|
His run on the the Authority is the only reason to read that piece of poo poo.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Heresiarch posted:I've always felt that his characters often come across as very deliberately imperfect. Even the good-looking ones can feel more real because they're rarely drawn with perfect, model-like expressions. See: Frank Quitely, Richard Corben, any artist that is actually good but is untypical of "comic book art".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I think Quitely is pretty "typical" (albeit better than average) until you get to the potato-heads, and I consider that more of a very focused ineptitude unlike Pope's specific style. I think rear end succeeds in large part due to excellent inking and coloring. Yeah, no. The fact that you can compare Quitely to Paul Pope and not, say Ale Garza or whoever suggests a pretty wide gulf.    You may not like the way he draws, but clearly there is a great level of craft in the way he composes scenes, gives a sense of weight and geometry, conveys really expressive body language, and so on. You'd have to read a lot of comics to come up with good examples of even one of these things, much less all of them, and even then you're comparing him to the best in the mainstream comics industry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Mr Wind Up Bird posted:We3 should be used as a textbook on how to convey action with animals. Everything he does is brilliant from conveying their size and speed to how they perceive their environment. He took what was undoubtedly a difficult script and concept and knocked it out of the goddamn park. I think James Stokoe is an excellent example of this, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Talking about good artists that have become crappy (Chaykin) what are peoples opinions about Kyle Baker? Much like Chaykin, depends on whether he gives a poo poo that day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It also isn't "now" considering the comic is over 10 years old. Milligan's X-Force/X-Statix is still a really interesting series though and well worth a read. It deals with superheroes in a corporate/reality TV light and since all of the characters (other than cameos by the Avengers and Prof X) are original creations the book has no problem showcasing just how dangerous being a superhero really could be. Yeah, there's something kinda funny about the New X-Force being so old that people don't even remember it. X-Force 116 is from like, 2001.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2012 14:01
|
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:
I love this, it's so confident. It exaggerates and celebrates her form without being overtly sexualized.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That face does not resemble anything human. The left eye is sticking out of her ear and there's no gap between the nose and top lip. I have never seen worse facial anatomy. After having read the issue, I don't know that I even care.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:These own so much. This style for me is inseparable from the only comics I read as a kid, those early 90s(?) X-Men subfranchises that were grim and probably too self-serious but loving SURREAL in a way that completely sold it. The color choices & abstraction of shapes &compression of space call back to that old Jack Kirby style but with a sorta Ray Pettibon gritty groundedness. Perfect for gonzo superhero stuff that still makes a stab at real-world relevance. Bill Sienkiewicz is a true original, what more needs to be said? Hakkesshu posted:
Well composed and interesting portrait of a fictional person that's also ugly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:I am sort of liking it but am dreading the eventual reveal where we discover that whatever gave the superheroes powers is some vile, horrible act. I'm appreciating it as a showcase for what Quitely can do and just kind of skipping over the words.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
redbackground posted:Can we all agree that the clothes-as-title by Samnee is pretty drat amazing? That kicks rear end.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Reminder: Francesco Francavilla illustrated this week's Batwoman. I don't know why Croc seems like such a natural foe for Batwoman.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:You mean The Shadow? He's exactly like Kyle Baker. When he doesn't give a poo poo, he REALLY doesn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
I think you should consider yourself lucky he hasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Skrull Kill Krew owns so much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
So is Johnny Quick there a conehead or something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Still, I'd rather have badly drawn kids by JRjr than Greg Land tracing. You know the picture I mean. I don't, actually. Are you talking about the cover of Trouble or something? Rotten Red Rod posted:Apparently kids are REALLY HARD to draw, as comic book artists are consistently bad at them. They either look way too young (like above), like little adults, or aliens, like this one from the 9/11 Spiderman issue: Too young...for what? The kids up front are clearly meant to be kids.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:I'm saying the kids in the 9/11 Spiderman panel look like aliens, and the ones in the Ms Marvel image posted by Pimpmust look way younger than their supposed ages (assuming they're not supposed to be 4-5 years old). Two separate things. That's just how JRJR draws all people, a mass of horizontal lines.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Though the covers are decent, the art inside the issues leave much to be desired: Why does he remind me so much of Adam X?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Seneca goes surprisingly far back as a comics blogosphere guy and was easily as poo poo then.DivineCoffeeBinge posted:It's the hat. Oh, yeah, duh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Speaking as a librarian, that's actually considerably worse than most trashy romance covers. Romance novel covers at least have the sense to highlight the two people and their relationship, not just treat them as random elements. What story am I being told by this cover? Doting Superman and...recently screwed Wonder Woman? What?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Jedit posted:What? No, he's mostly retired, but he did this for a benefit auction at HeroesCon 2013 when Steve Niles's house was destroyed by flood. You've gotta be loving kidding me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It sold for $2200, and I'm not loving kidding you. I am insulted that a horror fan such as yourself didn't get that joke.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
omg chael crash posted:
I actually like that she looks quite buglike and unsexy in this picture, but Manara just can't help himself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:People don't just look like they're naked but with different colours painted on regardless of how tight their clothing is supposed to be. That may be the case, but I'm wondering if anybody else is seeing what I'm seeing. Of course that's not a real pose for a real woman, there's something creepy and Uno Morales-ish about it. It's just too freaky to find properly sexy, despite the lovingly rendered back muscles and prominent glutes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
zoux posted:I posted about this in the chat thread but it's literally a recolor of another Manara piece of a completely naked woman. Uh, that's not even close. It's clearly an original piece.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
I don't see how they're remotely similar unless you're claiming that Milo Manara invented face down rear end up. I'm sure he'd be tickled at the implication, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
It's a stock pose. In fact, the modifications he's made to make her anatomy bizarre and spindly just reinforce my point; even with cheesecake Manara is better than the typical misbegotten comic book sex appeal artist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:
See what I mean? With an ostensibly creepier design and much worse grasp of anatomy, The Ant there looks like poo poo. Like a lot of Manara's compositions the sexuality is very obvious but it's not blatantly terrible art, like that crappy cover.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
The thing is, it is highly erotic, and always has been. That's why they wear the underwear on the outside to begin with. Skintight Ken and Barbie stuff actually seems way creepier to me since they clearly aren't wearing any clothes and there is no attempt to depict "material". Spider Woman's costume is just straight up a painted nude. Not for nothing do they give Manara work, you get what you're asking for there. Why be coy, as long as we're doing this thing?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I admit I am biased because Manara is a skilled illustrator and there's nothing wrong with erotic art. It's definitely not comparable with the dross that looks like DC house style. The only other time I've found the character remotely appealing since being brought back was when Maleev drew her because he showed a little restraint and didn't give her F-cup breasts and made the costume look like a costume.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I think I'm probably way biased to Maleev too, plus his interiors are less indulgent and better suited to that Brubaker/Bendis/Rucka style.mind the walrus posted:It's really weird too, Spider-Woman has one of the least sexy and most visually unappealing costumes in comics and always has. I still have zero loving idea why no one at Marvel has commissioned a redesign in the last 10 years. It's cause the character was brought back because she was one of Bendis' adolescent sexual fantasies. Her inexplicable allure was even a plot point. Waterhaul posted:I think really the difference is more Marvel pushing this as a ~rare~ variant and the extra scrutiny around female solo books at the moment. It doesn't help to have that they have Land on interiors too which already set a precedent with the book. I get that, the cover is actually uncomfortable to look at but it's actually because it's gone the other way that you usually see defended in cheesecake. There's nothing winking about it at all, it's not sexy or teasing, it's just blatantly sexual.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:Was Bendis the one that invented the pheromones thing? The sexual allure pheromones thing, I think so, yeah. Before she used them to strike fear into the hearts of men. But I could be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:So, to confirm, it's fine to color a nude figure as long as you draw lines where the underwear should be and make it a different color? But, if you don't do this, it's sexual. What do you object to? Are these not idealized, eroticized bodies with the nipples taped down? I'll go to bat for Manara, he's not pretending.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:I wasn't the one objecting. I just found it amusing that people's problem with the Spiderwoman drawing was just that her crotch doesn't have panty lines on the sides. Its more the pose.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:Google "Spider-man crawling". No, I agree, but I'm not going to pretend there's nothing else staring you in the face.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Spidey is one of the few heroes that legitimately does get loving rear end shots so that does tip it a little.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Is this the part of the conversation where someone says that male superheroes are also idealized? They are, but the typical comic book artist has no idea what's sexually appealing about men's bodies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:I've always suspected that when Spider-woman crawled it was for sex but when Spider-man did it, it was for spidering. A literal superpower of hers is that she's sexually manipulative and predatory. The male equivalent would be Daken, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
I think Marvel should continue to hire him, and should stop employing Greg Land.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 19:25
|
|