The DC characters REDESIGN thread - Part 1

[camp Blood]

not bad. would have been perfect for Jon Hamm ( creator of Jon hamm's john ham )

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Nope, sorry, but I'm not wrong. Spiderman gets away with the webbed pattern because the webbed pattern IS the symbol, not the spider (Same way Shocker is identified by the netting on his costume). You could show a random person 100 different S's and they would be able to identify the one that Superman wears. Show people 100 different spider logos, they'd have no clue which one is Spiderman's. Spiderman's webbing is also just a basic shape repeated over his body a bunch of times, making easy for the brain to remember (people have an easy time remember basic patterns like tiles of dots).

This is all a stretch. Ditko didn't design Spider-Man to be easy to draw or easy to remember, he designed him so he would be "identifiable from every angle" and he designed him to go against the bullsh** logic you're peddling right now. What do you mean they couldn't identify Spider-Man's Spider-logo....

You mean this

It's easily idenitifiable, in fact I know few people who wouldn't recognize it, or at least know they recognize it.

And if you think Ghost Rider, Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and Galactus are iconic, then you don't have the slightest clue about iconic imagery (Thing is debatable, but he, like Spiderman, uses a repeating pattern). Kids in a third world country would never recognize those characters the same way they would recognize Batman or Spiderman. Hell, most kids not familiar with the comics wouldn't be able to identify those characters (Although it doesn't matter what Ghostrider's costume is, He's got a FLAMING SKULL for a head! That's his main symbol, and that's all anyone is gonna look at). Even Wolverine's costumes are completely dispensable. They are in no way iconic, only popular to those familiar with the comic. His iconic features are the claws that come from his knuckles and his bizarre haircut. Think of Weapon X, even with no clothes, he is still instantly recognizable as Wolverine.

This is a logical fallacy called "moving the goal posts". You use a vague term like "iconic", and then when someone proves you wrong you change the definition to fit your arguement, good one. A comic book character doesn't have to reach mass appeal in order to prove his design was incredible, by that dumb logic DareDevil costume is not iconic, because he's not nearly as well recognized. Neither is Havok, although both nicely fit your definition before of "iconic" since they are very low on lines. Galactus has a great and very dynamic look, but he's not massive popular ONLY because he's underrepresented outside of the comic book medium. Superman, Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman, Hulk and Spider-Man have been multi-media giants for a while now, it's no wonder they have more recognition.

Also, yes Wolverine has claws that's his power, why on God's green Earth would that change from panel to panel. It has nothing to do with his design because those claws retract.

It's not opinion and it's not that hard to understand, the human brain is not designed to remember extremely complex images.

That's false actually. The human brain is designed to remember very complex patterns and images.

Spiderman works because it is a repeating pattern and it's not competing with any other major symbol (seriously, the spider on his chest and back are throw-aways, its the web pattern that is the prominent feature).

You have no idea what you're talking about, that part of the costume was very intentional.

If you refuse to believe this concept, think of all the iconic characters Rob Liefeld (sp?) and Todd McFarlene (sp?) have designed compared to classic comic artists (Liefild and Mcfarlene specialized in overly complex charater design). Between them, there's maybe 2 or 3 characters that can even be maybe considered iconic. Venom is by far the most iconic out of the 2 or 3 (with Spawn and possibly Deadpool being the others), and wouldn't you be shocked to know that his design was also the most basic out of all of them.

The fact that they have any at all destroys your point. Most creators don't have one. Stan Lee and Kirby are remarkable exceptions, not the rule. The DC characters each were created by one or two people who can't claim anyone else. Bob Kane created Batman. Seagel and Shuster created Superman. They must be bad designers by your metric because MacFarlane and Liefield (whose names you apparently can't spell despite how much of an artistic genius you seem to think you are) have more iconic characters than they do.

 

[keith_v]

This is all a stretch. Ditko didn't design Spider-Man to be easy to draw or easy to remember, he designed him so he would be "identifiable from every angle" and he designed him to go against the bullsh** logic you're peddling right now. What do you mean they couldn't identify Spider-Man's Spider-logo....

You mean this

It's easily idenitifiable, in fact I know few people who wouldn't recognize it, or at least know they recognize it.

This is a logical fallacy called "moving the goal posts". You use a vague term like "iconic", and then when someone proves you wrong you change the definition to fit your arguement, good one. A comic book character doesn't have to reach mass appeal in order to prove his design was incredible, by that dumb logic DareDevil costume is not iconic, because he's not nearly as well recognized. Neither is Havok, although both nicely fit your definition before of "iconic" since they are very low on lines. Galactus has a great and very dynamic look, but he's not massive popular ONLY because he's underrepresented outside of the comic book medium. Superman, Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman, Hulk and Spider-Man have been multi-media giants for a while now, it's no wonder they have more recognition.

Also, yes Wolverine has claws that's his power, why on God's green Earth would that change from panel to panel. It has nothing to do with his design because those claws retract.

That's false actually. The human brain is designed to remember very complex patterns and images.

You have no idea what you're talking about, that part of the costume was very intentional.

The fact that they have any at all destroys your point. Most creators don't have one. Stan Lee and Kirby are remarkable exceptions, not the rule. The DC characters each were created by one or two people who can't claim anyone else. Bob Kane created Batman. Seagel and Shuster created Superman. They must be bad designers by your metric because MacFarlane and Liefield (whose names you apparently can't spell despite how much of an artistic genius you seem to think you are) have more iconic characters than they do.

-Ditkos intentions behind the SM suit does NOT change the fact that he designed a suit that is memorable because of its use of a repeating pattern. (Its the same visual concept many brands, such as Coach with the repeating C's, use on their products. It works, and works well.

-The SM logo is easy to identify when there's nothing else around it, but like I said in my post, if you put that logo next to 100 different spider logos, most people wouldn't be able to identify the correct one.

-Describing something visual as iconic is not vague at all. It is describing something that can be identified as recognizable to those familiar and unfamiliar, and is often copied. Contemporary examples include the Superman "S", Darth Vader's helmet, The Jordan jumpman, the old NYC skyline with the Twin Towers, and other modern images that people instantly recognize. Classic examples include religious symbols and locations such as the pyramids and Stonehenge. Popularity has little to do with it, it is the fact that they use shapes and forms that very easily stick in our head.

Ex. Moses is almost as well known as Jesus, but due to the fact that he is not rendered in paintings with the same iconic appearance in the way Jesus is, he is not as visually recognizable as Jesus. Ask someone to describe what Jesus usually looks like in art and they will have no problem telling you. Ask them about Moses and they will take a bit longer.

Again, the intention behind Wolverine's claws in the artwork does not change the fact that he is identified by his claws. It's what creates his famous silhouette. Whether or not the artist knew that he created an iconic image is not the issue.

-The human brain is not designed to remember highly complex images and designs. It is designed to remember large amounts of simple shapes (This is the backbone of written language and number systems). I have yet to meet someone that can just as easily memorize a street map as they can remember what a stop sign looks like.

You may think you can remember a complex image, but try this test. Look at a photo you've never seen before for about 30 seconds to a minute. Look away from it and try and write down everything you remember about the image. Its sounds easy, but I can promise you when you try to remember the details, images in your head begin to blend together and you will have trouble describing what you saw.

-??? I never said the spiders on the chest and back were not intentional, and I really don't understand your statement. What I meant is that you could remove the spider from both his chest and back and he wouldn't be any less recognizable.

-I'm not putting down all comic creators that aren't Stan Lee and Kirby. What I AM doing is comparing the number of instantly recognizable characters that have been designed in an age when overly complex designs have been in vogue compared to a time when simpler designs were the style.

Let's break it down into a simper equation. Think of Watchmen: which 2 characters are the most instantly recognizable? The answer is Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach. Their design is so effective that it didn't even need to be altered for the film. They are also the simplest of all the designs in Watchmen. Whether you're looking at the character from 1 foot away or 100 feet away, you know who you're seeing and can describe all their features rather easily.

Ask someone to describe the look Night Owl or Silk Spectre from memory and I can promise you it would be tougher than describing Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan.

-"whose names you apparently can't spell despite how much of an artistic genius you seem to think you are" is a remarkably *****ey thing to say, and you're making yourself out to sound like a bratty, whiny fanboy.

Seriously, if you feel the need to post in the fanart section, either show some class (which I'll admit I haven't always) or you could maybe contribute some fanart. (And don't use the lame excuse about not being able to draw. Half of the people on here do manips, which you can download software to make for free).

 

[keith_v]

not bad. would have been perfect for Jon Hamm ( creator of Jon hamm's john ham )

Thanks! I used the werewolf from True Blood as a reference, but Jon Hamm would've been perfect too.

 

[spider_rob]

You guys should have an art duel.

 

[Duker Jay]

One of them would probably just back out...

 

[spider_rob]

One of them would probably just back out...

Nah, they should put their art skills where their mouth is and FIGHT!

 

[camp Blood]

keith you like true blood

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

-Ditkos intentions behind the SM suit does NOT change the fact that he designed a suit that is memorable because of its use of a repeating pattern. (Its the same visual concept many brands, such as Coach with the repeating C's, use on their products. It works, and works well.

No one here is talking about advertising. In fact I brought advertising up earlier because you seemed to conflate the two with superheroes. While some of the theories apply across disciplines, advertisements aren't simple just for memory purposes, they are simple because they need to be reproduced many times over. Having an overly complicated advertisement is, well, expensive.

-The SM logo is easy to identify when there's nothing else around it, but like I said in my post, if you put that logo next to 100 different spider logos, most people wouldn't be able to identify the correct one.

You'd probably get damn close, and putting an object in an intentionally confusing 'police lineup' has nothing to do with your point.

-Describing something visual as iconic is not vague at all. It is describing something that can be identified as recognizable to those familiar and unfamiliar, and is often copied. Contemporary examples include the Superman "S", Darth Vader's helmet, The Jordan jumpman, the old NYC skyline with the Twin Towers, and other modern images that people instantly recognize. Classic examples include religious symbols and locations such as the pyramids and Stonehenge. Popularity has little to do with it, it is the fact that they use shapes and forms that very easily stick in our head.

The New York Skyline is NOT a simple image. Neither is Darth Vader's helmet. Many religious symbols are EXCEPTIONALLY complicated, especially those found in Asian cultures.

Ex. Moses is almost as well known as Jesus, but due to the fact that he is not rendered in paintings with the same iconic appearance in the way Jesus is, he is not as visually recognizable as Jesus. Ask someone to describe what Jesus usually looks like in art and they will have no problem telling you. Ask them about Moses and they will take a bit longer.

This point is idiotic. Jesus is more recognizeable because there ARE MORE CHRISTIANS and Jews are CLEARLY a minority.

Again, the intention behind Wolverine's claws in the artwork does not change the fact that he is identified by his claws. It's what creates his famous silhouette. Whether or not the artist knew that he created an iconic image is not the issue.

What does this have to do with anything You're saying Wolverine has an aspect of him that is very core to his character, yeah I assume most characters do. Cyclops has optic blasts. Now that you've graduated "Knowing Basic Crap about Superheroes 101" (and also being a highly pretentious art critic who can't accept different artists approaches to design 102), yes I would imagine the unchanging aspect of the character would stick with him. Notice how 'being a mutated wolverine', an abandoned plotline DOESN'T define his character, how convienent.

-The human brain is not designed to remember highly complex images and designs. It is designed to remember large amounts of simple shapes (This is the backbone of written language and number systems). I have yet to meet someone that can just as easily memorize a street map as they can remember what a stop sign looks like.

BUT THEY CAN. Therein lies your problem, you conflating symbols that are not meant to be dwelled upon, like advertisements and letters with images that CAN are often are dwelled upon, like art and comic book panels. Letters need to be reproduced BY EVERYONE, hence their simplicity. It's a standard method of communication. Tell the CIA though that their codes should be simple and they'll look at you funny. Comic Book characters are often intentionally complex, because they are art, and while some look like this

Others look like this...

You may think you can remember a complex image, but try this test. Look at a photo you've never seen before for about 30 seconds to a minute. Look away from it and try and write down everything you remember about the image. Its sounds easy, but I can promise you when you try to remember the details, images in your head begin to blend together and you will have trouble describing what you saw.

Because in the comic world they give you an issue for 30 seconds to a minute and you are never allowed to read it ever again. Because Ethan Van Shriver didn't take the time to write "SEX" on every page of a New X-Men issue so you would never, ever, ever see this.

-I'm not putting down all comic creators that aren't Stan Lee and Kirby. What I AM doing is comparing the number of instantly recognizable characters that have been designed in an age when overly complex designs have been in vogue compared to a time when simpler designs were the style.

LOL! That's not the difference in the eras, the differences in those eras are in the 1960s nearly all children read comics, making a boom in new titles, whereas now they cater to an older crowd and a dwindling one, so that it's harder for new characters to catch. It's not a "simplier design" vs "more complex design". The same time they crafted Deadpool, a side character in new mutants, they made this guy, also a side villain.

With his overly complicated 90s design.

Let's break it down into a simper equation. Think of Watchmen: which 2 characters are the most instantly recognizable? The answer is Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach. Their design is so effective that it didn't even need to be altered for the film. They are also the simplest of all the designs in Watchmen. Whether you're looking at the character from 1 foot away or 100 feet away, you know who you're seeing and can describe all their features rather easily.

Ask someone to describe the look Night Owl or Silk Spectre from memory and I can promise you it would be tougher than describing Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan.

Probably because those characters are not as popular, and that had everything to do with how they were written. Rorshach's design is very complex, from the stain, to the clothing accents, to the ever changing face design.

Your "examples" are bad because your argument is bad.

-"whose names you apparently can't spell despite how much of an artistic genius you seem to think you are" is a remarkably *****ey thing to say, and you're making yourself out to sound like a bratty, whiny fanboy.

For someone who talks down to another artist it's shameful to be caught not knowing what you're talking about isn't it?

"This is NOT how to redesign a character" was your exact words I believe.

Seriously, if you feel the need to post in the fanart section, either show some class (which I'll admit I haven't always) or you could maybe contribute some fanart. (And don't use the lame excuse about not being able to draw. Half of the people on here do manips, which you can download software to make for free).

You openly told an artist he didn't know what he was doing, then challenged him to an art contest, you start showing class.

 

[spider_rob]

Actually, I challenged him, but Keith has said his share of *****ey things:

And if you think Ghost Rider, Man-Thing, Swamp Thing, and Galactus are iconic, then you don't have the slightest clue about iconic imagery (Thing is debatable, but he, like Spiderman, uses a repeating pattern)

It's not opinion and it's not that hard to understand, the human brain is not designed to remember extremely complex images. Spiderman works because it is a repeating pattern and it's not competing with any other major symbol (seriously, the spider on his chest and back are throw-aways, its the web pattern that is the prominent feature).

 

[keith_v]

No one here is talking about advertising. In fact I brought advertising up earlier because you seemed to conflate the two with superheroes. While some of the theories apply across disciplines, advertisements aren't simple just for memory purposes, they are simple because they need to be reproduced many times over. Having an overly complicated advertisement is, well, expensive.

You'd probably get damn close, and putting an object in an intentionally confusing 'police lineup' has nothing to do with your point.

The New York Skyline is NOT a simple image. Neither is Darth Vader's helmet. Many religious symbols are EXCEPTIONALLY complicated, especially those found in Asian cultures.

This point is idiotic. Jesus is more recognizeable because there ARE MORE CHRISTIANS and Jews are CLEARLY a minority.

What does this have to do with anything You're saying Wolverine has an aspect of him that is very core to his character, yeah I assume most characters do. Cyclops has optic blasts. Now that you've graduated "Knowing Basic Crap about Superheroes 101" (and also being a highly pretentious art critic who can't accept different artists approaches to design 102), yes I would imagine the unchanging aspect of the character would stick with him. Notice how 'being a mutated wolverine', an abandoned plotline DOESN'T define his character, how convienent.

BUT THEY CAN. Therein lies your problem, you conflating symbols that are not meant to be dwelled upon, like advertisements and letters with images that CAN are often are dwelled upon, like art and comic book panels. Letters need to be reproduced BY EVERYONE, hence their simplicity. It's a standard method of communication. Tell the CIA though that their codes should be simple and they'll look at you funny. Comic Book characters are often intentionally complex, because they are art, and while some look like this

Others look like this...

Because in the comic world they give you an issue for 30 seconds to a minute and you are never allowed to read it ever again. Because Ethan Van Shriver didn't take the time to write "SEX" on every page of a New X-Men issue so you would never, ever, ever see this.

LOL! That's not the difference in the eras, the differences in those eras are in the 1960s nearly all children read comics, making a boom in new titles, whereas now they cater to an older crowd and a dwindling one, so that it's harder for new characters to catch. It's not a "simplier design" vs "more complex design". The same time they crafted Deadpool, a side character in new mutants, they made this guy, also a side villain.

With his overly complicated 90s design.

Probably because those characters are not as popular, and that had everything to do with how they were written. Rorshach's design is very complex, from the stain, to the clothing accents, to the ever changing face design.

Your "examples" are bad because your argument is bad.


For someone who talks down to another artist it's shameful to be caught not knowing what you're talking about isn't it?

"This is NOT how to redesign a character" was your exact words I believe.

You openly told an artist he didn't know what he was doing, then challenged him to an art contest, you start showing class.

-I wasn't talking about advertising, I mentioned Coach as an example of a repeated simple design on a surface that many people remember. The same concept applies to Spiderman's webbing.

-Ugh, yes, it has everything to do with my point, which is that it is unlikely that someone could mistake the Superman S for another S design when it's much more likely someone could mistake the Spider simple for another spider-shaped symbol.

-The old NY skyline had 2 very prominent rectangular towers that instantly told a viewer he was seeing the NYC skyline. The other buildings are not what's important, it was the twin towers that conveyed the iconic imagery. Vaders helmet has an arc, two circles below it and then a triangular shape below that. These are the prominent forms that people remember, and they are very basic shapes.

-Christians are just as aware of Moses as Jews are, it doesn't change the fact that painters settled for a simple template to convey Jesus that resonated and stuck.

-I have no clue what you're going on about with wolverine and saying that I'm a pretentious art critic. I was talking about Wolverine's costume not being necessary. Viewers don't identify him through his costume, they see the hair and the claws (possibly the sideburns as well).

-Again, I have no clue what you're on about. The CIA uses complex codes so people DON'T understand them. Only those on the inside can understand them. Notice: complexity makes it harder to decipher. You can stare at complex picture of Swamp Thing for hours, it doesn't make him look more memorable. The only clear distinguishing feature is the triangular bridge around his nose. The rest looks kinda like what it is, a lot of lines. It doesn't define his silhouette and give him a solid form for viewers to recognize later on. It looks great for the character, but doesn't work to try and create an iconic design.

-I would be willing to bet there were more kids reading comics in the late 80's/early 90's than there were in the 60's. And the characters that stuck around from the late 80's/90's were the ones that simply didn't look that convoluted. And finding a single character design that is simple from the early 90's does not prove your point at all. Seriously, trying to argue that designs were not overdone in the early 90's is an impossible task.

-Rorschach's design is very simple: Short, tan trench-coat tied at the waist, tan fedora, tight white cloth mask wrapped around his with ink blotches on it. There are more details, but they only enhance those basic elements.

-I never told an artist he didn't know what he was doing and then I never challenged him to a contest. Get your facts straight. Those pics weren't even from someone on this message board. They were done by spider_rob's brother, who then challenged me to an "art duel" and I accepted. He backed out the next day.

The difference between me and you saying *****ey things is that I've been contributing to this forum for years. Have you EVER contributed even a single piece of fan art?

I've also tried to provide honest critiques for artists on here whenever I can. I am a member of this community that tries as much as I can to contribute to this community. What about you?

Actually, I challenged him, but Keith has said his share of *****ey things:

Thank you sir, and I even admitted to saying *****ey things. (Though if you ever want to do that art duel, I'm absolutely down for it. This forum needs a solid event since the untimely passing of the monthly fan art contests)

 

[spider_rob]

Thank you sir, and I even admitted to saying *****ey things. (Though if you ever want to do that art duel, I'm absolutely down for it. This forum needs a solid event since the untimely passing of the monthly fan art contests)

Okay, it was to redesign a character, right? Redesign how so and which character (suggest a few and we'll pick from there)? Also, plz no obscure characters. Only characters that people give a crap about. Oh, and no manips. Everything has to be drawn or created from scratch by the artist.

 

[spider_rob]

Great coloring! I think the shadows on here look good, except for the shadow on the face, which looks amazing! I'm big on carefully crafted light, and this was done awesomely.



These rules work for me. Obviously, photo references are acceptable to use in the process. I would like to request that I can draw on top of a rough figure sculpted in Maya, such as the one in my post with my Superman redesign. I sculpted and posed the figure myself, and I use it only to nail down the posture and composition. (I've actually only used it once so far, just for that unfinished painting in my thread of the guy with the sledge hammer, but it's so much more enjoyable posing a figure than doing color comps.)

That's fine. I use reference myself. Let's both think of three characters by tomorrow night, and post them here. That'll be a start. No females, right?

 

[keith_v]

That's fine. I use reference myself. Let's both think of three characters by tomorrow night, and post them here. That'll be a start. No females, right?

Ok, and toss out some crazy time periods too. Something like Spiderman in the 1920's has a lot of potential (though that would be a bit close to Spiderman Noir).

 

[spider_rob]

Ok, and toss out some crazy time periods too. Something like Spiderman in the 1920's has a lot of potential (though that would be a bit close to Spiderman Noir).

Okay, here are my choices:

1. Ultimate Spawn (modern redesign basically)
2. Ultimate Flash (same idea)
3. Medieval Spider-man

 

[keith_v]

Okay, here are my choices:

1. Ultimate Spawn (modern redesign basically)
2. Ultimate Flash (same idea)
3. Medieval Spider-man

I really like the idea of a Spawn redesign, a LOT can be done with that. The medieval SM is really cool too, but I think I've seen some illustrators tackle that before. I'm personally not too big a fan of Flash.

Here's some of mine (gonna list more than 3, sorry, I had a lot of ideas). I kinda alike the idea of maybe doing some villians:

1. Dock Ock in the future (whether he was born in the future or is just older is up to the artist)
2. Shocker (modern redesign)
3. Medieval Green Goblin
4. Doomsday (maybe a redesign suited for a movie?)
5. Black Spiderman (modern redesign)

 

[webhead9707]

Who should I redesign?

 

[Syncos]

Hey guys, was going to wait until I had an action shot done. but I don't know when I'll have time. So for now, here's my redesign of a character that needs it the most. B'Wana Beast.

Hope you like.

I decided to really play up his wrestling type fighting style and give him an outfit classically "wrestler". while adding some beastly flares like tearing through the legs, while the pants portion of the spandex takes styling from the loin cloth, while ditching that gimmick, and no boots. his helmet ditches the giant block on his head, kirby style while drawing inspiration from it. and his mask is now just a stylized portion of his helmet instead of something that flares off, over it.

Cheers,
-Syncos

 

[camp Blood]

I just see black with some outlines

 

[Syncos]

I just see black with some outlines

Is it fixed now?

 

[webhead9707]

It works for me Syncos.

 

[camp Blood]

maybe its because I am on an ipod

 

[Syncos]

It works for me Syncos.

Cool. any thoughts?

 

[webhead9707]

It's nice, looks like a lucha libre fighter. although I have no idea who B'wana Beast is..

 

[keith_v]

Hey guys, was going to wait until I had an action shot done. but I don't know when I'll have time. So for now, here's my redesign of a character that needs it the most. B'Wana Beast.

Hope you like.

I decided to really play up his wrestling type fighting style and give him an outfit classically "wrestler". while adding some beastly flares like tearing through the legs, while the pants portion of the spandex takes styling from the loin cloth, while ditching that gimmick, and no boots. his helmet ditches the giant block on his head, kirby style while drawing inspiration from it. and his mask is now just a stylized portion of his helmet instead of something that flares off, over it.

Cheers,
-Syncos

I had to look up the original character to see how it was changed. Major improvement over the original. I like that you put a lot of personality into the costume. When I see it, I immediately think "over-the-top Mexican wrestler" whereas the original design didn't have much of a story to tell and didn't give the viewer a whole lot of information about the character.

The one thing I think your design could use is the black eyes of the original. They seem to really define his face in the comic's design and your design doesn't have the same impact in the face without the black lenses or cloth.