Why is almost everyone in love with George Perez's art?

[Scrubz]

Okay this has been bugging me since I started reading vast quantities of DC comics over the past year. I know that Perez represents to many fans a great era of comic book art in the 80's via New Teen Titans and Crisis On Infinite Earths. I respect that. I throughly enjoyed COIE myself. But his art compared to modern artists at the top of their game seriously falls short. Granted I didn't read DC during the 80's, but his stuff just plain lacks to today's standards. I get nostalgic about stuff I enjoy from my childhood too, but when things get more detailed and cooler designed I want the new guys to draw my comics. What is it about his art that makes people go ga-ga? the guys on my favorite artist list blow him out of the water in my opinion.

[Spike-X]

It's very, very good.

[Mike Smash!]

I agree. His art is excellent.

[Scrubz]

See my biggest complaint is that it looks like its in a time warp. Shouldn't DC focus on the future? I think that if a new comics reader picks up say a copy of the Brave and the Bold and compares that to Pacheco on Superman or Reis on GL, they will think B&B is a reprinted story from the 70's or 80's.

[4thHorseman]

I understand where you're coming from. A lot of times, his art seems too cartoony for me. And for big action scenes where it seems violent, his art just doesn't make scene that...well....violent. It's nice and sharp, very fun to look at, but his art doesn't work in certain circumstances IMO

[Mike Smash!]

See my biggest complaint is that it looks like its in a time warp. Shouldn't DC focus on the future? I think that if a new comics reader picks up say a copy of the Brave and the Bold and compares that to Pacheco on Superman or Reis on GL, they will think B&B is a reprinted story from the 70's or 80's.It's a more classic style, sure, but it's really good.

[Shellhead]

Maybe this is Frank Miller's fault. Before he came along, fans were pretty happy with artists who drew detailed and colorful pictures featuring characters with recognizably human anatomy and classic superhero action. Thanks to Frank, fans today expect sloppy interpretations of the human form, wearing dark clothes and trenchcoats, and covered with odd lines and cross-hatching, spattered with bright red blood.

[BeastieRunner]

Maybe this is Frank Miller's fault. Before he came along, fans were pretty happy with artists who drew detailed and colorful pictures featuring characters with recognizably human anatomy and classic superhero action. Thanks to Frank, fans today expect sloppy interpretations of the human form, wearing dark clothes and trenchcoats, and covered with odd lines and cross-hatching, spattered with bright red blood.

*DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner, give that guy a cupie doll!

[mswood]

While George's figures are basically in say the style of older DC (though done in far, far reater detail and body and facial forms. His backgrounds are some of thbest in main stream comics without questions. If he draws Boston it looks like an arial shot of boston. If he draws a forest you can see the textures and shapes of the leaves. If he draws a neighborhood, you see the phone lines, the mailboxes the fences, the correct styles of homes. Really as for as deatil the three main areas he still needs work is firearms, cars and to some degree clothing (though if its period he is one of the best on clothing).

His work is typical antaomically correct, he features a wide range of camera point of views.

Most artist today fail at anatomy, and show pin ups and "flashy drawing" that are weak on story telling. He also is a stickler for using references for his work. So WW (see latest cover preview) isn't the same WW that he revamped, but reflects the costume, age, and hairstyle that is appropriate for the character.

[mswood]

ANd if you want to see a more graphic (ie violence) or sexual themes. George does draw that (see his work in Crimson Plague or the first two issues of Sachs and Violens) for some good examples of that, yet still keep all his trademarks in details, realistic backgrounds, large varied body and face specific characters (especially Crimson plague where every character (even the very minor ones) are based on real people.

But for main stream comics, George respects the style and doesn't pander.

Now that doesn't mean a darker style isn't appropriate for some typical styles. They can be perfect fits with the more urban crime fighting, or more saveage titles. But for hte main stream titles like Avengers, Tean Titans, WW, Superman, JLA, Legion, ect those styles generally are less successful.

[RichStanz]

Maybe this is Frank Miller's fault. Before he came along, fans were pretty happy with artists who drew detailed and colorful pictures featuring characters with recognizably human anatomy and classic superhero action. Thanks to Frank, fans today expect sloppy interpretations of the human form, wearing dark clothes and trenchcoats, and covered with odd lines and cross-hatching, spattered with bright red blood.

Um, its not all Frank Miller's fault - art doesn't need to be one thing. It can be realistic or exaggerated. I think his art works for DKR and Sin City.

Don't blame Miller, blame all the knock-off artists that ripped off his exaggerated style. Blame the editors that told people to draw "more like Frank."

Getting back to the topic at hand, Perez's style is... um... I wouldn't call it retro.

Retro to me is Darwyn Cooke or Mike Allred or Tom Sciolli - guys who love the four color palette, the square jawed men, the gadget and gear designed tech - but still posses a modern flare for composition and layout.

I don't mind Perez' art per se, but his layout/composition work feels stale to me, lately. I know he loves "full scenes" with lots of characters and action, but recently its felt very cluttered and flat. The last work of his that I feel was really strong was Avengers/JLA.

But I haven't been feeling his work in B & B.

[jerrymcl89]

It seems to me that Perez is better than just about anyone working today at drawing in the older style, with far more panels per page, which allows for denser storytelling. A lot of the Jim Lee-style artists seem used to only drawing a couple of panels per page, if that. Sure, their art is more elaborate, but you certainly give something up in terms of story content per page.

[Scrubz]

The Frank Miller angle/blame game is an interesting point. I really like retro artists like Darwyn Cooke, Tim Sale, Matt Wagner, and Eric Wight because they honor the past styles while using modern techniques. Maybe what Perez really needs is a "new age" inker and colorist. I for one was really disappointed to see Tony Daniels typically cool art look bad by Art Thibert's inks during his 3 issue Flash run.

[marshal99]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Who to you is a modern day artist ? Michael Turner ? Paco Medina ? Billy Tan ?

[rick]

Personally I think that what Perez needs to do is to keep on drawing exactly the same way he has for the last 30 years.

His layout is exceptional, his anatomy is great, his backgrounds are amazing and most importantly, his sales are still huge.

I don’t want to knock modern artists or modern sensibilities, but if clean, excellent art is old fashioned and out of style, then we need more nostalgia.

[Scrubz]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Who to you is a modern day artist ? Michael Turner ? Paco Medina ? Billy Tan ?

It isn't necessarily age of the artist or time in the field that I question. Sure Michael Turner is "good" to us newer readers and scorned by older readers, but it is eye catching. Perez doesn't have eye-catching pencils in my opinion. Turner does draw women rather oddly I must say. What's up with those straight down waists? And sure I might not "know what I'm talking about," but I'm just always surprised in a day and age when real high end artists exist that "old school" artists are so revered. I don't make fun of Perez's talents just find them kinda outclassed by newer more dynamic artists.

[Scrubz]

Personally I think that what Perez needs to do is to keep on drawing exactly the same way he has for the last 30 years.

His layout is exceptional, his anatomy is great, his backgrounds are amazing and most importantly, his sales are still huge.

I don’t want to knock modern artists or modern sensibilities, but if clean, excellent art is old fashioned and out of style, then we need more nostalgia.

Fair enough.

[marshal99]

It isn't necessarily age of the artist or time in the field that I question. Sure Michael Turner is "good" to us newer readers and scorned by older readers, but it is eye catching. Perez doesn't have eye-catching pencils in my opinion. Turner does draw women rather oddly I must say. What's up with those straight down waists? And sure I might not "know what I'm talking about," but I'm just always surprised in a day and age when real high end artists exist that "old school" artists are so revered. I don't make fun of Perez's talents just find them kinda outclassed by newer more dynamic artists.

Nope , i don't find him outclassed in the least bit , if anything , artist like Michael Turner is the most overrated artist around , go back to the 90s and you'll find that he's very much a clone of the 90s image art and it was indeed from image that he emerged from. Michael Turner would never be able to produce the kind of work that Perez is capable of.
I'm sure you have your own preference , which is where freedom of choice comes from , i only wished that so-called "newer more dynamic" artist can draw as well as Perez but alas , a lot of them are crap. I guess it's the product of the ages , if you eat shit all the time , you will probably find that you acquire a taste for shit.

[jv2k]

My only issue with his art is how it is colored and how he still uses those black shading points even though comics use more than 6 colors now. He also seems to only draw people with 70s hair styles. It is pretty clear though that George Perez uses the old DC style and I have somewhat mixed feelings when it comes to the old DC style.

On one hand I like how characters look the same in every book, I mean I remember when reading through the entire Wally West run in flash and suddenly the artists started rotating and we got square jawed muscular Wally. It was ugly compared to the more detailed drawings that came before. One day classic Wally disapeared all together which is weird because after reading over a 100 comics where his face looked the same it was like a whole cast of actors being replaced in a tv show. I mean I actually remember reading one issue and saying to myself "Who is she... Wait thats linda!?" Some of the art that came after the shift away from the standard art was terrible in all of DC favoring dark shadows, boobs, style, and even more boobs over choregrophy, deatails, or anotomy.

On the otherhand there were quite a few books that didn't look as good as they could have in that style. When a book looks bad now it can be a style choice or bad choreography, but when a book looked bad back then it stuck out. When it the style did phaze out a lot of the stuff that came after was fantastic. While I prefered the old style on Flash I notice that whenever I reread last JSA series I find myself almost feeling anxious to get to the new age art. It all depends on the books and the artists doing them.

In short I like the classic DC style more than quite a few different artists and since George Perez is one of the best when it comes to the old style I enjoy reading books that are illustrated by him. I find it kind of funny how his style is essentially the old DC standard and that it is the most noticable thing that makes his art stand out today.

[marshal99]

I don't find that Perez draws 70s hair and the black shading on faces are pretty much his trademark. That has always been the classic Perez look and it add distinction to his art. I believe he started using them in the early 80s.

[converge241]

I am a sucker for old Perez (and Byrne) artwork but the recent work hasnt kept me as enthralled (ditto for Byrne)

[CBikle]

Nah. I disagree.

Perez's art has its quirks (characters with that Greg Brady afro ?), but overall its great.

Perez's style is simultaneously clean and very kinetic and he's the best at big super-powered crowd scenes.

[Phoney Bone]

1. Perez is an example of art in its purest form. He is entirely self-taught.

2. He once described himself as, "... a cartoonist. I draw super-heroes." While he does use a hyper-detailed style, when you look at his work you just know it's a super-hero comic. Frankly, I think the super-hero genre needs to get back to that instead of trying to go to extreme stylization; photo-realism; heavy, dark lines; and over-rendered computer coloring. All of that works brilliantly in Horror, Western, War, Crime, Fantasy, etc.,... not so much with super-heroes.

3. He knows how to tell a story. I can pick up almost any Perez-drawn comic and get the gist of the story without reading a single word balloon. That is what separates a good comic book artist from a great comic book illustrator. The ability to tell a story is a dying art in comic book illustration.

4. I like the way he draws shiny armor! Along with Bob Layton, he pretty much re-invented the way armor is drawn in comic books.

[zuludelta]

George Perez isn't flashy (in fact, I find his work to be sometimes generic-looking and unexciting) but what he brings is consistency in his figures, solid storytelling chops, and a great work ethic, and those things still count for something in the industry, and if I were an editor, I'd take an artist with those three qualities 9 times out of 10 over some of the big name artists currently in vogue.

He's a solid, meat-and-potatoes kind of artist, but yeah, he doesn't really rank that high with me compared to some of his peers from the late 1970s and early 1980s who could be consistent, tell a solid panel-to-panel story, hand stuff in on time, and STILL put in detail that just leaps out at the reader (guys like Nestor Redondo (http://alanguilan.com/museum/redondo11.jpg), John Buscema (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~owenandsusan/bar.JPG), Alex Niño (http://www.media-blastoff.net/alex_nino.htm), etc.)

[marshal99]

George Perez isn't flashy (in fact, I find his work to be sometimes generic-looking and unexciting) but what he brings is consistency in his figures, solid storytelling chops, and a great work ethic, and those things still count for something in the industry, and if I were an editor, I'd take an artist with those three qualities 9 times out of 10 over some of the big name artists currently in vogue.

He's a solid, meat-and-potatoes kind of artist, but yeah, he doesn't really rank that high with me compared to some of his peers from the late 1970s and early 1980s who could be consistent, tell a solid panel-to-panel story, hand stuff in on time, and STILL put in detail that just leaps out at the reader (guys like Nestor Redondo (http://alanguilan.com/museum/redondo11.jpg), John Buscema (http://pages.ca.inter.net/~owenandsusan/bar.JPG), Alex Niño (http://www.media-blastoff.net/alex_nino.htm), etc.)

Besides John Buscema , i have absolutely no idea who the heck are Nestor Redondo or Alex Nino , who are they ?!! They are not exactly household names.

[LordEd1976]

I've always been drawn to how George does massive superhero crowd scenes. I will never cease to be awed by the two-page spread in COIE #5 showing all the people on the Monitor's satellite or the cover to JLA/Avengers #3.

[rick]

Besides John Buscema , i have absolutely no idea who the heck are Nestor Redondo or Alex Nino , who are they ?!! They are not exactly household names.


They are if you were around in the 1970's.

[marshal99]

They are if you were around in the 1970's.

Perhaps but not the mainstream DC or Marvel , maybe pulp/magazines ? Perez started in the 70s but i think he only truly make his mark in the 80s. Back in the late 70s when he drew avengers , his art was still being refined and you can clearly see the difference in his early and later works.

[Buried Alien]

Personally I think that what Perez needs to do is to keep on drawing exactly the same way he has for the last 30 years.

His layout is exceptional, his anatomy is great, his backgrounds are amazing and most importantly, his sales are still huge.

I don’t want to knock modern artists or modern sensibilities, but if clean, excellent art is old fashioned and out of style, then we need more nostalgia.

Let me register my agreement by just endorsing what rick just said.

Besides, it's fairly ridiculous and futile to say, "Oh, well that's 1980s art and it was good then, but it sucks now." The idea that "old = no good" rests on a foundation of bovine manure.

We might as well chuck Beethoven and the Beatles since they're old too.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[rick]

Perhaps but not the mainstream DC or Marvel , maybe pulp/magazines ? Perez started in the 70s but i think he only truly make his mark in the 80s. Back in the late 70s when he drew avengers , his art was still being refined and you can clearly see the difference in his early and later works.


Actually both men did tons of work for both DC and Marvel, plus lots for Warren too.

[KAL-EL122881]

Personally I think that what Perez needs to do is to keep on drawing exactly the same way he has for the last 30 years.

His layout is exceptional, his anatomy is great, his backgrounds are amazing and most importantly, his sales are still huge.

I don’t want to knock modern artists or modern sensibilities, but if clean, excellent art is old fashioned and out of style, then we need more nostalgia.

I Second That.

[rick]

I Second That.

Thanks.

Good taste is always nice to see.

And by the way, welcome to the boards.

[MaxofSteel]

Let me register my agreement by just endorsing what rick just said.

Besides, it's fairly ridiculous and futile to say, "Oh, well that's 1980s art and it was good then, but it sucks now." The idea that "old = no good" rests on a foundation of bovine manure.

We might as well chuck Beethoven and the Beatles since they're old too.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Though I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, I just can't seem to help but be turned off by older style art. It's just not my thing.

I have a great appreciation for Perez's work. It's outstanding. It really is. But it's simply too dated for me. Perhaps its the coloring? The inking? I can't say for sure.

All I can say is that comic art today has never looked as refreshing as it does now (even taking into account various occasional issues of anatomy/visual flow). That's my perspective anyhow.

[Paul Newell]

Perhaps but not the mainstream DC or Marvel , maybe pulp/magazines ? Perez started in the 70s but i think he only truly make his mark in the 80s. Back in the late 70s when he drew avengers , his art was still being refined and you can clearly see the difference in his early and later works.
Alex Nino had his work appear in an issue of Action Comics, Adventure Comics, a Batman Annual, DC Special Series, Forbidden Tales, Fury of Firestorm, an issue of JLA, Omega Men, Rima the Jungle Girl, Tarzan, Thriller, and most notably House of Mystery, House of Secrets, Weird Mystery Tales, Weird War Tales and many other horror titles for DC. Also Marvel Classic Comics, Marvel Premiere, Marvel Treasury Edition, Power Man, Savage Sword of Conan and Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction.

Nestor Redondo most notably worked on House of Mystery, House of Secrets, many of the same horror titles as Nino, Limited Collectors Edition, Lois Lane, The Phantom Stranger, Rima the Jungle Girl and Swamp Thing
For Marvel he worked on the Conan Saga & Savage Sword, the Official Handbooks and Red Sonja.

[Phoney Bone]

Thanks.

Good taste is always nice to see.

And by the way, welcome to the boards.

Of course he's got good taste. He's from Mississippi!

And I second the welcome to boards.

[marshal99]

Alex Nino had his work appear in an issue of Action Comics, Adventure Comics, a Batman Annual, DC Special Series, Forbidden Tales, Fury of Firestorm, an issue of JLA, Omega Men, Rima the Jungle Girl, Tarzan, Thriller, and most notably House of Mystery, House of Secrets, Weird Mystery Tales, Weird War Tales and many other horror titles for DC. Also Marvel Classic Comics, Marvel Premiere, Marvel Treasury Edition, Power Man, Savage Sword of Conan and Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction.

Nestor Redondo most notably worked on House of Mystery, House of Secrets, many of the same horror titles as Nino, Limited Collectors Edition, Lois Lane, The Phantom Stranger, Rima the Jungle Girl and Swamp Thing
For Marvel he worked on the Conan Saga & Savage Sword, the Official Handbooks and Red Sonja.

Maybe it's just me then since i only really started comics in the early 80s (had a few from the 70s) , so perhaps they didn't catch my attention. :)

[Raker616]

Perez art puts 95% of comic book artist to shame, just looking at the beauty that is B&B should shut down any of his detractors.

[DaeJi]

In my opinion Perez's art works really well for more traditional superhero books; it's very clean with a good, traditional layout. His art doesn't work for everything (he'll be out of place on, say, Jonah Hex for instance), and it can sometimes look dated. Still, he's his own style, blessfully uninfected by the surge in manga style art, and is still one of the top storytellers working in comics.

[Punch]

Maybe this is Frank Miller's fault. Before he came along, fans were pretty happy with artists who drew detailed and colorful pictures featuring characters with recognizably human anatomy and classic superhero action. Thanks to Frank, fans today expect sloppy interpretations of the human form, wearing dark clothes and trenchcoats, and covered with odd lines and cross-hatching, spattered with bright red blood.

yeah sure if you've only looked at one Frank Miller book ever...

[zuludelta]

Maybe it's just me then since i only really started comics in the early 80s (had a few from the 70s) , so perhaps they didn't catch my attention. :)

Nah, it's not just you. I think the hyper-detailed stylings of the 1970s Filipino comic book artists (like the aforementioned Redondo and Niño, along with Alfredo Alcala (http://www.alanguilan.com/museum/alfredo8.html), frequent George Perez inker Romeo Tanghal (http://lambiek.net/artists/t/tanghal_romeo.htm) and Jonah Hex co-creator Tony DeZuñiga (http://www.sequart.com/members/graphics/57/hex2sm.png)) are sorely under-appreciated to this day.

Here's a an amusing excerpt from an article written by Mark Evanier after the death of Alcala in 2000, who worked with DC as an inker and penciler for almost three decades:

Alcala's transition to drawing for the American market began in the early seventies when an intermediary arranged for a group of artists in the Philippines to sell work to DC Comics. Alfredo often told the tale of going to a hotel in Manila to show his samples to Joe Orlando, one of DC's senior editors.

Orlando was naturally impressed with the quality of the work he was shown. He told Alfredo that DC would hire him and asked how many pages per week he could produce.

"Forty," said Alfredo.

The editor was startled. The least exhaustible DC artist would be hard-pressed to pencil and ink ten pages in a week. Then he realized that Alfredo probably assumed he would only pencil or only ink. "No, no," Orlando said. "We want you to do all the art...pencil, ink, even lettering."

"I see," Alfredo muttered. "I pencil, I ink, I letter?"

"Yes," Orlando nodded. "Now, how many pages per week do you think you can do?"

"Forty," said Alfredo.

Again, the editor was startled. Obviously, there was some sort of misunderstanding here. He figured that the artist before him was thinking in terms of very simple pages with only two or three panels on each and no detail. Fortunately, Orlando had brought along with him, several dozen pages of original art from past DC books. He showed Alfredo pages by Neal Adams, Joe Kubert, Curt Swan and others.

"We want work like this...these many panels per page, and this detailed," Orlando explained.

"Oh," Alfredo nodded. "You want me to pencil, ink and letter pages like this?"

"Yes."

"Well," Alfredo explained. "That changes things."

"I would think so," Orlando sniffed. "Now then...how many pages a week do you think you can do?"

"Eighty," said Alfredo.

Skeptical and disbelieving, Orlando put Alfredo down for 40 pages per week. Soon after, when Alcala pages began arriving at DC at that rate, it was assumed by some that "Alfredo P. Alcala" was the joint moniker of perhaps a half-dozen hands. Not so — as anyone who later saw Alfredo sketching at a convention can attest.

[ACertainMrDoe]

Though I think Perez to be one of the cornerstones of Superhero comics, I can understand that someone simply doesn't like the drawings, though they may technically be very well done.

Art is always in the eye of the beholder. That's part of the beauty of it.

My example is always Alex Ross: The man does really near-perfect pictures, they are, from a technical viewpoint, impeccable. Still, I miss the emotion, the warmth of human beings in his works, they feel cold like steel. Hence, I can admit that his work is good but still not like it.

And, I understand that someone may think that Perez' art looks "outdated", but this is, too, a personal view rather than a comment on the quality. Still it is a valid point - taking Buried Alien's example: A lot of today's youth actually doesn't like the Beatles.

One main problem is probably that the 70s and 80s saw a lot of people who drew in a similar style (Byrne, Cockrum, Simonson, to name just 3), and this style was then copied by less exceptionally talented artists, so the whole comic scene was flooded with similar looking comics. Today you have a much wider range of styles to choose from, and, as it is, people tend to go for flashy images instead of qualitative, well-composed ones - again, that's not bad in itself, that happens with everything in life.

My point: Don't let people tell you that you're an ignorant moron because you don't like this or that artist or author. It's YOUR feeling that counts, not that of other people claiming to know better than you. The only thing you should be careful is not to refute the quality of the work in itself.

[ACertainMrDoe]

Though I think Perez to be one of the cornerstones of Superhero comics, I can understand that someone simply doesn't like the drawings, though they may technically be very well done.

Art is always in the eye of the beholder. That's part of the beauty of it.

My example is always Alex Ross: The man does really near-perfect pictures, they are, from a technical viewpoint, impeccable. Still, I miss the emotion, the warmth of human beings in his works, they feel cold like steel. Hence, I can admit that his work is good but still not like it.

And, I understand that someone may think that Perez' art looks "outdated", but this is, too, a personal view rather than a comment on the quality. Still it is a valid point - taking Buried Alien's example: A lot of today's youth actually doesn't like the Beatles.

One main problem is probably that the 70s and 80s saw a lot of people who drew in a similar style (Byrne, Cockrum, Simonson, to name just 3), and this style was then copied by less exceptionally talented artists, so the whole comic scene was flooded with similar looking comics. Today you have a much wider range of styles to choose from, and, as it is, people tend to go for flashy images instead of qualitative, well-composed ones - again, that's not bad in itself, that happens with everything in life.

My point: Don't let people tell you that you're an ignorant moron because you don't like this or that artist or author. It's YOUR feeling that counts, not that of other people claiming to know better than you. The only thing you should be careful is not to refute the quality of the work in itself.

[Charybdis4]

Perez will always be my all time favourite comic artist. His art pulled me in to start reading comics & he's always been consistently good.

He was also one of the first artists to really give characters different facial styles. Just look at the Teen Titains; Wonder Girl, Starfire, Terra & Raven, all had unique looking facial features, whereas before that, a lot of comic characters were basically interchangeable if you changed their hairstyles.

Just read the Teen Titans "death of Trigon" mini. That has some of the most beautiful artwork ever seen in a comic.

Still, everyone's tastes differ & I can understand the comments which say that he doesn't have an edgy style. But I still love it.

Now, just let Perez work with the PROPER Legion of Super Heroes & I will be very, very happy.....

[zuludelta]

My example is always Alex Ross: The man does really near-perfect pictures, they are, from a technical viewpoint, impeccable. Still, I miss the emotion, the warmth of human beings in his works, they feel cold like steel.

A big part of that "static" feeling you get from Ross' work stems from the way he composes his figures. They are almost always based on posed models, even when they're supposed to represent moving figures in transition (the perfect example of this is the Captain America spread on pages #2-3 in the second chapter of Marvels). Thus, you don't always get the lines and anatomical relations that should suggest actual movement (to see what I mean, try comparing a picture of a person who is posed to appear as if he is running but is actually just standing in place to a picture of a person who is actually running in mid-stride... there are subtle differences but when taken all together make a world of difference).

[Billy]

Personally I think that what Perez needs to do is to keep on drawing exactly the same way he has for the last 30 years.

His layout is exceptional, his anatomy is great, his backgrounds are amazing and most importantly, his sales are still huge.

I don’t want to knock modern artists or modern sensibilities, but if clean, excellent art is old fashioned and out of style, then we need more nostalgia.

Exactly.There is nothing more to say! Jack summed it up perfectly!

I hear this complaint about Alan Davis as well?

Scrubz, I can not comprehend how you start this thread, with Freddy Williams II listed as his one of his favourite artists. Seriously, I can't understand?

Granted I didn't read DC during the 80's, but his stuff just plain lacks to today's standards.

What Standards? Drawing every character the same, with a different mask on? Not being able to tell a story, lack of perspective, retreating to manga styles, while loosing the their own identity.

[big al]

I'm new around here but I've been buying comics for about 30 years. lately I've only been a "casual" buyer BUT if I see Perez has drawn something even if I'm not to familiar with it I'll pick it up. His work on JLA/Avengers was great IMO, he handled every character well and while he might not have been the definitive artist of a given character he still made them all look tremendous. His covers are always fantastic and while I don't think his work on brave and the bold is the best he's done you can't say it's bad by any stretch of the imagination. Anything he draws is golden IMO.

[jv2k]

I'd say the biggest issue with the old styles is how it is colored. Some of the art looks fantastic in Black and white and turns somewhat bland looking when colored in.

[Black Atom]

I think Perez is great. A quintessential superhero artist. If I had to say anything bad about him, it'd be that his costume designs, usually, are pretty bad.

I'm much more baffled as to why everyone loves JRjr. That guy blows.

[Scrubz]

Okay so I'm beginning to understand what is appealing about Perez's art for everyone. I would like to point out that I'm not attacking anyone, but it seems that some individuals are taking way to huge an offense at the thread. I just wanted to know why older readers liked Perez so much. I personally find it true that many modern artists do draw the same person over and over again but with a different costume on, but that is kinda the nature of comics: unrealistic expectations for how every human should look. I respect Perez, his art is well done and meticulous. But newer artists just engage me more. Me personally I would rather see closer body poses than giant spreads where everyone is tiny. I think it comes down to inking and coloring. Using Turner as an example, his stuff would not look that great if it were not for a good colorist.

[brundlefly]

But his art compared to modern artists at the top of their game seriously falls short. Granted I didn't read DC during the 80's, but his stuff just plain lacks to today's standards. I get nostalgic about stuff I enjoy from my childhood too, but when things get more detailed and cooler designed I want the new guys to draw my comics. What is it about his art that makes people go ga-ga? the guys on my favorite artist list blow him out of the water in my opinion.


Favorite Artists:....Ed McGuinness....

:confused: Ed McGuinness' Saturday Morning Cartoon artwork is in no way "more detailed and cooler" than Perez. And he hardly "blows him out of the water;" he's not even on the same level as Perez. Eh. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, since one could just as easily post a thread topic of "why do people enjoy Ed McGuinness' art?" which I assume would be as baffling a concept to you as "I don't see the appeal of Perez's art" is to myself and others.

[pendragon]

I love Perez's art.

As for the Miller arguement, I would look at some more like Bill Sienkiewicz.
His art in Moon Knight is incredible. Then his work after that, looks like a monkey drew it.
If feel the same way about Yu.
Superman Birthright has crisp clean lines, while New Avengers also looks a monkey drew it.

[Paul Dee]

:confused: Ed McGuinness' Saturday Morning Cartoon artwork is in no way "more detailed and cooler" than Perez. And he hardly "blows him out of the water;" he's not even on the same level as Perez. Eh. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, since one could just as easily post a thread topic of "why do people enjoy Ed McGuinness' art?" which I assume would be as baffling a concept to you as "I don't see the appeal of Perez's art" is to myself and others.


Definitely. Ed McGuinness baffles me as his art really looks like it's done for little children. I find it utterly hideous to look at. I was going to read the Emperor Joker trade just to see what it was like but saw that he'd pencilled some of it and I honestly couldn't look at it.

[Black Atom]

Stylistically, Ed McG might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he's a pretty great artist. I think he's also a lot more dynamic than Perez, without sacrificing story.

[Scrubz]

:confused: Ed McGuinness' Saturday Morning Cartoon artwork is in no way "more detailed and cooler" than Perez. And he hardly "blows him out of the water;" he's not even on the same level as Perez. Eh. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, since one could just as easily post a thread topic of "why do people enjoy Ed McGuinness' art?" which I assume would be as baffling a concept to you as "I don't see the appeal of Perez's art" is to myself and others.

Chill man.

[shyguy]

I can sort of understand the confusion in regard to Perez. Truth be told, I get tired of his work every so often. He has a number of really apparent visual quirks that tend to rub me the wrong way - his women all have 80's hair, his compositions can get a bit too precious for me (Wonder Woman's lasso will frame an image of her upper body with sparkles coming off of it that each frame an image of Donna Troy in various costumes flying around an image of Hippolyte whose staf turns into Diana's lasso, etc...), and I'm not always keen on the looks he gives certain characters (I thought he drew Hawkeye kind of weird during the Busiek years and in JLA/Avengers).

That said, Perez in an undisputed master when it comes to drawing superhero comics. Most "modern" artists would kill to be able to compose panels and pages like Perez does. The man is a visual storytelling genius, and easily one of the greatest living cartoonists. He realy can't be praised enough.

The reason that his work looks sort of dated is that superhero comics now are really more elaborate storyboards for films than anything. We're used to looking at comics now that look more like movies than how comics used to look. But Perez is still one of the greats, and one of - if not the - best superhero cartoonist working today.

[Scrubz]

Definitely. Ed McGuinness baffles me as his art really looks like it's done for little children. I find it utterly hideous to look at. I was going to read the Emperor Joker trade just to see what it was like but saw that he'd pencilled some of it and I honestly couldn't look at it.

Who is to say that Perez doesn't "draw for little children?"

[Erebus]

My example is always Alex Ross: The man does really near-perfect pictures, they are, from a technical viewpoint, impeccable. Still, I miss the emotion, the warmth of human beings in his works, they feel cold like steel. Hence, I can admit that his work is good but still not like it.


Plus the fact that his women always look like pre-op transsexuals.

[Scrubz]

I can sort of understand the confusion in regard to Perez. Truth be told, I get tired of his work every so often. He has a number of really apparent visual quirks that tend to rub me the wrong way - his women all have 80's hair, his compositions can get a bit too precious for me (Wonder Woman's lasso will frame an image of her upper body with sparkles coming off of it that each frame an image of Donna Troy in various costumes flying around an image of Hippolyte whose staf turns into Diana's lasso, etc...), and I'm not always keen on the looks he gives certain characters (I thought he drew Hawkeye kind of weird during the Busiek years and in JLA/Avengers).

That said, Perez in an undisputed master when it comes to drawing superhero comics. Most "modern" artists would kill to be able to compose panels and pages like Perez does. The man is a visual storytelling genius, and easily one of the greatest living cartoonists. He realy can't be praised enough.

The reason that his work looks sort of dated is that superhero comics now are really more elaborate storyboards for films than anything. We're used to looking at comics now that look more like movies than how comics used to look. But Perez is still one of the greats, and one of - if not the - best superhero cartoonist working today.

See that makes a lot of since. I enjoy more visually arresting storyboard style artwork, not specific "comic book art." This is a helpful post, not telling me how stupid I am for liking Williams II and McGuinness.

[Mikl C]

Perez is God! What really makes him one of the alltime best for me is that he makes each of his characters LOOK different. Like Captain America and Clint Barton wouldn't just be interchangable blondes, they'd each have their distinct facial features. And the sheer detail and scope of what he can draw is astounding.

[pendragon]

See that makes a lot of since. I enjoy more visually arresting storyboard style artwork, not specific "comic book art." This is a helpful post, not telling me how stupid I am for liking Williams II and McGuinness.

Why should you be told your stupid because of your preferences?

Perez is one of the great, but for really great fight sequences, I love Gil Kane.

[Scrubz]

Why should you be told your stupid because of your preferences?

Perez is one of the great, but for really great fight sequences, I love Gil Kane.

I was referencing other posters freaking out about who I liked, not making a statement that I myself was posting a something helpful.

[pendragon]

Why do people feel the need to jump down your throat, just because you like or dislike someone?

Personally not currently a fan of Miller, Yu, or Williams.

[Froggy]

Why do people feel the need to jump down your throat, just because you like or dislike someone?

Personally not currently a fan of Miller, Yu, or Williams.
seriously. I'm a big ed mcguiness fan, liked his sueprman run. Also like a lot of paco medina and ivan reis stuff

[pendragon]

I like McGuiness' work too.

Not a fan of the figures, but that's a different subject.

[brundlefly]

Chill man.

Who's yelling? :D Not like I used multiple exclamation points or all caps or anything.

not telling me how stupid I am for liking Williams II and McGuinness.

Dude, I didn't say that you were stupid. I just didn't see how one could objectively see McGuinness' art as "more detailed" or "cooler" than Perez. But, hey, art is subjective and not everyone sees things the same way and all that. And for the record, I like the rest of the artists on your list (Williams, Reis, Pacheco); McGuinness was just the "one of these things is not like the other" anomaly that stuck out to me.

[Scrubz]

Why do people feel the need to jump down your throat, just because you like or dislike someone?

Personally not currently a fan of Miller, Yu, or Williams.

Exactly. I started this thread because I was curious why people still liked Perez so much. Not to be overly critical of others liking him. I read comics as a kid in the late 80's and early 90's then stopped for a decade. Then when I got back in to comics last year was surprised to find artists with older penciling styles still around like Perez. Liking Perez is fine. Just thought as an industry evolved so do the tastes of readers.

Here's an example. I love the original Star Wars trilogy much better than the recent one because of its characters, story, etc. I grew up with the original. But say the original trilogy came out today never having come out then but looking exactly as it did in the late 70's and early 80's. It would probably be laughed at because of its set design and use of models instead of CGI.

An older comic book can certainly be better from than one released today. But for my money if that good story comes out today I would want 21st century packaging. That is my ultimate point. Perez just seems dated in my opinion. Its not about is he irrelevant or a bad artist.

[Scrubz]

Who's yelling? :D Not like I used multiple exclamation points or all caps or anything.



Dude, I didn't say that you were stupid. I just didn't see how one could objectively see McGuinness' art as "more detailed" or "cooler" than Perez. But, hey, art is subjective and not everyone sees things the same way and all that. And for the record, I like the rest of the artists on your list (Williams, Reis, Pacheco); McGuinness was just the "one of these things is not like the other" anomaly that stuck out to me.

Thats cool. Sometimes when not face to face with a person I can't tell how dramatic they are being. I knew going into this thread that Perez was a sacred comics icon.

[pendragon]

Thats cool. Sometimes when not face to face with a person I can't tell how dramatic they are being. I knew going into this thread that Perez was a sacred comics icon.

I think that's the problem with e-mail in general.
It's extremely easy to misunderstand what is being said.
Thus an agruement.

[shyguy]

I really like Ed McGuiness, too. But isn't the whole point of his work that it's not as detailed as someone like Perez', and looks a lot more cartoony?

[brundlefly]

Sometimes when not face to face with a person I can't tell how dramatic they are being.

I think that's the problem with e-mail in general.
It's extremely easy to misunderstand what is being said.

That's the problem with trying to convey sarcasm over the internet or through email, too; I problem that I encounter quite often.

[Froggy]

I really like Ed McGuiness, too. But isn't the whole point of his work that it's not as detailed as someone like Perez', and looks a lot more cartoony? thats what I thought. I also forgot to mention I like.....nvm

[spidervenom]

Because perezs art is good and if you dont like him whats wrong with you.

[kentonindy]

I think part of the reason why Perez's work is seen by some as "dated" is because he achieved a high level of detail and quality very early on and therefore didn't have the room to improve that many other artists have. There's no learning curve to speak of.

A page he drew this year isn't stylistically different from a page he drew 20 years ago. The most likely ways to date a particular page of his artwork is to know when he was on the book in question or to gleen the time frame from which characters are present and/or their costume particulars.

Heck, even his one main weakness, that of costume design, has been uniformly present in his work for 25 years. Not all of his designs are horrible -- Cyborg, Starfire, Raven, and Terra were all knockouts -- but the complexity and level of detail leaves himself as the only artist who can draw them consistently and effectively. To this day other artists routinely simplify the look of both Cyborg and Starfire, while Nightwing, Troia, and Jericho have all been given significantly less complicated costumes. Add to this list Zatanna (scarab-head), Harbinger, Pariah, Monitor, Anti-Monitor, and others, and you see a clear penchant for excessive numbers of design elements, too many colors in use, and a non-traditional bent to the placement of exposed skin.

Personally the reason why I like him so much is because of my first exposure to his work. When I was eight (31 years ago!) I read FANTASTIC FOUR (apologies for the cross-company reference) and Perez drew 176-178 (the Impossible Man and the Frightful Four, guest starring Tigra and Thundra) and 184-186 (Agatha Harkness, the Eliminator, and Salem's Seven). There are a handful of panels which are still burned into my memory to this day, because I would sit and stare at those pages for hours. Perez was the one who made me realize that different artists drew different books, and that I could like one artist more than another. The level of detail was simply so far beyond what other artists were drawing.

[Paul Dee]

I really like Ed McGuiness, too. But isn't the whole point of his work that it's not as detailed as someone like Perez', and looks a lot more cartoony?

Well yeah, but that's why I (and probably others) dislike his work, in the same way that people might dislike Perez's more (intentionally) detailed style.

Who is to say that Perez doesn't "draw for little children?"

You must know what I mean in relation to McGuiness' work though? It's far too cartoony and seems to undermine the story-telling completely. When I looked at his run on Superman/Batman I thought it had to be some out-of-continuity whimsical wacky adventure and this assumption was based about 80% on the art. His Superman is honestly one of the worst I have seen.

[marshal99]

Stylistically, Ed McG might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he's a pretty great artist. I think he's also a lot more dynamic than Perez, without sacrificing story.

If he's your cup of tea , then that's fine. I for one can't take his work seriously especially when he draw biceps bigger than the head. Superman looks like a over muscled steroid case.

I remember looking at an ad in the comic for the dc encyclopedia (i think) and they show a dan jurgens drawing of superman and Ed McG superman side by side and i was laughing because it looks like a weight loss ad. Ed McG superman - before , Dan Jurgens - after. Ed McG superman always looked bloated and stumpy.

[Scrubz]

Well yeah, but that's why I (and probably others) dislike his work, in the same way that people might dislike Perez's more (intentionally) detailed style.



You must know what I mean in relation to McGuiness' work though? It's far too cartoony and seems to undermine the story-telling completely. When I looked at his run on Superman/Batman I thought it had to be some out-of-continuity whimsical wacky adventure and this assumption was based about 80% on the art. His Superman is honestly one of the worst I have seen.

I completely disagree. McGuinness' style very very unique. His work in Superman/Batman was some of the first stuff I read last summer and I was blown away by how much more unique his stuff was than any one else. I even luckily have a friend who had all his run on Superman and got to read that too. I personally think his Superman is perfect. Great larger than life look. I'd be apt to read just about anything his art is attached to.

Once again its not that Perez is bad in my opinion, but I can look at his art and immediately tell its from an older era. I don't get that when I look at McGuinness, its fresh and represents new and creative to me.

Heck in ten years McGuinness might seem dated compared to artists of the future.

[marshal99]

I completely disagree. McGuinness' style very very unique. His work in Superman/Batman was some of the first stuff I read last summer and I was blown away by how much more unique his stuff was than any one else. I even luckily have a friend who had all his run on Superman and got to read that too. I personally think his Superman is perfect. Great larger than life look. I'd be apt to read just about anything his art is attached to.

Once again its not that Perez is bad in my opinion, but I can look at his art and immediately tell its from an older era. I don't get that when I look at McGuinness, its fresh and represents new and creative to me.

Heck in ten years McGuinness might seem dated compared to artists of the future.

It's entirely subjective , if you like McG , you like McG , don't know why you feel the need to question why people like Perez though.

[DaeJi]

Ding! We have a winner: you like what artists you like. That simple. I like Perez, I don't like Frank Quietly. Am I going to wonder why others like Quietly or why they don't like Perez? Nope! I'm content liking the artists I like and enjoying their work.

[Sir Tim Drake]

George Perez is probably the best pure superhero artist (i.e. the best cartoonist whose major work consists mostly of superhero comics -- note that this excludes Kirby and John Buscema). . His work is hewhatartfelt, passionate, exciting, and rich in detail, and just as importantly, he is a master of page layout and composition. And he's maintained a consistently high level of quality over four decades.

If you don't see what's so great about him, perhaps you could compare his page layouts with those of any other superhero artist. It would quickly become clear that Perez has a superior ability to communicate a story in the most effective way.

[kalorama]

I'm not a hugh fan of Perez's work myself.

Most fans of his stuff cite the level of detail in his work as the big turn on, and that's one of the things that got his work noticed, back when he was doing group books like Avengers, FF, JLA, Titans, and could cram lots of characters into each panel. I liked his stuff back in the Titan's days, but since then I think he's been chasing his own tail, to some degree. He's become so focused on living up to his rep and giving the fans what they expect that he seems to have lost sight of the basics. I have a hard time reading a Perez comic these days, because each panel is so crammed with (mostly extraneous) detail that it's sometimes hard for my eye to latch onto the important elements and tell what's going on. The foreground, middle ground, and background kind of bleed together in an orgy of line work. Because everything is rendered with the same level of detail, nothing stands out and the entire picture plane is rendered flat. It's just not visually interesting to me.

[kalorama]

George Perez is probably the best pure superhero artist (i.e. the best cartoonist whose major work consists mostly of superhero comics -- note that this excludes Kirby and John Buscema).

Why does it exclude Kirby and Buscema? Although both did a lot of non superhero stuff, the bulk of the work they're known for is superhero stuff. (Buscema did a lot more superhero comics than he did Conan comics.)

For my money, the title goes to Alan Davis.

[Sirius77]

See my biggest complaint is that it looks like its in a time warp. Shouldn't DC focus on the future? I think that if a new comics reader picks up say a copy of the Brave and the Bold and compares that to Pacheco on Superman or Reis on GL, they will think B&B is a reprinted story from the 70's or 80's.

I Completely agree. You do have to give him props thought, he's a comic vet.

[marshal99]

That's the thing , it's because of the details you can actually spend a while more reading a comic when it's Perez drawing because you do not want to miss out on anything because it's so detailed. If you look at someone like Ron Garney who likes to draw big panels and splash pages , i think you can go through a comic drawn by him in 2 minutes or less. With Perez , you tend to spend longer because you want to see more carefully his art. At least that's what i do , can't speak for the rest.
Which is why the JLA/Avengers crossover is so awesome because of the details put into the art , if you have someone like McG or Garney , honestly there's no way i can see them putting so many characters into the book. It would certainly have been a far far lesser book if it was anyone other than Perez drawing it.

[kalorama]

But I just don't think all that extra time spent looking at Perez's art is really rewarded, because most of what he crams in the panels has no storytelling value. if anything, it takes me out of the story.

Not a fan of McGuiness at all, but I really like Garney's work. And if you read his work on JLA, you'd know he does just fine with drawing mulitple character books.

[marshal99]

Not a fan of garney at all , he likes his splash page but his splash page doesn't have a lot of details , instead you can see how crude his art really is.

I think depending on what book Perez is drawing. Like JLA/avengers , i think it's extremely rewarding to see the little bits of detail he puts in , not many penciliers does it like him. I can't speak for his B & B since i have not read it.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Why does it exclude Kirby and Buscema? Although both did a lot of non superhero stuff, the bulk of the work they're known for is superhero stuff. (Buscema did a lot more superhero comics than he did Conan comics.)

For my money, the title goes to Alan Davis.

Even though Kirby and Big John did a lot of superhero comics, they also produced major works in other genres. But I suppose it would be equally valid to say that Perez is the best superhero artist other than Kirby or Buscema.

I would rank Alan Davis just below George. The other obvious candidate for "greatest pure superhero artist" is Curt Swan.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

As long as he keeps drawing like he has Brave & the Bold thus far...the man can do no wrong. Perez is awesome. He's old school but sometimes old school can hand the new school its ass.

[a-spidey]

i like Perez art. Very detailed and very solid. So its always fun just go trough the book and just look at his art.

[kalorama]

Even though Kirby and Big John did a lot of superhero comics, they also produced major works in other genres.

The fact that they were good at things other than superheroes shouldn't devalue their work in the superhero genre. Nor should it count in Perez's favor that superheroes is pretty much all he's done while Buscema and Kirby did other things.

Just saying.

Top 5 (in no particular order):

Buscema, Kirby, Davis, Byrne, Romita Jr.

(If you're talking about work other than superheroes, you have to find room for Alex Toth.)

[Valero]

I guess it all depends on what you want when you are reading your comics. When I think Batman, I see Aparo's version of if; Namor=Byrne; Captain America= Buscema. Any superhero as in real life but classic look: Alex Ross...

I can appreciate Mignola as an artist but his Batman, for example, is not my cup of tea but his Spectre is so weird and as it should be (the guy is dead !)... If the Image style look of the 90' was sometime great, it felt, for me, like a bombed up version of what I like.

George Perez took the classics and made them modern. Kind of an evolution of the golden or silver age look to what was modern in the 80'.

Like any artist, they represent different schools of drawing. You can link Ethan Van Sciver and Perez for exemple; not alike but related. This is the style of image I prefer when reading superheroes stories.

[rick]

Personally the reason why I like him so much is because of my first exposure to his work. When I was eight (31 years ago!) I read FANTASTIC FOUR (apologies for the cross-company reference) and Perez drew 176-178 (the Impossible Man and the Frightful Four, guest starring Tigra and Thundra) and 184-186 (Agatha Harkness, the Eliminator, and Salem's Seven). There are a handful of panels which are still burned into my memory to this day, because I would sit and stare at those pages for hours. Perez was the one who made me realize that different artists drew different books, and that I could like one artist more than another. The level of detail was simply so far beyond what other artists were drawing.


I think that for some of us older fans that initial run on FF, plus his work on the Sons of the Tiger/White Tiger strip really made a big impression when they first came out.

At the time, Perez, Dave Cockrum and John Byrne were revolutionizing "superhero" comic art by taking the movement, pace and flow of Jack Kirby and combining it with the aesthetically styles of Gil Kane and Wally Wood, and their early work is really something to see.

Poor ol Dave is gone now, and while Byrne can still put out the decent looking story here and there, he is really past his prime, but God bless him, George just keeps on kicking out amazingly pretty work year after year.

[Calybos]

George Perez's style is what every comic-book artist should be trying to copy. It's what comic books are supposed to look like.

Plus, he met his deadlines like a true professional!

[Shellhead]

George Perez's style is what every comic-book artist should be trying to copy. It's what comic books are supposed to look like.

Plus, he met his deadlines like a true professional!

Actually, Perez is notorious for missing deadlines. I'm a big fan of his work, but I don't have any delusions about his ability to meet deadlines. Give him 6-8 weeks to do an issue, and you usually won't have any problems. Put Perez on a monthly schedule... get ready for delays.

[Buried Alien]

Actually, Perez is notorious for missing deadlines. I'm a big fan of his work, but I don't have any delusions about his ability to meet deadlines. Give him 6-8 weeks to do an issue, and you usually won't have any problems. Put Perez on a monthly schedule... get ready for delays.

There will be delays, but at least one can rest assured that it's because Perez is putting his best effort into delivering a high-quality piece of work rather than because he's screwing around. JLA/AVENGERS # 3 was delayed reportedly because Perez practically crippled himself drawing that fantastic cover.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Calybos]

Actually, Perez is notorious for missing deadlines. I'm a big fan of his work, but I don't have any delusions about his ability to meet deadlines. Give him 6-8 weeks to do an issue, and you usually won't have any problems. Put Perez on a monthly schedule... get ready for delays.

Well, damn! And I admired him, too. Thanks for correcting me: I withdraw the praise.

[MartinRedmond]

My fave as always been when he has a brushy inker like Romeo Tangal. I'm not crazy about over rendering or cross hatching on his work. I think it's over kill but I still enjoy his comics. Good story telling and loads of panels. :]

[MartinRedmond]

There will be delays, but at least one can rest assured that it's because Perez is putting his best effort into delivering a high-quality piece of work rather than because he's screwing around. JLA/AVENGERS # 3 was delayed reportedly because Perez practically crippled himself drawing that fantastic cover.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Exactly! The wait is worth it and it's not that bad.

[glennsim]

Well, damn! And I admired him, too. Thanks for correcting me: I withdraw the praise.

I think it's at least fair to say that Perez doesn't generally over-commit. He knows how fast he can draw and doesn't try to do more than he can do. So it usually doesn't result in delays.

I think there was a delay on JLA/Avengers, but again, it was because of the time needed for that one cover, which I think most people consider forgivable.

[Shellhead]

It wasn't just that one issue of JLA/Avengers. Remember Infinity Gauntlet? Perez was apparently dropped as penciller on that series because he couldn't meet the deadlines. His first run on the Avengers was interrupted by a two-part filler story, after just three issues. And I believe that Brave & the Bold is coming out a pace somewhat slower than monthly.

In the end, I believe the results are worth the wait. I'm just pointing out that there is an issue with the deadlines.

[Jolly Mon]

I'm sure you have your own preference , which is where freedom of choice comes from , i only wished that so-called "newer more dynamic" artist can draw as well as Perez but alas , a lot of them are crap. I guess it's the product of the ages , if you eat shit all the time , you will probably find that you acquire a taste for shit.

I find that excellently put. To compare George Perez' art with the under-detailed and overly-exagerated artists that are popular now is inconcievable. Art by people like McGuinness isn't "new & dynamic", it's deformed and grosteque. Personally, I can't stand Darwyn Cooke, who seems to be a huge favorite. Because of his art I passed on New Frontier, which had otherwise sounded interesting. In fact, his art was so bad, I almost checked the TPB out of the library (for free) to read the story, but put it back after looking at his art again. Just horrible.

[jesse_custer]

Perez is great because of his attention to detail and ability to make anything look "classic."

[Scrubz]

I find that excellently put. To compare George Perez' art with the under-detailed and overly-exagerated artists that are popular now is inconcievable. Art by people like McGuinness isn't "new & dynamic", it's deformed and grosteque. Personally, I can't stand Darwyn Cooke, who seems to be a huge favorite. Because of his art I passed on New Frontier, which had otherwise sounded interesting. In fact, his art was so bad, I almost checked the TPB out of the library (for free) to read the story, but put it back after looking at his art again. Just horrible.

Okay we're talking about superhero artwork, which in my opinion needs to be exagerated. That's the appeal of McGuninness. Secondly Darwyn Cooke is a pretty fantastic artist in my opinion. New Frontier honors past artwork while not looking like ancient artwork, which sadly Perez looks like to me. That's me. Another thing that comes up a lot in this discussion is detail of Perez's art. If mouth agape for every emotion is detail, then Perez's art is super detailed:D . Sorry for being harsh on such a huge fan favorite.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I find that excellently put. To compare George Perez' art with the under-detailed and overly-exagerated artists that are popular now is inconcievable. Art by people like McGuinness isn't "new & dynamic", it's deformed and grosteque. Personally, I can't stand Darwyn Cooke, who seems to be a huge favorite. Because of his art I passed on New Frontier, which had otherwise sounded interesting. In fact, his art was so bad, I almost checked the TPB out of the library (for free) to read the story, but put it back after looking at his art again. Just horrible.

Darwyn Cooke is a great artist, he's just different from Perez. Hyper-detailed art is not necessarily better than cartoonish art; they're two different but equally valid stylistic choices, and which one you like better is a matter of personal taste.

[Trey]

Perez is as good as ever right now, after 30 years!

When I read Brave and the Bold, its as if the pages are animated! They flow, panel to panel, he uses a small panel to show Batman reaching into his utility belt, all kinds of perspective shots, Silhoutes of batman flying over the city, Supergirl running her hand thru her hair while she talks, a 12 panel page!!!!! He uses every tool of the trade.


And you know whats cartoony art? Disney, Old archie comics, anyone that describes Cooke, Allred, or Ramos as cartoony just doesn't give the art a chance, I'm sure Miller's DKR was jarring at first, to. Same with the awesome JRjr. Their art isn't cartoony, its comicky!!

And B&B is 5 for 5 monthly right now, although IIRC, Perez is very ill. Also great job to the whole art team on B&B, Bob Wiacek,Tom Smith and Rob Leigh.

[the Hornet]

I dunno, I only got introduced to Perez's work in the 90s and felt that it was the second best piece of art in the industry. Later I realized I was wrong. It was the BEST!

I dunno much about art style and what is cool now or then and usually focus on the writing but I tell you one thing, when I see Perez's work, even the most dull writing seems bearable. Its perfrect in my opinion.

[marshal99]

It wasn't just that one issue of JLA/Avengers. Remember Infinity Gauntlet? Perez was apparently dropped as penciller on that series because he couldn't meet the deadlines. His first run on the Avengers was interrupted by a two-part filler story, after just three issues. And I believe that Brave & the Bold is coming out a pace somewhat slower than monthly.

In the end, I believe the results are worth the wait. I'm just pointing out that there is an issue with the deadlines.

Infinity Gauntlet was because Perez was juggling the workload of IG with the War of the gods crossover at DC at the same time , one had to give and it was IG since Perez had more emotional attachment to Wonder woman.
By and large , his avengers was fine although he did needed fill in issues but he's older and his pace of drawing is slower now and also because he's a perfectionist . In his prime in the 80s , i don't think you can say that he couldn't meet deadlines as his titans run was fine.

[marshal99]

Okay we're talking about superhero artwork, which in my opinion needs to be exagerated. That's the appeal of McGuninness. Secondly Darwyn Cooke is a pretty fantastic artist in my opinion. New Frontier honors past artwork while not looking like ancient artwork, which sadly Perez looks like to me. That's me. Another thing that comes up a lot in this discussion is detail of Perez's art. If mouth agape for every emotion is detail, then Perez's art is super detailed:D . Sorry for being harsh on such a huge fan favorite.

So what exactly is the point of this thread ? Seemed like to me , you are basically a troll coming in to flame the artist , it's pretty obvious that you do not like his art. It's your own preference who you like. Don't use that excuse of "oh i want to understand" , that's bs.

[Phoney Bone]

Actually, Perez is notorious for missing deadlines. I'm a big fan of his work, but I don't have any delusions about his ability to meet deadlines. Give him 6-8 weeks to do an issue, and you usually won't have any problems. Put Perez on a monthly schedule... get ready for delays.

Perez's problem used to be over-commital. When he was freelancing in the early 80's, he was drawing Avengers, JLA, AND New Teen Titans at the same time... plus cover art for other books at Marvel and DC. :eek:

When he focused on one title (New Teen Titans/Wonder Woman) he had consistant monthly runs that most artists today couldn't hope to match.

His first run on Avengers and Fantastic Four in the 70's was enterupted by spasms in his drawing hand... much like the carpal tunnel that resulted from drawing the cover of JLAvengers #3, which delayed issue #4 for several months.

[kalorama]

Darwyn Cooke is a great artist, he's just different from Perez. Hyper-detailed art is not necessarily better than cartoonish art; they're two different but equally valid stylistic choices, and which one you like better is a matter of personal taste.

And really, it's just that simple.

[Pink Bat Max]

In fairness to his work on B&tB, that's on a 10-issue-a-year schedule.

[glennsim]

And really, it's just that simple.

Regarding hyper-detailed vs. cartoonish...

Intellectually, I certainly respect the fact that some people like the cartoonish art. But there's a part of me that's always been a little mystified by that preference.

It's like if someone gave you the choice between a live-action movie vs. an animated movie about a super-hero, you'd rather have the animated movie. As part of reading about super-heroes, part of the enjoyment would seem to be imagining what it would be like if this were real. So the more detailed and realistic, the better.

Not meaning to put anybody down for their preferences, just saying it can be really hard for people with different preferences to relate to one another.

[Phoney Bone]

But Perez's style is hyper-detailed cartooning.

Ever'body wins!

:D

[zuludelta]

Intellectually, I certainly respect the fact that some people like the cartoonish art. But there's a part of me that's always been a little mystified by that preference.

It's really simple... some things just don't translate as well when rendered in a lifelike manner and "cartoony" stylization is usually done to better communicate a particular aspect of whatever the image is supposed to represent. To pose an example, do you think Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes would be as amusing if the characters were drawn in a life-like manner? How about Peanuts, or PvP, or Popeye? Conversely, while Alex Ross' Superman looks extremely life-like (and make no mistake, I like Alex Ross' work), he also looks like a regular guy walking around in long underwear with a towel tucked into his collar.

Obviously, there's a skewing towards more life-like rendition in superhero comics because the subject matter is usually set in a "serious" context, but the reasoning behind "cartoony" visualization is the same in superhero comics as it is in gag strips and animation. Good "cartoony" comic book art emphasizes the important features of shapes and movement and is at times more effective in conveying a particular idea or concept than life-like rendering (that's why "cartoony art" is usually referred to as "iconic representation" in drawing classes). Developing a talent for that is just as laborious as developing a skill for accurate rendering from life (and more often than not, skill in one requires some measure of adequacy in the other).

[Joe Rice]

It's really simple... some things just don't translate as well when rendered in a lifelike manner and "cartoony" stylization is usually done to better communicate a particular aspect of whatever the image is supposed to represent. To pose an example, do you think Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes would be as amusing if the characters were drawn in a life-like manner? How about Peanuts, or PvP, or Popeye? Conversely, while Alex Ross' Superman looks extremely life-like (and make no mistake, I like Alex Ross' work), he also looks like a regular guy walking around in long underwear with a towel tucked into his collar.

Obviously, there's a skewing towards more life-like rendition in superhero comics because the subject matter is usually set in a "serious" context, but the reasoning behind "cartoony" visualization is the same in superhero comics as it is in gag strips and animation. Good "cartoony" comic book art emphasizes the important features of shapes and movement and is at times more effective in conveying a particular idea or concept than life-like rendering (that's why "cartoony art" is usually referred to as "iconic representation" in drawing classes). Developing a talent for that is just as laborious as developing a skill for accurate rendering from life (and more often than not, skill in one requires some measure of adequacy in the other).

Well said. Cartooning is an excellent way to use visual shorthand and to get around what are essentially ridiculous images. When you make superheroes to "realistic" they look totally stupid. If that's your point, fine. But if you want the story to be "adult and serious" then realistic art is a detriment, because all the reader can see is a dude in weird clothing.

Perez, if it has not been said, also has perhaps the worst design sense of any well-respected artist.

[kalorama]

It's like if someone gave you the choice between a live-action movie vs. an animated movie about a super-hero, you'd rather have the animated movie. As part of reading about super-heroes, part of the enjoyment would seem to be imagining what it would be like if this were real. So the more detailed and realistic, the better.

I spend absolutely no amount of time wondering what superheroes would be like if they were real. That doesn't even come close to factoring into my enjoyment of the medium. It's all about what each individual finds entertaining and fulfilling.

I personally have no preference with regards to "cartoony" versus "realistic." In fact, I think both words should be stricken from the fan lexicon because they're over-used and cliched. My only concerns in evaluating art in a comic are (A) do I like it, (B) is it well executed, and (C) does it serve the story.

[Joe Rice]

I spend absolutely no amount of time wondering what superheroes would be like if they were real. That doesn't even come close to factoring into my enjoyment of the medium. It's all about what each individual finds entertaining and fulfilling.

I personally have no preference with regards to "cartoony" versus "realistic." In fact, I think both words should be stricken from the fan lexicon because they're over-used and cliched. My only concerns in evaluating art in a comic are (A) do I like it, (B) is it well executed. and (B) does it serve the story.

More excellent points here.

[Jade_GL]

I like just about everything. :) That makes me super plus good.

I enjoy Perez's work. It's not my favorite, but it's always high quality.

There are very few artists I don't like. Hmmm, ok one. But this thread isn't about that. :D

Perez is admirable in what he can do and that he's been doing it for so long and so consistently. I hope that if I do something for decades that I can be that good for that long.

But he's not my favorite artist either. But I appreciate and like his art on it's own merits.

[marshal99]

I spend absolutely no amount of time wondering what superheroes would be like if they were real. That doesn't even come close to factoring into my enjoyment of the medium. It's all about what each individual finds entertaining and fulfilling.

I personally have no preference with regards to "cartoony" versus "realistic." In fact, I think both words should be stricken from the fan lexicon because they're over-used and cliched. My only concerns in evaluating art in a comic are (A) do I like it, (B) is it well executed. and (B) does it serve the story.

And that is precisely what comics is all about. To each their own is very appropriate in this case , you say to-ma-to , i say to-mae-to. Not everyone has to consent to the same likes and dislikes.

[paulski]

In fairness to his work on B&tB, that's on a 10-issue-a-year schedule.

Actually it's only 9 per year: :)

#1
#2
#3
Rest
#4
#5
#6
Rest
#7
#8
#9
Rest

They made the same mistake when the news was first announced last year, which might be where you heard it yourself. Technical I know, but I'm anal that way. :evilsmile

[dancj]

...some of his peers from the late 1970s and early 1980s who could be consistent, tell a solid panel-to-panel story, hand stuff in on time, and STILL put in detail that just leaps out at the reader (guys like Nestor Redondo (http://alanguilan.com/museum/redondo11.jpg), John Buscema (http://pages.ca.inter.net/%7Eowenandsusan/bar.JPG), Alex Niño (http://www.media-blastoff.net/alex_nino.htm), etc.)
John Buscema's stuff leaps out? I've always found his work to be bog standard generic competent but boring superhero art.
I'm much more baffled as to why everyone loves JRjr. That guy blows.
Yeah - I don't get the love these days, but his work back on Daredevil: The Man Without Fear is excellent.
As for the Miller arguement, I would look at some more like Bill Sienkiewicz.
His art in Moon Knight is incredible. Then his work after that, looks like a monkey drew it.
I place Bill Seinkeiwicz in my top ten. His art on Stray Toasters, Elektra Assassin, Big Numbers and The Shadow is excellent
Art by people like McGuinness isn't "new & dynamic", it's deformed and grosteque. Personally, I can't stand Darwyn Cooke, who seems to be a huge favorite. Because of his art I passed on New Frontier, which had otherwise sounded interesting. In fact, his art was so bad, I almost checked the TPB out of the library (for free) to read the story, but put it back after looking at his art again. Just horrible.
Ed McGuinness's art is quite dynamic. It is also deformed, but that's his style choice and it's one I quite like.

Darwyn Cooke's art is fine, but doesn't blow me away.
Regarding hyper-detailed vs. cartoonish...
Those really aren't exclusive choices. You can have hyper-details cartoonish artists like Sergio Aragones. On the other hand you can get the really minimalist but realistic artists. There's nothing cartoonish about David Mazzucchelli's art in Batman Year One. It's incredibly realistic in ways, but leaves your eye to fill in lost of the small details.

Personally I think Perez is an above average standard superhero artist who pisses all over Michael Turner, but doesn't touch the likes of Tim Sale, Frank Quitely or Bryan Hitch.

[Pink Bat Max]

Actually it's only 9 per year: :)

#1
#2
#3
Rest
#4
#5
#6
Rest
#7
#8
#9
Rest

They made the same mistake when the news was first announced last year, which might be where you heard it yourself. Technical I know, but I'm anal that way. :evilsmile

I heard it from the man himself. Well, via interview. I blame him!

[pendragon]

I heard it from the man himself. Well, via interview. I blame him!

Actually it's only 9 per year: :)

#1
#2
#3
Rest
#4
#5
#6
Rest
#7
#8
#9
Rest

They made the same mistake when the news was first announced last year, which might be where you heard it yourself. Technical I know, but I'm anal that way. :evilsmile


Still better then Mark Millar or Jim Lee on deadlines.

[marshal99]

Personally I think Perez is an above average standard superhero artist who pisses all over Michael Turner, but doesn't touch the likes of Tim Sale, Frank Quitely or Bryan Hitch.

All these are just personal preference , i for one will take Perez anyday over the likes of Sale , Quitely (Ugh!) & Hitch.

[kalorama]

All these are just personal preference , i for one will take Perez anyday over the likes of Sale , Quitely (Ugh!) & Hitch.

Sale is hit or miss with me. I like Hitch but liked him more in his pre-Ultimates days when his work was a bit less rigid. I really don't get what people see in Quitely's work, at least as far as superhero stuff is concerned.

But, again, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[pendragon]

Sale is hit or miss with me. I like Hitch but liked him more in his pre-Ultimates days when his work was a bit less rigid. I really don't get what people see in Quitely's work, at least as far as superhero stuff is concerned.

But, again, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I don't get Quitely either.
Then again, I don't like Yu's art either.

[kentonindy]

Actually it's only 9 per year: :)

They made the same mistake when the news was first announced last year, which might be where you heard it yourself. Technical I know, but I'm anal that way. :evilsmile

Actually, both nine and ten are correct. Perez's work on TB&TB will be nine issues per year as you've demonstrated, but his exclusive contract with DC stipulates ten issues per year. Obviously 90% of that work will be on TB&TB, with other small projects like the Wolfman/Perez story in TEEN TITANS #50 thrown in, still giving him some down time to spread throughout the year to keep away the carpal tunnel.

Obviously in a lot of the write-ups for TB&TB people have sloppily equated the skips months with Perez's contract terms, and while the two are related, they aren't equivalent.

[Magneto Rocks]

Still better then Mark Millar or Jim Lee on deadlines.

Err... Mark Millar's a writer. It's hardly his fault half the artist he teams up with end up being slow.

As to the original question, I think George Pérez is simply the best artist in comics today. Why?

http://130.86.80.251/~sac39525/jla_avengers3.jpg

THAT'S Why. :D

[Tre Styles]

Okay this has been bugging me since I started reading vast quantities of DC comics over the past year. I know that Perez represents to many fans a great era of comic book art in the 80's via New Teen Titans and Crisis On Infinite Earths. I respect that. I throughly enjoyed COIE myself. But his art compared to modern artists at the top of their game seriously falls short. Granted I didn't read DC during the 80's, but his stuff just plain lacks to today's standards. I get nostalgic about stuff I enjoy from my childhood too, but when things get more detailed and cooler designed I want the new guys to draw my comics. What is it about his art that makes people go ga-ga? the guys on my favorite artist list blow him out of the water in my opinion.

Well, opinions of artists, are subjective to say the least, but there are several reasons why I like Georeg Perez's art. First off, I like the detail he puts into his artwork, from items on character's costumes to backgrounds to the body, he puts his all into everything that he does. Second of all, he has a distinct style...his art is his own, and you know immediately when it's his, and believe me there are plenty of artists who have patterned themselves after him, and no, I'm not naming names. Finally, Perez has excellent draftsmanship, is a great storyteller via his art, and produces his work with quality. There are a lot of "new school" artists who are outstanding....but to me, George Perez can still hold it down with the best of them.

[pariah-1972]

I think Perez's best stuff is on very cosmic looking stuff
his early work on avengers looked like everyone else's imo.
has anyone read his return of Donna Troy mini series last year? it looked freaking amazing but the writing was a bit too confusing for me.

[pendragon]

has anyone read his return of Donna Troy mini series last year? it looked freaking amazing but the writing was a bit too confusing for me.

Actually that was drawn by José Luis García-Lopez

[pariah-1972]

Actually that was drawn by José Luis García-LopezUgh are you sure?:o

[pendragon]

Sorry man, but it's true

Perez was the inker.

Though García-Lopez is a great artist himself.

[pariah-1972]

Sorry man, but it's true

Perez was the inker.

Though García-Lopez is a great artist himself.But there styles are exactly alike......?

[pendragon]

Personally I don't think so.

[kalorama]

But there styles are exactly alike......?

Their styles are nothing alike (and, for my money, Garcia-Lopez is a far superior artist). But it's fairly common that when an artist who's a well-known/recognized penciller inks someone else's pencils, the finished product ends up reflecting the inker's drawing style as much or more than the actual penciller's.

I remember, years ago, an X-Factor annual that was pencilled by Byrne and inked by Simonson. This was at the height of Byrne's career, when his style was the most recognizable in comics. But you could barely recognize him under Simonson's inks. it looked like Simonson drew the whole thing.

[pariah-1972]

Their styles are nothing alike (and, for my money, Garcia-Lopez is a far superior artist). But it's fairly common that when an artist who's a well-known/recognized penciller inks someone else's pencils, the finished product ends up reflecting the inker's drawing style as much or more than the actual penciller's.

I remember, years ago, an X-Factor annual that was pencilled by Byrne and inked by Simonson. This was at the height of Byrne's career, when his style was the most recognizable in comics. But you could barely recognize him under Simonson's inks. it looked like Simonson drew the whole thing.
Thats very interesting.. thank you for that information.
i have a hard time telling how inking plays such an integral part in the comic.

[marshal99]

Garcia-Lopez is a very good artist , also a oldschool artist that never really got his due. I wouldn't say that he's better than Perez but he's an artist i always liked. For some reason , he never really held down work on a regular monthly book.
He was the one who drew the Incredible Hulk/Batman crossover back in the early 80s.

[kalorama]

To each his own. I think Garcia-Lopez walks all over Perez. And he may not have gotten his due from fans, but other artists often cite him in interviews as a big influence and one of the best true artists in the biz.

He did a lot of regular work for DC in the 80s. No long runs, but he did regular stints on DC Comics Presents (the Superman team-up book) and World's Finest. He also drew the great Deadman mini. The main reason he never did any long monthly runs was because he was producing a ton of artwork for DC's marketing and licensing (basically establishing the "Definitive look" for their characters).

[rick]

Their styles are nothing alike.

That statement makes very little sense to me because their styles are so obviously similar.

Garcia-Lopez is an excellent artist in his own right, but he also certainly comes from the same stylistic roots as Perez.

[zilch]

I jumped ahead to the end of the thread...

The quality of his artwork aside (and he HAS proven himself one of the greats), what gets me is the speed and the sheer amount he produces.

He drew the effin' Avengers AND JLA freakin monthly! At the SAME TIME!!!

And the whiney artists now adays can't put out ONE monthly.

[dancj]

and believe me there are plenty of artists who have patterned themselves after him, and no, I'm not naming names.
I will - Phil Jimenez. I also thought that in Avengers Forever Carlos Pacheco's art wa very Perez-esque. These days though Pacheco's grown beyond that and is better for it

[marshal99]

Pacheco has never been a perez clone , if any of his avengers forever panels look like Perez , it probably is a homage done to Perez's previous work on avengers is all. I find that Pachecho and Oscar Jimenez have similiar influence in the way they draw. Whatever happened to Oscar Jimenez anyway ?

[glennsim]

Their styles are nothing alike

I think that depends on how you're comparing them. If you put a Perez Batman, a Garcia-Lopez Batman, a Kelley Jones Batman, and a Bill Sienkiewicz Batman all next to each other, and are looking to group them by style, the Perez and Garcia-Lopez Batman go together quite naturally compared to the other two.

[pendragon]

Can you really compare artists?

Each of them have a different look, with an exception of Phil Jimenez, who's artwork is still a rip off of Perez, just with more gore.

[Pink Bat Max]

Can you really compare artists?

Each of them have a different look, with an exception of Phil Jimenez, who's artwork is still a rip off of Perez, just with more gore.

I think he's been going in his own direction lately. Compare his Wonder Woman in IC to Perez' rendition. It's heavily influenced, certainly. That's a good thing.

[kalorama]

That statement makes very little sense to me because their styles are so obviously similar.

Again, eye of the beholder. Their styles are quite clearly and unambiguously distinct to my eyes. I can spot the difference a mile away.

I think that depends on how you're comparing them. If you put a Perez Batman, a Garcia-Lopez Batman, a Kelley Jones Batman, and a Bill Sienkiewicz Batman all next to each other, and are looking to group them by style, the Perez and Garcia-Lopez Batman go together quite naturally compared to the other two.

Which simply proves that they're more different from Jones and Sienkiewicz than they are from each other. But it doesn't actually prove that their styles have anything more than a surface similarity.

[marshal99]

Certain artists do gell and complement with one another in the way they draw characters , i would put Jose Luis Garcia , Perez & Jerry Ordway in that category. Ordway inks complemented Perez pencils very well in COIE and Garcia will do the same for Perez or vice versa. Doesn't mean that their art looked alike though. You can pretty much tell who draws what.

[glennsim]

Originally Posted by kalorama: "Their styles are nothing alike"

Which simply proves that they're more different from Jones and Sienkiewicz than they are from each other. But it doesn't actually prove that their styles have anything more than a surface similarity.

A surface similarity would dispute the notion that they are "nothing alike".

Nobody said you have to be confused between the two. But within the spectrum of comics art styles, they are definitely in a similar area.

[ChairthrowerLad]

sigh....Scrubz starting up trouble.


The thing about Perez to me (disagree or agree I dont care) is that he has not changed with the times.

I realize how that most likely sounds, but hear me out.

There are alot of positive things that artists have started doing in the last 10-15 years. There are also alot of unfortunate things as well (too many Jim Lee knock-offs, etc).

BUT one of the positive things that we have seen more and more is a more cinematic style. Just look at Jock's work on Green Arrow or Mignola over the last 15 years or Gibbons' legendary Watchmen. This very cinematic style has facilitated better story telling and made comics a more dramatic medium. There in lies my problem with Perez. He has not developed a more dramatic and cinematic style. The KK/Batman fight in the most recent Brave and the Bold is a great example. It was just your standard line of boxes.

Say what you will. I still respect the guy. But for my money there are guys out there right now who are better artistic story tellers.


I realize I may get ripped for saying that...but that's my opinion. Opions are like belly buttons...everyone has one.

[sheets]

BUT one of the positive things that we have seen more and more is a more cinematic style. Just look at Jock's work on Green Arrow or Mignola over the last 15 years or Gibbons' legendary Watchmen.

Personally, I consider this a step back, not a step forward. The "comics are like movies on paper" mentality has generally contributed to less thoughtful visual storytelling and a dumbing down of the form, which is kind of ironic considering that so many artists and writers today like to boast of how they're trying to bring more sophistication to comics.

I would also say that Mignola and Gibbons are about as comics-centric as you can get with respect to their storytelling sensibilities. I certainly have never looked at Mignola's work and thought how cinematic it looked. From a cinematic perspective, it's a pain the ass, being so abstracted and non-linear in composition. And a lot of what makes Watchmen Watchmen is that Alan Moore and Gibbons specifically shunned cinematic storytelling in favor of techniques that could only work in comics. The upcoming film adaptation might get the basic story well enough but it's going to lose a lot of the actual technique from the comics because the thing wasn't designed for film adaptation.

[ChairthrowerLad]

Personally, I consider this a step back, not a step forward. The "comics are like movies on paper" mentality has generally contributed to less thoughtful visual storytelling and a dumbing down of the form, which is kind of ironic considering that so many artists and writers today like to boast of how they're trying to bring more sophistication to comics.

I would also say that Mignola and Gibbons are about as comics-centric as you can get with respect to their storytelling sensibilities. I certainly have never looked at Mignola's work and thought how cinematic it looked. From a cinematic perspective, it's a pain the ass, being so abstracted and non-linear in composition. And a lot of what makes Watchmen Watchmen is that Alan Moore and Gibbons specifically shunned cinematic storytelling in favor of techniques that could only work in comics. The upcoming film adaptation might get the basic story well enough but it's going to lose a lot of the actual technique from the comics because the thing wasn't designed for film adaptation.

Actually, if I remember correctly, when you read the forward of the most recent printing of Watchmen they state that they purposefully tried to make it very cinematic.


but like I said:


I realize I may get ripped for saying that...but that's my opinion. Opions are like belly buttons...everyone has one.

In my opinion, the more cinematic style, when done well, is a good thing. But like I said thats my OPINION.

[shyguy]

And a lot of what makes Watchmen Watchmen is that Alan Moore and Gibbons specifically shunned cinematic storytelling in favor of techniques that could only work in comics.

Seriously. Gibbons' work in Watchmen is the epitome of comic book-y storytelling. So much so that he adheres to the 9-panel grid throughout almost the entire story. It's the total antithesis to the storyboard-like pages you see in most mainstream comics today.

I also think it's to Perez' credit that he draws comics that look like comics rather than "movies on paper." There's definitely something to be said for taking the medium to new places and everything, but the "cinematic" approach to comics is so ubiquitous now that it's nice to have a pro like Perez show us what visual storytelling really is.

[kalorama]

A surface similarity would dispute the notion that they are "nothing alike".

no, actually it wouldn't.

Nobody said you have to be confused between the two. But within the spectrum of comics art styles, they are definitely in a similar area.

And what "area" is that?

Do they both have nonabstract styles and solid command of anatomy? Sure. But beyond that, they really have little to nothing in common when it comes to the actual style of their work, i.e., the manner and fashion in which they illustrate and tell a story.

Ultimately it all comes down to how you define "style." Clearly we have different definitions. Agree to disagree.

[kalorama]

Personally, I consider this a step back, not a step forward. The "comics are like movies on paper" mentality has generally contributed to less thoughtful visual storytelling and a dumbing down of the form, which is kind of ironic considering that so many artists and writers today like to boast of how they're trying to bring more sophistication to comics.

Agree wholeheartedly. At some point it became in fashion for writers and artists to discard most elements that were considered non-cinematic, and in so doing they started to lose a lot of what made the medium unique. I find this whole "widescreen" aesthetic that's become so common with artists to actually be a fairly lazy way to solve storytelling problems.

[ChairthrowerLad]

Ok I dont want to force the issue, but I did find this (I will look through the forward of my copy of Watchmen when I get home).

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen (and before anyone says anything I realize that wikipedia is BY NO MEANS A COMIC AUTHORITY)

Watchmen's deconstruction of the conventional superhero archetype, combined with its innovative adaptation of cinematic techniques and heavy use of symbolism, multi-layered dialogue, and metafiction, has influenced both comics and film.

[Scrubz]

sigh....Scrubz starting up trouble.


The thing about Perez to me (disagree or agree I dont care) is that he has not changed with the times.

I realize how that most likely sounds, but hear me out.

There are alot of positive things that artists have started doing in the last 10-15 years. There are also alot of unfortunate things as well (too many Jim Lee knock-offs, etc).

BUT one of the positive things that we have seen more and more is a more cinematic style. Just look at Jock's work on Green Arrow or Mignola over the last 15 years or Gibbons' legendary Watchmen. This very cinematic style has facilitated better story telling and made comics a more dramatic medium. There in lies my problem with Perez. He has not developed a more dramatic and cinematic style. The KK/Batman fight in the most recent Brave and the Bold is a great example. It was just your standard line of boxes.

Say what you will. I still respect the guy. But for my money there are guys out there right now who are better artistic story tellers.


I realize I may get ripped for saying that...but that's my opinion. Opions are like belly buttons...everyone has one.

Cinematic style=good. Thirty panels on a page is taxing to look at. That said, too many splash panels in a comic is frustrating as well. Case and point All Star Batman and Robin. While the story is either a complete joke or a poor a excuse to make Batman act like Wolverine, nothing happens in the series six issues because of two page splash panels every other page. They look nice but it doesn't forward the story.

Also why are so many people against comics having a more cinematic style anyway? It's still ultimately comic art and has advantages that movies can't do. I completely agree that Perez's page layout is lacking. That's my opinion.

[kalorama]

I think the extent of Watchmen's "cinematic techniques" was it's banishment of such uniqely comic book staples as thought balloons, sound effects lettering, and narrative captions. It was "cinematic" in that it told the story using the same communication methods as film: visuals and dialogue. But the visual storytelling style employed by Gibbons in the art/layout was comic book all the way.

Also why are so many people against comics having a more cinematic style anyway? It's still ultimately comic art and has advantages that movies can't do. I completely agree that Perez's page layout is lacking. That's my opinion.

but, as has been demonstrated time and time again, the first thing comic creators do when employing the "cinematic approach" is to dump most of those elements that are unique to comics and outside the purview of film.

[Black Atom]

I d