|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 18:21:29 GMT -5
Anybody else read the short lived Hercules Unbound series from DC in the 70s. A fun, quirky book. Here Hercules almost looks Swansian
Wally Wood and Garcia-Lopez did the early issues and Simonson drew the later ones.
Yes! Fondly remembered. I don't think I have had read it since it originally came out.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 3, 2018 19:53:40 GMT -5
I picked one of those issues up last year. Very enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 3, 2018 20:57:28 GMT -5
Insinuating that I'm being untruthful is unwarranted, all to defend Swan... Not untruthful, just misinformed. For someone who--apparently--did not know much about Steve Reeves--which is where this line of discussion stems from--you could not possibly refer to someone else as "misinformed". In truth, not knowing about his impact would make you the misinformed one. One, if he was the breakout success as Hercules, which is a matter of record, then its is patently dishonest to argue that his look-- his body type was not the center of why he was a success as Hercules. It was never said his talents as an actor was the reason his version of Hercules was a success. Nor was it mentioned that his acting was the reason his version quickly inspired endless sword-and-sandal imitators in the years to come--many with actors of the same kind of physical build. That's no coincidence. He's not only referenced as inspiring Marvel characters (All Movie), but setting the path for Schwarzenegger (the Rolling Stone quote), as well, which means his look was not only accepted, but imitated not long after his splash and moving through the years. In other words, for all of that to happen, his body type was accepted as the idea. There's no denying that. Two, this entire Swan issue was (for me) making a statement on his inability to draw Batman, and comparing him to other artists who successfully drew the character. Other members decided to time-hop, using other periods as cover for Swan's work as if his entire career / ability was the issue. You should be, as I've asked you provide any published reference recognizing Swan as a notable Batman artist. Not artist in general (which some seem to have turned this discussion into) but a Batman artist. You were quick to jump to the appeal to authority fallacy as some means of attacking my opinion, and when asked to do the same (since you are one of Swan's chief defenders), you did not. If you're going to demand citations--references to support opinions, you should be willing to do the same in the interest of mature, fair discussion, instead of what's happened here.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 3, 2018 21:29:12 GMT -5
Show us the pictures from 1958-59 when Hercules came out when everyone but Swan was drawing characters that fit Reeves.
Not a decade later, when artist, Swan included, were drawing more of his body type.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 4, 2018 11:14:58 GMT -5
Show us the pictures from 1958-59 when Hercules came out when everyone but Swan was drawing characters that fit Reeves. Not a decade later, when artist, Swan included, were drawing more of his body type. That was not the point. Reeves was to illustrate that the unsubstantiated claim by another member that Charles Atlas and others of that body type was the norm for the idea of physical strength, when Reeves' breakout success in the late 50s proved that claim was false. One cannot be a breakout based primarily on his apprearance if said appearance was not embraced by the public. Back to the actual point--my point from June 29: Regarding Batman, Swan still illustrated the softer, wide waist dad body, weak-looking Bat-ears, odd costuming well into the New Look period of Batman as seen in two of the Silver Age images posted by others. Time hopping as far back as one can go does not wipe away the kind of Batman he produced at the same time as other artists (who were named and examples posted earlier), who were already drawing a more developed, detailed, larger anatomy influenced by the bodybuilder type of form (instead of the Charles Atlas body), from the pronounced pectoralis major, obliques--and really, the rest of the body, which had become a standard. Same years, same company, same character but vast differences in finished work / selling the best of the character. Swan's Batman was the odd man out. That's what not drawing a character to "save your life" means. He was wrong for the character. So there's no more going around and around, time-hopping, here are same year comparisons that prove the point-- Top row: 1967 - World's Finest #164 / Batman #196
Middle row: 1968 - World's Finest #173 / Batman #201
Bottom row: 1970 - Superman's Girl Friend Lois Lane #99 / Detective Comics #397 For a thread titled "There. I said it". Opinions on Comic books--which from the "There. I said it" part means one can offer hard, bold or not be shy about any opinion on comics, there's great deal of aggressively intolerant behavior regarding certain opinions about a couple of artists. Its as though some are placed in a "zone of protection"--free from any criticism as if to do so represents the greatest of taboos, when there's not one artist--including many who would be considered for the Mount Rushmore of comic art talent--who could not draw every character.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 4, 2018 20:27:54 GMT -5
I agreed that Swan's Batman was not the best, I thought it was more how he drew the costume though. It's hard to know how to take words on a screen sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 4, 2018 21:13:30 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with how Swan portrayed Batman in those examples. They look like Swan drawn figures. You don't like his style for Batman, but I see no evidence "he couldn't draw Batman" I actually prefer his World's Finest cover to Novak's Batman 201. And comparing anybody to Adams' Batman is foolish.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 4, 2018 22:45:15 GMT -5
I don't like Swan's style myself but I wouldn't say he's a bad artist or draws Batman poorly. It just happens to be a look that's never appealed to me.
(edit:) forgot to add - the whole Steve Reeves argument seems irrelevant to me, but I imagine there would be a transition period where Reeves's body-builder's physique was becoming more and more popular while the old-style strongman type was still holding a prominent place in the cultural imagination. But I don't have a problem with Swan sticking to his old style even if it had been 1988 rather than 1958 or 68 whatever it was: just like I never had a problem with Ditko or Kirby drawing street scenes where everyone was wearing hats long after that had fallen out of fashion.
Actually that's a bad analogy, since you could argue that the hats were so much out of style their presence might be distracting to some readers and take them out of the scene, whereas Swan's Superman and Batman still look like big, strong guys, which is one of the things you want to get across as a superhero artist.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 5, 2018 1:32:58 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with how Swan portrayed Batman in those examples. They look like Swan drawn figures. You don't like his style for Batman, but I see no evidence "he couldn't draw Batman" Let's cap this off with the following: anyone can put pencil/pen to paper and draw a thing, but in a genre where the right look and capturing a character essence is (arguably) as important as the stories, not just anyone can draw every character to achieve that. Kirby, Steranko and Adams never "got" Spider-Man at all; Herb Trimpe's Black Panther, Goliath or Vision were just...off. But that should not be a bone of contention--as its pretty much universal truth that some artists were perfect for certain characters, making them live up to everything they should be in the marriage of character's essence and appearance, while others were just plain wrong for the same characters. To each his own. *shrugs* Not at all, as Infantino/Anderson, Aparo, Novick and Breyfogle (to name a few) have all been praised for being great Batman artists, so Adams certainly has company there.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 6, 2018 15:10:50 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. Gerber is my single favorite scripter to work in comics so I, uh, disagree. He had a huge tonal range as a writer, his stuff generally had both thematic and philosophical depth, and I always got a sense of personal investment from his work - Like he always cared desperately (maybe a little too much) about what he was writing. Don't remember anything about his Guardians, though.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 6, 2018 20:41:46 GMT -5
Gerber is my single favorite scripter to work in comics so I, uh, disagree. He had a huge tonal range as a writer, his stuff generally had both thematic and philosophical depth, and I always got a sense of personal investment from his work - Like he always cared desperately (maybe a little too much) about what he was writing. Don't remember anything about his Guardians, though. I don't think I've read any of his Defenders so maybe that's what I'm missing. I think a lot of what I did read was near the end of his time at Marvel, a lot of parodies I thought overly obvious in Howard like he had lost direction, and the one with the typewritten text motif was just difficult to get through. I read one early Man-Thing appearance and a reprint of #1 in that tabloid edition, so maybe the gold was in the issues I missed. Stewart The Rat and Destroyer Duck were about all I remember post-Marvel, both seemed grudge bearing remakes of Howard the Duck. Late in his Marvel stay there were missed deadlines and fill-in issues with a lot of apologies for them, then he would just script from someone else's plot to finish a contract I guess. So which Defenders would be the best of Gerber if I ever get the chance or funds to investigate? I know the ones with Starhawk of The Guardians are a bit expensive or I'd have at least gotten those issues.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 20:54:04 GMT -5
So which Defenders would be the best of Gerber if I ever get the chance or funds to investigate? I know the ones with Starhawk of The Guardians are a bit expensive or I'd have at least gotten those issues. Gerber's run was #20-41. I also liked his Dr Fate which was his last work in 2007:
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 6, 2018 21:46:36 GMT -5
Gerber is my single favorite scripter to work in comics so I, uh, disagree. He had a huge tonal range as a writer, his stuff generally had both thematic and philosophical depth, and I always got a sense of personal investment from his work - Like he always cared desperately (maybe a little too much) about what he was writing. Don't remember anything about his Guardians, though. I don't think I've read any of his Defenders so maybe that's what I'm missing. I think a lot of what I did read was near the end of his time at Marvel, a lot of parodies I thought overly obvious in Howard like he had lost direction, and the one with the typewritten text motif was just difficult to get through. I read one early Man-Thing appearance and a reprint of #1 in that tabloid edition, so maybe the gold was in the issues I missed. Stewart The Rat and Destroyer Duck were about all I remember post-Marvel, both seemed grudge bearing remakes of Howard the Duck. Late in his Marvel stay there were missed deadlines and fill-in issues with a lot of apologies for them, then he would just script from someone else's plot to finish a contract I guess. So which Defenders would be the best of Gerber if I ever get the chance or funds to investigate? I know the ones with Starhawk of The Guardians are a bit expensive or I'd have at least gotten those issues. becca, I will stand with you and state that I don't "get" the praise that Gerber has received for his work. Nothing of his that I've read has jumped out at me as genius level like an Alan Moore or Gaiman or even Morrison.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 6, 2018 23:10:41 GMT -5
I don't think I've read any of his Defenders so maybe that's what I'm missing. I think a lot of what I did read was near the end of his time at Marvel, a lot of parodies I thought overly obvious in Howard like he had lost direction, and the one with the typewritten text motif was just difficult to get through. I read one early Man-Thing appearance and a reprint of #1 in that tabloid edition, so maybe the gold was in the issues I missed. Stewart The Rat and Destroyer Duck were about all I remember post-Marvel, both seemed grudge bearing remakes of Howard the Duck. Late in his Marvel stay there were missed deadlines and fill-in issues with a lot of apologies for them, then he would just script from someone else's plot to finish a contract I guess. So which Defenders would be the best of Gerber if I ever get the chance or funds to investigate? I know the ones with Starhawk of The Guardians are a bit expensive or I'd have at least gotten those issues. becca, I will stand with you and state that I don't "get" the praise that Gerber has received for his work. Nothing of his that I've read has jumped out at me as genius level like an Alan Moore or Gaiman or even Morrison. I think that in part this is one of those "you had to be there at the time" things, because so much of what Gerber did that was new and original was taken up by later writers like the ones you mention.
But I'd say that if you're still curious, try reading his run on Man-Thing from start to finish (starting with the Fear issues) - keeping in mind what else was on the stands at the time.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 6, 2018 23:14:34 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with how Swan portrayed Batman in those examples. They look like Swan drawn figures. You don't like his style for Batman, but I see no evidence "he couldn't draw Batman" Let's cap this off with the following: anyone can put pencil/pen to paper and draw a thing, but in a genre where the right look and capturing a character essence is (arguably) as important as the stories, not just anyone can draw every character to achieve that. Kirby, Steranko and Adams never "got" Spider-Man at all; Herb Trimpe's Black Panther, Goliath or Vision were just...off. But that should not be a bone of contention--as its pretty much universal truth that some artists were perfect for certain characters, making them live up to everything they should be in the marriage of character's essence and appearance, while others were just plain wrong for the same characters. To each his own. *shrugs* Not at all, as Infantino/Anderson, Aparo, Novick and Breyfogle (to name a few) have all been praised for being great Batman artists, so Adams certainly has company there.
There you go: see, you can express an opinion without being rude and obnoxious to anyone who happens to disagree.
Because I just looked over the rest of this discussion and boy, you have a serious problem interacting with people who dare to differ with you.
There, I said it.
|
|