|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 8, 2014 2:06:28 GMT -5
Just for the record... I like Al Milgrom's pencils, too  He is just not a cover artist.  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 8, 2014 4:05:27 GMT -5
Milgroms pencils were professional but I prefer him as an inker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 8, 2014 5:00:58 GMT -5
As an inker he was amongst the very best, as a penciller he was quite bad.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 8, 2014 7:38:08 GMT -5
It was probably the best part of that, honestly. Yeah, Andrews art on Xenogenesis was a self-concious choice to ridicule the exploitative figures and posing of women in superhero comics. It's really taking the piss out of bad '90s art. I'm not sure it was truly successful, though, as most people seem to miss it as a parody, probably because the story is largely Ellis collecting a paycheck. Andrews is capable of much better work. As a parody it totally misses the mark for me. 5 issues of that and the joke has long since lost its punchline and just become wretched art in its own right. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 8, 2014 11:21:22 GMT -5
Just for the record... I like Al Milgrom's pencils, too He is just not a cover artist. Where's pmpknface?! I should email him and let him know someone is questioning Milgrom's skill as a cover artist. He'd be here faster than you can say Beetlejuice. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 15:17:46 GMT -5
It's a comic book, it isn't supposed to represent reality. Since when have comics ever represented reality? Well, superhero comics aren't supposed to represent reality, but plenty of comics do. And as far as superhero comics go, I like them to be more than claws and teeth and breasts and neck muscles. They don't have to represent reality, but I'd like them to at least attempt to make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 8, 2014 15:29:14 GMT -5
It's a comic book, it isn't supposed to represent reality. Since when have comics ever represented reality? Well, superhero comics aren't supposed to represent reality, but plenty of comics do. And as far as superhero comics go, I like them to be more than claws and teeth and breasts and neck muscles. They don't have to represent reality, but I'd like them to at least attempt to make sense. Well put. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on May 9, 2014 0:34:27 GMT -5
It's a comic book, it isn't supposed to represent reality. Since when have comics ever represented reality? Well, superhero comics aren't supposed to represent reality, but plenty of comics do. And as far as superhero comics go, I like them to be more than claws and teeth and breasts and neck muscles. They don't have to represent reality, but I'd like them to at least attempt to make sense. I agree that they should actually have substance and artistically solid drawing is vital (otherwise you lose control of your work). But this is cartoon art. I don't think Spider-Man having an impossible physique is a problem. In the hands of a good draftsman that effect works wonderfully, and McFarlane isn't quite there yet. What McFarlane did with Spidey isn't really any different than what Miller did with Batman in Dark Knight Returns. At points Miller draws Batman to be 10 feet tall. Impossible, but the idea behind the drawing is more important than being 100% literal to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 9, 2014 2:38:34 GMT -5
I'll take Miller's artistic license over MacFarlane's, any day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 2:51:44 GMT -5
I'll take Miller's artistic license over MacFarlane's, any day of the week. So will I, but Marvel and DC won't. They never allow anyone with that kind of true stylization to work in continuity. DKR was not in continuity, but Daredevil was. Look at the difference. They don't let people with art like Frank Miller (or Sam Keith, or a handful of others) do in continuity work. They let them do the odd mini, and they let them do covers, but they need all that interior art to look a certain way. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 9, 2014 3:18:00 GMT -5
I'll take Miller's artistic license over MacFarlane's, any day of the week. So will I, but Marvel and DC won't. They never allow anyone with that kind of true stylization to work in continuity. DKR was not in continuity, but Daredevil was. Look at the difference. They don't let people with art like Frank Miller (or Sam Keith, or a handful of others) do in continuity work. They let them do the odd mini, and they let them do covers, but they need all that interior art to look a certain way. Sienkievicz on New Mutants, Bachalo on Wolverine and the X-Men, Trevor von Eeden on various Batman books ... I think it has more to do with getting a monthly book out on time by somebody with true artistic aspirations is a bit of a gamble. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 3:24:58 GMT -5
So will I, but Marvel and DC won't. They never allow anyone with that kind of true stylization to work in continuity. DKR was not in continuity, but Daredevil was. Look at the difference. They don't let people with art like Frank Miller (or Sam Keith, or a handful of others) do in continuity work. They let them do the odd mini, and they let them do covers, but they need all that interior art to look a certain way. Sienkievicz on New Mutants, Bachalo on Wolverine and the X-Men, Trevor von Eeden on various Batman books ... I think it has more to do with getting a monthly book out on time by somebody with true artistic aspirations is a bit of a gamble. Trevor Von Eeden looks pretty house style to me, and Sienkievicz did when he was doing New Mutants. That's exactly like Miller on Daredevil when compared to Miller on anything outside Marvel/DC. I'll give you Bachalo, he has a different style. It's rare to find in the DCU and MU. I really think it has to do with a house style and not with schedules. They have artists that struggle with a schedule, but they all draw the same. They publish a book called "How to draw the Marvel Way" which shows you exactly what the house style is. I believe there's been talk of artists being told to emulate the Liefeld style in the early 90's, as an editorial mandate. That was the "house style" of the time. I think they may be a little looser about it these days, I've seen a few titles that looked unique. I think they take risks with lower selling titles. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on May 9, 2014 5:26:38 GMT -5
I'll take Miller's artistic license over MacFarlane's, any day of the week. So will I, but Marvel and DC won't. They never allow anyone with that kind of true stylization to work in continuity. DKR was not in continuity, but Daredevil was. Look at the difference. They don't let people with art like Frank Miller (or Sam Keith, or a handful of others) do in continuity work. They let them do the odd mini, and they let them do covers, but they need all that interior art to look a certain way. Daredevil was five years prior to DKR. Miller said that in his early days he was trying hard to conform to the look of the times, and after Daredevil he accepted he couldn't draw like that so he went for his own thing. Theres a really great lesson to be learned there (the number of people who say Miller's art was never as good after leaving Daredevil depresses me). In today's comics there is a lot more diversity in artwork, even at the Big Two. DC is more conservative than Marvel and sticks closer to the David Finch model, and neither company will choose a less-than-realistic artist for their big events, but there is a fair bit of variety in both companies. In particular Marvel has a crop of books with a more old school look, with flat colors and heavy black inking. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 9, 2014 6:39:52 GMT -5
Sienkievicz was house style maybe when he did Moon Knight, but not on New Mutants anymore. That was some far-out stuff.   And Trevor von Eeden also looked very different from anyone else to me as a kid.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Man of Tomorrow on May 9, 2014 7:16:33 GMT -5
As a kid there were lots of artists I did not like, with Don Heck leading the bunch. However as I got older, while he never became a favorite, I did learn to recognize his skill, if never really enjoying it. It's funny, but I liked Heck's work as a kid during the '70s. I'm kind of surprised to read here he wasn't necessarily a fan-favorite of that time. |
|
