|
Post by DubipR on May 6, 2014 7:52:44 GMT -5
Ok guys, which one was your favorite out of this bunch? Mcfarlane... *hides from shaxper* Well, McFarlane was the reason why I left Amazing Spider-Man. Like Liefeld, McFarlane's grasp on human anatomy was out of whack. I know people love (or loved) his run but there were so many things wrong with his run. Also I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. One of he biggest grips I had of his run was the way he drew the mask. It's a mask! the eyes don't open a close and mainly don't cover the entire head how it was drawn. And the body doesn't bend like the positions posed! I will give him credit for creating a more visible and cool webbing.
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on May 6, 2014 7:54:55 GMT -5
That's a very common weakness. You could as well be talking about Byrne. Byrne, in fact, was the first name that came to mind for me when I saw dupont2005's post. George Perez has the same faces as well, including the 80s feathered hair
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 6, 2014 8:13:53 GMT -5
I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. The first McFarlane issue has a cover date of March 1988. The last Frenz issue was from January 1987. It wasn't sudden, and in the interim we had such stellar pencilers as Kupperberg, Larsen? (yes, it's him) and Saviuk. The two issues drawn by Romita, plus Kraven's Last Hunt, were the only respites. By comparison, McFarlane was good. I also left the book during his tenure, but more because of Micheline's writing than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 6, 2014 8:15:47 GMT -5
Mcfarlane... *hides from shaxper* Well, McFarlane was the reason why I left Amazing Spider-Man. Like Liefeld, McFarlane's grasp on human anatomy was out of whack. I know people love (or loved) his run but there were so many things wrong with his run. Also I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. One of he biggest grips I had of his run was the way he drew the mask. It's a mask! the eyes don't open a close and mainly don't cover the entire head how it was drawn. And the body doesn't bend like the positions posed! I will give him credit for creating a more visible and cool webbing. The funny thing is that McFarlane gives Erik Larsen credit for the webbing.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 6, 2014 8:32:07 GMT -5
Well, McFarlane was the reason why I left Amazing Spider-Man. Like Liefeld, McFarlane's grasp on human anatomy was out of whack. I know people love (or loved) his run but there were so many things wrong with his run. Also I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. One of he biggest grips I had of his run was the way he drew the mask. It's a mask! the eyes don't open a close and mainly don't cover the entire head how it was drawn. And the body doesn't bend like the positions posed! I will give him credit for creating a more visible and cool webbing. The funny thing is that McFarlane gives Erik Larsen credit for the webbing. In my previous post, I mention Larsen (ASM #287), and you can see it there.
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on May 6, 2014 8:40:57 GMT -5
Well, McFarlane was the reason why I left Amazing Spider-Man. Like Liefeld, McFarlane's grasp on human anatomy was out of whack. I know people love (or loved) his run but there were so many things wrong with his run. Also I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. One of he biggest grips I had of his run was the way he drew the mask. It's a mask! the eyes don't open a close and mainly don't cover the entire head how it was drawn. And the body doesn't bend like the positions posed! I will give him credit for creating a more visible and cool webbing. The funny thing is that McFarlane gives Erik Larsen credit for the webbing. The funny thing is that McFarlane gives Erik Larsen credit for the webbing. In my previous post, I mention Larsen (ASM #287), and you can see it there. Eh.. All I knew was it was sub-par artwork for an impressionable 13 year old Dubip. It's still ugly to me these days. I did have to buy ASM 300 just to have it. But it did upset me for years of having a run of ASM from 86 to 288 before McFarlane took over and going to 300 all the way through.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 6, 2014 11:30:28 GMT -5
Byrne, in fact, was the first name that came to mind for me when I saw dupont2005's post. George Perez has the same faces as well, including the 80s feathered hair Perez did go out of his way when he returned to Avengers in the late 90's to give every member distinct facial features. I wasn't always a fan of the faces he gave the team, but I appreciated the effort, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 6, 2014 12:26:46 GMT -5
The impression I got from McFarlane wasn't so much that his art looked that way because he didn't understand anatomy but rather it was a conscious stylistic affectation. Whether that was true or whatever or not it was any good, though, are both highly debatable. I liked McFarlane well enough when I was a 12 year old boy, but I was also an idiot when I was 12, so never mind.
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 6, 2014 13:28:38 GMT -5
Credit where credit is due, McFarlane's contribution to the Spider-Man artistic lexicon will always be the webbing and the contorted poses. I think it says something that even today, artists are still employing that webbing and those poses. I would even submit that the live action depictions of Spider-Man's web swinging have some of the McFarlane influence: That said, I was never a fan of the way he drew faces. Always thought he made the eyes a bit too big, like a bad imitation of manga/anime. And I don't like how he employed so many lines and hatching on faces. In fact, that's something a lot of those Image guys were guilty of back then. As a kid, I think I thought it was cool but now I much prefer cleaner line work, particularly on faces.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 6, 2014 14:05:37 GMT -5
I generally dug McFarlane's Spider-man, too. His stuff felt a little darker/creepier/weirder and (this is important) more Ditko-y, than what everyone else was doing. He kinda brought back the horror/dark suspense elements that had been ditched when the glamour-boy Romita Spider-man became the model for the character.
And he's a good speaker! I covered the Image and Todd MacFarlane panels for CBR a couple years back, and he's just a really entertaining guy. He was constantly giving Rob Liefeld shit, though. I felt bad for my guy. I left and was all "Yeah! I should go buy Spawn! That sounds cool!" Until I remembered how much I hate demonic superhero types.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 18:16:32 GMT -5
Mcfarlane... *hides from shaxper* Well, McFarlane was the reason why I left Amazing Spider-Man. Like Liefeld, McFarlane's grasp on human anatomy was out of whack. I know people love (or loved) his run but there were so many things wrong with his run. Also I think the sudden shift from Ron Frenz to pretty much a Stretch Armstrong with a Spidey suit made me drop the book. One of he biggest grips I had of his run was the way he drew the mask. It's a mask! the eyes don't open a close and mainly don't cover the entire head how it was drawn. And the body doesn't bend like the positions posed! I will give him credit for creating a more visible and cool webbing. There were things I liked and didn't like about it as a kid. I liked the mask, because displaying emotion with a sock over your head is difficult. What I didn't like was the head and face was all a perfect egg shape, like a watermelon on his shoulders. No evidence of a jawline or a nose or anything. I also didn't like how ripped Spiderman got. He was supposed to be a nerd, right? Not a super ripped body builder. If you've ever seen someone as ripped as McFarlane's Spiderman in office clothes, you can still tell the dude is super jacked. My doctor is like that, and the button down shirt isn't hiding all that muscle. People would have known. I also didn't like the fawn foot thing, which I mentioned in another thread. The leg was short, the foot was long and looked like a hoof, and the ankle was up really high, so they looked like fawn legs. I did like the legs looking all backwards like a spider though, kind of like he could contort and move like a spider. I was very young during McFarlane's ASM run, and liked it at the time, especially Venom bringing the alien costume back. I was always a black costume fan. But I quit reading early in Erik Larsen's run, which was just more McFarlane than McFarlane was.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 6, 2014 18:19:33 GMT -5
Having Spiderman be ripped was a sign of the times, though, Cyclops got pretty ripped around then, too... and both guys were pretty pumped in the 90s cartoons.
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 6, 2014 18:20:08 GMT -5
I generally dug McFarlane's Spider-man, too. His stuff felt a little darker/creepier/weirder and (this is important) more Ditko-y, than what everyone else was doing. He kinda brought back the horror/dark suspense elements that had been ditched when the glamour-boy Romita Spider-man became the model for the character. And he's a good speaker! I covered the Image and Todd MacFarlane panels for CBR a couple years back, and he's just a really entertaining guy. He was constantly giving Rob Liefeld shit, though. I felt bad for my guy. I left and was all "Yeah! I should go buy Spawn! That sounds cool!" Until I remembered how much I hate demonic superhero types. If you ever change your mind on demonic superhero types and want to give Spawn a try, I'd skip straight to the David Hine run. There's some questionable art, but Hine is the first (and pretty much only) writer to give Spawn a sustained intelligent storyline.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 18:20:15 GMT -5
And I don't like how he employed so many lines and hatching on faces. In fact, that's something a lot of those Image guys were guilty of back then. I didn't like that on faces or bodies or anything else. They didn't do it right in my mind. I didn't even know that was considered hatching. Crumb and Locke are what I think of when I think of hatchwork, not those thick brush spears of 90's superhero comics. I always thought that gave everything a metallic look, everyone looked chrome plated, which matched all the foil and chromium covers just fine I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 18:22:07 GMT -5
Having Spiderman be ripped was a sign of the times, though, Cyclops got pretty ripped around then, too... and both guys were pretty pumped in the 90s cartoons. Cyclops wasn't undercover as a geek and constantly being picked on by mere mortals. Wolverine bullied Cyclops, but he's a super powered immortal. I would say having a wife that looks like a Playboy centerfold is out of character too. MJ was supposed to be attractive, and out of his league, but she wasn't supposed to look like Hugh Hefner's girlfriends.
|
|