Interestingly, I just read an old 1989 interview with Tim Burton.  He said he was at the 1979 SDCC, and somebody from Warner Brothers had brought a slide show (!) about the upcoming Superman movie.  When he put up a photo of Christopher Reeve changing into Superman on the ledge of a building, one fan yelled that Superman would never do that!  The film obviously did not respect the legend of the character, and he would boycott the movie!!  The room erupted in applause of support!!!

Ten years later, Tim Burton would be similarly criticized by the fan boys before Batman premiered for casting Michael Keaton in the lead. 

Now, are you folks seriously pre-judging Man of Steel by the new Superman costume?  I thought this was the group that congratulated itself on being enlightened thinkers!

I'm not judging the acting, the story, anything-- but as Anthony said, that is truly an ugly suit. Over-textured, dark colors... where does any of that mess say "Superman"? It doesn't. And I am concerned that this image reflects a deeper lack of understanding where this character is concerned. If they can't get the costume right, should we trust Snyder to get =Superman= right?

I have my doubts. Hopefully the movie will address them.

As to the subject of this thread-

JB, I would really like to do a review of TRIO for sfrevu.com. At this point, best to review #3 or wait for IDW to do a TPB? Whatever gives the project the most "bang for the buck" at this point.

that superman picture bugs me....especially with that lump in his pants! 

I think old school is essential in comics.....it is a medium where that way of thought and style is essential.....old school represents warmth and passion!!!

respect to Mr. Byrne on his birthday!! cheers!

It's funny that for the most part, a lot of people don't find Jim Lee's stuff dated, when he's still ploughing the same furrow he started with the X-Men 'straps and pouches' outfits over 20 years ago. Just look at the 'New 52' (god, doesn't that just scream 'marketing department-speke'?) designs, with all the extraneous lines and 'detail for detail's sake' - same old same old.

Although, if you think about it, most comic readers nowadays are probably either 'people who were Image-style comics fans back in the day', or 'people who got in just afterwards, and for them, that stuff is 'iconic' art'. Either way, the Lee/Liefeld look is the dividing line between 'modern' comics, and the 'old-fashioned' stuff of JB, Neal Adams, John Romita Sr., etc. - you know, the stuff that was trying to be COMICBOOK art and tell a story through that medium, rather than the stuff that is either barely more than posters with dialogue balloons stuck on them, or worse, the full-colour storyboards for what desperately wants to be the next 'tent-pole' Hollywood blockbuster...

Although, if you think about it, most comic readers nowadays are probably either 'people who were Image-style comics fans back in the day', or 'people who got in just afterwards, and for them, that stuff is 'iconic' art'. Either way, the Lee/Liefeld look is the dividing line between 'modern' comics, and the 'old-fashioned' stuff of JB, Neal Adams, John Romita Sr., etc. - you know, the stuff that was trying to be COMICBOOK art and tell a story through that medium, rather than the stuff that is either barely more than posters with dialogue balloons stuck on them, or worse, the full-colour storyboards for what desperately wants to be the next 'tent-pole' Hollywood blockbuster...

***

I think the difference in generations of artists, at least from the way my mind perceives the images, is that when I look at art from the real masters of the genre, guys like Buscema, Romita, Al Williamson, Neal Adams, JB, just to name a few, I can imagine their styles of art working in anything, whether it's book illustration, advertising, or whatever. These artists know how to DRAW, regardless of where their art eneds up being seen. When it comes to many of the later artists, Image and post-Image, their art looks like it was learned from comic books and is stuck in that medium (and doesn't even work very well in that medium in some cases!). I'm nopt sure if that makes any sense, but what I mean is that I think of John Buscema as an artist, but I can only think of many recent artists as comic book artists.

••

That's an important distinction, and one that is lost on many young artists, and wannabe artists. Too many who have taught themselves to "draw" by looking only at comics, without learning how to DRAW.

I go back again to something one of my instructors said at the College. In painting class, one student didn't want to bother with learning drapery, and anatomy, and perspective, since he only wanted to paint "abstracts". But, said the teacher, in order to paint abstracts you have to KNOW what you're LEAVING OUT.