2000AD stories - with artists changes half way.

[Jim_Campbell]

I remember talking to Steve Dillon about 'Cinnabar' back in 93-94 and him telling me:

'The inker completely killed that story...!'

I was gutted, Kev Walker was (and still is) one of my favourite 2000ad artists and 'Cinnabar' my all-time favourite Rogue story...

Why? Steve is clearly wrong. He, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to dislike Kev's inks on that story and, given that they're his pencils he's entitled to feel more strongly about the inks than most people.

But "killed" the story? Given that it's held to be one of the few real 'classic' 2000AD stories that Rogue has, given that John Smith has gone out of his way to praise Kev's contribution? No. Sorry, but he's wrong.

I also don't really agree with perspectively correct/lit bgs and proportioned figures being the basis of good art (I'm a trained artist) as to judge art on that meter,

I didn't say that. I was observing that, at the very least, Alex' stuff from this period was competent because he plainly knew how to draw.

Cheers

Jim

[Steve Green]

I preferred the inking on Cinnabar to Dillon's usual work. Just seemed a bit crisper.

And I don't get the hate for Alex Ronald's 90s work either - I can see the lumpy character argument put forward, but there others I found much weaker.

[JOE SOAP]

And I don't get the hate for Alex Ronald's 90s work either - I can see the lumpy character argument put forward, but there others I found much weaker.

His Dredd & Missionary Man strips are some of the 90's highlights.

[Call-Me-Kenneth]

Why? Steve is clearly wrong. He, like anyone else, is perfectly entitled to dislike Kev's inks on that story and, given that they're his pencils he's entitled to feel more strongly about the inks than most people.

But "killed" the story? Given that it's held to be one of the few real 'classic' 2000AD stories that Rogue has, given that John Smith has gone out of his way to praise Kev's contribution? No. Sorry, but he's wrong.

I completely agree with you on this, it was actually at a 'Preacher' signing I chatted to him about it, whereas everyone brought up their Preacher issues/TPBs to get signed, I brought up my 'Best of 2000AD Monthly' Cinnabar issue. It's my favorite Steve Dillon artwork/story in any capacity and Kev Walker's inks hugely contribute to this (as does John Smith's writing, of course!).

I was hugely disappointed to hear him say this.....but that comment apart, he was in great form.

[hippynumber1]

I'd even go so far as to say that Kev inking Dillon's pencils was the only thing that made the Harlem Heroes reboot worth spending time on.

[Frank]

I honestly don't think Ronald's 2000AD work was competent.  On my big re-read of 2000AD I was shocked at just how technically poor his artwork was.  It really solidified my dislike of his style.

Opposite way round, I think. As discussed above, the technical aspects of Ronald's work, like anatomy and perspective, were fit for print, but the bland characterisation you mention and the lack of variety in textures and shading made it a little porridge-y. Most artists working for 2000ad around that time were learning on the job, and Ronald's work shows much better basic competency than the debut work of Coleby, Weston, or Critchlow - all of whom, like Ronald, have grown into fantastic artists.

I like Kev Walker's work on Cinnabar, but I can see where Dillon's coming from with his opinion of the inking. It's technically brilliant, but it does turn Dillon's work (and the story) into something else. Thankfully, that something else was entirely sympathetic to the mood and atmosphere of the narrative - more in sympathy with John Smith's body horror than the much more loose inking style Dillon had developed for his bouncy, lightweight Deadline work. Dillon's one of the very best there is, but his finish wasn't suited to that story at that time.

[Jon]

I honestly don't think Ronald's 2000AD work was competent.

Ye Gods! What terrifying set of criteria are you working to? I can understand not liking someone's approach, but not competent...? Really?

[pictsy]

Really.  I don't think the artwork is competent and I don't think it was of a high enough standard.  The criteria I use would be the same I use on my own artwork.  I could give an in depth critique on why I think that the work he produced was poor quality but there are two reasons why I won't.

1.  I will have to dig out those old issues both actively and purposefully look at that artwork.

2.  This thread has gone way off topic. 

I realise I am contributing to the divergence with this response but felt I should reply to your comment

[JOE SOAP]

I wish I was this competent. With the right colouring Alex Ronald's art really sang– as well as Trevor Hairsine and Henry Flint's of the same era:


Headbangers prog #1098 (1998)

[Frank]

With the right colouring Alex Ronald's art really sang

Craddockcolor (™) made everything look cheap and nasty. Those pages above are fantastic, stylistically and technically.

[TordelBack]

I was no fan of early Ronald, but then I didn't like Coleby and Hairsine either.  I think they're all truly fantastic artists now, of course, but while I wouldn't go as far as Pictsy as saying Ronald wasn't 'competent' in any tecnhical sense, I certainly agree that his early stuff, and that of the other blokes, was lacking in many departments that I considered important, and really did nothing for me.  At the time I was pretty tired of the Prog and many of the stories they were drawing, so I probably wasn't prepared to see that these were artists in progress.  Thank goodness Tharg in his wisdom gave (most of) them an environment in which develop.

[Frank]

I certainly agree that his early stuff, and that of the other blokes, was lacking in many departments that I considered important, and really did nothing for me.  At the time I was pretty tired of the Prog and many of the stories they were drawing, so I probably wasn't prepared to see that these were artists in progress

Around 1988, the art seemed to go from uniform excellence to fan art quality almost overnight. I've made this point before, but in previous times artists would have learned their trade and made all their rookie mistakes while working on juvenile titles or as art assistants. I'm sure Ian Gibson and Carlos Ezquerra made art goofs much worse than an over reliance on cross hatching and mixing their acrylics too dark, but they did so in front of more forgiving eyes.

Once the rest of the UK comics industry imploded, I suppose there was no alternative but to let fledgling artists do their growing up in public.

[TordelBack]

Once the rest of the UK comics industry imploded, I suppose there was no alternative but to let fledgling artists do their growing up in public.

That really is the thing, plus they were effectively debuting in a comic which at that point had had a decade's worth of some of the best comics artists ever, and they were replacing them.  Terrifying.

I often think of Richard Elson when we talk about this stuff.  I really liked him on Shadows, which was just a great story anyway, but you'd be hard pressed to call that murky scrabbly technicolour work 'mature'.  When he resurfaced in my awareness (I think it was Dredd: Lawcon) he was sharp and confident, every inch a '2000AD artist'.  If we hadn't had Shadows it would be as if had sprung fully-formed from the Rosette of Sirius like a robotic Athena: even though his 'adult' style has continued to develop, we'd never have seen the larval stage.

[Frank]

in previous times artists would have learned their trade and made all their rookie mistakes while working on juvenile titles or as art assistants

I often think of Richard Elson when we talk about this stuff.  I really liked him on Shadows, which was just a great story anyway, but you'd be hard pressed to call that murky scrabbly technicolour work 'mature'.  When he resurfaced in my awareness (I think it was Dredd: Lawcon) he was sharp and confident, every inch a '2000AD artist'.  If we hadn't had Shadows it would be as if had sprung fully-formed from the Rosette of Sirius like a robotic Athena: even though his 'adult' style has continued to develop, we'd never have seen the larval stage.

Yep, and he spent the intervening decade honing his craft on kids' comics.

[Jon]

Really.  I don't think the artwork is competent and I don't think it was of a high enough standard.  The criteria I use would be the same I use on my own artwork.

I see little evidence of this.

2.  This thread has gone way off topic. 

Agreed, dropping it.

It interests me that McMahon's take while massively popular, well received and critically lauded could be said to have left its make least on the strip ... I'm no artist, nor art critic so this could go badly wrong from here. McMahon's earthy, dirty, ancient art and for many including myself the best the strip has ever had, didn't seemed to get picked up on. Where as Belardinelli's more lush, Vallejoesque work (certainly in the world he created around the characters themselves) seems to have influenced the strip more? A big part of this may of course have been the way Pat Mills took the strip always struck me as a shame.

I think this might just be down to Mick's work being so very distinctive*. Belardinelli drew breathtaking landscapes, and I loved his take on the warp-spasm, but his characters were always a little stiff and generic.

But Fabry and Bisley who, I believe, eclipsed that earlier work were both working from a more classical angle - especially Fabry with his fastidious approach to anatomical detail. I think this worked well at the time in transforming the character from vagabond to king. It did seem to become the new touchstone.

The Glenn Fabry/ David Pugh double-team always intrigued me. At the time, in a similar way to Bisley/ SMS on the Black Hole, I was always disappointed when an episode was drawn by Pugh. It seems unfair judgement really as it was mostly a case of being outshone by the outstanding talent. I'm guessing those pairings largely came down to just how long it takes to produce a strip to such an exceptional standard; but it did seem to end up producing a small number of cases where you felt there was a superstar/ support act arrangement. I'd love to know if those arrangements were planned from the beginning, or if it became apparent that measures would have to be taken.



*On the one occasion I managed to have a drink with him (he worked as a concept artist in the games studio I was at for a short while), Mick told me that the distinctive style on Slaine came from a nervous desire to do an outstanding job and so he traced the inks on a separate page over the pencils. When he lifted the sheet he saw, to his horror, he'd left gaps all over the place, but there was no time to fix it. Then it turned out that people seemed to like it. By the end of his run he was wholly sick to death of the approach.

I fully accept he may well have been toying with me.