I've often wondered if it would be a good idea or not to edit the constant repeats and recaps information found in invidual issues during the 80s Claremont run when publishing trades. Has such a thing ever been considered ?
When Marvel did a trade paperback of my big Galactus arc, I convinced the powers that were to let me edit out everything that was not directly concerned with that story. Only a few captions needed to be added to bridge the “gaps”.
My habit of ending pages on mini-cliffhangers served me well as I excised subplots. One remarkable moment saw Sue walking thru the Baxter Building at the end of one page, to find her continuing that journey at the beginning of the next, even tho there had originally been a couple of issues between those pages. Marvel serendipity?
Let me just take this opportunity to thank you for these "how the sausage is made" stories. I probably disproportionally appreciate this aspect of the site, more than the many others (I also realize in hindsight that I probably unknowingly broke a lot of the rules the site establishes at the onset, and I humbly apologize. Guilty of the generation that acts first and reads directions later).
In this "quiet" time while Elsewhen isn't currently being "published, I delight in being able to do searches on interesting posts that go back many years on a variety of related interests. As I silently enjoy those without posting to them myself, I just wanted to express gratitude for that enjoyment here, as I don't know where else that would be appropriate.
With us talking about inking and paper and printer quality, I do think that Terry Austin did a lot for your art on the X-men by having a bold style of inking your work. I think it did a good job surviving the printing at that time. I don’t know if the printing started getting a little bit better, or if you just worked hard to make it work, but but I really liked your inks on FF. I do know that the first years of the different printing method hurt everything for a while. It seemed that either the printers got better or the artists all figured out how to get around the limits.
I would say it was obvious that the artists' style evolved around what they knew would come across well in a more limited printing environment. You could tell when experienced inkers hadn't adapted to the better printing and quality of paper when they became available: the images were just jarring. Bob Wiacek's (can't believe I remember that name) inks of our gracious host comes to mind, as does that of John Romita, Jr. The pages just came off very flat.
The poor quality of previous printing worked well for the more brush-centric works of a Joe Rubinstein or an Al Williamson, nor did the quallity suffer once better printing and paper became the norm.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum