Nice reinterpretation. I remember buying this off the rack in '86, and reading it many, many times during a summer trip.
I've never seen this issue. That's a pretty impressive line up of artists.
I see a huge difference in the portrayal of Batman between these covers. Sienkiewicz’s Batman looks more the villain; smoking skull, claw like fingers, ethereal as he blends into the surroundings with the supporting heroes behind where instead Stuckless looks to have brought Batman back to a Hero figure back-grounded by his villains and sidekicks’ alike. He looks central and grounded with the blue of his cape and I’m wondering was this drastic change intentional? It’s an interesting take on the cover. Good job.
Please don't ever redraw a bill sienkiewicz cover again. you're horrible and disgracing mr.sienkiewicz's awesome cover
Oh Anonymous, why must you continue to disappoint me?
Dear Anonymous, Are you serious? I don't see how he can be disgracing Mr. Sienkiewicz. If anything he's honouring Mr. Sienkiewicz by picking his cover to re-interpret. Do you draw? Can we see one of your "covered" submissions?
There is a reason folks who post comments like that do so anonymously.They are far to frightened to own their thoughts, comments and actions.IMHO, nonsensical anonymous commentary should just be deleted by the blog owner...
And in all that I forgot to say the cover is cool, but I would like to see a little more color in it so it creates more of a similar feel to the original.
I can see your point in deleting Anonymous's comment, but I really try to not delete comments unless they are spam. I agree that posting comments like this anonymously is cowardly. Also, I don't mind people being critical, but it should be constructive or at least have a point beyond being rude. Still, I prefer to not censor people and thankfully comments like this are rare on Covered.
I think it would have been nice for "anonymous" to explain what it was that he/she didn't like about the cover. Constructive criticism is one of the ways we grow as artists and people.
Anonymous' comment seems needlessly harsh. The covers are quite good, and as said before, seem the honor the original.
Hello, Thank you for commenting, I appreciate getting feedback, now here is some for you ....@ Andrew Kolvek • Same, and thanks...@ Josh Blair • Thanks,I'm glad you noticed my "fantasy roster" of creative-types@ upsetapplecartpublicity • Hey, as to your first critique,very well, I didn't even SEE that myself! As to your question, indeed, the spot colour Blue (sampled from the original) was engineered to be that way. My focus (at present) is to be able to express what I wish to do so with a B/W value scale. Utilizing said scale as a boundary to push up against, stretch and play with the best I can. Also, (see the essay i wrote about this on my site) my decision to do so was informed by the advertising campaign for "Arkham City" with incorporate a very nice near-monochromtic value scale.So HERE,I'm also alluding to the version of "Batman" in the video game by way of the colour scale & costume design.Lastly, thanks!@ Robert Goodin • I agree, leave the comments as they are,or re-post a comment with racial slurs etc edited. I didn't come all this way to be put-off by any ones CRITICISMS or even critiques for that matter about my artistic process. Although, a CRITIQUE is much more painful to hear, IT IS ultimately more useful.@ Jen • Thanks for props! and "Ture That"....@ John Prisk • Thanks,and again I agree with Robert Goodin's philosophy. As well,see my comment above about the use of a Monochromatic Colour scale/check the essay I posted on my website that accompanies this re-covered cover. One more thing! I like how the perimeter of the Batman figure is defined by the colour itself without the use of any linework, really makes him push forward to the audience out of the picture plane.@ Rawr • Indeed,and thank you.
"Also, I don't mind people being critical, but it should be constructive or at least have a point,"One Point: Don't use a movie, (Chris Nolan's Batman) as reference to reinterpret mr.sienkiewicz's awesome comic cover. If you were reinterpreting a Chris Nolan's Batman movie poster great but this is a comic book version of Batman not the movie version. What makes mr.sienkiewicz's comic cover awesome is it's his version of Batman. Make it yours not Chris Nolan's version of Batman.
There you have it folks, so much for being "creative" , can't please all f them, all the time...
@Anonymous: I understand your need to defend an artist you enjoy very much and thank you for coming back to try and emphasize this time with some more feedback. However, an artist’s interpretation is just that and using a multitude of sources will provide a different POV, which if anything is the point of this isn't it? Sure, if we wanted it to be a purely Sienkiewicz redraw he might have gone the wrong way BUT the point is to show a DIFFERENT way of seeing this cover. We already know the Sienkiewicz one works and is wonderful, we're here to see what others might have done themselves, or what they think they can add. Try to distance yourself a little from this and tone down the 'rage'. It's a great cover. If you dispute that, please offer criticism on improvements Craig can make instead of just negative comments. They really don't help him.Perhaps a cover of your own as evidence on where you think it should have gone as Jen suggested? Please remember the creative process of others will not always appeal to you 100% and this should be a positive environment for growth and learning.
the details in your version are quite something, and not only in aesthetics but politics as well, i understand those 3 figures represent TO's g20. I like the pop of blue color as well, it makes the main figure stand out, which is what the comic is all about really. Again not only visually well done but on a deeper level too. Kudos!
Wow - Anonymous seems to think Craig has bought Sienkiewicz's original artwork & the entire run of Batman #400 & set them on fire.He *is* right in that BS's Batman is unique & beautiful in its uniqueness. He completely misses that that uniqueness makes Craig's homage/interpretation that much more appropriate.Anonymous has singlehandedly made me want my first Covered re-interpretation to be a Sienk cover ;)
@ Mr.Goodin • Did you have an opportunity to SEE/MEET Bill Sienkiewicz at the San Diego Comic Con this year?@ Anna • Merci , and indeed, once again you're right-on-the-money! I'm glad I could make a brief political statement appropriating the Batman/Robin created by Bob Kane in such a manner as Frank Miller once did (no?) I put the black-block rioter in there to address such questions as - "What sort of behavior from the elite-leadership in THIS country did the general populace witness during such events as the G20 summit in Toronto Ontario? Vancouver at the Opec summit?,- did they have a particular meaning?- If so,ten what? Well, Like in "Unknowable: A mini-Comic for your intuitive self" I am encouraging folks to ask some questions. about the word live...http://tinyurl.com/unknowable-a-mini-comic@ upsetapplecartpublicity • Cheers, YES very perceptive of you. I don't recon that they read the Q & A about the work in question. I put THAT up there to enlighten folks about the background of how my artistic process progresses (in-real-time, or as close as possible) Which is like "bullet-time these days.a former classmate back in the heady days of commercial art school labeled me the "troublemaker"but crikey!!@ RoosterTree • Well, thank you. Heh, FIRE!!!! Where is Ray Bradbury when you need him eh?Thanks for checking out the Q n' A on my site, I can tell...As well, can wait to see the new artworks !!@ Mr. Bill Sienkiewicz • I sincerely hope you have a journey ito Toronto during the #FanExpoCanada There was a time when I had a copy of very printed illustrated matter you ever had published! Heh, especially appreciated..."Coup D'Etat" card set...- http://tinyurl.com/c-detat-set-bill-sienkiewicz& "Brought to Light" (with Alan Moore)...- http://preview.tinyurl.com/B2-LIGHT-bill-sienkiewicz...what happened to all that?
Loving this work. As far as Anonymous is concerned, obviously we've all got our own opinions, but, sir, I do believe you are trolling. If your concern is actually a legitimate one; well, perhaps, don't let subject matter get in the way of appreciating art? In my personal experience as a current art student, I've had to look at a number of extremely religious paintings/sculptures in art history for the past year. Since I'm very against people trying to push their religion on me, it's kind of annoying to look at all this Christian art. It seems kind of like propaganda. That being said, it's some of the best and most influential artwork I've ever seen; particularly Christian art from the Renaissance.Obviously, subject matter will influence your interpretation of the work and how much you like/dislike it, but it shouldn't make someone a bad artist if they have subject matter you don't agree with.