Main Menu

Things that went over your head...

Started by ming, 09 January, 2012, 11:00:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

JOE SOAP

I assume Kenny Who was more a Jab at IPC/Fleetway and the battle for royalties etc.




positronic

#766
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 April, 2017, 06:28:30 PM

"I asked him if he was Denny O'Neil and then told him I was Cam Kennedy from Scotland. He just looked at me and said "Kenny Who?"

These kind of embarrassing international cultural faux-pas could have been avoided, if only they'd invented Rosetta Stone Scottish for Americans back then.

Smith

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 April, 2017, 06:39:49 PM
I assume Kenny Who was more a Jab at IPC/Fleetway and the battle for royalties etc.


I figured out that part,I was just wondering if Kennedy thought another artist was ripping him off.

positronic

Was it from that story where they let a bunch of the artists do one page of whatever they wanted, and they refused to print Mick McMahon's? I remember something about there being a charge of swiping leveled at somebody in that one (not McMahon's page, I think)?

JOE SOAP

Quote from: positronic on 15 April, 2017, 08:06:01 PM
Was it from that story where they let a bunch of the artists do one page of whatever they wanted, and they refused to print Mick McMahon's? I remember something about there being a charge of swiping leveled at somebody in that one (not McMahon's page, I think)?

https://books.google.ie/books?id=dyrcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=mike+mcmahon+prog+500&source=bl&ots=g4Ue_YcvCD&sig=LOGaBumg9I3vYSC8UYjk0MXl_NY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAw6mFmqfTAhXHB8AKHTF7Ab0Q6AEIRDAG#v=onepage&q=mike%20mcmahon%20prog%20500&f=false

Dash Decent

I read the trade for Aux Drift yesterday.  It wasn't until I got to the script section at the back that I realised the dog flying the biplane at the start is named Snoop, i.e. Snoopy in his Red Baron-baiting 'WWI flying ace' daydream persona.

In my defence I hadn't noticed Snoop's name given in the strip; there was so much name-calling going on between the pilot and gunner that I must've glossed over it.  The name is there in the strip though.

Still waiting for a Ronnie Barker to turn up.
- By Appointment -
Hero to Michael Carroll

"... rank amateurism and bad jokes." - JohnW.

positronic

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 April, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
Quote from: positronic on 15 April, 2017, 08:06:01 PM
Was it from that story where they let a bunch of the artists do one page of whatever they wanted, and they refused to print Mick McMahon's? I remember something about there being a charge of swiping leveled at somebody in that one (not McMahon's page, I think)?

https://books.google.ie/books?id=dyrcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=mike+mcmahon+prog+500&source=bl&ots=g4Ue_YcvCD&sig=LOGaBumg9I3vYSC8UYjk0MXl_NY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAw6mFmqfTAhXHB8AKHTF7Ab0Q6AEIRDAG#v=onepage&q=mike%20mcmahon%20prog%20500&f=false

Right, that was it. "Tharg's Head Revisited", in Prog 500. And it was Mick McMahon accusing the plagiarization? I wasn't sure if Cam Kennedy had been involved in that and drawn a page, perhaps utilizing Kenny Who? to comment on another artist appropriating his work.

Thanks for pointing out those 2000 AD creator interview collections, Joe. I wasn't aware those existed, if apparently only available in digital -- I'm trying to avoid Kindle's format though. Have to think about those.

The Corinthian

Quote from: positronic on 16 April, 2017, 02:29:41 AMRight, that was it. "Tharg's Head Revisited", in Prog 500. And it was Mick McMahon accusing the plagiarization? I wasn't sure if Cam Kennedy had been involved in that and drawn a page, perhaps utilizing Kenny Who? to comment on another artist appropriating his work.
That page is reprinted in Judge Dredd: The Mega-History (along with the Brian Bolland page that was also cut from the same strip) and the commentary makes it clear which specific artist McMahon was accusing - but it wasn't Kennedy.

The McMahon replacement page that was published in Prog 500 counts as a thing that went over my head, because it alludes to the censorship without saying too much. As a kid I could tell something was up but had no idea what.

positronic

Quote from: The Corinthian on 16 April, 2017, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: positronic on 16 April, 2017, 02:29:41 AMRight, that was it. "Tharg's Head Revisited", in Prog 500. And it was Mick McMahon accusing the plagiarization? I wasn't sure if Cam Kennedy had been involved in that and drawn a page, perhaps utilizing Kenny Who? to comment on another artist appropriating his work.
That page is reprinted in Judge Dredd: The Mega-History (along with the Brian Bolland page that was also cut from the same strip) and the commentary makes it clear which specific artist McMahon was accusing - but it wasn't Kennedy.

It was Brett Ewins. That's in the link that Joe Soap posted to the relevant Google Books page from the 2000 AD Creator Interviews Vol. 04. Ewins is quoted in response to McMahon's page from "Tharg's Head Revisited", so you may want to check it out.

I knew I'd seen those "Tharg's Head Revisited" pages reprinted somewhere in one of the books I have, I just couldn't remember where to reference it, and the details of the events surrounding the controversial story were hazy in my memory.

A.Cow

Quote from: positronic on 17 April, 2017, 06:03:11 AM
It was Brett Ewins. That's in the link that Joe Soap posted to the relevant Google Books page from the 2000 AD Creator Interviews Vol. 04. Ewins is quoted in response to McMahon's page from "Tharg's Head Revisited", so you may want to check it out.

If I read it right, Ewins argued that deadlines (& the need to emulate existing artists) led to the tracing incident, which he claimed was a one-off.

Going back to the Kenny Who? story, I suspect that Wagner & Kennedy were referencing a problem which had become a general issue in the industry at the time (rather than something that had happened to Cam himself).

It's interesting to note that the same thing has happened with composers of big-budget Hollywood movie soundtracks (https://youtu.be/7vfqkvwW2fs?t=9m43s) who are being asked to emulate existing temp tracks used during editing.  Some things never change!

positronic

Quote from: A.Cow on 17 April, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: positronic on 17 April, 2017, 06:03:11 AM
It was Brett Ewins. That's in the link that Joe Soap posted to the relevant Google Books page from the 2000 AD Creator Interviews Vol. 04. Ewins is quoted in response to McMahon's page from "Tharg's Head Revisited", so you may want to check it out.

If I read it right, Ewins argued that deadlines (& the need to emulate existing artists) led to the tracing incident, which he claimed was a one-off.

Going back to the Kenny Who? story, I suspect that Wagner & Kennedy were referencing a problem which had become a general issue in the industry at the time (rather than something that had happened to Cam himself).

It's interesting to note that the same thing has happened with composers of big-budget Hollywood movie soundtracks (https://youtu.be/7vfqkvwW2fs?t=9m43s) who are being asked to emulate existing temp tracks used during editing.  Some things never change!

Or even something like... in the early days of Silver Age Marvel comics, when they'd bring in a new artist to be a new regular penciller on a series that was usually kicked off by an issue (or several) pencilled by Jack Kirby, Stan Lee would often have Kirby do page breakdowns (or layouts) for the incoming artist, to try to give the new artist a feel for the sensibility that Lee wanted the series to capture. Basically the direction here (if not issued as a direct order in as many words) was, "do it like Kirby would", and "here's how, to give you a feel for it".

I can understand what Ewins is trying to say there, in a way. John Romita, when he took over the pencilling of The Amazing Spider-Man from Steve Ditko, was terrified that he was going to be reviled by the readers as a pretender and an also-ran. He was convinced he was going to go down as the artist who wound up getting the series cancelled. He knew the readers were used to Ditko's artwork, and liked it -- and that was the kind of Spider-Man they expected and wanted to see. So on his earliest issues he held back on his own natural style, and tried to draw it more towards what he perceived as the readers' desires.

When you're the new guy you probably think you're being asked to fill some big shoes, and you're going to suffer by comparison to the already-popular artists who have been established as fan-favorites. If your natural style isn't anything like the popular guy's style, you try to cheat and force yourself to draw the way they do, and you resort to swiping, because there's no way you can follow "in the tradition of" without leaning heavily on the readers' familiarity with previous stories. Whether or not an editor may have encouraged (or even suggested or requested) that sort of thing is another thing we'll probably never know.

Now I'm not going to say either McMahon or Ewins is right or wrong here, at least not without having studied closely specific pages and panels that are the bones of contention. Was it really only a one-time thing? That would seem to portray McMahon as a particularly over-reactive sort of artist. Or did Ewins really take shortcuts more often that he's willing to admit, and he's just trying to soft-pedal his guilt after being caught at it? I really don't know -- all I'm saying is I can understand it somewhat in light of the practical demands of how the comics industry works, and how comics fans & readers think. In the old days, it wasn't like today. It just wasn't always so simple and straightforward as "Just give it your best and be yourself; I'm sure everything will turn out fine and the readers will love it."

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: A.Cow on 17 April, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
If I read it right, Ewins argued that deadlines (& the need to emulate existing artists) led to the tracing incident, which he claimed was a one-off.

Apart from the innumerable swipes from Gibbons in his Rogue Trooper run, and the similar number of Bolland lifts on Anderson, which were also (presumably) "one-offs".

IIRC, the specific thing that enraged Mick, was Brett's cover for GW's 'Judgement Day' RPG scenario, which he felt was a fairly shameless swipe of Mick's iconic Cursed Earth cover...



Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

positronic

#777
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 17 April, 2017, 06:34:57 PM
Quote from: A.Cow on 17 April, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
If I read it right, Ewins argued that deadlines (& the need to emulate existing artists) led to the tracing incident, which he claimed was a one-off.

Apart from the innumerable swipes from Gibbons in his Rogue Trooper run, and the similar number of Bolland lifts on Anderson, which were also (presumably) "one-offs".

IIRC, the specific thing that enraged Mick, was Brett's cover for GW's 'Judgement Day' RPG scenario, which he felt was a fairly shameless swipe of Mick's iconic Cursed Earth cover...





Well, this is another example where you don't know. I mean you don't know whether the art editor at Games Workshop just called up Brett Ewins and hired him because he WAS Brett Ewins, or maybe the art editor was really hoping to hire Mick McMahon but he wasn't available (too busy with 2000 AD assignments) or wasn't interested (not offered enough money). Or even if the art editor thought somehow (misunderstanding, or just ignorance?) he had hired the Judge Dredd artist who had drawn the cover of Prog 61, specifically because he wanted a cover for the Judgment Day module to look like the cover of Prog 61. We just don't know what the particular circumstances around that cover were, because sometimes "art direction" can be very much like "I was only following orders", and that's just exactly what the art editor ordered.

In essence, we can't really know whether Ewins was hired for the GW job and given an entirely free hand in choosing how to compose the cover for that module. In that respect, using an independently-contracted example of a swipe which falls outside the aegis of a normal 2000 AD publication, seems like not the best proof of guilt in and of itself. Its only value is if it can be persuasive as a particular egregious instance among many many others. I don't say those hypothetical "many" don't exist, but narrowing it down to just one (and one in which the genesis of the cover concept might be said to be outside the normal operations of 2000 AD editorial, and thus especially dubious) is far less persuasive than if the choice of layout and subject for the cover could be narrowed down to no other realistic possibility than the executor of the actual drawing. Sometimes, the actual job of work is to execute a swipe. That really does happen.

positronic

Quote from: positronic on 17 April, 2017, 07:19:15 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 17 April, 2017, 06:34:57 PM
Quote from: A.Cow on 17 April, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
If I read it right, Ewins argued that deadlines (& the need to emulate existing artists) led to the tracing incident, which he claimed was a one-off.

Apart from the innumerable swipes from Gibbons in his Rogue Trooper run, and the similar number of Bolland lifts on Anderson, which were also (presumably) "one-offs".

IIRC, the specific thing that enraged Mick, was Brett's cover for GW's 'Judgement Day' RPG scenario, which he felt was a fairly shameless swipe of Mick's iconic Cursed Earth cover...





Well, this is another example where you don't know. I mean you don't know whether the art editor at Games Workshop just called up Brett Ewins and hired him because he WAS Brett Ewins, or maybe the art editor was really hoping to hire Mick McMahon but he wasn't available (too busy with 2000 AD assignments) or wasn't interested (not offered enough money). Or even if the art editor thought somehow (misunderstanding, or just ignorance?) he had hired the Judge Dredd artist who had drawn the cover of Prog 61, specifically because he wanted a cover for the Judgment Day module to look like the cover of Prog 61. We just don't know what the particular circumstances around that cover were, because sometimes "art direction" can be very much like "I was only following orders", and that's just exactly what the art editor ordered.

In essence, we can't really know whether Ewins was hired for the GW job and given an entirely free hand in choosing how to compose the cover for that module. In that respect, using an independently-contracted example of a swipe which falls outside the aegis of a normal 2000 AD publication, seems like not the best proof of guilt in and of itself. Its only value is if it can be persuasive as a particular egregious instance among many many others. I don't say those hypothetical "many" don't exist, but narrowing it down to just one (and one in which the genesis of the cover concept might be said to be outside the normal operations of 2000 AD editorial, and thus especially dubious) is far less persuasive than if the choice of layout and subject for the cover could be narrowed down to no other realistic possibility than the executor of the actual drawing. Sometimes, the actual job of work is to execute a swipe. That really does happen, and is not known to be uncommon in merchandising art.

Tony Angelino

I wasn't aware of that at all. Strangely Prog 61 is my favourite cover and I do have that RPG book but I don't remember ever looking at them and going "wait a minute".

I also wasn't aware of any alleged copying of Bolland and Gibbons work. Shows how observant I've been. Anyone have any examples of these?

To be fair to Brett Ewins he still did have a style distinctive from the others (in my eyes anyway). I have a vague memory of Alan Davis not being best pleased with some of Bryan Hitch's early work.