|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 0:19:39 GMT -5
By the way, where does that top right image of Psylocke come from? It's fan art from L.Rey Arzeno on deviantart  These are the guys who should be drawing comics instead of Rob No Feet Liefeld. Well if they have any storytelling ability on a panel to panel page to page basis. Drawing comics takes a lot more than pretty pin ups and covers, but the Image guys like Liefeld influenced way too many fan artists and aspiring comic artists who only draw pin ups but have no idea how to compose a panel or lay out a page so it can fulfill it's narrative function. Editors don't care how pretty the picture is (or if it has feet) if you can't tell a story. A lot of fan artists would be much better served drawing their own comics and learning the basics of panel and page than drawing pin ups of their favorite characters from Marvel or DC to get likes, views, or hits on the deviant art and instagram pages if they were serious about drawing comics for a living. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 6:54:44 GMT -5
Is it just me or is Power Girl the most overly sexualized female superhero? Every newer cover seems content showcasing her umm...powerful girls. No complaints, as Hughes drew her beautifully on the main one that comes to mind but are her stories and character all fluff or is she interesting to read? I've only read her in a few JSA stories from her first appearance, and a few issues after, so far. But I loved her from the very beginning. She seems to love being a superhero and isn't afraid of anything. At all. Ever. She's rough and tough. And doesn't let men get away with thinking less of her. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 7:32:36 GMT -5
Bringing a few characters into the X-Men world was a mistake. So, I totally agree. It seems that quite often, when a character is brought into the X-Men world, the writers write them in this X-Men theme that doesn't make sense for the character. They cram them into the X-Men world and write the character to fit into that world, and it doesn't usually work. So, they rewrite/recreate established characters and end up changing them completely. Or at least enough that by the time the run is done, you either want to pretend it never occurred, or it changes your opinion of the character. I think the only appearances of Betsy Braddock that I've read pre-dating New Mutants Annual #2 are some issues of the Captain Britain magazine drawn by Alan Davis, so I can't really saw I'm knowledgeable about her personality in Marvel UK. However, I do know that Chris Claremont wrote her first appearance, then her first U.S. Marvel appearance, then when she joined the X-Men, her transition to the armored look, and transformation into a ninja. The "recreation" of the character was done by her co-creator. As noted above, I do seem to recall that her power originally came from some source other than mutation. Speaking of Claremont: CB was his character. I know Marvel hired him to write and create the character and told him "here, this is what you are doing", so he went with it, and didn't do too bad at it (though, imo, earlier Captain Britain stories are not nearly as interesting as later stuff I have read). But then Excalibur happened. And I LOVED it. But it's just odd to me that Claremont would write HIS character in such a way that he made him look like a complete alcoholic jerk. And he wrote Meggan as some cutesy, flirty, mostly-incompetent-cannot-figure-herself-out character in that series. He took the perfectly-acceptable-occasional-drink that CB would have, and played on that to turn him into some drunken, abusive a-hole in Excalibur. One who treated Meggan like garbage. To me, fun or not, it was a terrible thing to do to the character. It DID build up Nightcrawler (who is a favorite of mine), but that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when it comes to character development. Claremont was extreme about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 10, 2015 9:51:28 GMT -5
Is it just me or is Power Girl the most overly sexualized female superhero? Every newer cover seems content showcasing her umm...powerful girls. No complaints, as Hughes drew her beautifully on the main one that comes to mind but are her stories and character all fluff or is she interesting to read? It started as a joke. I think it's Wally Wood who started drawing Power Girl's breasts bigger and bigger, trying to find out when the Comics Code would say "that's enough!!!" |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 11, 2015 14:47:03 GMT -5
Brian Cronin actually did a 'Legends Revealed' column on PG's breasts... the conclusion was that while most people think it's the sort of thing Wally Wood would do, the visual evidence doesn't really confirm it, and no one ever hear that it was the plan directly... I think it was just later artists got carried away, then it became a joke. I have one regarding everyone's favorite topic... numbering! I read a trade of Joe Kubert's Tarzan yesterday from the library... when DC got the rights.. the started with #206 (to follow the Dell/Western numbering), with a '1st Issue' sunburst on the cover. Only a few years later (5 or so) Marvel got the rights, and they did a new #1... was continuing old numbering a thing that everyone did still in the 70s? I know back in the day it was to help let kids (and vendors) know it was a solid mag, and there then was Marvel's distribution issues. Carrying numbering over from another publisher seems odd, though. Is this the one time it happened across publishers? Or was it common practice? IDW is sorta doing that with the new Duck books (The 'old numbering' number is listed in parenthesis), and Dark Horse does it a bit in the Indicia (though I think just for their stuff, at least for Conan)... I kinda like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2015 15:00:38 GMT -5
Brian Cronin actually did a 'Legends Revealed' column on PG's breasts... the conclusion was that while most people think it's the sort of thing Wally Wood would do, the visual evidence doesn't really confirm it, and no one ever hear that it was the plan directly... I think it was just later artists got carried away, then it became a joke. I have one regarding everyone's favorite topic... numbering! I read a trade of Joe Kubert's Tarzan yesterday from the library... when DC got the rights.. the started with #206 (to follow the Dell/Western numbering), with a '1st Issue' sunburst on the cover. Only a few years later (5 or so) Marvel got the rights, and they did a new #1... was continuing old numbering a thing that everyone did still in the 70s? I know back in the day it was to help let kids (and vendors) know it was a solid mag, and there then was Marvel's distribution issues. Carrying numbering over from another publisher seems odd, though. Is this the one time it happened across publishers? Or was it common practice? IDW is sorta doing that with the new Duck books (The 'old numbering' number is listed in parenthesis), and Dark Horse does it a bit in the Indicia (though I think just for their stuff, at least for Conan)... I kinda like it. DC kept Gold Key's numbering on Tarzan and Korak, Gold Key had kept Dell's numbering on both titles. Numbering for Flash Gordon and Phantom which switched form King to Gold Key to Charlton remained in place. A lot of it had to do with qualifying for certain postage rates for periodicals for subscriptions (a periodical had to have so many issues before it qualified for less expensive postal rates), so a lot of the numbering retentions (either between companies, or when DC brought back a title like Challengers of the Unknown after several years of not publishing it, or with Marvel's 1968 expansion where the split books were divided into 2 titles, one of which kept the old numbering) were to retain the eligibility on those postal rates. By the time Marvel took over the Tarzan (and John Carter) licenses in the late 1970s, the #1 fetishization of collectors had set in among the mindset of comics fans, and sales were better on #1s making it more profitable to have a #1 even with the postal rates. After the late 70s, you rarely see numbers retailed and see more #1s. Once the direct market kicked in and collectibility was a driving force in marketing and sales, #1s were pretty much the rule, especially since sales were much more focused on retail outlets than subscriptions, unlike earlier. -M |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 12, 2015 1:13:18 GMT -5
I'm trying to find a comic book cover and I am totally blanking on where it came from, or even exactly what's on it.
I think it's a sci-fi black and white comic magazine from the 1970's, maybe from Marvel. I think the cover has someone on the moon, maybe planting a flag? I think it's almost a classic swords and sorcery pose, with a woman at his feet and everything, and possibly with a flying saucer swooping in in the background?
I'm starting to think my brain created this cover out of pieces of other covers, because I can't find it. Anyone have any idea what this is, or if I am just going nuts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2015 1:36:02 GMT -5
I'm trying to find a comic book cover and I am totally blanking on where it came from, or even exactly what's on it. I think it's a sci-fi black and white comic magazine from the 1970's, maybe from Marvel. I think the cover has someone on the moon, maybe planting a flag? I think it's almost a classic swords and sorcery pose, with a woman at his feet and everything, and possibly with a flying saucer swooping in in the background? I'm starting to think my brain created this cover out of pieces of other covers, because I can't find it. Anyone have any idea what this is, or if I am just going nuts? Making a guess...  |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Dec 12, 2015 1:46:04 GMT -5
Is it just me or is Power Girl the most overly sexualized female superhero? Every newer cover seems content showcasing her umm...powerful girls. No complaints, as Hughes drew her beautifully on the main one that comes to mind but are her stories and character all fluff or is she interesting to read? The last word I would use to describe Power Girl's character is "fluff". For one thing, I'd be afraid of her hearing me... The Jimmy Palmiotti/Justin Gray/Amanda Conner series is a fun read, worth checking out. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Dec 12, 2015 1:49:18 GMT -5
on Psylocke front, I actually loved her as an X-man, and I even loved the costume with the purple butterfly effect.  tho I didn't care at all for the "armored" version:  it's been a LONG time since I've read the X-books (or any Marvel. . . tho I have TONS of trades I've bought over the years, for $5 a pop at Dragon*con, just stacked up waiting for me to have time (HA!) to read).. . but didn't they "explain" Betsy becoming Asian with: she swapped bodies with a nija-like assassin, (Betsy's mind, the other lady's body) and that's why she not only gained the extra ninja skills, but also became Asian? They did, she was bodyswapped with the assassin Kwannon. But it was a ridiculously contrived explanation for a totally unnecessary change which destroyed the original character completely. And they never explained why her personality totally changed at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2015 1:49:56 GMT -5
I'm trying to find a comic book cover and I am totally blanking on where it came from, or even exactly what's on it. I think it's a sci-fi black and white comic magazine from the 1970's, maybe from Marvel. I think the cover has someone on the moon, maybe planting a flag? I think it's almost a classic swords and sorcery pose, with a woman at his feet and everything, and possibly with a flying saucer swooping in in the background? I'm starting to think my brain created this cover out of pieces of other covers, because I can't find it. Anyone have any idea what this is, or if I am just going nuts? Could be Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction #2....  -M |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Dec 12, 2015 1:54:34 GMT -5
Bringing a few characters into the X-Men world was a mistake. So, I totally agree. It seems that quite often, when a character is brought into the X-Men world, the writers write them in this X-Men theme that doesn't make sense for the character. They cram them into the X-Men world and write the character to fit into that world, and it doesn't usually work. So, they rewrite/recreate established characters and end up changing them completely. Or at least enough that by the time the run is done, you either want to pretend it never occurred, or it changes your opinion of the character. I think the only appearances of Betsy Braddock that I've read pre-dating New Mutants Annual #2 are some issues of the Captain Britain magazine drawn by Alan Davis, so I can't really saw I'm knowledgeable about her personality in Marvel UK. However, I do know that Chris Claremont wrote her first appearance, then her first U.S. Marvel appearance, then when she joined the X-Men, her transition to the armored look, and transformation into a ninja. The "recreation" of the character was done by her co-creator. As noted above, I do seem to recall that her power originally came from some source other than mutation. Claremont wrote her first appearance, yes, but other writers really defined her character in the early years; Claremont's original Betsy appeared in only a handful of issues and was essentially just a stereotypical damsel in distress. Betsy's personality didn't really emerge until later, after he'd left. When Claremont eventually got his hands on her again ten years later, he basically ignored all that. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Dec 12, 2015 2:03:45 GMT -5
I think the only appearances of Betsy Braddock that I've read pre-dating New Mutants Annual #2 are some issues of the Captain Britain magazine drawn by Alan Davis, so I can't really saw I'm knowledgeable about her personality in Marvel UK. However, I do know that Chris Claremont wrote her first appearance, then her first U.S. Marvel appearance, then when she joined the X-Men, her transition to the armored look, and transformation into a ninja. The "recreation" of the character was done by her co-creator. As noted above, I do seem to recall that her power originally came from some source other than mutation. Speaking of Claremont: CB was his character. I know Marvel hired him to write and create the character and told him "here, this is what you are doing", so he went with it, and didn't do too bad at it (though, imo, earlier Captain Britain stories are not nearly as interesting as later stuff I have read). But then Excalibur happened. And I LOVED it. But it's just odd to me that Claremont would write HIS character in such a way that he made him look like a complete alcoholic jerk. And he wrote Meggan as some cutesy, flirty, mostly-incompetent-cannot-figure-herself-out character in that series. He took the perfectly-acceptable-occasional-drink that CB would have, and played on that to turn him into some drunken, abusive a-hole in Excalibur. One who treated Meggan like garbage. To me, fun or not, it was a terrible thing to do to the character. Totally agree. I absolutely hated what Claremont did to the entire Captain Britain cast from 1986 onwards. And it led to others writing them the same way, with little or no regard for their previously established characters or past continuity. There was one particularly awful issue of Excalibur, by Scott Lobdell, a flashback story set immediately after Captain Britain's appearances in Marvel team-Up, which basically retconned Brian as having been an alcoholic no-hoper during the time of his original series, and totally disregarded (and contradicted) a major chunk of his history. I doubt Lobdell even knew the stories he was trashing had ever existed, which somehow makes it even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Dec 12, 2015 5:07:49 GMT -5
"Editors don't care how pretty the picture is (or if it has feet) if you can't tell a story."
Then how does Leinil Yu keep getting work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2015 14:55:37 GMT -5
Then how does Leinil Yu keep getting work? Didn't he pencil Wolverine 145? My most sold comic ever - over 100 copies, always moves fast when on display...  |
|
