Maccai3

just realised i have never read anything that Image have put out, checked a list and the only thing that jumped out that'd interest me (i'm sure there are more but by name alone) was The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft (2009), unfortunately Wikipedia linked me to Ron Howard's page...Howard being the only similarity in the two

Yay! long appendages, big hands, feet and heads doesn't bother me as long as it is consistant

i have never had a problem about the length of the legs of Liefeld's drawings

i have no clue Page one seems to be about some chick squatting and some dude trying to do the splits and getting angry he can't panel 4....are those the same people? if so why are they nude? and what is the pose in the same panel

i have no clue

I think after 51 pages we've figured out that RabidFerret has said he knows his storytelling is poor, he cuts huge corners and misses deadlines, he can't draw hands feet or any human anatomy, spot blacks and his backgrounds are either rushed or none existant. His compositions are poor and he only really wants to draw splash pages, he can't draw hairlines or grasp how weaponry is held....where was i going?

Yes, yes, as a matter of fact, I have. Does that make my comment valid now? The ink on that page is horrible. Horrible. i have also inked and i concur

also Francavilla can draw feet and hands http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/3509665-dsc06019.jpg

its the rough layouts, Francavilla colours his own work 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. this is the second half finished

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? isn't every page in a Liefeld comic a fight scene? it's either that or people are standing in poses with 50 word balloons around it....generally a single splash page image

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... um, i posted a link too....pick it apart if you desire http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dc871_25_26_layouts_low.jpg

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? what gives away home turf and headquarters? you know that because you've read it all the art gives away it that there is a group of people who end up charging another group of people

thats because it's Ditko's At least he gave credit...compared to all the swiping he's done since. Probably McFarlane that actually gave the credit, as he did on several occasions when he did this sort of thing. it's in McFarlane's writing

thats because it's Ditko's

huge image so i wont use IMG tags but see the difference in storytelling http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dc871_25_26_layouts_low.jpg

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. For me great artwork tells a story, like RMA said you should be able to tell what is happening with just the artwork. Pages should have balance and flow, the compositions should lead your eye across the image, Liefeld's overuse of splash style imagery and poses doesn't do this at all. His negative space is awful and does nothing to add to the pictures.

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. i 100% believe that this is what happened though, i have yet to see anybody show any examples of his "quality" work i think what happened was that his style of huge guns and muscles worked with young children, kids that young that they probabily never even had a thought in their tiny minds that people actually wrote/drew the books they were reading...he's basically the drawing equivelant of the Ultimate Warrior

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. i'm confused...so you know he's a bad artist? some things in art are subjective so i understand you liking some aspects of his work, however there are things that cannot be excused. i'm fine with artists sometimes making errors or cutting corners, Liefeld has made it his way though, re-using the same poses over and over to the point that you can tell he's just traced them, copying lay-outs and doing really poor compositions. i grew up in the 90's and was completely aware that Liefeld was a poor artist, there was no bandwagon, it's too easy to see the errors in his work and if he was trying to break into the industry now there is no chance he'd get a job

half way through making that i bet he was thinking "this isn't that funny" but decided he spent way too much time and effort to go back and start over just like Liefeld does...ironic

i always hate the "can you do better?" arguement, how does that make it good? I probabily could do better

around here this topic is akin to asking people what Hitler's greatest achievement was Hitler had one. the People's Car - or the Volkswagen Beetle. I can't think of one for Liefeld. Hitler was actually a good artist, probabily better than Liefeld

I find it interesting that your favorite Deadpool drawing by Liefeld looks the least Liefeld of anything I've seen him do. It's fairly obvious ( to me anyway ) that whoever "painted" the finished piece, fixed a lot of things along the way. there is definitely some Liefeld behind the paint somewhere, you can see the inability to grasp how weaponry is held

he actually cannot draw feet and hands, a style would maybe be bigger hands, thicker line work, overusing shadows etc....lack of ability is not a style

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:) i grew up in that era...i had zero admiration for Robert Liefeld