|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 1, 2018 23:29:56 GMT -5
I'll say something ill of the dead here... I don't like Steve Gerber comics. Sorry. I'll never get his brilliance, his Guardians run was pretty disappointing and that's the one series he worked on I'm keeping. He missed deadlines so many times he wasn't even professional to me. Most of his stories were like what was on his or his girlfriend's grocery list that day... cobbled together, huge amounts of idiosyncrasy, randopm gonzo ingredients, and thought itself so amusing and tongue-in-cheek but would hammer you over the head with that so hard any such possible effect was spoiled. I can't think of another comic writer or creator where I really didn't care for anything much ever by them, but for Mr. Gerber. I even much preferred Howard The Duck by Bill Mantlo or whoever, which should be like preferring Bob Camp Ren & Stimpy over John Kricfalusi's, but it's just so true. Interviews of him that I read were better than any comic he wrote which I ever saw. Okay, boil lanced, puss drained, um, I'll stop with the metaphors right here. I like Gerber's Howard and loved his Defenders. I do have to say I preferred the Guardians of the Galaxy in the Defenders issues, to the Marvel Presents series, though I thought it improved as it went along. Gerber is one of those where I tend to like specific issues, more than entire runs. I loved his brainchild animated series, Thundarr, tremendously. It helps that Kirby worked on some of the designs (and the series owed much to his Kamadi) and Toth also helped with character designs, while Marty Pasko worked on scripts.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 2, 2018 3:00:19 GMT -5
That's just it--Swan at the "height" of his powers--as seen in the first image you posted--draws a wide waist, tired-looking Batman that is not at all among the best representations of the character's general stature, physical movement or costuming or... character. To my eyes, Swan is simply drawing Batman as a circus strongman, complete with tight fitting leotard. That's more or less just how superheroes -- Superman especially -- were depicted from the Golden Age until the '60s. Far from being the physique of a tired old Dad, it's the sort of body that bodybuilders such as Charles Atlas had before the advent of modern gym training and anabolic steroids. At some point in the 60s, this way of depicting superheroes fell out of favour at DC and was replaced with the more dynamic, bulging biceps and pecs that we know so well today.
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Jul 2, 2018 11:02:19 GMT -5
Swan drew a good Batman. There, everybody except one guy said it.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 2, 2018 14:40:59 GMT -5
So nobody likes this Jack Kirby Spider-Man cover...? here side by side with the unused Ditko version of the cover... -M It's strange to me that the only time Kirby nailed Spider-Man was when he drew him for the first time and that the inverse is true for Ditko. If you want a great looking Kirby Spider-Man and a less than amazing looking Ditko Spider-Man, look at each of their first drawings because you won't find any other examples anywhere else. Ditko inked the Kirby cover to AF #15. Kirby on his own never got the web pattern or the eyes on the costume right; Ditko fixed them whenever he inked a Kirby Spider-Man drawing.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 2, 2018 17:49:14 GMT -5
I'll agree that Swan, like many another penciller, was better served by more detailed inking, in particular Murphy Anderson and George Klein. But in these panels inked by Mike Esposito (from Lois Lane 89), Swan's Batman looks more lithe. The story came out in 1969. That seems to be the anomaly, or perhaps an order to make Swan's Batman fall in line with the standard interpretation in the various Bat-titles of the period. In other words, he was operating out of his wheelhouse. Yes, that's bad, but it proves the point that there are some artists who were always ill-equipped to illustrate certain characters. As mentioned yesterday, Steranko--as magnificent an artist as he was--could not draw Spider-Man, which means there are just some subjects beyond the range of their abilities to capture the accepted, best essence of the character, which is the point I'm making here in regards to Swan's Batman. To my eyes, Swan is simply drawing Batman as a circus strongman, complete with tight fitting leotard. That's more or less just how superheroes -- Superman especially -- were depicted from the Golden Age until the '60s. Far from being the physique of a tired old Dad, it's the sort of body that bodybuilders such as Charles Atlas had before the advent of modern gym training and anabolic steroids. At some point in the 60s, this way of depicting superheroes fell out of favour at DC and was replaced with the more dynamic, bulging biceps and pecs that we know so well today. I think that was a matter of choice; in the 50's what many consider the forerunner of the modern bodybuilder was already known in the form of Steve Reeves-- ..who was a true visual marvel compared to Atlas-- ... and the man who actually portrayed Superman in that decade--George Reeves-- Steve Reeves became famous around the world at the tail end of the 1950's (his first Hercules movie premiering in 1958), so such a breakout performer could (should) have been the inspiration to illustrate superheroes in a more dynamic, powerful manner, but some were comfortable with "dad bodies" or an antiquated idea of what a strong person should look like instead of something that actually appeared to be larger than life and/or playing up the individual character's strengths. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 2, 2018 18:17:16 GMT -5
Slam_Bradley is wrong. Even Dogs wanna be Superman There I said it faster than a speeding bullet !
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 2, 2018 23:58:19 GMT -5
For me, it's a huge error in judgement from the artist when they decide to use the body-builder type of physique as their model for superheroes, as most of them have done for many years now. Body-builders are all about posing, so their whole look is actually the opposite of dynamic, an adjective that implies motion and energy (not that Curt Swan was any better at this IMO).
I think artists should look to actual athletes and study how the human body looks in action - and today, with youtube videos you can pause and so on, they have more easily accessible resources for this kind of thing than was ever available to previous generations. But most of them seem to be stuck in the mindset of imitating other superhero artists rather than striking out on their own.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 3, 2018 6:25:30 GMT -5
I think that was a matter of choice; in the 50's what many consider the forerunner of the modern bodybuilder was already known in the form of Steve Reeves-- ..who was a true visual marvel compared to Atlas-- ... and the man who actually portrayed Superman in that decade--George Reeves-- Steve Reeves became famous around the world at the tail end of the 1950's (his first Hercules movie premiering in 1958), so such a breakout performer could (should) have been the inspiration to illustrate superheroes in a more dynamic, powerful manner, but some were comfortable with "dad bodies" or an antiquated idea of what a strong person should look like instead of something that actually appeared to be larger than life and/or playing up the individual character's strengths. But Steve Reeves still wasn't considered the norm for powerful strongmen in the '50s or early '60s. As you say, he was the forerunner of today's body builders, but he was unusual in that respect. The "circus strongman" body was still the cultural ideal of a powerful male physique during the 50s and 60s, and was not "antiquated" at all. Strongmen were still a very real thing, which most kids would see at their local circus or fun fair once a year or whatever. So it made sense for superheroes to be drawn like that. Irrespective of all that though, the likes of Charles Atlas and George Reeves did not have flabby "Dad bodies"; they were fit, powerful males of their era, much like how Curt Swan drew Batman and Superman. Given that we've now eliminated Swan's depiction of Batman in an "ill-fitting costume" as something that is largely in your mind, the only thing left for you to take issue with is Swan's depiction of Batman with that kind of circus strongman body. But then you would also have to take exception to just about every other superhero appearing in the '40s or '50s as well, because they were pretty much all drawn with that kind of body.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 3, 2018 7:05:33 GMT -5
But Steve Reeves still wasn't considered the norm for powerful strongmen in the '50s or early '60s. As you say, he was the forerunner of today's body builders, but he was unusual in that respect. You are missing the point; Steve Reeves instant popularity in the late 50s meant audiences accepted his look as the new normal--a true Hercules come to life, making Atlas and often overweight, padding-wearing George Reeves look like dad-bodies in comparison. No, we have not, and the posted images from Novick, Adams and Infantino/Anderson show just how Batman should look, compared to--and I will say it again--the ill-fitting, dad-bodied Swan version. Look, its fine to like Swan's work, but he--like Kirby's Spider-Man was not right at all, selling something opposite of what the character should be, that three other artists--all completely different than each other--successfully captured in the making of a believably dynamic hero in the world of the fantastic that was not to be found in Swan's version. Just as you have posted at length about all of the "wrong", innacurate ways Infantino illustrated Marvel's Star Wars. It did not work for you, or fit how you thought that world should look. The same applies here, Confessor. Is that just in the mind, or conclusions based on visual evidence?
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 3, 2018 7:27:10 GMT -5
I just don't see what you are talking about tark. That earlier Swan art is in line with how Dick Sprang drew Batman, or Boring drew Superman. You are comparing 50s Swan to late 60s and 70s Adams. And no Steve Reeves didn't cause a seismic instantaneous shift in what strongmen looked like in the media.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 3, 2018 7:37:22 GMT -5
I just don't see what you are talking about tark. That earlier Swan art is in line with how Dick Sprang drew Batman, or Boring drew Superman. You are comparing 50s Swan to late 60s and 70s Adams. And no Steve Reeves didn't cause a seismic instantaneous shift in what strongmen looked like in the media. Icctrombone & Confessor both posted a Swan Batman from the New Look era (yellow oval), so its a contemporary comparison to any Batman work from 1964 and the short years thst folloeed like the Infantino/Anderson cover example. That's not putting Swan up against someone working decades later, but one in the same period, like the Kirby vs Ditko Spider-Man comparison. Perfectly fair.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,083
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 3, 2018 7:48:46 GMT -5
You are missing the point; Steve Reeves instant popularity in the late 50s meant audiences accepted his look as the new normal--a true Hercules come to life, making Atlas and often overweight, padding-wearing George Reeves look like dad-bodies in comparison. I really don't believe that you're right about that. I'd like to see some reliable evidence to support that statement. As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed". No, we have not, and the posted images from Novick, Adams and Infantino/Anderson show just how Batman should look, compared to--and I will say it again--the ill-fitting, dad-bodied Swan version. Look, its fine to like Swan's work, but he--like Kirby's Spider-Man was not right at all, selling something opposite of what the character should be, that three other artists--all completely different than each other--successfully captured in the making of a believably dynamic hero in the world of the fantastic that was not to be found in Swan's version. Just as you have posted at length about all of the "wrong", innacurate ways Infantino illustrated Marvel's Star Wars. It did not work for you, or fit how you thought that world should look. The same applies here, Confessor. Is that just in the mind, or conclusions based on visual evidence? The thing is though, as someone else said earlier in this thread, nobody else here agrees with you about Swan's depiction of Batman. Not one person! In a forum filled with as many knowledgeable comic book experts as this one -- some of them published authors on the subject, no less -- that should tell you something. Not that you can't have your own opinion of an artist, of course, but you've not managed to convince a single person here that your claim about Curt Swan drawing Batman as a flabby, "Dad bodied" loser in ill-fitting clothes has any merit. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that it's a rather niche opinion, pretty much confined to you. As for my well known criticism of Carmine Infantino's work on Star Wars, well, dislike of the angular, weirdly posed figures in his later period is fairly widespread in this forum...and not just on Star Wars. But my criticisms of Infantino actually go way beyond the subjective. His artwork was a bad fit for SW because there's ample evidence to show that he had absolutely no interest in drawing George Lucas's fictional universe as anything like it appeared in the films. Infantino preferred to put his own spin on the various pieces of tech or spaceships in the SW universe -- which is fine from an artistic standpoint, but simply "wrong" if we're comparing his art to the source material. It's what lead the editor on Star Wars (Louise Jones) to insist that other inkers -- notably Tom Palmer -- should doctor Infantino's pencils in order to make the art look closer to the films in the later stages of his tenure on the book. So, comparing my dislike of Infantino's art of SW (although, actually, I always say that his art was excellent from a storytelling perspective) to your claim that Swan drew Batman as a flabby old Dad, isn't a like-for-like comparison. The one is a seemingly niche, entirely subjective opinion, while the other is a fairly common opinion, based largely on irrefutable fact.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 3, 2018 8:07:29 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with Swan's mid 60s new era Batman either. I also don't see the problem with the images Icct and Confessor posted.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 3, 2018 11:08:46 GMT -5
(...) nobody else here agrees with you about Swan's depiction of Batman. Not one person! In a forum filled with as many knowledgeable comic book experts as this one -- some of them published authors on the subject, no less -- that should tell you something.
Well, that's not quite true - I don't like his Batman very much, either. But then again, I'm not the biggest fan of Swan's depiction of Superman, either. Also, citing the disagreement of "many knowledgeable experts" (published or otherwise) with an opinion is basically a form of argument from authority.
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Jul 3, 2018 11:33:33 GMT -5
OK, we're down to 'This is an example of Such and Such argument technique' posts. I think the horse is dead.
|
|