RockMyAmadeus

Which he would've fit in with nicely. I'll give him a little credit...he's a little better. Not much....but a little.

Absolute fact. They were sheltered by a company that already existed. Even they were unprepared for the rabidity with which the market desired their work. But once they got on their feet, they jettisoned Malibu as fast as they could.

I'll bet RF didn't contend with coming up against this board's industry historians and researchers in this discussion. I suspect, every other place he's pulled this stuff, he's gotten the "yeah, well, Liefeld sucks, so there!", with people who were completely uneducated about art, the history of the industry, and particularly Image Comics, and incapable of forming any coherent arguments.

PS. Something that is not frequently considered, but is nevertheless true: Image Comics ACTIVELY HARMED the ENTIRE comics industry at the time, ESPECIALLY other "independent" creators. How? Because all retailers have to budget. They have to set aside money to pay for what they think will sell, usually a few months in advance. If Youngblood #3 is coming out, it will sell, and it will sell big. So, retailers need to set aside enough to BUY all those copies of Youngblood #3. In the process, they unfortunately have to focus their capital on Youngblood #3, instead of, oh, say, I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6. Meanwhile, Youngblood #3 doesn't come out....but I, Lusiphur #7 DOES, and Bone #6 DOES, and all that capital is still tied up in a book that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST AS ORIGINAL ART YET...and the retailers COULD have used that capital to buy more copies of I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6, and made some MORE money through turnover, and THEN have focused that capital on YB #3...when it ever came out. Instead, it was already tied up, and couldn't be risked on better independent books that actually SHOWED UP. Image Comics did IMMENSE damage to retailers and other independent creators during this time period. IMMENSE. And this was a HUGE reason for the collapse in 1994-1996. So, spare me this "Image Comics revolutionized the industry" bullshift. They DID....in all the WRONG ways.

Folks, can we PLEASE not post HUGE pics that force people to scroll left and right to read? Please?

This is something I've said before, and it got all the fankids up in arms, ready to stone me, but it's absolutely true: Todd McFarlane is NOT an Artist (Capital "A"), and never was. You're damn right he wasn't. He USED his talent to make money, and when he no longer NEEDED his talent to make money, he abandoned it for other things. "But, but, but, but....he still continues to INK stuff!" An ARTIST, regardless of his or her field, creates. It's what they DO. It's in their BLOOD. They get up every morning with an overwhelming drive to CREATE. Pablo Picasso never, ever, ever stopped drawing/painting/sketching. Neither did Frazetta. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven wrote music until almost the days they died (and Beethoven didn't need to.) The Rolling Stones STILL tour, and they are in their 70's. Jack Kirby was drawing comics in 1993, a couple of months before he died at the age of 76. "But, McFarlane still does DESIGN work for his toys!" Yes, he does. But the majority of his time is taken up in MANAGING his various business ventures. He is a BUSINESSMAN, not an ARTIST. There's nothing wrong with that....but to pretend otherwise is a slap in the face of real artists the world over. His drive, the thing that gets him up in the morning, is management, not art.

Changing other people's arguments to make his sound better (straw man), and ignoring foundational details is RabidFerret's go-to debate technique. It's unfortunate, and intellectually dishonest, but he's done it so consistently, I don't think he's even aware of it...he certainly has made no attempt to change it, even mocking people who point it out to him. Oh well.

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content. It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out. A. YEAR. And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6. The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years. Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane. Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time. The rest...? You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received. By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.) So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher." I've never liked monthly comics. I have one monthly comic on my pull list, just one. Many comics on my list have no set schedule, and a year wait between issues is not uncommon. I'm of the opinion that an actual quality work is extremely unlikely to happen in thirty days. Not saying any of the Image launch titles were good, just saying I can see a staggering difference in quality between comics that emphasize on schedule when compared to those that release when they're ready. Gary Groth has the same philosophy on schedules, and compare the comics he publishes to the best of the best and you have a run for your money. There's too many comics to keep up with anyway, I don't need my Love And Rockets fix every month. There is a vast....vast...VAST difference between artists like Adrian Tomine, Bob Burden, and Drew Hayes, and what was happening at Image at the time. The Image guys PROMOTED their line as regular, monthly or bi-monthly books, they promised and solicited books that didn't show up for over a year in some cases, if at all, and created a shambles of the DM. The real Indie folks don't solicite books (which is essentially a promise) that aren't ready to be published. "You'll get them when you get them" is far, far, FAR more acceptable than "yeah, I'll have them out next week!" and they don't show up for 9 months. If Image had behaved like Kitchen Sink or Fantagraphics, then there wouldn't have been a problem but, you see, there was no way they could: they had to gobble up market share and tie everyone up, or they would have lost the prestige (and CA$$$H) that came with it. And we couldn't have THAT, now, could we...?

Miller was doing his own thing through Dark Horse with Sin City, Smith was doing Bone (self-published, even, until they fooled him to temporarily join Image), Barry was doing unparalleled work at Valiant, and many others were doing mostly fantastic work on their own. Image....? Shambles. In fact, the company was such a mess that Silvestri LEFT the company in 1996 to form his own company, Top Cow, because of Liefeld. Liefeld got the boot by McFarlane, and two months later, Silvestri was back in the Image fold.

There is some quite good stuff published by Image, none of it by "the founders." The Maxx is quite fun, for one. Stormwatch by Ellis is another, as is Supreme by Moore. Then there's been some quite good stuff published in the 21st. Worth checking out.

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content. It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out. A. YEAR. And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6. The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years. Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane. Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time. The rest...? You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received. By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.) So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

Hahaha, no, its not that, it's that you wrote a fair minded post. Clearly that era has ended quick:) That's ok. I accept that as part of the process of coming to terms with your Liefeld induced deliria. I think it's pretty clear I can't be cured:) The intervention is starting to fail. It's always darkest before the breakthrough, as the grip of the addiction on the ego forces it to fight for its life....until it is finally, fatally, put to an end.

I wasn't aware that Frank Miller, Jeff Smith, Barry Windsor-Smith, and Charles Vess were Image founders, too! "Best" and "most popular" were definitely NOT convergent during that time period.

Um. Yeah.

You are hopeless. Image today has nothing to do with Rob Liefeld, almost nothing to do with Jim Lee, and very little to do with Todd McFarlane. Image got where it is now despite these three, not because of them.

Hahaha, no, its not that, it's that you wrote a fair minded post. Clearly that era has ended quick:) That's ok. I accept that as part of the process of coming to terms with your Liefeld induced deliria.

Funny what you see when you stop being a dink and pay attention for a bit, eh?

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man. But I still challenge the last point, and this blanket "accept it for what it is", with the tone that it's universally bad and there's no disputing that. To this day I continue to look at his prime work and learn from it. Sure, there are plenty of things you learn to avoid, but there's plenty to still learn from. The way Liefeld inked himself on X-Force #1 still influences the way I ink. The way he tried to make every panel interesting and "awesome" is a valid positive because it engaged the audience and pulled them in. Even if it's the passion of a 12 year old mind, you don't hear that same passion for a large number of other books and artists we read at that time. Even if it's only appealing to a 12 year old, there's something there that makes it so. I don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, but there are some things he did right, at least for a little while. Well, if you don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, then I can kind of see what you mean. Then again, storytelling ability, backgrounds (perspective), and anatomy are the ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS of SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING in the SUPERHERO GENRE. When Marvel, Archie, Harvey, and to some degree DC all had 'House Styles', following those essential guidelines, it led to a fertile period of expansion through the Silver Age and into the Bronze Age. The new talent that started to take over learned those essentials and continued that into the Copper Age as the comics and publishers expanded like no one had seen since the pre-code days. Then Liefeld got rich without being able to properly draw and all hell broke loose. McFarlane started to do more and more splashes and not worry about storytelling. Even Jim Lee got drawn into their little circle... leaving Marvel to try and duplicate the success of those three, by giving any Liefeld clone off the street a chance to draw. Oh my God, it was the most awful time for comics. Ugliest stuff ever. If I wanted to read a superhero comic I had to pick up a DC comic for god's sake!!! Just to get away from that ugly nonsense! Dave Ross and Tim Dzon? Rik Levins? Dan Panosian? Mike Manley (at that time)? Andrew Wildman? Steve Montano? You know how many of those books got cancelled because those guys were doing the best Rob Liefeld impression they could? And what did McFarlane, Lee and Liefeld do with the success they achieved? Get better? Create the greatest new ideas comics had ever seen? End world hunger? Not even close. Todd stopped drawing and kept himself afloat by creating the greatest action figures ever. Jim Lee stopped drawing to run a comic book studio. Rob Liefeld, who couldn't draw in the first place, KEPT DRAWING and WENT BANKRUPT. Our heroes of the comic book profession! That pretty much sums it up. I will only respond with this: This is the kind of absolute amateur trash that is Liefeld's legacy. :facepalm:

Yes

You know, there's an easy way to deal with the anonymity of the HOS voting: stop doing them as board polls, and make everyone post their vote. Yes, it's a *little* harder to tally, but so what? Being able to vote anonymously means people who know nothing about the situation can vote just for the thrill of it, and worse, shills can vote multiple times. No discussion. No "why did you vote this way" (and IGNORE any attempts thereof.) And complete transparency. If politicians can do it, so can we. If it's going to be for something as serious as the Hall of Shame (and most people on the HOS have the decency to go away), then it can be a public vote.

Porkchop Sandwiches!!

I don't watch Bing Bang...and no, that has never happened to me. That's because you only ever watched Masterpiece Theatre as a child...

GREATEST. MOVIE. EVER. "Dat's what I said, BOOTY TRAPS!" "One day, when the parts of you that don't work so good catch up to the ones that do" "Martin Sheen!" "Martin Sheen? That's JFK, you IDIOT!" "Yeah...well....he PLAYED JFK once!" "HEEYYYY YOUUUUU GUYYYYYYSSS...uh HUH!!!" "Sloth...LOVE...Chunk!" cloud9: I was the EXACT same age as these guys when that movie came out. In fact...I may just put it on right now.... I love it too. But, as I just said, it's a kids movie. It's not a movie for adults. But we love it just the same now as then. There's enough in it that flies above the heads of the kids to be enjoyable.

Come on, now, admit it...how many of you have been offended because something you loved as a kid was exposed by someone else as being full of holes and lacking in artistic merit...and you took it out on the person doing the exposing, rather than honestly evaluating it in your head, telling your inner child it was drek, but it's still ok to love it, since your inner child is, and will always be, an inner child....? Hell, it was one of the plotlines of an entire episode of Big Bang (Raiders of the Lost Ark episode)!

GREATEST. MOVIE. EVER. "Dat's what I said, BOOTY TRAPS!" "One day, the parts of you that don't work so good are gonna catch up to the ones that do" "Martin Sheen!" "Martin Sheen? That's JFK, you IDIOT!" "Yeah...well....he PLAYED JFK once!" "HEEYYYY YOUUUUU GUYYYYYYSSS...uh HUH!!!" "Sloth...LOVE...Chunk!" I was the EXACT same age as these guys when that movie came out. In fact...I may just put it on right now....