Review time
Kinda interesting that these reviews are for the same book...
First one from Ryan at Newsarama:
"Mike Norton is, hands down, the star of this title. Over the course of the past year, he has gone from “Hey, that Mike Norton guys is pretty good” to “Hey, I am not going to miss anything that Mike Norton draws” and this issue is a prime example of why. His large panels are filled with great, iconic designs and incredibly consistency. It’s fluid, expressive, and features incredibly strong storytelling. Wayne Faucher inks tightly over Norton, emphasizing how strong the designs are, while putting focus on the line work above all else. No matter what goes on with the writing, Norton’s on such a roll that if every issue looks this good, I’m sticking with this title for the long haul... "
And then the sobering slap of reality from In the Line of Fire Reviews...
"Part of the problem is the art. Cliff Chiang was capable of real pathos amidst a polished, cartoony, cel-shaded look. He had a flair that was simultaneously retro and fresh.
Mike Norton does not. He’s fine, but he only gets as far as cartoony, making the moments of pathos ring false, with no impact at all. We’re being served a diluted product from the initial launch."
First one from Ryan at Newsarama:
"Mike Norton is, hands down, the star of this title. Over the course of the past year, he has gone from “Hey, that Mike Norton guys is pretty good” to “Hey, I am not going to miss anything that Mike Norton draws” and this issue is a prime example of why. His large panels are filled with great, iconic designs and incredibly consistency. It’s fluid, expressive, and features incredibly strong storytelling. Wayne Faucher inks tightly over Norton, emphasizing how strong the designs are, while putting focus on the line work above all else. No matter what goes on with the writing, Norton’s on such a roll that if every issue looks this good, I’m sticking with this title for the long haul... "
And then the sobering slap of reality from In the Line of Fire Reviews...
"Part of the problem is the art. Cliff Chiang was capable of real pathos amidst a polished, cartoony, cel-shaded look. He had a flair that was simultaneously retro and fresh.
Mike Norton does not. He’s fine, but he only gets as far as cartoony, making the moments of pathos ring false, with no impact at all. We’re being served a diluted product from the initial launch."
4 Comments:
Yeah, but I'm totally the correct one!
That's crazy.
Your work is pretty dang awesome.
Just goes to show, no two people are ever going to agree. BTW I just looked at your back up story in Trinity # #. I hope to god you're not doing full pencils, Because if you are, Jerry ruined the things I like about your work(And I love Jerry Ordway's work) but if your doing layouts, rock on, it looks great.
Hi,
Just coming here to say that I do like your art in GA/BC. You are doing a great job.
I think it is unfair to compare artist whose styles are different. Each one brings different things to the table and therefore each style should be compared to itself.
Keep going. =)
Post a Comment
<< Home