|
mind the walrus posted:Yeah JediTalentAgent your teacher was totally full of poo poo and deserves a kick to the head. A quick google search yields a bunch of side by side comparison pictures that display that even though the Lion King isn't a direct ripoff or 1:1 translation of Kimba, there's absolutely no way that the people working on the Lion King weren't aware of it and cribbing from it. At what point does the line get drawn between inspiration, homage, rip-off and cribbing in that sort of creative sense? How much or little is needed to be a rip-off or be a unique creation? Even if the Incredibles is an absolutely great film on its own merits, I've still heard people call it a Watchmen rip-off despite the overall themes and directions of the stories being about two different things. People criticizing Neil Gaiman for 'selling out' to WB because he didn't have any problem with Harry Potter and Books of Magic being so similar as he said they both drew from the same influences. Matrix, the first week it was out, I heard anime fans calling it the first live-action anime as a compliment, then took to calling it a completely shameless rip-off the next week as an insult. Etc.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
The Lion King has its own distinct plot and more than enough original or at least differently sourced pieces of material to count as its own work. However there are numerous visual and minor plot similarities between the Lion King and Kimba that they go beyond pure reference and are straight up translations if not outright rip-offs of design. See more here if you haven't already. I can't say where the exact line is between inspiration, homage, rip-off, and cribbing in a technical sense because it seems to vary on a case-by-case basis and seems to only be identifiable in hindsight. That said in this particular case it's more than just a coincidence and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. So with that said I've never heard a compelling argument for the Incredibles and Watchmen. Outside of a few very minor plot points and themes they could not be more different interpretations of superhero material. Harry Potter and the Books of Magic are nothing alike aside from the main character looking just like Harry Potter and having a pet owl. The Matrix cribs from nearly any cyberpunk and anime work it wants to in order to suit its purpose, but is still unquestionably its own creation-- at worst a Frankenstein's creation, and I wouldn't even argue that much. Sometimes people just want to cry foul. However sometimes there is a body of evidence that can be compiled and a case to be made. However this tends to be surprisingly rarer than one would think given the whole "Great artists steal" mentality present in commercial art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:Granted, and those were just the first couple of images I grabbed off a GIS for "Greg Land traces". There are probably much better actual examples of him blatantly copying things. I think the ultimate problem with tracing (and the thing that I guess relates to the whole "how much referencing is too much referencing" discussion) is that it distracts from the comic you're reading. I mean, I know I'm managing to read and enjoy Mighty Avengers and Iron Man, two books that Land is doing art for, but there are plenty of people who have outright said that they cannot get over the art to read the books. And I can't blame them. poo poo like this: Notice that in the first panel, Land didn't bother to trace any faces so they're all hidden by shadow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:See, this sort of example is what always bugs me during the conversations about people, especially Land, copying pictures. It seems like every single time it comes up, the people that want to show examples start getting themselves so psyched up to be right that they start getting further and further from the truth. Yes, in that first example those are obviously Sean Connery and Adrian Paul, but the pictures are clearly nothing like what was used for the "models", and Connery's pic might have not even come from The Rock for the tracing. And then the second picture, yeah it's a Randy Orton style pose, so what? You're not telling me anything unless you can find that picture, like the thread had done earlier with the Miracleman cover. And the examples get less and less clear/accurate. I once saw a site trying to catalogue Horn's tracings that eventually started getting pictures that looked nothing alike outside of the theme, or what was being depicted, like them saying he must have stolen the idea of a vampire holding an unconscious woman in a graveyard from a different comic image of the same idea from like a decade prior, instead of like, from movies made 80 years prior, as the two pictures were in completely different poses/angles of the same iconic yet generic image. I'm not saying that tracers aren't there, nor that Greg Horn isn't the most prolific, but when you start trying too hard you start diminishing your own argument, and it seems like most people that set out to make that argument want to work that hard. There have been tons of exact Land examples throughout the years. Here's a gif from 4thletter back when knocking Land was popular. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Beanpants posted:I wouldn't put JG Jones in the same box as Greg Land just because of that cover. If he uses that photo over and over again, and in a context where its a bad choice, and then also swipes from other artists, then you'd have a point. That really depends on whether the photo he traced was used with permission or not. It's a pretty black and white legal and ethical problem if there wasn't any permission given.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:There have been tons of exact Land examples throughout the years. I wasn't saying he didn't or that there weren't. I'm saying that it seems like arguments on the subject start out with these obvious shots, then they start turning into ones where okay I guess if you squint you can see the trace, and then ultimately turn into cases where there's really no trace but maybe an obvious source material, and cases where the person citing things is just trying to jump on the bandwagon. And I was trying to say that by people trying too hard to be the tattler, they end up reducing the tattlee's crimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I wasn't saying he didn't or that there weren't. I'm saying that it seems like arguments on the subject start out with these obvious shots, then they start turning into ones where okay I guess if you squint you can see the trace, and then ultimately turn into cases where there's really no trace but maybe an obvious source material, and cases where the person citing things is just trying to jump on the bandwagon. And I was trying to say that by people trying too hard to be the tattler, they end up reducing the tattlee's crimes. Ah I get you. You're always going to have a sense of hyperbole when it comes to people talking about art though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:That really depends on whether the photo he traced was used with permission or not. It's a pretty black and white legal and ethical problem if there wasn't any permission given. I'm not saying it's a good cover, or that it's right for him to use a photo that he has no claim to, but it's the reality of the comics business these days if you're a certain style of artist. Some folk want their comics to look ultra detailed, realistic, and they want it on a monthly schedule, if not more. Sometimes with the realities of this business, being able to do it "the right way" falls outside of that Venn diagram of being detailed and being fast. Folks are quick to jump on an artist when they find the reference they used, but you could spend all day doing that for every photorealistic artist on the stands. Now whether or not you accept their use of photos in their work as OK is up to you, but market pressure for that type of art in a timely manner means it isn't going away anytime soon. For your JG Jones/Bryan Hitch/Butch Guises of the world, it's just how it is. I would still put them leagues above Land because their storytelling is on point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
This is probably a naive thing to say, but the whole argument would be moot if artists focused on developing their own style instead of shooting for photo-realism. But maybe photo-realism is what the majority of readers want?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Shitshow posted:This is probably a naive thing to say, but the whole argument would be moot if artists focused on developing their own style instead of shooting for photo-realism. But maybe photo-realism is what the majority of readers want? It depends really, I like the photo realism on Artgerm's work but I'm fine with a more 'cartoony' feel like Rocafort's or Reis'. I just want my characters to look handsome and pretty (shallow, I know  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Comic art can certainly be too photorealistic and art that is really closely based on photo reference can often end up looking static (partly because the models ares usually in static poses when they're photographed) and throw my suspension of disbelief right out the window. Every now and then someone will do a photo comic with actual photos arranged in comic panels and I've never seen one which wasn't awful. Scott McCloud did a great bit in Understanding Comics on how heightened cartooniness/simplicity in a character makes it more approachable/universal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Comic art can certainly be too photorealistic and art that is really closely based on photo reference can often end up looking static (partly because the models ares usually in static poses when they're photographed) and throw my suspension of disbelief right out the window. Every now and then someone will do a photo comic with actual photos arranged in comic panels and I've never seen one which wasn't awful. Cartoon drawings or animation certainly don't strive to be unrealistic either necessarily. The whole idea of stretch-squash animation is not out of some desire to make every cartoon character Plastic Man but to mimic how our eyes perceive motion. Something "cartoony" can look and feel much more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Comic art can certainly be too photorealistic and art that is really closely based on photo reference can often end up looking static (partly because the models ares usually in static poses when they're photographed) and throw my suspension of disbelief right out the window. I understand people gushing over Alex Ross' work, but his interiors have always bothered me for this reason. Also, I find his interiors very hard on my eyes: there is often no visual hierarchy established in the lines or colors, so all of the elements seem to be fighting for attention at once. I've not been back into comics for quite a year now, and his work was the first that I noticed this. I can't remember who stated that the best artists achieve the most expression with the fewest lines - I'm not going to argue the merits of this one way or another - but it wasn't until I read Ross that I actually understood the statement. I realized then that I had been taking the work of Ba, Aja, Mignola, etc. for granted to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Shitshow posted:I understand people gushing over Alex Ross' work, but his interiors have always bothered me for this reason. Also, I find his interiors very hard on my eyes: there is often no visual hierarchy established in the lines or colors, so all of the elements seem to be fighting for attention at once. I've not been back into comics for quite a year now, and his work was the first that I noticed this. Ross works better as a "moment in time" artist, hence his cover work always being better than interiors. He's good at making great shots that are meant to be hung up on a wall or advertising something. However, comics aren't just covers. The second he has to do interiors, his "still life" style doesn't translate. When you add word balloons and have panels bleeding into each other to exhibit motion, his style looks terrible. For as amazing as it is, Kingdom Come looks like a bunch of paintings with word balloons. There's a number of other artists that are similar in that they're much better cover artists than interior artists simply because they're much better at painting a moment than drawing a scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Every now and then someone will do a photo comic with actual photos arranged in comic panels and I've never seen one which wasn't awful. Oh my loving god yes I had blissfully forgotten that this was a thing that sometimes happens. Even straight lightboxing of photos in otherwise heavily artistic pages (Promethea and J.H. Williams III comes to mind) can draw me out of the page in a snap. Shitshow posted:But maybe photo-realism is what the majority of readers want? I wouldn't say that readers want photo-realism but they want consistent human proportions and an accompanying level of costume/background. I know this because all too often I'll be reading a series and get disappointed when the "big" artist on the book is abruptly replaced for a rushed fill-in issue or arc that--while technically fine--is often made of loose lines, consistently odd physiques, and little background detail and it totally bums me out even though I know that comic art is really hard and that comic artists are under crazy deadlines and that the art I'm currently reading is more realistic an expectation than the "big name" artist that I got spoiled on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I wouldn't say that readers want photo-realism I'd say it. In my experience, a lot of average readers get upset if the comic has stylized or "cartoony" art and would much prefer some ugly Greg Land poo poo to something more dynamic and interesting, because stylization is "gay".
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
When I was in my late teens over a decade ago (Gods I'm old) I was only interested in photo-realistic artists like Alex Ross or Michael Zulli, and thought less of artists that went in more creative directions. It took a combination of me taking a comic art class my first year of college, and Dave McKean actively lecturing the readers with his self-insert in Cages for me to start being able to appreciate other art styles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'd say it. In my experience, a lot of average readers get upset if the comic has stylized or "cartoony" art and would much prefer some ugly Greg Land poo poo to something more dynamic and interesting, because stylization is "gay". Yeah I think you're right. I was doing that thing where I had faith in the average person to not be a dumbass again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Haven't we had long arguments in this very thread where stylization was crapped on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:19
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Haven't we had long arguments in this very thread where stylization was crapped on? They were about Ramos, that doesn't count.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Ramos is a clear case of stylization gone bad anyway, because his work comes across as sloppy more than it does stylistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:See, this sort of example is what always bugs me during the conversations about people, especially Land, copying pictures. It seems like every single time it comes up, the people that want to show examples start getting themselves so psyched up to be right that they start getting further and further from the truth. Yes, in that first example those are obviously Sean Connery and Adrian Paul, but the pictures are clearly nothing like what was used for the "models", and Connery's pic might have not even come from The Rock for the tracing. And then the second picture, yeah it's a Randy Orton style pose, so what? You're not telling me anything unless you can find that picture, like the thread had done earlier with the Miracleman cover.  Let us know when you find the original for that picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Haven't we had long arguments in this very thread where stylization was crapped on? If you'll just hold on I have thousands of images with red lines through them to show you that these comic characters would have different proportions in real life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
I always felt like guys like Aparro, Nowlan, and even Adams found a good balance between realistic and cartoony. Their people looked like people, proportioned and all, but you were still aware that you were reading a comic which magical crazy things happen like it's normal. Personally my issue with photorealistic art is that it just seems bland. I prefer artists with their own style. Not to say I don't like things to look real and proportioned and whatnot but when you are tracing someone else's work/picture there isn't any kind of uniqueness that makes it stand out. I would prefer something like Capullo, Albuquerque, Andrews, or anyone else who leans more to exagerated/cartoonish style just because it is more fun to look at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Jedit posted:
google search blonde girl masturbating p*ssy hot xxx porn Results: 600 000 000 000 Found it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Man, why is it always wrestlers or porn? Is it the spandex? They need someone wearing form-fitting stuff or nothing at all? Or is it, perhaps, deeper than that. Seduction of the innocent is no joke. Every comic ever made contained a traced pornographic image somewhere in its pages. The talented artists hide it away in crowd-scenes, or parts of the background... The hacks just make it a main character. But the day a comic is made which breaks this law, an unspeakable evil will be released.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
I've been thinning out my comic collection and thought you'd might like this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Images like this really drives how just how dire the 90's were for comics. It's crazier to think that $1.95 is on the lower end of the spectrum of what they were charging for this dreck at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Ghostpilot posted:Images like this really drives how just how dire the 90's were for comics. It's crazier to think that $1.95 is on the lower end of the spectrum of what they were charging for this dreck at the time. Wolverine has some seriously hosed up anatomy. How would that even work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Ow, my brain. I'm not even sure what they were trying for there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I want to say he was trying ti play up with the perspective/depth by making Venom's arm and Wolverine's claws be closer to the reader but he hosed it up in every possible way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
I'm pretending that Wolverine is supposed to be like that, and Venom twisted his spine completely around the other way above the waist. He's Wolverine, he'll get better. Doesn't explain why what I assume is supposed to be his elbow is nowhere near the middle of his arm though...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I'm pretending that Wolverine is supposed to be like that, and Venom twisted his spine completely around the other way above the waist. He's Wolverine, he'll get better. Doesn't explain why what I assume is supposed to be his elbow is nowhere near the middle of his arm though... Reminds me of a Superman cover where he had like five elbows. Can't remember the artist or title though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
I think that issue is part of what Gavok aptly named the "Wolverine vs Venom: Holy poo poo This Is Extremely Awful trilogy".
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I've been thinning out my comic collection and thought you'd might like this: maybe they were trying for a Sam Keith thing  or maybe one of wolverine's lesser known powers is to get one big popeye arm whenever venom is nearby
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
From the Joker's Daughter oneshot: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Remember kids DC is a mature place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
So is that her face or the Jokers face or just a random dead persons face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
This will answer your question. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:34
|
|