RabidFerret

I'm not clear if this is finished art or just layouts? If it's layouts I'll forgive the general roughness of it and the pencil lines that show through. But yeah, it's certainly a solid page. A far better example than the other one posted. It certainly does tell a story well - I'm guessing Gordon arrives at a bird sanctuary and goes to watch video footage, where he sees himself without a mustache. I'm guessing that's not meant to be him in the video? I could point to things like the guys hat morphing into a cowboy hat in panel 3. Or the bars on the cage in that panel that look like they were broken open. I think the argument could be made he has no idea how to draw feet either. But yeah, small things. In general it is a fine set of pages, and certainly does solid storytelling and use of blacks. But here's one thing I will say - the page doesn't grab me. I'm not convinced I'll remember any of these panels years from now. It's not a piece of art I'd necessarily want to own and hang on my wall. The Liefeld page I posted fires on all cylinders on the last point. And an aspect of comics books is the fun and enjoyment and comic-bookiness of it all.

I'm really not sure you understand the english language at all.

Home turf and the headquarters are the plot, not the storytelling. And yes, exactly right, the art gives away that a group of people are charging another group of people. This is the middle page in a fight scene. What do you want? An establishing show on every page of the comic?

I sadly agree here completely:( He never takes his time these days. He rushes things out constantly and it shows.

Yes, that's his super power:)

The definition of great inking is not simply that there is differing line weight. Look at Winsor McCay or Herge or the majority of strip artists. If they have more than 2 line weights I'd be amazed. And let me ask - have you ever inked? It's really not that easy. You can't go slow. You need to move fast to give it life. You really need to sling it to get the sweeping lines and energy. This art has that. His current stuff does not; its very flat. Compare the two and you should be able to see what I mean.

Wow...just...wow. I've never seen a group of people come together to support my argument so well before!! Thank you all! I feel so loved!! The mob that is you(you know who you are, take a bow!) continues to show that no matter what's presented you see what you want to see. Again and again examples are posted and you refuse to be objective. You refuse to step back but immediately attack it with a fine toothed comb to find the flaws that support your arguments. Every piece of comic art is full of the same mistakes if you take the time to look. Your example of great storytelling is well appreciated. Let me be you. 1) You include a page where 5 panels have no backgrounds. The remaining 2 make me assume they're in the basement of the Eiffel Tower? Is that right? 2) I love how the light source changes in those final two panels. There's no indication that the dynamo and his friend move but their shadows do? Is this Peter Pan? 3) I'm always of fan of when the character design changes from panel to panel. Where does the dynamo get that pretty pink ruffled bonnet he has on his head in panel 4 that he didn't have before? 4) In panel 1 they walk past a very clear wooden door and some plants...why do they vanish in the next panel? 5) In panel 2 Iron Man appears to be standing on the middle of a ice skating rink? And whatever light source appears in panels 6-7 clearly avoids him entirely, leaving him shadow free? 6) In panel 4 the dynamo presses a button in the most comically unrealistic way possible. Surprised he's not twisting a diabolical mustache while he's at it. 7) And then a tank appears? Inside this skating rink? 8) And in panel 5 it looks like Iron Man is being broken into pieces...but based on the debris in panel 6 am I supposed to take it as complete disintegration? Wow, I'm learning so much here...

You realize it's a self fulfilling issue, right? The vast majority of people posting images are the ones mocking him, which then generate the most traffic, which then ranks those images higher. Just google Liefeld and go to images. Half the content are the same common images used to mock him, including ones that directly point out flaws.

I agree with you that the best comics are all about storytelling above all else, at least in comics. Give me a Carl Barks page or a Frank Miller page any day and I'll be happy. And you're right that Liefeld never spotted blacks or used negative space well The splashiness of the pages was the era though and almost every book that was out there. That said, it's not Liefeld's storytelling or use of blacks that draws me to his work, just like I don't judge Barks on his details or Miller on his sanity.

The purpose of a cover is to draw the audience in and make them pick up the book. Even with mistakes, this is an eye catching layout and cover.

This is a straw man argument. No one who has commented here has done what you claimed. Calendar still stuck huh? Bummer. But please, enlighten me on your brilliance - name another artist people are so quick to rail against?

Is that the double-page Ronin swipe, or am I getting confused? The Ronin swipe is horrible...even I cringe at that. But that's not this.

Do you understand what the word "plot" means? "Alan Moore rewrites Swampy's origins" is not a plot. Maybe it's a marketing blurb or something you solicit in Previews, but it's not a plot. What exactly happens in this issue? What drives the action forward? Is this a trick question? Maybe it is because you don't understand what a plot is? OK, here goes: X-Force finally confronts the MLF on their home turf, before settling into their new headquarters. That's a plot. I certainly have a better idea of what happens in that issue than I do what happens in yours. Oh, and huge props on your counter-argument to my asking for an example of an artist you liked. Was I foolish to assume you understood what the word "artist" meant? An artist is the guy that draws the pictures. Providing Alan Moore as an example really shows a cunning understanding of the medium! What? Of course I can. It seems clear to me. Maybe that's because I understand what a plot or an artist is? Heroes arrive guns blazing. Villains emerge to confront them. Heroes briefly discuss tactics before one leaps into the fray. Did you not follow that? Was it because there were no lamps visible?

So outta curiosity, who do YOU seem to think are these amazing artists you feel are up to your demanding standards? Because based on your criticism, I can't imagine you finding a single artist working in comics who would meet such a standard? Unless he drew lamps.

Thanks so much for continuing to illuminate us with your insightful opinions. You really bring a level of clarity and intellectualism to this discussion. I now fully understand why inbreeding is illegal.

So what determines "quality" work? Your opinion? Perfect accuracy to human anatomy? I flip through much of his work in X-Force #1 and think it's absolutely amazing. It's bold inking, it's enjoyable storytelling, it's fun action, great pacing...but no matter how clearly I point out the good or quality things, people will invariably find things to nitpick no matter what. Here's my favorite page of the book. It's a great action page, great focus on the main characters, the inking is great, it moves the story forward. But plenty of people here will likely rip it apart for the sake of ripping it apart.

Well, generally, critical opinions are not simply pointing to a popular webpage and writing mocking comments:) Start a Liefeld thread on 20 different forums and I suspect within the first 5 comments someone will link to that page(40 Worst). It's like the common joke everyone knows and it's just a question of who's the first person to link it. There are CLEARLY plenty of people that have commented on this thread who DID give his work an objective look and decided they didn't like that, and most of them made comments along those lines that could be taken honestly and seriously. I'm not knocking any of them. But on a topic with SUCH a polarizing figure there are certainly plenty who just want to jump into the mob and join in, or whose comments are the formulaic silliness like "he can't draw feet". I honestly can't think of a single artist out there other than Liefeld where people will argue tooth and nail that he's horrible and terrible, often without having seen or read his work, or by simply pointing to the same tired examples again and again.

I agree with much of what's said here - he is lazy, he does steal poses, he does miss deadlines, and he's been known to be a jerk at times, steal artists from other studios, etc. And I'm personally not a fan of his current work. The complaints about anatomy, feet, and long legs are stylistic choices he makes and I forgive those the same way I don't criticize Kirby or Mignola or Lee for their choices. BUT, what I am saying is that I loved his prime work from the early 90s and think people should at least give him his due for the quality work at his peak. His work circa X-Force #1 was unlike anything else in comics and was popular enough to establish a clone army trying to mimic his success. The attitude that he was horrible at every moment of his life, never had any talent, that he somehow magically coasted by on luck, and that millions of people were duped in the early 90s is downright silly. Give the man credit for the quality work. Most refuse to see any difference.

If that is true, then why does Liefeld get crapped on so consistently while others who make the same mistakes, do not. I think it's pretty clear Liefeld is the poster boy for bad art, and at this point it's almost indoctrinated into anyone coming into the hobby, not much different from how Ed Wood is the poster boy for bad movies. I would imagine many people on this thread have sent the 40 Worst Drawings link to plenty of people, and if a family/friend came into the hobby and the Liefeld topic came up I really doubt you'd honestly suggest "Why not look at his work objectively first before I give you my thoughts", as opposed to immediately mocking and blasting him. At this point it's a snowball of pop culture that has gone well beyond people's actual objective thoughts.

OK, you do realize that that was the exact position of the entire planet until Magellan circumnavigated the globe, right?

It took about 2 minutes to do, which seemed more worthwhile than reading most of these comical posts:)

Capullo might be the best example of the reverse Liefeld. He sort of aped Liefeld for a while, aped McFarlane for a while, and is now pretty darn well respected for his current work, which has hints of a few people but is solid on it's own. Very much the reverse career trajectory from Liefeld.

Eisner was pretty darn amazing at his storytelling. Eric Powell did a Goon issue with only pictures for dialogue. That was pretty cool too.

I fully comprehend why, I just don't agree with it. And again - for his prime stuff. Knock the current stuff all you want, but when he was at his peak it was great. And a mob that wants to rip apart someone's art can always do it no matter who the artist. Liefeld may simply be an easier target than most:)