EXCLUSIVE: Levitz, Giffen Reunite on "Legion of Super-Heroes"

[DarkKnghtJared]

Now?

I thought that was how he started out.

He started doing it again lately starting with the Legion Annual in '10, and he started to really embrace it for his and Didio's OMAC series.

[Flashpoint]

I never said Perez CLONE, what I meant was that with his attempt at cleaner figures (which still felt awkward as hell, including in stuff you posted as an example) and extensive backgrounds were akin to the stuff Perez was doing in New Teen Titans around the same time.

I understand. But the fact is, Giffen was take life-drawing classes which were directly responsible for the cleaner lines and figures you also noted. It wasn't a Perez influence.

The art tropes of Giffen's that you seem to prefer were wholly a result of his wild infatuation with Argentina's Jose Munoz. I'm no fan of Munoz; I hate his work. But credit should be given where credit is due: Munoz's style was the creator/culprit of much of the Giffen art you love.

[SJNeal]

Levitz has said that Giffen contributes hugely to the story whenever they work together. No doubt he won't just be drawing.

I honestly can't remember the last time Giffen has 'just' drawn anything.

I was prepared to piss and moan that Giffen was "just" drawing and not co-plotting, but I'm going to reserve judgement and hope you're right...

[DarkKnghtJared]

I understand. But the fact is, Giffen was take life-drawing classes which were directly responsible for the cleaner lines and figures you also noted. It wasn't a Perez influence.

The art tropes of Giffen's that you seem to prefer were wholly a result of his wild infatuation with Argentina's Jose Munoz. I'm no fan of Munoz; I hate his work. But credit should be given where credit is due: Munoz's style was the creator/culprit of much of the Giffen art you love.

Well, at least with the stuff I've seen of his after that Munoz influence came in, I think it helped Giffen create a more distinct art style and become a much, MUCH stronger storyteller with his art.

[destro]

Or... I mean, do you see what's happening behind them?

I happen to like female characters looking like they can actually handle more physically than a pop star. But judging by comics I guess I'm alone.

Not at all. I love his take on the Kirby style and I'm amazed that people find Kirby-esque art to be "ugly".

[Flashpoint]

Well, at least with the stuff I've seen of his after that Munoz influence came in, I think it helped Giffen create a more distinct art style and become a much, MUCH stronger storyteller with his art.

This becomes a hot topic of debate. With Giffen's public comment about how he becomes a "Xerox machine" when he loves someeone's work, did he become a stronger storyteller--or did he just copy someone else's stronger storytelling techniques?

For my money, Giffen in the early 80s when he wasn't copying anyone was a stronger storyteller because his focus was on how he learned to draw from real life without looking to Kirby, Munoz or anyone else for technique. I think we saw more of the "real" Keith Giffen style back then. Now, it feels like to me that Giffen swings between copying his 2 biggest influences: Kirby and Munoz.

I believe any artist has a more powerful and more unique vision when he channels his own inner vision instead of trying to emulate someone else's.

[JessieMidnight]

I think this is real good news. I'll try the book out again because of this news. Plus the Fatal Five being back, with hopefully some new or different members.

On the topic of Giffen's art style, didn't one of his interviews from maybe around the time of his Legion annual he said that this style is the style that he's always drawn in for all his personal stuff, and that he was glad to be using it for his books? I don't mind his current style though. I can feel the action just from that cover if that makes sense.

[DarkKnghtJared]

This becomes a hot topic of debate. With Giffen's public comment about how he becomes a "Xerox machine" when loves someeone's work, did he become a stronger storyteller--or did he just copy someone else's stronger storytelling techniques?

For my money, Giffen in the early 80s when he wasn't copying anyone was a stronger storyteller because his focus was on how he learned to draw from real life without looking to Kirby, Munoz or anyone else for technique. I think we saw more of the "real" Keith Giffen style back then. Now, it feels like to me that Giffen swings between copying his 2 biggest influences: Kirby and Munoz.

I believe any artist has a more powerful and more unique vision when he channels his own inner vision instead of trying to emulate someone else's.

Well, like I said, I can see more comparison between Giffen and Perez during Pre-Great Darkness then I can see Giffen and Munoz during the 5YL Legion. In fact, looking at the Munoz art you posted, I would say that Miller adapted far more of that style to him than anything.

All that said, I think this is really just an argument of preference--the art style you mentioned still ain't bad and has it's fantastic moments, I just felt the 5YL stuff was stronger. Agree to disagree? :)

[Flashpoint]

Well, like I said, I can see more comparison between Giffen and Perez during Pre-Great Darkness then I can see Giffen and Munoz during the 5YL Legion. In fact, looking at the Munoz art you posted, I would say that Miller adapted far more of that style to him than anything.

All that said, I think this is really just an argument of preference--the art style you mentioned still ain't bad and has it's fantastic moments, I just felt the 5YL stuff was stronger. Agree to disagree? :)

Oh, no worries. I wasn't angry if that's what you were thinking. Not at all.

My only quarrel is with the path Giffen chose. That path was Munoz. Munoz was an artist whose style merged much better with Frank Miller's than Giffen's. At its best, Giffen's style in the past 25 years seems like nothing more than watered down Munoz. Given that I hate Munoz's work, it's just the worst of both worlds for me.

I've been searching on Google for samples of Keith Giffen's interior pages on Omega Men and they are very, very hard to find. Outside of the work he got inked by Mahlstedt in LSH, I'd say Giffen's work with Mike DeCarlo on Omega Men is my personal favorite. It was only 6 issues, but damn it was classic DC space opera!

[chastmastr]

As long as Levitz is still the guiding star for the book and it doesn't go down the Five Years Later-style path, I am sure I will continue to enjoy it. It's one of the few DC titles I'm currently getting.

[DantePD]

Wait...is Karate Kid alive in this continuity right now? If so, how long till Giffen kills him? Again?

[DarkKnghtJared]

Oh, no worries. I wasn't angry if that's what you were thinking. Not at all.

My only quarrel is with the path Giffen chose. That path was Munoz. Munoz was an artist whose style merged much better with Frank Miller's than Giffen's. At its best, Giffen's style in the past 25 years seems like nothing more than watered down Munoz. Given that I hate Munoz's work, it's just the worst of both worlds for me.

I've been searching on Google for samples of Keith Giffen's interior pages on Omega Men and they are very, very hard to find. Outside of the work he got inked by Mahlstedt in LSH, I'd say Giffen's work with Mike DeCarlo on Omega Men is my personal favorite. It was only 6 issues, but damn it was classic DC space opera!

Yeah, I couldn't find anything of Giffen's interiors during the 5YL time either.

As long as Levitz is still the guiding star for the book and it doesn't go down the Five Years Later-style path, I am sure I will continue to enjoy it. It's one of the few DC titles I'm currently getting.

I've been mentioning the art of it a lot, but I also enjoyed the story of what I've read of it too. It's interesting that Flashpoint mentioned Giffen's art style change as a sign of the grim and gritty 80s, because one of the things I noticed was that with it's more down-to-earth (har har) mentality and the nine panel grids, it felt like a Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen but in something that was actually in the continuity. Of course, the Glorith retcon was kinda haphazardly jammed in there, but it still worked out fairly well.

The only problem I had reading it was that, since I was still kinda new to the team when I read it, I had to keep the Wikipedia page open so I would figure out who they were referring to, what with them using their regular names instead of their superhero code names. There were plenty of instances of me saying to myself, "Wait, who the hell is Jo? *scroll scroll scroll* ...Oh, Ultra Boy. Okay, back to reading."

[Neutrino]

Man, I really wish we could get somebody even remotely fresh for this title. Levitz and Giffen, revered as they are, are really the precise opposite of what the Legion book needs. Is Fred Van Lente out of his Marvel contract yet? He'd be a good choice.

[Retro315]

About time.

The Emerald Empress issue was the precursor to all of Giffen's awesome O.M.A.C. mega-Kirby-style. Levitz's got a classic sensibility - it's always solid, there's always stuff happening, but the stakes aren't always ramped up. Giffen's a guy whose art is so good and dynamic, it automatically builds scale, scope and stakes. A lot of Levitz drawbacks as a writer are areas where in the past, old school writers really did have draftsmen who were the ones taking care of that high octane aspect.

Should be gold for a while. Preview art all but confirms it for me. Giffen's always been able to channel the best of Kirby without losing his own appeal.

[DarkKnghtJared]

Man, I really wish we could get somebody even remotely fresh for this title. Levitz and Giffen, revered as they are, are really the precise opposite of what the Legion book needs. Is Fred Van Lente out of his Marvel contract yet? He'd be a good choice.

The guy that did the creepy rape-y Chamelon arc on ASM? No, screw that.

Lately I was thinking that maybe Joe Keatinge could do something cool with the Legion--and since he's going to be doing some DC stuff soon, it's not entirely impossible...