Blogs:

Newsarama Blogs Home > Article: When Is A Beast Not A Beast?

When Is A Beast Not A Beast?

May 7th, 2012
Author Graeme McMillan

I loved this, from X-Men editor Nick Lowe about the variations in appearance for Hank McCoy in recent comics:

There hasn’t been a change to Beast’s physicality, this comes down more to differing artists’ styles. Our friend Dr. Hank McCoy is still very feline in nature and you can see that in “Wolverine and the X-Men.” It is interesting that several artists in a certain Executive Editor’s books seem to downplay the feline aspects but there hasn’t been a change.

Rough translation: Stop letting your artists forget the Frank Quitely redesign, Tom Brevoort. And, really, that Secret Avengers issue did seem rather unexpected because of the RetroBeast…

12 Responses to “When Is A Beast Not A Beast?”
  1. RF Says:

    Lowe and Brevoort tease each other constantly, guys. I don’t think this is meant as anything but a fun & friendly jab.

  2. Simon DelMonte Says:

    It did confuse me when I picked up SWORD (by the handle, thankfully) and saw a very different Beast than I saw elsewhere. Still feline, but looking more like a blue-furred version of Chester Cheeto.

    I sometimes miss the old look, but as long as he’s written with the right sense of humor to match his pathos, the look is not that important.

  3. Kyle Garret Says:

    @RF I took this blog post to be fun & friendly. I don’t think Graeme was suggesting otherwise.

  4. RF Says:

    Kyle, perhaps I was needlessly preemptive: my comment was aimed more at excitable and nitpicky readers who lose their minds at the tiniest inconsistency, not at Mr. McMillan exactly.

  5. Arturo Ulises Says:

    Beast’s “new” look is the only part of Morrison’s X-Men run that I don’t like.

  6. Kiel Phegley Says:

    Just a note for clarity:

    In the original transcript, a little “Cough, cough” bit was in there as Nick explained this, which REALLY underscored the gentle nature of the comment, but because the transcript used carrots to set that off, the system read it as useless HTML, and it didn’t show up. I’ve gone back in and corrected it so everyone can know for sure that he was joking.

  7. Dan Coyle Says:

    Just because it’s a friendly jab doesn’t absolve Tom Brevoort of his responsibilites as an editor. Sorry, but it’s true.

  8. RF Says:

    Don’t be sorry, Dan. You’re entitled to your opinion. But surely you realize this wasn’t an oversight on the part of an editor, but rather giving leeway to an artist and his interpretation of a character.

    There are so often complaints about editorial interference in the creation of mainstream comics, it seems a little petty to kvetch when an editor allows a forgivable level of artistic license.

  9. bryceharper Says:

    He’s an X-Man and Bendis writes him soon on wait for it drum roll, please. New X-Men the street team featuring Peter Parker retconned as a Mutant. Hey whatever works on spur of the moment.

  10. Paul Allen Says:

    @RF

    I’m not the nit-picky type generally, but…

    Did the editor allow the artist license, or did the artist not do his homework?

    And if it is just the artist’s prerogative, where does the license end? If the artist wants to draw Wolverine in his brown and orange costume, is that cool? If he wants to put hair back on Cyclops, is that okay?

  11. Paul Allen Says:

    Sorry. I meant to say Colossus, not Cyclops.

  12. RF Says:

    Paul, I don’t know if it’s “okay,” but it certainly wouldn’t affect my enjoyment of the work in any serious way.

    In this case: Yeah, I noticed Beast wasn’t as cat-like as we’ve grown accustomed to in the days since Grant & Frank. But since the comic is about dudes fighting a giant firebird in space and not about Hank’s secondary mutation, it didn’t seem to really matter to the story at hand.

    And honestly, nothing in this world could matter to me less than the colors on Wolverine’s costume.

Leave a Reply »