|
Post by Cei-U! on Dec 7, 2016 9:48:43 GMT -5
It's Milgrom trying very hard to be Frank Miller. That fight scene is straight out of Miller's Daredevil, just not as well-executed.
Cei-U! I don't hate Milgrom's art but it sure as heck never drove me into an "I gotta buy this" frenzy, either!
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Dec 7, 2016 10:06:52 GMT -5
You're better than this, Brett Ewins. Get it together. One thing I've noticed is that there are lots of comics artists who can't convincingly depict someone holding a telephone. No matter what era--modern cell phone or clunky land-line receiver--American comics artists routinely fail. The thing is, this is such a common activity, one that almost all of us do on a daily basis, if it's drawn even a little off, we can "feel" it: the phone is gripped too gingerly, or it's held wrong, or it's not in proportion to the hand. But an artist is doing well if it's drawn just a "little" off. Usually, it's far worse, like the Brett Ewins example here. It's almost like he's never used a phone himself!
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Dec 7, 2016 10:38:49 GMT -5
You're better than this, Brett Ewins. Get it together. One thing I've noticed is that there are lots of comics artists who can't convincingly depict someone holding a telephone. No matter what era--modern cell phone or clunky land-line receiver--American comics artists routinely fail. The thing is, this is such a common activity, one that almost all of us do on a daily basis, if it's drawn even a little off, we can "feel" it: the phone is gripped too gingerly, or it's held wrong, or it's not in proportion to the hand. But an artist is doing well if it's drawn just a "little" off. Usually, it's far worse, like the Brett Ewins example here. It's almost like he's never used a phone himself! Just to be pedantic: the late Brett Ewins was not an American comics artist. He did some work for the US market, but he was from London.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 7, 2016 10:41:27 GMT -5
What's with all the Milgrom hate? Admittedly, that first example with Kitty Pryde is not fantastic, but it's not that bad either. As for the above Wolverine fight, I think it looks perfectly fine. The figures themselves and the fight scene depicted look well executed and the lack of background is a stylistic choice designed to focus the reader's attention on the action. You see this kind of removal of backgrounds in a fight sequence consisting of identical sized panels fairly often in Bronze Age comics. I guess I'm just not seeing what's so bad about these examples. I also think Al Milgrom is a much better artist than most people give him credit for. The three panels on the left aren't bad, as they are in close-up, so the lack of background is acceptable. For the three panels on the right, there's so much wasted space that the lack of background is too noticeable. As well, there's no floor, which would help provide some sense of perspective and would ground the art in reality, whereas this is just two guys floating in a panel. Ummmm...I think it's OK because the "ground" is established in the top right hand panel, with the broken nunchuks clearly resting on the floor. That, to me, lessens the effect of the two figures floating in space by literally "grounding" them. I'm not saying that a little bit more background detail wouldn't have helped, but I still don't consider these to be particularly badly drawn panels.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 7, 2016 10:45:00 GMT -5
It's Milgrom trying very hard to be Frank Miller. That fight scene is straight out of Miller's Daredevil, just not as well-executed. Cei-U! I don't hate Milgrom's art but it sure as heck never drove me into an "I gotta buy this" frenzy, either! Yeah, I think you're spot on about the Frank Miller influence. Maybe that's why I associate backgroundless fight panels like this so closely with late Bronze Age comics. For the record, I'm not a huge Milgrom fanboy or anything, but I think he was a dependable, good all-rounder and when he was flying, his stuff was really rather nice.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 7, 2016 10:54:02 GMT -5
That last panel has a George Tuska-ish feel to it - particularly Thor's face. Can't say it's my favourite art ever, but compared to some of the abominations published earlier...? It may be Hercules' extended fingers, particularly his index finger, that remind you of Tuska. He had a certain way of drawing them. Oh, ans as you can see, even a lesser light like George Tuska drew much more fluid figures than whoever drew Thor and Hercules (complete with that spew of spittle masquerading as a puff of smoke wisping from his mouth
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Dec 7, 2016 11:01:17 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed is that there are lots of comics artists who can't convincingly depict someone holding a telephone. No matter what era--modern cell phone or clunky land-line receiver--American comics artists routinely fail. The thing is, this is such a common activity, one that almost all of us do on a daily basis, if it's drawn even a little off, we can "feel" it: the phone is gripped too gingerly, or it's held wrong, or it's not in proportion to the hand. But an artist is doing well if it's drawn just a "little" off. Usually, it's far worse, like the Brett Ewins example here. It's almost like he's never used a phone himself! Just to be pedantic: the late Brett Ewins was not an American comics artist. He did some work for the US market, but he was from London. Thanks for noting that. I appreciate that kind of pedantry, because it reminds me to write clearly. What I meant was "artists drawing for mainstream American comics, particularly in the dramatic superhero genres". I said "American comics artists" because I've seen plenty of examples in the Japanese comics markets where the artists have no problems drawing people holding phones. They also seem to be much better at drawing people wearing realistic clothes--superhero artists tend to be especially terrible at drawing men in suits, maybe because they're trying to draw the suits on top of body-builder physiques?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 7, 2016 11:34:26 GMT -5
In light of MWGallaher 's note about artists whio can't draw phones, I thought of something I think I mentioned yeras ago, but that I hope bears a moment's repeating: Wayne Boring never seemed to be able to quite pull off Clark Kent in profile. Look at the glasses. He got it right with other characters, but almost never seemed to get it right with Clark. It always looks like both of his lenses are on the other side of his nose! I first noticed this when I was a kid reading the Superman strip in the Sunday funnies.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 7, 2016 12:24:35 GMT -5
In light of MWGallaher 's note about artists whio can't draw phones, I thought of something I think I mentioned yeras ago, but that I hope bears a moment's repeating: Wayne Boring never seemed to be able to quite pull off Clark Kent in profile. Look at the glasses. He got it right with other characters, but almost never seemed to get it right with Clark. It always looks like both of his lenses are on the other side of his nose! I first noticed this when I was a kid reading the Superman strip in the Sunday funnies. Probably drew him as Superman, then drew in the glasses. I've never seen a picture of Boring; but, I would bet he didn't wear glasses. It's one of those details that would be correct from an artist who wore them. Speaking of things many artists can't draw: a suit. At least, modern comic artists. The guys in the Golden and Silver Age could knock them out left and right; just about every adult male wore them, in some capacity (daily or on Sundays). The Bronze Age seems to be a bit of a dividing line. A ton of later artists draw them like they are skin tight and then add a badly placed lapel. You get the sense that a lot of them have never wore anything but blue jeans and t-shirts. Then, there are guys like Chaykin, who actually look at fashion design and incorporate it in their work. His books were filled with people dressed to the nines (and undressed, quite often, without being nude).
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 7, 2016 12:44:29 GMT -5
In light of MWGallaher 's note about artists whio can't draw phones, I thought of something I think I mentioned yeras ago, but that I hope bears a moment's repeating: Wayne Boring never seemed to be able to quite pull off Clark Kent in profile. Look at the glasses. He got it right with other characters, but almost never seemed to get it right with Clark. It always looks like both of his lenses are on the other side of his nose! I first noticed this when I was a kid reading the Superman strip in the Sunday funnies. Probably drew him as Superman, then drew in the glasses. I've never seen a picture of Boring; but, I would bet he didn't wear glasses. It's one of those details that would be correct from an artist who wore them. Speaking of things many artists can't draw: a suit. At least, modern comic artists. The guys in the Golden and Silver Age could knock them out left and right; just about every adult male wore them, in some capacity (daily or on Sundays). The Bronze Age seems to be a bit of a dividing line. A ton of later artists draw them like they are skin tight and then add a badly placed lapel. You get the sense that a lot of them have never wore anything but blue jeans and t-shirts. Then, there are guys like Chaykin, who actually look at fashion design and incorporate it in their work. His books were filled with people dressed to the nines (and undressed, quite often, without being nude). I've read a ton of interviews with Golden and Silver Age artists and most of them either worked in, or wanted to work in advertising at some point. So they had to be able to draw clothing with the appropriate folds and creases and hanging correctly. And that tended to be a point of emphasis in the various art schools at the time. I think a lot of current artists learned how to draw from reading comic books, rather than actually having art training. And it shows particularly in certain areas like how suits look.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 7, 2016 13:20:56 GMT -5
Probably drew him as Superman, then drew in the glasses. I've never seen a picture of Boring; but, I would bet he didn't wear glasses. It's one of those details that would be correct from an artist who wore them. Speaking of things many artists can't draw: a suit. At least, modern comic artists. The guys in the Golden and Silver Age could knock them out left and right; just about every adult male wore them, in some capacity (daily or on Sundays). The Bronze Age seems to be a bit of a dividing line. A ton of later artists draw them like they are skin tight and then add a badly placed lapel. You get the sense that a lot of them have never wore anything but blue jeans and t-shirts. Then, there are guys like Chaykin, who actually look at fashion design and incorporate it in their work. His books were filled with people dressed to the nines (and undressed, quite often, without being nude). I've read a ton of interviews with Golden and Silver Age artists and most of them either worked in, or wanted to work in advertising at some point. So they had to be able to draw clothing with the appropriate folds and creases and hanging correctly. And that tended to be a point of emphasis in the various art schools at the time. I think a lot of current artists learned how to draw from reading comic books, rather than actually having art training. And it shows particularly in certain areas like how suits look. And things like architecture and industrial design. Every building looks the same, every car, furniture, appliances. It really stands out when you read something like Dean Motter's Mister X and Terminal City, where architecture and design are elements of the story. It really stands out when you look and Francois Schuiten's Cities of the Fantastic, where architecture is a character. Chaykin gets that, Mike Kaluta is adept at it. Look at The Shadow, Starstruck, and his illustrated Metropolis. Kaluta can make it look like the art deco of the 30s, art nouveau, or something beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 7, 2016 14:18:24 GMT -5
I've read a ton of interviews with Golden and Silver Age artists and most of them either worked in, or wanted to work in advertising at some point. So they had to be able to draw clothing with the appropriate folds and creases and hanging correctly. And that tended to be a point of emphasis in the various art schools at the time. I think a lot of current artists learned how to draw from reading comic books, rather than actually having art training. And it shows particularly in certain areas like how suits look. And things like architecture and industrial design. There's a reason Marshall Rogers, a student of architecture, made such a splash (pun intended) in Detective.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 7, 2016 15:24:17 GMT -5
And things like architecture and industrial design. There's a reason Marshall Rogers, a student of architecture, made such a splash (pun intended) in Detective. Great example. Schuiten was also trained as an architect, like his father, as well as an illustrator, like his mother. Motter worked in graphic design, producing album covers, as well as working with Marshall McLuhan. Motter produced the artwork for Triumph's Never Surrender album, which always reminded me of Magneto... Ken Steacy is another who brought industrial design into his work. Paul Rivoche is another. Lot of Canadians there. Must be something in the Molson!
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Jun 19, 2017 17:49:03 GMT -5
Only 'Sometimes'? Here's a panel that stopped me dead with its awfulness the other day - not that the book really needed a lot of help in getting me to stop reading it. From Kobalt 11 April 1995
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 19, 2017 22:28:12 GMT -5
Speaking of Liefeld. I look at this and I just have to wonder how he was given any work. I remember when this came out and it turned me off Liefeld.
|
|