| Author |
|
Darren Ashmore
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 963
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Well, I noticed the new Earth 2 Green Lantern now doesn't wear a cape. Sign of the times ever since Alan Moore did that bit about Dollar Bill getting his cape caught in a revolving door which enabled gangsters to shoot him. Apprently this doesn't apply to..oh... Batman for instance.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Aaron Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10461
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 9:17am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
This is a road down which I have traveled many times. FAN: Batman isn't a superhero! He doesn't have SUPER POWERS! ME: No, he doesn't. But he has all the distinctive TRAPPINGS of a superhero, doesn't he? Costume, secret identity, distinctive villains, etc. Even, in his case, certain "powers and abilities" -- honed by years of training -- beyond those of most men. *** I had that argument once and my response was to point out that WE, the readers know that Batman doesn't have superpowers. But do the citizens of Gotham City know that? Or the thugs who were just beaten unconscious before they even had a chance to react? Or the bystanders who might swear he can fly after seeing that dark blur whiz by high above the streets? He acts like a superhero, dresses like a superhero, and is perceived as a superhero, which makes him one.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 4:45pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I remember a few years ago when Marvel was trying to say that the secret identity was an outdated concept. Let see...capes, colorful costumes, AND secret identities are outdated but you still want to write superhero comics?
Edited by Shawn Kane on 09 July 2012 at 6:29pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 5:23pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Quote from JB: I've not heard that. Seems unlikely, tho. National Periodicals could control Marvel's quantity, but not content.
Finally tracked down where I had read DC restricted Marvel publishing superheroes:
Page 295 of Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow: "These weren't your typical superheroes, however, reputedly because Goodman's distributor, Jack Liebowitz, discouraged him from competing too directly with National." The next page goes on saying Goodman apparently got Liebowitz to ease his restrictions.
Other books discussing National distributing Marvel Books only mention how many monthly titles DC allowed Marvel to publish. Its possible the author mistook those restrictions on titles with restrictions on content. There's no clarification in the notes in the book.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133512
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 8:31pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Page 295 of Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow: "These weren't your typical superheroes, however, reputedly because Goodman's distributor, Jack Liebowitz, discouraged him from competing too directly with National." The next page goes on saying Goodman apparently got Liebowitz to ease his restrictions.•• In journalistic circles, "reputedly" means "I heard this somewhere, and I'm repeating it without substantiation."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 09 July 2012 at 9:38pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Quote: In journalistic circles, "reputedly" means "I heard this somewhere, and I'm repeating it without substantiation."
Agreed. Just presenting my source from a comment I had earlier tossed off as something I'd read to make sure it wasn't something I made up or misread.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7847
|
| Posted: 10 July 2012 at 5:32am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Thanks Michael - what I should have said is that I didn't see those things until they were pointed out to me. The 3D things though? Just can't do them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Manuel Soler
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 February 2011
Location: Spain
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: 14 July 2012 at 6:04pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The question with uniforms is that for the last two decades or so, each new artist that arrives to a title wants to draw his own version of the character and so, he decides to change the uniform for no real reason. Also, it seems that simplicity is a sin, so it shoud be full of lines, details, ornaments,... needing a lot of time and being near impossible to draw from memory. That should be the reason why they can't do a monthly comic without assistants or delays.
In general, in "older" times, the changes in uniforms were justified: graduation of the original X-Men, change of identity/powers (Hank Pym), emotional changes (punk Storm),... but now: new artist, new #1, issue post event,,, are the only reasons needed.
Edited by Manuel Soler on 14 July 2012 at 6:05pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 14 July 2012 at 6:46pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
The concept I'll never get: "Oh I LOVE Spider-Man so much!!! He's my favorite superhero since I've been a kid! He's perfect! But I want to change his costume to make him look current." Or realistic.
Edited by Shawn Kane on 14 July 2012 at 6:46pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Todd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 September 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 4115
|
| Posted: 14 July 2012 at 6:47pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
You always hurt the ones you love, at least that's what I heard.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Felicity Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: 20 July 2012 at 9:53pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Re: the original post: that's been bothering me for a while too. Thanks for articulating it.
Re: Gravity: even he seems like the kind of leather-jumpsuited, chunky-gloved, begoggled, pouch-wearing character we see all the time now. If he's an amateur superhero who's making his own costume from things he can buy at the sporting goods store, well, OK, he has an excuse. But it's still an ugly costume, and the artist would have been better off not going there in the first place.
Also, I saw the arrows and not the X until the X was pointed out to me. I also didn't see the two fish in Superman's symbol until reading JB's statement years ago that he saw the fish as a kid. Similarly, I didn't see the arrow in FedEx until this thread. I guess I don't see negative space and am not a real artist.
I'll console myself with having figured correctly that the arrows are coming from all directions because an object's gravity pulls in all directions around it.
I'm fussy about Catwoman's costume. So far the only one I've really liked is Julie Newmar's, from the 1960s Batman. I don't like the long purple dress, the purple one-piece tights, the gray one-piece tights, the Batman Returns leather suit, or the current leather suit with its goggles and clodhopper boots (and I particularly dislike its corrugated forehead).
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that everything gets ruined these days. I mostly go back and look for 20th-century comics, TV shows, and movies I haven't read or seen yet.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Norris
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4274
|
| Posted: 20 July 2012 at 10:50pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I'm surprised that Spider-Man isn't in clodhopper boots by now. Seem every character wears them now, need them or not.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
