|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 6, 2020 8:10:03 GMT -5
To me it raises an obvious question: if realistic, non-idealised visuals don't work for these characters, why do so many people think that realistic dialogue (or what they believe is such)works for them perfectly? I think I have at least a partial answer but I'm curious whether anyone else sees it the same way I do. And I understand that Bendis and Maleev wouldn't concede the premise: I imagine they think this is a great look for the character! Personally I don't mind non realistic looking superheros. Some of my favorite Batman's (like McFarlane drawing his cape like Spawn) are the most unrealistic. Spiderman in the most inhumane incapable poses that showed of his dexterity. As far as the subject of this thread it seems to be more of how superheroes aren't always depicted as looking the same depending on the artist. Now while I will admit that Namor drawn like BMB (shame on you Maleev lol) is awful, I don't think inconsistencies is a bad thing. Drawing Thing or Hulk consistently is a lot easier that drawing Ben Grimm of Bruce Banner consistently for decades with hundreds of different artists drawing them. As far as dialogue and text if it is grammatically correct that's all I ask. I will say certain writers are better at scripting than dialogue and vice versa. Comics aren't meant to be realistic, to me anyway, despite people wanting realism I guess. I mean even the ones that "try" to be realistic like my impression of Preacher, had ridiculous unrealistic elements. I think people's idea of realism is just some aspects of a story being grounded enough that perhaps they can relate. Like I could to Jesse's religious upbringing shaping a lot of who he was. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 6, 2020 8:44:48 GMT -5
John Byrne's usually on-model when it comes to the look of characters, but this take on The Joker from 1987...  Yeah, I hated when the Joker's chin got longer and longer until anatomic plausibility went out the window. Byrne wasn't the only one who gave him two-inch long teeth. Adams went off the rails sometimes, too; I can't imagine how this characters jaw works:  Marshall Rogers got the same effect, but was able to keep the proportions essentially realistic:  |
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 6, 2020 14:04:41 GMT -5
Electrismastro's Bill Sienkiewicz‘s Batman reminds me that it drives me crazy every time I see Batman (or is it "The Batman"?) with 3-foot long ears. Sienkiewicz certainly isn't the only one guilty of this. I'm reading JLA right now and guest penciller Mike Pajarillo gave Batman some pretty long ears, and the image below if from Kelly Jones. Argh!  Also, while these probably don't meet the intent of the OP, I'm just looking for an excuse to post these awesome Batman covers.   |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 6, 2020 17:42:14 GMT -5
John Byrne's usually on-model when it comes to the look of characters, but this take on The Joker from 1987...  While the last shot is a little disconcerting, overall it's pretty much in line with how he was drawn when I was growing up.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 6, 2020 20:46:38 GMT -5
It's all subjective of course, but Byrne's Joker here just doesn't look threatening at all. Whereas Lopez's Joker has the eyes of Satan in that Batman #321 cover, Byrne just has his wearing green eye shadow for some reason. Lopez's Joker looks like he actually has bones in his face; the head of Byrne's Joker seems to be a balloon losing air. Of course, neither are going for realism, but while I can see why Lopez has taken artistic licence to achieve something sinister, I just don't know what Byrne is after.
A few years later, Byrne would draw The Joker for Batman 3-D and I thought the character looked great there - very much like his first appearance in Batman #1 with a bit of Dick Sprang tossed into the mix. When he did the first two Superman/Batman: Generations series (three, is you count Batman/Captain America) he channeled Sprang expertly. I think here though, he was simply experimenting with a character he hadn't had the opportunity to draw much before and just took a gamble.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 7, 2020 9:15:17 GMT -5
While the last shot is a little disconcerting, overall it's pretty much in line with how he was drawn when I was growing up. Yeah--also the merchandising (though it still bugs me--I think the big difference, though, is whether you give Joker both a huge smile and have his teeth touch).
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on May 7, 2020 14:25:32 GMT -5
That Batman is not my Batman. Hey, maybe it's Wolverine at a costume party? I'm not a huge Joker fan so they can draw him however they like, Harlequin also. Fell into a vat at a playing card manufacturers is all I remember, probably the first appearance reprinted in one of those giant '70s tabloid comics is my favorite. I don't like the Penguin looking all decrepit or manky though, I think he should be very sharp in appearance as a casino owner etc., a dandy, impossible to imagine a monstrous version in conference rooms. So more Burgess Meredith than Danny DeVito for me. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 7, 2020 15:33:29 GMT -5
Reed Crandall‘s Plastic Man, whom I feel looked different from Jack Cole’s drawings of him.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 7, 2020 16:21:21 GMT -5
John Byrne's usually on-model when it comes to the look of characters, but this take on The Joker from 1987... Yeah, I hated when the Joker's chin got longer and longer until anatomic plausibility went out the window. Byrne wasn't the only one who gave him two-inch long teeth. Adams went off the rails sometimes, too; I can't imagine how this characters jaw works: Marshall Rogers got the same effect, but was able to keep the proportions essentially realistic: The Joker's long chin was also a staple of the "New Look" era with Anderson--  ...and Infantino with Anderson inks--  I thought the long chin gave the Joker the look of anything but the common criminal / guy in a bizarre suit. With distorted features, he was strange and stood out from the rest of DC's top villains. Once in the hands of Adams, more modifications made him freak-ish, a perfect look for that period of Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 7, 2020 19:36:08 GMT -5
All of these Jokers are based on the Dick Sprang version of the character. Adams translated Sprang's cartoony proportions into his "realistic"style, which Aparo, Garcia-Lopez, et al then emulated. But what worked so well for Sprang doesn't work at all in these other styles, as Joker would've already been a hideous freak prior to his chemical bath.I much prefer more subdued renditions like Rogers' or Don Newton's.
Cei-U!
I summon the green hair dye!
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 7, 2020 20:56:01 GMT -5
I always felt Bruce Timm’s look was the most definitive, which could convincingly be played up as comedic as Cesar Romero’s Joker to a serious mental patient depending on the story.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 7, 2020 21:13:00 GMT -5
I always felt Bruce Timm’s look was the most definitive, which could convincingly be played up as comedic as Cesar Romero’s Joker to a serious mental patient depending on the story. That's the thing: the Joker is supposed to have a disfigured face to some degree and not just look like some guy with make-up on. If that were the case, he would look like any random guy in alternative clown make-up and not the sinister, crazed man he's supposed to be. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 7, 2020 21:20:18 GMT -5
I always felt Bruce Timm’s look was the most definitive, which could convincingly be played up as comedic as Cesar Romero’s Joker to a serious mental patient depending on the story. That's the thing: the Joker is supposed to have a disfigured face to some degree and not just look like some guy with make-up on. If that were the case, he would look like any random guy in alternative clown make-up and not the sinister, crazed man he's supposed to be. I personally don’t think that he has to be “disfigured,” but that it’s simply a matter of how his facial expressions are drawn.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 7, 2020 22:11:13 GMT -5
The idea that Joker is disfigured comes from the '89 Batman movie. Prior to that, his unique coloration was his only "disfigurement"... and I wish it had ttayed that way.
Cei-U!
Jack Nicholson was too fat to play The Joker! There, I said it! (Oops, wrong thread.)
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on May 7, 2020 22:38:23 GMT -5
The idea that Joker is disfigured comes from the '89 Batman movie. Prior to that, his unique coloration was his only "disfigurement"... and I wish it had ttayed that way. Cei-U! Jack Nicholson was too fat to play The Joker! There, I said it! (Oops, wrong thread.) Well, I say that it comes down to facial expressions in general, but as Bill Finger himself wrote it, he wrote what’s perhaps the most likely explanation for why the Joker appears as he does in Detective Comics #168 (February, 1951). I imagine some people reject it out of wanting complete mystery, but so be it:  |
|
