• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mcfarlane's ASM Run

Started by AnthaiHERO,

89 posts in this topic

Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

 

Did you read that Comics Journal interview with him I posted a couple of months back? Oh my god, what a hoot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

 

Did you read that Comics Journal interview with him I posted a couple of months back? Oh my god, what a hoot!

 

I don't remember, do you have a link? :wishluck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

 

Did you read that Comics Journal interview with him I posted a couple of months back? Oh my god, what a hoot!

 

I don't remember, do you have a link? :wishluck:

 

Todd McFarlane Gary Groth Interview

 

I had to read it again. It's a riot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin76

Kevin76

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

 

Did you read that Comics Journal interview with him I posted a couple of months back? Oh my god, what a hoot!

 

I don't remember, do you have a link? :wishluck:

 

Todd McFarlane Gary Groth Interview

 

I had to read it again. It's a riot!

 

"I wanted to quit cause of the system" Yes, Todd, you're a control freak

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

MCFARLANE:“This is the way we’ve done comic books for 25 years, what’re you trying to do?” It’s like, “J$$$, who gives a $$$$ how I do it? Who cares if I give you 22 blank pages and I sell 500,000 copies. If that’s what the public wants … perfect! Let’s give it to them! It seems to work. They seem to like it. Who cares that 20 years ago they used to actually have dialogue on their pictures? The kids don’t like that any more, obviously. They want books that have 22 blank pages. Who are we to argue with them?

GROTH: Uh-huh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Smooth

B-Smooth

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

I'd argue about his business savvy. Those baseballs weren't the best decision. Most people knew steroids had a big part to play in those record breaking (gag) seasons. He still bought them, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

I'd argue about his business savvy. Those baseballs weren't the best decision. Most people knew steroids had a big part to play in those record breaking (gag) seasons. He still bought them, anyway.

 

You can argue all you want, but he's built himself a small empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solarcadet

solarcadet

Posted
Posted

 

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

I'd argue about his business savvy. Those baseballs weren't the best decision. Most people knew steroids had a big part to play in those record breaking (gag) seasons. He still bought them, anyway.

 

You can argue all you want, but he's built himself a small empire.

 

Foreign McFarlane Empire hm

Top Row Left to Right

1 O Homem Arahnha 1 (Brazil)

2 Mega Marvel 3 (Sweden)

3 Hämähäkkimies 4 (Finland)

4 ASM 1 (Japan)

5 Spiderman 1 Mamouth (Greek)

6 Complete Spiderman 1 (UK)

7 Omnibus Spiderman 1 (Dutch)

Middle Row Left to Right

8 ÖRÜMCEK ADAM 1 #N(Turkey)

9 ÖRÜMCEK ADAM 1 #1(Turkey)

10 ÖRÜMCEK ADAM 1 #2(Turkey)

11 ÖRÜMCEK ADAM 1 #3(Turkey)

12 Star Magazine 8 (Italy)

13 Spiderman Semic 1 (France)

14 Spiderman 1 Forum R15 (Spain)

Bottom Row Left to Right

15 Spiderman 1 (US) Color Bagged

16 Spiderman 1 (US) Color Direct

17 Spiderman Torment (Italy)

18 Hombre Arana 500 (Mexico)

19 Spiderman 1 (US) Gold Direct

20 Spiderman 1 (US) Silver Bagged

21 Spiderman 1 (US) Silver Direct

C360_2013-05-05-16-54-38_org_zpsc08b107a.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-55-05_org_zps447d61e8.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-55-21_zps1824b83c.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-55-55_zps8648bbc1.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-56-08_org_zps67f2c5d6.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-56-23_org_zpse0cb27d9.jpg

C360_2013-05-05-16-59-42-11_zpsaf05d4a5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

 

Did you read that Comics Journal interview with him I posted a couple of months back? Oh my god, what a hoot!

 

I don't remember, do you have a link? :wishluck:

 

Todd McFarlane Gary Groth Interview

 

I had to read it again. It's a riot!

 

Thanks for the link. I had read it, but must've put it out of my mind. I still don't know if Todd is an act or not. How can someone who comes off as willfully ignorant as he is, be so successful? It's mind-boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solarcadet

solarcadet

Posted
Posted

you think Hollywood can do with image properties what they have successfully done with Darkkight, Man of steel, or Avengers????hm

 

i doubt it but i assume if they spent money on someone with half the talent of Christopher Nolan there could be a really good Spawn reboot

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
you think Hollywood can do with image properties what they have successfully done with Darkkight, Man of steel, or Avengers????hm

 

i doubt it but i assume if they spent money on someone with half the talent of Christopher Nolan there could be a really good Spawn reboot

 

Wouldn't Spawn have to be good to start with? Now that I think about it, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solarcadet

solarcadet

Posted
Posted
you think Hollywood can do with image properties what they have successfully done with Darkkight, Man of steel, or Avengers????hm

 

i doubt it but i assume if they spent money on someone with half the talent of Christopher Nolan there could be a really good Spawn reboot

 

Wouldn't Spawn have to be good to start with? Now that I think about it, probably not.

 

If there was someone with screenwriting talents and of David S Goyer ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Smooth

B-Smooth

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

I'd argue about his business savvy. Those baseballs weren't the best decision. Most people knew steroids had a big part to play in those record breaking (gag) seasons. He still bought them, anyway.

 

You can argue all you want, but he's built himself a small empire.

And he could regain some of that empire if he hocks those baseballs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe I should've quoted John Romita instead. I once asked him what he thought of McFarlane's Spider-Man work and he said " you can't argue with success".

 

McFarlane was no Romita (and no Byrne) certainly, when it comes to technical precision. The reason why guys like McFarlane, Liefeld, and Keown were successful is because they pushed the envelope of dynamic style, as opposed to technical style. You really can't say anything bad about Frenz or Saviuk, but the dynamism displayed in McSpidey, Liefeld's Hawk and Dove, and Keown's Hulk are what propelled the rise of the superstar artist, even when the superstars were not as technically competent. Looking back 25 years later and dissecting what is wrong (while easy) smacks of sour grapes and armchair quarterbacking.

 

I equate McFarlane with Kirby. Both very dynamic in their figure work, both somewhat less than perfect anatomically. Although Kirby could make his characters look different from each other and everyone didn't have the same nose. It's not a perfect comparison

 

And of course there's that pesky 'telling a story' thing with the art...

 

This reminds me of when Todd was defending Liefeld by comparing him to Kirby, by saying Kirby drew wonky knees. This of course being the same guy who called retailers who didn't sell Jack Kirby comics "pigs" in his Wizard editorial column.

 

I will never argue against the mans success or business savvy...but what an idjit.

I'd argue about his business savvy. Those baseballs weren't the best decision. Most people knew steroids had a big part to play in those record breaking (gag) seasons. He still bought them, anyway.

 

You can argue all you want, but he's built himself a small empire.

And he could regain some of that empire if he hocks those baseballs.

 

Why are you so focused on his balls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solarcadet

solarcadet

Posted
Posted
would those balls even fetch what he paid for now?

 

 

I don't see how. It's like buying the first New Mutants #98 9.9 and then having another pop up shortly after.

 

Holy Jeez if you bought the 10.0 for $15M and another popped up

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing