Look Of New Vs Old Comic Books

[jardann]

This idea popped back into my head while discussing X-3 in the super mega thread of super mega posts down below. A very nice discussion in that thread.

While the discussion about the movies were going on several people mentioned how good the X-men comics were in the 80s and I agree wholeheartedly!

One thing I think I miss the most was the look and "feel" of those comic books. Especially the old newsprint type of paper that was used in them. I really preferred that paper and the style that went along with it. I liked it much better than the new photoshopped inks and glossy paper that is now the norm. I also hate the cost of the new comic books that must be in large part due to the more expensive paper etc.

So, I'm just asking if anyone else feels the same or similar aobut some other aspects of comics and what has changed in the past 10 years or so.

Chime in you guys!

[eugimon]

meh... can't stand the comics in the 80's.

1. powers that were just ridiculously out of control... superman was pushing around planets, wolverine regenerating from a drop of blood. OR, powers that were invented to close a plot hole.

2. That cheap wood pulp paper just sucks... flimsy and the texture was just nasty.

3. Cheap printing, low resolution and limited color pallette. Often the different ink guns would be mis-aligned, or was that an attempt at 3D?

4. Two Words: Rob Liefield

5. plot arcs that would never be resolved...

[Dangard Ace]

meh... can't stand the comics in the 80's.

1. powers that were just ridiculously out of control... superman was pushing around planets, wolverine regenerating from a drop of blood. OR, powers that were invented to close a plot hole.

2. That cheap wood pulp paper just sucks... flimsy and the texture was just nasty.

3. Cheap printing, low resolution and limited color pallette. Often the different ink guns would be mis-aligned, or was that an attempt at 3D?

4. Two Words: Rob Liefield

5. plot arcs that would never be resolved...

406371[/snapback]

1. Guess what Superman is back to planet pushing levels. At least Superboy Prime is and Superman beat his ass.

2. I'll agree it was flimsy but nasty? It's pulp paper.

3. And they did alot more with those four colors then what all the new comics can do with their photoshop fx. Old comic art was smart with lots of panels, character development and art. New comic art is lazy with giant splash screens and 3-4 panels per page..

4. Liefield was the 90's.

5. You must be reading some different X-men books.

[jardann]

You got me with the Rob Liefield comment.

I had successfully excised him from my memory until just now.

But I loved that paper! I think it was able to give a much greater range of moods depending on the art than what they are using now. It is very hard for me to explain.

Actually the long drawn out never finished plot lines are what drove me away in the late 90s, not the 80s. Plus the way it seemed that writers were changing many characters' personalities with no reason or explanation.

[bsu legato]

It's really a matter you can look at both ways. Superficially, comics today look so unimaginably better than anything we had even dreamed of back in the 80's. But those glitzy cg colored pages can also conceal some otherwise awful artwork. Case in point, White Drew's dissection of the "perspective" in that promo panel of the Robotech: Prelude To Shadow Craptacular.

The writing is something I can't comment on, having not read a comic in over a decade.

[jardann]

3. And they did alot more with those four colors then what all the new comics can do with their photoshop fx. Old comic art was smart with lots of panels, character development and art. New comic art is lazy with giant splash screens and 3-4 panels per page..

That is a great description Ace! It seems that comics today have a series of giant compositions that don't really advance the story. Sure, one page of "new" art looks better side by side with one page of "old" art, but the old art really contributed more to the story. I can easily get by with no more than one or two mini-posters in a comic book. The rest of the panels should work more with the story.

[eugimon]

I don't see how you can make that claim... books from brian hitch are every where near as good as anything printed in the 80s. smart panels, plenty of characterization and great splash pages.

Ditto Quietly, the guy who does the ultimate spiderman books and the team doing Invincible is just amazing.

Sides, writers like claremont force the use of many many panels because they keep mistaking exposition for story. Every issue of his stuff had a role call of the team members and what each one did... gets old fast.

[eugimon]

meh... can't stand the comics in the 80's.

1. powers that were just ridiculously out of control... superman was pushing around planets, wolverine regenerating from a drop of blood. OR, powers that were invented to close a plot hole.

2. That cheap wood pulp paper just sucks... flimsy and the texture was just nasty.

3. Cheap printing, low resolution and limited color pallette. Often the different ink guns would be mis-aligned, or was that an attempt at 3D?

4. Two Words: Rob Liefield

5. plot arcs that would never be resolved...

406371[/snapback]

1. Guess what Superman is back to planet pushing levels. At least Superboy Prime is and Superman beat his ass.

2. I'll agree it was flimsy but nasty? It's pulp paper.

3. And they did alot more with those four colors then what all the new comics can do with their photoshop fx. Old comic art was smart with lots of panels, character development and art. New comic art is lazy with giant splash screens and 3-4 panels per page..

4. Liefield was the 90's.

5. You must be reading some different X-men books.

406383[/snapback]

1. yes, and? doesn't mean superman doesn't suck again.

2. yes, nasty. feels nasty to the touch.

3. see previous post.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Liefeld; he got his start in the 80s.

5. yeah, they sure did resolve the whole jean grey/phoenix thing nicely didn't they? only twenty years later we found what happend to madelyne.

[Skullsixx]

That old pulp paper is now more expensive than the new stuff because nobody uses it anymore. I grew up with that stuff too, and I have a buddy currently working in comics who told me this.

I thought some of the old coloring was very cool. They really maxed out what they had to work with. Especially when they used to use he old format for texture as in mangas. I saw alot of good stuff come from the old Amazing Spiderman titles in the late 80's. When some titles went to that new brighter coloring in the late 80's, it looked like crap. The new paper and coloring looks really good for the most part. Heck, coloring is what actually saves some of these comics that are out today.

Rob Liefeld still sucks! I see some of his stuff when I browse comic shops once in a while and realize how crappy the majority of his work was. I have no idea nor do I care what he is doing now. I think he just lived up to his 15 minutes of fame after he did that Levi's commercial back in the day.

[Dangard Ace]

1. yes, and? doesn't mean superman doesn't suck again.

2. yes, nasty. feels nasty to the touch.

3. see previous post.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Liefeld; he got his start in the 80s.

5. yeah, they sure did resolve the whole jean grey/phoenix thing nicely didn't they? only twenty years later we found what happend to madelyne.

406405[/snapback]

1) Doesn't mean he sucks either.

2) personal opinion

3) Hitch's Authority is good. One of my favorites lately but he still uses up alot of space with his "widescreen" shots. Ultimate spiderman(Mark Bagley) is a good read but the colors are not to my liking. Never read Invincible.

*edit* Good god, just looked up examples of Quitely stuff (new X-men, All-Star Superman) and all his characters have flat faces!! His style's got detail but more suited to indie comics/grittier stories not superhero stuff. I will say he's better then JRJR.

4) Hawk and Dove(88) and NM(89) the latter crap years of the 80's. While technically he started in the 80's he became a "superstar" in the 90's.

5) Madelyn died in Inferno. If the writers that came after retconned it, who's fault is that? Phoenix:Endsong completely rewrote what the Phoenix was.

And about Claremont....everyone likes to complain against his writing style but who brought the X-men up from obscurity, when it was getting it's assed kicked by the Avengers, FF, JLA, JSA,..etc) to the superstar status it enjoys now?

[promethuem5]

3. And they did alot more with those four colors then what all the new comics can do with their photoshop fx. Old comic art was smart with lots of panels, character development and art. New comic art is lazy with giant splash screens and 3-4 panels per page..

4. Liefield was the 90's.

5. You must be reading some different X-men books.

Yes, yes and yes.

My feeling with the past 5 to ten years of comics has been 'meh, give me some 60s and 70s comics instead.' While the printing quality stunk (aweful resolution and often misaligned printing,) I personally think that alot of the raw art (especially the pencil work) is better than ALOT of stuff put out today (Brian Hitch and Turner aside...) to say nothing of the writing. Nowaday's Photoshopped mock-painting styles just suck ass and I hate them... they feel really cheezy and look really ugly. The old comic colorists really had to think about how to push the limited resources they had to the max. All that and, the layout of new comics just seems to utterly suck. It's all gotten real lazy and real sloppy feeling.

Then comes the writing.... I haven't really really enjoyed a a new issue of most comics I read (especialy my beloved Iron Man) for at least three years now.... Ultimates is an exception, but alot of other books have been either PC'ed up or dumbed down, or a horrible cross of the two....

And did Wolverine /really/ regenerate from a drop of blood in the 80s? I want to see that issue...

Edited June 8, 2006 by promethuem5

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

THing is earlier on in comics some colors were put there just cause, by people who had no art experience or knowledge of how to use color. With the advent of the computer you had more control over color and could pull off a lot of things, bad thing is, the number of idiots who had the jobs at colorists increased more so and now you have a few good colorists who do good in photoshop and really know their poo, and a bunch of photoshop demigods that think they know wtf they are doing by googlin' the latest tutorial and maxing out effects in ps. Photoshop makes everything easier.....but its easier to tell who knows their poo and who doesn't as well.

And for those of you who loathe Pat Lee, Liefeld gave him his first job at comics...

And Liefeld is a damn hack I hate how he basically ripped off a bunch of anime covers and did not even acknowledge them. And God his art is horrible. The only good thing he did was make Deadpool

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

BTW guys Bryan Hitch has some real old UK Transformers stuff.....his stuff now is very refined in comparison but its interesting to see what his stuff was like a long while ago. He did say that he wants to do hollywood stuff and it shows in his composition

[Sundown]

Add me to the crowd that can't stand the way most of the newer comics are colored. Yes, the old pulp paper felt cheap, but I miss it. Probably a nostalgia thing and I could really take it or leave it. But the old comics used color in a way that just felt more gritty and more expressive, even when limited to a few tones. New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome. For me, it really messes with the mood and believability of the books, when everything is blinding and glitzy.

I mean modern coloring is essentially:

1. Paint by numbers.

2. Gaussian Blur it!!

3. Profit!

Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday. It says something when a Miller written Batman ceases to be dark and gritty, because the art and coloring kill whatever mood the writing would have had. Then again, it could also be because Miller's writing is subpar in All-Star, and that Miller and Lee is just not a great pairing.

And I think it also says something when I loved the 90's Lee, but his new stuff is almost so sacharinely sweet that it's intolerable. I'm not sure who to blame, him for losing a step, or his colorist.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Sundown

[gerwalk25]

This idea popped back into my head while discussing X-3 in the super mega thread of super mega posts down below. A very nice discussion in that thread.

While the discussion about the movies were going on several people mentioned how good the X-men comics were in the 80s and I agree wholeheartedly!

One thing I think I miss the most was the look and "feel" of those comic books. Especially the old newsprint type of paper that was used in them. I really preferred that paper and the style that went along with it. I liked it much better than the new photoshopped inks and glossy paper that is now the norm. I also hate the cost of the new comic books that must be in large part due to the more expensive paper etc.

So, I'm just asking if anyone else feels the same or similar aobut some other aspects of comics and what has changed in the past 10 years or so.

Chime in you guys!

406368[/snapback]

I feel the same way. What I remember the most about the old newsprinted comics is the smell (from the soy-based inks) especially when you bought it new off the rack. Nowadays every comic that comes out the pages are the same as the covers there printed over. It just dosen't feel the same. Luckily english Manga compilations like Shonen Jump and Raijin retains the newsprint and even the smell .

[jardann]

Hey Sundown, looks like we're on the same page again with this subject.

My favorite work of Jim Lee's is his first run on X-men. The art in that time period really got the most out of the old printing and coloring methods. And two guys that I think never get enough credit are Marc Silvestri and (?) Green the two artists that had a great run on X-men before Jim Lee took over. I rank the art that those two produced on X-men right up with the best of Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane (before his giant ego explosion) and Frank Miller.

There is something about the way the pencil shadings work with the old method that is lost in the new. Crosshatching and color blocking really blended well on the old newsprint paper. Now, every line stands out on it's own and doesn't become a smooth whole. I think it is because every black is stark and 100% black and glossy and there is no fade or blending between the line art and the color.

Everyone please note that I am not saying that the art in comic books today is bad (some is, some isn't just like always) I've seen alot of great stuff even recently. But the feeling, the mood is different today and I think the paper and printing method has a lot to do with it.

[Roy Focker]

I haven't brought a new comic in years and during the last decade when I was buying comics it was like one comic every two months.

In the 80's I must have bought 6 issues a month. That costed me $6 tops. What is the price of current comic 3/4 that price? Why did I stop reading? Well I wanted to read more. Last thing I remember of newer comics that they had bigger panels but fewer over all and less words. Oh I still walk into a comic store from time to time but never impressed enought to buy something.

[Sundown]

My favorite work of Jim Lee's is his first run on X-men. The art in that time period really got the most out of the old printing and coloring methods. And two guys that I think never get enough credit are Marc Silvestri and (?) Green the two artists that had a great run on X-men before Jim Lee took over. I rank the art that those two produced on X-men right up with the best of Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane (before his giant ego explosion) and Frank Miller.

Yeah, the old Lee X-men pages just looked sooo goood, and his pencils worked especially well with the muted flat tones and old newsprint. I also feel that his proportions were a lot more accurate back then than they are now. For someone who's supposed to draw the best women in comics, he sure draws more stiff poses and makes more anatomic errors than I expect.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

The old paper had a certain texture to it that I miss. I don't mind the glossy paper though.

I guess the main advantage is if the story or art sucked, and you were just a fan of the character and bought lots of comics, you didn't feel like you were ripped off. (buying a comic you don't like on expensive paper)

Maybe they should make the comics larger or something like the 2000AD comics so there is just more space to fit more detail?

Edited June 9, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[JsARCLIGHT]

I have not bought a comic book since 1993 so I have no real appreciation of the "new style" that people are going on about. I liked my old comics but you have to admit that even back in the early '80s / mid '80s some of those comics where complete ass. I have a few old back issues of GI Joe that come to mind with characters off model, colors all messed up and other such wonderful errors. Not printing errors mind you, color errors... stuff like you'd only see in vintage '80s comics.

[Skull Leader]

I love the look, feel, and even the smell of old comic books. I've read the original TMNT line (have almost the whole lineup, minus 2 or 3 later issues), and Uncanny X-men (I stopped collecting after issue 380 or so... I was getting tired of them switching artists like some people change underwear). The earlier stuff just seems so much more quality to me. More thought given to the storylines (unless it's intended tongue-in-cheek stuff by the writers), and just a better presentation of the "larger than life" attitude that was so important to comic books.

I never once read comics for any sense of realism. I read comics as an escape from reality.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Radd]

New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome.

...

Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday.

Just so we're clear, let's not confuse the artists with the media being used. If an artist really wants to, they can do some great things with digital colouring. It's just that digital colouring, much like digital animation, also allows for a lot of shortcuts not available with traditional media. If an artist is willing to forego those shortcuts, digital colouring can be every bit as "dark and gritty" as inks and watercolours.

Another problem is that lots of people gravitate towards eyegougingly saturated codlours and bright, blurry effects. These look awful, and tend to ignore even the most basic of colour theory ideals. Maybe someday people will get over this strange infatuation with awful looking effects, kinda like how the lense flare fad eventually diminished. Or better yet, maybe someday in the far future it will dissapear completely, at least from professional work.

[Sundown]

New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome.

...

Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday.

Just so we're clear, let's not confuse the artists with the media being used. If an artist really wants to, they can do some great things with digital colouring. It's just that digital colouring, much like digital animation, also allows for a lot of shortcuts not available with traditional media. If an artist is willing to forego those shortcuts, digital colouring can be every bit as "dark and gritty" as inks and watercolours.

Oh I know that. I'm just bitter about how the popular "comic look" tends to look and how pervasive those canned shortcuts are.

[SpacePirateNeko]

Oh how i hate how everyone tries to draw "manga" style these days but instead of looking liek manga it looks like some horrid cross bred lab experiment that more closesly resembles "fan art" on some final fantasy web site gallery section.

Ive never been huge into superhero books anyway but i think years ago where as the paper might now be better the artist used the papers faults to their advantage. There was much more original stylisms, more artist tried to use composition and shadow to their advantage.

I miss all the old side rack comics. I miss heavy metal magazine...matter fact i just picked up a whole ton off ebay for a few bucks. Grabbed a whole bunch of savage sword of conan too. Matter fact the art and stories in the new conan line are very good..

[azrael]

I stopped collecting comics right about the time they were slowly making the switch from newspaper to the glossy stuff. Artists have become somewhat manga like. Stories span way too many titles for my wallet and living space to deal with. If I ever collect a series, it will most likely be in the form of a graphic novel.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

\Katsushiro Otomo commented years back that the problem with american artists drawing manga horribly is that they think its a style rather than a way of storytelling. Manga is meant to be read fast, and the image should tell you immediately what is going on. Not to mention they tend to do things by week or bimonthly whereas westerners tend to put out stuff by month.

So to many american artists, drawing "manga"=anime style stereotypical big eyes and cell shading. A lot of times it looks half assed, in my opinion that I have still kept true for years, there are very few american artists who can do manga well. And Ben Dunn is not one of them.

I mean look at Goseki Kojima's work, holy hell its freaking awesome but not even like anime.

But the story can immediately be grasped....the images tell you right away what is going on.