Thursday, September 15, 2011
Meanwhile, at Robot 6...
You know, sometimes I think maybe Howard Porter's late-nineties JLA art hasn't aged all that well. Anyway, today at Robot 6, I take a look at 1960's Brave and the Bold #28, 1987's Justice League #1 and 1997's JLA #1 in light of Geoff Johns and Jim Lee's nearly Justice League-free Justice League #1.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Somehow it looks very 90's even though it's not heavy on the crosshatching and belt pouches.
You know, sometimes I think maybe Howard Porter's late-nineties JLA art hasn't aged all that well.
I know what all of those words mean individually, but my brain is having a problem processing this sentence.
I just re-read Morrison and Porter's JLA run about a month ago. The art looks just as bad now as it did when I bought the individual issues.
Funny you should say that: On a quick glance before reading your comment, I thought the Batman figure looked like it was by your beloved Kelley Jones.
And I agree with Jer: Porter's art was never very good.
Well I really liked it the first time around, but I haven't re-read most of JLA in the last decade or so. The covers still look nice.
I never really LOOKED at that panel as closely as I did when I was scanning it though. It's kind of awesome, how it's the last panel of the book and it ends with Batman walking out of it, telling the League they are at war, and Flash responds by crouching down like he's at a track meet (or just falls down, maybe?) and Green Lantern and Superman just start flexing...?
But the anatomy is just out of control, what with the ape-arms and Superman's goofy face.
That Batman IS pretty Kelley Jones-ishly awesome though...he's got CLAWS and everything!
I still like Porter's art quite a bit. But then I grew up on that 90s style of art and prefer it quite a bit to some of the bland Brazilian / Filipino studio shop art we get nowadays.
Anatomy is never as important as storytelling in comic art, and Porter did a pretty decent job of that.
Post a Comment