Now It Can Be Told!
by Scott Shaw!
14 comments + 4 replies
Posted by: Dean Haspiel
06:25pm / Jun 15, 2011
Posted by: Bud Plant
01:48am / Jun 16, 2011
Hey,nice work Scott. Poor Colletta, but you're right on. And his career was in no danger from a one-liner at a fan songfest. He figured out what editors wanted (speed, deadlines met) and he, at least, gave it to them. I actually have really liked some of his early 1950s Atlas romance, he really worked on many of those stories. -Bud
Posted by: Rick Parker
07:47am / Jun 16, 2011
I think what editors want is professionalism. If you're an artist, you must respect the art and the artform, otherwise you do a disservice to yourself and others and most of the people who buy the material.
Posted by: Rick Parker
07:41am / Jun 16, 2011
That's really quite an amusing cartoon story.
Posted by: Tim Hall
09:03am / Jun 16, 2011
Ha ha! I was worried this would be a little too "inside pool" for me to appreciate, but it's awesome--and educational!
So, was Vinny C. a total douchebag, or just "doing his job"? Jim Shooter certainly seems a cunt.
Posted by: Jennifer Hayden
09:41am / Jun 16, 2011
Loved this view through the window of what I missed in comics. Well-told!
Posted by: Rick Limacher
01:12pm / Jun 16, 2011
I own a Kirby/Colletta THOR page. It's beautiful but lots of the pencils are left uninked not erased. It takes time to erase. I love looking at Kirby's pencils so I love this page, but I'm sure it didn't reproduce very well. Vince did a great job on the women's faces on this page.
Posted by: Mad Dog
04:43pm / Jun 16, 2011
Another winner, Scott. Thanks so much for sharing this interesting bit of Con history as well as yours. Aloha /
Posted by: Sam Ash
05:17pm / Jun 16, 2011
When was this comic con, 1974? I think that Colletta inked many, many comics after that so? If the author was tring to roast Jim Shooter, why not use his name in the title? Colletta is more newsworthy than Shooter but the cartoon is about Shooter, isn't it?
Posted by: Scott Shaw!
05:47pm / Jun 16, 2011
If you re-read my strip, I clearly mention that this was n the mid-80s. As for the title, it's intended to be ironic. Sorry if it was lost on you.
Posted by: Michael Netzer
05:55am / Jun 17, 2011
As usual, you remain a master of charm and hilarity, Scott. Notwithstanding Shooter's indignation, seems that Colletta had a longer and more active career than most other inkers in the business, though he was always controversial. On his not inking everything, it's true that he took more liberties, but on the other hand, he was the one entrusted with keeping the trains running on time. From personal knowledge, Vinnie made tough choices artistically with Kirby's intricate work in order for the books to publish on time. It's one of the saddest dichotomies, especially when you see his romance art that shows how much he loves the craft. Seems his career died of old age and natural causes and not so much because of those choices. Many artists today can't last more than a few years before being relegated to comics pasture.
Posted by: Si Fraser
09:24am / Jun 17, 2011
One day there will be an anthology of all those Jim Shooter Tales that you hear all the time at Cons. This should certainly be in it. Nice job Scott.
Posted by: Zach White
02:15pm / Jun 17, 2011
If the piece is supposed to be about Jim Shooter, why didn't Scott use the title "I Made Jim Shooter's Head Explode" or something similar?
The answer, because Vinnie Colletta will always be newsworthy and inspire conversations while nobody really cares much about Jim Shooter. Or Scott Shaw for that matter which is why you used a famous dead person's name just to draw attention to yourself.
Great comment by Mike Netzer except for ther part about Scott being a master of charm and hilarity. That one is just way too abstract for me to comprehend as there's nothing either hilarious or charming about this particular comic. I guess you must have done some better stuff in the past.
Posted by: Vampire Hunter D
08:10pm / Jun 17, 2011
While the purist in me agrees with your assessment in theory, the problem is that too many of these new artsy-smartsy types spend so much time drawing every stripe in the iris or shoe lace on a pair of sneakers worn by non-essential characters, they often wind up blowing their deadlines! If they want to do that on their own time--great. But if deadlines are involved like with comics, Colletta and his studios were just the ones needed to get a book back on track. And his inking did not "suck", it wasn't perfect but it NEVER sucked! you're thinking of Don Heck inking his own artwork!
Posted by: Mike Moriarity
05:44pm / Jun 19, 2011
Your comment makes the most sense of all, Vamp. I actually liked most of Vince Colletta's inking. Like you wrote, he never sucked. If his great stuff wasn't so great, his lesser stuff wouldn't have seemed bad by comparison.
One person wrote that Colletta's name will always be newsworthy. Well, if this article was entitled "Shooter" or "Scott Shaw" there probably wouldn't even be one comment left here. So even though it kind of stinks like old fish, I can't blame Scott for trying to capitalize on Vinnie's fame.
Posted by: Scott Shaw!
04:06pm / Jun 21, 2011
You guys entirely miss my point. The title is intentionally ironic; it para-quotes Jim Shooter's rant. And it was one of the weirdest, most unexpected experiences of my life.
Posted by: Oscar Solis
05:23pm / Jul 18, 2011
Pretty funny. Love the bit about the "Gillies".
Posted by: Bud
08:25am / Jul 28, 2011
pretty good account until the last panel which is mean-spirited, not to mention inaccurate
Some ACT-I-VATE comics contain adult subject matter and may not be appropriate for children.
All ACT-I-VATE comics are © their respective creators.