Friday means many things to many people. For some, Friday means it’s searching for the ultimate party where on the way, you and your friends get stuck in a 1980s movie-esque adventure. For others, Friday is a day to never forget.
At iFanboy, Friday means it’s letter column time.
You write. We answer. Very simple.
As always, if you want to have your e-mail read on the any of our shows or answered here, keep them coming — contact@ifanboy.com
After listening to the “okay” reviews of Green Lantern: First Flight on your podcast and FINALLY watching The Invincible Iron Man animation, I was wondering what you guys thought about the comparison of Marvel and DC animations.
To be honest, I wasn’t a big fan of the Iron Man cartoon (The action scenes didn’t keep my attention and the villains were really, really boring characters I had never heard of, apart from Mandarin and Fin Fang Foom. I wasn’t totally into the way they did the animation either), and I thought the Ultimate Avengers 2 one was okay (but I don’t read anything from the Ultimate line, so I wouldn’t be able to tell if it stayed true to the characters). I’ve heard that DC animations are great, and Marvel’s aren’t as good, so I was just wondering what you guys thought about it.
Naturally, my next question would be which ones are the best, out of both Marvel and DC. So far, I haven’t had much luck in the animation or cartoon area of Marvel or DC. I really appreciate you guys taking the time out to answer these questions (however silly they are), so thanks guys and keep up the good work.
Ethan
I thought that this question was especially pertinent given the big news in the past week.
I like to break up superhero animation into two eras. The Pre-Batman: The Animated Series Era and the Post-Batman: The Animated Series Era. The first era was ruled by Marvel cartoons, and the second era has been utterly dominated by DC cartoons, almost single handedly because of Bruce Timm.
So let’s focus on the current era, and get Marvel’s cartoons out of the way. I have to admit that I haven’t seen a ton of them. I bought Ultimate Avengers and watched it once and have no desire to see it again (or the sequel). What I remember of it was that the story was okay, but the animation was really substandard. I keep meaning to watch it, but then I keep finding other things to do. The other DVD that I own is Hulk Vs. and this one I really enjoyed. I know they did an Iron Man movie and a Doctor Strange movie, and they are both on my NetFlix queue but I’ve never gotten around to watching them mostly because people I know who have seen them and whose taste I know have not given them glowing reviews. My favorite Marvel cartoon in recent years is The Spectacular Spider-Man, which airs… sporadically here in the U.S. on Disney XD. It’s a great show and I would recommend to anyone who likes superhero cartoons. It’s easily the best animated Marvel project in years.
On the other hand, the last fifteen years have been a boom time for DC animated projects. When Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett, and Paul Dini created a smart, adult cartoon in Batman: The Animated Series they changed everything in terms of animated superhero properties, and they raised the bar dramatically. Batman was followed by Superman: The Animated Series, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, and Batman Beyond. Fantastic cartoons all. I did a write-up of Superman: The Animated Series here, here and here. As well as one on Justice League here and here. I keep meaning to get around to watching Justice League Unlimited and doing a write-up on that. There have been a few other series in the last few years, like Teen Titans (never watched it), Legion of Super-Heroes (ditto), The Batman (loved the second, third and fourth seasons) and Batman: The Brave and The Bold (hit and miss). Bruce Timm returned after Justice League Unlimited to produce the line of direct-to-DVD movies: Superman: Doomsday, Justice League: The New Frontier, Batman: Gotham Knight, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern: First Flight, and the upcoming Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. I’ve enjoyed all of these films, at the very least. They have all been high quality efforts and a few of them are great.
Why has DC dominated the animation game for the past 15 years? I think it’s probably because of their access to the Warner Bros. animation apparatus. They know that at Warner Bros. smart and talented people are going to be making their cartoons. And that’s why the news about Disney buying Marvel is so intriguing, from an animation standpoint. Marvel is now part of a company with their own impressive animation resume and, one would hope, that could mean great things for the future of animated Marvel projects.
Conor Kilpatrick
I recently received my copy of The Walking Dead, Vol. 10, which I’ve been anticipating since January. To my surprise I was only able to make it through a couple of pages before I decided to give up and try again later. I had noticed before that Charlie Adlard has a tendency to copy and paste his panels and add in minor differences such as an open mouth or a moved arm. This has always bothered me, but this volume seemed to crank up the usage of this method. I understand that with deadlines and hand strain, being an artist can be hard, but this just feels like cheating. Not only is he not taking the time to draw a new panel, but he’s not being creative in that he’s using the exact same shot in multiple panels. Is this copy/paste artistry something that you’ve noticed? Do you see it as cutting corners or as a reasonable way of getting books done on time.? Also, I’d like to say that I’m sure other artists do this, but Charlie Adlard is the only one I’ve noticed.
Seth
Thank you for your interest in our website, SETH. We appreciate your patronage. I agree that the issue of CUTTING AND PASTING ART is one of concern. We will work with our constituents to tackle these problems, and continue to enjoy collective success in the coming year. Keep makin’ yours iFanboy!
(See what I did there?)
I’ve gotta say, Seth, I’ve never noticed that with Adlard. But I don’t want to dismiss your claims, because it may very well be true. The thing is, if an artist makes you pop your head out of the story and you’re noticing something like that, the book has failed, at least in one way. I’d be curious if anyone else has experienced this with Charlie Adlard, because you’re the first I’ve heard it from. But it brings up a question that we see from time to time, and that is “what is it okay for an artist to do in terms of shortcuts?” This has come up in regards to artists like Greg Land who uses photo tracing in a way that upset a lot of fans. But there are other artists who use photo reference and no one has a problem with it, like David Mack, Tim Bradstreet, and Tony Harris. Obviously, those are different, but some consider it lazy, or cheating, or whatever. So what is the line? If the comic book artist is telling the story and keeping the reader involved, what does it matter how they do it?
I’ve got a friend who works closely with an artist (who I’m not going to name) who is quite well known, and in my Top 5 favorite artists currently in comics. I love this guy’s stuff. Most all of you reading this would be familiar with him. I was talking to my friend about this artist, and how I was so impressed he’d worked closely with this artistic genius, and the first thing my friend brought up was that the artist uses numerous and various shortcuts to produce the work, suggesting that he’s not as amazing as he appears. I thought about it for a moment and decided that I’d never noticed it (and I still haven’t) and that I didn’t really care. Drawing a monthly comic is hard, and I’m sure that there are plenty of ways artists can cut corners to save them time and hand cramping. As long as I’m not feeling shortchanged from a storytelling standpoint (like doing no backgrounds or something like that), it’s no skin off my nose.
I realize that’s not the same as photo tracing, however specific, or even what you’re talking about, but my view on it that I don’t care, as long as it’s doing the job. All artists work differently, and have the things they do. It’s up to the reader to decide what they’ll accept and pay for, but I’m loathe to call any artist a cheater or lazy, since I’m not in their shoes. Unless he’s drawing a book I wrote, and then I’ll call him a low down son of a bitch, and that I do not like men of low character. Or that might be Little Bill from Unforgiven. I get confused sometimes.
Josh Flanagan
I wanted to ask you about The Flash TV series in the early 90s, with John Wesley Shipp as Barry Allen. I’ve been downloading it in iTunes and I think that it’s pretty good; its look suggests a poor man’s Tim Burton Batman, but the scripts aren’t that dark at all. I was wondering if any of you have seen it; if not, with Barry returning in the comics, I think it might be worth another look.
Mark
Well, Mark, funny you should ask about the old early 1990s Flash TV show. When it aired, even though I was a hardcore Marvel reader and had never read any Flash comics, or DC Comics for that matter, I watched this show religiously. I can’t even tell you why really. Perhaps it was coming off the mania created by 1989’s Batman movie from Tim Burton, or perhaps it was the idea of supporting a superhero-based TV show. Or it could have simply been because Mark Hamill was in it as a one of the villains. But I was right there, in front of my TV set for every episodes.
Your observation about how dark the stories were, or weren’t is interesting. The show definitely took a cue from Tim Burton and had a darker look and design to it, but if you look at the stories, they didn’t really match that darkness. Although, it’s important to remember that this show is nearly 20 years old and at the time, what may not seem so dark to us now could have been perceived as pretty dark back then. But that’s open to interpretation. The Flash got a lot of things right, like the portrayal of Barry Allen and the use of speed and how he was always eating. They also nailed a major portion of the Rogues used, with Mark Hamill standing out as the best in his role of The Trickster. Although I was never really in love with the suede looking costume, but that was just me, I think.
Like nearly every TV show I ever enjoyed, The Flash was canceled before it’s time. But ultimately, The Flash paved the way for the resurgence of shows like Smallville and others in the late 90s/early 2000s.
With Barry Allen’s return to comics I think it’s a great time to check out this series if you haven’t, as it’s definitely a stand out in the history of comics adaptations as one of the good ones. Check it out in iTunes or on DVD if you haven’t yet. If you have seen it, what did you think? How does it compare to to the more current Smallville?
Ron Richards
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
@Josh – You had me laughing so hard that my wife asked if I was having a heart attack (you know that laughing where you laugh so hard that you stop making any sound) with that initial response. That needs to be the next t-shirt.
I LOVED the Flash live action show when I was younger (I was about 12 years old when they aired). I watched them with my dad. I recently showed my dad my copy and his eyes lit up. It was certainly cheesy, but it was so much fun. Mark Hamill as the Trickster was awesome.
Huh, never noticed that before with Adlard’s art. Now I’m going to see it all the time, thanks! 🙂
Hulk Vs. is a nice start for Marvel to get into animated DVD’s. Their previous efforts were pretty dismal and they got a lot of ground to cover with DC. Of course with Disney/Pixar at their side they can now quickly catch up.
I’ll be honest, I skimed the response and did not see what he did there.
@Spoons – The first paragraph of his response was a form letter with the NAME and ISSUE bolded to show where they were inserted. Essentially it is a comment on copying and pasting.
There’s a difference between photo-referencing and tracing over copyrighted porn and wrestling pictures not taken or solicted by you, or submitted to you with permission to use it for you artwork. Of course I understand Quesada take on it, as seen on your video show. But no, what Greg Land does is vastly different from what Alex Ross does.
I used to see the Flash show as a kid, but was really turned off by the dark look.
Also, Mark Hamill did anbetter job as the Joker on Batman: TAS
What Seth is talking about, and apparently not undestanding, is cinematic storytelling — the repitition of imagery to convey pacing and narrative. It’s not uncommon, especially in Kirkman’s books. It’s got nothing to do with swiping or photo ref.
@RonMarz yeah, I completely agree with what you’re saying. I’ve noticed that a ton in Walking Dead and Invincible where Kirkman will have the artist use the same basic image, usually during some long heartfelt conversation, or even setting up the tone of a scene to come. I too think this is what he was talking about in the letter.
I don’t think he’s complaining about the dramatic device being used, rather the fact that instead of redrawing each panel from whole cloth, he’s digitally reproducing it, and adjusting the details.
Again, even if that was the case, it wouldn’t bother me. If the script calls for a panel repetition, why not do it as similar as possible?
Nice! Flash tv show! I will never forget the pizza eating part.
Flash TV Series intro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa9b7ZQ3Zkw
I think what people really need to understand is that an artist has an arsenal to tool and techniques hat his/her disposal and they use them for various reasons. Sometimes it’s a stylistic choice.
Also if the page calls for three panels to look the same the artist would want to replicate the image through photocopy or digital methods because it is hard to get two drawings to look exactly alike, there are always slight variations which in the artist’s eye would be undiserable.
Whenever an artist repeats the same panel twice (with minor changes), I always look at the parts that are the same…and if I can tell from near-microscopic differences that the artist actually did redraw the entire image, then I’m pleased. I think it does make the fictional world seem more alive if similar panels aren’t straight-up copied. But on the other hand, if the panels are identical and thus obviously the product of digital copying, I’m not mad about it.
On the OTHER hand, what if an artist was just that damn good, that he could draw the same picture twice in a row EXACTLY the same, so good that even a computer couldn’t tell that the second image wasn’t a copy?! Then I’d be REALLY impressed, but I’d have no way of verifying whether the artist actually drew the second image by hand. I’d have to WATCH the guy draw it. !!!
As far as artists go, as long as the artist is original and is not stealing lifting styles/ideas from others, she/he is ok.
Interestingly (to some, hopefully), the theme of "The Flash" was also written by Danny Elfman, which might lend to the Burton comparison.
Copy and pasting a panel is most commonly used as a shortcut, but there are occasions where it works artisitcally as well. Sometimes the artist wants to convey the notion that nothing is moving, except maybe the dropping of a jaw or widening of a pair of eyes. In such cases the repeat panels can be very effective, really translating into a powerful comedic or dramatic visual. In such cases why should an artist be forced to draw it twice? I get mildly annoyed when it is just a conversation going back and forth, but if the artist doesn’t overuse this sort of trick I let it go, unerstanding that the books have got to get out on time. Not sure why there was so much discussion of photo-referencing — yes it is another short cut, but it is a different and likely much more contentious issue.
I loved the Flash TV show when I was growing up. I recently re-watched the first disk, and was surprised how well it held up. Unfortunately, the rest of the series has been backlogged on the Netflix, so I have yet to finish it.
The DC toons of the post Batman: The Animated Series are some of the best out there. Justice League Unlimited is one of the few joys of super hero cartoons available (although B:TAS is still tops in my book), and you can get both sets through Amazon on the cheap.
Did someone mention the Teen Titans cartoon? Am I morally obligated to pipe in and say what a triumph that series is?
Ok, now that that’s over, I’d like to say that the issue of photo referencing, light boarding, etc. is not as cut and dried as it seems. It’s easy to say that it’s copying, cheating, etc., but all artists need references when they are working. Whether it’s a model, a setup, or photographs, artists use actual things in order to get perspective, dimension, and details right. The issue gets murkier when artists are working digitally. Could any old mope scan magazine pictures and turn them into "original drawing?" Well, why don’t you try it and find out? I think the answer lies in the final product, like Josh says. Does the art convey the message? Does it evoke an emotion? If so, it could be considered successful.
The artist question is an intriguing one. I’m not sure how I would have answered that. I think you’re right in that if it’s doing it’s job, then what’s the harm? I think that doing a monthly comic is primarily about taking shortcuts, because you can pretty much spend too much time making it perfect. The job of an artist is to move the story forward. The thirty minutes to two hours he takes to create a panel is read looked at in pretty much a less of a second, which should be the case if the art is doing the above stated job.
I think that kind of stuff is personal. Being an artist myself, it really takes me out of the story when I see someone using Tommy Lee Jones as a reference a little too closely. I don’t want to play, "pick the actor". Is it wrong? No.
On the use of photo references, I have to say the same thing. If the pictures that are used are originally, and specifically shot, like Mack, Ross, and a whole slew of others have, then that’s the art. I don’t know. References are for inspiration. It’s supposed to take them where they need to go.
And as far as the copy/paste thing. Same deal. It’s like cutting back to someone in film. It’s editing, and for me, can be a very good storytelling tool. I’ve seen Adlard do this, and it’s not really that bad.
@Conor: You BOUGHT Ultimate Avengers? What were you thinking? That’s a recipe for a disastrous afternoon. I ordered it via netflix one evening and couldn’t return it to my mailbox fast enough.
Justice League Unlimited: You’ll like Justice League Unlimited, it even has a big retcon here and there.
Teen Titans: blech. It was good storywise but the art was terrible and it was supposed to appeal to my audience. Blech.
—————–
Seth should stay away from the first volume of Invincible if panel-pasting bothers him. The hardcover even get’s self-referencial about it with a basic f-u to the readers who dislike it.
Kirkman’s books – particularly Ottley, Walker, Adlard use the same panels. I’m fine with it. I’d rather have a few panels altered a bit rather than wait an extra 6 weeks for a book.
I think it was the headbutt 2 page spread from Invincible #64, where Mark is beating the snot out of the viltrumite, and he hits him over and over and over. I saw Ottley in SD, and said that was a great page, and he told me it was just a bunch of cut and pasting.
Still awesome. I probably should have written about that in the answer up there…
The Legion cartoon was pretty damned good. As much as I enjoyed the Batman and Superman shows, the Legion is probably my favorite DC animated series. I’m one of the few people I know who loved The Batman. I really liked seeing Batman go from a beginner to the legendary hero. That Catwoman is the defining animated Catwoman. She was very gray and playful.
I definitely agree that Bruce Timm and Paul Dini did some great work and kicked off DC in the right direction with animation but Marvel has had some great shows in that time as well. I loved X-Men Evolution; and Warner can go to hell for never releasing the final season on DVD. The Dr. Strange movie was really good, even though I’m not that big a fan of the character. Wolverine and the X-Men is also really good and I love Spectacular Spider-Man. I’m glad that we’regetting so many great comics to animation conversions lately and that they do more than just translate the stories.
Sort of adding to Josh’s mention of photo referencing; does Bill Sienkiewicz’s work on Big Numbers and Jon J Muth’s adaptaion of Fritz Lang’s M have any less impact from the use of this technique? No, these are amazing works to behold in part due to the use of this technique.
Yeah my only issue with artists is if they pull me out of the story. I don’t mind short cuts at all. I don’t even mind photo referencing, unless it looks unnatural which it can or if it looks stupid.
Amircat "As far as artists go, as long as the artist is original and is not stealing lifting styles/ideas from others, she/he is ok."
I don’t know any artist who doesn’t lift styles and ideas. All art is progression from previous art, all artists will see things they like and absorb them. You’ll see complimentary styles and see Romita, Kirby or Ditko in many of the artists of today.
Everyone who got to Marvel while Kirby was there was told to draw like Kirby.
@josh: Not to create a segue but I remember Ron talking about this on a recent PoTW audioshow, where (in Wolverine Weapon X #4) Logan and one of the Soldiers fight in a doublepage spread with multiple smaller images. It’s very similar to the doublepage spread drawn by Ottley in the Conquest climax.
Dude, I LOVED the Flash cartoon. One of my favorite TV shows of all time; if I had time to watch TV or movies, I’d rent it and re-watch the whole thing.
I wonder if Mr. Beauchamp ever finished his book about Little Bill, after abandoning the Duck of Death. (talking about Unforgiven)
I feel simplistic and a bit ignorant, but is the x-men spread a recognisable cut and paste? is it basically a tracing, and of what? I do notice that all the heroines have similar facial features (perhaps the same model), but what am I missing?
On the art question, is the use of a light box and photo references considered the same thing? To me they are very different. Using a model or a photo and drawing freehand or even cutting and pasting an image you’ve drawn is different than tracing and image isn’t it?
Invincible issue 10. Page 13. If you don’t love that page you have no soul.
Lol you’re going to have to get a bit more detailed than that Miyamotofreak, i can’t go into the longbox that has that issue =
I though WB’s The Batman was only on for two seasons? I only saw two on iTunes. That show had nothing on Batman: The Animated Series anyway!
Wasn’t there a Flash movie before the TV series came out?
Josh did… you just copy and past moral aptitude? You should be awarded a gold statue of a pair of scissors and an Elmer’s stick for that. Bravo.
-I also never noticed C&P w/ Adlard, but I really just look at his art as being almost utilitarian. I don’t love it (especially given the comparison of Tony Moore on the 1st arc), but it doesn’t offend me at all. The way I see it, it’s just there to provide images to Kirkman’s story. I’m not supposed to be dazzled or even impressed by it.
-I think the ’90s X-Men and Spider-Man cartoons were great. X-Men was instrumental in my not having a problem getting past all the continuity that seems to be a complaint because it gave me a baseline understanding of it. Both, in addition to Batman, were key in my feeling connected to superheroes even though I never regularly collected any issues.
@Mangaman
I looked it up, it’s where Mark goes and gets some comics signed and asks the artist how he gets the issues out every month; hilarity ensues.
"..never collected issues *at that time", I meant to say.
@robbydzwonar: The Batman ran for 5 glorious seasons.
@RonMarz ‘cinematic storytelling’ eh? But these are comic books, can’t we let films do what they do best and comics what they do best? I can’t remember the last time I saw a bunch of basically repeated panels which were hitting a beat so subtle, so clever, that it was more interesting and effective than altered angles, focus etc would be. These books are expensive, I don’t want to look at the same panel three times so I can appreciate a nuanced ear in the third one.
And I realise some artists are terrifically slow, but if you have to resort to loads of shortcuts to produce 22 pages in a month you should likely stick to special projects.
I love the old Flash show. It was a lot of fun. It’s very dated now, but accept for some of the cheese factor associated with a show that aired in 1990 or so, it still holds up fairly well.
I’m surprised there was no mention of the X-Men cartoon from the 90s in Conor’s response. Now THERE is something that has not held up well. I LOVED that show when it aired, but i recently tried watching it and it really annoyed me. Especially Storm.
@Mart I have to disagree. There are many occasions that I can think of that this kind of where this "cinematic storytelling" was much more effective than others. Mostly I can think of these scenes in Walking Dead, for instance, in the very beginning of Volume 9, where a body (I wont say who for those of you who may not have read yet) is just lying there with and the only differences to each panel is the positioning of their eyes, then in the last panel, you see a sword finish off their corpse to stop them from coming back to life. Its this kind of scene that I think is really good to create suspense and it wouldn’t have been done as well when told at several different angles for each panel in the scene. Another example, also in Vol. 9 was when Kirkman was trying to show the passage of time simply by showing the same image of the house, only with it being shaded differently for the night and day. I thought this was also much more effective in showing the time passage than simply saying "a few days later" or something like that.
@UncleBob If I’m not mistaken, the X-Men panel is one that has been widely circulated on the Internet with photoshopping to show where the images were taken from photographs or from other Land work. To be fair, I think this was just a publicity image and not an actual page? But I don’t know for sure, it might have been used as a variant cover or something. Anyway, the if-it-works standard may be a slippery one, but I think it’s pretty clear that it usually doesn’t work in Land’s art. Just looking at that image, the perspective is off, and the characters don’t look like they’re on the same plane.
@ThePunisherMAX Thanks for the examples, appreciate it.
I’ve got the first WD trade but not read it yet. The first example sounds reasonable but I suspect I’d still prefer the scene with maybe a bit of zooming in and out. As for using the same image of the house and darkening the sky or whatever, why not just move on to the next panel with a ‘that night’ or whatever? It does the job rather than use up space that could show stuff happening beyond the passage of time.
I suppose it’s down to sensibility. I like to have a comic with plenty of different pictures and varied words, looking at the art but not spending ages searching for the story in it, cos more often than not that brings me to a full stop and draws me out of the tale. Give me the info, quickish!
Oh, and that Greg Land piccie was used on X-Men #500.
A comic book artist and writer should utilize any means necessary to convey the ideas they wish to convey. Artistic language is made up of a combination of bits from other media and art, and as long as it works for the audience, or even as long as the creators themselves are happy about it, anything goes. It’s all about taste anyway.
In regards to Seth’s question, that kind of thing has never bothered me. I’m a fan of KNIGHTS OF THE DINNER TABLE, and if you’ve ever read the thing you know that about 90% of the art is recycled from panel to panel. But, I still enjoy it for what it is.
Recently, I tried to watch the FLASH show and found that I just couldn’t get into it. After watching a lot of modern hour-long dramas, I found that the style of the show didn’t interest me even if the subject matter (the Flash) did.
I can’t believe this cut and paste discussion has gone on so long with all of you buying the company line and covering the dirty little secret that we ALL know is going on in the industry. Ever since the advent of computer word processing, writers have been using electronic means to remove, alter, shift words – sometimes COMPLETE PARAGRAPHS – to reuse language and change meaning. It is so widespread that those of us who tow the old moral line of using white out and neatly printing corrections between the lines are regarded as Luddites and penalized for turning work in late.
Similar accusations were made when the typewriter was first introduced but since that predated the creation of comics, it’s never been challenged. But obviously it was a slippery slope that writers sped down with glee.
ZING!
Michael Lark uses photo references. I saw he took pic of himself falling down a hill so he could draw Daredevil throwing a villain across the room, legs up in the air. Just helping him draw a body.
Tony Harris takes pics of his friends, then draws the scenes in Ex Machina. Which almost seems like more work, but I’ve heard him say it speeds up the process for him.
J Scott Campbell draws his stuff mulitple times really small, to perfection, then blows it up large and redraws it on comic sized paper. He said it’s a slow process, and not easy. But man he can draw some awesome and detailed stuff.
@Tad
You just won the thread.
Agagin, there’s nothing wrong with photo-referencing, unless you do it like Greg Land.
Also, if you want to see great uses of the panel-reuse technique, look no further than Steve McNiven’s work on Old Man Logan. It is more apparent in the "widescreen edition" scans, redited by someone.
My favorite Marvel animated film is Next Avengers.
I’m of the mind that photo referencing is okay when photos are taken for the purpose of referencing; whether it is the penciller’s own photos or someone is hired to do so (as long as that photographer is credited).
Photography is an art form, Google image searching isn’t.
Damn. Telling Ditko to draw like Kirby is like telling the Stones to sound like the Beatles.
Telling Romita to draw like Kirby is like telling the Who to sound like The Beatles. Telling Colon to draw like Kirby is like asking the Kinks to sound like the Beatles. Asking Wallace Wood to draw like Kirby is like…. Nobody was stupid enough to do this..
Bean
Of course, shortly thereafter, DC hired Kirby, but didn’t really like it when he drew like Kirby. Weird world.
I forgot one.
Asking Steranko to draw like Kirby is like asking Iggy and the Stooges to sound like the Beatles.
This is kinda fun.
Bean
A lot of you guys are completely missing the point. Repeated panels like this are a storytelling device. It’s being done ON PURPOSE to tell the story in a specific way. It’s not at all about saving time for the artist. It’s being asked for in the script, by the writer, for a specific purpose. Kirkman does it all the time, I’ve done it, Alan Moore does it (see Watchmen and LOEG in particular), lots of writers do it. Whether you like the technique or not is personal taste, but it’s not about saving time, it’s about how the page portrays the passage of time.
@ohcaroline: Thanks alot.
The last 2 seasons of The Batman were awesome, just as good as TAM. They even had Paul Dini script the episode about that universe’s Harley Quinn epidsoe.
Jane Espensen (? I Know I misspelled that) from Buffy show and comic, also wrote a few episodes, and the Superman/Batman crossover was great.
I guess the last season reminded me of the final seasons of Angel and Enterprise. With the creators aware of the show not being renewed, they really turned it up.
How many times have we seen the CIA headquaters exterior shot in invincible? couple dozen? It still makes me smile when I see the "parking in rear" sign after 60 odd issues. I could care less if an artist "cheats" as long it looks good and follows the story.
Ah the Flash show, that (along with the Batman: TAS) is a memory of childhood wonder. I actually learned how to tell time because of Batman: TAS.
@RonMarz
Not always. (I haven’t read every comment here, but) I think everyone here is mostly focusing on the bad eggs who’ve more than likely reused panels (or characters/objects/etc in a panel) for less than stellar means. I think most people on this site are aware that repeat panels are often used as dramatic effect (in fact, there was legitimate use of that technique just a few pages before the joke use of it in the Invinsible issue that we mentioned earlier).
@Josh: Lol! DC didn’t like it when Kirby drew like Kirby? Who the hell are they to even judge? XD They have bad taste anyway, just look at the callback art in 52. That’s just insane. That’s like me clowning on Shadowhawk fans when I like Spawn.
Well, it’s not really fair to compare the people who ran DC during 52 to the people who ran it in the early 70’s.
Hurm… I suppose not. Fair enough *retracted* But it’s still rather stupid of those guys to expect Kirby to draw in some other fashion. What the hell were they expecting? A style change?
There’s a popular american saying that reflects how I feel: "If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it."