Lockjaw wrote:
"Well then you 'don't know what does' because, your facts are just plain wrong on the fewer panels.............

As for not creating new characters for Marvel to profit on for the next 50 years..........
that is NOT 'phoning it in'---that is a stand he took based on how he felt about his credit or lack of concerning the characters he created/co-created.
If Stan was capable of creating decent chatacters on his own we would have gotten much better than, Monocle, a Creature ftBL rip-off, 'robot versions' of villains, and the 'Nega-Man. image

Banning sub-plots, banning continued stories, & lack of new decent characters is what made the last volume weaker than previous ones.
Kirby's plotting was of good quality during that time--the stories are quite well-plotted and coherent.

As for panel size, the point where Kirby was using the large /fewer panels was FF 81-89--(considered by a lot of folks to be a pretty good era of the FF)--not 94-102 (volume 10) He actually went back to his previous plotting style with issue 90 and continued it till the end of his tenure. I've been a 'panel-counter' for 40 years.

Whetever the defects in FF 94-102---it wasn't too large panels and poorly plotted books.
He was hamstrung by the directive of single issue stories & no sub-plots from 94-101, 108 (originally 102)
The single issue mandate isn't my opinion.......it was clearly spelled out in a Stan Soapbox as being demanded by the fans---which I do not believe was the real reason.

And Kirby might have drawn a 'decent' Hulk/Thing battle???image

Yeah, he was pretty mediocre on hero vs hero battles."

Sheesh, just because I hold a different opinion than you, don't take it so personally, Lockjaw. For the record, in agreeing with an earlier poster's remark, I'm not suggesting that Kirby's work on those later FFs was poor, merely that, by his own previous standards, it did amount to "phoning it in" at that point. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's your right. But I won't apologize for my opinion, or be convinced that it's incorrect. I realize I'm in a distinct minority around here with my lack of reverence for anything Jack did comics-related , but the first Marvel comic I bought was in June 1971, well after Kirby departed Marvel, and my first real exposure to his work (other than the occasional reprint) was the late-70s material he did for Marvel, which I believe many would agree was sub-standard for him. But "IN MY OPINION", the art on FF #112 by John Buscema was far more appealing than anything Kirby would have been capable of. I acknowledge that many others would disagree, but I do know what *I* like.
Now, when I mentioned the reduction in panel count, I hadn't pulled out my Masterworks to count them up , so my estimation of the exact period in which that occured in was off a bit. I just had a general sense, from a prior reading of those late-60s FFs, that the reduction in panels-per-issue was extreme. I certainly haven't been counting panels for 40 years. Anyway, I'm not interested in engaging in a "back and forth" that would further take this thread off topic, so I'll try not to antagonize you any further.


Last Edited By: warlock664 Sep 19 08 10:28 PM. Edited 1 times.