows and overlaps objects to create a sense of depth, and at how he renders folds, rivets, and other details to add texture. Bringing clarity and interest to scenes like these is hard to do well.

http://www.thrillmer.com/comics/jhaz042455.jpg

http://www.thrillmer.com/comics/jhaz040355.jpg

[stelok]

It's not just me, there are other people who find that the artwork of Frank Robbins often features awkward and unlikely poses. I just stumbled across this analysis of an old Robbins panel:

http://www.heromachine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/morbius-5-multihit.jpg

"Seriously, what is up with the way that guy is hitting Morbius? I was so confused as to how that stance is anatomically possible that I diagrammed it in Photoshop:"

http://www.heromachine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/morbius-5-multihit2.jpg

"It’s just barely sort of workable, if you assume that human calves can be rotated ninety degrees sideways from the knee. And if you squint, and cover up all the difficult anatomical bits with explosions."

I realize that Frank has fans from his old newspaper work on Johnny Hazard, but his artwork is just better suited to a static medium like the old 3-panel newspaper strips, and not to a medium where readers expect more dynamic layouts, like comic books.


That's true. Robbins had a worse sense of human proportional anatomy than Rob Liefeld. Also, the fighter in the image was standing tip-toes instead of on feet.

Moreover, when I read the old Invaders issues, Robbins' version of Namor is the least likeable version of Namor Sub-Mariner.

[MartinRedmond]

It's also possible the guy correcting him is some paint by numbers, no talent hack too.

[JKCarrier]

Robbins' version of Namor is the least likeable version of Namor Sub-Mariner.

I think we have a new winner in that category:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/12/11/umm-namor/

[Shellhead]

Good point JK, that Namor in your link looks like some white trash dude from Joisey... should be wearing a dirty wifebeater instead of that black vest.

[Slam_Bradley]

Another thing to keep in mind with Robbins' Marvel work is that he was almost certainly told to be "more dynamic." The same thing happened to Romita and Buscema, which is why Kirby did layouts on a number of their early Marvel books. The Kirby dynamism was not Robbins' natural style. He was a strip artist (and a damn fast one) from the Sickles/Caniff school. So a lot of his appeal was in the placement of the inks and heavy blacks. That was not the Marvel style.

[Roquefort Raider]

Good point JK, that Namor in your link looks like some white trash dude from Joisey... should be wearing a dirty wifebeater instead of that black vest.

Prince Namor... The Tub-mariner.