I'd like to add one other redrawn face instance here: when a three--issue run of the DR. 13 feature in GHOSTS was a direct sequel to the Spectre stories by Fleisher and Aparo in ADVENTURE, the character of Earl Crawford was obviously redrawn, and a look at one of Aparo's renderings will show you he looked too much like 13 for both to appear in the same story, so somebody---I suspect Vince Colletta, but am just guessing---redrew Earl, it being Terry's strip. Why it wasn't caught earlier, I don't know.

Also--Brian, I'd always heard that many of the Jimmy Olsen faces were redrawn as well. Is that true?

Absurd! Yes Superman's face was redrawn but nothing else, or at least that's the implication here. And being that the series was JIMMY OLSEN, I'd bet that Supes didn't appear all THAT often. Keep things in accurate perspective, for Pete's sake!

Today, it’s very unlikely that such retouching would occur.

Except to John Byrne in his recent run on Superman

I'm sure that's what DC thought.

If I were a comics fan of the time, I'd consider this an insult to my intelligence.

"The comics world was a lot different 35 years ago than it is today. We are much more aware of and driven by fans and the desires of fans, and much more in tune with holding to the creator’s vision. Today, it’s very unlikely that such retouching would occur. At the time (and with Jack on the other coast and no FedEx or computers to hasten changes and corrections), adjusting the art to match the model sheets was the right thing to do, based on the business models and such in place then."

Well, yeah. Not disagreeing. I'm just sayin' that those particular practices were helluva dumb.

After the "Kirby is Coming" house ads, and given the general sales of Jimmy Olsen at the time, (I think. There's an Urban Legend that this was DC'S lowest selling title.) it's fairly safe to say that the major draw on the book at this time was Kirby's art.

From THAT POV, it doesn't make much sense to change it.

(Also: By and large I think that Kirby's Forth World books were much stronger than his average work for Marvel. I'm not arguing that Fantastic Four was as good as superhero comics have been ever for nigh-on two years, but the rest of the Lee/Kirby creations fall well below that standard. And many are downright bad. (See: Early issues of X-men.)

* Fantastic, dynamic, forward-looking, and full of ideas Kirby's art may have been, but "pretty" isn't a word that gets attached very often to his art, especially his faces. Kirby purists would always prefer to see the art as-drawn, but the general populace would usually prefer to have the art "prettied" up, brought in line with what the expect from similar product (ie, the rest of DC's line).

* The comics world was a lot different 35 years ago than it is today. We are much more aware of and driven by fans and the desires of fans, and much more in tune with holding to the creator's vision. Today, it's very unlikely that such retouching would occur. At the time (and with Jack on the other coast and no FedEx or computers to hasten changes and corrections), adjusting the art to match the model sheets was the right thing to do, based on the business models and such in place then.

Decrying the actions of decades ago based on how the industry works today is ignorant. (Being saddened by those action, that's a different matter.)

Superman definitely wasn’t created “well before Kirby picked up [his] pencil.”

"...to draw Superman" is the implied second half of that.

In the Kirby original, Superman has an ominous look (furrowed brown, frown, darkened eyes), mainly because the information he’s imparting relates to prophesies of destruction. Yet in the altered image, Supes is smiling. It’s only one panel, but it completely alters the character’s reaction to the story surrounding the panel as well as going against the character’s established nature and personality.

My second thought - hey, you can love or hate Jack Kirby, John Romita, John Byrne, Dave Cockrum, etc. That's gotta be your call. But as a fan of comic books, I dislike the thought of details being redrawn if it's not going to be credited. If my book says "Drawn by Jack Kirby", I want it Drawn by Jack Kirby. If somebody else was doing something on that art, it should be credited in the book.

Of course, DC's corporate attitude doesn't make an honesty a priority...

He co-created Captain America in the '40s, after all, and pumped out any number of fantastic monster, adventure and war comics in that decade and the next.

Having said that, I don't think that should put him beyond editorial edict either, and it sounds like redrawing was quite common at the time.