{"id":27177,"date":"2021-11-30T13:54:00","date_gmt":"2021-11-30T18:54:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pipelinecomics.com\/?p=27177"},"modified":"2021-12-03T08:23:08","modified_gmt":"2021-12-03T13:23:08","slug":"the-amazing-spider-man-305-westward-woe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pipelinecomics.com\/mcspidey\/the-amazing-spider-man-305-westward-woe\/","title":{"rendered":"The Amazing Spider-Man #305: “Westward Woe!”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Black Fox has stolen a chalice that Spider-Man wants to get back, but The Prowler has a good reason to want it, too.<\/em> Just how many people can Spider-Man let get away with it?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Caped Credits<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\"Cover<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\nWriter: <\/strong>David Michelinie
\nPencils: <\/strong>Todd McFarlane
\nInks: <\/strong>The Magnificent 7+
\nColors: <\/strong>Bob Sharen
\nLetterer: <\/strong>Rick Parker
\nPublication Date: <\/strong>May 24, 1988
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Slinging the Inks and the Inkers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This review’s sub-title: “The Inkers of McFarlane”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAmazing Spider-Man\u201d #305 is inked by \u201cThe Magnificent Seven,\u201d a team of inkers that Jim Salicrup outlines in the letters column of the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jim Sanders, who inked McFarlane during his “The Incredible Hulk” run, was originally scheduled to ink this issue. The scheduling didn\u2019t work out. Sanders inked the first page and some random bits across the issue, but the rest of the pages were farmed out to all available hands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The list of “Magnificent 7+” inkers is Mark McKenna, Ken Lopez, Rodney Ramos, Joe Rubinstein, Pat Redding, Chris Ivy, and Hector Collazo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nice part about this Inker Jam Issue is that it gives us a chance to look at a number of different inking approaches on McFarlane\u2019s pencils. The unfortunate part of it is that it’s another stutter-step in getting McFarlane to the point with his own inks where it looks like what we think of today as his style. He’s on and off again. It’s frustrating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I mean, it all worked out fine in the end, but the it’s a struggle to get there… Thankfully, things get a bit more consistent after this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jim Salicrup offers a breakdown of which pages where inked by whom in the letters column. Unfortunately for us today, those page numbers include the advertisements in the issue. Since today’s collected editions don’t have the ad pages and none of them bother reprinting the letters column, I’ve gone ahead here and translated the print comics page numbers to the story page numbers. This will be a big help in dissecting who inked what when you’re reading this as a digital comic or in the Omnibus collection<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inkers on Todd McFarlane’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” #305 [Table]<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Inker<\/th>Story Pages<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Jim Sanders<\/td>1 (and “a few assorted heads and figures throughout the issue”)<\/td><\/tr>
Mark McKenna<\/td>2, 3, 9, 17, 20, 22<\/td><\/tr>
Ken Lopez<\/td>4<\/td><\/tr>
Rodney Ramos<\/td>5, 7, 8 <\/td><\/tr>
Joe Rubinstein<\/td>6, 10, 13, 14<\/td><\/tr>
Pat Redding<\/td>11, 12, 15, 18, 21<\/td><\/tr>
Chris Ivy<\/td>16<\/td><\/tr>
Hector Collazo<\/td>19<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Reviewing the Inkers
<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"The<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Jim Sanders<\/strong>‘ inks fit McFarlane’s style well. It\u2019s too bad he couldn\u2019t ink the whole thing. His first-page ink job is the most faithful to McFarlane\u2019s style. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That could be because McFarlane spent more time on the page and provided more detail for the inker, or it might be their previous work history together. We may never know. But it\u2019s a good look. Before I read Salicrup\u2019s explanation, I had assumed McFarlane inked that opening splash, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nit-picky technical side of me that nobody likes keeps looking back at that open door behind them, though. I’m not sure the perspective is right on it. From the way the window panes are lined up, there’s something… off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, the wall or the stack of boxes or whatever they are just behind the Black Fox appear to be pointing to a completely different vanishing point than the door. I think that might ultimately be what’s confusing me. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wait, let’s draw this out:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Drawing<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, that’s what I was afraid of. The door, itself, is a criss-cross mess of vanishing points when there should only be one. The wall behind the Black Fox is pointing to a third vanishing point on a third horizon line, but is at least internally consistent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve only taken Aaron Blaise’s perspective course<\/a>, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how this works. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Mark
Mark McKenna inks sample<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Mark McKenna<\/strong> handles McFarlane\u2019s line particularly well. His inks look very faithful to McFarlane’s style. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

McKenna handles all the niggling, almost nonsensical details and the speed lines, not trying to add extra thickness to the line to beef it up. He plays to McFarlane\u2019s strengths. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this panel, look at those lines on the ship behind Spider-Man. McKenna adds some interest to the lines on the ship by adding streaks of whiteout across them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rope in the lower left corner looks a little flat and the chains (a McFarlane specialty) look a little two dimensional, but nobody will see that because they’re all looking at the cool Spider-Man pose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A couple other pages McKenna had featured Black Fox without his costume on, and those look great. McFarlane draws a very buff old man there, but the facial construction is classic McFarlane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Spider-Man's
Spider-Man’s flat head with Mark McKenna<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

One thing I noticed a lot of the inkers had an issue with in this issue is Spider-Man’s costume’s webbing. There are many flat looking heads that I think are caused by the webbing pattern not wrapping around Spider-Man’s head in three dimensions. It’s just a flat series of lines radiating out from between his eyes. Sometimes, the webbing lines don’t even connect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Joe Rubinstein<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I said it in a previous review, but McFarlane’s Spider-Man always looks best from a more three-quarters angle. Heck, even a profile shot from issue #305 looks a lot like his latter, better era Spider-Man. Any angle where Spider-Man directly faces front can be tricky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The profile panel above is inked by Joe Rubinstein, who we’re going to talk about next:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"Joe<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"Joe
Joe Rubinstein<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Joe Rubinstein<\/strong> has the inking style that stuck out the most for me. Having seen Rubinstein’s inks in issue #304<\/a>, it is instantly recognizable and enjoyable. He adds the most of his own style over the other inkers, using chunkier ink lines and the bits of toning. It sticks out the most when Spider-Man unmasks the Prowler (above on the left) and we see Hobie Brown\u2019s face. It\u2019s not pure McFarlane, but I like the final result. It has extra dimensionality to it while retaining McFarlane’s construction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honestly, the more I look at Rubinstein’s inks over McFarlane’s pencils, the more I like them. It isn’t a natural pairing, but it produces some great work that combines both of their strengths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Pat
Pat Redding<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Pat Redding<\/strong>\u2019s inks might be the most mismatched, but it\u2019s not fair to judge when Redding pulled the short straw and had to ink the Johnny Carson likeness. It\u2019s horrible. Like in issue #299 with the Paul Schaffer likeness<\/a>, I don\u2019t know if someone else did that likeness, but it doesn\u2019t look like McFarlane\u2019s style at all. Carson looks more like H. Ross Perot here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michelinie never flinches from inserting pop culture references in this series. As the flagship Spider-Man title at the time (with two supporting series running in \u201cSpectacular\u201d and \u201cWeb of\u201d), Michelinie kept the series set in the most modern times. This issue not only features Johnny Carson, but even has a Church Lady line in it. As with most \u201cSaturday Night Live\u201d references, it\u2019s a forced catchphrase in search of a point, but it kept the book au courant<\/em>, I suppose. I wonder if \u201ckids\u201d reading this today would miss a lot of the references. Heck, I missed the \u201cL.A. Law\u201d one originally in issue #298\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rest of Redding’s inks look fairly consistent with McFarlane’s choices. You can see a lot of the noodling in there, particulalry with textures in the background. But it also looks like he did everything with a single line width and a ball point pen on his page with all the superhero action in it. There’s a lack of thin-to-thick ink lines on his pages that flatten them out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The exception to that is the panels with hair. Redding really got what McFarlane was going for with Peter Parker’s hair. I keep thinking back to how much Bob McLeod changed the hair<\/a> in McFarlane’s first couple of issues. By now, either McFarlane’s style was known well enough by his inkers or his drawings got more detailed to show what he was going for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Rodney
Rodney Ramos<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Rodney Ramos<\/strong>\u2019 pages are too smooth. He tries to simplify McFarlane\u2019s line. It\u2019s structurally sound, but not exciting to look at. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He even got to ink a smoke grenade\u2019s explosive smoke, which is the kind of thing McFarlane\u2019s ink line makes interesting. Here, it looks repetitive and too straight-on. There\u2019s not enough variety in the line weight or direction. It looks lifeless, like a repeated geometric shape and not an active smoke screen. Inked like this, it might work with someone else’s style, but not here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ramos, of course, would go on to ink Darick Robertson in “Transmetropolitan,” which is about as drastically different an art style as you could ask for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Chris
Chris Ivy<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Chris Ivy<\/strong>\u2019s page isn’t a terribly exciting one. He has one panel at the end with Spider-Man and Prowler slinging through the city, but Prowler is too small for much detail and Spider-Man is solidly inked, but nothing special. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rest of the page is a guy on the phone and then a closeup of him talking. It’s just a boring page to begin with. Ivy’s inks don’t work that well for McFarlane here. Some parts of it are too smooth, while the “rougher” parts don’t look right somehow. It’s not totally McFarlane, but it’s also not far enough away to be its own thing. It’s an odd mix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Hector
Hector Collazo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Hector Collazo<\/strong>\u2019s page holds up very well. He even adds a slight bit of texture to the Prowler\u2019s cape. The rest of his page remains faithful to McFarlane\u2019s style and shows promise. I wish he had inked more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Ken
Ken Lopez<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ken Lopez<\/strong> got assigned a great page and does rather well with it. That Spider-Man leaping through the window in the last panel is prime McFarlane work, and the final inks show it off well. There’s no obvious and immediate issue with the webbing on his costume. There’s a good mix of heavier brush ink lines and thinner McFarlane-esque pen lines to add details, like in the window cracks or the shadow on Spider-Man’s back leg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s most impressive about this page is that it’s Lopez’s only credited Marvel Comics inking work that I could find. Lopez is a letterer and logo designer (“Excalibur”!) who started at Marvel in 1986. Today, he heads up DC’s digital lettering department as well as being their cover editor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good to see that the Hunt 107<\/a> works on art as well as letters…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Friendly Reminder<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Origin of The Spaghetti Webbing<\/a><\/blockquote>