First Look At Ryan Reynolds As Green Lantern

[ARROW]

I don't know if he knows anything about art or not, but he made a very good point.

His point only makes sense in a 4 colour print medium. Cinema isn't print and has far different visual cues that it needs to address. In comics, the primary objective of the pose is to make it read as a silhouette. That means that colour values have to adhere to that sensibility too. So a costume design like GL, with the white gloves means that the positive/negative spaces in the design are to make things like the pose read, and the ring prominent when called for in the shot.

 

 

Oh brother...! Let me give you a crash course in cinematography. In film, we have light and shadow. Do you see that big ball of light in the sky? Do you? Good. That is called the Sun! It is a light source! That means it makes shadows!. Shadows are important which is why on a film set and in an artist's studio, you see people working very hard and often with MULTIPLE lights to get a desired lighting pattern. Green Lantern has tremendous potential for very dramatic lighting conditions but that same potential has with it enormous inherent problems. Everything in this thing could be swathed in light and everything is green. Add to the mix an absolute lack of subtlety and restraint on the part of today's filmmakers. Everything has to be overdone. We can't just have a guy in a green suit. We have to clutter it up with distracting busy little knick-knacks and doodads. We can't hold on a scene for ten seconds. We have to have a cut per second so we're not even sure of what we're looking at. Gil Kane used to say that one of his goals in designing a character was to make it interesting as a design but simple enough that a child could easily draw that character. As 0rion inimated, artists today aren't happy unless they are over-working a design. They compensate for a lack of a design sense with unnecessary detail.

 

Oh, please... I've been working in cinema (animation) and cartooning for the better part of a quarter century, and taught the stuff for a decade--you've got nothing on lecturing me.

When I think you know what you are talking about, I'll acknowledge it, but that's not happened yet.

[0rion]

Arrow wrote:

 

Its amusing reading such comments from someone who doesn't know anything about art--a clear point made sometime ago.

 

Quite a bold assumption from someone who knows nothing about my background, don't you think?

 

I mean.....oh, just for the sake of it......what the heck is this "good old fashioned art training" you speak of?

 

Anatomy, physiology, proportion, perspective, storytelling, etc.

 

I'm curious because the length and breadth of resources and training available today far exceed that of 50 years past.

 

Comic book artists today are more technically proficient artists than those folks of the past. There's more books across the board with more appealing art than ever before.

Comics have come a loooooooong way from the 4-colour process.

 

Really? Where are the Jack Kirbys and the Neal Adamses of today? They don't exist. Today's artists are not anywhere near as technically proficient. They just have more technology shortcuts on hand. And that doesn't make good art.

 

Heh, I think its awfully presumptuous to say that today's comic artists do not have a foundation of fine art training.

 

I think it's true. How many of them have gone to art school or learned anatomy? Few. I see a lot of poor anatomy, poor perspective, etc.

 

Storytelling skills are subjective, because the nature of storytelling has evolved in comics from the golden to the silver ages to the modern ages. Stories are told differently, with different emphasis ( editorial and consumer) in each era, because the audiences were different in each.

 

I disagree. Storytelling is just that...telling a story. If you can "read" a story by simply looking at the art without text, that's good storytelling. I see precious little of that these days. It's all ridiculous dynamic manga poses with no attention to anatomy or proportion or whatever. The storytelling aspect is almost totally absent. And the whole digital painted art thing turns me off totally as well.

 

As far as dynamic anatomy goes......pfft, comics were far more cartoony in the years past--much broader in staging and posing--though you'll find carefully considered examples in today's books. Comics today are generally more illustrative in nature, with much more sophisticated inking and colouring.

 

Printing technology has no bearing on the matter. We're talking about artistic skill. Nobody these days can touch Kirby's or Kane's dynamic anatomy.

 

The notion that artists today are lesser talents because they drew inspiration from previous talent is also missing something--many of those "previous talents" were themselves inspired by other artists before them, even by their contemporaries.

 

Inspired by, yes. But they also got formal training. So many of today's artist lack classical training and simply learned to draw by copying off other artists. So they pick up a lot of bad influences and don't have an underlying foundation to build off of. Without that foundation, they can't develop proper skills.

 

The advantage today is that contemporary artists have access to far more sources of inspiration than ever before--the resource pool is limitless.

 

And yet despite this "limitless pool", none of them have come close to even a fraction of the creative output of Kirby or others in his class (well, nobody is really in his class, technically). There's a reason Kirby, Kane, Buscema, Adams, and others are considered legends.

[0rion]

Arrow wrote:

 

The suit itself doesn't need the effeminate white gloves.....and c'mon.....those are very effeminate...to make the ring stand out.

 

See, this is the kind of modern criticism I just don't understand. Green Lantern has had that costume since 1959 and I have NEVER heard anyone call his gloves "effeminate" in all those years. It's attitudes like this that show just how biased modern audiences are against the classics. There is simply no respect for the source material. Forty years after the fact, someone starts calling GL's gloves "effeminate". Really? Unreal.

 

Da Top Cat wrote:

 

So, how exactly did "they all learn art" and what makes it the "right way"? And how did "artists these days" learn art? Do you actually even know?

 

Precisely how Flounderr stated it. These guys took formal art classes...anatomy, physiology, perspective, etc. They went to school to learn fine art. They learned the craft as professionals. They apprenticed under other great artists and worked in advertising. They really worked at it. Many of today's artists lack any such formal training. They just learn by copying.

 

Also, the Green Lantern movie costume actually looks pretty simple to me. I don't really like it, but I certainly don't see any belts or pockets...

 

Hopefully it'll stay that way. But look at how they screwed up Thor in the 90's. Beard, face mask on his helmet, armor, chains, etc. He looked ridiculous, and so they changed him back to his classically designed costume. I see it all the time with modern artists...they simply tack on extraneous crap like belts, chains, jackets, glasses, pockets, etc for no reason other than to "change" the look. It's arbitrary, badly thought out change. They lack the ability to see the elegance of simplicity of design. They think more is better. It's not.

[ARROW]

Quite a bold assumption from someone who knows nothing about my background, don't you think?

 

You've written GAMING STORIES for your D&D parties, Xorr! @loll@ Sh!T, ain't nobody can beat that!

 

Yes, you have a background steeped in ability, prestige and expertise. ( excuse me, is my sarcasm dripping on you?)

Yea, like you want someone to GIVE you $50,000,000 so you can make a movie without ANY qualifications.

 

Pardon me while I laugh until I vomit.

 

And, Xorr/Orion.......when you write something that makes sense in the real world of Cartooning/comics, I'll acknowledge it......but I'm still waiting on ya.

 

 

We're talking about artistic skill. Nobody these days can touch Kirby's or Kane's dynamic anatomy.

 

Bruce Timm, Glen Murakami, Paul Rivoche, Darwyn Cook, Alan Davis--just off the top of my head.

Kane and Kirby were distorters of the human form, Kane far less so than Kirby. Kirby excelled in defining dynamic shapes on his figures...but he invented a LOT of his own anatomy--though he could draw the human figure when he wanted. Kane was an exceptional technical artist, and he could create fluid forms, but he's not alone in that. The artists I mentioned above have equally fluid forms in their work.

 

I think it's true. How many of them have gone to art school or learned anatomy? Few. I see a lot of poor anatomy, poor perspective, etc.

 

Of course you think its true! You don't know very much about the background of these current artists these days, eh?

 

With many art colleges and schools, like Joe Kubert's, out there, a lot of artists are getting schooling and are NOT self-taught. To my knowledge, there's at least a dozen top-grade full-time ( 1 to 3 yrs) sequential art programmes in colleges across North America--probably as many as 2 dozen decent ones all told. And then add in workshops and part-time classes taught by industry pros.....well somebody's enrolling in these things!

Heck just compare the alumni from Joe Kubert's school with today's working comics pros.

[0rion]

Here's an example of what I mean by modern artists screwing things up. Here is classic Thor:

 

 

Excellent design, good use of colors, etc.

 

Now, look at some stuff they did to him later on:

 

 

All that warm fur on his back to protect his bare arms? Enough gold on his boots to plunder Fort Knox? What's with those spikes? Chains? Please!

 

Or this:

 

 

Is that supposed to be an axe or a hammer? Looks like a fish hook for a whale. And what's with all the drab, colorless black design? Is that The Thing inside the armor? Because those scales make him look a lot like Ben Grimm!

 

 

Or worse yet:

 

 

Two different wrist bracelets why? And is that the Olivia Newton John look he's going for? Did he rip his cape, or is that some sort of forgotten disco fashion?

 

That's what I mean by poor design with extraneous, non-motivated garbage tacked on.

 

And Arrow, I'm not going to respond to posts from you that come across filled with venom and spite and personal attacks. Drop the attitude.

[Flounnderr]

 

Oh, please... I've been working in cinema (animation) and cartooning for the better part of a quarter century, and taught the stuff for a decade--you've got nothing on lecturing me.

When I think you know what you are talking about, I'll acknowledge it, but that's not happened yet.

 

I don't know about that Arrow, Orion and Masterjailer have you trumped here. If you're insinuating that you taught animation and cartooning in the 1990's-current, given what was coming out of that time period... maybe you're part of the problem.

Let's see you tear down Will Eisner, Alex Raymond, Jack Kirby... how about one of the earliest Winsor McCay!

 

Tell me who making comic art today is better than these legendary illustrators?

 

regards

Joshua aka the Champ!

 

PS- the Donner Superman movie was and still is the greatest superhero movie, and look how faithfully they adapted the costume. No fake texturing, No dark Leather, No rubber muscles, or redesigning iconic logos.

[ARROW]

Oookay, so Kirby is this great anatomist y'say???

 

Then tell me what muscles are going on here?

 

 

Cuz I've looked over dozens of anatomy references and none of them show anything that correlates with THAT. Kirby's work is full of that.

 

Now, I love Kirby, but hold out his stuff in the proper context. Anatomy ain't one of them, in this case.

[yojoebro82]

Oh no.....I smell a repeat of that Batman thread that turned into a "I can make a movie! Oh no you can't!" argument.

 

(Everyone knows that Orion IS Xorr, right???)

[ARROW]

Let's see you tear down Will Eisner, Alex Raymond, Jack Kirby... how about one of the earliest Winsor McCay!

 

Tell me who making comic art today is better than these legendary illustrators?

Well, number one.... NONE of those guys are making comic art any more--they are all dead.

Second, no-one draws like them any more because their styles are dated.

That's not to say their styles or talent are any less, just that the times and aesthetics of comics art have changed.

We have Bryan Hitch, Alex Ross, Alan Davis.......heck even kids like Bryan Lee O'Malley--all with different sensibilities and aesthetics.

For my money, I like Bryan Hitch when he's on........I adore the work of Alan Davis these days, though the poor guy is losing use of his drawing arm--these guys are fantastic artists--easily on par with the above mentioned artists.

Let's be candid here, Kirby was no Eisner, and Raymond was never anything like Kirby--they all came at this from different directions. Saying they are "equal" is ignoring those differences.

Bruce Timm and Glen Murakami are easily dynamic artists on par with the very broad work of Kirby--but that comes from their animation backgrounds.

Heck, why not toss Glen Keane and Andreas Deja into it as well, though they are strictly animators. Keane's Tarzan sketches are easily as supple or moreso than anything Gil Kane ever drew, or any of the other guys above.

 

I've worked with DOZENS of top-drawer artists over the years, and some come pretty close to these "legends" in talent.

 

 

If you're insinuating that you taught animation and cartooning in the 1990's-current, given what was coming out of that time period... maybe you're part of the problem.

 

I'm not insinuating, I'm stating I have taught ( and I'm still being asked to teach, even though I have retired from it to just freelance).

And thank you for insinuating I'm less of a teacher and I'm "part of the problem".

If you want to find out what kind of a teacher I was, I can put you in touch with people that have hired me as a teacher, and you can grill them as to my performance therein.

Or you can just take my word for it.

[MasterJailer]

... no-one draws like them any more because their styles are dated.

That's not to say their styles or talent are any less, just that the times and aesthetics of comics art have changed.

 

Yes. The aesthetics of comics have absolutely collapsed. It's one of the key reasons comics are bleeding readers like a self-mutilating hemophiliac. Don't hand me that nonsense about video games and the internet. What's killing comics is the utter and complete abandonment of anything approaching quality.

 

 

Here's what's happening in comics art-wise. It's not a pretty scene. The art is worse than ever and the sales reflect it.

 

Most pencillers out there learned how to draw from the comics they read as kids. This means they aren't artists in the classically trained sense of the word. They're comic book fan boys who've taught themselves to move a pencil because they desperately want to avoid having to find a real job and they want to cling to comics as much as possible. It's the old copy-of-a-copy theory here. You don't have any real understanding of perspective, anatomy, and you have a complete bloom of the lazy man's story telling techniques. Where once upon a time, artists studied from da Vinci and Pousain, these guys look to John Byrne and Todd MacFarlane as "masters."

 

There's a small contingent that's even more repulsive. These are the guys who didn't even bother to study comics. They learned the lightbox! They can draw nothing unless they've printed out an image and taped it to their light box! Yes, Greg Land. We're looking at you!

 

Inkers are getting more and more nervous every day. Once upon a time, pencillers did their own inking. Then, when the industry expanded and inkers came into their own, inkers were guys who could draw but just fell into inking. Now you have guys who push a micron because they figure they're just tracing and can get away without knowing how to really draw. These guys are very scared right now as more and more comics commit suicide by scanning pencils and going straight to colors. As this happens, inkers are going the way of colorists and hand letterers.

 

Anyone with any true ability doesn't stay in comics for long. They might if they make Alex Ross money but how many of THOSE are there? Most jump from the money-lean business of comics into the more lucrative fields of advertising, video game design, story boarding and other better paying fields. If they REALLY, REALLY, want to stay in comics, they'll go into licensing which pays far better than the monthly folded paper business.

[Viper Hunter]

Here's an example of what I mean by modern artists screwing things up. Here is classic Thor:

 

 

Excellent design, good use of colors, etc.

 

Now, look at some stuff they did to him later on:

 

 

All that warm fur on his back to protect his bare arms? Enough gold on his boots to plunder Fort Knox? What's with those spikes? Chains? Please!

 

Or this:

 

 

Is that supposed to be an axe or a hammer? Looks like a fish hook for a whale. And what's with all the drab, colorless black design? Is that The Thing inside the armor? Because those scales make him look a lot like Ben Grimm!

 

 

Or worse yet:

 

 

Two different wrist bracelets why? And is that the Olivia Newton John look he's going for? Did he rip his cape, or is that some sort of forgotten disco fashion?

 

That's what I mean by poor design with extraneous, non-motivated garbage tacked on.

 

And Arrow, I'm not going to respond to posts from you that come across filled with venom and spite and personal attacks. Drop the attitude.

 

YUCK!!

 

Gimme the classic THOR!

 

[ARROW]

Yes. The aesthetics of comics have absolutely collapsed. It's one of the key reasons comics are bleeding readers like a self-mutilating hemophiliac. Don't hand me that nonsense about video games and the internet. What's killing comics is the utter and complete abandonment of anything approaching quality.

 

You call it nonsense, but its stated by every comics professional out there. Publishers, artists, writers. I think we can all assume THEY know what they are talking about.

 

 

Inkers are getting more and more nervous every day. Once upon a time, pencillers did their own inking. Then, when the industry expanded and inkers came into their own, inkers were guys who could draw but just fell into inking. Now you have guys who push a micron because they figure they're just tracing and can get away without knowing how to really draw. These guys are very scared right now as more and more comics commit suicide by scanning pencils and going straight to colors. As this happens, inkers are going the way of colorists and hand letterers

.

 

Oh please, the "plight" of the inkers are pretty far from the edge of the abyss. How many books have gone to just pencils only?

 

Not that many. Frankly many pencillers rely on inkers to finish their work because there's just not enough hours in the day to draw dark enough over the entire page to accept a decent scan. That's not gonna change any time soon. Stuff like going digital is being left up to individual artists, because the publishers are not cover the costs of equipment--if someone wants to work on a Cintiq, they have to fork over the $2000 themselves.

 

 

Most pencillers out there learned how to draw from the comics they read as kids. This means they aren't artists in the classically trained sense of the word. They're comic book fan boys who've taught themselves to move a pencil because they desperately want to avoid having to find a real job and they want to cling to comics as much as possible. It's the old copy-of-a-copy theory here. You don't have any real understanding of perspective, anatomy, and you have a complete bloom of the lazy man's story telling techniques. Where once upon a time, artists studied from da Vinci and Pousain, these guys look to John Byrne and Todd MacFarlane as "masters

 

And this is a generalization that you cannot support, because you simply do not know all these artists backgrounds. You are assuming all this, and I doubt you are looking at the guts of the books on the stands these days to keep up with who is drawing what or that you have read into the education they have taken.

 

 

There's a small contingent that's even more repulsive. These are the guys who didn't even bother to study comics. They learned the lightbox! They can draw nothing unless they've printed out an image and taped it to their light box! Yes, Greg Land. We're looking at you!

 

I love reading these kinda of accusations about talent, because nothing betrays ignorance of the biz like someone who doesn't understand that the job is to produce pages, any way you can. Not always to create stuff from scratch, but to get art done for use by the publisher. Hey, Greg Land lightboxes stuff--so do I when I need to. Its part of the job because being creative all the time is not easy. Its a tool that gets the job done. Hey....Jack Kirby used stuff from magazines, even cut collages into his own work, but a guy like Greg Land gets ripped apart because he uses swipes from photo references. Kirby could have drawn by hand too, but he took short cuts like anyone else does.

Heck, there's dozens of artists that are famous for their onionskin use--which is much the same thing. But no, ya castigate Greg Land because he uses a shortcut to save time, and thus make money.

Geez, in the biz, there's a phrase for that: he's thinking smarter, not harder.

 

What's next, criticizing artists that use a straight-edge?

 

 

Anyone with any true ability doesn't stay in comics for long. They might if they make Alex Ross money but how many of THOSE are there? Most jump from the money-lean business of comics into the more lucrative fields of advertising, video game design, story boarding and other better paying fields. If they REALLY, REALLY, want to stay in comics, they'll go into licensing which pays far better than the monthly folded paper business.

 

Aaaaaah, <sigh> Y'know, it would really help if you KNEW something about what you were talking about.

Monthly page rates for comics work out to as "lucrative" or moreso than gigs in video game design, storyboarding etc. I mean we are talking about $4000 to $5000 here, not including royalties, which only comics have, and no including spot jobs that come along too.

I know of colleagues doing comics that had/have incomes north of $100,000 a year, because over top their page rates they were getting spot illos for $250-$500 a drawing. These are items they can do in very little time, and often do several a week.

The average pages rates now are still around $200 a page-seldom lower than $150, and top artists can get $500 to $1000 a page. Do the math with a yearly schedule to get an idea of the income.

Usually they offer something sweeter for the guys they really want to keep, so the guys like Alan Davis, John Romita Jr. Andy & Adam Kurbert, Ron Garney, George Perez, Tom Grummett etc. have stuck around comics for.......oh, count the years now. And those guys have this "true ability" you talk about, don't they?

 

Wanna know what a storyboard artist makes? I get $300 a script page for the show I'm working on now. They take that script and divide it amongst 3 artists on a 3 week schedule--so what comics would pay is trumping my storyboarding pay right now.

Game guys usually work for around $1000-$1500 a week salary, more if they have more years in.

 

So, y'see when you want to say something like Green Lantern's movie costume MUST have white gloves, just understand that its a personally subjective point of view--not something that has any bearing in a practical sense. Sure, not everyone is going to know the in and outs of the business of making movies or comics--but you can learn--so speaking out of ignorance is going to happen. If you want to support someone that thinks that way, then be prepared to get kicked into the same hole as them.

[Viper Hunter]

As far as Reynolds as Green Lantern? Looks pretty good so far. At first I thought they were making him with Green hair, but I'm thinking it's just the Green glow of the picture.

 

 

I think Reynolds could pull this off, as long as he doesn't pull that crap he did in Blade 3.

[Viper Hunter]

Wow! I was always led to believe that life outside the Politics and Religion/General Discussion forums, here at TNI, was all puppy dogs and kittens?

 

I guess a difference of opinion can rear it's ugly face almost ANYWHERE?

 

 

@smilepunch@

[ARROW]

Wow! I was always led to believe that life outside the Politics and Religion/General Discussion forums, here at TNI, was all puppy dogs and kittens?

 

I guess a difference of opinion can rear it's ugly face almost ANYWHERE?

 

 

@smilepunch@

 

Here, the puppy dogs and kittens all have 6 inch fangs, and they feast on the blood of the insipid. @smilepunch@

[ARROW]

I think Reynolds could pull this off, as long as he doesn't pull that crap he did in Blade 3.

I dunno yet. I'm waiting to see an actual trailer before I decide if this works for me or not. I know that the other "green" hero( Green Hornet) isn't looking to bright because they miscast Seth Rogen ( what the royal f**k???) in that thing.

I'm not sure if I like what Reynolds offers as GL--but I'll likely go see this with an open-mind.

[Viper Hunter]

Wow! I was always led to believe that life outside the Politics and Religion/General Discussion forums, here at TNI, was all puppy dogs and kittens?

 

I guess a difference of opinion can rear it's ugly face almost ANYWHERE?

 

 

@smilepunch@

 

Here, the puppy dogs and kittens all have 6 inch fangs, and they feast on the blood of the insipid. @smilepunch@

 

Comic books is important schtuff! I'm waaaay out of my element here, so I could get badly bitten or devoured!

 

I just saw the headline for this about Reynolds first images as GL and thought I'd take a look. I use to read all the comics as a kid, and GL was a favorite. I do like the classic looks of my old favorite superhero's, but that's just because I'm old to!

[ARROW]

Comic books is important schtuff! I'm waaaay out of my element here, so I could get badly bitten or devoured!

 

I just saw the headline for this about Reynolds first images as GL and thought I'd take a look. I use to read all the comics as a kid, and GL was a favorite. I do like the classic looks of my old favorite superhero's, but that's just because I'm old to!

 

Pfft, just yak about what you know.

 

I got one of those big 500 page ( for $9.99!) Showcase volumes of Green Lantern--the first volume. This is the early John Broome/ Gil Kane stuff, before he turned on the real Gil Kane, and I read the whole thing.

My impressions are that these stories are........trite.

Actually they are border-line racist even with the character of Pie-face ( WTF??), and the "romance" between Carol Ferris and Hal Jordan is the textbook pairing of a cock-tease with a #$$#-whipped milk-sop.

Nope, these stories do NOT hold up AT ALL.

 

Needless to say, I'm thinking I prefer the GL I find in team books like JLA over his own title. I certainly hope the movie is somewhat a step further away from these early tales.

[Viper Hunter]

Needless to say, I'm thinking I prefer the GL I find in team books like JLA over his own title. I certainly hope the movie is somewhat a step further away from these early tales.

 

I had tons of those early 70's JLA comics as a kid. I remember one where the villain somehow switched all their identies and they were all screwed up trying to do their special powers.

[ARROW]

Needless to say, I'm thinking I prefer the GL I find in team books like JLA over his own title. I certainly hope the movie is somewhat a step further away from these early tales.

 

I had tons of those early 70's JLA comics as a kid. I remember one where the villain somehow switched all their identies and they were all screwed up trying to do their special powers.

 

I preferred the team books, like Avengers and JLA because the characters did't seem to carry all the drama that they had in their own titles. I just wasn't that interested in GL getting cock-teased by Ferris, Tony Stark getting drunk or any of the other stuff that was going on with them individually. The Batman, GL, Superman, WW etc in the JLA were the "real" characters, as far as my own warped mind went.

 

But when it comes to movies like GL, I'm on the fence. I think GL is interesting as a character, but I'm not sure about the stories. I'm less sure about team superhero movies, because the spotlight has to cover so many characters. But, still........I love me some superheroes, so any translation to cinema is going to get my attention. I just hope it works.

[Ganesha]

This discussion is slightly heated; but I'm enjoying the exchanges. I hope the ban hammer doesn't have to fall.

 

Do you have a gallery of work somewhere Arrow?

 

I'm always intrigued as someone who can make marks on paper that sometimes resemble things; but my experience in indies was a pain. Working long hours on top of a day job to get my foot in any door, and then managing to get something published, but at $15 a page (pencilled, inked, lettered) in 2000. Then needing to have a friend who was traveling to that part of America collect my $300 pay from the publisher because they couldn't mail it for some crazy reason. . . Highly discouraging.

 

Storyboarding seems like a great career path for folks interested in cartooning. At some point I'll brush up my chops and do a web comic. Everybody's doing them, why not jump in the fray? If it gains an audience awesome, if not - it's still cheaper than printing a bunch of comics that may never sell. It's too late in life now to divert from my current career path. I like my salary and health benefits.

[ARROW]

This discussion is slightly heated; but I'm enjoying the exchanges. I hope the ban hammer doesn't have to fall.

 

Do you have a gallery of work somewhere Arrow?

 

 

Check the Fan Arts forum here on TNI for samples of my work.

 

 

I'm always intrigued as someone who can make marks on paper that sometimes resemble things; but my experience in indies was a pain. Working long hours on top of a day job to get my foot in any door, and then managing to get something published, but at $15 a page (pencilled, inked, lettered) in 2000. Then needing to have a friend who was traveling to that part of America collect my $300 pay from the publisher because they couldn't mail it for some crazy reason. . . Highly discouraging.

 

Yep, it is. That's why I don't do indys. Its just not worth it to slave on someone else's idea for peanuts. I think it better to quietly work on your own stuff and self-publish in print or via the web. Its entirely you thing, entirely your say.....or your fault-if it goes badly.

I'd rather work for a decent wage on something I can live with--I find nothing sensible in suffering for my passions.

 

Storyboarding seems like a great career path for folks interested in cartooning. At some point I'll brush up my chops and do a web comic. Everybody's doing them, why not jump in the fray? If it gains an audience awesome, if not - it's still cheaper than printing a bunch of comics that may never sell. It's too late in life now to divert from my current career path. I like my salary and health benefits.

 

'Boarding can be a good career, but it takes some background in certain things to do it properly--animation, film, comics etc. I coach/encourage newcomers to have range--an ability to adapt to various styles as the work changes. If someone has the talent, and can draw/stage a comic book shot-they can learn the requisites of storyboarding in about a week--maybe two at most.

 

Web comics are the thing now......and they are smart for folks interested in doing comics. For next to nothing but some time, you can create a comic on par with anything in print, and not have to worry about printing or distribution. No middleman cutting into your costs.

Everything you need can be found on the 'Net.

The sticky point is getting it noticed......but, honestly, think long-term and be persistent and it WILL get noticed. The next "Green Lantern" or Superman is out there and a web-comic is the likely place we'll find it.

[0rion]

Tell you what, Arrow...when I get the chance to make the greatest superhero movie ever filmed, I promise to hire you to do the storyboards. Seriously. I've seen your work, and I like it. Of course, there's the matter of finding funding and all that.

[MasterJailer]

Tell you what, Arrow...when I get the chance to make the greatest superhero movie ever filmed, I promise to hire you to do the storyboards.

 

I'll storyboard your epic for you, 0rion.

[synch]

personally after seeing a bunch of his interviews from sdcc I think he is going to make a great hal

 

As far as Reynolds as Green Lantern? Looks pretty good so far. At first I thought they were making him with Green hair, but I'm thinking it's just the Green glow of the picture.

 

 

I think Reynolds could pull this off, as long as he doesn't pull that crap he did in Blade 3.

 

What blade movie was he in & who did he play ?... & I'm with you on that! The only thing I don't like is that he said there will be no white gloves on hal but lets face it the white gloves suck @grumpy@ I love the white gloves @loll@ I also see what you are talking about the hair! It would be cool to see them do like a force field all around him like that... really I'll be surprised if they Don't do that at least once in the film! From the sounds of the interview we may see hints of star sapphire in this movie too & that she will be one of the bad guys in the ?next? movie (they are assuming the movie will do good enough for a next one already lol! )