Comic book art you just don't like.

[MedicAR]

DKR

 

DKSA

 

So much has gone so horribly wrong from the first panel to the last panel in these pics I don't even know where to begin. Coloring is a major issue, but there is so much...just......

 

[MedicAR]

The art during that Batman: Death In The Family storyline

 

Those covers were awful

 

Mignola was awful?!?!?!

 

My complaint with that, aside from the actual storyline, is the same complaint I have with so many books now. I prefer that one artist do the cover and the story (pencils at least). I feel like it's the old "bait and switch" con on most books now.

[MedicAR]

I also cannot stand Ebas. Probably the most overrated artist out there.

 

 

He does some of the finest cheesecake commission pieces I have seen recently.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I have to admit, though, the whole Grimm thing is just lost on me.

[MedicAR]

Frank Miller. Sin City onwards.

 

DKSA looked rushed to say the least

 

Not a fair statement as we would have absolutely no idea how much time the artist spent drawing the pages.

 

 

 

Well, he didn't say he rushed, he said it "looked" rushed.

 

Take a peek at his "Holy Terror" HC that came out last year....he could have spent a year per page on that book and it would still be fair to say it "looked" like he drew it with his feet in the time it takes Kobayashi to down a tube steak.

 

Lets not split hairs on this. I'm pretty sure we both know what was being implied by that comment.

 

i meant that the detail that DKR had just seemed to be missing from DKSA but in all honesty alot of the problem would be the colouring

 

DKR

 

DKSA

 

still less detail though

worded it wrong, apologies

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe Miller inked himself in the sequel? His work always looks a lot different when he inks himself as opposed to Janson.

 

i think he inked some of DKR aswell, but i think you're right on inking all of DKSA, same colourist strangely

 

I can recall an interview with Miller at the time of DKSA and he sain Lynn Varley was experimenting with flatter colors and he seemed to be very enthusiastic about it. I was looking forward to the series when it was announced but to be honest the art was enough of a turn off that I put it back on the shelf and haven't read it to this day.

 

I'll sum it up. Batman comes back again only this time it sucks.

[VintageComics]

I'm not a fan because of the heavy lines he so often used and the way he generally drew eyes. I know, weird thing to pick on, but it's art and art is subjective.

 

The man could lay out a scene, though. Action, excitement, angst, you name it, he could convey it.

 

I generally view Kane the way I do Kirby - hugely prolific, wonderfully action packed, but had quirks when it came to certain details. The Kane equivalent of Kirby knuckles is the Kane nasal upshot.

 

I love Kane's work though. He draws women and Superheros very well.

 

 

[MedicAR]

Somehow, I went from Spectacular Spider-Man #4 back to Ditko's work as it was presented in Marvel Tales. I thought it was strange, but I loved it. I know Romita is generally thought of as the preeminent Spider-Man artist, but for my money, Ditko is the man!

 

I'm more a fan of his Dr. Strange work. His strengths are in storytelling and page layout.

 

I appreciate the Dr. Strange artwork, but the character and stories fall flat for me.

[Maccai3]

Frank Miller. Sin City onwards.

 

DKSA looked rushed to say the least

 

Not a fair statement as we would have absolutely no idea how much time the artist spent drawing the pages.

 

 

 

Well, he didn't say he rushed, he said it "looked" rushed.

 

Take a peek at his "Holy Terror" HC that came out last year....he could have spent a year per page on that book and it would still be fair to say it "looked" like he drew it with his feet in the time it takes Kobayashi to down a tube steak.

 

Lets not split hairs on this. I'm pretty sure we both know what was being implied by that comment.

 

i meant that the detail that DKR had just seemed to be missing from DKSA but in all honesty alot of the problem would be the colouring

 

DKR

 

DKSA

 

still less detail though

worded it wrong, apologies

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe Miller inked himself in the sequel? His work always looks a lot different when he inks himself as opposed to Janson.

 

i think he inked some of DKR aswell, but i think you're right on inking all of DKSA, same colourist strangely

 

I can recall an interview with Miller at the time of DKSA and he sain Lynn Varley was experimenting with flatter colors and he seemed to be very enthusiastic about it. I was looking forward to the series when it was announced but to be honest the art was enough of a turn off that I put it back on the shelf and haven't read it to this day.

 

I'll sum it up. Batman comes back again only this time it sucks.

 

Batman was barely in it aswell

[MedicAR]

Frank Miller. Sin City onwards.

 

DKSA looked rushed to say the least

 

Not a fair statement as we would have absolutely no idea how much time the artist spent drawing the pages.

 

True, but regardless of the time spent it can still look rushed and that's exactly how I thought of it the first time I saw it. It's like his style (at the time) but like he just didn't put any effort or time into it. I get the impression he took the money thrown at him and just threw something out.

 

All mind reading on your part and no more valid an opinion than that other dude.

 

So only your opinion is valid? First off, it's an opinion, not a fact. I think it looks inconsistent with his usual work, even when compared to work done close to the same time.

 

There is no mind reading involved on my part. I used critical thinking, deductive reasoning and logic. I know this can make it look like a person has psychic abilities, especially to the intellectually inferior, but there is a difference. His usual depth of field is missing, the backgrounds are missing, and the perspective is off. If he didn't rush through it, he did an intentionally bad job. He may have spent a year per page but it's not his usual quality so by comparison it looks rushed. It's like comparing DKR art to a convention sketch, you know it's the same person but it's not the same quality.

[MedicAR]

Probably not the most popular of opinions but I was never a fan of Norm Breyfogle's work on Batman.

 

I wasn't at the time, but it has really grown on me.

[MedicAR]

Somehow, I went from Spectacular Spider-Man #4 back to Ditko's work as it was presented in Marvel Tales. I thought it was strange, but I loved it. I know Romita is generally thought of as the preeminent Spider-Man artist, but for my money, Ditko is the man!

 

I dunno about this...If you had Romita Sr and McFarlane side by side at a show, I think McFarlane would have the bigger lineup.

Having said that, Ditko is the man!

 

You're probably right. But how many would be lining up because of his work on Spidey and how many would be Spawn fans? Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive, but when I think of Spider-Man, the second artist I think of is John Romita and the first isn't McFarlane.

[Speedy-D]

I'll say it because it has to be said:

 

STEVE DITKO SUCKS.

 

Man that felt good.

Yes, I understand what he is going for. He is just terrible, the way Frank Robbins is terrible.

 

I know he is a sacred cow, and I imagine there will be a contrary opinion or two in response, but his work is just awful and amateurish. As for myself, I graduated top of my class from the Massachusetts College of Art, and have been a successful art director for over 20 years. This doesn't make me "right," as art is subjective, but I do believe it lends weight to my (professional) opinion. You may now pile on.

 

I don't agree, but I do understand where you are coming from. It took me years to appreciate Ditko's work on Spider-man...having been weaned on Romita's pretty pictures.

But once I read his Dr Strange work in Strange Tales it was like a fog lifted and I suddenly got "it".

I still prefer his Dr Strange art, which I think is wonderful, to his ASM work, but I am now seeing what a lot of people are seeing in those issues...he brought out the "Spider" in Spider-man.

 

Somehow, I went from Spectacular Spider-Man #4 back to Ditko's work as it was presented in Marvel Tales. I thought it was strange, but I loved it. I know Romita is generally thought of as the preeminent Spider-Man artist, but for my money, Ditko is the man!

 

I dunno about this...If you had Romita Sr and McFarlane side by side at a show, I think McFarlane would have the bigger lineup.

Having said that, Ditko is the man!

The modern guy almost always has the bigger draw over the old-timer. C'est that vie.

[500Club]

I also cannot stand Ebas. Probably the most overrated artist out there.

 

 

He does some of the finest cheesecake commission pieces I have seen recently.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I have to admit, though, the whole Grimm thing is just lost on me.

I prefer Playboy.

[MedicAR]

I also cannot stand Ebas. Probably the most overrated artist out there.

 

 

He does some of the finest cheesecake commission pieces I have seen recently.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I have to admit, though, the whole Grimm thing is just lost on me.

I prefer Playboy.

 

Same here. If I'm gonna be lookin' at fake women, I prefer that they be real!

[Logan510]

Frank Miller. Sin City onwards.

 

DKSA looked rushed to say the least

 

Not a fair statement as we would have absolutely no idea how much time the artist spent drawing the pages.

 

True, but regardless of the time spent it can still look rushed and that's exactly how I thought of it the first time I saw it. It's like his style (at the time) but like he just didn't put any effort or time into it. I get the impression he took the money thrown at him and just threw something out.

 

All mind reading on your part and no more valid an opinion than that other dude.

 

So only your opinion is valid? First off, it's an opinion, not a fact. I think it looks inconsistent with his usual work, even when compared to work done close to the same time.

 

There is no mind reading involved on my part. I used critical thinking, deductive reasoning and logic. I know this can make it look like a person has psychic abilities, especially to the intellectually inferior, but there is a difference. His usual depth of field is missing, the backgrounds are missing, and the perspective is off. If he didn't rush through it, he did an intentionally bad job. He may have spent a year per page but it's not his usual quality so by comparison it looks rushed. It's like comparing DKR art to a convention sketch, you know it's the same person but it's not the same quality.

 

Not only was it bad...it was bad...on purpose? Way to use "critical thinking, deductive reasoning and logic" instead of what I mistakingly called mind reading. This intellectually inferior person is grateful that you're willing to show him the difference.

 

 

[dupont2005]

It's common knowledge that Land lightboxes (copies) his art from models and actors.

 

And pornography. Lots of pornography

[comix4fun]

I also cannot stand Ebas. Probably the most overrated artist out there.

 

 

He does some of the finest cheesecake commission pieces I have seen recently.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I have to admit, though, the whole Grimm thing is just lost on me.

 

 

I am not a fan of all the Grimm stuff either.

That sort of cheesecake overload, variant cover BS is something I lived through during the comics crash of the 90's.

 

His commission work is incredibly well done.

[comix4fun]

[quote=jjonahjameson1

 

I dunno about this...If you had Romita Sr and McFarlane side by side at a show, I think McFarlane would have the bigger lineup.

 

 

 

And if "The SItuation" or "Snooki" were set up next to them the lines for the Jersey Shorians would be 10 times as long.

 

The great thing and the popular thing only rarely intersect.

[DrWatson]

I also cannot stand Ebas. Probably the most overrated artist out there.

 

 

He does some of the finest cheesecake commission pieces I have seen recently.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

I have to admit, though, the whole Grimm thing is just lost on me.

 

 

I am not a fan of all the Grimm stuff either.

That sort of cheesecake overload, variant cover BS is something I lived through during the comics crash of the 90's.

 

His commission work is incredibly well done.

I Agree. If you want porn, just Google "." It's the freakin' Internet Age ferchrissakes.

 

[DeliBebek]

Probably not the most popular of opinions but I was never a fan of Norm Breyfogle's work on Batman.

 

I wasn't at the time, but it has really grown on me.

I found Breyfogle's covers very eye catching. That was the whole reason I bought any of his issues of Detective Comics.

 

I can respect that opinion as I'm not a big fan of his work either. I think there's a big difference in saying "I don't like something" as opposed to "I don't like something, therefore it's bad"..

To me, the difference is seeing a style that doesn't appeal to one personally, vice seeing that there's a lack of fundamental drawing ability. For example, I would defend Madureira's ability to draw, in a style that is personal to his vision. Liefeld has always lacked a sense of the structural underpinnings of a drawing and how to convey the illusion of form and space.

[DeliBebek]

So only your opinion is valid? First off, it's an opinion, not a fact. I think it looks inconsistent with his usual work, even when compared to work done close to the same time.

 

There is no mind reading involved on my part. I used critical thinking, deductive reasoning and logic. I know this can make it look like a person has psychic abilities, especially to the intellectually inferior, but there is a difference. His usual depth of field is missing, the backgrounds are missing, and the perspective is off. If he didn't rush through it, he did an intentionally bad job. He may have spent a year per page but it's not his usual quality so by comparison it looks rushed. It's like comparing DKR art to a convention sketch, you know it's the same person but it's not the same quality.

 

Not only was it bad...it was bad...on purpose? Way to use "critical thinking, deductive reasoning and logic" instead of what I mistakingly called mind reading. This intellectually inferior person is grateful that you're willing to show him the difference.

 

 

It is theoretically possible that Miller worked harder to fulfill a particular vision in Dark Knight Strikes Again. It was definitely a departure. It's possible that Janson's influence on the final look of Dark Knight Returns was deeper than we would realize and the lack of his inking is the bulk of the difference.

 

In either case, I also find the result unlikeable, for whatever reason it looks the way it does.