|
Post by rberman on Apr 18, 2019 15:03:00 GMT -5
I have no complaint with these pages but am also not sure how the word "dynamic" applies. The first page uses a variety of different panel sizes and different shots, including one close-up of a body part (hand on elbow) to draw attention. The second page is a six panel grid of two characters walking and talking, and the camera varies as to whether they are seen from behind or the side of the front. Is that what you meant by "dynamic" or is there something else at work? I mean a sense of movement and flow, not of a series of static images. Also, especially in the Eisner example, showing the action and commenting on the action. Also, I'll go on the record as preferring comic art that has a handmade feeling, that acknowledges that it's drawn. Here's a beautiful page that's 50 years old, and it's beautiful, but I don't really like it. You can smell the photo-reference. It's great drawing, but it doesn't flow.
I realize these things are subjective so I'm not arguing... I didn't have any difficulty with the flow of those panels myself. The soldier is tempted by the bottle of wine in the hand of a fallen... comrade? foe? He wants one last swig before charging off to probably die, then thinks better of it. The story is clear to me, the realism is gorgeous, and the emotions are relatable. I do appreciate that photo reference can enhance the realism at the expense of the story. Alex Ross gets flak for drawing characters with non-heroic proportions, which I think is fine but others deride as cosplay, saying Galactus is "supposed" to have arms and legs twice the proportional thickness of a normal human. Meaning that's how he is usually drawn, so we expect it of him for the emotional effect of power. And Greg Land is infamous for photoshopping swiped references which (1) have faces and body language not matching the scene at hand and (2) don't match the faces and bodies of that character in other panels of the same work. So yeah, references can certainly be abused. I have developed more of an awareness of images which seem heavily photo-referenced. Sometimes they take me out of the moment; sometimes they just look cool. So many factors.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 18, 2019 15:36:56 GMT -5
I realize these things are subjective so I'm not arguing... I didn't have any difficulty with the flow of those panels myself. The soldier is tempted by the bottle of wine in the hand of a fallen... comrade? foe? He wants one last swig before charging off to probably die, then thinks better of it. The story is clear to me, the realism is gorgeous, and the emotions are relatable. I get the story flow, but each image feels static. My opinion.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Apr 18, 2019 16:37:26 GMT -5
I realize these things are subjective so I'm not arguing... I didn't have any difficulty with the flow of those panels myself. The soldier is tempted by the bottle of wine in the hand of a fallen... comrade? foe? He wants one last swig before charging off to probably die, then thinks better of it. The story is clear to me, the realism is gorgeous, and the emotions are relatable. I get the story flow, but each image feels static. My opinion. Less static to me and more as posed and drawn precisely/completely from the photo reference without much changed in putting it to pencil. Too " camera perfect" in essence for me.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 19, 2019 16:45:45 GMT -5
I assume tarkintino is only talking about mainstream, factory-system, corporate produced comic books. Obviously creator-owned comics have matured as an art form by orders of magnitude in the last couple dozen years. I dunno if I'd agree that genre/superhero type artists were better in the past, but at least you'd see the same dude on the same book for more than 2 issues straight sometimes. I really do think mainstream comics have lost the ability to promote their artists and use them as a selling point. Well, rberman initially commented on superhero art, but older generations of artists not only excelled in that genre, but many were talented / trained in working beyond the typical comic book line art, which speaks to the overall strength of older eras. A few examples among the expected superhero material, along with some who were known for specializing/excelling in cover art: L: Jim Starlin. R: Starlin with Joe Rubinstein inks. L & R: Richard Corben. L & R: Nick Cardy. L: John Buscema . R: John Buscema and Frank Giacoia. L & R: John Romita, Sr. L & R: Ken Barr. L: Ernie Chan with Noly Panaligan inks. R: Ernie Chan. L & R: Bob Larkin. L & R: Esteban Maroto. Honestly, there is no end to the all-time great work to be found in the older eras, and I've not even touched the Golden Age yet.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 20, 2019 7:00:51 GMT -5
Quick! What's the second appearance of Marvel's Red Sonja? If you said Conan the Barbarian #24, get ready to go, "Hunh?" All of the major grading companies are calling #24 her "first full appearance," similar to the way the debuts of Wolverine and Son of Satan are handled (and which I have defended in the past). The thing is, Sonja appears in some 15 panels over eight pages of Conan #23. She is fully shown. She is named. So what do online resources have to say? The Conan Wiki calls #24 her first appearance while acknowledging the previous appearance in #23 (wha?). Comic Vine straight up calls #23 a "brief cameo." Wikipedia sanely recognizes #23 as her first appearance and makes no mention of #24. The closest analogue I could think of is Wonder Woman, who debuts in a 9-page back-up in All Star Comics #8 and is unmentioned on the cover. This is rightly and universally referred to as her first appearance. Likewise, the follow-up in Sensation Comics #1 (13 pages) is acknowledged as her second appearance. So what's happening here? Is it a lobbying effort by Barry Smith fans to "juice" #24, an admittedly prettier book which receives the full BWS treatment (#23 sports a rather mundane Gil Kane cover and a squad of inkers over BWS' pencils)? If so, my response is that #24 doesn't need to be "juiced." It is undeniably the more desirable book strictly on its own merits. The distinction between a "full appearance" and a "cameo" is a useful one, but it is being abused and a bad precedent is being set. There. I said it.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 20, 2019 7:52:03 GMT -5
I never got the Wolverine Hulk #181 thing. I mean the last panel in #180. Nobody says Galactus' first appearance isn't FF #48
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Apr 20, 2019 8:08:25 GMT -5
What an inauspicious beginning! I know Wolverine got way overexposed and everything, but give Claremont, Byrne, and Miller credit for taking yet another cheesy antagonist and turning him into an interesting person.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 20, 2019 8:12:09 GMT -5
Nobody says Galactus' first appearance isn't FF #48 In the grading world at least, FF #48 is often considered a "first appearance - cameo," with #49 being the "first full appearance." It's this substitution of " first full" for "second" which concerns us here. A couple of aesthetic observations: #48 is a "prettier," more striking cover than #49. And despite him having only a cameo, #48 is a Galactus-centered story with a Galactus-focused cover. This makes #48 the more desirable "first appearance" IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 20, 2019 10:21:59 GMT -5
I guess the bottom line is demand is the real factor... just the fact that it's a first appearance isn't the thing... it has to be a 'good' first appearance.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 20, 2019 11:11:53 GMT -5
I think Hulk #181's popularity has a lot to do with the cover.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Apr 20, 2019 11:16:58 GMT -5
One barrier to discussion on this topic is that we lack a formal, authoritative glossary, that one source that everyone uses to define basic terms. "Cameo" should have a clear, accepted definition. A "full appearance" should be defined in contrast to a "second appearance," and so on.
I found the Overstreet glossary useful and thorough in the past, but it hasn't been in common usage for years, if it ever truly was. These days, people often refer to a "favorite" source or simply to their own personal head-glossary. Until we can agree on definitions of fundamental terms, these sorts of arguments will continue to pop up.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 20, 2019 11:43:28 GMT -5
I never got the Wolverine Hulk #181 thing. I mean the last panel in #180. Nobody says Galactus' first appearance isn't FF #48 In his Christmas outfit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:21:02 GMT -5
One barrier to discussion on this topic is that we lack a formal, authoritative glossary, that one source that everyone uses to define basic terms. "Cameo" should have a clear, accepted definition. A "full appearance" should be defined in contrast to a "second appearance," and so on. I found the Overstreet glossary useful and thorough in the past, but it hasn't been in common usage for years, if it ever truly was. These days, people often refer to a "favorite" source or simply to their own personal head-glossary. Until we can agree on definitions of fundamental terms, these sorts of arguments will continue to pop up. Don't hold your breath waiting for comic fans or fanboys to agree on anything. Too many think their own expertise trumps any one else and those that don't agree with them aren't "true fans" so any consensus would be the equivalent of a minor miracle. Add to it the devaluation of information in the internet age because of the perception of an infinite supply of it (if you think of information as a commodity and apply the principle of supply and demand to it with the perception of infinite supply and you can see why the value of it is degraded in the perception of most "consumers" in the market), and you can give up hope of ever getting an authoritative definition of anything that will be adopted by all. So, valuation of comics will remain what it has always been, entirely subjective and subject to the whim of collectors and dealers. -M
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 20, 2019 12:23:51 GMT -5
I never got the Wolverine Hulk #181 thing. I mean the last panel in #180. Nobody says Galactus' first appearance isn't FF #48 In his Christmas outfit. I know, right? They thought better of it in FF #49.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 20, 2019 17:22:16 GMT -5
I know, right? They thought better of it in FF #49. I always thought that the way Galactus was posed was strange in a nice way.
|
|