Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[Jeffro.]

Inked by P Craig Russel, and it shows 

 

[divad]

6 hours ago, Jeffro™ said:

I was never a huge fan but I liked AA back in the day. When I look at his work these days, it's a little too "90s" looking for my tastes. 

no more or less than mcfarlane. 

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, divad said:

no more or less than mcfarlane. 

Adams' style was cartoonish and exaggerated, to be sure, but it at least seemed to have some basis in reality. McFarlane's stuff, on the other hand, looked like horror show distortions reflected from a funhouse mirror. Adams stuff still looks solid and exciting, to me. McFarlane, on the other hand, hasn't held up at all.

[shiverbones]

Adams has the chops to actually draw whatever he needed to, and innovated the style. Big difference compared to someone like McFarlane who took the details without the knowledge to back it up. Just look at any face either of them drew, or the backgrounds.

[Jeffro.]

2 hours ago, F For Fake said:

4 hours ago, divad said:

no more or less than mcfarlane. 

Adams' style was cartoonish and exaggerated, to be sure, but it at least seemed to have some basis in reality. McFarlane's stuff, on the other hand, looked like horror show distortions reflected from a funhouse mirror. Adams stuff still looks solid and exciting, to me. McFarlane, on the other hand, hasn't held up at all.

I agree. I can't stand to look at McFarlane's work anymore. 

[divad]

5 hours ago, divad said:

11 hours ago, Jeffro™ said:

it's a little too "90s" looking for my tastes. 

no more or less than mcfarlane. 

this is the comment i was replying to 

[Readcomix]

5 hours ago, divad said:

i'm guessing you mean 'spatulas' . . . 

Yes! For the life of me, I could not think of that word late last night....

 

[divad]

1 hour ago, Jeffro™ said:

3 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Adams' style was cartoonish and exaggerated, to be sure, but it at least seemed to have some basis in reality. McFarlane's stuff, on the other hand, looked like horror show distortions reflected from a funhouse mirror. Adams stuff still looks solid and exciting, to me. McFarlane, on the other hand, hasn't held up at all.

I agree. I can't stand to look at McFarlane's work anymore. 

perhaps, but it sells 

[RockMyAmadeus]

New Mutants Special #1 and X-Men Annual #9 are a master class in storytelling and detail.

Every page is a sumptuous banquet for the eyes. Every page is a masterpiece, the best he has ever done, and quite possibly the best work on the stands at the time. X-Men annual #10 comes close...but #9 was the pinnacle.

Look at the detail...every single face is DIFFERENT, just like in real life. And Storm...Mein Gott...

 

I try to tell Art this, but he's clearly embarrassed by the praise, and I'm a fumbler over words, so it never comes out well.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

This is what I would collect if I had money:

 

[jcjames]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

New Mutants Special #1 and X-Men Annual #9 are a master class in storytelling and detail.

Every page is a sumptuous banquet for the eyes. Every page is a masterpiece, the best he has ever done, and quite possibly the best work on the stands at the time. X-Men annual #10 comes close...but #9 was the pinnacle.

Look at the detail...every single face is DIFFERENT, just like in real life. And Storm...Mein Gott...

 

That's why it hurts to see much of Kirby's work, especially in BA stuff like Kamandi or even the Eternals. Every Kirby face is pretty much the same especially women's faces. 

 

[followtheleader]

17 hours ago, Jeffro™ said:

I was never a huge fan but I liked AA back in the day. When I look at his work these days, it's a little too "90s" looking for my tastes. 

Pretty much how I feel too. 

His faces tend to be too much the same from character-to-character.  

I really like the overhead forest back cover with Wolverine that someone already posted.  

Patrick

[F For Fake]

16 hours ago, Jeffro™ said:

I agree. I can't stand to look at McFarlane's work anymore. 

I was never a big fan, but I definitely had some nostalgia tied up with that era. When they published the McFarlane Spidey Omnibus, I was excited to dip back into those memories, and was AMAZED at how terrible it was. What seemed dynamic and interesting as a kid appeared amateurish and shoddy as an adult. 

Adams still rules, though!

[F For Fake]

15 hours ago, divad said:

perhaps, but it sells 

Oh sure, I'll buy and sell McF stuff all day long. I just don't need any in my personal collection. Whereas I'm still all about the Art Adams stuff, and oddly enough you can still pick up most of it in bargain bins.

[Aweandlorder]

Adams borrowed a lot of elements from Anime/manga which explained his cartoonish side and attention to details with tech/industrial drawings (which happened a lot earlier in his career) with it he borrowed (and I mean that term lightly, because everyone has someone that inspires them) elements from Golden, Simonson & Leonardi. But his art was at a league of its own. You could tell an Art Adams from pretty much anyone else just by seeing a doodle. By 1988 everyone started copying AAdams,  but they mostly did it with embellishment. Mcfarlane copied his style and paid zero attention to structure or anatomy, Liefeld copied Adams grotesque/anime features and distorted it even more. Jim Lee in my mind is the only guy that really captures Adams style and built on it evenly. But there's no denying that Adams was the only one that made it better, since he never really cared for speeding up his work in order to make it the commercially successful career that the others did. Eventually, that "business approach" was what made all of Art's imitators rise to the top. And Adams always stayed in the back with the history that unfortunately never really worked in his favor as the single most influential artist in the modern comic book era 

[BrooksR]

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is what I would collect if I had money:

 

The detail in that is astonishing 

[Hamlet]

2 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I was never a big fan, but I definitely had some nostalgia tied up with that era. When they published the McFarlane Spidey Omnibus, I was excited to dip back into those memories, and was AMAZED at how terrible it was. What seemed dynamic and interesting as a kid appeared amateurish and shoddy as an adult. 

Adams still rules, though!

You have to compare the McFarlane Spidey's to what we were dealing with on Spiderman for the few years before he came along.  I started collecting ASM with issue 260 ( good ), and 261 ( good), but it was rough going for a few years after that.  My friends started making fun of me for sticking with the title.  Luckily, I was building my collection with back issues as well, which were quite a bit better.  Would you rather have these instead of a McFarlane Spidey--

 

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/30/2019 at 9:57 AM, Aweandlorder said:

Adams Classic X-Men cover run is where Adams shine. Those were the modern day version of Frazetta's Famous Funnies covers to many who studied him. And there were BOATLODS of imitators including some of the most biggest names in the industry; Lee, Mcfarlane, Larsen, Campbell, Lim just to keep the list short. 

The elevated waists, counter-arched back, high cheek-bones, pouting lips or huge grin full of teeth, fine detailed hair-do's, busy backgrounds vs empty spaced composition pockets, were some of Adams signature style giveaways. Prior to 1987 it was very easy to distinguish Art's style from the rest even by looking at a tiny half inch sample offering from a preview catalog. No one else did it like him. 

 

[shadroch]

I remember the Marvel Fanfare cover he did that upset everyone because he signed it Adams.  Many fans thought there wasn't room in the industry for two Adams and accused Adams of trying to cash in on a legendary name.

I absolutely loved Art Adams early work but it seemed like it never progressed. I like his early work much better than his later work, and haven't seen his modern work at all.

Edited July 31, 2019 by shadroch

[Aweandlorder]

2 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

Haha fair assessment, however Frazetta has influenced just as many comic book artists as Aadams had and although I agree that Frazetta comes from a whole new school and progressed to an even higher class through his paintings, his comic work during 53-54 could compare to Aadams 86-88 years by originality of style and design. whether one approves of one or the other is obliviously a matter of taste, but it is unquestionable that both artists have equally impacted the industry if only because of their influence on others