|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 1:54:46 GMT -5
Well, the Celestial Madonna is absolutely one of my faves and Alan Moore is probably the best writer of the medium. I also love the Killing Joke and give this to non-comic people as an intro. Grant Morrison is both genius and self absorbed fanboy. When he's good... Can't stand Gaiman. Sandman was unreadable to me. Heck, I can't even read his Marvelman/Miracle man. Given that is up there as potentially my favourite comic run from Moore, that's some going. I get annoyed by the current switching of identities to increase diversity. Witness the current Captain Britain and the Defenders starring neither Cap nor the Defenders. I'm not against diversity. I collected Power Man. Storm was a main focus on the X-Men. I bought Dazzler. I read every issue of the original Ms Marvel. I bought Captain America mainly for the Falcon. Black Panther was always a thrill. But to say that I should continue reading Thor as the name has stayed the same but the character is now completely different is insane. The very fact that we could have a Hulk v Thor mini-series where a different Hulk v Thor can battle it out for a few issues, yet neither the true Hulk or Thor appears, is patently ridiculous.A gradual change due to story demands is fine (such as Rhodey becoming Iron Man) but crowbarring in over a short time just destroys character appeal. The Scarlet Witch, Black Widow or Cyborg show that non-white, non-male characters can be of interest. It just needs better writing, not treating fans as idiots that are blinded by a name. I really see no difference between Rhodey in the armor, Eric Masterson as Thor, and USAgent as Cap and what they are doing now. It was change for change sake to draw interest to the books as new and shiny and hyped as much then as that as it is now. The only difference I see is those older changes are now viewed through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. But I used to hear the same kind of anti-change grumbling in the comic shops then as I see on the internet now, so really nothing has changed. It's the same motivation as look new Batman or new fill in the blank character at any company-to get people to buy it until it stops selling then you go back and hype the return to generate more sales. Wash, rinse, repeat and it's been happening in comics for at least 25 years now, if not longer. -M |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Jul 20, 2015 9:57:51 GMT -5
I just don't get....  He was big in the 1990s...but...his art just never agreed with me. LOL. The question is.. are there people out there that DID like his art in the 90s, or was he just really good at hype and marketing? I think it was a combination of both. I think Rob's work hit at a point when the medium was evolving, and the energy in his work compensated for some of the obvious weaknesses. If you liked Walt Simonson's work or Art Adams' work or even Simon Bisley's work, I could see you enjoying Rob's work on some level. However, those guys are masterful in pretty much every regard, and Rob never developed into a total artist in that sense. People harp on about the anatomy of his figures, the lack of feet, etc, but the biggest problem I have with his work is that he's not any good at transitions between scenes or action choreography in general. His individual panels have life to them, but they never quite add up in a logical storytelling way.
I do think he gets bashed a bit too much, though. His work is not good, but there's redeemable elements in it. If he were to focus a bit more on how to tell a story rather than explosive images, I think he'd be a middle of the pack artist. There'd still be the stylistic quirks like the anatomy, but at least there would be some cohesion to the stories he's trying to tell. His early success undercut him as a storyteller, and he continues to follow the path that gained him that success even though the returns have diminished.
I wasn't particularly a fan of any of the Image founders' art, but the one whose art bothers me the most these days is Silvestri's. He actually produced the best work pre-Image, but when he moved on, he cultivated a series of inkers who brought out the worst in his work. It's so slick and polished, but that took away the edge that so much of late '80s-early '90s work had.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 20, 2015 13:08:53 GMT -5
If I were to say "I just don't get it ..." in regards to Rob Liefield, it would be "I just don't get it why people hate him so much". Fanboy said it well. He's not the worst. There's always that most ridiculous Cap picture people trot out when there's talk of his work. I enjoyed his Spiderman, more visually than story telling, but there's much more acclaimed stories that are just as drab in my opinion. I also really liked Badrock, which I get his Image's version of Thing, but it didn't like a copy anymore than Starlin being accused of copying Darkseid with Thanos. I don't get Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, or Alan Moore, for as much accolades as they get either. They all have strengths and weaknesses, no one man or woman is a perfect artist or storyteller. Maybe I feel he just gets treated like the harbinger of the glut of bad comics. And I just don't happen to share that opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 20, 2015 14:03:39 GMT -5
I think it's pretty hard to make a case for "I don't get why Rob Liefeld is popular" in today's environment, considering that it's way way more fashionable to criticize him these days. And maybe it's because he became popular when I was 13 years old, but it's not that hard for me to see why his artwork was so appealing back in the day. It's the same reason why 13 year old boys like anything -- because it's loud, flashy, over-the-top, trying to have the appearance of sophistication while lacking all substance thereof. His primary audience was teenage boys, and his art was just the right mix of things teenage boys have always liked, perfectly seasoned with stylistic affectations that hit all the right notes for the zeitgeist of that time. I totally get it, even if I didn't necessarily care for it then (or now).
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 20, 2015 15:07:29 GMT -5
Well, the Celestial Madonna is absolutely one of my faves and Alan Moore is probably the best writer of the medium. I also love the Killing Joke and give this to non-comic people as an intro. Grant Morrison is both genius and self absorbed fanboy. When he's good... Can't stand Gaiman. Sandman was unreadable to me. Heck, I can't even read his Marvelman/Miracle man. Given that is up there as potentially my favourite comic run from Moore, that's some going. I get annoyed by the current switching of identities to increase diversity. Witness the current Captain Britain and the Defenders starring neither Cap nor the Defenders. I'm not against diversity. I collected Power Man. Storm was a main focus on the X-Men. I bought Dazzler. I read every issue of the original Ms Marvel. I bought Captain America mainly for the Falcon. Black Panther was always a thrill. But to say that I should continue reading Thor as the name has stayed the same but the character is now completely different is insane. The very fact that we could have a Hulk v Thor mini-series where a different Hulk v Thor can battle it out for a few issues, yet neither the true Hulk or Thor appears, is patently ridiculous.A gradual change due to story demands is fine (such as Rhodey becoming Iron Man) but crowbarring in over a short time just destroys character appeal. The Scarlet Witch, Black Widow or Cyborg show that non-white, non-male characters can be of interest. It just needs better writing, not treating fans as idiots that are blinded by a name. I really see no difference between Rhodey in the armor, Eric Masterson as Thor, and USAgent as Cap and what they are doing now. It was change for change sake to draw interest to the books as new and shiny and hyped as much then as that as it is now. The only difference I see is those older changes are now viewed through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. But I used to hear the same kind of anti-change grumbling in the comic shops then as I see on the internet now, so really nothing has changed. It's the same motivation as look new Batman or new fill in the blank character at any company-to get people to buy it until it stops selling then you go back and hype the return to generate more sales. Wash, rinse, repeat and it's been happening in comics for at least 25 years now, if not longer. -M I'm not sure the publishers were as effective at hyping their "Thor has a new identity!" "Spider-man has a new costume!" flash in the pan temporary sales-booster changes in the '80s as they are now. I remember an interview with Mark Gruenwald in Amazing Heroes where he basically says the whole replacement Captain America storyline was a way to boost sales - He listed a handful of ways to do it (including a completely new creative team) and giving Captain America a new costume was the most palatable from his point of view. But other than that I agree completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jul 20, 2015 15:35:24 GMT -5
Garth Ennis
I LOVED his run on Punisher under the Marvel Knights and MAX labels...but I thought Preacher was beyond overrated. Not terrible by any means, buy I'll never understand why it's widely considered one of the best comic runs of the last 25 years.
And Crossed is probably the most perverted comic out there. I'm usually NEVER one to complain about violence or foul language...but good lord. Just ridiculous.
Although the guy does know how to tell some awesome war stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 20, 2015 17:17:52 GMT -5
Garth Ennis I LOVED his run on Punisher under the Marvel Knights and MAX labels...but I thought Preacher was beyond overrated. Not terrible by any means, buy I'll never understand why it's widely considered one of the best comic runs of the last 25 years. And Crossed is probably the most perverted comic out there. I'm usually NEVER one to complain about violence or foul language...but good lord. Just ridiculous. Although the guy does know how to tell some awesome war stories. His run on Hellblazer was also pretty amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 20, 2015 17:41:49 GMT -5
Garth Ennis I LOVED his run on Punisher under the Marvel Knights and MAX labels...but I thought Preacher was beyond overrated. Not terrible by any means, buy I'll never understand why it's widely considered one of the best comic runs of the last 25 years. And Crossed is probably the most perverted comic out there. I'm usually NEVER one to complain about violence or foul language...but good lord. Just ridiculous. Although the guy does know how to tell some awesome war stories. That would be because Preacher is one of the best comics of the last 25 years. And the guy is arguably the best writer of war comics ever. The only other people in contention are Harvey Kurtzman, Pat Mills and Archie Goodwin. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 20, 2015 17:48:30 GMT -5
Garth Ennis I LOVED his run on Punisher under the Marvel Knights and MAX labels...but I thought Preacher was beyond overrated. Not terrible by any means, buy I'll never understand why it's widely considered one of the best comic runs of the last 25 years. And Crossed is probably the most perverted comic out there. I'm usually NEVER one to complain about violence or foul language...but good lord. Just ridiculous. Although the guy does know how to tell some awesome war stories. His run on Hellblazer was also pretty amazing. His Hitman series was great too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 18:29:03 GMT -5
If I were to say "I just don't get it ..." in regards to Rob Liefield, it would be "I just don't get it why people hate him so much". It's not hate per se...I just did not like his art at all. It made reading any 90s book that he was involved with unbearable. I was still in single digits in the early 90s but had my opinion of Rob since then. For the record, I'm not a fan of McFarlane's Spidey either and, by choice, have not bothered with the Volume 2 series from the 90s or his run with Amazing Spider-Man. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 20, 2015 18:31:59 GMT -5
I don't mind McFarlane's Spidey.. it's not my favorite, certainly, but it's decent. His art really only bugs me when he starts with the ridiculous, gravity-defying capes.
Oh, and his Hulk is pretty horrendous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 18:34:12 GMT -5
Garth Ennis I LOVED his run on Punisher under the Marvel Knights and MAX labels...but I thought Preacher was beyond overrated. Not terrible by any means, buy I'll never understand why it's widely considered one of the best comic runs of the last 25 years. And Crossed is probably the most perverted comic out there. I'm usually NEVER one to complain about violence or foul language...but good lord. Just ridiculous. Although the guy does know how to tell some awesome war stories. I'd put Preacher in my Top 25 list. I was encouraged to seek it out after *adoring* his work on Punisher. I also happened to be in the right place at the right time and got an entire run of Jennifer Blood for a quarter each  |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jul 20, 2015 18:35:09 GMT -5
Rob Liefeld's art doesn't do much for me, but I respect him a lot as a creator and voice in the industry. Back when he was first starting up Image Comics, he and the other Image guys inked a bunch of Jack Kirby's unpublished artwork and published it themselves. They then gave all the profits to Kirby and his wife.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 20, 2015 18:49:08 GMT -5
I'm 37 now, so I was the perfect age to get seduced by Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefield. I was 13 at the tail end of 1990, so I witnessed the rise of the Image guys at a still impressionable age (I even bought...please forgive me...Vanilla Ice's first album that year! Thank all that's holy for Nirvana a year later. Changed by life and granted me actual taste!). What saved me is that my first artistic loves were John Byrne, George Perez and Walt Simonson, all of whom I encountered BEFORE the Image guys. I thought those guys were kinda cool, but even then I knew that they weren't on the same level as those legends.
A lot of Liefield's early success had to do with him being on a cool teen book connected with the enormously popular X-Universe with New Mutants and then X-Force. I think it's that simple. I think his art has always been mediocre, but it can't be denied that it was "unique" and like nothing we'd seen before. Thankfully.
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Jul 20, 2015 20:14:50 GMT -5
I'm 37 now, so I was the perfect age to get seduced by Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefield. I was 13 at the tail end of 1990, so I witnessed the rise of the Image guys at a still impressionable age (I even bought...please forgive me...Vanilla Ice's first album that year! Thank all that's holy for Nirvana a year later. Changed by life and granted me actual taste!). What saved me is that my first artistic loves were John Byrne, George Perez and Walt Simonson, all of whom I encountered BEFORE the Image guys. I thought those guys were kinda cool, but even then I knew that they weren't on the same level as those legends. A lot of Liefield's early success had to do with him being on a cool teen book connected with the enormously popular X-Universe with New Mutants and then X-Force. I think it's that simple. I think his art has always been mediocre, but it can't be denied that it was "unique" and like nothing we'd seen before. Thankfully. Of that Image Triumvirate, I suppose Jim Lee has survived to this day with reputation most intact. He has risen high in the ranks of DC and continues to be a huge artistic influence over the DCU. And yet, I really don't care for his art. It leaves me indifferent and cold. I find it lifeless and sterile. McFarlane and and Liefield's art has more vitality in it, even it is shamelessly overwrought and aesthetically displeasing. |
|
