« A Factual Opinion Advertisement | Main | Tony Salmons Interview Pt. 2 »

2012.06.04

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455e40a69e20168ebfa0e8e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tony Salmons Interview Pt. 1:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

WOW...
I know there are two sides to every story, but this is amazing. Perhaps the most salient I've seen Tony presented. Wonderful work, Michel!

this is soooo good

Beautiful. Strong interview. Thanks for this - never knew much about Salmons and his work, so this is a revelation.

Sé que hi ha dos costats a cada història, però això és increïble. Potser el més excel · lent que he vist a Tony presentat. Meravellós treball.

It seems strange that he was so belittled at Marvel, for what seems a very capable understanding of storytelling and individualist style. Why was it that Miller and Sienkewicz were accepted than?

Those 2 examples are pretty unique. Sienkiewicz was a safe bet as a Neal Adams clone, but when he found his own style, he remained one of Jim Shooter's top guys. Miller was introduced and presented as the Next Big Thing, a promise he luckily delivered upon, but was no less enabled by editorial marketing.

Marvel goes through artist-friendly phases, largely dependent on who's running things. There are periods where they've had a leg up with the more "individualistic" artists for their main line of books. Doesn't stop at an artist's style, though, but on how well they play ball.

Different rules for different people is the general course of things.

Hey there! ¿Sabe usted si hacen ningún plugin para proteger contra los piratas informáticos? Estoy un poco paranoica de perder todo lo que he trabajado duro. ¿Algún consejo?

Marvel goes through artist-friendly phases, largely dependent on who's running things. There are periods where they've had a leg up with the more "individualistic" artists for their main line of books. Doesn't stop at an artist's style, though, but on how well they play ball.

Miller was introduced and presented as the Next Big Thing, a promise he luckily delivered upon, but was no less enabled by editorial marketing.

Why was it that Miller and Sienkewicz were accepted than?

Everyone has been very kind in their comments, here. I greatly value them. Regarding Chiarello's rebut, notice that his principal is, "rich enough and famous enough." Niether of which have I ever sought. I rest my case against corporate monkeys.

maybe I am on the mend..not yet the heart..xo,j

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe
My Photo