What If....

[OmenSpirits.com]

Jack kirby joined valiant in the beginning.

[Unblessed]

SGT Magnus and his Commandos of A.E.G.I.S.

[Daniel Jackson]

Interesting question. I'm not sure how well his style would have translated with most of the characters though.

[steverino]

Jack Kirby's style would not go well with Shooter. Shooter even made Barry Winsor-Smith tone down his art for Valiant, saying it was too dynamic or something.

[sanman]

Jack Kirby's style would not go well with Shooter. Shooter even made Barry Winsor-Smith tone down his art for Valiant, saying it was too dynamic or something.

Yeah, Shooter has a problem with artists drawing outside of the frame. I think he’s insecure about the art overshadowing the story or something.

No, Kirby would have been way too constricted. But, that aside, it would have been fun.

Here's the King's take on the TMNT.

[slym2none]

Jack kirby joined valiant in the beginning.

We would have a lot of square-kneed people.



-slym

[xodacia81]

...Magnus would not have existed in the 41st century, but the 41st WORLD.

[sanman]

...Magnus would not have existed in the 41st century, but the 41st WORLD.

[Unblessed]

Here's the King's take on the TMNT.

Why are they missing their tails?

[OmenSpirits.com]

You know, as you all speak, a question I'd like to pose to you all.

Do you think Valiant art should have been more dynamic?

I mean, there were artists (post shooter) that gave the art more energy by not holding to the tight structure that he had going. And let's face it, story & art go hand in hand, more so about the art considering the medium, and holding artist down would make the material stale at best.

[sanman]

I think the earlier stuff could have been more dynamic but at the time, I was in awe of Valiant’s characters, stories and over all production quality. I still think in comparison pre-Unity is better illustrated and printed than most of the books DC and Marvel were publishing at the time.

Still, when I look at the work Sears, Breyfogle, and Jurgens created for the company, I’d agree that Shooter stifled the full potential his stories could have had.

It’s just too bad that at the end style was favored mostly over substance—I'd take good stories over flashy art any day.

[RJMooreII]

Jack kirby joined valiant in the beginning.

There would have been a lot of Valiant characters with massive bottom lips, cro-magnon eyebrows and technology that apparently consists of circles attached to angular pieces of metal.

Yeah, Shooter has a problem with artists drawing outside of the frame. I think he’s insecure about the art overshadowing the story or something.

Comic-book wise, I can read a lot more lame stories with good art than vice versa (I read, oh, 60 issues of Spawn straight through). Because if I just wanted a good read I'd pick up something by Jack Vance. The art/visuals is kind of the point of a comic book. The reason it's not just a book.

Do you think Valiant art should have been more dynamic?

Yes. It was competently executed, but the panel layout and expressions of movement were always rather lackluster. Also see above.

As far as Valiant being better than Marvel and DC at the time...there was no one at Valiant who could hold a candle to Jim Lee.

[myron]

<snip>
As far as Valiant being better than Marvel and DC at the time...there was no one at Valiant who could hold a candle to Jim Lee.

I call *SQUEE*...

Barry Smith at that time had already been considered one of the best in the biz for years...

and Layton and Shooter were definitely no slouches either.

Shooter just wanted the art to compliment the story, not overpower it.

[RJMooreII]

I didn't say the guys are Valiant were incompetent; some of them were good. But before Jim Lee Starlin was the best at Marvel, and he's better than anyone at Valiant was; and Jim Lee's better than Starlin and was illustrating the Hell out of everything in Marvel at the time Valiant was formed.

Valiant was a reaction against the EXTREME trend in comics, but it was also an overreaction; in many ways the scenes and layouts were put together in a way that had all the same drawbacks and blandness of classic comic strips and illustrations and often gave the characters and dynamics a far to 'normal' feel; it's like you're watching a TV show.

[ian_house]

I'd like to propose that Jim Lee is overated!

[RJMooreII]

I'd like to propose that Jim Lee is overated!

Depends on what you mean. As a regular-edition comic book illustrator he's one of the best there is; obviously in range and depth someone like Olivetti or Alex Ross is his superior. But it also doesn't take Jim Lee 2 weeks to do a page.

Lee's biggest weakness as an illustrator is technology, especially technology worn by humans. He has a tendency to want to draw Dr. Doom or General Zod's armor as though it's made out of muscles instead of steel.

Also, he's a pimp, he drinks scotch without ice and smokes cigars in his house.

[captain1stern]

<snip>
As far as Valiant being better than Marvel and DC at the time...there was no one at Valiant who could hold a candle to Jim Lee.

I call *SQUEE*...

Barry Smith at that time had already been considered one of the best in the biz for years...

and Layton and Shooter were definitely no slouches either.

Shooter just wanted the art to compliment the story, not overpower it.

I agree with you. I like Jim Lee's stuff, loved it as a kid, but I still found Barry's to be more expressive and dynamic. He had a feel of realism to his work and I always loved his colors. Is he doing anything now?

[sanman]

As far as Valiant being better than Marvel and DC at the time...there was no one at Valiant who could hold a candle to Jim Lee.

Jim Lee illustrated Valiant comics

[RJMooreII]

That was later. I'm talking about early on when Lee was still doing X-Men.
BTW, super identifiable art-style. Although (like all those 90s EXTREME dudes) he has a lot of impersonators, I can almost always recognize something as Jim Lee's instantly. Part of it is because he likes to use a lot of facial lines and can do this without making everyone look 176 years old (as opposed to Liefeld, who has the same problem as the game Oblivion when it comes to face work).

[sanman]

That was later. I'm talking about early on when Lee was still doing X-Men.
BTW, super identifiable art-style. Although (like all those 90s EXTREME dudes) he has a lot of impersonators, I can almost always recognize something as Jim Lee's instantly. Part of it is because he likes to use a lot of facial lines and can do this without making everyone look 176 years old (as opposed to Liefeld, who has the same problem as the game Oblivion when it comes to face work).

Yeah, me too—Jim Lee is tops. I’m a big DC guy but his X-Men and Wild Cats runs remain in my collection just because I love the art. When the man illustrated Hush and then All Star I was extremely psyched.

Still, I don’t think Lee would have been the right guy on the early Valiant books. As much as I think the illustrations could have been more dynamic, he was better off with his pals over at Image.

Its not to say that he wouldn’t have been a tremendous influence at Valiant but I think one of the reasons the books work as a whole is because the art had a unified feel as well as the storytelling. Sure, Lee might have been awesome on a book like Magnus or Shadowman but I think his dynamic draftsmanship would have upset the overall balance Shooter had successfully achieved.

[xodacia81]

That was later. I'm talking about early on when Lee was still doing X-Men.
BTW, super identifiable art-style. Although (like all those 90s EXTREME dudes) he has a lot of impersonators, I can almost always recognize something as Jim Lee's instantly. Part of it is because he likes to use a lot of facial lines and can do this without making everyone look 176 years old (as opposed to Liefeld, who has the same problem as the game Oblivion when it comes to face work).

Yeah, me too—Jim Lee is tops. I’m a big DC guy but his X-Men and Wild Cats runs remain in my collection just because I love the art. When the man illustrated Hush and then All Star I was extremely psyched.

Still, I don’t think Lee would have been the right guy on the early Valiant books. As much as I think the illustrations could have been more dynamic, he was better off with his pals over at Image.

Its not to say that he wouldn’t have been a tremendous influence at Valiant but I think one of the reasons the books work as a whole is because the art had a unified feel as well as the storytelling. Sure, Lee might have been awesome on a book like Magnus or Shadowman but I think his dynamic draftsmanship would have upset the overall balance Shooter had successfully achieved.

...and there you have it. I think the fact that Valiant was so consisten and had such an across the board feel and level in both art and writing, is the key to the early success. Some guys are just not a fit, no matter how talented. I don't think, for instance, that Eric Luke's tim on Wonder Woman was the right place for him to be, despite his 36 issue(and a special) run on Ghost, for Dark Horse, remains among my all time favorite books. Consequently, Javier Saltares was the wrong artist for X, but his work at Marvel was pretty good.

[RJMooreII]

In the way that Valiant seemed to be going for a basically realistic drawing style I think Jim Starlin would have been good except Starlin really loves crazy outfits and space-stuff. Neal Adams would have been a good choice, too.

If there's one thing I'm glad Jim Lee stopped doing was making people constantly pose with their legs all akimbo. It looks awkward. But as of the middle of his WildC.A.T.s run he stopped wish-boning everyone.

[sanman]

That was later. I'm talking about early on when Lee was still doing X-Men.
BTW, super identifiable art-style. Although (like all those 90s EXTREME dudes) he has a lot of impersonators, I can almost always recognize something as Jim Lee's instantly. Part of it is because he likes to use a lot of facial lines and can do this without making everyone look 176 years old (as opposed to Liefeld, who has the same problem as the game Oblivion when it comes to face work).

Yeah, me too—Jim Lee is tops. I’m a big DC guy but his X-Men and Wild Cats runs remain in my collection just because I love the art. When the man illustrated Hush and then All Star I was extremely psyched.

Still, I don’t think Lee would have been the right guy on the early Valiant books. As much as I think the illustrations could have been more dynamic, he was better off with his pals over at Image.

Its not to say that he wouldn’t have been a tremendous influence at Valiant but I think one of the reasons the books work as a whole is because the art had a unified feel as well as the storytelling. Sure, Lee might have been awesome on a book like Magnus or Shadowman but I think his dynamic draftsmanship would have upset the overall balance Shooter had successfully achieved.

...and there you have it. I think the fact that Valiant was so consisten and had such an across the board feel and level in both art and writing, is the key to the early success. Some guys are just not a fit, no matter how talented. I don't think, for instance, that Eric Luke's tim on Wonder Woman was the right place for him to be, despite his 36 issue(and a special) run on Ghost, for Dark Horse, remains among my all time favorite books. Consequently, Javier Saltares was the wrong artist for X, but his work at Marvel was pretty good.

Exactly, the key was to maintain a certain level of visual consistency.

Now if it could have been done more dynamically then perhaps Shooter could have eased up but I’m fine with the way things turned out.

Ironically, its those more dynamic issues of Magnus published during Unity that stand out—not as missed opportunities but a set of books that don’t quite gel with the whole.

[xodacia81]

That was later. I'm talking about early on when Lee was still doing X-Men.
BTW, super identifiable art-style. Although (like all those 90s EXTREME dudes) he has a lot of impersonators, I can almost always recognize something as Jim Lee's instantly. Part of it is because he likes to use a lot of facial lines and can do this without making everyone look 176 years old (as opposed to Liefeld, who has the same problem as the game Oblivion when it comes to face work).

Yeah, me too—Jim Lee is tops. I’m a big DC guy but his X-Men and Wild Cats runs remain in my collection just because I love the art. When the man illustrated Hush and then All Star I was extremely psyched.

Still, I don’t think Lee would have been the right guy on the early Valiant books. As much as I think the illustrations could have been more dynamic, he was better off with his pals over at Image.

Its not to say that he wouldn’t have been a tremendous influence at Valiant but I think one of the reasons the books work as a whole is because the art had a unified feel as well as the storytelling. Sure, Lee might have been awesome on a book like Magnus or Shadowman but I think his dynamic draftsmanship would have upset the overall balance Shooter had successfully achieved.

...and there you have it. I think the fact that Valiant was so consisten and had such an across the board feel and level in both art and writing, is the key to the early success. Some guys are just not a fit, no matter how talented. I don't think, for instance, that Eric Luke's tim on Wonder Woman was the right place for him to be, despite his 36 issue(and a special) run on Ghost, for Dark Horse, remains among my all time favorite books. Consequently, Javier Saltares was the wrong artist for X, but his work at Marvel was pretty good.

Exactly, the key was to maintain a certain level of visual consistency.

Now if it could have been done more dynamically then perhaps Shooter could have eased up but I’m fine with the way things turned out.

Ironically, its those more dynamic issues of Magnus published during Unity that stand out—not as missed opportunities but a set of books that don’t quite gel with the whole.

The ones with art by E.Coln? I really love those. Yeah, they were different, but they were simply amazing to behold and they reminded me of the covers to the old Gold Key stuff. They were like reading stories illustrated in the style of old school movie posters.

[sanman]

I like the books illustrated by E.Coln more than any others published by Valiant. By no means am I trying to say otherwise. However, I think they upset Unity’s rhythm and don’t quite gel with the rest of the universe as a whole.

For better or worse they feel out of palace to me--then again maybe I’m getting my OCD confused with the need for a consistent artistic vision.