Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A. Heathen

What KLIMT drew this cover ?

Recommended Posts

hlblazer_cv258.jpg

 

Written by Peter Milligan

Art by Giuseppe Camuncoli & Stefano Landini

Cover by Simon Bisley

As strange as it sounds, seducing a 2,000-year-old demon with a grudge isn’t the riskiest stunt John Constantine has ever pulled. But tipping the supernatural scales for a chance at love will exact a cost higher than he ever thought possible. And try as he might, is this something that devil-may-care Constantine can walk away from?

On sale August 19

 

That is lovely.

Greg Lauren take note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not as horrible (in a bad way) as the last, but I still get the feeling that someone's declared an 80s revival without adequate consultation.

 

But tipping the supernatural scales for a chance at love will exact a cost higher than he ever thought possible

He's going hippy again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, rich and packed with detail. I'd be hard pressed to pick a favourite element; even the slice of leaves in the foreground is lovely. Could the figure in the background have been executed more perfectly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather beutiful cover, i must say. From the green foreground to a haunted moon in the background a visual gem with stunning amount of detail. It certainly does look like a parody of Klimt - and i'm not sure which one i like more. Awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John doesn't look like he's 25 years old in that one either, which is always a plus.

 

The cig still looks a bit too much like a joint, but at least it's not the roach he was holding in the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I like that a lot. Decent idea, well-executed. I still have a couple of minor grumbles, but since the overall effect is pleasing, none of them really bother me too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then, what are they? 'Cause the more I look at that cover, the more I like it. Look at the character in Constantine's hands and facial expression. The roots, the city, the clouds like torn cardboard: they all tell their own stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mainly the pornstar tits (complete with peek-a-boo nipple outline, in just the right place to suggest the aftermath a cheap/botched boob job). I've often found the sexual aspects of Bisley's work fairly adolescent, and this is a typical example - that sort of thing works fine with his more overtly grotesque, muscles-and-big-guns parody stuff, but seems out of place here. I don't mind a hint of eroticism in there - it's suited to the subject matter, after all, with the lurid sex/death imagery - but I think it might have worked better if he'd gone for something a bit less cartoonish. Or at least if he'd put that bloody nipple in the right place.

 

I completely agree with all the other things you mention, and more besides. I'm especially drawn to that figure in the background (is it a statue? Somebody watching? I don't know, but I like it), and the church. The colouring is lovely, too - nicely-muted sky and drab concrete shades on the buildings, highlighting the vivid purple and greens down at the bottom of the picture. Excellent work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lookin' at the same tits as you, and to me they don't look cartoonish or emphasised at all. If anything, I'd expect them to be further out there, given her pose, and the nipples to be more visible, given that the dress appears transparent elsewhere. I agree about the adolescent sexual element of Biz's earlier work, I just don't see it here.

 

In the interests of art appreciation, though, I think we should both continue to study those areas of the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem, for me - if they were exaggerated, or overly-emphasised, I'd be happy to accept it as a deliberate stylistic choice (and, given the lurid pulpiness which everyone's noted, it might even have worked well). But they're actually quite realistically-depicted, it's just that the nipple is drawn exactly where one would expect it to be on a surgically-augmented breast, as opposed to a natural one. It's always annoyed me that so many comic artists seem to go for the silicon-enhanced look as standard when drawing breasts without even thinking about whether or not it's actually suited to the image/character at hand, and at first glance this just strikes me as yet another example of that insidious trend. Not a huge deal, but it bugs me - and hey, you asked. :hattip:

 

I've now gone on about this for a length of time vastly incommensurate to the degree to which I actually care about it. You may now return to your previously-scheduled thread drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... it's just that the nipple is drawn exactly where one would expect it to be on a surgically-augmented breast, as opposed to a natural one. It's always annoyed me that so many comic artists seem to go for the silicon-enhanced look as standard when drawing breasts without even thinking about whether or not it's actually suited to the image/character at hand, and at first glance this just strikes me as yet another example of that insidious trend.

Those are two good points. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's mainly the pornstar tits (complete with peek-a-boo nipple outline, in just the right place to suggest the aftermath a cheap/botched boob job). I've often found the sexual aspects of Bisley's work fairly adolescent, and this is a typical example - that sort of thing works fine with his more overtly grotesque, muscles-and-big-guns parody stuff, but seems out of place here. I don't mind a hint of eroticism in there - it's suited to the subject matter, after all, with the lurid sex/death imagery - but I think it might have worked better if he'd gone for something a bit less cartoonish. Or at least if he'd put that bloody nipple in the right place.

 

completely agree, first thing I thought when I looked at this cover was "hmmm, that's nice," followed by an "that's some awkward nipple placement even for silicone breasts." too high and too far to the outside.

 

I love the way the dress works on her body, very solid work, and Constantine himself, the background and colours are all very nice, but the breasts bother me to no end. that, and the fact that Constantine's left hand is much bigger than his right!

 

EDIT: the look on John's face is quite brilliant though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno what all the fuss is about. It's better than the preceding one but it's still a bit shit. It manages to be neither good enough to work on it's own merits nor OTT enough for a classic piece of Biz.

 

It looks very sub-Fabry to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm firmly with Tom on this: bettre than the previous cover, but still pretty fucking awful. Sure, it's pretty detailed, but really no better than any other cover by Bradstreet or even Fabry.

 

As for it being a pastiche of Klimt's The Kiss, it's way off the mark. The composition is all wrong, and the figures aren't even in the same position - there's no tender embrace, no loving arm draped around John's shoulders, John's face is visible, and the woman looks as if she's being dragged up and supported (yes, this works in the setting - a dug up grave - but an embrace would've worked too), rather them being entwined in each other. She's submissive, acquiescent, almost limp even, instead of being involved. And, crucially, there is no kiss.

 

Pish poor. The sooner Bisley gets his P45 the better in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a pastiche of the Klimt pose whether you like it or not.

As such it does not have to be the copy you seem to be demanding, Hugh.

 

You'd be on better ground if you were obsessing about the nipple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a pastiche of the Klimt pose whether you like it or not.

As such it does not have to be the copy you seem to be demanding, Hugh.

 

You'd be on better ground if you were obsessing about the nipple.

He wasn't saying that it wasn't a pastiche, just that it was way off the mark. Which, as his point so eloquently points out, it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is fairly clearly criticising it as not being accurate enough.

All of the stuff in Hugh's middle paragraph is measuring it against the original on flawed reasoning that it is an attempt to copy exactly.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd be on better ground if you were obsessing about the nipple.

Marks excellent points (I see what you did there Jason!) aside, I have my own niggle:

 

Corpses can't have erect nipples. And fat quickly breaks down, so I'll also argue that corpses can't have pert breasts unless heavily embalmed, in which case the body would be stiff, so no loving droop across John's arms.

 

I'm pretty meh on the thing. Better than the last abortion to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...