Miller/Janson DD?

3 3

It was great catching up with fellow comic geeks at NYCC.

 

Just a quick clarification on the copies of Miller's pencils on Wolverine ...... OT

I have pages from issues # 1 and # 3. Gene referencd it as issue #1 only. The combined pile was a few pages from each issue.

 

The art has detailed layouts throughout with notations from FM to both Joe Rubenstein and Chris Claremont. Joe should be given props for being the finisher but Miller clearly did detailed layouts on the entire series. From the very beginning, FM drew Logan as Clint Eastwood. The pages from issue # 3 also show FM drawing Logan's face very clearly.

 

I have some copies of FM pencils from # 191. FM did detailed layouts not full pencils. Austin did finishes.

Thank you very much for your info based on facts that stops speculations and rumors.

Let's not forget a HUGE thank you to Nelson!!!

 

Ron

Absolutely. It was a privilege to see those copies of the pencils. They certainly answered a lot of questions for me. Major props to Nelson!

Updated because I missed Nelson's comment on 191.

-----------

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite.

Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference!

Here's the link to this post:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8096297#Post8096297

The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows:

• DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.
  Notes:
  
  • Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158
    
  • Ditko did all the art for #162
    
  • Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163
    
  • Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.
    

    [Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

  [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

  [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  [*]DD #191: Detailed layouts by Miller, finishes by Austin

The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes:

• The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed.
  
• There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.
  
• Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states:

  Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185.

• MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote:
  

  My theory is logical but needs support from other sources. Some one could counter and say the previous art drawn by Miller a year and a half or so ago may have been used as a complete issue (perhaps issue 183?). My guess is that other pages were inserted but I still think verification is necessary.
   
  Mitch [itkowitz - ed] had responded that your previous supposition was correct (that Miller went to breakdowns and Janson finished on the same page for 182 to 184), but if you think about the possible rationalization that Mitch is using to assume this you can determine he may be coming to an erroneous conclusion. As Mitch said he got the whole issue of 181 from Janson to sell because he essentially drew the issue, so Mitch would assume any issue he received the complete book would be done in this method and any book where Mitch received only partial pages to an issue would indicate that Miller did breakdowns on the page and Janson finished. The problem with that logic is that as we have discussed that some pages to issues 182-4 would have been done by Miller more than a year ago and obviously returned to him and Janson could still be working the procedure of following Miller layouts on 8 by 11 paper that was instituted with issue 181 on the pages that were added to issues 182-4. Therefore, Mitch would not get a complete book as Miller would get his pages back even though they were done many months ago but Janson could still be the only person that added anything new.
   
  Others have said that the Punisher storyline was meant for issue 167 as a one part story. As said, my rationale is that they added pages to make up a two part story. Evidence to lend credence to my theory is given by Grand Comic Book Database that credits Roger McKenzie as the co writer for issue 183 and 184. Roger's last story on DD was issue 167 and after that he was done with the title, so they are obviously crediting him with both issues as they broke up the one issue and expanded into two. Now, the question is was the new art done by the process started in 181 or did Miller work on the same sheet as Janson? It's bending a little towards the former, but not a dunk yet.

• New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement.
  
• At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote:

  A few of us talked at length with Klaus today on this subject. We had some #176 pages with us (that we know are Miller layouts on the board), I brought my #181 page (which was one of the issues that we weren't sure about) and Nelson brought a bunch of his photocopied Miller pencils with him as well. After reviewing the artwork and the photocopies, Klaus believes that the separate sheet layouts started with #185 after all. He said that his & Frank's artistic relationship was a progression, so that when Frank went to the separate sheet layouts, they never went back to layouts on board. As such, since we know from Nelson's archives that #182 and #184 were both Miller pencils on the board, we can deduce that #185 was the start of the separate sheet layouts.
   
  Furthermore, Klaus said that the handwritten "DAREDEVIL" at the top of pages was written by Frank when he did pencils on the board (at some point this becomes "DAREDEVIL" using a rubber stamp). But, you'll notice from #185 that it became handwritten again - "DD #___" is what it says for a few issues before it becomes "Daredevil" written in -script. The latter is definitely confirmed to be Klaus' notation on pages done with separate sheet layouts, and it stands to reason that the former is also Klaus, as it's not Frank's writing. I think this bolsters the case for #185 being the start.
   
  As for Klaus getting all of the #181 art back, he confirmed that sometimes they would trade off getting full books as opposed to splitting up the pages in each issue. So, even if he got the whole #181 book back, that doesn't necessarily mean that Frank didn't do pencils on the board.
   
  Bottom line: I'm satisfied at this point that any stylistic changes we see between #178 and #179-#184 is just the progression of the artwork over time and that separate sheet layouts did begin with #185 after all.

• One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson.

  Thanks to Nelson who brought photocopies of Miller's pencils to DD #182, 184 and Wolverine LS #1 to the show today. I don't know if he mentioned it before, but he found these at a garage or yard sale in Brooklyn - apparently the house was rented by a Marvel editor/staffer of some sort, who left behind all these photocopies which were then sold. Amazing that Nelson was able to recover these before they were lost to the world.
   
  I can confirm that every page from DD #182 and #184 are finished Miller layouts directly on the board. There are a few of us who are going to try and track down Janson at the show tomorrow and show him that these issues were done directly on the board, and to see if there was a reason #179-#181 were done on separate sheet layouts or whether he was mistaken and these too were layouts directly on the board. I'm going to bring my DD #181 page and the TPB which features the issues in question as visual aids. So, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this tomorrow.
   
  As for the Wolvie LS #1, they are definitely finished layouts on board as well. So, I don't know if Rubinstein was exaggerating the level of his involvement on this mini-series or if the later issues got progressively less detailed. But, as far as issue #1 goes, it is definitely detailed layouts and nothing even remotely close to loose shapes or squiggles.

• Comment from NelsonAI on 191 reads:

  I have some copies of FM pencils from # 191. FM did detailed layouts not full pencils. Austin did finishes.

The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows:

DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.

Issue 168 - GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.

Originally Posted By: MikeyO

[Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

This needs to be cleared up as well. According to Nelson, #168 is unequivocally full, detailed Miller pencils (he has photocopies of the pencilled art of that complete issue). GCD says Miller did the breakdowns on that issue and that Janson is inker and embellisher. However, that is NOT what is listed in the issue itself, which merely states that Miller is the "Artist and Writer" and Janson is the "Inker and Embellisher". I believe that GCD is simply incorrect, and that Nelson's archives will prove that out after they have been verified by more people.

Furthermore, Nelson says that detailed layouts began as early as #169, not #173. Apparently there is a meaningful drop-off between #168 and #169 - so, #168 is not only full Miller pencils, but it's also more Miller than #169-#172! Maybe it's a bit of a judgment call as to when you stop calling them full pencils and start calling them very detailed layouts; it will be great if/when more people see Nelson's photocopied pencils from those early Miller-scripted issues so that we can come to a more definitive consensus. I trust Nelson's judgment, as he's been right about everything so far, but I realize from talking to various people over the past few days that others are hesitant to rely on the determination of only one person.

Updated because I missed Nelson's comment on 168

-----------

On the comicart-l and the CGC OA board, we have had a long conversation on the topic of the work split on the Miller DD run. This write-up is based on e-mails and posting from many people. Foremost among them are: Mitch Itkowitz, Ferran Delgado, Gene Park (notes on 158, 162, 163, 179-180), and Mike O'Halloran (Theory on 182-184), and NelsonAl (photocopies of 182 and 184; see below for their origin). I took notes and created this summary. I believe it represents the best understanding available to us, but it may not be perfect. Other comments are welcome and especially if they come with evidence that I can cite.

Hope this helps. Be sure to save and reference!

Here's the link to this post:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6672890&Number=8098126#Post8098126

The consensus of how Miller/Janson exectuted the "Miller" DD run is as follows:

• DD #158-161,163-172: Full pencils by Miller, inks by Janson.
  Notes:
  • Rubinstein was the cover inker for #158
    
  • Ditko did all the art for #162
    
  • Rubinstein was the co-inker (with Janson) for #163
    
  • See discussion of 168 below

  [*]DD #173-184: Layouts by Miller on the same sheet, embellishment by Janson

  [*]DD #185-190: Layouts by Miller on a DIFFERENT smaller sheet, embellishment by Janson. Miller didn't touch the published original art.

  [*]DD #191: Detailed layouts by Miller, finishes by Austin

The above summary was derived from a lot of evidence and speculation. I'm going to try and capture that in the following notes:

• Issue 168:
  The issue: GCD lists Miller as breakdown artist on issue 168 while the credits on the issue itself list Miller as artist but Janson as Inker and Embellisher.
  
  • Notes:
• The issue was identified by MikeyO.
  

  [Regarding credits on 168 - ed], I would be hesitant to describe this as the same relationship when it comes to the division of labour where art is concerned in issues 173 on. I think, by looking at the art that what might be described as Miller "breakdowns" are closer to a finished product when it comes to 168, but given the public notations, I thought it was worth mentioning.

• NelsonAI states that he has photocopies that he describes as "full pencils" for this book.
  I have chosen to accept Nelson's claim in my summary above. I'll change it if better evidence comes along.

[*]The style of the art shifted between 178 and 179-184, this made people wonder if the working method had changed.

[*]There was once a theory that since issues 182-184 (Punisher arc) were originally intended for an earlier publication and since we know that from 185 on that Miller provided smaller pages with breakdowns that there might have a mix of (Miller pencils/Janson inks) and all Jansen pages from Miller layouts in those issues. It might be difficult to know who actually did what as the story was altered for the revised publication and changed situation.

[*]Adding to the confusion was this comment posted by Klaus. In it he clearly states:

Just to set the record straight, though, Frank went to 8 and a half inch by 11 inch breakdowns on issue #179, not #185.

[*]MikeyO, the articulator of the theory in the note above, later wrote:

My theory is logical but needs support from other sources. Some one could counter and say the previous art drawn by Miller a year and a half or so ago may have been used as a complete issue (perhaps issue 183?). My guess is that other pages were inserted but I still think verification is necessary.

 

Mitch [itkowitz - ed] had responded that your previous supposition was correct (that Miller went to breakdowns and Janson finished on the same page for 182 to 184), but if you think about the possible rationalization that Mitch is using to assume this you can determine he may be coming to an erroneous conclusion. As Mitch said he got the whole issue of 181 from Janson to sell because he essentially drew the issue, so Mitch would assume any issue he received the complete book would be done in this method and any book where Mitch received only partial pages to an issue would indicate that Miller did breakdowns on the page and Janson finished. The problem with that logic is that as we have discussed that some pages to issues 182-4 would have been done by Miller more than a year ago and obviously returned to him and Janson could still be working the procedure of following Miller layouts on 8 by 11 paper that was instituted with issue 181 on the pages that were added to issues 182-4. Therefore, Mitch would not get a complete book as Miller would get his pages back even though they were done many months ago but Janson could still be the only person that added anything new.

 

Others have said that the Punisher storyline was meant for issue 167 as a one part story. As said, my rationale is that they added pages to make up a two part story. Evidence to lend credence to my theory is given by Grand Comic Book Database that credits Roger McKenzie as the co writer for issue 183 and 184. Roger's last story on DD was issue 167 and after that he was done with the title, so they are obviously crediting him with both issues as they broke up the one issue and expanded into two. Now, the question is was the new art done by the process started in 181 or did Miller work on the same sheet as Janson? It's bending a little towards the former, but not a dunk yet.

[*]New information was presented by NelsonAl in a post on the CGC boards that indicated that he had photocopies of the pencils for issues 168 (described as "crappy") and DD issues 182 and 184. This really galvanized the conversation since it contradicted Klaus' statement.

[*] At the 2014 NYCC, Nelson and Gene discussed the issue with Klaus. Here's what Gene wrote:

A few of us talked at length with Klaus today on this subject. We had some #176 pages with us (that we know are Miller layouts on the board), I brought my #181 page (which was one of the issues that we weren't sure about) and Nelson brought a bunch of his photocopied Miller pencils with him as well. After reviewing the artwork and the photocopies, Klaus believes that the separate sheet layouts started with #185 after all. He said that his & Frank's artistic relationship was a progression, so that when Frank went to the separate sheet layouts, they never went back to layouts on board. As such, since we know from Nelson's archives that #182 and #184 were both Miller pencils on the board, we can deduce that #185 was the start of the separate sheet layouts.

 

Furthermore, Klaus said that the handwritten "DAREDEVIL" at the top of pages was written by Frank when he did pencils on the board (at some point this becomes "DAREDEVIL" using a rubber stamp). But, you'll notice from #185 that it became handwritten again - "DD #___" is what it says for a few issues before it becomes "Daredevil" written in -script. The latter is definitely confirmed to be Klaus' notation on pages done with separate sheet layouts, and it stands to reason that the former is also Klaus, as it's not Frank's writing. I think this bolsters the case for #185 being the start.

 

As for Klaus getting all of the #181 art back, he confirmed that sometimes they would trade off getting full books as opposed to splitting up the pages in each issue. So, even if he got the whole #181 book back, that doesn't necessarily mean that Frank didn't do pencils on the board.

 

Bottom line: I'm satisfied at this point that any stylistic changes we see between #178 and #179-#184 is just the progression of the artwork over time and that separate sheet layouts did begin with #185 after all.

[*]One last comment on this from Gene. It includes the origin of the photocopies from Nelson.

Thanks to Nelson who brought photocopies of Miller's pencils to DD #182, 184 and Wolverine LS #1 to the show today. I don't know if he mentioned it before, but he found these at a garage or yard sale in Brooklyn - apparently the house was rented by a Marvel editor/staffer of some sort, who left behind all these photocopies which were then sold. Amazing that Nelson was able to recover these before they were lost to the world.

 

I can confirm that every page from DD #182 and #184 are finished Miller layouts directly on the board. There are a few of us who are going to try and track down Janson at the show tomorrow and show him that these issues were done directly on the board, and to see if there was a reason #179-#181 were done on separate sheet layouts or whether he was mistaken and these too were layouts directly on the board. I'm going to bring my DD #181 page and the TPB which features the issues in question as visual aids. So, hopefully we can get to the bottom of this tomorrow.

 

As for the Wolvie LS #1, they are definitely finished layouts on board as well. So, I don't know if Rubinstein was exaggerating the level of his involvement on this mini-series or if the later issues got progressively less detailed. But, as far as issue #1 goes, it is definitely detailed layouts and nothing even remotely close to loose shapes or squiggles.

[*]Comment from NelsonAI on 191 reads:

I have some copies of FM pencils from # 191. FM did detailed layouts not full pencils. Austin did finishes.

Alex, you can try as hard as you like, this will be continually refined until the end of time!

But it is an incredible job on the collective group of detectives and fact finders, naysayers and show-me types all.

With all due respect to the inkers/finishers, the memories of Klaus and Joe may be a bit fuzzy after all these years.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Klaus' statement, even after 30 years - he recognizes that popular belief is that the separate sheet layouts began with #185, but specifically corrected that misconception and said that #179 was the starting point. It's not like he said "it wasn't #185, it was sometime earlier, maybe #179 or #180, somewhere around then, I don't really remember". It's also not like Klaus worked on so many issues of Daredevil with Frank, and only between 6 and 12 of them were using the separate sheet layouts. I'm an owner of a #181 page, and it would benefit me if it was revealed that Frank penciled #181 on the board. But, I believe Klaus would remember if he penciled that issue from Miller layouts on board or from separate sheets (I met him last year and his mind is very sharp; we discussed some other art he did in the early 1980s which he remembered with great clarity). I'm going to try to track him down again and confirm the certitude of what he said, but, as for now, I feel like he should be given the benefit of the doubt and have changed the attribution online for my #181 page to Miller layouts, as I feel that is very likely to be correct.

 

I'm willing to keep an open mind about #182-#184, though, given that we know at least part of these issues were drawn at a time when Miller was doing full pencils on board. Perhaps for style/consistency's sake, Miller decided to do new pages directly on board? Who knows, there could be any number of reasons why #179-#181 could have been separate sheets and #182-#184 might not have been. Do you have the complete #182 and #184 layouts copied? Are we sure they are all Miller pencils (and not Janson) on full-sized board? Is everything detailed layouts or are some detailed layouts and some full pencils? Are some pages labeled #167 and some #182?

 

I would not dismiss Klaus's memory either. I'm not Klause and everyone is different, but if I had been in Klause's position having been an inker for 7 or 8 years, and then switched to doing full finishes from Frank Miller's small size breakdowns all while the book was white hot and BLOWING UP, I would sure as remember. Personally, I can barely remember anything from last year or last week, but I distinctly remember every page from every issue of Xmen I inked almost 25 years ago because it mattered and I was invested. Based on the nature and the quality of Klause's work on DD, I'm guessing he was bloody well invested too and remembers everything.

 

Scott

 

30 years is a lo-o-o-o-ong time.

Here's a funny thread from the Byrne board I saw yesterday... Cracked me up and made me think of this thread:

Alex, you can try as hard as you like, this will be continually refined until the end of time!

Yeah, that's a possibility.

But it is an incredible job on the collective group of detectives and fact finders, naysayers and show-me types all.

It really is.

The summary and notes at least give us a benchmark to keep track of the evidence.

30 years is a lo-o-o-o-ong time.

Here's a funny thread from the Byrne board I saw yesterday... Cracked me up and made me think of this thread:

But this should be put in context. The length of Byrne's replies depends on the blind loyalty of the posters. This is his forum and he's a master playing with his victims/fans. Probably this guy didn't harass enough to someone who disagreed with JB or didn't give enough praise to his latest commissions. Probably.

Is there any additional info on the details of credits for What If? #35? I consider that issue part of this body of work, as a whole.

-Ben

Alex, you can try as hard as you like, this will be continually refined until the end of time!

Yes, but the most important question, because there's LOTS of money at stake, was in which stuff Miller touched the board, and this item is finally settled.

Alex, you can try as hard as you like, this will be continually refined until the end of time!

Yes, but the most important question, because there's LOTS of money at stake, was in which stuff Miller touched the board, and this item is finally settled.

And we have documented references as to why we believe that it is settled. I think this is a big step.

Anyone want to take on What If or Warlock/Starlin/Milgrom?

I'm not sure how the rumours started but when in doubt, just go with what Marvel published inside the comic as credits. Marvel was accurate with DD and Wolverine. I don't see why the credits for the What If? title would be off.

Now for other databases like GCD, it's possible you have typos when they try to take info from each comic and enter it onto a computer.

In other situations, you may have a Marvel in house staff artists do corrections (I.e., Romita Sr. , Marie Severin). These are "uncredited" as they are considered minor editorial changes.

So give Marvel the benefit of the doubt and look at the credits inside the comic.

Cheers!

N.

30 years is a lo-o-o-o-ong time.

Here's a funny thread from the Byrne board I saw yesterday... Cracked me up and made me think of this thread:

But this should be put in context. The length of Byrne's replies depends on the blind loyalty of the posters. This is his forum and he's a master playing with his victims/fans. Probably this guy didn't harass enough to someone who disagreed with JB or didn't give enough praise to his latest commissions. Probably.

See, I just kinda interpereted it as Byrne's way of saying "That was thirty years ago in 1981... I'm sure there was a reason, but I sure as heck couldn't tell you what it was"

See, I just kinda interpreted it as Byrne's way of saying "That was thirty years ago in 1981... I'm sure there was a reason, but I sure as heck couldn't tell you what it was"

This is what it looks out of context, but for regular visitors of the forum or people like I that used to visit it till got sick and felt in risk not to read another Byrne comic in his life, like it happened to other visitors, this means something quite different.

I do know what you're talking about. I personally don't think this particular instance was an example of that.

I think he was just dismissing the question by basically saying "I don't know."

Byrne and his board are a trainwreck. He doesn't understand how "Bad Byrne Stories" get started and doesn't realize that his comments on his board are perfect examples of "Bad Byrne Stories". Here are some gems that he has said on his message board and at other places over the years that perpetuate this opinion (Crocodile Hunter is a real standout).

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

That said, he is a great artist and am a fan of his work, but I don't care for him as a person.

Byrne and his board are a trainwreck. He doesn't understand how "Bad Byrne Stories" get started and doesn't realize that his comments on his board are perfect examples of "Bad Byrne Stories". Here are some gems that he has said on his message board and at other places over the years that perpetuate this opinion (Crocodile Hunter is a real standout).

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

 

That said, he is a great artist and am a fan of his work, but I don't care for him as a person.

 

 

John's internet persona is very anti-social toward fans, which is odd considering these are people who love him. That said it is the internet and everyone comes off that way from time to time. is byrne the same in personat convention appearances and signings?

[

 

Anyone want to take on What If or Warlock/Starlin/Milgrom?

Now THAT's a deep and churning sea. Add the names Leialoha and Weiss to that, btw.

Byrne and his board are a trainwreck. He doesn't understand how "Bad Byrne Stories" get started and doesn't realize that his comments on his board are perfect examples of "Bad Byrne Stories". Here are some gems that he has said on his message board and at other places over the years that perpetuate this opinion (Crocodile Hunter is a real standout).

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

 

That said, he is a great artist and am a fan of his work, but I don't care for him as a person.

 

 

 

 

John's internet persona is very anti-social toward fans, which is odd considering these are people who love him. That said it is the internet and everyone comes off that way from time to time. is byrne the same in personat convention appearances and signings?

Byrne doesn't do conventions or signings anymore.