RabidFerret

waitaminute is RF really Rob Liefeld in disguise??? Hahaha, no, no, just someone who really appreciates his prime art:) I'm not a big forum guy and rarely see topics I want to contribute to. It's really only McFarlane, Liefeld, and Portacio I'd chime in on. Maybe Don Rosa, Seth Fisher, or Rick Leonardi if they had a thread. But Liefeld is really the only one who ever gets treated this badly and it seems that few stand up for him.

OK, wait, I'll admit in advance that yes, I am slinging my share of insults. But seriously. Lamp fetish? That's sort of deserving of some ribbing don't you think?

I enjoy the work for what it was, and as with most comics, nostalgia plays a large part. One of us has attempted to clearly explain himself repeatedly, offering examples and explanation, as well as admitting to exaggeration and that much of Liefeld's later art isn't very good.. The other of us continues to reuse the word "strawman"(hotkey?) and sling insults, while clarifying his argument as "gooble gobble gooble gobble". I'm starting to feel like I'm having a discussion with a toddler.

It's becoming pretty clear that you got a "Word of the Day" desk calendar and don't know how to turn the page.

But the topic was about favorite art, not favorite person. I've heard the horror stories. I've met him in person. And what you're saying is pretty accurate. Not disputing that at all. He deserves all the negativity he gets for a lot of what he did. But it's the art and comics I read and cared about. However someone acts in real life may sway opinion somewhat, but at least the art should be judged on the art, not the personality. As others have said as well, we should be able to separate the art from the artist and judge them independently. If it turns out Michelangelo was a complete would you really not appreciate the Sistine Chapel? Yeah, that's right, I just compared Liefeld to the Sistine Chapel:)

Ok sure! I read comics for a few years before what became the Image folks started to appear in the late 80s. Comics were fairly standard. Lots of 1-2-3-4 panels, the stories and villains were ok but not amazing, often being the same gallery that kept appearing, and in a lot of comics the art was interchangeable. I was a Marvel guy, so reading Avengers, West Coast Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Web of Spider-Man, and a slew of others, you didn't see huge differences. Some had better storytelling, some got to play with better characters, but generally they were similar art. Other than a splash page you rarely saw larger images of characters. Sure, there were superstar artists like Byrne and Miller and Simonson, but if you didn't happen to read Thor or whatever book Byrne was on, you didn't see them. They were the exceptions, not the rule. As a teenage kid you didn't generally read some of the more interesting or adult books out there like DKR or Watchmen, or go back to the 70s guys like BWS or Moebius. You read what was on the stands, which was generally a homogenized look and feel of a studio style. McFarlane was the first one I really noticed, with art that caught my eye that was unlike anything else I'd seen. It was the art, sure, but also the storytelling. The page design. It wasn't the same looking comic as what came before. The shackles had seemed to come off and McFarlane was soon followed by Lee, Portacio, Liefeld, Kieth, Keown, etc. Liefeld had energy to his art. He grabbed your attention. It wasn't reading 10 panels per page of dialogue as much as a fun read. He really seemed to sling ink on there, creating really bold lines that were more organic than the sterilized perfection of plenty of other people. His current work for instance is slick and polished and lost that edge that I used to love. But when he was firing at his peak, NM98-XF4, it was some really impressive and unique art that didn't look like anything out there. And as people pointed out, it was deceptively simple looking. You almost believed you could draw comics just looking at what he did. But as the herds of clones proved, it got stale quick without the actual talent behind it. But then there was the whole dynamic of him as well - he was the young upstart who rose to the A-list quickly, who became a celebrity and the poster boy for comics. He created characters left and right, which was not something you really saw anymore. So many comics just rehashed the same old villains, but Liefeld just created new ones. New heroes too. Or dredging up mostly forgotten ones like Warpath. And he did it nonstop. Then he started Image Comics and was willing to leave one of the top selling books to do what he wanted. It was an inspiration to see someone a handful of years older than you rise to that level, that quickly, and make the leap. It was the whole package. The art, the creativity, the approach. I remember watching the Comic Book Great videos as a kid, and the only two guys who really drew finished looking art were Liefeld and Lee. Most of them did standard head shots or layouts. Liefeld drew full figure after full figure and it was amazing to see. So at his peak his art was quite something.

The guy's done thousands of pages of art, yet it's generally the same handful of pieces people keep pointing to. I'm not saying there's not plenty of , but there is some good stuff in there that people seem unwilling to give credit to.

Sorry, I meant a professional comic book, not a fanmade comic. Ie, something that a publisher released, went through Diamond, and ended up on comic shelves outside your LCS. My point is entirely valid - I seriously doubt any of the people posting on this know what the day to day job of being a comic book artist actually is, and what the tradeoffs and deadlines actually mean. If you want to take 6 months to publish your own comic that's cool and I encourage the initiative, but that doesn't mean you know what the job is really like. I was simply trying to give some of the negativity back to the original posters based on a completely superficial look at a cover - not much different from what most people are doing on Liefeld:) When did I change my argument?? I was simply attempting to treat others the same way they treat Liefeld and his fans. Hahahahahahaha, so let me make sure I'm understanding this - it's completely ok to rip someone apart if it's not to their faces and they're not there to defend themselves, but if they're on the thread I should sugar coat it it sprinkles?? Hahahahahahahahahahahah. You and your lamp fetish are funny...

It's called sarcasm pal:) It just gets a bit tired when a herd of people start running around pointing at one artist and mocking him, while claiming their mess doesn't stink. I was simply pointing out(again and again and again) that the vast majority of artists make the same mistakes(bad feet), cut the same corners(minimal backgrounds), and deliver work that isn't at a professional level(bad perspective, bad deadlines, etc). But it gets really comical and silly when the people throwing those stones then show that they're not even close to the level of the person they're mocking.

I have seen nothing "objective" in your postings yet:) In fact, most of what I've seen is someone who ignores half of what's written to change direction and focus on whatever supports your own next criticism. I exaggerated about the depth of no backgrounds in comics and gave a variety of examples...to which you simply changed direction onto another argument:) In no way am I telling people that they're wrong about their opinions - but I am challenging whether most of them truly formed them on their own, as opposed to repeating what the person next to them said in mob mentality - which it's pretty clear this thread devolved to rather quickly. Treat for you:

Wow, way to twist my words into a completely different argument:) I've never said my opinion was more valuable - but at least I have my own and am not just repeating the same tired old memes and cliches. What I have repeatedly said since post 1 is that this thread devolved into people bashing one specific artist they all enjoy gangraping - on a thread that was intended to discuss his best work. I do quite love how you apparently know all the comics I've read, what genres, and what publishers! That's an impressive trick! I'm clearly dealing with some bright folks here.

Yeah, I recognize it's a tough position to take. He's been vilified for a long time. But I just feel like someone needs to defend the guy. Or at least his peak work. He's made plenty of mistakes, and some of his art really is quite bad, but if you can't even acknowledge the quality of his best work, there's just something wrong. At least give him the credit he's due.

Well, given the welcoming environment is it that much of a surprise? And seriously, is there anything cooler to talk about? Is there a thread for Rapid City I missed somewhere??

OK, now that's pretty awesome:)

Exactly. To each their own. I'm not suggesting everyone agree and like Liefeld. Just seems a bit pathetic that so many people come out of the woodwork to bash someone. Especially when their own "attempt" at a comic is some seriously horrendous looking mess. Kav? Chuck? Seriously guys? Wow, way to put in a solid weekend on making a comic. The effort and talent really shines through!

OK, here's what's ridiculous about this whole thread. The topic was "What is your Favorite Art,Drawing or story by Rob Liefeld?" It wasn't a thread about "who don't you like" or "what makes good art" or any of the many places most of the vitriol would fit in. It was an honest question that has now had a small handful of posts related to the topic and about 15 pages of trolls that come out of the woodwork to mock someone they don't like. Yeah, I'm an unabashed fan of the work Liefeld did when I was a kid. It was great, especially when you have the perspective to remember how formulaic and identical most comics were back then. I suspect none of you know the guy, I suspect none of you follow his work, and I'm almost certain none of you have done anything with your lives worthy of this soapbox you're preaching from. If you're John Byrne or Sal Buscema or Jack Kirby and know what it's like to actually produce comics for 25 years, sure, your opinion would be interesting to hear. But I doubt any of you have produced even a single comic in your life. I don't go jumping on a thread for an artist I don't like just to mock him and his fans. It's juvenile. Some of us actually wanted to have a chat about Liefeld art and what we enjoyed. Instead we have the comic book equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church picketing out front.. I don't really see much difference between most of these posts and the same things I see from those vilifying gays and minorities and women. People hiding behind masks and mocking someone to satisfy their own small egos:)

They're both comic books. They're both about sequential storytelling. Neither is real. So to be arguing that one unreal comic book with bad perspective is somehow better than another unreal comic book with bad perspective just seems a bit silly. I'm not knocking simplicity - I'm knocking poor art. It's comic books. It's about telling a story and entertaining people. That's really what the goal is.

Oh, you're totally right! Archie art and its ilk like Sabrina is flawless perfection right?? Like in this wonderful example: Wow, that's an amazing looking vehicle in panel 1. What is that? Where can I get one? It looks to me like a rectangle with little donuts for tires. And I love how the foreshortening works in the opposite direction! That's so cool!! Or this example: Wow, what an amazing dive in panel 2! I've never seen myself dive before but I'm sure that must be exactly what I look like! Boy do I feel like a fool now...

I'm not sure anyone who's an Archie fan should be throwing stones about what constitutes good...

Yay! You found a mirror! Here's a treat for you:)

The industry needed a fall guy and too bad Liefeld was "it". Young guy who did not know any better got thrown under the bus. IMHO speculators who bought comics instead of investing in their retirement should share the blame as well - if there is demand, marvel, image, dc, et al will keep printing regardless of qualiity Voice of reason.

I'm being a strawman? About what? Hmmmm....well, I'll give it to you that I don't have any photographic evidence of your lamp fetish but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!! Fine, yes, throwing out 90% was an exaggeration. But the point is that present day there are FAR more people doing background-less comics than there were 20 years ago. Here are a handful of examples of comics that make use of minimal backgrounds quite often: Wizard of Oz: http://images.cdn.bigcartel.com/bigcartel/product_images/133689249/max_h-1000+max_w-1000/EC_Oz-001-008.jpg East of West: http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03-27-2013-073825PM.jpg Tmnt: http://cdn.nsnart.com/Images/Category_2/subcat_1004/tmnt31pg14-nsnart.jpg Rat queens: http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k146/johnnyrocwell/rqoa_sm.jpg Saga: Of course there are plenty of people who do backgrounds right. But there are plenty who cut corners constantly, far more today than in the past, leaving colorists to fill in the blanks. Calling them clones might be a bit much, but they are certainly of the same ilk. And people always seem to conveniently forget that there were Liefeld clones and Lee clones all over the place for a decade. Those became the house styles. If you want to mock the entire era that's fine, but to say Liefeld is horrible and Larsen is a god, come on now. Yeah, let's focus on Liefeld's feet only and not the vast majority of artists who hate drawing them:)

As opposed to 90% of current comics? Have you even read a comic in the last 10 years? Most artists do backgrounds on a single panel per page if they're lucky. But hey, if the main thing you like to focus on in comics is backgrounds, more power to you. Never met anyone with a lamp fetish, but does not surprise me really you'd be out there:) You're right - it was great! Insanely great. I quite enjoyed it. And clearly enough other people did since it sold quite well:) OK, so to be clear here - you're comparing a Star Wars sequel that was eagerly anticpiated for 20 years, to a comic book that was eagerly anticipated for 2 months? Wow, way to put me in my place:) Having been reading comics back then, and having quite enjoyed New Mutants, I thought X-Force was great for the first few issues. Same was true of Jim Lee's X-Men. In both cases They went to mess by about issue 5. Waterworld was quite good. I haven't seen the other two.

Present day I won't argue. I'm not a fan of his current stuff. But his peak stuff, on New Mutants, X-Force, and Youngblood, was quite good. Good enough to launch a company and sell 5 million books, which can't just be excused away as a fluke or blind speculation. It was based on his success and potential. Ask any art dealer and I think you'll hear consistently that his art was going through the roof at one point because everyone thought he walked on water. All the things people criticize today were the things they pointed to and called style back then. I'm simply saying that his prime work was solid and enjoyable and unlike anything on the market at the time. If you want to get into nitpicking strange feet or long legs or pouches why not bring Mignola into the mix? Every one of his covers is laid out the same way like a Drew Struzan movie poster. He never draws the inside of Hellboys hand. His feet, if they appear, are pointy little stubs. He hides all his mistakes in shadow, right? But I suspect you'll immediately change your tune and declare his art is stylistically acceptable to have awkward proportions and such because he knows what he's doing, right? (And to be clear, I do dig Mignola quite a bit, but am just using him to play devil's advocate here) Just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to the majority of people blinding posting on this thread:) As soon as the topic of Liefeld pops up the peanut gallery links back to the funny 40 worst drawings page from 15 years ago as if that's the open and shut discussion. Hey man, I'm all for this! I speak honestly and fairly when I can. But too many people are chiming in with their sheepinions as if they themselves truly believe it. Probably the same people that mock Waterworld and Ishtar and Gigli without having seen any of them or formed an opinion on their own outside of what the collective media says they should think:) I don't even know what this means? What is a registry set?

Haha, nah, just someone who appreciates his work from the early 90s. Not saying I dig his current stuff. Not saying I don't think he's done some horrible things in his career(poaching artists, not hitting deadlines, not improving as an artist, etc), But when he first arrived? He was unlike most of what was in comics. He created a clone army singlehandedly and was the poster-child(good and bad) for comics. If you grew up in that era there's no way you didn't admire him. A young 20 year old kid drawing one of the top selling books? You can hate him now, but back then he was quite impressive. Oh, and thanks to all you haters, it just makes his work that much more affordable to buy:) You guys can mock me all you want, but I'll be laughing all the way to the bank:)