posted January 29, 2003 02:55 PM               

So i'm kinda of hoping that the series will kick off later this year - & even if it came out bi-monthly or something, i'd be happy with it CONCLUDING in 2004.

So Bob, with Georges "new" Cross Gen contract - does this mean you'll be having to use old artwork for the Trade covers for Titans, that Archive & Wonder Woman ?
This would still be good - really liked George's wraparound cover to WW no.1

posted January 29, 2003 02:58 PM               

So i'm kinda of hoping that the series will kick off later this year - & even if it came out bi-monthly or something, i'd be happy with it CONCLUDING in 2004.

So Bob, with Georges "new" Cross Gen contract - does this mean you'll be having to use old artwork for the Trade covers for Titans, that Archive & Wonder Woman ?
This would still be good - really liked George's wraparound cover to WW no.1

posted January 29, 2003 03:01 PM               

So i'm kinda of hoping that the series will kick off later this year - & even if it came out bi-monthly or something, i'd be happy with it CONCLUDING in 2004.

So Bob, with Georges "new" Cross Gen contract - does this mean you'll be having to use old artwork for the Trade covers for Titans, that Archive & Wonder Woman ?
This would still be good - really liked George's wraparound cover to WW no.1

posted January 29, 2003 03:07 PM               

So i'm kinda of hoping that the series will kick off later this year - & even if it came out bi-monthly or something, i'd be happy with it CONCLUDING in 2004.

So Bob, with Georges "new" Cross Gen contract - does this mean you'll be having to use old artwork for the Trade covers for Titans, that Archive & Wonder Woman ?
This would still be good - really liked George's wraparound cover to WW no.1

posted January 29, 2003 03:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliffy Mark II:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Friel:
[b] Many publishers distribute the products of other, competing publishers to the book trade

---

Agreed. But one of the asides in Grant's original column which I elided in my quote noted that Warner Books hasn't ever seemed to be too happy with having to distribute DC books. Once they don't "have" to because of common ownership, will they be willing to at all? And if not, will DC be in a subordinate position w/r/t Diamond's books arm (if that's the way DC goes) as a late adopter when compared with Marvel or others who use Diamond ditribution already?

--Cliffy[/B][/QUOTE]

DC has a very favorable contract with Diamond which includes (unless the time for it has passed by now) an option to buy.
So I don't think that they will ever be at a disadvantage there.

But maybe some other book company would do a better job for them in the book trade.

posted January 29, 2003 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jfire:
Back to the Jimmy Olsen collection: Is there any plan--is it even possible--to reinstate the original "Superman faces," which were pasted over with rendering more in-line with DC's house style on the character?

---

I recall reading somewhere ages ago (the Kirby Collector?) that Steve Rude was asked/going/wanted to redraw the Superman faces to get them back in line w/ what Kirby had originally put down. If this turns out to be the case, could we have Mike Royer re-ink the Colleta pages too?

posted January 29, 2003 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hotandserious:
...could we have Mike Royer re-ink the Colleta pages too?

---

Like this stuff: http://www.whatifkirby.com/html/creation.html

posted January 29, 2003 03:51 PM               

When i get the message up "web-site not responding" didn't realise that my post actually got through every time i tried.

Still, i guess Bob, got the reply huh ?

posted January 29, 2003 04:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliffy Mark II:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Friel:
[b] Many publishers distribute the products of other, competing publishers to the book trade

---

Agreed. But one of the asides in Grant's original column which I elided in my quote noted that Warner Books hasn't ever seemed to be too happy with having to distribute DC books. Once they don't "have" to because of common ownership, will they be willing to at all? And if not, will DC be in a subordinate position w/r/t Diamond's books arm (if that's the way DC goes) as a late adopter when compared with Marvel or others who use Diamond ditribution already?

--Cliffy[/B][/QUOTE]

Didn't Marvel Comics announce sometime last year they'd be distributing their TPBs and HCs away from Diamond, to some other distributor regarding the delivery of their books to be in local bookstores and online bookstores more effectively?

posted January 29, 2003 05:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DStepp:
I may have missed something but have we concluded that JO is an Archive? If so, we seem a little light on Gold this year

Silver Gold

Aquaman Spectre
Duo All-Star
Challs Plas?
JLA
Legion
JO?

The end of the year must be gold heavy since Spectre is the only Gold we have seen announced for the first of the year. Of course, we have had lop sided Gold years so I suppose we could be due.

D.

---

posted January 29, 2003 08:30 PM               

Short version : large retail chains (Borders, Wal-Mart, others) have turned over management of different departments to their vendors (Example : HarperCollins choosing which books Borders should stock in its cooking section).

I guess this explains why the sci-fi section of every major book retailer is overrun by Star Trek and Star Wars "novels". I wonder who stocks the graphic novel section and how this affects sales of the books we love? I'm glad my current vice is provided by a large corporate entity and not a small publisher with no clout.

posted January 29, 2003 11:05 PM               

I'm positive I'm in the minority here, but is there any chance we'll see a Rip Hunter Archives within the next 10 years?

posted January 29, 2003 11:48 PM            

I'm positive I'm in the minority here, but is there any chance we'll see a Rip Hunter Archives within the next 10 years?
----------------------------

You're not in that much of a minority, I'd love to see it to, especially if it included the Kubert issues. By the way, does anyone recall which issues he did?
Glenn

posted January 30, 2003 09:06 AM               

Tor 3 is currently pencilled in for the fall.

Enemy Ace was a decision reached while I was away and am not sure what led to it. Cool book, though.

Sorry, but since we do not have access to all the original Kirby faces, we're going with the printed version. At no time did I talk with the Dude about reinking faces. It's also not cost effective for the company to hire Mike to reink the material. It'll look snazzy with fresh color. And the cover...oooh.

Speaking of covers, I have to tell you how thrilled I am at all the new covers I've managed to snag. No one here's talked about it but the Alan Davis GL: Emerald Dawn stuff is great. I have a bunch more that I'm very proud of.

Right now, the Perez volumes are moving slowly through the system. Until we need the covers, we're not sure which way we're going. Neither JLA or WW are currently on the schedule so we have time to make this work out.

Yes, the plot to #4 is approved but there's no way George can do all that's left and still have all 4 come out this year. Neither DC nor Marvel, I suspect, want to wait on a bi-monthly schedule so we need for George to be well into #4 before scheduling the monthly event.

Rip Hunter probably is around Sea Devils on the list of SA material to be collected--meaning, it's not high on the list so don't save your pennies quite yet.

posted January 30, 2003 09:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Greenberger:
Sorry, but since we do not have access to all the original Kirby faces, we're going with the printed version. At no time did I talk with the Dude about reinking faces. It's also not cost effective for the company to hire Mike to reink the material. It'll look snazzy with fresh color. And the cover...oooh.

---

I may be in a minority here on this, but thank God! It would be one thing if all the original art existed, but having someone "re-imagine" what Kirby MIGHT have done would have been as misguided as what originally happened. It would be as bad as, say, allowing Neal Adams to pretty much ruin a $75 hardcover by completely redrawing an issue because his ego wasn't pleased with the original inking job. [Check his web site, everybody, he completely re-pencilled that Deadman story, not just reinked it, and it shows, plus the coloring job is atrociously out of place.] Do try to keep Mr. Adams from spoiling the Batman collectons, please. His web site mentions that his people are again recoloring the stuff, but hopefully it's either more in line with the original or consistently "modern" throughout.

posted January 30, 2003 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Greenberger:
Sorry, but since we do not have access to all the original Kirby faces, we're going with the printed version. At no time did I talk with the Dude about reinking faces. It's also not cost effective for the company to hire Mike to reink the material. It'll look snazzy with fresh color. And the cover...oooh.

---

I may be in a minority here on this, but thank God! It would be one thing if all the original art existed, but having someone "re-imagine" what Kirby MIGHT have done would have been as misguided as what originally happened. It would be as bad as, say, allowing Neal Adams to pretty much ruin a $75 hardcover by completely redrawing an issue because his ego wasn't pleased with the original inking job. [Check his web site, everybody, he completely re-pencilled that Deadman story, not just reinked it, and it shows, plus the coloring job is atrociously out of place.] Do try to keep Mr. Adams from spoiling the Batman collectons, please. His web site mentions that his people are again recoloring the stuff, but hopefully it's either more in line with the original or consistently "modern" throughout.

posted January 30, 2003 09:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Greenberger:
Sorry, but since we do not have access to all the original Kirby faces, we're going with the printed version. At no time did I talk with the Dude about reinking faces. It's also not cost effective for the company to hire Mike to reink the material. It'll look snazzy with fresh color. And the cover...oooh.

---

I may be in a minority here on this, but thank God! It would be one thing if all the original art existed, but having someone "re-imagine" what Kirby MIGHT have done would have been as misguided as what originally happened. It would be as bad as, say, allowing Neal Adams to pretty much ruin a $75 hardcover by completely redrawing an issue because his ego wasn't pleased with the original inking job. [Check his web site, everybody, he completely re-pencilled that Deadman story, not just reinked it, and it shows, plus the coloring job is atrociously out of place.] Do try to keep Mr. Adams from spoiling the Batman collectons, please. His web site mentions that his people are again recoloring the stuff, but hopefully it's either more in line with the original or consistently "modern" throughout.

posted January 30, 2003 10:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillNolan:
What the heck!?! Now I know I only sent that once...

- Bill

---

Must've been routed through a server on Carggg.

posted January 30, 2003 11:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillNolan:
...It would be as bad as, say, allowing Neal Adams to pretty much ruin a $75 hardcover by completely redrawing an issue because his ego wasn't pleased with the original inking job. {Check his web site, everybody, he completely re-pencilled that Deadman story, not just reinked it, and it shows, plus the coloring job is atrociously out of place.}

---

Personally, I liked that. Yes, it wasn't the original presentation, but the original wasn't as good as it could have been. If any story looked out of place, it was the first one by Carmine Infantino (which couldn't have been excluded for obvious reasons).

I prefer to think of the redone Adams story as something like a "digitally remastered Director's Cut". It's what we would have gotten if today's printing technology would have been available 30 years ago (combined with loads of hindsight). It's not something I want to see often (very rarely, if ever again) but it worked for me just this once. The entire rest of the book more closely resembles the original work -- for one story (and for the reasons given) I support the change.

posted January 30, 2003 11:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillNolan:
...It would be as bad as, say, allowing Neal Adams to pretty much ruin a $75 hardcover by completely redrawing an issue because his ego wasn't pleased with the original inking job. {Check his web site, everybody, he completely re-pencilled that Deadman story, not just reinked it, and it shows, plus the coloring job is atrociously out of place.}

---

Personally, I liked that. Yes, it wasn't the original presentation, but the original wasn't as good as it could have been. If any story looked out of place, it was the first one by Carmine Infantino (which couldn't have been excluded for obvious reasons).

I prefer to think of the redone Adams story as something like a "digitally remastered Director's Cut". It's what we would have gotten if today's printing technology would have been available 30 years ago (combined with loads of hindsight). It's not something I want to see often (very rarely, if ever again) but it worked for me just this once. The entire rest of the book more closely resembles the original work -- for one story (and for the reasons given) I support the change.

posted January 30, 2003 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillNolan:

I may be in a minority here on this, but thank God! It would be one thing if all the original art existed, but having someone "re-imagine" what Kirby MIGHT have done would have been as misguided as what originally happened.
- Bill

---

Apparently the Kirby estate has copies of a lot of the penciled material, as some of it it has popped up in the Kirby Collector (not sure if it exists across the board for the DC Colletta stuff). But I don't see how a paste up that's more in line w/ Kirby's intentions is anything but a step up from the wildly incongruous Superman heads tacked on in the original printings.

I'd much rather see a paste up that doesn't call attention to itself by obviously being by a different hand.

Anyway - Thanks Bob for answering my questions - my quip about Royer re-inks was really just fanboy daydreaming outloud.

But please duly note (LOL) my vote that when the time comes around to reissue the Hunger Dogs -I (and a lot of others) would like to see Theakston's "reinks" and overlays eliminated - as much as is humanly possible.

Thanks for being so committed to the board, Bob, we all really appreciate it!