"Cartoon approach" doesn't only cover humor @nweathington - it also encompasses the art style which permeates several of Marvel's books these days. "Light-hearted", "for kids", "adorable", call it whatever you like.
You didn’t specify whether you were talking about tone, or just art style. Because the tone in, say, Silver Surfer, is very different than the tone in Squirrel Girl, which is very different than the tone in Power Man & Iron Fist. In fact, PM&IF feels very much like the PM&IF series I read back in the ’80s. But, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re primarily complaining about the art.
DC seems to gather artists with a certain type of style. And they certainly have a house style of coloring. And it bores me to tears. If that’s what works for you, great, but I prefer my artwork to have personality.
DC seems to gather artists with a certain type of style. And they certainly have a house style of coloring. And it bores me to tears. If that’s what works for you, great, but I prefer my artwork to have personality.
I guess I like boring art, as my 'Comic Cover A Day' posts certainly reflect. :/
DC seems to gather artists with a certain type of style. And they certainly have a house style of coloring. And it bores me to tears. If that’s what works for you, great, but I prefer my artwork to have personality.
I guess I like boring art, as my 'Comic Cover A Day' posts certainly reflect. :/
In the early days of Marvel, they had Buscema, but they also had Kirby, who was very much a cartoonist with his own visual language. Then they had Romita, who was somewhere between the two. Three very different looks. Their “house style” back then wasn’t a drawing style, it was a storytelling style.
But it isn’t the storytelling you’re complaining about, it’s the drawing styles seen at Marvel today. Neal Adams’ artwork, which you’ve posted on the “Comic Cover” thread, isn’t boring. Gil Kane’s artwork isn’t boring. What’s boring to me is when that’s all I see. When I go through the DC section of Previews, I can barely tell the artists apart. Even Bob Kane’s ghost artists, who were theoretically all supposed to look like Bob Kane, were more distinct from one another.
Just looking back through your past few “Comic Cover” posts, I see a very cartoony Al Gabriele Uncle Sam cover, a very cartoony Kirby/Shores Captain America cover, and a Jerry Grandenetti GI Combat cover in the Caniff style of cartooning with greatly exaggerated lighting of the figures. So you like cartoony superhero stuff, as long as it has a certain amount of detail and looks close enough to what you’re used to. And that’s fine. It’s what you grew up with, and it puts you in the majority... for now at least.
Because younger readers have grown up with lots of different art styles, and “cartoony” isn’t a dirty word for them. Marvel is just keeping up with the times.
Lengthy rebuttals aside, I stand by my assessment. If Squirrel Girl, Moon Girl, Patsy Walker, and Great Lakes Avengers don't tick the "cartoony" box for you, who am I to argue? We disagreed on Javier Pulido's She-Hulk and Mike Allred's Silver Surfer. Clearly what you and I consider 'cartoony" just don't sync up. So what? Enjoy what you enjoy and call it boring if you think it's boring!
And if not, there's always David "Eat a Bag of Dicks" Walker, but his style actually strikes me as more offensive now than "cartoony"...
My definition of cartoony as it relates to art styles is simply: Drawn in an exaggerated and/or minimalistic style for effect.
I've said this before, and I’ll say it here again. All comic book art is cartooned to some degree or another. Even John Buscema cartooned in that he exaggerated the human form: the figures he drew were taller in proportion than they should have been, the hands he drew were bigger than they should have been, etc. Some artists just exaggerate the porportions more than others. If you don’t like the more extreme forms of exaggeration, that’s fine.
Squirrel Girl is absolutely in a more exaggerated style of cartooning, and the tone of the book is more humor-oriented. Moon Girl is certainly drawn in a more exaggerated style of cartooning (less so than Squirrel Girl, but much moreso than most superhero comics), but the tone of the book is more dramatic. Silver Surfer is drawn in a more minimalistic, but less exaggerated style. It’s cartoony, but in a different way than SG and MG, and again, the tone of the book is more adventure-oriented. So, yes, they “tick the ‘cartoony’ box” for me in the artistic sense, just not necessarily in the tone department, which is why I asked for the clarification.
Go on liking what you like, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, and I happen to like a lot of what you like too. But I disagree with your assessment that having cartoony art styles in some of Marvel’s titles is a negative in regards to the long-term health of the company. Maybe you just haven’t seen how long Scottie Young’s lines are at comic shows these days.
Young's I Hate Fairyland is selling in the mid-20's and his Marvel covers are usually collectable variants. He has a dedicated following and a unique, and yes, "cartoony" style. He's actually hit or miss for me. While his Rocket Raccoon series for Marvel was enjoyable, his Human Torch series with Karl Kesel was hard to look at.
Young's I Hate Fairyland is selling in the mid-20's and his Marvel covers are usually collectable variants. He has a dedicated following and a unique, and yes, "cartoony" style. He's actually hit or miss for me. While his Rocket Raccoon series for Marvel was enjoyable, his Human Torch series with Karl Kesel was hard to look at.
For context, mid-20's is a number most creator-owned books would kill for.
Young's I Hate Fairyland is selling in the mid-20's and his Marvel covers are usually collectable variants. He has a dedicated following and a unique, and yes, "cartoony" style. He's actually hit or miss for me. While his Rocket Raccoon series for Marvel was enjoyable, his Human Torch series with Karl Kesel was hard to look at.
For context, mid-20's is a number most creator-owned books would kill for.
For additional context, mid-20s at Image means you can live solely off your book, especially when you are the writer and the artist.
Young's I Hate Fairyland is selling in the mid-20's and his Marvel covers are usually collectable variants. He has a dedicated following and a unique, and yes, "cartoony" style. He's actually hit or miss for me. While his Rocket Raccoon series for Marvel was enjoyable, his Human Torch series with Karl Kesel was hard to look at.
For context, mid-20's is a number most creator-owned books would kill for.
For additional context, mid-20s at Image means you can live solely off your book, especially when you are the writer and the artist.
I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Young wasn't doing well financially. In fact, I presume he's pulling down well over $25k a month from IHF. If the book has settled around 26k issues mnthly, at $3.50 of which after retailer share, diamond fees & advertising and printing costs he's bringing in at least 25% of that. Not to mention his take on trade sales and the coloring book.
So yes, he's doing well, but I only mentioned the numbers to give an indicator of the size of his hardcore following which has been growing since he broke out at Marvel around a decade ago.
the omissions of any answers to these questions in DD would not be so glaring had the first arc not been a misfire. Dangling plot threads and ongoing mysteries can be great to ramp things up in a book, but if the main plot isn't compelling, then IMO it becomes a problem. Essentially the things that HAVEN'T been told in the ANAD DD are more compelling to readers than what HAS been told.
**SPOILER DAREDEVIL #9**
It appears that Daredevil has been improving exponentially since that terrible first arc. With issue #9 hearkening back to classic team-up stories of the 80's. It also reveals that Matt did indeed do something to wipe everyone's memory of his secret identity. Even Spider-Man is a bit hazy on their history because of this.
"Watch out for those black-costume phases. They can really do a number on you."
the omissions of any answers to these questions in DD would not be so glaring had the first arc not been a misfire. Dangling plot threads and ongoing mysteries can be great to ramp things up in a book, but if the main plot isn't compelling, then IMO it becomes a problem. Essentially the things that HAVEN'T been told in the ANAD DD are more compelling to readers than what HAS been told.
**SPOILER DAREDEVIL #9**
It appears that Daredevil has been improving exponentially since that terrible first arc. With issue #9 hearkening back to classic team-up stories of the 80's. It also reveals that Matt did indeed do something to wipe everyone's memory of his secret identity. Even Spider-Man is a bit hazy on their history because of this.
"Watch out for those black-costume phases. They can really do a number on you."
Here's how rough this run has been- I no longer care about being spoiled so I plowed right through your spoiler warning. Although it doesn't seem like you spoiled too much, I thought with Spidey showing up at the end of #8 there would be some mindwipey hazy discussion between the two.
Hoping for the best. As always. I liked #8, but I like poker, and since I knew it was sort of a sidebar story, I went with it, not expecting to get any answers. I guess my expectations have been successfully lowered to where all I'm hoping for is a pleasant adventure of the month.
The Elektra two-parter before it was very problematic. We got an issue where she appears, reveals something that could be explored for some possible good story, and then is completely done away with in the next issue.
The mindwipe thing, whatever it turns out to be, just seems very off as a concept in the way it's being presented. IMO it makes a mockery of the relationships between Matt/DD and the supporting cast- relationships which very much have been a core staple of the book, and have helped define Matt Murdock as the rich character that he is, for 50 years.
I'm still reading, it's my favorite character. I will read #9 and I hope things turn for the better. I am sure the creators are giving it their best shot, and they've done work I enjoy in the past, so I still think this book could find some stronger footing. I don't mean to be negative, it's just my take on things.
Why isn't there a Falcon series? He's firmly established in the MCU, but Marvel has strangely chosen a different path for reasons all their own and in the process have effectively watered down the Captain America brand by not allowing the Falcon to be heralded on his own merit.
Because they attempted to sell a Falcon series a few times and it didn't do all that well (the Marvel Premier one shot and the mini-series). With the character being featured in the movies, they are attempting to use the time honored "Replace the lead character to generate a spin-off" like they have done since the Bronze Age.
I keep seeing a cartoon approach to many recent Marvel titles, but I don't think they realize that their biggest demo (middle-age men) aren't going to support these titles in droves. I'm guessing that most of these new cartoonish books were green-lit 6 months ago when this latest batch of cartoony books were putting up high numbers. Yes?
What exactly do you mean by “cartoon approach”? I only see five titles I would describe as humor books out of the 60 titles listed. Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur is not one of those five either. It’s light-hearted and appropriate for kids of all ages, but it’s not a humor book. It’s very much tied into the Inhumans thread that’s running through the core of the Marvel Universe.
"Cartoon approach" doesn't only cover humor @nweathington - it also encompasses the art style which permeates several of Marvel's books these days. "Light-hearted", "for kids", "adorable", call it whatever you like. One of your faves, Patsy Walker, A.K.A. Hellcat! is another one (selling 13k). Silver Surfer and Power Man & Iron Fist are others (to a lesser degree). Of course I realize you are fond of these art styles, so I should have expected you to respond (still waiting for David), but to me and many others they feel "cartoonish". Something to be said for the old 'house style'
If you think Silver Surfer is light hearted, you aren't reading the book. Yes, Allred uses a 60's Ditko-influenced style, but it is just as serious as any other super-hero comic.
If you think Silver Surfer is light hearted, you aren't reading the book. Yes, Allred uses a 60's Ditko-influenced style, but it is just as serious as any other super-hero comic.
Corey, I've been a fan of Surfer since the first time I read Kirby's work in FF. I was reading the Slott/Allred iteration up until last November's issue #14. I've no reason to believe it's changed since then.
Toomie the surfboard along with the art style = light-hearted. Your mileage may vary.
Because they attempted to sell a Falcon series a few times and it didn't do all that well (the Marvel Premier one shot and the mini-series). With the character being featured in the movies, they are attempting to use the time honored "Replace the lead character to generate a spin-off" like they have done since the Bronze Age.
Seems like a false equivalence since the movie character is best-known as the Falcon, not as Captain America and I don't recall Marvel trying a Falcon series since Winter Solider, do you? That's when he has been most widely known to the general public. That Marvel Premiere single issue was from way back in 1979 (37 years ago). And his 4-issue limited series was over 33 years ago (1983). Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to when you say Marvel attempted to sell a Falcon series a few times. Unless you're talking about those two minor attempts several decades ago, which aren't relevant to today's audience. That doesn't really answer why there isn't a Falcon series today.
They've made no attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the on-screen persona/version of the Falcon who has appeared now in two Captain America movies, an Avengers movie, and Ant-Man, not to mention the video games in just over the past 2 years.
Ran across this as I was flipping through Marvel's Preview magazine (not to be confused with "Previews"). I don't know if this will qualify as "Marvel Now 2.0", but I am so excited... I can't see this as anything other than the return of Richard Rider. Fingers crossed.
Ran across this as I was flipping through Marvel's Preview magazine (not to be confused with "Previews"). I don't know if this will qualify as "Marvel Now 2.0", but I am so excited... I can't see this as anything other than the return of Richard Rider. Fingers crossed.
Well after 5 issues of giving Moon Knight the benefit of the doubt, I'm done. Greg Smallwood's art is great, but like his X-Men, Lemire's writing is flabby and goes nowhere slowly. 5 issues to get that non-conclusion is ridiculous for a character where a couple of years ago Ellis wrote 6 complete stories in 6 issues.
Remember that time back in the early days of the Captain America and The Falcon bronze age comics where some cops arrested Sam Wilson because he was black, but let The Trapster escape because he was white?
You don't?
Well, I have good news for you lapsed readers. In the recent issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson, Nick Spencer has retconned Marvel history so you will remember it forever.Sure, it's a bit heavy-handed and on the nose. And the law enforcement officer's appearance seems like a bit of a stereotype, but this is the kind of red-meat that social justice warriors can't get enough of. Way to go Nick!
Remember that time back in the early days of the Captain America and The Falcon bronze age comics where some cops arrested Sam Wilson because he was black, but let The Trapster escape because he was white?
You don't?
Well, I have good news for you lapsed readers. In the recent issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson, Nick Spencer has retconned Marvel history so you will remember it forever.Sure, it's a bit heavy-handed and on the nose. And the law enforcement officer's appearance seems like a bit of a stereotype, but this is the kind of red-meat that social justice warriors can't get enough of. Way to go Nick!
You say retconned, but you neglected to mention what previously described event was having new information added to it to change the interpretation.
It never happened in an issue. It is being retconned into Marvel History in general, like Jessica Jones being a superhero.
With Marvel Time and continuity being what it is, this event could have happened anytime in the last couple of years. :neutral: Although context from the rest of the issue may add some clarity to that.
Remember that time back in the early days of the Captain America and The Falcon bronze age comics where some cops arrested Sam Wilson because he was black, but let The Trapster escape because he was white?
You don't?
Well, I have good news for you lapsed readers. In the recent issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson, Nick Spencer has retconned Marvel history so you will remember it forever.Sure, it's a bit heavy-handed and on the nose. And the law enforcement officer's appearance seems like a bit of a stereotype, but this is the kind of red-meat that social justice warriors can't get enough of. Way to go Nick!
When Captain America and the Falcon was coming out, there's no way that a story like this would have made print. That's one of the reasons why Green Lantern 76 is considered to have been so ground breaking.
Just because it wasn't in the book at the time, doesn't mean that it's unrealistic or inappropriate. All it means is that there was no good mechanism to talk about it at the time or that the market wasn't considered likely to support the ideas that it presented.
I'm sure that Nick Spencer and everyone involved feels terrible about hurting your sensibilities and confronting you with a reality that you would prefer to deny. Perhaps there should be a trigger warning on the cover to warn that there is subject inside that may be offensive to some readers.
I will, however, grant you that the dumpy cop is a bit of a stereotype.
Comments
DC seems to gather artists with a certain type of style. And they certainly have a house style of coloring. And it bores me to tears. If that’s what works for you, great, but I prefer my artwork to have personality.
I guess I like boring art, as my 'Comic Cover A Day' posts certainly reflect. :/
But it isn’t the storytelling you’re complaining about, it’s the drawing styles seen at Marvel today. Neal Adams’ artwork, which you’ve posted on the “Comic Cover” thread, isn’t boring. Gil Kane’s artwork isn’t boring. What’s boring to me is when that’s all I see. When I go through the DC section of Previews, I can barely tell the artists apart. Even Bob Kane’s ghost artists, who were theoretically all supposed to look like Bob Kane, were more distinct from one another.
Just looking back through your past few “Comic Cover” posts, I see a very cartoony Al Gabriele Uncle Sam cover, a very cartoony Kirby/Shores Captain America cover, and a Jerry Grandenetti GI Combat cover in the Caniff style of cartooning with greatly exaggerated lighting of the figures. So you like cartoony superhero stuff, as long as it has a certain amount of detail and looks close enough to what you’re used to. And that’s fine. It’s what you grew up with, and it puts you in the majority... for now at least.
Because younger readers have grown up with lots of different art styles, and “cartoony” isn’t a dirty word for them. Marvel is just keeping up with the times.
And if not, there's always David "Eat a Bag of Dicks" Walker, but his style actually strikes me as more offensive now than "cartoony"...
I may not know art, but I know what I like.
I've said this before, and I’ll say it here again. All comic book art is cartooned to some degree or another. Even John Buscema cartooned in that he exaggerated the human form: the figures he drew were taller in proportion than they should have been, the hands he drew were bigger than they should have been, etc. Some artists just exaggerate the porportions more than others. If you don’t like the more extreme forms of exaggeration, that’s fine.
Squirrel Girl is absolutely in a more exaggerated style of cartooning, and the tone of the book is more humor-oriented. Moon Girl is certainly drawn in a more exaggerated style of cartooning (less so than Squirrel Girl, but much moreso than most superhero comics), but the tone of the book is more dramatic. Silver Surfer is drawn in a more minimalistic, but less exaggerated style. It’s cartoony, but in a different way than SG and MG, and again, the tone of the book is more adventure-oriented. So, yes, they “tick the ‘cartoony’ box” for me in the artistic sense, just not necessarily in the tone department, which is why I asked for the clarification.
Go on liking what you like, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, and I happen to like a lot of what you like too. But I disagree with your assessment that having cartoony art styles in some of Marvel’s titles is a negative in regards to the long-term health of the company. Maybe you just haven’t seen how long Scottie Young’s lines are at comic shows these days.
So yes, he's doing well, but I only mentioned the numbers to give an indicator of the size of his hardcore following which has been growing since he broke out at Marvel around a decade ago.
**SPOILER DAREDEVIL #9**
It appears that Daredevil has been improving exponentially since that terrible first arc. With issue #9 hearkening back to classic team-up stories of the 80's. It also reveals that Matt did indeed do something to wipe everyone's memory of his secret identity. Even Spider-Man is a bit hazy on their history because of this.
"Watch out for those black-costume phases. They can really do a number on you."
Hoping for the best. As always. I liked #8, but I like poker, and since I knew it was sort of a sidebar story, I went with it, not expecting to get any answers. I guess my expectations have been successfully lowered to where all I'm hoping for is a pleasant adventure of the month.
The Elektra two-parter before it was very problematic. We got an issue where she appears, reveals something that could be explored for some possible good story, and then is completely done away with in the next issue.
The mindwipe thing, whatever it turns out to be, just seems very off as a concept in the way it's being presented. IMO it makes a mockery of the relationships between Matt/DD and the supporting cast- relationships which very much have been a core staple of the book, and have helped define Matt Murdock as the rich character that he is, for 50 years.
I'm still reading, it's my favorite character. I will read #9 and I hope things turn for the better. I am sure the creators are giving it their best shot, and they've done work I enjoy in the past, so I still think this book could find some stronger footing. I don't mean to be negative, it's just my take on things.
Toomie the surfboard along with the art style = light-hearted. Your mileage may vary. Seems like a false equivalence since the movie character is best-known as the Falcon, not as Captain America and I don't recall Marvel trying a Falcon series since Winter Solider, do you? That's when he has been most widely known to the general public. That Marvel Premiere single issue was from way back in 1979 (37 years ago). And his 4-issue limited series was over 33 years ago (1983). Other than that, I don't know what you're referring to when you say Marvel attempted to sell a Falcon series a few times. Unless you're talking about those two minor attempts several decades ago, which aren't relevant to today's audience. That doesn't really answer why there isn't a Falcon series today.
They've made no attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the on-screen persona/version of the Falcon who has appeared now in two Captain America movies, an Avengers movie, and Ant-Man, not to mention the video games in just over the past 2 years.
You don't?
Well, I have good news for you lapsed readers. In the recent issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson, Nick Spencer has retconned Marvel history so you will remember it forever.
Can you fill us in? Just an issue number will do.
With Marvel Time and continuity being what it is, this event could have happened anytime in the last couple of years. :neutral: Although context from the rest of the issue may add some clarity to that.
Just because it wasn't in the book at the time, doesn't mean that it's unrealistic or inappropriate. All it means is that there was no good mechanism to talk about it at the time or that the market wasn't considered likely to support the ideas that it presented.
I'm sure that Nick Spencer and everyone involved feels terrible about hurting your sensibilities and confronting you with a reality that you would prefer to deny. Perhaps there should be a trigger warning on the cover to warn that there is subject inside that may be offensive to some readers.
I will, however, grant you that the dumpy cop is a bit of a stereotype.