ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 659
Jul 15 08 8:46 AM
Posts: 79
Jul 15 08 8:59 AM
Posts: 2329
Jul 15 08 11:39 AM
Registered Member
Daniel Best wrote: and yes I do believe I've been mislead when it comes to the Masterworks by not knowing that entire stories are recreations and not reprints (and yes, there is a vast difference).
Posts: 175
Jul 15 08 12:59 PM
Posts: 1838
Jul 15 08 1:47 PM
As for Mike Kelleher being uncredited, I think there is a credit listing on the inside pages that list him as doing lineart reconstruction. And hes, that's what he does - heck, what ALL of us do! Whether it's on a light board, or redrawing lines on a pixel by pixel basis....
Posts: 10379
Jul 15 08 2:33 PM
In a previous thread, I asked why anyone would trace a page rather than decolor...
Jul 15 08 2:35 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote: In a previous thread, I asked why anyone would trace a page rather than decolor... I'm still hoping for an answer to that question!
I thought it was because until recently, that was considered to be a well guarded, secret, proprietary technique?
Posts: 1150
Jul 15 08 2:38 PM
Posts: 11529
Jul 15 08 2:39 PM
Gerry Turnbull has informed me that I'm being attacked over at the Masterworks forums, not that I'd know as I don't visit there, nor know where it is. I might though, just to see what's being said.
Click this link for the MASTERWORKS HOME PAGE, and don't miss out on the latest news and release information on the whole scene of collected editions at the CURRENT NEWS page!
Jul 15 08 2:42 PM
famac wrote: As for Mike Kelleher being uncredited, I think there is a credit listing on the inside pages that list him as doing lineart reconstruction. And hes, that's what he does - heck, what ALL of us do! Whether it's on a light board, or redrawing lines on a pixel by pixel basis.... Well, I think lightboxing the art and redrawing the entire thing is a bit different than retouching/correcting existing film. In a previous thread, I asked why anyone would trace a page rather than decolor, and Michael agreed that it is no longer necessary to redraw pages due to increases in computing power. I've never traced a page for Cory, or anything even close.
I don't recall anyone accusing you or tracing!
Posts: 36
Jul 15 08 4:24 PM
michkelleher wrote: <<I HAVE emailed Michael and Cory more than once>> Daniel, you sent me 1 email, days after you posted comments on your blog. Your email asked me no questions other than if I had any "comments" regarding your article. I then read your article and, frankly, it reads as an attack on me as much as Marvel. I beleive that most people would understand my hesitatation to speak with someone who would "shoot first and ask questions later". You also contacted my "art rep" ( The Hyaena Gallery ) in the guise of a person interested in buying artwork. You misrepresented yourself to get information that was being freely given to everyone who asked, and due to the wording of your aticles, the gallery and I received many emails asking and/or accusing me of being involved in a potential $50,000+ artwork scam. I appreciate you now saying "Michael says he's not recreated it and I believe him", but it doesn't change the fact that your aticles came across as being accusitory and inflamitory towards me. Mike Kelleher
Michael, I'm sorry you saw it as an attack - and I did email you before I posted the first article, obviously that one never got through. As for your rep, I asked him for a list of what pages were avaliable, I was told to reply with a list of what I wanted(!) There was no guise, I do collect art and am interested in at least one of the covers. An attack on Marvel? No, not really. More so an attack on the practice of having artists do such extensive recreation work and not seeing the proper credits where they're due. Sorry you, and clearly others, don't agree with me, but hey - that's what makes us unique. It was not my intention then, nor has it ever been, to personally attack you Michael. I don't attack people I do not know.
Jul 15 08 4:41 PM
Gormuu wrote: Daniel, when I read your first blog post, I thought, "His heart might be in the right place, but this is a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about." After your second and third blog posts, I thought, "This is a guy who's arguing in bad faith and making wild assertions with no factual basis." And then this: Gerry Turnbull has informed me that I'm being attacked over at the Masterworks forums, not that I'd know as I don't visit there, nor know where it is. I might though, just to see what's being said. To which I reply: Daniel Best #40 [-] Posts: 31 (07/15/08 1:39 AM) I never made the connection that you were Daniel Best, registered Masterworks forum member in good standing since January of this year. I really don't know what to make of your commentary I've quoted. I really don't. As written on your blog, that quote comes off as an airy dismissal of Masterworks readers and persons directly involved in producing the Masterworks that are more well informed than yourself. (When I read the aside "not that I'd know", I hear it in the voice of Marie Antoinette.) But it turns out that you "do know", that you do "visit there", that you have always "known where it is". Again, I really don't know what to make of this, especially after your extensive quoting from multiple interviews posted on my website to make your case against Marvel and Mike Kelleher. You know about my website. You know about this message board. You've actively used both, one to cite from as an authority, the other to post personal comments and take part in discussion since you signed up in January. I do think that in trying to take umbrage at alleged "personal attacks" being aimed at you, you're doing so disingenuously. I think it reveals you as out of touch with the kind of rhetoric you were dishing out in your blog posts, which certainly amounted to an indictment of Mike Kelleher and Cory's approach to Masterworks. Rich Johnston didn't link to your comments because they were bland and uncontroversial, after all. He linked to them because there was a heavy element of "attack dog" in them, which is good stuff for pulling in readers as far as he's concerned. With no doubt plenty of knowledge of comics and comic art, your opinion ought to carry some credibility with it. This is why it's so troubling that you've engaged in what amounts to a very sloppily considered hit job against people who you never made a good faith effort to contact before publishing your comments. (And no, recently disguising yourself as merely an interested buyer of Mike's art to try and get Hyaena to admit Mike drew that Avengers #1 splash doesn't count as 'good faith'. Nor does contacting Mike by email only after posting your comments about him.) If you want to fashion yourself as some kind of 21st century investigative reporter, some kind of "comic reprints muckraker", then you're going to have to at least stick to the facts. Speaking of facts, Mike Kelleher has been chomping at the bit to reply back. He wants to take the high road, but he also wants to defend his reputation - a reputation you casually use to taint published work and arouse suspicion about the veracity of original art sales - attempts to compromise. Mike forwarded me an email he wrote asking if I would mind him posting it. He doesn't want to start a "flame war" on my boards, and while I respect his caution and think it speaks very well of him as a person, I think he has every right to post his refutation of your uninformed observations. To a degree, I think he honors you too much by taking time out of his busy schedule to do so. But it is important to give balance to the record and allow impressionable readers of your blog and these threads to have a firmer grasp on reality than leaving your wild assumptions and assertions uncontested. So I'd like to invite Mike to go ahead and post his further comments here.
Actually I believe this is my first series of posts here. I've found myself registered at this forum, but it's more that I'm registered at the board or the Yuku site as there. Beats me - I can't recall posting here at any point, but if I have then I'm amazed. I've registered at various forums over the years to reply to the odd posting here and there, but I had no idea what was being said here, nor did I know where this thread was until an artist sent me the link. Believe that or not. A quick search will see that I posted a series of messages about Vinnie Colletta and Frank Robbins back in January - I expect because I'd just done an interview with Frank Springer at the time and because people generally believe the misconception that Colletta was the worst inker to ever walk the Earth. I can't control what Rich Johnson links to. Hey - I had a great Colletta coversation up and he missed that one. Now THAT was an attack on Marvel. Go figure. What I can say is that I don't control what Johnson posts, or what he links to. I can also say that I've not emailed Johnson about this topic, nor has he emailed me. He got the link from another source, or perhaps he reads my blog. Beats me. So don't lump me in with him, and don't accuse me of contacting him because it's not the truth. My opinion is worth as much, or as worthless, as anyone elses. I don't think I carry any great weight in any circles (I can hear the cheering now), but then I believe that of a lot of people. Opinions are just that - opinions. I rake muck, sure, but if you ever decided to read my blog then you'll see that a lot of that muck is raked by others, I merely give people a voice. As for Michael wanting to attack me, sure go for it. Hey - I still stand by my offer Michael - you're welcome to tell me how wrong I am, or respond to a few questions, and I'll post it up on my blog for the world to see. I am sorry that people believe you've been involved in a $50,000 fraud though, that was never my intention and I will recitfy that very shortly. I'll keep asking these questions though - what pages have been recreated and why do people believe that an all new drawing somehow constitutes a 'reprint' by Marvel? Again, I am not taking shots at Michael, or even Cory, I'm taking a shot at a system that wants to promote a book as a pure reprint when it contains material that is not reprinted from the original source, rather recreated (another persons interpretation) by another artist. Be it one page or 100, it makes no difference. The artists should be credited and those pages should be identified. For Marvel not to do so is wrong, and I'll stand on that one until Marvel decides to change their practice (which they never will - like Marvel care what I say). FYI, I'm not the only person out there who feels that way. That's it in the shell of a nut. Oh, and do leave Gerry out of it - he's too nice a guy to be taking a shot at.
Jul 15 08 4:53 PM
Jul 15 08 5:04 PM
I'm taking a shot at a system that wants to promote a book as a pure reprint when it contains material that is not reprinted from the original source, rather recreated (another persons interpretation) by another artist.
Jul 15 08 7:03 PM
Posts: 11116
Jul 15 08 7:39 PM
Josh, thanks for that instant assessment on my mental state - I'll go see the doctor today and get myself committed. D. Best
Jul 15 08 7:46 PM
Oh, sending ONE email, not getting a reply, and then launching defamatory attacks on someone is hardly the action of a responsible investigative reporter.
Jul 15 08 7:54 PM
Having said that I'm not surprised that people on a Masterworks forum don't agree with me. Logical really.
Jul 15 08 8:17 PM
I hardly think that's fair! He's not a reporter, and I don't think he's ever claimed to be -- he's writing a blog, fergoshsakes! It's a forum for him to express his opinions. Fin Fang Foom
Jul 15 08 8:24 PM
Share This