|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 5, 2014 11:28:00 GMT -5
One thing I can say, I have no doubt that Eric Larsen could drink the rest of those guys under the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 5, 2014 12:00:44 GMT -5
Oh dear. You haven't seen me discuss McFarlane. You wouldn't like me...when I discuss McFarlane   Shax smash puny McFarlane fans  -M LOL.. that's a pretty horrible cover. I wouldn't say I'm a fan (though he used to design a mean action figure), but I don't think he's terrible. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 5, 2014 12:10:30 GMT -5
Of the Image founders, I can't say I am a fan of any of their work at the moment, though I think Whilce Portacio is the best of them.
Silvestri I briefly liked around the time of the Avengers/X-Men miniseries in the mid-80's, before he became the regular artist on X-Men. I quickly tired of his art as it got sketchier, and the fact that he drew Inferno is pretty much a permanent mark of shame.
Lee, McFarlane and Liefeld are all artists I liked at the time in the early 90's before waking up like The Matrix and realizing my whole life was a lie. I think Lee is the best of the three, but I'm not a fan.
I think Valentino is almost as bad as Liefeld as an artist, though he has a much better story sense. He's also a much better writer. But I have no interest in anything he does.
Larsen I think is actually really good at a lot of things, I just don't share his sense of humor, which is a major sticking point as a reader.
Portacio, for me, is the one of these guys whose work seemed to hint at some interesting outside influences. He seemed like he might have something more going on than just comics and aping other comic artists. I've seen some of his recent non-superhero stuff and it's really good. I think he is kind of constrained by working with superhero books, as it limits him to his established superhero style, when I think he has a lot more going on that he's not showing mainstream audiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 5, 2014 12:31:38 GMT -5
Except when they went biweekly during the summer. The artwork was really sub-par when he had to rush like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 5, 2014 12:43:56 GMT -5
Larsen has had the most consistant career, in my opinion. I don't always like what he's doing, but I'm glad he does it.
At the time of the Image startup, Silvestri was the best of the bunch. Unfortunately, he started working with inkers that made his art look way too slick, and he also started overemphasizing ridiculous body shapes, particularly for women. His work post-'90 or so does not compete with his earlier work.
I respect Valentino more for his taste than his actual work. More than anyone else, it was Valentino who molded Image into what it is today. He expanded the line away from derivative superhero titles into something more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 14:29:59 GMT -5
Marc Silvestri, on the merits of his early Conan material alone. Jim Valentino, but only because of Normalman. I only recognize Rob and Lee, but I know it's the early Image crew. If Sam Keith is in the picture then him, if not, none of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 5, 2014 14:57:29 GMT -5
I'll vouch for my boy Rob. I appeciate the having-fun-with-it enthusiasm he brings to his stuff - Feels like a Golden Age throwback to me, with a mixture of crude and weird and enthusiastic. (Not that I've ever, say, spent money on a Rob Liefeld comic. But I'm glad he's around.)
And huge props for hiring Ross Campbell and Brandon Graham to helm Glory and Prophet.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 5, 2014 15:04:58 GMT -5
One artist who, if not first-gen Image, started as a Jim Lee clone who REALLY came into his own is Travis Charest. I will buy just about anything he draws just because his stuff is so gorgeous to look at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 5, 2014 15:17:20 GMT -5
I liked Valentino's Normalman in the pre-Image days His work on "A touch of silver" was also darn good. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 5, 2014 15:24:34 GMT -5
One artist who, if not first-gen Image, started as a Jim Lee clone who REALLY came into his own is Travis Charest. I will buy just about anything he draws just because his stuff is so gorgeous to look at. Yeah, Charest really developed into his own artist. It's not surprising that he's one of the few contemporary American comics artist who have made it in the Euro market.
Liam Sharp's another guy who was pressured into working in a Lee style that developed into a great artist. He had his own distinct style when he started working for 2000AD, but a few years later, editorial at Marvel UK wanted him to be a Jim Lee clone for Death's Head II. I don't think he really found his form until his brilliant work on Man-Thing with DeMatteis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 15:33:50 GMT -5
I'll vouch for my boy Rob. I appeciate the having-fun-with-it enthusiasm he brings to his stuff - Feels like a Golden Age throwback to me, with a mixture of crude and weird and enthusiastic. This, children, is why we should never, ever post while inebriated. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 5, 2014 15:41:18 GMT -5
One artist who, if not first-gen Image, started as a Jim Lee clone who REALLY came into his own is Travis Charest. I will buy just about anything he draws just because his stuff is so gorgeous to look at. Oh, his art is simply water-mouthing. Reminds me of Juan Giménez, but slightly better.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 16:12:14 GMT -5
That's an awesome image.
|
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on May 5, 2014 16:24:02 GMT -5
One artist who, if not first-gen Image, started as a Jim Lee clone who REALLY came into his own is Travis Charest. I will buy just about anything he draws just because his stuff is so gorgeous to look at. Agreed that Charest's work is stunning. Buy his sketchbooks, they're worth it. But Charest was more of a Liefeld disciple. Look at his early DC Darkstars work  The one Lee-clone that took of on his own and created his own brand and now people knock him off is J Scott Campbell. The Gen X/Gen 13 stuff was straight Lee but he loosened up and now is his own and my opinion surpassed Lee in terms of talent and broader market reach  |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 5, 2014 16:49:09 GMT -5
One artist who, if not first-gen Image, started as a Jim Lee clone who REALLY came into his own is Travis Charest. I will buy just about anything he draws just because his stuff is so gorgeous to look at. Agreed that Charest's work is stunning. Buy his sketchbooks, they're worth it. But Charest was more of a Liefeld disciple. Look at his early DC Darkstars work Eh, I see both. The woman's face is pure Lee, but the dude's shoulders are kind Liefieldian. I think he was pretty representative of the time period early on, but his work on Wildcats was very Lee. I like Campbell a lot. While his Gen 13 was similar to Lee, I liked Campbell's style a lot better for the book. Lee drew some Gen 13, but Campbell's stuff blew him out of the water. In fact, I'd say the difference really illustrates the the static/posed complaints in Lee's work. Next to Campbell's, Lee's work looked so dull. |
|
