Untitled

[herochan]

Justice League 

Lines by Sajad Shah || FB

Colors by Juan Fernandez

[coffeefablesnightmares]

[callese]

[radi0-open-door]

Tonight just keeps getting better and better:

[mysharona1987]

[runescratch]

I’ve been asked a lot about how I draw hoods, mostly Talon’s hood, so I hope this helps a little? Just a pretty basic thing but hey there ya go

Hoods are pretty cool, they usually have a lot of variety in how they can look (and sometimes people even wear two hoods at once) so just get creative with it and have fun

[cirocballa23]

Cancer season. We the hottest for a reason https://www.instagram.com/p/CCmPZrRDojZmQQYWEM5g4IhOgLWhdyHIS4DPg40/?igshid=1je9xawte8p34

[cirocballa23]

New look. Same Bala https://www.instagram.com/p/CCfXI09jG3bGS86-UJlotzSG0YoOBq5NzWpxqk0/?igshid=u4snvuwn2w6k

[the-sun-and-moon-made-the-stars]

Tony Stark Is Peter Parker’s Parental Figure and the Comics Back It Up

So, a lot of people have complained about the relationship between MCU Peter and Tony, saying it’s inaccurate to the comics, that it disrespects his relationship with Ben and May, that Tony is not like his father, etc. It’s basically a bunch of anti Tonys who don’t want Tony and Peter to have a relationship and have been spouting off lies about MCU, the comics, and our fandom. First of all, our fandom really doesn’t want Tony to replace May and Ben. It simply recognizes that Peter does not currently have a father figure even though he’s at a crucial age in his development from a boy to a man and could really use a dad and Tony Stark has been acting as a parental figure since he took responsibility for him. These people completely ignore that Tony only brought Peter to the Civil War because he had faith that Steve and his team would not harm a kid and had Peter under strict orders to keep his distance and web them up and he sent him home the moment he got hurt. He recognized the fact that Peter was not going to stop being a vigilante and there was nothing he could do about that since he’s not his parent. So, instead, he becomes his mentor, giving him a certain amount of authority over him and it allows him to protect Peter from having to expose his identity thanks to the accords. These people also criticize Tony for giving Peter a highly advanced suit capable of killing people, (Karen’s instant kill mode), and yet they fail to recognize the fact that Tony had Karen and all those protocals disabled until he thought Peter was ready to deal with them. He. Did. Not. Give. A. 15. Year. Old. Access. To. A. Suit. That. Could. Kill. People. Plus, Peter would never kill anyone anyway and Tony probably knows that. So, these people disregard what our fandom actually wants when it comes to Peter and Tony’s relationship together and it disregards Tony’s actual actions in canon.

But here’s another thing, they keep acting like this relationship came out of nowhere, when in actuality, it comes from the comics. Peter and Tony have a relationship very similar to this in the Ultimate universe and had a relationship somewhat similar to this, (father-son dynamic), in the 616 universe.

Below we have a panel post Civil War where Peter defected from Team Iron Man after learning how anyone who didn’t register was going to be locked up on the Raft, which he found inhumane, (and Tony in the MCU was not a fan of it either). Peter had already revealed his identity thanks to the Accords, though, and a villain attacked and hospitalized Aunt May. Distraught, Peter gets in a fight with Tony and ultimately begs him to help him help Aunt May since Peter can’t pay for her hospital bills. But, in this panel, he tells Tony he was like a father to him:

Peter Parker in the 616 universe saw Tony Stark as a father figure. Peter Parker has never had a consistent father figure in his life. He gravitates toward them and he saw Tony in this role. Tony certainly had affection for Peter, too, while he was living with him at Stark Tower. He made him the Iron Spider suit after all and this interaction definitely seemed like one between a dad and his kid or perhaps a big brother who had to act as his little brother’s parental figure due to absent parents seeing as Tony and Peter have less of an age gap in the 616 universe than they do in the MCU or the Ultimate universe:

Peter even teasingly calls him “dad”. How much more obvious can you get? Oh, yeah, you can get Ultimate Universe level obvious.

So above we have a panel where Tony Stark is extremely impressed with Peter Parker due to his intelligence and bravery at such a young age. And so begins his mentoring of him.

Now we have a panel where Tony shows Peter tech and comforts him when he asks him why other superheroes hate him. Think about this: Tony Stark is the only hero to take an interest in Peter and not treat him like he’s weird or different. He’s mentoring this kid. These feelings are bound to turn paternal if they aren’t already.

And now here we have a panel where we find out Peter hero worships Tony, (kind of like he does in MCU, right?), and Tony sent him a birthday present where he’s redesigned his webshooters with better tech so they’ll be more efficient in the field for him. Also kind of like how Tony did in MCU.

Anyone who tries to argue that the relationship between Tony and Peter doesn’t make sense or shouldn’t have happened is nothing more than a delusional hater. The comics say otherwise.

[cirocballa23]

I am honestly humbled and honored by the fact that I was able to go to PBS and be apart of this opportunity. Here is the link for the article: https://www.towson.edu/news/2020/pbs_tigerleap.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=newsfeed (at PBS) https://www.instagram.com/p/B8MqXq7D3KJEKCSjAFd_q7sAIK9ExKxKsLitMY0/?igshid=1uaauxisg8dp4

[cirocballa23]

Squad goals (at Burdick Hall) https://www.instagram.com/p/B3TCUaQjyrPFDo-ahpwPj0HAlkCKznMfvZgM8Y0/?igshid=1jb31bdo4qymv

[worthlessstreetrat]

[keybladesoras]

Burn the bish - Nathalie Emmanuel

[karshmallow]

Miles “Who’s Morales?” Morales

[dresdencodak]

Environments are People Too

There’s a wide variety of approaches when it comes to environment designs in the comic medium, and although there are certain key elements that divide comics from motion media, it’s somewhat useful (in the case of environments) to place comics in two basic camps: film vs. sitcom.  

Modern newspaper strips, especially the gag-driven variety, employ environment conventions similar to that of sitcoms.  Sitcoms trace their origins to stage and radio performances, where the focus is very much dialogue driven.  Most of the physical action is exclusively between the characters, and it’s very rare for the actors to turn their back to the audience (partially because their voices need to project in the direction of the viewer).  As such, the “sitcom” variety of comic strip often employs minimal visuals when it comes to environment, as the primary goal is to deliver a verbal punchline.  There are some excellent examples of this style of comic strip, though I personally feel this approach is overrepresented in American comics, especially the web variety, and it’s often employed for comic styles that don’t benefit from this minimalism.

There’s another breed of comic, however, that parallels more closely with film.  Because of the nature of the medium, film is inherently (though not exclusively) more location-driven than the stage, and comics of this style in turn rely on a stronger connection between the characters and their environment.  Comics are about efficiently conveying concepts and moods, and this style demands an intimate connection between reader and the world being presented by the cartoonist.  

In the above page by Enrique Fernández, a significant amount of information about both the character and his environment is being conveyed.  Aside from the more obvious elements like the character’s personality being conveyed through body language, there’s a lot the environment is implying.  The top panel introduces a distant vanishing point behind the man, giving the impression that he’s traveled far to reach this point.  The low angle of panel #2 emphasizes the height of the action as well as the potential distance (and danger) of the fall.  The dark shadows and narrow spaces of panel #3 indicate a change of mood from freedom to impending danger/detection (the narrow band of “light” space cutting through the panel and the character’s silhouette is especially powerful).  The final panel emphasizes that the man does not want to be seen; the wall seems to be pushing back against him, trying to shove him out of frame.  We want to know what he’s looking at; we were set up with the previous panels with a sense of motion, and now though he seems to be frozen, the environment now has become the primary actor.  We’re drawn in without a word of dialogue.

Fernández is also good at establishing an environment as a character unto itself.

As is the case with the above page, oftentimes a story requires that the setting be much more than a place upon which the plot unfolds, but an active participant in the antagonism or encouragement of the characters.  In the end, regardless of the specific purpose, it should always be about engaging the reader, inviting them into the world you built and keeping them interested in the unraveling of the narrative.

Superhero comics, oddly enough, should benefit from this greatly but it’s rare to see it effectively employed.  There tends to be an immense focus on the design and posing of the characters with very little attention paid to how those characters are interacting with the environment.  Ironically, western superhero books seem to take their cues from the sitcom school, where more often than not the characters seem to be posing for a photograph that no one’s taking.  

Obviously I’m not dismissing all superhero comics, but it is a dominating trend in the most popular styles.  There are, however, some powerful exceptions, like the masterful Frank Quitely:

The important point here is that it’s essential to decide what tools work best for the comic at hand.  Mismatching approaches is an easy mistake to make, but it can carry extensive consequences.

[dresdencodak]

Batman: the Least Believable Superhero

Disclaimer: I like Batman. I think he’s a fun character. This post is just a very, very silly rant about the perception that Batman is the most grounded or believable superhero possible.

Everyone likes Batman, right?  He’s kind of the go-to guy when it comes to defining what’s cool in modern culture.  One reason we like Batman is because he’s kind of a regular guy, and we want to find out how he solves the next mystery.  It’s good pulp fun.  However, we run into problems when we start to believe that he is the most “realistic” or “believable” of superheroes.  At first glance it seems clear: no powers, normal world, but in fact Batman represents what is possibly the most absurd premise in all superherodom.

Believable = Extreme Circumstances + Realistic Person

Batman = Mundane Circumstances + Unrealistic Person

We as an audience can suspend our disbelief when it comes to flying people or laser vision if the characters feel like real people.  In Star Wars the Force is never explained (in the movies that count), but we accept that it works because the characters behave in a clear, believable manner.  Their reactions to extraordinary situations allow us to suspend our disbelief, because we can picture ourselves acting in similar ways.  There are some classic superheroes that portray this fairly well.

Superman

Born with amazing powers and finds out that he is unique in the world (extraordinary)

Raised by ethical, nurturing people to use his abilities responsibly (relatable)

Superman’s powers are ridiculous, but we understand his motivations and why he behaves the way he does

Spiderman

Bitten by a radioactive spider and gains extraordinary powers

Uses these abilities to make money and become famous

Through this selfishness, he loses a loved one and realizes he must use his abilities more responsibly

Spiderman is even more believable than Superman, as his personal flaws are much clearer. We see him fail, identify with him, and want him to succeed because we see part of our own insecurities and dreams within this character.

The Hulk

Bruce Banner is irradiated by an experimental weapon and becomes a reckless monster when angered

The military hunts him wherever he goes, as he is a perceived menace

Most of his time is spent looking for a cure to his infliction

Here again we have an arguably even more “realistic” world, as from the start the authorities view this superhuman creature as a threat.  While probably not as lovable as Spiderman, the Hulk is a sympathetic character, and conjures parallels with Frankenstein, as well as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

But then there’s Batman

Is a millionaire child

Parents murdered

Spends millions if not billions of dollars to fight street-level crime with expensive gadgets and karate

Unlike the other examples, it is not the circumstances which are extraordinary, but the behavior of the character that shatters our suspension of disbelief.  People’s parents get killed in real life in more dramatic circumstances than Batman’s, and yet no one’s behavior comes close to his.  We can’t identify with his motivations and we can’t relate to any decisions he makes.  Even the basic logic regarding his career choice is ludicrous.  The thing about the suspension of disbelief is that we can accept one or two extraordinary things at a time, but if you pack them all together, or if they become too numerous, the illusion is shattered.  Batman is very guilty of this.

King of Martial Arts - Batman is described as the greatest martial artist in the world, mastering virtually all styles.  Mastering a single martial art takes a lifetime, but Batman mastered all of them in the span of a few years.  This isn’t the biggest deal, but combined with all the other amazing things he’s accomplished in that small time and it becomes absurd.  If he was just “Karate Man” and his main skill was martial arts, this would be more acceptable.

World’s Greatest Detective - Batman is often compared to Sherlock Holmes, but while Holmes was a somewhat quirky character with many unusual affectations (the side-effect of his attention to detail), Batman is simply smarter than everyone else and can get out of any jam.  Writing “master detectives” is tricky stuff, because you’re writing a character who is more intelligent than you are, and more intelligent than the reader.  It’s hard to relate to an immense intelligence.  One way to balance this is to give them believable affectations.  Characters like Poirot become more interesting because they’re a little off.  They are extraordinary in a certain way, but like someone who is OCD or autistic, that unique strength comes at a price.  Batman exhibits no such downside to his infallible detective skills.  Also, when did he have time to go to detective school when he was mastering all the martial arts?

He Created His Own Villains - Virtually all of Batman’s more extraordinary enemies are people he instigates.  The Joker, Riddler, etc. behave the way they do because they are psychotically obsessed with Batman’s own crazy behavior.  This is actually a common plot point in Batman, but they always seem to dance around the most obvious conclusion: find a less theatrical way to stop crimes and the Joker will stop gassing the city.  I’m not saying Batman is responsible for these people’s actions, but rather he is incapable of realizing very obvious and easy solutions to uncomplicated problems.

Employs Minors to Draw Gunfire - Arguably the craziest behavior of Batman is his need to employ children.  Even if we accept that a billionaire becomes a master of karate and detecting to fight crime, how can he possibly believe a little kid is qualified to dodge bullets and punch adults in the head?  I don’t care how great the kid is, if he needs a helping hand that bad, surely with his infinite resources he could find a grown man or woman for the job.  The costume’s just icing on the crazy cake.  Batman has to rely on a lot of tricks not to die, like dressing in all black, relying on fear and (as mentioned) being the best at hand-to-hand combat after years of training.  What possessed him to dress up a child in bright clothing and send him out to go be shot at by mobsters after less than a year of Bat-training?

Unlimited, Untraceable Resources - Very few people know who Batman is, and yet he spends billions of dollars on the construction of things like supersonic jets and space stations (the former of which he keeps under his house) without anyone noticing.  I realize there have been plot points in both the comics and films about this problem, but they’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg.  One man couldn’t possibly handle all the financial judo necessary to essentially mask billions upon billions of dollars to fight muggers, which brings me to my biggest complaint:

Billions Spent to Fight Robbers - Despite his apparent genius, Batman invests billions of dollars into a campaign to fight the lowest level crimes in the least efficient way.  On a good night, he may stop one, maybe two crimes, but the cost of operation per night is easily thousands of dollars, if not more.  Flying around in an experimental jet or car, looking for muggers stealing $20 from a purse is a laughable application of resources.  Crime is a symptom of socioeconomic factors like poverty; if he actually cared about the net reduction of crime, he would spend all that space station money on public works programs and education.  Heck, if he still wanted to directly fight crime, he could spend those millions on quintupling the police force so he wouldn’t have to run around looking for muggers.  If he’s worried about corruption and organized crime, he could simply buy out the entire system.  If he has the resources to single-handedly build Superman a space station, he could easily financially overpower crooked lobbyists and mobsters.

So we like Batman, and that’s fine, but he’s absurd, more absurd than any other character in modern fiction.  Except Dagny Taggart.

[mcufam]

loki: *continues speaking* thor: *prepares another rock*