...Ed Benes style. Hey, let's start off a conversation by focusing on one of our female members' groinatological area:
Hey, that was neat. How about a pointless close-up of their chestal areas!! That'll really illustrate the conversation well!!
No, I did not cut off the panel in my scan...that's all Benes' framing there...
It's amazing...it's a 4-page long conversation (?), and Benes' perspective and angles jump around like a hyperactive chimpanzee on Red Bull. People are turned different ways in consecutive panels, close-ups are randomly interspersed with long shots...just looking at it again gave me vertigo!!
So thank you, Ed Benes, for giving us close-up of heroes' clothed private parts. Just because.
Hey, that was neat. How about a pointless close-up of their chestal areas!! That'll really illustrate the conversation well!!
No, I did not cut off the panel in my scan...that's all Benes' framing there...It's amazing...it's a 4-page long conversation (?), and Benes' perspective and angles jump around like a hyperactive chimpanzee on Red Bull. People are turned different ways in consecutive panels, close-ups are randomly interspersed with long shots...just looking at it again gave me vertigo!!
So thank you, Ed Benes, for giving us close-up of heroes' clothed private parts. Just because.
Unless they used a different inker, that is not Ed Benes' art.
ReplyDeleteThere are 6 pencillers and six inkers listed on the splash page, with no breakdown given over who did which pages, or in which combinations.
ReplyDeleteI confess to an untrained artistic eye. But if the pages in question aren't Benes, that penciller has certainly enthusiastically adopted Benes' stylistic ticks of randomly roving "camera" and distractingly absurd close-ups and various body parts during conversations.
Agreed. I actually bought this issue because there were different artists. Unfortunately, it still kind of sucks.
ReplyDelete