Comic Dan's: Quantum and Woody

Comic Dan's

It's not the crappy font.

Today, it's time for something different.  I figured that since I'm a fan of comic books, I might as well say something about them here!  And to start off, I want to support a new series published by the revitalized company Valiant!

 Quantum and Woody was apparently published back in the 90s by Valiant before the comic, and the company, failed.  I never read it and so I am unfamiliar and unaware of any previous character iterations.  What drew me to this book was the subtitle: The world's worst Super-hero team!
That premise was enough to earn my interest and, evidently, my money.

I've only read one issue (Issue 1) and it starts out with some great characterization and establishes a rich dynamic between the two titular characters.  The two, being brothers, both have their own problems, and seeing them play out in a superhero book sounds appealing to me.  There's a nice balance of heart and humor that I hope is a standard that the series continues.
Character design for this comic is pretty solid.  I like the contrast between the two get-ups relating to the personality differences.  They apparently did this in the original run, but from what I've seen of the old series' look...

I think it was smart to ditch the leather jacket over a bodysuit look, but I definitely dig the white cape.  What is with the blandifying homogenization of Super-suit design these days?  Though The Incredibles was a great movie, I like capes.  And furthermore I like high collars, I like Jack Kirby-esque flamboyant do-dads, and, by all that is considered sacred, I like victorian-era strongman underpants!

So in case you haven't got the gist, I think this is shaping up to be a fun book that you should pick up.  Try it, you might like it.
If you need more convincing, there's a preview right here.

I'm Only Funny while Animated

I'm Only Funny While Animated

An Animation.

A Special Edition of my Monday posts.  Here is a taste of a upcoming project I am taking on with one of my fellow Austin area animators.  Coming Soon to a Youtube near you!

Movie Matinee: Superfilms

Movie Matinee

Superfilms!

I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.  I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old.  The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.

 Superman Returns (2006)

The 90's were, for Superman film fans, the lost years of the man of steel (Though we did have a few great TV shows during that time).  There were scripts upon scripts proposed during that period: A fifth Christopher Reeve entry featuring the death and return of the character, Several attempts to reboot the franchise including a whacked out of its gourd treatment by Tim Burton and producer Jon Peters that involved the death of a flightless, capeless, Superman and a Giant spider (which I happen to be making an animated rendition of currently).
In the 21st century, there were talks by JJ Abrams of a Superman movie where he goes to the afterlife to learn a few lessons from his pop, and even a Superman/Batman crossover film that only really happened in the I am Legend universe.

With Superman Returns, they decided to take things back to what made the first two movies great, and make a sequel... to a 24 year old movie.

Well that could've gone better.
There were a lot of things I sort of liked about this movie when it came out.  I liked Brandon Routh as Clark Kent (not so much as cold and creepy supreman) and I liked Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, mostly because even though he's still inexplicably land obsessed, is much more insane and threatening in this movie.  Supporting cast is pretty strong, but, yet again, we have kind of a lame Lois Lane.  We also have Super-kid (who kills a guy by smashing him with a piano) and, once again, a plot that keeps the hero and villain apart for far to long in the movie.

I'm also pretty sure that this costume killed Superman's underpants in movies for years to come.
The effects in this movie are Superb and the Super feats are pretty cool too, but then again, superman lifting things is just kind of OK.  There's also a few bizarre things that I don't quite get, like why lex Luthor would want land to be transformed into that ugly infertile black stone.  I mean, sure, everybody needs land, but I think that everyone would crowd all the pretty parts of the world to avoid staying in that hell. 
In general, I think the movie was held back by its need/desire to replicate what had come before it.  Director Bryan Singer never got the chance to create a new cinematic vision of Superman and instead just tied himself to his affection for the original two movies, which, as I have said, twice, had plenty of problems and weren't that great.

I think if they tried to break with tradition, it would have provided a more interesting, and ultimately more successful film.  I guess not even John William's Score and a Christopher Reeve look-alike could make it work.  At least he didn't kill anyone in this one!

Nevermind.

Sunday Movie Matinee: Superfilms

Movie Matinee

Superfilms!

I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.  I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old.  The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.

Superman III (1983)

and

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Suck.
Let me elaborate on this.  Superman movies had been alright up to this point.  That was the case, I'm certain, because of the involvement of Richard Donner, the director of the first movie and half of the second.  Superman II director Richard Lester was on his own for the third movie.  An early draft of III contained Mr Mxyzptlk, Brainiac, and Supergirl that was actually pretty interesting, but Warner Brothers thought that it wasn't that great.  So instead we got this...

Superman III doesn't feel quite like a Superman movie it all.  It feels like too completely separate films (a story about superman visiting smallville and a wacky 80s comedy involving greedy people and computers) intercut with each other.  In short, this movie is almost not worth talking about.  There are only five good things about this movie:

1. Christopher Reeve once again does an admirable job as Supes.
2. Almost no Margot Kidder.
3. Annette O'Toole's Lana Lang
4. "Sling! Sing-a-pore Sling!"
5. Evil Superman.

When Superman begins to be effected by the gunky Kryptonite and becomes a Jerk, I think the movie is at it's most interesting.  I mean, he rams an oil tanker, messes up the leaning tower of Pisa, and blows out the olympic torch just because.  I also really like the sequence where he has a battle with himself, especially since the good part of him is represented by Clark Kent.
This movie is pretty bad, much worse than the first two, but it is nothing compared to the shitstorm that is Superman IV.

The fourth installment in the series brings back Margot Kidder's Lois Lane and Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the series "Final" installment.  Some of the ideas at its heart aren't too bad.  Superman decides, at the behest of a little kid, to disarm all nuclear warheads on the planet to try and force world peace, something he later learns that he can't do.  There is also the Daily Planet getting taken over by an entertainment mogul out to turn the respected paper into a tabloid.  Not bad things, inherently.  But then there's this.

That's "Nuclear Man," created from a strand of Superman's hair, some of lex luthor's dna, and the sun... or something.  Instead of having a real supervillain from the source material, they get an 80's rocker looking dude with long nails. 
The effects are cheap, the plot cuts corners and makes no sense and Superman is given new powers again.  In the end, he totally kills Nuclear man by dropping him into a reactor.  And come to think of it, He sort of just abandons the villains in the third movir in that cave in... is killing the same as let-die?

Don't forget to use your nails boys!

Sunday Movie Matinee

Movie Matinee

Superfilms!

I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.  I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends recently, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old.  The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.

Superman II (1980)

A comment was made in watching the first two films stating that they feel like one big movie.  This is absolutely true.  If there were no Superman II simultaneously being planned and filmed the first five minutes of the first movie would make absolutely no sense.  Why would we begin with the condemnation of criminals if it didn't come back to them later.  So I would refer to it as Superman: The Movie Part II.
Again we have Christopher Reeve doing a great Job as Supes and Clark Kent, and again we have a great film score, but we also have a host of issues.  This movie has many great sequences that make it interesting, such as Superman giving up his powers to be with Lois, as well as a fairly well executed bout between Superman and his three Kryptonian foes.  I'd say besides Reeves and the score, the villains make for a good addition.
And then there is this...

What?
This movie gives Superman and the other aliens powers that he doesn't have or need.  He can apparently teleport, use telekinesis, multiply himself, and... throw his S at someone.  He also can remove someone's short-term memory by kissing them, a power that I have dubbed "The Roofie Kiss."  As there is good in this movie, so is there bad. Supes, as in the first one, spends 2/3s to 3/4s of the movie apart from, and unaware of, his antagonists.  Also there's the crazy scene where he almost lets Lois die to protect his secret.  Which leads me to "The Richard Donner Cut."

The first Superman movie was directed by Richard Donner, and half of Superman II was directed by him as well.  But due to a tonal disagreement with the producers, he was let go, and Richard Lester took over.  The Producers wanted it to be sillier, and in essence, dumber.  The "Richard Donner Cut" is an assembly of all the extra scenes Donner shut cut into the movie along with some test footage to fill the gaps.  It makes the movie more serious and in general much better.  That still doesn't mean its great.  Superman still spends too much time separate from Zod and the others as well as using the same time travel trick from the first movie to render all the events of this film pointless.  Yikes.

A lot of people overlook the weird and silly things in this movie and just say its great and walk away.  Most people even overlook the fact that Superman totally kills his enemies in this movie, With Lois even punching the girl to her icy Death.  They all die, and its' not considered terrible or even morally ambiguous, but triumphant.  I mention this because it death like this will come into play later.
I don't want to come off as a hater, but I have to be honest.   I can still enjoy the movie, but it's by no means a perfect, or unimpeachable film representation of the adventures of Superman.
If you're going to watch Superman II, go for the Richard Donner Cut.  But either way, you get this immensely gratifying, if morbid,  scene at the end.

Have a Super week!

Sunday Movie Matinee: Superfilms!

Sunday Movie Matinee

Superfilms!

I was asked for my thoughts on the new Superman movie Man of Steel.  I could have just done that, but after watching the first three Christopher Reeve movies with a few friends last night, I feel the need to talk about the new movie in reference to the old.  The reason for that: I feel much of the criticism of the new film is due to referring to what has gone before.

Superman: The Movie (1978) 

Though the character was born in the late 1930s, and it was preceded by a few big screen and small screen representation, this movie is where most people look for their definitive vision of Superman.  I could almost declare that this is THE most iconic portrayal of the character, but I won't do that. 

This is a drawing by comic artist Gary Frank.  He draws Superman as if he's Christopher Reeve.  Undeniably, it has had an effect.  But I think its mostly due to rosy glow of nostalgia, and not due to cinematic perfection or character rendition.  Don't get me wrong, I have affection for this movie, but only for two reasons: Christopher Reeve and John Williams' score. 

It tells a good origin story for Superman, and has a few fun scenes with Reeve as Clark Kent and an astonishing amount of innuendo with Margot Kidder, who does NOTHING for me.  The Villain and the hero spend too much time apart in the movie, he gives away every possible weakness to a reporter who publishes it, and the writers made a massive boner at the end of the movie.  The main reason I can still enjoy this movie, and I suspect others can enjoy it, is because its old and I grew up with it.  The movie has alot of issues: pacing, plotting, and time travel.

Yes, that happens.  They wrote themselves out of the narrative hole of a character's death with time travel.  This is pretty dumb, and brings Superman from Science Fiction into fantasy, where he doesn't belong.  I think that movie that people intentionally ignore the dumb parts so that they can conveniently call it great and say its better than other things.  That's BS.  In short, its a movie that's only as good as your sense of Nostalgia allows.  It is by no means a perfect movie, and by that merit, it shouldn't be viewed as unimpeachable.  TIME TRAVEL!

Creators: Alex Ross

Creators

A growing list of inspirational artists, writers, poets, filmmakers and creatives.

Alex Ross

For my return to the blogging world, I will do  my creator piece this week and a favorite of mine, as well as many others, Alex Ross.  Ross has made his reputation for his lifelike watercolor representations of superheroes.  The painting he's working on the above picture is this one.

Yeah, that's watercolor.  His work always looks impressive, and from what I can tell, its a result of an excellent use of reference and a dedication to craft.  In many ways, every one of his images is iconic and eye catching. He goes great pinups.

...beautiful group shots...

...and sweet composites...

Awesome right?  But like I have said before, there are plenty of artists who can make eye popping pinups and groupshots, and others can make killer covers, but the true test of an artists skill are the grueling trenches of interior artwork.  There are plenty of famous artists in the industry (even much beloved ones) that can't tell a coherent story with their artwork.  Does Alex Ross have what it takes?

Yes.

Yes he can.

No Doubt.

Ross does a great job with emotion, expression and body language.  Each image is beautiful on its own.  He has strong compositions which help to make every labor intensive painting worth the effort.

I have a strange relationship to his artwork.  I've often said to others that when it comes to artwork, that I appreciate realism for what it is, but ultimately I prefer stylization and interpretation.  to look at something and draw it as it is strikes me as easier than interpreting what is seen and adding your own flair.  But what makes Ross a special case is his use of composition.  He has dynamic and emotional images that feel at home in a comic book and also feel like your looking into a world not so far from here.  

Though it frustrates me that he is usually put on Cover duty, there are some fantastic books with him rocking the interiors.  A few are: Marvels, Kingdom Come, Justice, the FIRST issue of Masks, and a few large format specials called Batman: War on Crime, Superman: Peace on Earth, and Wonder Woman: Spirit of Truth.

Though i don't foresee copying his style, I hope to one day to look down at my art board and see something that I feel as proud of as he surely does when he looks at his work.  There is no shortage of his artwork out there, so go out and look at it.

Look at IT!

See you Friday.

I'm Only Funny on Paper

I'm Only Funny on Paper

A Comic.

Welcome back to me!  So, I took an unannounced break from this stuff, and for that I apologize.  Once summer camp started I kind of lost my sense of time, space and the relationship between cosmic entities and the playing out of everyday life.  In the meantime I've been working on a lot of stuff, including this:

I'll be continuously adding to it throughout the summer. But don't worry, I'll be back to making irrelevant comics in no time.