In praise & defense of George Perez: the man who transformed DC Comics

[wiski]

Perez is a good artist to be sure, but the most recent thing of his I saw was his Supergirl issue, and the faces were downright ugly in that. Particularly Kara's.

The only thing I have read that has Perez art is Supergirl #8. I have also seen the previews for The Worlds Finest or whatever it's called. Using these things as a judge, I am not impressed, despite being told he is amazing. Maybe there are just a lot more excellent artists nowadays? Compared to many comics I read, his artwork looks average.

[carabas]

The fact that they are all flying the same way seems right to me, since textually 99% of them are using the same technology to fly, and metatextually he is showing that despite being from different timelines and having so many differences, they are united at this moment.

Fair enough. I lack context for the piece.

On the other hand, his ability to create different faces for different characters might seem like basic competence to you, but then most modern artists don't have that level of competence.

Well, that just tells me that most modern artists suck (but I knew that already). Matter of fact, drop the 'modern' qualifier from that. Most comicbook artists of any age are not very good, especially at this part of the job.

[Ziza9]

Flashpoint, Thank you for this thread. You are my hero. George Perez FTW.

[squashmaster]

Overrated. He's the Rob Liefeld or Scott Lobdell of his time. Has his place, but too pop in the end.

[Rakzo]

Overrated. He's the Rob Liefeld or Scott Lobdell of his time. Has his place, but too pop in the end.

Oh ho ho boy, this isn't going to end well.

[Shellhead]

This thread seems a bit over the top, but in my case, it's true. Perez was a big part of the success of the New Teen Titans, and that was the first DC comic that I started buying on a regular basis. George also drew Crisis on Infinite Earths, and that got me even more interested in DC. I still might have lost interest later, except that DC also had some great British writers at the time, and then launched Vertigo a few years later.

[Will.S]

One criticism I've had of Perez's New 52 work is the way he draws Superman's new costume. Perez tends to overemphasize the "armory" aspects of the suit. Although the New 52 Superman costume isn't made of soft fabric as his classic costume was, it's still clothing and not *armor*. Perez draws it like armor.

Perez has drawn some of the most excellent armored figures in comics (classic Iron Man, Cyborg, 1980s Brainiac, the Anti-Monitor, etc.), but Superman's suit doesn't benefit from an armored look.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I initially had the same problem but I really liked his rendition here:



But then again I've always been a mark for George's Superman renditions.

[David Walton]

Perez has still got it!

[Flashpoint]

My god...I never knew about this...

It was quite a big scandal back in the day:

In February 1986 The Comics Journal published "The Trouble With Keith Giffen," an examination of recent dramatic changes in Giffen's drawing style. The article pointed out that Giffen had changed from a slick, clean Jim Starlin-esque style to an avant garde, heavily inked one. The article displayed several panels side-by-side to illustrate the magazine's allegation that Giffen was copying, or "swiping" the work of Argentinian cartoonist Jose Muñoz.

In response, Giffen alluded to the controversy by drawing Ambush Bug with the Peanuts character Snoopy in Son of Ambush Bug #5 (November 1986). (Giffen's frequent collaborator Robert Loren Fleming wrote the dialogue for the scene.) The controversy continued, however, when Giffen was accused of swiping Muñoz again in the anthology Taboo.

Giffen has acknowledged Muñoz's influence, and in 2000 referred to the controversy this way:

"I had a bad incident with studying somebody's work very closely at one point, and I resolved never, ever to do it again. I can get so immersed in somebody's work that I start turning into a Xerox machine and it's not good. . . . There was no time I was sitting there tracing or copying, no. Duplicating, pulling out of memory and putting down on paper after intense study, absolutely."

At that point in his career, Giffen was one of the most popular comic book artists in the industry. The ensuing controversy hurt Giffen's reputation.

Giffen returned to drawing full-time two years later while continuing to plot the Justice League and its numerous spin-offs.

[Flashpoint]

Honestly that picture looks like a lesser artist trying to ape the find of covers Perez used to pull off with style and falling short.

I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed that Giffenn never actually traced Munoz. He has gone on record about being way too overly influenced by Munoz to the point where his stuff looked like it had been traced.

For what it's worth I thing the quality of Giffen's work was very high at the time. (IMO he peaked with the beautiful Doctor Fate miniseries).

We will never know the full story. The problem I have with Giffen's claim is that TCJ put panels from Ambush Bug side-by-side with panels from Alack Sinner and they were virtually identical. The most infamous of these was probably a panel of Ambush Bug's hand hold a pan in which he was frying an egg. Next to it was a panel from Alack Sinner. The two were, for all intents and purposes, identical down to the pencils and inks.

[Flashpoint]

Flashpoint, Thank you for this thread. You are my hero. George Perez FTW.

You're very welcome.

[Flashpoint]

George Perez has an heir apparent in one Phil Jimenez.

And thus we come to biggest refutation of all which points out the blatant hypocrisy of Perez's detractors. No one has dared malign Phil Jimenez as "dated" yet his style was for many years a virtual replica of Perez's. He's grown beyond that, but the Perez influence is still glaringly apparent.

Perez is dated yet Jimenez is not? When they both use the same styles? Hogwash and utter nonsense.

[dancj]

And thus we come to biggest refutation of all which points out the blatant hypocrisy of Perez's detractors. No one has dared malign Phil Jimenez as "dated" yet his style was for many years a virtual replica of Perez's. He's grown beyond that, but the Perez influence is still glaringly apparent.

Perez is dated yet Jimenez is not? When they both use the same styles? Hogwash and utter nonsense.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread it's only Perez's newer work that looks dated (ironically). Though I considered Phil Jemenez to be an inferior artist to Perez, his work never looked as dated as Perez's newer stuff - and never looked as good as Perez's older stuff.

[Jim Thompson]

As was pointed out earlier in the thread it's only Perez's newer work that looks dated (ironically). Though I considered Phil Jemenez to be an inferior artist to Perez, his work never looked as dated as Perez's newer stuff - and never looked as good as Perez's older stuff.

I never did get the "Perez work looks dated" argument. What exactly about it looks dated to people? I was reading World's Finest last night, and it looked good to me. If there was anything I noticed about it, it was that it seemed rushed in places.

[David Walton]

I never did get the "Perez work looks dated" argument. What exactly about it looks dated to people? I was reading World's Finest last night, and it looked good to me. If there was anything I noticed about it, it was that it seemed rushed in places.

Which seems true of pretty much every artist today who's working on more than one book a month, and that makes him more contemporary than ever!

I read Supergirl #8 the other day, and I was blown away by how good it was. Perez makes really efficient use of panel space and gives you more bang for your buck. And he also tends to add energy to scenes that could easily be 'meh' in lesser hands.

When people refer to Perez as dated, I think they're probably thinking of the 80s costume designs he's known for that don't gel with modern sensibilities. But of course, he isn't drawing those anymore...his stuff is perfectly in keeping with the tone of the books he's on.