Comic book art you just don't like.

[Hado]

Charlie Adlard:

Seriously this guy has gotten worse, who is this?

Rick in four years, Otis after being stung by a bee, Tyreese if Charlie forgot he was black...

 

[pubmonkey]

Charlie Adlard:

Seriously this guy has gotten worse, who is this?

Rick in four years, Otis after being stung by a bee, Tyreese if Charlie forgot he was black...

 

100% agree...

[Speedy-D]

Charlie Adlard:

Seriously this guy has gotten worse, who is this?

Rick in four years, Otis after being stung by a bee, Tyreese if Charlie forgot he was black...

 

100% agree...

I got a Batgirl by him that I really like

 

[DrWatson]

She looks chubby.

[Speedy-D]

She looks chubby.

yeesh

[DrWatson]

She has a fat head.

[Hado]

[nickwire]

i know im in the minority, but i hate kirbys work from 65 or so onward, his dc is just terrible imho.

[Hado]

Oh my god!.......Andrea is Batgirl

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Well, you're certain it wasn't rushed, so what is your explanation for how bad it was? The man has a proven track record so we know he can do better work. So if it wasn't hurried and it wasn't done poorly on purpose, what other suggestions do you have?

 

I find teaching so rewarding.

[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 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.

 

Don't get me wrong, the man has a fantastic talent. His artwork, like his subjects, is beautiful.

 

It's the Grimm books specifically that I don't get. A dozen variants per book and a re-telling of fairy tales doesn't sound like a winning combination to me, but clearly I am missing something.

[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.

 

Don't get me wrong, the man has a fantastic talent. His artwork, like his subjects, is beautiful.

 

It's the Grimm books specifically that I don't get. A dozen variants per book and a re-telling of fairy tales doesn't sound like a winning combination to me, but clearly I am missing something.

 

 

Oh I got you. I was agreeing with you.

[MedicAR]

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.

 

That's a fair point, but I never thought Miller's Sin City work, which also lacked Janson's influence was nearly as bad. While very noir in style, there were significantly better backgrounds, perspective and so on. I suppose it could be the lack of Janson's influence, but it seems unlikely.

 

I personally think that DC offered him piles of money to do a project that he really didn't want to do, so he hacked something out, met his contractual obligation and laughed all the way to the bank.

[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 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.

 

Don't get me wrong, the man has a fantastic talent. His artwork, like his subjects, is beautiful.

 

It's the Grimm books specifically that I don't get. A dozen variants per book and a re-telling of fairy tales doesn't sound like a winning combination to me, but clearly I am missing something.

 

 

Oh I got you. I was agreeing with you.

 

No you weren't. I can read your mind.

 

 

[Logan510]

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.

 

That's a fair point, but I never thought Miller's Sin City work, which also lacked Janson's influence was nearly as bad. While very noir in style, there were significantly better backgrounds, perspective and so on. I suppose it could be the lack of Janson's influence, but it seems unlikely.

 

I personally think that DC offered him piles of money to do a project that he really didn't want to do, so he hacked something out, met his contractual obligation and laughed all the way to the bank.

 

No mind reading there...

[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.

 

 

 

Well, you're certain it wasn't rushed, so what is your explanation for how bad it was? The man has a proven track record so we know he can do better work. So if it wasn't hurried and it wasn't done poorly on purpose, what other suggestions do you have?

 

I find teaching so rewarding.

 

I'm going to be honest, I'm finding you to be really annoying. Please do not try to twist what I said into something I didn't. Saying it's unfair to call someones work as "looking rushed" is not the same thing as me saying it wasn't rushed. We have no idea how long it took him to work on those pages.

 

My only suggestion as to why it was so "bad" ( which I never said either ) is that a lot of artists are not satisfied drawing the same thing the same way and try different things in their work. Sometimes those experiments are successful on a commercial or critical level, sometimes they're not. I only judge the work as to not be to my liking, not good or bad...and certainly not bad "on purpose".

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Well, you're certain it wasn't rushed, so what is your explanation for how bad it was? The man has a proven track record so we know he can do better work. So if it wasn't hurried and it wasn't done poorly on purpose, what other suggestions do you have?

 

I find teaching so rewarding.

 

I'm going to be honest, I'm finding you to be really annoying. Please do not try to twist what I said into something I didn't. Saying it's unfair to call someones work as "looking rushed" is not the same thing as me saying it wasn't rushed. We have no idea how long it took him to work on those pages.

 

My only suggestion as to why it was so "bad" ( which I never said either ) is that a lot of artists are not satisfied drawing the same thing the same way and try different things in their work. Sometimes those experiments are successful on a commercial or critical level, sometimes they're not. I only judge the work as to not be to my liking, not good or bad...and certainly not bad "on purpose".

 

I really don't care what you think and you have "no more valid an opinion than that other dude."

[Hado]

Why read a forum if you aren't interested in others opinions?

[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.

 

 

 

Well, you're certain it wasn't rushed, so what is your explanation for how bad it was? The man has a proven track record so we know he can do better work. So if it wasn't hurried and it wasn't done poorly on purpose, what other suggestions do you have?

 

I find teaching so rewarding.

 

I'm going to be honest, I'm finding you to be really annoying. Please do not try to twist what I said into something I didn't. Saying it's unfair to call someones work as "looking rushed" is not the same thing as me saying it wasn't rushed. We have no idea how long it took him to work on those pages.

 

My only suggestion as to why it was so "bad" ( which I never said either ) is that a lot of artists are not satisfied drawing the same thing the same way and try different things in their work. Sometimes those experiments are successful on a commercial or critical level, sometimes they're not. I only judge the work as to not be to my liking, not good or bad...and certainly not bad "on purpose".

 

I really don't care what you think and you have "no more valid an opinion than that other dude."

 

My opinion is a lot more valid and reasonable than your childish, idiotic " he did it bad on purpose" opinion.

 

(thumbs u

[500Club]

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.

 

 

 

Well, you're certain it wasn't rushed, so what is your explanation for how bad it was? The man has a proven track record so we know he can do better work. So if it wasn't hurried and it wasn't done poorly on purpose, what other suggestions do you have?

Style experimentation.

 

Miller has a track record of this very thing, as evidenced in his dramatic style shanges from DD to DKR to Ronin.