Should Marvel and DC force a style guide on their artists?

[enyawd72]

It just occurred to me how the artists at Marvel and DC vary so widely in artistic style, always redesigning costumes and looks etc. when this same artistic freedom is not allowed with either parent company's Disney or Looney Tunes characters.

All Disney characters must constantly be drawn the same, no matter who is doing it. You never see crazy stylized versions of characters. Characters are not allowed to switch race or gender or whatever. What if these same standards of consistency were applied to our super heroes?

I'm not even sure why so much of today's art is stylized. It's almost like many of today's artists just do it their way and never learn the "proper" way to render figures and tell a story. It's all personal style over substance.

[thunderbolt]

If all you want is bland sameness then yes. I personally think that both need a new hand steering the wheel, tho. When I followed comics in the 70s and 80s it was great to see different styles on different characters. I couldn't imagine if Marvel was as bland and conformist as Disney, Archie or Harvey was at the same time. I do see what you mean as far as actual skill goes, a lot of what I see posted around is pretty terrible. There are still a few really good actual comic artists.

[enyawd72]

^I should clarify...I definitely don't want bland, but a more unified look. Going back to the era you mentioned, you could line up Spider-Man drawn by John Romita, Gil Kane, Ross Andru, and Ron Frenz. Each was distinct yet very similar.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I don't think they should FORCE a style guide. I think the individual editors should you know...edit...and keep the books on course. If an artist is going to far off the rails, they should gently nudge them back in the right direction.

The editors used to be "the boss" of each comic. Somewhere during the 80s the shfit began, where the creators were calling the shots. As creators come and go from titles more frequently than editors, in most cases, this led to a lot of this "bold new direction" ever six issues crap we deal with today.

If you look at DC titles of the early to mid 80s, you will see TONS of artists swiping poses from the 1982 DC Style Guide by Jose Luis Garcia Lopez and Dick Giordano. Evidently it was pushed on artists to use for not only getting costumes right, but for actual layout and posing of figures as well. When I see that now, it takes me out of the comic. When even Gil Kane is doing that on the covers of his own co-creation, Green Lantern, it's being too "enforced".





Chris

[hedrap]

There is a style guide, IIRC, but it's based on the distinguishing trademarks of the colors and design. How that's interpreted by the artists, as Chris pointed out, changed in the mid-80's as the total uniformity created a blandness that didn't stand out while shelfspace and distribution outlets were beginning to narrow.

I think Byrne could be considered the first to bend uniformity to his distinctive look, but McFarlane blew the doors off allowing Image to live up to its name.

A huge problem you would have today, are the main EICs are artists themselves. You would need legit print editors ,or possibly marketing execs, to takeover as EIC to try and enforce a visual branding.

[LordMudd]

DC and Marvel have always had their own distinct styles. DC was always clean an crisp while Marvel was always dirty and realistic. Wolverine broke the mold by going gritty, and DC followed with Batman to compete. This bled over into everything else both were doing. when they did it to New Mutants and Legion of Super Heroes, I stopped buying comics. Some things are NOT meant to be gritty!

CCC.

[enyawd72]

Dwayne, I'm a bit shocked you would ask this question. Being an artist, I would think you would back the "artist interpretation" concept as opposed to a homogenized business model. Doesn't sound very artsy.

If I'm working on something of my own, I can take as many liberties with it as I want. However, I feel that an artist for hire working on someone else's character has a responsibility to that character. I think it's pure vanity on the part of a lot of these guys to "improve" on something that was perfect to begin with. They want to leave their mark on a character. Change for the sake of change, if you will, so they can say "Look what I did...I made Spider-Man neon green." That kind of art is self serving and disrespectful to the character. As I mentioned before, you can adhere to a certain style and still be unique. John Byrne, Gene Colan and Mike Zeck are perfect examples. Their individual styles are instantly recognizeable, yet they also blended in perfectly aesthetically with every other Marvel artist and with each other.
In other words...you can stand out without "standing out" if that makes any sense.

[Hedji]

Yes.

If bland sameness equates to John Romita's Spider-Man, then bring on the style guide.

See, the way I see it, the books on the shelves for the most part have a bland sameness all their own: they all look similarly bad.

Give all these youngsters a copy of Buscema's How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way.

What IS the Marvel Way these days? Is there one? Is it different than the other companies?

Don't mind me, I'm just old. But, DANG, I loves me some John Romita. And not just on Spider-Man... His Hulk and Captain America are divine... as if every line counts and there are no more or less than are needed.

[madmarva]

I think a costume design should be set as well as distinguishing traits like hair styles or Superman's spit curl, but beyond that I like seeing how various artist handle the characters.

I didn't care for Rich Buckler attempting to draw like Kirby for Marvel. That being said his aping of Neal Adams worked better for me at DC, but I'm not sure what Buckler's actual style is.

The worst is when Murphy Anderson redrew the faces of Superman and Jimmy Olsen when he worked on Olsen's book.

Some inkers also overshadowed the pencilers in the past. I'm not sure if that was for house style or if it was just the way the inker worked.