Amazing Spiderman 313 Cover - Hammers at $71,200 on Ebay

[jjonahjameson1]

Maybe I misread Galactus' post. He said that Jim Lee broght people to Image's fold. That could be true. I think I focused on the part where he said the creators had a following and I assumed that he meant Jim Lee's following brought more customers and fans to Image. I would dispute that highly.

 

The TwoMorrows book outlines the creation of Image and interplay/dependancy amongst its founding fathers through a series of interviews in their own words.

 

The interviews are in-depth, make for some fascinating reading, and I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in said creators.

 

Through the book, it is clearly evident that Todd was 'the man' at Image, and in one interesting passage in Todd's section, he explicitly stated that in order for Image to have a go at it, he absolutely needed to persuade Jim Lee to leave Marvel and worked hard on selling the Image concept to Lee. So, it seems as though the concept and Chutzpah was Todd's, and Jim Lee was the added impetus for the good ol' one-two punch against Marvel (leverage).

 

With regard to Todd's limited output on Spawn, I agree he illustratred only a handful of issues, but he did write/co-write for the title for several years, all the while he was busy with an HBO animated series, live action movie, mega-successful toy line, and the purchase of (then-historic?) baseballs.

 

Given the aforementioned, it is understandable that Todd may not have had an abundance of time to draw funny books.

[Claudio]

Maybe I misread Galactus' post. He said that Jim Lee broght people to Image's fold. That could be true. I think I focused on the part where he said the creators had a following and I assumed that he meant Jim Lee's following brought more customers and fans to Image. I would dispute that highly.

 

The TwoMorrows book outlines the creation of Image and interplay/dependancy amongst its founding fathers through a series of interviews in their own words.

 

The interviews are in-depth, make for some fascinating reading, and I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in said creators.

 

Through the book, it is clearly evident that Todd was 'the man' at Image, and in one interesting passage in Todd's section, he explicitly stated that in order for Image to have a go at it, he absolutely needed to persuade Jim Lee to leave Marvel and worked hard on selling the Image concept to Lee. So, it seems as though the concept and Chutzpah was Todd's, and Jim Lee was the added impetus for the good ol' one-two punch against Marvel (leverage).

 

With regard to Todd's limited output on Spawn, I agree he illustratred only a handful of issues, but he did write/co-write for the title for several years, all the while he was busy with an HBO animated series, live action movie, mega-successful toy line, and the purchase of (then-historic?) baseballs.

 

Given the aforementioned, it is understandable that Todd may not have had an abundance of time to draw funny books.

I hate to say it but wasn't Liefeld hugely important. Maybe even more so than Lee? I mean, we look back on it now and it is almost comical to think but I remember most fans were looking to McFarlane and Liefeld. how did the book portray him? I might have to read it. With all the stuff that went down and Rob getting (almost) booted, I'm sure they probably tried to gloss over how big he was.

[stinkininkin]

 

 

For what it's worth, my perspective from the inside was that it WAS close. Both of these guys were just huge back then, and love their work or hate it, there is no denying it. The passion of the fans at conventions and signings was surreal and unreal and a once in a lifetime thing to experience. Having said that, I think that McFarlane probably was in the top position. He was a singular creator who wrote, penciled and inked his own work, while Jim shared the spotlight and creative direction with his writers and inker(s). I think the McFarlane model counts for a lot. I've always admired the creators who had a singular vision and did the hard work of executing it all themselves. I'm not saying collaborations can't create great comics, I'm just saying I am personally more impressed when an artist is so talented that he can take on multiple tasks and create something that people will talk about for decades and beyond such as what it happening on this board today.

 

Scott Williams

 

Scott

 

I find your take intereresting as I noticed many of my own favourite creators were largely one man storytellers - Frank Miller, Matt Wagner, Dave Sim etc. I enjoyed Mcfarlane's work on Amazing Spidey quite a bit and looked forward to it. When I heard he was moving onto a new Spidey title I was duly caught up in the hype. Until I read it. I thought the writing was just risible and I vividly recall friends who worked in comic shops repeating some of the lines and falling about laughing. Many of the Image titles seemed to have no editorial/quality control so between that and the ridiculous gimmick/novelty covers I decided that I had fallen out of love with comics and stopped collecting for the next few years. Having spoken to other collectors I see that my experience was not isolated. In the UK I've met a number of collectors dipping back in after having dropped out in the early 90's, disenchanted with the trends in comics and in particular Image.

Just my experience of course.

 

Hey Joseph

 

After rereading my post, I think it comes off too much as if I'm advocating that McFarlane is worthy of such high regard. That was not my intention really, as I was just positing a THEORY of why McFarlane fans might be so passionate and in such great numbers and willing to spend so much on his originals. I am personally agnostic on McFarlane's merits as I don't collect his art, and only read a small handful of his comics. Perhaps David Michellines writing and the Spiderman character deserves more credit for Todd becoming a force than I implied. I just know that I saw so much actual devotion to Todd's work at signings based on the questions about his stories and his art which trumped the speculator madness (which definitely was also present). Beyond my own fist hand experiences, I should probably let Todd's fans and detractors here espouse their own theories about why he is still a force some 20 years later.

 

Scott Williams

[stinkininkin]

Maybe I misread Galactus' post. He said that Jim Lee broght people to Image's fold. That could be true. I think I focused on the part where he said the creators had a following and I assumed that he meant Jim Lee's following brought more customers and fans to Image. I would dispute that highly.

 

The TwoMorrows book outlines the creation of Image and interplay/dependancy amongst its founding fathers through a series of interviews in their own words.

 

The interviews are in-depth, make for some fascinating reading, and I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in said creators.

 

Through the book, it is clearly evident that Todd was 'the man' at Image, and in one interesting passage in Todd's section, he explicitly stated that in order for Image to have a go at it, he absolutely needed to persuade Jim Lee to leave Marvel and worked hard on selling the Image concept to Lee. So, it seems as though the concept and Chutzpah was Todd's, and Jim Lee was the added impetus for the good ol' one-two punch against Marvel (leverage).

 

With regard to Todd's limited output on Spawn, I agree he illustratred only a handful of issues, but he did write/co-write for the title for several years, all the while he was busy with an HBO animated series, live action movie, mega-successful toy line, and the purchase of (then-historic?) baseballs.

 

Given the aforementioned, it is understandable that Todd may not have had an abundance of time to draw funny books.

I hate to say it but wasn't Liefeld hugely important. Maybe even more so than Lee? I mean, we look back on it now and it is almost comical to think but I remember most fans were looking to McFarlane and Liefeld. how did the book portray him? I might have to read it. With all the stuff that went down and Rob getting (almost) booted, I'm sure they probably tried to gloss over how big he was.

 

No. It was McFarlane and Lee first and foremost. Rob was big, but the first two were 1 and 1A.

 

Scott Williams

[LBSR-migration]

I think the reason Todd's style attracts so much fanfare is sense of realism. I think Todd with his fine attention to details in his work took comic art to a level of realism that previously did not exist.

 

Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular empirical rules," as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation.

 

Realism often refers more specifically to the artistic movement, which began in France in the 1850s. Truth and accuracy became the goals of many Realists. Many paintings which sprung up during the time of realism depicted people at work, as during the 19th century there were many open work places due to the Industrial Revolution and Commercial Revolutions. The popularity of such 'realistic' works grew with the introduction of photography — a new visual source that created a desire for people to produce representations which look “objectively real.”

 

 

Now I wouldn't exactly call Todd's style "realism" so much as "hyper-realism". But bottom line he was doing something very different from his predecessors. And I believe he deservedly gets all the good attention that he gets.

 

 

[OAFan-migration]

tth2 has it correct - those artists made those books.

 

And though it may be hard for newer collectors to realize, McFarlane was THE artist of that era. Image would not have been Image without him. Jim Lee was one of the stronger artists in that crew, but McFarlane really led the pack out of Marvel. It's a pretty impressive story because Marvel was paying McFarlane extremely well but he still insisted on blazing his own trail.

 

Has anyone read that Image biography? Is it a good read?

 

I have a slightly different take on this, in the sense that all the Image founders had a following, some more so than others as well as some unique to just their work. From what i saw firsthand and discussed, with both shop owners and other collectors at the time, it was Jim Lee first and foremost that made Image a publisher that brought people to its fold and then McFarlane, a close but inevitable second.

 

 

 

 

That's a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. My opinion was based on how me and my comic friends felt and from the impression I got from going to local cons and reading the magazines. We liked Jim Lee, but he always came second to McFarlane. I bought every Hulk and every ASM he did (along with Invasion -- so you know I'm a true fan!) but I only bought a few issues of X-Men because Jim Lee was on it. McFarlane, from my recollections, was the revolutionary - his style and the prolific nature of his work in that short time was really what made him the best (to me).

 

I think you were in the majority. Probably the vast majority of people would admit it was McFarlane who was the "man" at Image. I don't think it was even close.

 

For what it's worth, my perspective from the inside was that it WAS close. Both of these guys were just huge back then, and love their work or hate it, there is no denying it. The passion of the fans at conventions and signings was surreal and unreal and a once in a lifetime thing to experience. Having said that, I think that McFarlane probably was in the top position. He was a singular creator who wrote, penciled and inked his own work, while Jim shared the spotlight and creative direction with his writers and inker(s). I think the McFarlane model counts for a lot. I've always admired the creators who had a singular vision and did the hard work of executing it all themselves. I'm not saying collaborations can't create great comics, I'm just saying I am personally more impressed when an artist is so talented that he can take on multiple tasks and create something that people will talk about for decades and beyond such as what it happening on this board today.

 

Scott Williams

 

What a great thread.

 

Scott, I agree completely. I've always been impressed by the singular visions of some creators, and am always curious as to how it will play out once an established artist branches out into narrative, or vice versa.

 

While the opportunity exists for a blunder of epic proportions, sometimes you get an audacious work that really attests to one person's vision.

 

Miller's DARK KNIGHT, Kirby's FOURTH WORLD, these were entire worlds created up by artists that pushed themselves, and we're all better off for it.

 

It's interesting to speculate on the current crop of artists that are also delving into scripting their own books. I'm thinking specifically of the announcement that David Finch and Ethan Van Sciver will soon be writing their own books over at DC. They both have wild imaginations, and I can't wait to see what they come up with.

[William Woo]

Any way you look at it, these two should be the 1st two names mentioned when you want to talk about Modern age artists. It's like Kirby and Ditko in the 60's, Lee and McFarlane in the 90's period.

 

My Hulk 340 may be an Iconic piece but my all time favorite piece is my Batman 608 cover by Jim/Williams. Thanks again Scott for letting it go.

[Bronty]

I think the reason Todd's style attracts so much fanfare is sense of realism. I think Todd with his fine attention to details in his work took comic art to a level of realism that previously did not exist.

 

Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular empirical rules," as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation.

 

Realism often refers more specifically to the artistic movement, which began in France in the 1850s. Truth and accuracy became the goals of many Realists. Many paintings which sprung up during the time of realism depicted people at work, as during the 19th century there were many open work places due to the Industrial Revolution and Commercial Revolutions. The popularity of such 'realistic' works grew with the introduction of photography — a new visual source that created a desire for people to produce representations which look “objectively real.”

 

 

Now I wouldn't exactly call Todd's style "realism" so much as "hyper-realism". But bottom line he was doing something very different from his predecessors. And I believe he deservedly gets all the good attention that he gets.

 

 

you can call todd's art hyper-detailed, but you can't call it hyper-realistic ! (I don't mean that as a criticism, just as a statement of fact). Certainly it was different than his predecessors, and he deserves credit for that yes.

 

As for discussing Todd's art in the context of 1850s French art.... well I'm sorry but I'll let this gremlin do the talking

[Claudio]

Maybe I misread Galactus' post. He said that Jim Lee broght people to Image's fold. That could be true. I think I focused on the part where he said the creators had a following and I assumed that he meant Jim Lee's following brought more customers and fans to Image. I would dispute that highly.

 

The TwoMorrows book outlines the creation of Image and interplay/dependancy amongst its founding fathers through a series of interviews in their own words.

 

The interviews are in-depth, make for some fascinating reading, and I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in said creators.

 

Through the book, it is clearly evident that Todd was 'the man' at Image, and in one interesting passage in Todd's section, he explicitly stated that in order for Image to have a go at it, he absolutely needed to persuade Jim Lee to leave Marvel and worked hard on selling the Image concept to Lee. So, it seems as though the concept and Chutzpah was Todd's, and Jim Lee was the added impetus for the good ol' one-two punch against Marvel (leverage).

 

With regard to Todd's limited output on Spawn, I agree he illustratred only a handful of issues, but he did write/co-write for the title for several years, all the while he was busy with an HBO animated series, live action movie, mega-successful toy line, and the purchase of (then-historic?) baseballs.

 

Given the aforementioned, it is understandable that Todd may not have had an abundance of time to draw funny books.

I hate to say it but wasn't Liefeld hugely important. Maybe even more so than Lee? I mean, we look back on it now and it is almost comical to think but I remember most fans were looking to McFarlane and Liefeld. how did the book portray him? I might have to read it. With all the stuff that went down and Rob getting (almost) booted, I'm sure they probably tried to gloss over how big he was.

 

No. It was McFarlane and Lee first and foremost. Rob was big, but the first two were 1 and 1A.

 

Scott Williams

. I wouldn't put him in their class. All I'm saying is that I would have thought from what I saw, McFarlane was 1, Lee 2 and Liefeld 3 with the gap much closer between 2 and 3 than between 1 and 2. But that was what I saw. Scott was more in the thick of things and has a different perspective... who knows, it is probably the right one!

[LBSR-migration]

I think the reason Todd's style attracts so much fanfare is sense of realism. I think Todd with his fine attention to details in his work took comic art to a level of realism that previously did not exist.

 

Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular empirical rules," as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation.

 

Realism often refers more specifically to the artistic movement, which began in France in the 1850s. Truth and accuracy became the goals of many Realists. Many paintings which sprung up during the time of realism depicted people at work, as during the 19th century there were many open work places due to the Industrial Revolution and Commercial Revolutions. The popularity of such 'realistic' works grew with the introduction of photography — a new visual source that created a desire for people to produce representations which look “objectively real.”

 

 

Now I wouldn't exactly call Todd's style "realism" so much as "hyper-realism". But bottom line he was doing something very different from his predecessors. And I believe he deservedly gets all the good attention that he gets.

 

 

you can call todd's art hyper-detailed, but you can't call it hyper-realistic ! (I don't mean that as a criticism, just as a statement of fact). Certainly it was different than his predecessors, and he deserves credit for that yes.

 

As for discussing Todd's art in the context of 1850s French art.... well I'm sorry but I'll let this gremlin do the talking

 

I will agree that Todd's art is hyper-detailed and maybe my expression of realism was off the mark - somewhat. But that's only because comic art is such a young genre and its very difficult to pigeon hole artistic styles.

 

But my point was that McFarlane was going for a level of realism that previous comic artists didn't achieve. Perhaps, Frank Miller comes closest but even his style is more abstract.

 

Perhaps I should have said Todd's style was a hybrid of "realism" and "impressionism".

 

Characteristics of Impressionist paintings include relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on the accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), the inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles.

 

 

[Overthetopinc]

Interesting comment made about Mcfarlanes writing. I always liked the 90 series better then his run on asm. The spiderman title brought a much darker and edgier take on spiderman and other characters then were done before. Given not Cerebus or watchmen but damn entertaining. Hardly something I would scuff at. I found some of the micheline stories in asm campy and half in some of the endings. Each their own I guess.

Matthew

[Bronty]

I guess. you can put me in the camp of not having been a fan of todd's writing. I mean there were way too many pages where the number of words on the page was single digits. I found it tough to be entertained when the -script/plot was so thin and short

[Brian Peck]

I have been mostly silent thru this thread but once I started reading people using "realism" describing McFarlane's art I couldn't stop laughing. If anything Todd went the opposite way, depicting people in a more cartoonish style.

While Todd's take was fresh and I did enjoy it, but was never a big fan of his work beyond Spider-Man. I checked out the Image comics, his and others, but none of them ever interested me.

The thing I found is all these "hot" artists decided to go on an start their own company so they could have control of their work. Which I think is great. Then one by one they stopped drawing comics. With Eric Larson being the lone exception his Savage Dragon is one of two original Image titles still being published.

Ya some still draw, Lee and Liefeld but not that much. Most of the guys I grew up reading, Buscema, Romita, Kirby, Sinnott kept drawing even into their retirement years. Many artists got into drawing comic books because they loved drawing. Todd seems to be more into toys than comics.

[stinkininkin]

I have been mostly silent thru this thread but once I started reading people using "realism" describing McFarlane's art I couldn't stop laughing. If anything Todd went the opposite way, depicting people in a more cartoonish style.

While Todd's take was fresh and I did enjoy it, but was never a big fan of his work beyond Spider-Man. I checked out the Image comics, his and others, but none of them ever interested me.

The thing I found is all these "hot" artists decided to go on an start their own company so they could have control of their work. Which I think is great. Then one by one they stopped drawing comics. With Eric Larson being the lone exception his Savage Dragon is one of two original Image titles still being published.

Ya some still draw, Lee and Liefeld but not that much. Most of the guys I grew up reading, Buscema, Romita, Kirby, Sinnott kept drawing even into their retirement years. Many artists got into drawing comic books because they loved drawing. Todd seems to be more into toys than comics.

 

I think even Todd would call his style cartoonish. That's NOT a criticism.

 

Guys like Alex Ross or Tim Bradstreet or to lessor extent, Neal Adams might have a "realistic" art style. But not Todd McFarlane.

 

By the way Brian, Jim Lee draws a LOT. You just don't get to see much of it. Yet.

 

Scott Williams

 

 

Scott

[Brian Peck]

Scott,

Is that why the All-Star book only came out once a year?

 

 

 

[pinupcartoonguy]

I have been mostly silent thru this thread but once I started reading people using "realism" describing McFarlane's art I couldn't stop laughing. If anything Todd went the opposite way, depicting people in a more cartoonish style.

While Todd's take was fresh and I did enjoy it, but was never a big fan of his work beyond Spider-Man. I checked out the Image comics, his and others, but none of them ever interested me.

The thing I found is all these "hot" artists decided to go on an start their own company so they could have control of their work. Which I think is great. Then one by one they stopped drawing comics. With Eric Larson being the lone exception his Savage Dragon is one of two original Image titles still being published.

Ya some still draw, Lee and Liefeld but not that much. Most of the guys I grew up reading, Buscema, Romita, Kirby, Sinnott kept drawing even into their retirement years. Many artists got into drawing comic books because they loved drawing. Todd seems to be more into toys than comics.

 

The big difference, however, is that Buscema, Romita, Kirby and Sinnott didn't get paid a fraction of what artists get paid--either from the publishers or in terms of their original art--so they had to keep drawing to put food on the table.

[stinkininkin]

Scott,

Is that why the All-Star book only came out once a year?

 

 

 

Lot's of reasons that All Star turned into the scheduling nightmare that it is and every time it's brought up, Jim takes full responsibility for it.

 

Scott

 

[Brian Peck]

Alot of them loved to draw and continued to work in the field, not because it was just a paycheck. If an artist loves to draw comics, why not continue to draw comics even after they become rich.

[tth2]

For what it's worth, my perspective from the inside was that it WAS close. Both of these guys were just huge back then, and love their work or hate it, there is no denying it. The passion of the fans at conventions and signings was surreal and unreal and a once in a lifetime thing to experience. Having said that, I think that McFarlane probably was in the top position. He was a singular creator who wrote, penciled and inked his own work, while Jim shared the spotlight and creative direction with his writers and inker(s). I think the McFarlane model counts for a lot. I've always admired the creators who had a singular vision and did the hard work of executing it all themselves. I'm not saying collaborations can't create great comics, I'm just saying I am personally more impressed when an artist is so talented that he can take on multiple tasks and create something that people will talk about for decades and beyond such as what it happening on this board today.

 

Scott Williams

In theory, I agree with what you're saying, but there are not that many people who can pull it off. McFarlane was definitely not one of them, because he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag, just like Kirby couldn't do it when he tried in the 70s. I always thought that he would've been better served by having someone else writing Spiderman and Spawn. Lee was smart enough to realize what he could do and couldn't do, although he didn't get any great writers on Wildcats either.

 

In the end, I always felt that Image was done in by the fact that their books were pretty to look at but not good reading.

[tth2]

I have been mostly silent thru this thread but once I started reading people using "realism" describing McFarlane's art I couldn't stop laughing. If anything Todd went the opposite way, depicting people in a more cartoonish style.

+1