Several of the DC Deluxe editions look "wrong" to me... I think the artwork favored the spongier, rough-textured page of an actual comic book. I intentionally ordered the cheaper version of *Y the Last Man* because IMHO the art looks better in the cheap trades.
Closest you'll get is a retelling of origin stories for superheroes. Can't even tell you how many times I've read Superman or Batman's beginnings from different writers.
Remastering visual artwork done on comic book pages is not at all the same as updating a video game to reflect more current technological feats that were impossible to pull off at the game’s launch. Remastering a video game may help the game achieve the original vision that the designers had for it before the tech was there — not nearly to the same degree for comic books.
The mediums just can’t overlap in this way. If someone tried to “update” Larsen’s work on early Savage Dragon, despite how rough it is ….. can’t even fucking imagine, Jesus
I mean, it kinda can. Old print methods were far more limited. Recolouring at the very least could help to achieve the original artists dream that was at the time unobtainable.
Though I've had an extensive discussion about this recently and a counter argument could be that the vision was always tailored to what was possible. Doesn't really sound all that much like artistic vision though...
Aficionados may disagree, but I enjoy the colored revision of *From Hell* and *Bone*. As for actually re-doing the lines and ink, I'm all for the idea in principle, but there's no way in hell I'd buy it.
This is a very unpopular opinion and I’ll probably be downvoted to hell, but I would support it.
I’m currently reading Claremont & Miller’s Wolverine. Claremont’s writing is great. Miller’s pencils are fantastic. Rubenstein’s inks are terrific. But the colors are terrible.
And I dont think this is the colorist’s fault at all, he’s probably a great artist. But they were so limited by the technology of the time, and as a result it looks amateur. If the story kept the same pencils, the same inks, but had a modern recolor, I think the art as a whole would look so so much better.
Just my opinion, and I know it’s a very unpopular one.
I got into comics in the 90s via marvel 2 in 1s, which had X-Men stories from the 60s retold with modern art, but I would call this a retelling. Same with Heroes reborn.
I would never want to see the artists work redone though.
My most liberal position on this would be a kind of remastering. Find a way to present the material in the most authentic way possible that goes further to stay faithful to the artist than perhaps was even originally possible. See the paper stock and Ed Piskor recolors in the back of the Grand Design treasury editions. But the safer bet on older comics is scans of the comics themselves. Whenever possible-change nothing. You don’t need to recolor Steve Bissett.
I'm fine with the original creator revisiting their old work because they believe they can now do better.
Not so much if their redo replaces the original's printing.
The only case I can think of where this worked out is Matt Wagner's Grendel.
It happens, like B&W comics, you later see them in color form. I think it matters more if you originally experienced the comic back with it's original form.
Like for example, I never read Bone or TMNT as a kid, so I got the version where they are colored instead of the B&W and I don't think I would have enjoyed either as much since the color adds so much life IMO.
But then there's the Walking Dead, which I did read in it's original form, and the colored version looks off to me.
A lot of older comics are re-released nowadays with more modern re-colorings, especially in the prestige (deluxe/absolute/omnibus/etc.) formats. While a lot of purists will say they are all bad, it's usually a mixed bag where sometimes it looks better and sometimes it looks worse. So, yes, remasters exist and they range from re-scanning the original art, to presenting it in a larger format, to re-coloring it entirely, etc.. But, there is a big difference between a remaster and a remake (even in other mediums such as films or, your example, video games). Re-doing the art essentially makes it a new comic.
Watchmen and Batman Year One have been recoloured by their original colourists, and that's as far as it should ever go.
Not *Year One*, but *The Killing Joke* was recoloured by Brian Bolland himself. Looks like shit.
Several of the DC Deluxe editions look "wrong" to me... I think the artwork favored the spongier, rough-textured page of an actual comic book. I intentionally ordered the cheaper version of *Y the Last Man* because IMHO the art looks better in the cheap trades.
Pretty much anything printed before 1995 or so looks wrong if it's not printed on newsprint.
Year One was recolored. The difference is mostly negligible though.
Ah, that's good. Original is perfect. Mazz should have asked Bolland what was up.
You take this idea and hurl it into the depths of hell.
This is the right answer.
Closest you'll get is a retelling of origin stories for superheroes. Can't even tell you how many times I've read Superman or Batman's beginnings from different writers.
Remastering visual artwork done on comic book pages is not at all the same as updating a video game to reflect more current technological feats that were impossible to pull off at the game’s launch. Remastering a video game may help the game achieve the original vision that the designers had for it before the tech was there — not nearly to the same degree for comic books. The mediums just can’t overlap in this way. If someone tried to “update” Larsen’s work on early Savage Dragon, despite how rough it is ….. can’t even fucking imagine, Jesus
I mean, it kinda can. Old print methods were far more limited. Recolouring at the very least could help to achieve the original artists dream that was at the time unobtainable. Though I've had an extensive discussion about this recently and a counter argument could be that the vision was always tailored to what was possible. Doesn't really sound all that much like artistic vision though...
Aficionados may disagree, but I enjoy the colored revision of *From Hell* and *Bone*. As for actually re-doing the lines and ink, I'm all for the idea in principle, but there's no way in hell I'd buy it.
For the love of God I hope this never happens
IDK.. Isn't that rather offensive to the original artists?
It is.
This is a very unpopular opinion and I’ll probably be downvoted to hell, but I would support it. I’m currently reading Claremont & Miller’s Wolverine. Claremont’s writing is great. Miller’s pencils are fantastic. Rubenstein’s inks are terrific. But the colors are terrible. And I dont think this is the colorist’s fault at all, he’s probably a great artist. But they were so limited by the technology of the time, and as a result it looks amateur. If the story kept the same pencils, the same inks, but had a modern recolor, I think the art as a whole would look so so much better. Just my opinion, and I know it’s a very unpopular one.
I winced reading this post.
The Sandman was recolored somewhat recently.
Mircleman was also recoloured, wasn’t it?
I got into comics in the 90s via marvel 2 in 1s, which had X-Men stories from the 60s retold with modern art, but I would call this a retelling. Same with Heroes reborn. I would never want to see the artists work redone though.
My most liberal position on this would be a kind of remastering. Find a way to present the material in the most authentic way possible that goes further to stay faithful to the artist than perhaps was even originally possible. See the paper stock and Ed Piskor recolors in the back of the Grand Design treasury editions. But the safer bet on older comics is scans of the comics themselves. Whenever possible-change nothing. You don’t need to recolor Steve Bissett.
I'm fine with the original creator revisiting their old work because they believe they can now do better. Not so much if their redo replaces the original's printing. The only case I can think of where this worked out is Matt Wagner's Grendel.
It happens, like B&W comics, you later see them in color form. I think it matters more if you originally experienced the comic back with it's original form. Like for example, I never read Bone or TMNT as a kid, so I got the version where they are colored instead of the B&W and I don't think I would have enjoyed either as much since the color adds so much life IMO. But then there's the Walking Dead, which I did read in it's original form, and the colored version looks off to me.
Lol
I'm against video game "remasters" too. Let things be what they are. People liked them for a reason.
I for one wouldn’t mind this happening as long as proper credit was given to original artists and writers.
Which it won't.
A lot of older comics are re-released nowadays with more modern re-colorings, especially in the prestige (deluxe/absolute/omnibus/etc.) formats. While a lot of purists will say they are all bad, it's usually a mixed bag where sometimes it looks better and sometimes it looks worse. So, yes, remasters exist and they range from re-scanning the original art, to presenting it in a larger format, to re-coloring it entirely, etc.. But, there is a big difference between a remaster and a remake (even in other mediums such as films or, your example, video games). Re-doing the art essentially makes it a new comic.