New Fantastic Four #1 4 4

[Mercury Man]

4 hours ago, Not A Clone said:

I know most people here don't actually read comics

That is 1/2 the problem with collecting today.  People just want a fancy limited cover, thinking they got some marketable, rare, inflated  pc., that is just as good as owning a high grade Silver Age classic.   The stuff in the middle is where it's at.  

[Juswuh]

9 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It does! That has a nice classic look to it!

 

Probably because it's a swipe from Kirby. See the splash page to FF #83.

[Fan Boy]

I haven’t been to my LCS for awhile, but if the new FF #1 is now up in the shelves, I ain’t buying. When you said $5.99 ... is that meant as in U.S. price? I would image it would be something like $6.99 or higher if in Canadian funds - yowza! Ouch. 

I’m guessing it is what, volume #5 now? After Marvel had closed the first volume, relaunched vol. 2, then vol. 3 ... I lost count since I stopped buying marvel many years ago since. 

The artwork isn’t too bad and more geared for today’s generation. Just that it felt a bit too much Hollywood-type, not really my type. I’ll wait when they wrap up into a TPB and available in library, I will borrow and read the stories to get the sense. At $5.99? No thanks. 

[Artboy99]

11 hours ago, jools&jim said:

The difference between this modern, homogeneous post-animé rubbish and Kirby and Ditko's work is that Kirby and Ditko were, among many other things, highly individual stylists...idiosyncratic visionaries who had something to say artistically.

Most contemporary mainstream hero stuff looks the same to me, and is boring as hell -- I can't tell one artist from another.  It's almost as if the publishers are afraid of giving a book to someone who might have a unique point of view.

It may be "modern" and pass muster with the teenie-bopper crowd, but that sure as hell doesn't make it any good.

And so we get what we get...insipidity disguised as "the latest thing".  But I guess people are buying this cr@p, so who cares what I think...

I have to agree with this perspective. While the art is well done technically, it does not differentiate itself from many other artists.

The piece below is done in watercolor (and some other stuff ) and watercolor is a medium that is difficult to control. I admire the technical skill of this artist, but that said the image itself isn't all that exciting as the figures are rather boring.

My favorite part of the rendering is the background/ top part.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, Not A Clone said:

It's Alex Ross. He only paints covers.

So, it's Ross swiping Kirby, eh...?

No wonder there aren't the obvious Ross markers, except perhaps in Johnny's face.

Looks like Ross phoned this one in.

[stock_rotation]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:59 PM, Chiefs1313 said:

I’m amazed at the art in most marvel books, either it’s drawn really poorly and/or drawn like anime. 

I don't like the art in most modern books, and I've convinced myself that it's the lack of inking that does it.

Inking nowadays is basically outlining, and letting the colorist do the heavy lifting. One of these characters has a skin condition, and the other is made of rocks.

[ADAMANTIUM]

11 minutes ago, stock_rotation said:

I don't like the art in most modern books, and I've convinced myself that it's the lack of inking that does it.

Inking nowadays is basically outlining, and letting the colorist do the heavy lifting. One of these characters has a skin condition, and the other is made of rocks.

I like this theory  

[Krydel4]

3 hours ago, Juswuh said:

Probably because it's a swipe from Kirby. See the splash page to FF #83.

That's the idea with the FF1 covers. Some of them pay homage to different eras. That's why they had like 30 of them.

[Mmehdy]

I have mixed feeling on this one, As a collector who bought FF1 off the newsstands and number of early issues, I can tell you there was NOTHING like up to that point, kids were trading 5-1 to get a FF issue. I dont think that can be duplicated nor should it be compared with. 1960-63 was a very uniquie and usual time in our society and I would say very upbeat..our attitude was that "Science" would overcome man's inhumanity to man. its something most believed and you had to be there to understand it.

 

 Folks,this is 2018 and I appluad Marvel for trying something, no harm no foul as far as I am concered. But let's face it,  FF 1-102 is a very tough act to follow, just like Spiderman 1-38....

 

 Given that, I suppose as a failed attempt it is not as bad as it seems. 

 

so you have to ask yourself..something or nothing....I pefer something and lets give this thing a chance........and then dump on it

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mmehdy

[VintageComics]

6 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I have to agree with this perspective. While the art is well done technically, it does not differentiate itself from many other artists.

The piece below is done in watercolor (and some other stuff ) and watercolor is a medium that is difficult to control. I admire the technical skill of this artist, but that said the image itself isn't all that exciting as the figures are rather boring.

My favorite part of the rendering is the background/ top part.

I don't know. I kind of like the mood this picture emits and in particular I like the top of the picture as well.

What I don't like is that every cover is now a poster rather than telling a story.

There are so many 'awesome pose covers' I need to see.

I have no interested in reading the story when I see covers like this.

Edited August 20, 2018 by VintageComics

[bc]

6 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I have to agree with this perspective. While the art is well done technically, it does not differentiate itself from many other artists.

The piece below is done in watercolor (and some other stuff ) and watercolor is a medium that is difficult to control. I admire the technical skill of this artist, but that said the image itself isn't all that exciting as the figures are rather boring.

My favorite part of the rendering is the background/ top part.

What is HERBIE doing with She-Hulk ?????

[revat]

a lot of people dump on the art of modern comics, but I think one of the reasons some of the more 'popular' (and in theory 'better') artists aren't doing the art for comics is that they make MUCH more money doing an endless amount of variant and regular covers, aside from commissions, and appearances, etc.  See Gabe Del'otto, JS Campbell for examples

Or that some of the artists who ARE popular AND do good work like David Finch draw in way too much detail to do more than one book.  Or in some cases they save their best work for non-marvel/DC properties which they might actually own.

[ComicConnoisseur]

3 hours ago, stock_rotation said:

I don't like the art in most modern books, and I've convinced myself that it's the lack of inking that does it.

Inking nowadays is basically outlining, and letting the colorist do the heavy lifting. One of these characters has a skin condition, and the other is made of rocks.

The Byrne Thing looks more interesting.

The new Thing doesn't have the same character look as the old Byrne Thing.

The new Thing looks too nice.

The old Byrne Thing had that monster feeling going on were people feared him.

For the Fantastic Four to work again the Thing must be the star of the group.

The other three to me were all bystanders and the Thing was the reason why I read the comic book.

[Not A Clone]

18 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I don't know. I kind of like the mood this picture emits and in particular I like the top of the picture as well.

What I don't like is that every cover is now a poster rather than telling a story.

There are so many 'awesome pose covers' I need to see.

I have no interested in reading the story when I see covers like this.

Yep, I was looking at new releases & I'd guess only 1 out of 4 covers were acceptable. How many times can Darth Vader be standing alone with his light saber out like he's checking to make sure the batteries are still good on it. 

[ComicConnoisseur]

7 minutes ago, revat said:

a lot of people dump on the art of modern comics, but I think one of the reasons some of the more 'popular' (and in theory 'better') artists aren't doing the art for comics is that they make MUCH more money doing an endless amount of variant and regular covers, aside from commissions, and appearances, etc.  See Gabe Del'otto, JS Campbell for examples

Or that some of the artists who ARE popular AND do good work like David Finch draw in way too much detail to do more than one book.  Or in some cases they save their best work for non-marvel/DC properties which they might actually own.

Plus all the top artists can make more money doing video game art and animation now.

They really don't pay most of these these artists much compared to the 1980s and early 1990s artists like Bryrne, and McFarlane.

I heard Byrne was clearing a million a year during his prime years drawing for Marvel.

 

[Not A Clone]

14 minutes ago, revat said:

a lot of people dump on the art of modern comics, but I think one of the reasons some of the more 'popular' (and in theory 'better') artists aren't doing the art for comics is that they make MUCH more money doing an endless amount of variant and regular covers, aside from commissions, and appearances, etc.  See Gabe Del'otto, JS Campbell for examples

Or that some of the artists who ARE popular AND do good work like David Finch draw in way too much detail to do more than one book.  Or in some cases they save their best work for non-marvel/DC properties which they might actually own.

I don't think anyone does more than 1 book a month anymore & they often struggle to get that finished on time. It makes you wonder how Kirby was able to do so many books every month & even write some during those early Marvel days.

[revat]

10 minutes ago, revat said:

a lot of people dump on the art of modern comics, but I think one of the reasons some of the more 'popular' (and in theory 'better') artists aren't doing the art for comics is that they make MUCH more money doing an endless amount of variant and regular covers, aside from commissions, and appearances, etc.  See Gabe Del'otto, JS Campbell for examples

Or that some of the artists who ARE popular AND do good work like David Finch draw in way too much detail to do more than one book.  Or in some cases they save their best work for non-marvel/DC properties which they might actually own.

another thing I would add is that for MOST of the characters that we love, they've been around for 30-40+ years and drawn by dozens if not hundreds of people.  Its hard to do something that captures the spirit of the character, matches the tone of the story, is distinctive to the artist, can satisfy old and new fans (which may span in age range from 15-65), but still shows respect to those who came before, AND is ACTUALLY GOOD ART.  AND to do it consistently, timely, and in a professional way.  I get that a LOT of GREAT (and so far undiscovered) artists would KILL for the opportunity, but that doesn't actually make it any easier to accomplish the goal.

With that being said, the new FF art doesn't look great, though I have seen worse FF art.  But really FF hasn't strongly connected with fans consistently in a LONG LONG time, so I don't know if its WORSE than it was.

[Not A Clone]

5 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Plus all the top artists can make more money doing video game art and animation now.

They really don't pay most of these these artists much compared to the 1980s and early 1990s artists like Bryrne, and McFarlane.

I heard Byrne was clearing a million a year during his prime years drawing for Marvel.

 

That doesn't sound right. Besides ownership, I thought that $$$ was a big reason everyone left to start Image. I do know that Marvel & DC both give a royalty ownership on new creations now, which never used to happen. I think the "average" per penciled page is between $1k-$2k now. If they ink themselves they get more. I think that might be where the slowdown is. Not enough good inkers. Like someone else mentioned above, those inks on the Thing look blah. I can name plenty of modern artists that I like, but can't think of a great inker off the top of my head.

[revat]

2 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

17 minutes ago, revat said:

a lot of people dump on the art of modern comics, but I think one of the reasons some of the more 'popular' (and in theory 'better') artists aren't doing the art for comics is that they make MUCH more money doing an endless amount of variant and regular covers, aside from commissions, and appearances, etc.  See Gabe Del'otto, JS Campbell for examples

Or that some of the artists who ARE popular AND do good work like David Finch draw in way too much detail to do more than one book.  Or in some cases they save their best work for non-marvel/DC properties which they might actually own.

I don't think anyone does more than 1 book a month anymore & they often struggle to get that finished on time. It makes you wonder how Kirby was able to do so many books every month & even write some during those early Marvel days.

they were doing it up til the 90's I think.  I feel like Ron Lim might have had like three ongoing titles concurrently.

[revat]

Just now, Not A Clone said:

That doesn't sound right. Besides ownership, I thought that $$$ was a big reason everyone left to start Image. I do know that Marvel & DC both give a royalty ownership on new creations now, which never used to happen. I think the "average" per penciled page is between $1k-$2k now. If they ink themselves they get more. I think that might be where the slowdown is. Not enough good inkers. Like someone else mentioned above, those inks on the Thing look blah. I can name plenty of modern artists that I like, but can't think of a great inker off the top of my head.

Jim Lee's dude, Scott Williams is VERY GOOD, and a boardie! 

Also good - Mick Gray.

But a lot of the good inkers 'evolve' to be artists, but don't rise to the quality or popularity as artists that they had as inkers, though they do get paid more.  That also leads to a shortage of inkers.  I wonder what the pay gap is....I'm guessing no one would blame inkers for wanting to get paid like artists.