'Cept that even CC Beck didn't keep that model for long. Cap very quickly developed his own face, more rounded and "baby faced" than the earlier McMurray version.

Being "On Model" is especially important if certain features are an important part of the character. Wolverine's height, Starfire's hair and even She-Hulk's bosom* come to mind. I remember a Sabertooth/Wolverine fight where Sabertooth is calling Logan "Runt" but Logan appears to be at least 6 feet tall!

*I reference this one because I was in a comic store recently and a friend pointed out a She-Hulk pin-up where the artist had decided to draw her like a typical female bodybuilder with no hips and a flat chest. In the same comic, there was a joke referencing the large size of her boobs. The She-Hulk in the pin-up certainly couldn't have been the same She-Hulk from the story.

This topic brings another question to my mind:

Are there character sheets that "the company" gives artist to work from or are the artists on their own?  The writers explain to them what a character looks like etc?

cash register goblin of
my LCS.

*************

My old LCS had a troll. Wonder if they are related?

Joe Hollon wrote: Another good modern example is the advertisement I saw for an upcoming (or recent?) issue of Superman where the artist has Superman and Captain Marvel side by side and they look EXACTLY THE SAME!!! Same person wearing two different costumes! Inexcuseable!!! I'm sure some of you reading this know the ad I'm referring to....maybe someone can post it here.

I remember reading this story as a kid. It was the second par tof a two-parter and I had never read the first part. Superman and Captain Marvel had apparently been switched in the previous issue, so Superman was wearing Captain Marvel's costume and Captain Marvel was wearing Superman's costume. It was easy to tell that that's what had happened just by looking at their faces.

(They each had the other's powers, too)

Aren't you in effect feeding into this mess by not rising above it and instead allowing your experience to fall by the wayside. If even someone of the stature of John Byrne compromises and accomidates the chaos he criticizes is it any wonder there are critics saying, "His old stuff was better."

Well, of course! "Man of Steel" was Byrne's Superman in most people's minds and the new "Action" Superman will be a muddled mess of all the current Superman faces. It isn't as if you're taking up a current costume different from the '86 version or being *asked* to do this by the DC powers-that-be. It seems you're resisting the evolution of the industry. Were you brought onto "Action" to be mister-monthly-art-bot or to be JOHN BYRNE, arist extraordinaire, drawing Superman?

This is all very odd since you're among those generally seen as ushering in the "superstar" artist era and are one of the finest artists of the medium.

I've been hoping to see Byrne doing Byrne, again drawing the fantastic Superman of his "Man of Steel" reboot.