Oh, and in fairness, Mike Grell sure wasn't above gratuitous hinder shots of Black Canary, either...
From Action Comics #441 (1974).
Showing posts with label Ed Benes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Benes. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Let's See Ed Benes Draw Ass-Shots Of This!
The evil Professor Steelgraves has subjected Ollie and Dinah to an "aging ray," and the results aren't too pretty:
Don't worry--an amnesiac Krypto--yup, an amnesiac Krypto--shows up and takes out "all this machinery." Man, DC was crazy back then--like a fox!!
Oh, and in fairness, Mike Grell sure wasn't above gratuitous hinder shots of Black Canary, either...
A Hermann Hesse reference, Eliot S! Maggin? Really?
From Action Comics #441 (1974).
Oh, and in fairness, Mike Grell sure wasn't above gratuitous hinder shots of Black Canary, either...
From Action Comics #441 (1974).
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Cartoony Is Bad In A Comic Book??
So we know that Silver Age DC really hated their readers. But you know who else they hated? Their artists.
Remember, this is the same company that was eager to bring over Jack Kirby, but then insisted on having some other artist redraw Superman's face in The King's comics. Heaven forbid he get too far "off model."
But I never suspected it could get this bad.
From Four Star Spectacular #1 (1976):
What, you're saying...it's just an adventure of the Golden Age Flash. Ah, but wait for the inevitable zoom-in:
"Too far below modern standards to reprint that tale as it was."
What. The. Hell.
At least it's an anonymous insult, as editor E. Nelson Bridwell doesn't even bother to mention the poor, sub-standard artist. Nope, we'll just say that whoever drew this story originally for All-Flash #22 (1946) apparently couldn't hack it as an artist in the unassailable creative peaks of DC 1976. In a word, sucky.
Now, in fairness, in that issue's text piece, the justification is phrased ever-so-slightly less callously: "...the original art for the story was rather simple and cartoony --not at all suitable for today's comic audience." Yeah, because in 1976, the comics audience was soooo sophisticated, they would spit upon simple and cartoony art...
Well, look...we've all seen the quality of some of the Golden Age reprints DC was putting out in the 1970s. It seems to me that an awful lot of it was "cartoony" or "simplistic." So why suddenly try this here?
For the record, the artist in question was Martin Naydel (some online sources confuse him with Martin Nodell, the artist who created the Golden Age Green Lantern, but he was a different person). The majority of his career seems to have been spent on humor books, or funny animal books, or one-pager and half-pager joke strips in other comics. But roughly from 1944-1947, we was the regular artist on Flash, All-Flash, and All-Star (starring the Justice Society).
I don't have access to any of his interior art, [UPDATE: Booksteve did have access to some of Naydel's interior art, and has posted a side-by-side comparison] but his a sampling of his covers from back in the day (hat tip to the GCD):
Cartoony? Sure. Other than that, it's hard to tell from covers alone. But certainly, the work he did on those covers sure doesn't seem so terribly "below modern standards" or "not suitable for today's audience." Far from "simple," I see some fairly complex work (for covers) and a lot of influence on later artists.
The beauty part was, Bridwell did this again a few months later, having another "young artist" redraw another of Naydel's stories from All-Flash #22, this time in DC Super-Stars #5 (1976).
So the question is, what the hell? Was DC so intent on a particular "house style" that they found anything the least bit different or individualistic or "cartoony" to be objectionable, even when reprinting classic stories? Or was it just Bridwell?
Or, perhaps, was it just an attempt to see if they could get away with using young (i.e. low-paid) artists and a script they already owned to churn out cheap "new" stories? In the text-piece, Bridwell does refer to the issue as a "new concept in presentation of classic comic-mag adventures." Maybe there was some masterplan to "rejuvenate" DC's back library with new, "modern" artwork to entice readers.
Of course, none of that required publicly dissing Martin Naydel, did it? That was a pretty classless move. Re-doing the art might have been an interesting experiment, but taking pot-shots at the original artist was clearly unnecessary and mean-spirited.
And now, 30+ years later, times have changed, and DC loves to reprint original Golden Age stories, warts and all. And there is a much greater tolerance of "cartoony," individualistic art. There's a huge market for the stuff, so I guess "today's comic audience" isn't as discerning as Bridwell's 1976 readers.
On the bright side, maybe in 2039, DC will reprint some recent JLA stories, but with the art redrawn, because Ed Benes will be "too far below modern standards."
Remember, this is the same company that was eager to bring over Jack Kirby, but then insisted on having some other artist redraw Superman's face in The King's comics. Heaven forbid he get too far "off model."
But I never suspected it could get this bad.
From Four Star Spectacular #1 (1976):
What. The. Hell.
At least it's an anonymous insult, as editor E. Nelson Bridwell doesn't even bother to mention the poor, sub-standard artist. Nope, we'll just say that whoever drew this story originally for All-Flash #22 (1946) apparently couldn't hack it as an artist in the unassailable creative peaks of DC 1976. In a word, sucky.
Now, in fairness, in that issue's text piece, the justification is phrased ever-so-slightly less callously: "...the original art for the story was rather simple and cartoony --not at all suitable for today's comic audience." Yeah, because in 1976, the comics audience was soooo sophisticated, they would spit upon simple and cartoony art...
Well, look...we've all seen the quality of some of the Golden Age reprints DC was putting out in the 1970s. It seems to me that an awful lot of it was "cartoony" or "simplistic." So why suddenly try this here?
For the record, the artist in question was Martin Naydel (some online sources confuse him with Martin Nodell, the artist who created the Golden Age Green Lantern, but he was a different person). The majority of his career seems to have been spent on humor books, or funny animal books, or one-pager and half-pager joke strips in other comics. But roughly from 1944-1947, we was the regular artist on Flash, All-Flash, and All-Star (starring the Justice Society).
I don't have access to any of his interior art, [UPDATE: Booksteve did have access to some of Naydel's interior art, and has posted a side-by-side comparison] but his a sampling of his covers from back in the day (hat tip to the GCD):
The beauty part was, Bridwell did this again a few months later, having another "young artist" redraw another of Naydel's stories from All-Flash #22, this time in DC Super-Stars #5 (1976).
So the question is, what the hell? Was DC so intent on a particular "house style" that they found anything the least bit different or individualistic or "cartoony" to be objectionable, even when reprinting classic stories? Or was it just Bridwell?
Or, perhaps, was it just an attempt to see if they could get away with using young (i.e. low-paid) artists and a script they already owned to churn out cheap "new" stories? In the text-piece, Bridwell does refer to the issue as a "new concept in presentation of classic comic-mag adventures." Maybe there was some masterplan to "rejuvenate" DC's back library with new, "modern" artwork to entice readers.
Of course, none of that required publicly dissing Martin Naydel, did it? That was a pretty classless move. Re-doing the art might have been an interesting experiment, but taking pot-shots at the original artist was clearly unnecessary and mean-spirited.
And now, 30+ years later, times have changed, and DC loves to reprint original Golden Age stories, warts and all. And there is a much greater tolerance of "cartoony," individualistic art. There's a huge market for the stuff, so I guess "today's comic audience" isn't as discerning as Bridwell's 1976 readers.
On the bright side, maybe in 2039, DC will reprint some recent JLA stories, but with the art redrawn, because Ed Benes will be "too far below modern standards."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Speed Round!!
Bullet Point Saturday!!
What, you mean the idea of Spider-Man spending pages lusting after his "hot cousins" didn't come from Stan?? Next thing, you'll be telling me that Stan didn't invent the idea of Spidey cracking oral sex jokes every issue, or Bullseye killing rats with his boogers...
Pretty definitive, eh? 1964, the start of the Vietnam war...which I guess means either a) In the Marvel Universe Bill Clinton was president in 1964, or b) Cap waited 30 years to become an Avenger. Ohhhh, I hate rolling timelines...
Yup...if you can't find your black partner, just go ask another black man. Oh, Steve Englehart, you idiot...
And no, Fabien Nicieza, having a self-referential caption where Genis acknowledges that it's a lame battle cry doesn't excuse using it in the first place.
That was from Captain Marvel #4 (1996). Just to prove it really was the 1990s:
Oh, Ed Benes, you were such a Image-wannabe back then...
Superman I & II were not that great. Really. Get over it. Try some original ideas. You don't need to turn the whole Superman universe into the Cult of Richard Donner.
cc: Bryan Singer and Warner Brothers...
P.S. No, this doesn't mean I'm going to do a review of Superman Returns...
- From Stan's Soapbox in February 2000 issues:
- You remember earlier how we were discussing Marvel's "rolling timeline" and exactly when Captain America was defrosted? Well, here's a tidbit from before the timeline started rolling, in Captain America #183 (1975):
- Speaking of that issue, Nomad is looking for the Falcon, who's been missing for 3 days. And he can't find him anywhere. So Steve Rogers' master plan?
- Final note on that issue: as a youth, Frank Robbins' artwork freaked me out a little. 30+ years later, it still does:
- WORST. BATTLE. CRY. EVER.
That was from Captain Marvel #4 (1996). Just to prove it really was the 1990s:
- Dear DC:
cc: Bryan Singer and Warner Brothers...
P.S. No, this doesn't mean I'm going to do a review of Superman Returns...
- In the live-action Green Lantern movie, can we please please PLEASE have the Guardians of Oa played by Muppets? Because I really want to see Ryan Reynolds getting bossed around by Muppets... Or how about a CGI duplicated Deep Roy?? Oompa loompa doompity doo--we've got another mission for you...
- Vertigo's The Unwritten is simply ridiculously good, and more people should be reading it/talking about it.
- Just because....SPEED CHESS!!!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Turning The Other Cheek
Well, after criticizing Ed Benes for focusing on the posteriors of females, I suppose fair is fair, and I should take a look at other prominent portrayers of asses.
Also, I'm aware that a certain segment of the fan population is...well...fascinated with portions of Hal Jordan's anatomy. So I might as well try to raise my readership amongst that demographic for 2009, right?
Legend has it that we saw lots, and lots, and lots of Hal's tushie in the olden days. So in the name of science, I grabbed a random Silver Age Green Lantern from my slush pile. Specifically, Green Lantern #56 (1967), by John Broome and Gil Kane. And let me just say...Ed Benes in his wildest dreams couldn't draw as many asses as Gil Kane. Here, presented mainly without comment, is every ass shot of a Green Lantern from that issue:
It's not just Hal Jordan, of course...this next section is for you Xudarian ladies out there...
Now back to Hal...
Now that's a lotta ass!!
For the sake of completeness, I should note that there were a few questionable shots, where coloring or contorted anatomy or poor printing left in unclear whether it was Hal's ass we were seeing. I left those out, so the number could have been higher. Also, several non-GL asses were pictured, but I also left those out. So, believe it or not, there could have been a lot more cheek shown here.
Happy New Year!
Also, I'm aware that a certain segment of the fan population is...well...fascinated with portions of Hal Jordan's anatomy. So I might as well try to raise my readership amongst that demographic for 2009, right?
Legend has it that we saw lots, and lots, and lots of Hal's tushie in the olden days. So in the name of science, I grabbed a random Silver Age Green Lantern from my slush pile. Specifically, Green Lantern #56 (1967), by John Broome and Gil Kane. And let me just say...Ed Benes in his wildest dreams couldn't draw as many asses as Gil Kane. Here, presented mainly without comment, is every ass shot of a Green Lantern from that issue:
Now back to Hal...
For the sake of completeness, I should note that there were a few questionable shots, where coloring or contorted anatomy or poor printing left in unclear whether it was Hal's ass we were seeing. I left those out, so the number could have been higher. Also, several non-GL asses were pictured, but I also left those out. So, believe it or not, there could have been a lot more cheek shown here.
Happy New Year!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
...To Write me Down An Ass
There's a pretty good scene for Black Canary as team chairperson in JLA #27 this week (or is it last week already? I was kinda lost in 1978...).
Stars and Garters shows you the page, and I won't reprint it here, so I don't crib his act. But I do want to show you the page before, which COMPLETELY undermines the scene:
Really.
Black Canary is about to have a big leadership moment, we're supposed to take her seriously as JLA chairperson, and Ed Benes introduces the scene with a page specifically designed to make you ignore everything else, designed to draw your eye right to her buttcheeks.
The JLA is essentially a broken book, a damaged concept right now, and I'm not sure what it would take to fix it. But of all the things wrong with it, nothing is more dire than having an artist who directly undermines the story points the writer is trying to establish, who undercuts Dwayne McDuffie's attempts to build up Black Canary with his immaturity and his fetish for close-ups of female body parts at inappropriate times.
So maybe instead of worrying about the Big Three undermining her, Dinah should worry more about the idiot they have drawing her, which does far more damage.
(Although I praised McDuffie's scene above, I have a couple of quibbles about his script.. One, Dinah never lays out any specific grievances about the Big Three, except that they're meeting in private. And since she establishes that no one else knows about the private meetings, it's not clear how they're actually "undermining her authority." No example of orders countermanded, or secret plots, or anything. A good manager always has specific examples when laying down the law. Given that just a meeting is ticking her off, I shudder how Dinah is going to respond to Trinity.
Secondly, they get a distress call from Dr. Light (the good one) on a JLI communicator...and they take a Quinjet (or whatever they call it) to Metropolis? They have a freakin' teleporter. Zatanna could just magic them there. Superman or Flash could certainly get there more quickly. It's a distress call, she might be dead or dying...and they don't take the fastest way there. Good show, League.
So it's not just the art of JLA that's broken.)
Stars and Garters shows you the page, and I won't reprint it here, so I don't crib his act. But I do want to show you the page before, which COMPLETELY undermines the scene:
Black Canary is about to have a big leadership moment, we're supposed to take her seriously as JLA chairperson, and Ed Benes introduces the scene with a page specifically designed to make you ignore everything else, designed to draw your eye right to her buttcheeks.
The JLA is essentially a broken book, a damaged concept right now, and I'm not sure what it would take to fix it. But of all the things wrong with it, nothing is more dire than having an artist who directly undermines the story points the writer is trying to establish, who undercuts Dwayne McDuffie's attempts to build up Black Canary with his immaturity and his fetish for close-ups of female body parts at inappropriate times.
So maybe instead of worrying about the Big Three undermining her, Dinah should worry more about the idiot they have drawing her, which does far more damage.
(Although I praised McDuffie's scene above, I have a couple of quibbles about his script.. One, Dinah never lays out any specific grievances about the Big Three, except that they're meeting in private. And since she establishes that no one else knows about the private meetings, it's not clear how they're actually "undermining her authority." No example of orders countermanded, or secret plots, or anything. A good manager always has specific examples when laying down the law. Given that just a meeting is ticking her off, I shudder how Dinah is going to respond to Trinity.
Secondly, they get a distress call from Dr. Light (the good one) on a JLI communicator...and they take a Quinjet (or whatever they call it) to Metropolis? They have a freakin' teleporter. Zatanna could just magic them there. Superman or Flash could certainly get there more quickly. It's a distress call, she might be dead or dying...and they don't take the fastest way there. Good show, League.
So it's not just the art of JLA that's broken.)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Anatomy Lesson...
...Ed Benes style. Hey, let's start off a conversation by focusing on one of our female members' groinatological area:
Hey, that was neat. How about a pointless close-up of their chestal areas!! That'll really illustrate the conversation well!!
No, I did not cut off the panel in my scan...that's all Benes' framing there...
It's amazing...it's a 4-page long conversation (?), and Benes' perspective and angles jump around like a hyperactive chimpanzee on Red Bull. People are turned different ways in consecutive panels, close-ups are randomly interspersed with long shots...just looking at it again gave me vertigo!!
So thank you, Ed Benes, for giving us close-up of heroes' clothed private parts. Just because.
It's amazing...it's a 4-page long conversation (?), and Benes' perspective and angles jump around like a hyperactive chimpanzee on Red Bull. People are turned different ways in consecutive panels, close-ups are randomly interspersed with long shots...just looking at it again gave me vertigo!!
So thank you, Ed Benes, for giving us close-up of heroes' clothed private parts. Just because.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A Great Leader Commands From The Rear
Hey, look, they've finally given Black Canary a scene showing her using her leadership skills as chairperson of the Justice League:
I mean, Jesus, Ed Benes, are you really that much of an arrested adolescent? If this were Superman or Batman in charge, you would never draw them like that, and you know it. Great googly moogly, you idiot, Dinah finally gets a good JLA moment and you demean it by turning into a gratuitous ass shot! Really, Benes, what are you, 12 years old or something??
Here's a challenge...before anyone tries to defend this idiot, take a look through his JLA run...can anyone find me a male ass shot like that? I'll be waiting...a long time.
Questions for DC: Dwayne McDuffie--do you feel dirty having your dialogue put on this art? DC editorial--since all this T&A apparently isn't doing much for your sales, what's the point of allowing this?
As my rage dissipates, the are some SPOILER QUESTIONS coming...so bail on the post if you haven't read JLA #22 yet. SPOILERS COMING...
...
...
...
Ok, #1--so the JLA Chairman has the power to unilaterally kick someone off the team? Really? Just askin'...
#2--Dwayne McD--I know you've been given crappy tie-in duties ever since taking over this mag (really, why did you leave the FF??). But I'm sorry, slack-cutting time is over. We're not even 2 years into this newest JLA incarnation, and we're already recycling stories. Red Tornado & Amazo...didn't we already do this story under Meltzer, less than 2 years ago?? What's the point of redoing it? Have you no fresher ideas?? We've seen the Secret Society of Injustice Gang twice, that damned Vixen's powers story has been going on frankly forever. C'mon, dude...this is the frakking JUSTICE LEAGUE. If we've already run out of story ideas before 2 years is up, well, maybe it's time to give the mag a rest. At this pace, you're making Bendis' Avengers mag seem like zippy serials...
Dammit, I hate hating comics I'm supposed to like...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)