Flash Annual
Wilbert Tiu
Johnny Quick. And I must say I was blown away by Anthony
Williams' art!!!! It's so dynamic!!!! He SHOULD BE THE ONE
DRAWING FLASH, and NOT Pop Mahn!!!! No offense to Pop Mahn,
but his art just doesn't go well with me.
Pages that I liked in the annual were:
1) Page 1, 3rd Panel -- Great Wally West sideburns! I
haven't enjoyed his sideburns this much since Mike Wieringo
drew Wally.
2) Page 3 -- Greate sideburns, lightning trails, and
muscles.
3) Page 20 -- Speed Demon looked great and really crooked.
4) Page 13 -- I've never seen a more beautiful Jesse Quick
before.
5) Page 15, 28 -- Great Wally West pose, standing and
running.
6) Page 16, 25 -- Great close-up and light effect
7) Page 29 -- Johnny Quick never looked better.
8) Page 33 -- Again, a great scene. This is the best Johnny
and Jesse Quick scene I've ever seen.
9) Last page - Another great scene. Wally looked so manly
and handsome, and with Linda on his arms, he just looked so
heroic.
I wish the PTB at DC would notice and get Williams right
away to replace Pop Mahn. I even like Williams art more
than Paul Ryan's on Flash. Again, no offense to Paul Ryan.
I want to send this message again to DC. But I can't seem
to find their e-mail address. I know I have it here
somewhere. Can someone make my life easier by sending it to
me? Thanks...
Regards,
Wilbert
wil...@webquest.com
Bill Steinen
>I just read Flash Annual 11, the one about the Ghost of
>Johnny Quick. And I must say I was blown away by Anthony
>Williams' art!!!! It's so dynamic!!!! He SHOULD BE THE ONE
>DRAWING FLASH, and NOT Pop Mahn!!!! No offense to Pop Mahn,
>but his art just doesn't go well with me.
As far as I can tell, *no one* likes Pop Mahns art on Flash or on
anything else. I'm still wondering why DC put him on a moderately
popular book like Flash when he's widely thought to be responsible for
the death of another moderately popular book (around here, anyway),
Marvel's Ghost Rider. I liked the Williams art; he (or almost anyone
other than Rob Liefield) would be a good replacement. I don't have
anything against Mahn personally, but his art just doesn't do it for
me.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
"You may be immortal, but I can still do damage.
How would you like to spend eternity in five pieces?"
--Xena, Warrior Princess
---------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Vernon
Steinen) wrote:
>As far as I can tell, *no one* likes Pop Mahns art on Flash or on
>anything else. I'm still wondering why DC put him on a moderately
>popular book like Flash when he's widely thought to be responsible for
>the death of another moderately popular book (around here, anyway),
>Marvel's Ghost Rider.
I happen to like Mhan's artwork... I can't speak for Ghost Rider, but
I lost interest in that title years ago when it became very derivative
of itself... If anything killed that book it was likely lack of
direction and innovation.
But anyway.. I like Mhan... and he was a nice guy when I met him at
this year's Heroes Convention in Charlotte... Everyone has
preferences and I'm sure I don't like some other popular artists..
But this guy is alright in my book. Granted his Flash is different
than what we have been used to...
-Stewart
WhiteGuy66
anything else.}
Now there's a close-minded, ignorant, idiotic statement.
{I'm still wondering why DC put him on a moderately
popular book like Flash when he's widely thought to be responsible for
the death of another moderately popular book (around here, anyway),
Marvel's Ghost Rider.}
Maybe because he's a good artist? He's miles above Paul Ryan and just because
you and other ng pedophiles don't like him doesn't mean no one does. Grow up.
Dwight Williams
That "pedophiles" charge is lawsuit-actionable, friend. As in "class
action", I believe(although Bob Ingersoll might have to correct me on the
specifics).
As for Paul Ryan v. Pop Manh...Ryan has a better handle on the basics of
the human figure, perspective, photorealism...Manh seems to lean more
towards the abstract in his style. If he has a handle on the basics, I
can't be sure of that yet.
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society
wo...@interlog.com
>{As far as I can tell, *no one* likes Pop Mahns art on Flash or on
>anything else.}
>
>Now there's a close-minded, ignorant, idiotic statement.
>
>{I'm still wondering why DC put him on a moderately
>popular book like Flash when he's widely thought to be responsible for
>the death of another moderately popular book (around here, anyway),
>Marvel's Ghost Rider.}
>
>Maybe because he's a good artist? He's miles above Paul Ryan and just because
>you and other ng pedophiles don't like him doesn't mean no one does. Grow up.
You go around calling people pedophiles (What's with that? Did you
learn a new word this weekend?) and then have the audacity to tell
someone to grow up?
Sound like you had some damaging experiences with grownups when you
were a kid.
Todd VerBeek
>>As far as I can tell, *no one* likes Pop Mahns art on Flash or on
>>popular book like Flash when he's widely thought to be responsible for
>>the death of another moderately popular book (around here, anyway),
>>Marvel's Ghost Rider.
My pal Stewart Vernon said:
>I happen to like Mhan's artwork...
....
>and he was a nice guy when I met him at
>this year's Heroes Convention in Charlotte... Everyone has
>preferences and I'm sure I don't like some other popular artists..
>But this guy is alright in my book. Granted his Flash is different
>than what we have been used to...
I'm sure Pop's a swell person, but I really don't care for his art,
either. I could nitpick flaws in his anatomy and composition, but that's
true of many artists. My main objection is that he draws everyone so
(pardon the art-school jargon here) "ugly".
Cheers, Todd
---
cDATA 2000, a comic-book database program for the next millennium.
Download it from <http://www.RZero.com/soft/>
WhiteGuy66
action", I believe(although Bob Ingersoll might have to correct me on the
specifics).}
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, and I'd like to see that charge
stick.
{Ryan has a better handle on the basics of
the human figure, perspective, photorealism...}
All of which makes his work in a fluid medium all the more disgusting.
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
> I'm sure Pop's a swell person, but I really don't care for his art,
> either. I could nitpick flaws in his anatomy and composition, but that's
> true of many artists. My main objection is that he draws everyone so
> (pardon the art-school jargon here) "ugly".
Isn't nitpicking Mahn's anatomy mising the point? It doesn't seem
to me that "anatomically correct" is the look he's going for --
More like "artfully exaggerated."
I have no problem with people not liking what he's doing, but why
criticize what are obviously very deliberate aspects of his style
as if they are mistakes?
This isn't a dig at Todd, I just keep seeing people complaining about
Mahn's sense of anatomy, and that's more of a stylistic criticism than
a quality criticism, if you get my gist. And it's a criticism one
could easily make against Michealangelo.
or Picasso.
Similarly, I really think most of the criticisms of Bog's art are off-
base, in that it may be "ugly", according to ones aesthetics, but
it certainly isn't the work of a bad artist. He knows what he's doing
and could do different if he wanted to. He's working at making his
art look the way it does...
Matt.
Dwight Williams
WhiteGuy66 (white...@aol.com) writes:
> {That "pedophiles" charge is lawsuit-actionable, friend. As in "class
> action", I believe(although Bob Ingersoll might have to correct me on the
> specifics).}
>
> I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, and I'd like to see that charge
> stick.
A blanket insult like that? <evil chuckle>
> {Ryan has a better handle on the basics of
> the human figure, perspective, photorealism...}
>
> All of which makes his work in a fluid medium all the more disgusting.
To whom?
eternally
>
>
> Isn't nitpicking Mahn's anatomy mising the point? It doesn't seem
> to me that "anatomically correct" is the look he's going for --
>
> More like "artfully exaggerated."
>
> I have no problem with people not liking what he's doing, but why
> criticize what are obviously very deliberate aspects of his style
> as if they are mistakes?
>
> This isn't a dig at Todd, I just keep seeing people complaining about
> Mahn's sense of anatomy, and that's more of a stylistic criticism than
> a quality criticism, if you get my gist.
how's this for a quality criticism:
he draws the same characters differently in every panel.
he can't seem to draw facial expressions in an evocative manner.
his depiction on motion (rather important in this title) is
inconsistent.
need more?
- e.
YorelEnort
base, in that it may be "ugly", according to ones aesthetics, but
it certainly isn't the work of a bad artist. He knows what he's doing
and could do different if he wanted to. He's working at making his
art look the way it does...}
And because of that, he should never draw Superman again.
YorelEnort
his depiction on motion (rather important in this title) is
inconsistent.
need more?}
Yeah how about, he's better than Paul Ryan?
Dale Hicks
<6pgh08$o...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>...
> Todd VerBeek wrote:
>
> > I'm sure Pop's a swell person, but I really don't care for his art,
> > either. I could nitpick flaws in his anatomy and composition, but that's
> > true of many artists. My main objection is that he draws everyone so
> > (pardon the art-school jargon here) "ugly".
>
> criticize what are obviously very deliberate aspects of his style
> as if they are mistakes?
Because I, for one, don't really care for this mangling of reality.
I enjoy art as being a nice representation of reality, which can
contain a lot of beauty. Add this to the fact that comics are
obstensibly a medium where a story is told, it would behoove us to
have an artist who can tell that story.
> This isn't a dig at Todd, I just keep seeing people complaining about
> Mahn's sense of anatomy, and that's more of a stylistic criticism than
> a quality criticism, if you get my gist. And it's a criticism one
> could easily make against Michealangelo.
Was his style that far removed from reality?
> or Picasso.
Gladly. Picasso was a hack.
> Similarly, I really think most of the criticisms of Bog's art are off-
> base, in that it may be "ugly", according to ones aesthetics, but
> it certainly isn't the work of a bad artist. He knows what he's doing
> and could do different if he wanted to. He's working at making his
> art look the way it does...
And I consider such work a shame, as I do with Byrne, Giffen, and
anyone else that feels compelled to lessen their expression for
the sake of style.
Yeah, you can argue that I am wrong for equating art with realism (other
than the totally abstract, which has on occasion moved me). But don't
expect me to change my opinion.
--
Calvin Brain icono...@mail1.surfnet1.net
(who loves Hopper and Homer)
YorelEnort
Gladly. Picasso was a hack.}
Boy do you need some humbling.
Todd VerBeek
>> I'm sure Pop's a swell person, but I really don't care for his art,
>> either. I could nitpick flaws in his anatomy and composition, but that's
>> true of many artists. My main objection is that he draws everyone so
>> (pardon the art-school jargon here) "ugly".
My pal Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit. said:
>Isn't nitpicking Mahn's anatomy mising the point?
Might that be why I mentioned it only in passing on my way to my =real=
point? But since you want to focus attention on it, I'll address it.
>It doesn't seem
>to me that "anatomically correct" is the look he's going for --
>More like "artfully exaggerated."
>I have no problem with people not liking what he's doing, but why
>criticize what are obviously very deliberate aspects of his style
>as if they are mistakes?
Because it's not particularly obvious to me that they =are= merely
sylistic choices. I'll explain in a minute....
>This isn't a dig at Todd, I just keep seeing people complaining about
>Mahn's sense of anatomy, and that's more of a stylistic criticism than
>a quality criticism, if you get my gist. And it's a criticism one
>could easily make against Michealangelo.
How easily? Michelangelo (note the spelling please {smile}) had a pretty
good grasp of anatomy and exercised it pretty consistently, from what I've
seen. He was no Leonardo (who literally =studied= anatomy), but even if
the proportions of "David" were off (and they were; the eyes are too big
and misplaced, for example), it was most definitely anatomically
correct... and I'm not just talking about the inclusion of a penis. You
get the sense of a human skeleton "under" there, with human muscles and
such on top.
>or Picasso.
Sorry, but I have to be pendantic here: =Which= Picasso? He did a lot of
different kinds of work; not all of it was cubist or primitivist.
>Similarly, I really think most of the criticisms of Bog's art are off-
>base, in that it may be "ugly", according to ones aesthetics, but
>it certainly isn't the work of a bad artist. He knows what he's doing
>and could do different if he wanted to. He's working at making his
>art look the way it does...
I agree with your defence of Bog, because I've seen that he =can= draw
differently from his recent /Man of Steel/ work (though I do think =some=
of the things people don't like are mere carelessness, not "working at
it"), but unless I see some evidence that the artist in question =does=
know anatomy, I'm not likely to excuse them as "doing it wrong on
purpose".
Picasso knew anatomy, and I've seen enough of his representational art to
prove that. When he put both eyes on the same side of the head it was
clear that was doing it on purpose, and =with= a purpose. But when Mhan
draws everybody with the same skull deformations... but only some of the
time... it doesn't say "stylistic decision done this way on purpose" to
me. I mean, what is the "stylistic purpose" of chins that change shape
from one panel to the next?
I admit that I have a bias toward realism and naturalism, and for
representational art. But I'm quite comfortable with highly-"stylised"
art like that of Roberta Gregory, Bill Watterson, Jhonen Vasquez, Mark
Crilley, or Larry Marder. I don't see Mhan's art in the same category.
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
>
> Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit. <"remove-me.edu> wrote in article
> <6pgh08$o...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>...
> >
> > > I'm sure Pop's a swell person, but I really don't care for his art,
> > > either. I could nitpick flaws in his anatomy and composition, but that's
> > > true of many artists. My main objection is that he draws everyone so
> > > (pardon the art-school jargon here) "ugly".
> >
> > I have no problem with people not liking what he's doing, but why
> > criticize what are obviously very deliberate aspects of his style
> > as if they are mistakes?
>
> I enjoy art as being a nice representation of reality, which can
> contain a lot of beauty. Add this to the fact that comics are
> obstensibly a medium where a story is told, it would behoove us to
> have an artist who can tell that story.
Well, part of my point is that you should say that its Mahn's
stylization
that you don't like. I'm not a big fan of his work -- although I'll
cop to liking Bog.
Say you disagree with his decision to exaggerate anatomy, or that you
don't like the effect. But criticizing anatomy here is besides the
point -- the artist has basically said, through his style, "I don't
care, I'm exaggerating."
Which brings us to Michealangelo.
> > This isn't a dig at Todd, I just keep seeing people complaining about
> > Mahn's sense of anatomy, and that's more of a stylistic criticism than
> > a quality criticism, if you get my gist. And it's a criticism one
> > could easily make against Michealangelo.
>
> Was his style that far removed from reality?
Yes. Often, in Michealangelo's work arms will be longer than bodies, or
than one another. People would be out of proportion. In his Pieta --
that sculpture of Mary holding the dead Christ -- I think Mary is
actually much taller than she should be, or Christ much smaller. It
may be ther other way around, I'm doing this from memory.
I'd agree that Michealangelo made you forget the exaggeration, and that
Mahn doesn't always do so. But sometimes it works, sometimes its
exaggeration to enhance perspective, or motion. And that's probably
when Mahn is at his best.
Personally, I want to shake him and scream, "If you want to be surreal
or expressionistic, DO IT! What you're doing now looks half-assed."
<about Bog>
> And I consider such work a shame, as I do with Byrne, Giffen, and
> anyone else that feels compelled to lessen their expression for
> the sake of style.
You don't have to like it. I just don't think it's right to accuse
the artist of not being able to draw. You can say, "Wow. That took
skill. That took work. That looks absolutely awful."
And I'll give you that there are art styles which won't work in comics,
and that pseudo-realism is well suited to adventure/superhero fare.
>
> Yeah, you can argue that I am wrong for equating art with realism (other
> than the totally abstract, which has on occasion moved me). But don't
> expect me to change my opinion.
I don't. But I'm sorry that you can't expand your horizons a little.
Yhe stringent requirements you're setting mean that you miss out on
a lot of great paintings from the past two centuries. Picasso's blue
period, for instance. Or Matisse. OR Cezanne. Or Van Gogh.
To get back on topic -- I think Van Gogh's work might have worked
in comics, and I think Cezanne would have like the form.
>
> --
> Calvin Brain icono...@mail1.surfnet1.net
> (who loves Hopper and Homer)
HAve you checked out Eakins? Similar work, incredibly primal.
The best sense of anatomy, possible ever.
Matt.
Aaron Mojo
>> could easily make against Michealangelo.
>
>Was his style that far removed from reality?
>
>
>Gladly. Picasso was a hack.
BUT Picasso could also do perfect realism, as exhibited in a few of his
early, non-famous pieces, and thus has the credibility that enables him to
exaggerate and stylize everything if he wants to. But if an artist can't
accurately represent reality, then I don't think he or she has any busniess
doing any sort of outrageous stylizing. Like a comment Walt Disney once made
about his artists needing to be able to accurately depict reality before they
could stylize and caricature it.
-Aaron!
dave leon
>in comics, and I think Cezanne would have like the form.
>
>>
Van Gogh and Groo.
YorelEnort
representational art. But I'm quite comfortable with highly-"stylised"
art like that of Roberta Gregory, Bill Watterson, Jhonen Vasquez, Mark
Crilley, or Larry Marder. I don't see Mhan's art in the same category.}
Who the hell are these artists? I've never heard of them.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Maybe because he's a good artist? He's miles above Paul Ryan and just because
: you and other ng pedophiles don't like him doesn't mean no one does. Grow up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Omar, please stop the baseless and offensive insults. You promised.
Pedophelia is not a laughing matter.
In my opinion, Ryan is a much better penciller than Mhan. His work has
grace to it, although it doesn't flow as nicely as I'd like it to at
times. Ryan has a good, solid understanding of anatomy as well, which I
haven't yet seen in Mhan's work.
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: {I admit that I have a bias toward realism and naturalism, and for
Roberta Gregory does BITCHY BITCH; mostly underground, but it's gotten
significant press. Bill Watterson did CALVIN & HOBBES, a very widely-
circulated comic strip. Mark Crilley is the writer/artist of AKIKO, and
was recently featured in Entertainment Weekly. Larry Marder currently
serves in a suit capacity at Image but is best known for being the
writer/artist of BEANWORLD. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Vasquez.
Hope this helps.
WILEECOYOTE
>
> {I admit that I have a bias toward realism and naturalism, and for
> representational art. But I'm quite comfortable with highly-"stylised"
> art like that of Roberta Gregory, Bill Watterson, Jhonen Vasquez, Mark
> Crilley, or Larry Marder. I don't see Mhan's art in the same category.}
>
> Who the hell are these artists? I've never heard of them.
writing for instance Bill Watterson draws and writes Calvin and Hobbes
when it was in the papers
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
> I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Vasquez.
<GASP!> You mean you've never read the wonder that is Johnny the
Homicidal Maniac? You've never laughed and cried along with Squee?
You've never -- never? Never had a smile put on your face? By
Happy Noodle Boy?
To think!
Great stuff. It's published by Slave Labor Graphics.
Matt.
There's a Johnny The Homicidal Maniac mural in my dorm.
eternally
>
> WhiteGuy66 (white...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Maybe because he's a good artist? He's miles above Paul Ryan and just because
> : you and other ng pedophiles don't like him doesn't mean no one does. Grow up.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Omar, please stop the baseless and offensive insults. You promised.
Elayne, are you for real...?!
...and you called someone else naive in an earlier thread...
- e.
"It's a magic ring-- we play fast and loose with the rules." -Ron Marz
Todd VerBeek
>: representational art. But I'm quite comfortable with highly-"stylised"
>: art like that of Roberta Gregory, Bill Watterson, Jhonen Vasquez, Mark
>: Crilley, or Larry Marder. I don't see Mhan's art in the same category.}
>: Who the hell are these artists? I've never heard of them.
(Why am I not surprised?)
My pal Elayne Wechsler-Chaput said:
>Roberta Gregory does BITCHY BITCH; mostly underground, but it's gotten
>significant press.
The name of the series is actually /Naughty Bits/... Bitchy is just the
main character. And I'm not sure I'd characterise Fantagraphics as
"underground"; they're one of the top-ten publishers in the direct market,
aren't they?
>Bill Watterson did CALVIN & HOBBES, a very widely-
>circulated comic strip. Mark Crilley is the writer/artist of AKIKO, and
>was recently featured in Entertainment Weekly. Larry Marder currently
>serves in a suit capacity at Image but is best known for being the
>writer/artist of BEANWORLD. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Vasquez.
He's the creator of /Johnny the Homicidal Maniac/ and /Squee/ (both from
Slave Labor Graphics).
Todd VerBeek
>> representational art. But I'm quite comfortable with highly-"stylised"
>> art like that of Roberta Gregory, Bill Watterson, Jhonen Vasquez, Mark
>> Crilley, or Larry Marder. I don't see Mhan's art in the same category.}
>YorelEnort wrote:
>> Who the hell are these artists? I've never heard of them.
My pal WILEECOYOTE said:
>Those artist are commercial artists in other fields beside comic book
>writing
No, they're all comics creators, either currently producing new comic
books (Gregory, Vasquez, Crilley) or reprinting their work in new
collections (Watterson, Marder). Please don't try to answer a question
like this with a guess; if you don't know, don't say.
>for instance Bill Watterson draws and writes Calvin and Hobbes
>when it was in the papers
Cheers, Todd