Tintin Forums

I was just wondering what people thought is the worst drawn frame in the series (apart from anything in Land of the Soviets)?
I thought it would be interesting to see some criticism.
Don't get me wrong, I still love Tintin!

Off the top of my head I can remember the scene in The Blue Lotus when he's in his hotel looking in the mirror, Hergé should have taken as much care in the picture as Tintin did in his appearance, ;-)

I think there's some really striking drawing in Soviets which I'd place above some later artwork - the one that springs to mind is the motorboat pulling away from the docks (I haven't the book to hand). I personally find the black and white versions of Congo and America far less visually appealing than Soviets.

For least-well-drawn frame I'd nominate a very minor one - the second frame on page 37 of Flight 714 just looks wrong to me. The weight of the line around Allan's face compared to the fine outline of his cap bothers me, and his eyes have a highlight which I don't think is used for him elsewhere.

(I was actually going to nominate the notorious close-up of Allan removing the sticking plaster from Rastapopoulos' face, but when I came to look at it again the other image on the page stood out more. Shame for a book that has an otherwise generally high standard of artwork.)

Yes, perhaps I was a tad too harsh to dismiss Soviets - for example the last panel, when they return - but to be honest, there are a lot of poor drawings in it.

Not really. Soviets has mostly very good drawings.

I think Herge's already present skill in Soviets is quite striking. He could already draw much better than I ever will.

hello

In The Crab with the Golden Claws the eleventh frame on page 43 is clumsy somehow. It is the frame in which Archie says "The Karaboudjan..." Archie's feet are too small and his body is like a pear. When reading I always stick to this frame. Is it just me, or is the drawing little clumsy?

"The KARABOUDJAN, here! ... That will surprise Tintin when I tell him." Is that what you're referring to, toohotsauna? That's page 45 for me. I don't really notice that panel when I read it. I think Herge drew a lot of tiny, tiny feet and a lot of skinny legs. Eg. Professor Calculus.

Haddock's physique seems to vary a lot in The Crab from a stout barrel-bodied man with rather little legs and feet (as in this frame in question), to the slightly thinner and more well-proprtioned man we see in the later books. He changes between these two physiques even between frames on the same page. The Crab is of course Haddock's debut, and Hergé seems to be trying to find the right shape for him. Not sure if that quite counts as bad drawing.

Comic strip characters often seem to take a while to evolve into their final, most satisfactory form. (Look at the first two or three Asterix books for instance.) It's the same with the Thompsons, and with Tintin himself, though they at least tend to keep a consistent form throughout any one book, unlike Haddock in The Crab.

I think Hergé's most rushed drawing can be found in the Jo, Zette and Jocko 2-part Secret Ray story. The drawing's passable but nothing like as good as the standard of the Tintin adventures he was drawing at the same time, which I guess were his priority. (Sorry that's slightly off topic from the question Dupondt actually asked.)

The Secret Ray? Which part? You do realise that was done in the late 30's, don't you? That's why the art style isn't his best. But bad art? You're just being very fussy.

Moderator Warning: It is painful to do this, but you have been taken to task before about your caustic responses to other people's opinions, with little feeling for the expression of views which differ from your own. In this thread alone you have already dismissed Dupondt’s post about Soviets, and now Balthazar’s about Secret Ray.
There is a marked difference between engaging in debate – whereby it would have been wholly open to you to do what Richard did, and offer a counter-argument – which lets a discussion progress, and just blasting another member’s point of view without actually contributing any more to the thread.
Please moderate your tone, and respect your fellow posters.
The Disappointed Tintinologist Team

Tintinrulz
The Secret Ray? Which part? You do realise that was done in the late 30's, don't you? That's why the art style isn't his best. But bad art? You're just being very fussy.


I absolutely realise that The Secret Ray was drawn in the late 1930s. My point was that the drawing in the Tintin books produced at the same time as the Secret Ray, ie: during the late 1930s, tends to be better by comparison.

So I don't agree with you that the 1930s period accounts for why the art style in The Secret Ray isn't Hergé's best. Actually, I think there are many Tintin frames from the 1930s books which are among Hergé's best drawing. My supposition was that Hergé was knocking out The Secret Ray a good bit faster and with a good bit less commitment to the drawing quality than the Tintin books he was working on at the same time. My guesss would be that he was prioritising his Tintin work for the Petit Vingtieme, and then squeezing in the Jo Zette and Jocko work to meet the Cours Valiants deadlines. (You can also see the same difference in quality in the writing and plotting of The Secret Ray compared to late 30s Tintin books.)

I never said the drawing in the Secret Ray was "bad art"; I said it was passable. However, I can see that "passable" has a more negative ring to it than I really meant. I simply meant that the drawing looks OK but a bit rushed and shallow - perfectly clear and perfectly adequate to tell the story, but lacking the depth, vitality and feeling we see in so many Tintin drawings of the same period; and lacking, I'd guess, the same level of care, time and preparatory sketches. In Hergé's best work (including that of the 30s), you can feel the strength of the brilliant pencil drawing behind the black pen outlines of his famous clear line style, and the strength of great drawing in the pen work itself. In The Secret Ray, the pen outlines have far less substance underlying them. It's hard to explain what I mean in words, so I hope that makes some sort of sense!

A good example would be pages 34-35 of the first book, where the US Navy Cruiser Eagle fails to prevent the submarine from hijacking the Washington. (Those are the page numbers from the original French edition; it's pages 46-47 of the Sundancer double-volume English translation, if you've got that one.) Look particularly at the water plume where the shell narrowly misses the sub. Or the figure drawing of the US sailors runing along the deck in their gas masks, and indeed most of the figure drawing. They look drawn as quick outlines only, rather than built up as solid human figures.

I am indeed being over-fussy, but only because Dupondt asked us to be fussy and look for exampes of least well-drawn frames. Normally, it would be rather pointless to note that the Jo Zette and Jocko adventures aren't as good as the Tintin books. They are what they are and they're fine in their own right.

And I'm certainly not blaming Hergé for using a second-best drawing style for some of his non-Tintin work to meet what must have been quite gruelling deadlines. Your own view that The Secret Ray is as well drawn as the Tintin adventures of the same period suggests that many Cours Valiants readers wouldn't have noticed the difference in quality anyway.