Darkowl

I was just going to post that vid. You make a great point. So Rob was even younger than 24 when he worked at Marvel creating Deadpool and Cable. People are quick to criticize Rob but forget to realize they are hammering him at a time period in his life when he was just a kid. A fair amount kids under 24 now a days are either living with mom/dad, still in the undergraduate 7 year plan, unemployed or probably already obese (yes America has a fat problem). At least Rob had the balls to take his art skills to the next level and make a name for himself early on. Then being part owner with 5 other guys starting a new comic book company that is still around today. So I think he did just find in life and his art career. Absolutely. Liefeld achieved a lot of accomplishments for his age. I also didn't know that Rob was self taught. I'm sure people will use that against him, but I find that very admirable. When It comes to Liefeld, I can take the good with the bad. Fortunately, I can find more good than bad.

What "popular characters" did Rob Liefeld create...? Don't say Cable, because Louise Simonson was just as responsible, if not moreso, for him. Don't say Deadpool, because Liefeld gave him the barest outline of a character, who wasn't very popular until Joe Kelly, Mark Waid, and others fleshed him out. After all...we don't call Kirby the "co-creator" of Spiderman, simply because he drew the cover to Fantasy #15. Anyone else....? I actually was going to say Cable. Taken from wiki... "Cable's identity was created by writer Louise Simonson and artist/co-writer Rob Liefeld". Liefeld played a hand in Cables creation. Deadpool is tricky, because he was a "rip off" of Deathstroke. Later on, Deadpool became a more developed character, and gained his real persona, which others were responsible for. How everyone knows the character as Deadpool today, I cant say Liefeld is responsible for, but I can say that Deadpool wouldnt exist at all If it wasnt for Liefeld, and Deadpool wouldn't exist at all If it wasn't for Deathstroke. Deadpool is a character who has been essentially created by many, but of those included is Liefeld. Those are probably the most popular characters he helped create, and I'm going to give Liefeld credit for his contribution to them. You've already agreed with me by saying this... "Liefeld gave him (Deadpool) the barest outline of a character". If Liefeld only did give him that much, it's still a contribution. Also, I believe there's a good chance of an X-Force movie being made. If that movie does well, I can only imagine how much popular his other characters will become. Anyways, I'll go ahead and reword my original sentence If you think it's more accurate... I didn't realize Rob was only 24 by the time he was hired by Marvel, co-created popular characters, and co-started Image. That's all incredibly impressive to me.

Even more interesting, Liefeld on Dennis Miller... I didn't realize Rob was only 24 by the time he was hired by Marvel, created popular characters, and co-started Image. That's all incredibly impressive to me. Funny. The more people hate on this guy, the more I think I like him.

Thought this article was interesting... http://comicsalliance.com/rob-liefeld-haters/

Aw, man! This has got me pumped!

The Goonies is the best movie ever made! They would never make a kids movie today that has so much profanity.

I think you've nailed It here. I grew up reading comics in the early 90's, and so Liefeld was a big part of what I read. To me, It doesn't matter how "artistically correct" he is, or how frequently he chooses to ignore the rules of basic art. If anything, It just makes things interesting (even though some of his stuff really is difficult to look at, and I can understand some of the critique). Ironically, some things actually end up getting credit, because they do lack basic components that constitute something as "good". Take movies for example. Troll 2, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Rocky Horror Picture Show are prime examples of how something can be rejected due to their unorthodox or even "lazy" nature, yet a huge cult following has since been developed. The people included in this cult following can actually find appeal in such hated things, and I just think that's awesome! This whole argument reminds me of Siskel & Ebert, two movie critics who did their best to explain why a movie is good or why a movie is bad. I couldn't tell you how many movies they bashed that are some of my all time favorites, no matter how "bad" they may actually be. You forgot "The Room" I actually have never seen it. I might have to watch it now.

He wasn't bad at first. His 1st Marvel work; See, I really like this. Beast looks great (I also don't see anything wrong with his hands or feet), especially when you compare him to this... This is one of the absolute worse depictions of the X-Men, and It just gets on my nerves. I'll gladly take Liefeld's X-Men over Quitley's X-Men any day. Not defending Quietly's work at all, but to be fair Beast has been going through a constant mutation and that was part of the New X Men story arc. I get that, and I actually find it fascinating that Beast seems to always be mutating, but I'm not quite sure how that justifies a horribly drawn Beast. Then again, that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people who actually like how he looks in this form.

I think you've nailed It here. I grew up reading comics in the early 90's, and so Liefeld was a big part of what I read. To me, It doesn't matter how "artistically correct" he is, or how frequently he chooses to ignore the rules of basic art. If anything, It just makes things interesting (even though some of his stuff really is difficult to look at, and I can understand some of the critique). Ironically, some things actually end up getting credit, because they do lack basic components that constitute something as "good". Take movies for example. Troll 2, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Rocky Horror Picture Show are prime examples of how something can be rejected due to their unorthodox or even "lazy" nature, yet a huge cult following has since been developed. The people included in this cult following can actually find appeal in such hated things, and I just think that's awesome! This whole argument reminds me of Siskel & Ebert, two movie critics who did their best to explain why a movie is good or why a movie is bad. I couldn't tell you how many movies they bashed that are some of my all time favorites, no matter how "bad" they may actually be.

He wasn't bad at first. His 1st Marvel work; See, I really like this. Beast looks great (I also don't see anything wrong with his hands or feet), especially when you compare him to this... This is one of the absolute worse depictions of the X-Men, and It just gets on my nerves. I'll gladly take Liefeld's X-Men over Quitley's X-Men any day.

I think it was that Cap cover that sealed his fate. That one is hard to look at.

I'm not sure ill ever understand the amount of grief Liefeld gets as an artist. I think its pretty obvious that he's made a lot of mistakes, but I also find a lot of his work enjoyable.

I remember reading the last page of 142 and thinking, "Where's the rest of it"?

(some picture) Hey, "Walt!" Let's see you post a current picture of yourself! -slym No kidding. I was just thinking the same thing.

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:) Well, there is definitely a division between people who separate his professional reputation from his professional work, and those who focus only on the art. Since we're speaking of just art: I was never a Liefeld fan as far back as when I had my shop in the mid 90s. I remember many of the same arguments that we're reading here, but I didn't really care as much either way back then about it. I can't add anything that other people haven't already said so far. In retrospect, people had the same comments towards Dan Panosian's work (who was Marvel's Liefled clone when he left). People were having these arguments about Liefeld's artwork in the mid 90's? I was only 10 in '93, so I was too young to be aware of the comic book politics back then.

Some dang good advice right there.

Man, I gotta hand it to uchiha101 for keeping his cool.

I really dig that!

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. I really like your angle on this! (thumbs u

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. What can I say? This depiction of Deadpool is a major improvement from his NM 98 debut, IMHO. Btw, I didnt say It was my favorite. I said I think it's my favorite. There's some other Liefeld Deadpool drawing which I like, probably just as much, and they look much more "Liefeld-ish". What do you mean, "whoever painted the finished piece"? I assume you're referring to the Colorist? Yes, it looks like the colorist fixed a lot of things on that piece. Weird. This info was taken from Marvel.com (in regards to this book)... Cover Information Penciller: Rob Liefeld Colorist: Rob Liefeld Is that just a screw up on the Marvel website? Clearly, the cover has Caprottis name on it. Anyways, could you point out some of the things that have been fixed? I really do have an untrained eye when It comes to that kind of level of artwork, but I would like to know what mistakes have been covered up. Thanks!

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. What can I say? This depiction of Deadpool is a major improvement from his NM 98 debut, IMHO. Btw, I didnt say It was my favorite. I said I think it's my favorite. There's some other Liefeld Deadpool drawing which I like, probably just as much, and they look much more "Liefeld-ish". What do you mean, "whoever painted the finished piece"? I assume you're referring to the Colorist?

That you're not longer 8 years old, and your mind is demanding entertainment befitting an adult. That is why I get frustrated with you over 40 year olds who want an adult movie from a movie that is supposed to be Twilight in nature. The beginning era of Spider-man is for kids not adults. What do you expect from the early issues of Spider-man that were made for middle school and HS students? (Whether it was Amazing or Ultimate) It is actually possible, for a form of entertainment that is specifically geared to the youth demographic, to actually be enjoyable for ALL AGES. The Incredibles Now, it requires effort and talent, to pull it off, but to just write off people's opinion's because the movie "Isn't made for them", is just lazy. Sony doesn't just want the twilight money, they want ALL the money. They didn't just try to make a movie for "the youth demographic". You don't make Avatar money doing that. They tried, and failed, to make a movie that appeals to all ages. If you don't believe that, you are dead wrong. Fact is, a property like Spider-man, should be treated with the kind reverence from the movie studios, that would ensure at the very least, a film that can be enjoyed by all ages. We are talking about a property, that SHOULD be able to break box office records. Marvel Comic's most licensed and most recognizable character for gods sake! Instead, it is a passible summer popcorn flick, which will underperform at the box-office. What a damn a shame. I can never relate anymore to HS relationships in films, so for me it is very cut and dry. Spider-man can NEVER apply to all ages in my eyes. Twilight only. I still think Sony did just fine with this movie to make a bunch of free money. I'm sorry that you don't have higher standards for the character I assume you love. Perhaps you aren't that big a fan, I don't know. I can assure you, NO big wigs at Sony, are happy about that underperforming opening weekend. Garfield set to me the highest possible standard for the character that Tobey never achieved. Considering we haven't seen any of the real big villains yet to me makes these movies quite interesting actually. I never said this was the best comic movie of all time, but I enjoyed it enough not to think it was horrible. The fact is this movie showed the most amazing Spider-man fight and swinging scenes to date, yes? C-Level villains on film were just that, what did you expect? I am sorry your expectations are set too high. I think the Sony executives bonus check will be just fine from this movie. Sucks they can't get two extra cars instead of three. Not sure why this hasn't been mentioned more often. I was incredibly entertained by the amount of well done action in this film.

If all Rob Liefeld was guilty of creating art that most people didn't like, he would be in the same category as Humberto Ramos, and probably not be hammered on like he is. The problem is that his professional reputation has affected his work, and a great many people have a problem with what he has done to other people in the industry. Which is why I said this... I also don't need to take into consideration the type of person someone is, or the politics attached to that person to admire their work. There's a lot of musicians, actors, and other entertainers who I may not completely respect on a personal level, but that shouldn't necessarily get in the way of me appreciating their artistic accomplishments, though I can understand why people would feel turned off by Liefeld's work If he treated them rudely.

This gives me hope that the Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Suckerpunch were off as well. Seriously though, I think ASM 2 is the best Spidey movie yet!

I personally like Liefelds art. I think he definitely has his own style. I think it's possible that people assume that he cannot draw anatomically correct, instead of assuming that he draws like that on purpose, because that's his style, and that's how he likes to draw. In other words, maybe the long legs, lack of detailed feet, and disproportional body parts are intentional, not because he's incapable of drawing otherwise, but because that's how he likes to draw his characters. I could be wrong about that, but just because someone chooses not to do something, doesn't mean they are incapable of doing it. Some of my favorite guitarists choose not to play difficult solos in their songs, even though they can shred like Yngwie Malmsteen. Call it odd, call it bad art, call it whatever. I'm not an artist, so I cannot accurately judge Liefeld's work from an artist perspective (and maybe that why I like his art), but I am comic book fan, and I can say that I find his art to be entertaining. I also don't need to take into consideration the type of person someone is, or the politics attached to that person to admire their work. There's a lot of musicians, actors, and other entertainers who I may not completely respect on a personal level, but that shouldn't necessarily get in the way of me appreciating their artistic accomplishments, though I can understand why people would feel turned off by Liefeld's work If he treated them rudely. All in all, Liefeld is an easy target, and people wont hesitate to take advantage of the bashing opportunity when it arises. Ironically, there are some mainstream artists who I personally think are disgustingly awful (much worse than Liefeld), yet they will never get the amount of dirt Liefeld does. I'm going to post attach this pic again in case It was missed. I actually think this is my favorite drawing of Deadpool.