|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 4, 2017 11:50:11 GMT -5
and Nelvana stuff! Star Wars... Holiday... SPECIAL!!!
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 4, 2017 11:51:21 GMT -5
and Nelvana stuff! Star Wars... Holiday... SPECIAL!!! yup, 1st boba fett!
|
|
|
Post by String on Jul 4, 2017 11:54:26 GMT -5
This might be blasphemous , but I think the artists of today are much better than the ones of yesteryear. There are a few exceptions, but the books being released now have really talented people. I think only Adams and Kirby ( because of his larger than life layouts) would compete. Disagree. A lot of today's artist look good because they draw "pin ups" they don't tell a story. Everyone "feels" like they are posing for a photo shoot. They lack to ability to convey action & tell a story. I hate to be a broken record but Joe Kubert is the ultimate story teller. I'm sure his art looks "rough" compared to Jim Lee's but Kubert's art could tell the story without any words. I think you are selling today's group of artists short. First off, I wouldn't compare Kubert and Lee, that's unfair since the two are different sort of creators. You seem to be favoring the writer/artist type such as Kubert and the likes of Grell, Simonson, Bryne at his height, Miller, and so on. Lee doesn't fit that mold but that doesn't diminish the quality of his art nor his ability to enhance a story's potential. There are numerous modern artists whose work does just that, enhances their respective stories. Esad Ribic and Russell Dauterman enhance the epic scale and feeling of Jason Aaron's ongoing Thor magnum opus. Francis Manapul's writing skills are still developing but his eye for creative and innovative panel layouts and design, I would willingly compare and liken to any classic artist's work. Micheal Lark's grit realism provokes and enhances the new world order of Lazarus. Jason Fabok has been a godsend to DC in some of their epic tales. For my money's worth, Oliver Coipel is still a creative force, delivering action, mood and emotion in any work or story that he does. The Classic artists who are Legend are so for all the right reasons. But that doesn't mean there aren't current artists whose own innovations and style aren't creating a similar Legend in their own right.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 4, 2017 12:13:55 GMT -5
This might be blasphemous , but I think the artists of today are much better than the ones of yesteryear. There are a few exceptions, but the books being released now have really talented people. I think only Adams and Kirby ( because of his larger than life layouts) would compete. Why only Adams and not others who were just as realistic like Morrow, Heath, Swan...?
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 4, 2017 12:16:43 GMT -5
I'm not referring to Jim Lee as I feel he's not a current artist. He started around the late 80's. I'm referring to people like - Ivan Reis Nicola Scott
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 12:18:02 GMT -5
A lot of classic artists, especially those used to working in the Marvel style might have trouble adjusting to the modern style of full script done by most modern writers, where the writer, not the layout artist, determines a lot of the composition and panel layout and the pacing of the overall story. Every shot and camera angle is called out for them in the script in most cases. Also blank backgrounds with a few lines to hint at background and broad swaths of monochrome fill used by a lot of classic artists to quicken the production time to churn out more pages quickly wouldn't fly in today's market or fulfill what is called for in a lot of the full scripts that are being produced.
Talent might win out, but a lot depends on the talent's ability to adapt to the market demands. Someone like Joe Kubert, who approached comics as commercial art where you have to please the client (in this case the writer/editor/publisher) would be more likely be willing to adapt their output to the needs of the market and still retain the telltale style and talent they have, but those with an ego, thinking they are above the demands of the writer or editor (or publisher), would likely find themselves not getting work at the big 2 and not getting calls from the star writers as they launch creator-owned books with artists. Those creators who are full on cartoonists, able to do all aspects of the creation of the comic (writing/pencilling/inking, etc.) could succeed in the creator-owned market if they can find a publisher willing to work with them and an audience. But they would also have to take on a lot of the marketing and publicity related with getting the title out there which is a time and resource drain too.
Classic talent would either have to be able to adapt to the demands and realities of the current market to succeed as a start up talent these days, or be so good they redefine the market, which is a lot harder to do in the current age than it was in times past because there is a much smaller customer base in the current niche market who is much more set in their buying habits when it comes to mainstream comics, and a much smaller pie to draw from when you enter the creator-owned market unless you have been able to build an audience for your work in the mainstream market and bring it with you when you transition to creator-owned stuff. The creator-owned market is writer and story driven these days, and the mainstream market is universe/event driven not creator driven (with exceptions). It is a lot harder to make your mark on single book with a long run these days because that is not the way books are produced in the current market.
I'm not saying classic artists couldn't succeed in the current market, but it would depend on their ability to adapt to the market as much as their talent. A lot of classic talent benefited form the more freewheeling style of plot first then art then script production where they could make their mark with their draftsmanship, layouts, storytelling, etc. that they could bring to the table. In the current market, a lot of that is determined before the artist is ever brought into the creative process, done by editors and writers more often than not, so there is less room for the strengths of many of those classic artists to come into play allowing them to be standouts as they were in previous years where the market was different than it is today.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 13:28:07 GMT -5
I think you are selling today's group of artists short. First off, I wouldn't compare Kubert and Lee, that's unfair since the two are different sort of creators. There are numerous modern artists whose work does just that, enhances their respective stories. Fair enough. You make excellent points. I agree with you. I was too hard on some of the modern artists. I agree with the right creative team of writer & artist some excel. I think mrp makes some excellent points above that echo this. Plus I think some of the blame I was assigning to the artist comes from the writer. How many times has Bendis "wasted" an entire page with the same panel repeated 9 times to allow for a dramatic pause, etc. That is not the artist's fault. So to clarify my thoughts: I prefer the storytelling techniques used in the past over today's techniques.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 13:32:08 GMT -5
A lot of classic artists, especially those used to working in the Marvel style might have trouble adjusting tot he modern style of full script done by most modern writers, where the writer, not the layout artist, determines a lot of the composition and panel layout and the pacing of the overall story. Every shot and camera angle is called out for them in the script in most cases. Also blank backgrounds with a few lines to hint at background and broad swaths of monochrome fill used by a lot of classic artists to quicken the production time to churn out more pages quickly wouldn't f;y in today's market or fulfill what is called for in a lot of the full scripts that are being produced. Talent might win out, but a lot depends on the talent's ability to adapt to the market demands. Someone like Joe Kubert, who approached comics as commercial art where you have to please the client (in this case the writer/editor/publisher) would be more likely be willing to adapt their output to the needs of the market and still retail the telltale style and talent they have, but those with an ego thinking they are above the demands of the wrote or editor (or publisher) would likely find themselves not getting work at the big 2 and not getting calls from the star writers as they launch creator-owned books with artists. Those creators who are full on cartoonists, able to do all aspects of the creation of the comic (writing/pencilling/inking, etc.) could succeed in the creator-owned market if they can find a publisher willing to work with them and an audience. But they would also have to take on a lot of the marketing and publicity related with getting the title out there which is a time and resource drain too. Classic talent would either have to be able to adapt to the demands and realities of the current market to succeed as a start up talent these days, or be so good they redefine the market, which is a lot harder to do in the current age than it was in times past because there is a much smaller customer base in the current niche market who is much more set in their buying habits when it comes to mainstream comics, and a much smaller pie to draw from when you enter the creator-owned market unless you have been able to build an audience for your work in the mainstream market and bring it with you when you transition to creator-owned stuff. The creator-owned market is writer and story driven these days, and the mainstream market is universe/event driven not creator driven (with exceptions). It is a lot harder to make your mark on single book with a long run these days because that is not the way books are produced in the current market. I'm not saying classic artists couldn't succeed in the current market, but it would depend on their ability to adapt to the market as much as their talent. A lot of classic talent benefited form the more freewheeling style of plot first then art then script production where they could make their mark with their draftsmanship, layouts, storytelling, etc. that they could bring to the table. In the current market, a lot of that is determined before the artist is ever brought into the creative process, done by editors and writers more often than not, so there is less room for the strengths of many of those classic artists to come into play allowing them to be standouts as they were in previous years where the market was different than it is today. -M All excellent points. You sir are very eloquent! Seriously this was well thought out & expressed perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 4, 2017 14:36:15 GMT -5
"Why should we hire that Kirby kid? All his stuff is swiped from Rich Buckler."
Cei-U! Because I wanted to!
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Jul 4, 2017 18:19:23 GMT -5
My main preference for a lot of the ":classic" artists is they all had individual style. Adams, Kirby, Colan, Buscema(s), Byrne, Perez, Cockrum... they all look like themselves, whereas say Reis and Scott above (who I do like better than 95% of their contemporaries) and many of their peers look like they all came from the same studio. I look at DC lately and to a large extent the line all looks the same(like a buncha Lee clones). Yes there are some individual styles(Manapulis great) but a quick peruse of the shelves and not a lot jumps out.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 4, 2017 18:24:34 GMT -5
My main preference for a lot of the ":classic" artists is they all had individual style. Adams, Kirby, Colan, Buscema(s), Byrne, Perez, Cockrum... they all look like themselves, whereas say Reis and Scott above (who I do like better than 95% of their contemporaries) and many of their peers look like they all came from the same studio. I look at DC lately and to a large extent the line all looks the same(like a buncha Lee clones). Yes there are some individual styles(Manapulis great) but a quick peruse of the shelves and not a lot jumps out. Good point. I just like how polished many of todays artists are.
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Jul 4, 2017 18:38:25 GMT -5
Hey me too, well some of them, but look at all the newbies Marvel foist on us and tell me you wouldnt rather have Ordway or Grummet getting some love, letalone a buncha older artists still going who could do way better.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 4, 2017 18:46:11 GMT -5
Hey me too, well some of them, but look at all the newbies Marvel foist on us and tell me you wouldnt rather have Ordway or Grummet getting some love, letalone a buncha older artists still going who could do way better. Oh man, I have no idea why they or a number of other artists don't get work anymore. Has to be that they can get away with paying the new people peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 6, 2017 2:53:24 GMT -5
Hey me too, well some of them, but look at all the newbies Marvel foist on us and tell me you wouldnt rather have Ordway or Grummet getting some love, letalone a buncha older artists still going who could do way better. Oh man, I have no idea why they or a number of other artists don't get work anymore. Has to be that they can get away with paying the new people peanuts.yes. as has been the case since the 90's. the page rate for pencils or inks goes a lot further for rent and food in yugoslavia or brazil. plus the fact that the more issues you illustrate, the higher page rate you can ask for. much better [economically] to hire a 'new-spark' for half the price whom can rip off the style of the 'old spark'.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 6, 2017 4:10:20 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. I always knew it was about the money, and it always is.
|
|