You are here: Home / Comics / ‘Stormwatch’ Cover Blatantly Rips off ‘X-Men’

‘Stormwatch’ Cover Blatantly Rips off ‘X-Men’

Pin It
March 7, 2013 at 3:52 pm By 8 Comments

Exhibit A: The cover of this week’s Stormwatch #18.

 

Exhibit B: Danger of the X-Men and all-around RILF.

This falls under the dual categories of ‘What were they thinking?’ and ‘An editor’s job is to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen.’

That doesn’t excuse the artist for stealing designs from other publishers, but a major part of an editor’s job is to prevent it from making it to the comic stores looking like that. As is the job of editorial assistants, associate editors, and interns.

Filed Under: Comics Tagged With: , ,
  • http://profiles.google.com/genehatemp Gene Ha

    So the 1998 DC/Wildstorm character The Engineer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer_(comics) is a ripoff of the 2005 Marvel character Danger? http://marvel.com/universe/Danger Yeah, I really wish DC Editor Rachelle Brissenden had looked ahead 7 years into the future before letting that character get created. Obvious theft of an original idea from Marvel.

    Also, Hajime F#@%ing Soroyama. When he created the shiny chrome Sexy Robot series in the 1970s he should have looked 30 years into the future and recognized his theft.

    • http://www.multiplexcomic.com/ Gordon McAlpin

      I love you, Gene.

      • http://profiles.google.com/genehatemp Gene Ha

        I don’t think Matt Sager is a bad person. I know that Ken Lashley, the Stormwatch cover artist, is not a thief. But we can all agree that Michael Bay Is The Devil. http://store.multiplexcomic.com/baydevil

  • http://profiles.google.com/genehatemp Gene Ha

    I don’t mind when people point out that two pieces of art look similar. Bleeding Cool has a whole feature based on that, Swipe File. But they always acknowledge that it could be coincidence, or people using similar sources, etc. http://www.bleedingcool.com/category/swipe-file/

    But to state that Ken Lashley stole a design, and charge dereliction of duty by the editors crosses a line. Never make a charge like that unless you can back up your charges.

    The Danger character design uses elements that have been floating around for decades. The hair is stolen from either the Engineer, or came from the same sources. The face is clearly based on Maria from Fritz Lang’s silent movie Metropolis. Lots of people stole from Maria: C3-P0, the Midnighter mask, etc.

    In short, Danger is a re-designed Engineer, but wearing the Midnighter’s mask.

    • Guest

      Forgot Maximus’ helmet from Gladiator!

      • http://profiles.google.com/genehatemp Gene Ha

        Here’s the image….

  • ken lashley

    hahaha..l love stuff like this….of course they assume the cover artist designs the characters. we both know that doesnt happen. l got the source…l did the drawing…after that….cant say who did what..or where they got it from…but lets be truthful…dreadlocks are not new…nor are robotic ladies…or the colour blue…Gene…love you.

    • http://www.robotmutant.com Matt Sager

      Ken, that’s exactly why I didn’t mention your name. I presented the cover, and contrasted it with Danger. I never implicated or even hinted at you having designed the character. I’m happy to converse with you, Gene and everybody else but I don’t get why the fact that Danger resembles an amalgam from a broad spectrum of characters throughout history changes the fact that somebody redesigned Engineer in a way that happens to be a doppelganger of Danger.

      If someone stole a scene from Star Wars, would the fact that Star Wars was deeply influenced by Seven Samurai invalidate said scene-stealing? I like Gene and his work a lot, and I certainly don’t like that we disagree, but we do.

      It’s weird, that people are as engaged by this as they are, because none of the arguments are based on the one and only point I made: the redesigned Engineer looks a hell of a lot more like Danger than she does the original Engineer.

      And if you’re offended by the idea that I was calling you out, I’m sorry that you interpreted it in that manner but please go back and read the piece - you’ll find no mention of you whatsoever.