What is your Favorite Art,Drawing or story by Rob Liefeld? 1 1

[slym2none]

 

If I ever went out with my suit as wrinkled as those guys' I'd be embarrassed.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

Ahhhhh. You beat me to it.

 

It looks like Archangel is scolding them for wearing such wrinkled suits to church. His suit looks nicely pressed. With that said, what's up with his leg? How is it in that position?

 

You aren't supposed to notice Liefeld's backgrounds and such. Why he chose to make a foot part of the background (that he didn't draw very well,) I don't know.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[RabidFerret]

 

 

Both her left leg and left hand are all effed up. Look at her thigh versus her lower leg. How is her right foot 3 times larger than her left foot?

 

Her left hand is in an impossible position. Try and bend your arm that way. Can't do it. Unless that's her little finger disguised as a thumb.

 

And there is no comparison to Art Adams. The Adams drawings all a superior to any of the Liefeld stuff you've said is his "best". His art is clean. His figures are proportional. His poses are possible.

 

I didn't post that as an example of his best, but as a free gift for those who like to pick apart his stuff:)

 

It's one of the most comical depictions of a woman he may ever have made.

 

That said, I imagine almost anyone who read that comic 20 years ago would recognize it as well. Good or bad, it was memorable.

[HarveySwick]

[RabidFerret]

Again, all the "good" Leifeld stuff is inked by someone else.

 

The Wolverine pic (which is decent) was inked by Scott Williams. And you can see Williams all over that one. It doesn't really look like RL.

 

The McFarlane inked covers look very McFarlane although you can see the RL too.

 

You can see the Liefeld in the Xmen pic, but it's dialed back considerably.

 

Yes, McFarlane inked Liefeld looks amazing. Todd overpowers stuff.

 

Williams inked Liefeld is solid, but strange to see one issue after McFarlane - it showed that both of them put a lot of their own influence in there.

 

Wiacek inked art from 87 is solid but sorta standard.

 

Milgrom and Barta inked Liefeld were pretty weak.

 

And I still think his best stuff was when he inked himself towards the end of NM and beginning of XF. Clearly plenty disagree:)

[RabidFerret]

Let's clarify something, so everyone's on the same page:

 

This entire thread, no one (that I have seen) has said anything along the lines of "what you collect sucks, what I collect rules." The discussion has never, at any time, been dismissive of the excitement of Liefeld's work, especially to younger people who first saw it in the late 80's/early 90's. It WAS exciting. It WAS different. It WAS cool.

 

And no one has said anything to take away from that. If some of the participants in this discussion were actual kids, and cynical adults were telling them that liking (insert current cool thing here) was dumb, and they should be ashamed for liking it, that would be one thing.

 

But that's not the case (though, I suspect that in many of these discussions, that's precisely who is being addressed: the child in the mind, whose memories are offended.)

 

Poseidon Adventure (1972) is a terrible, awful, terrible movie. But to my 8 year old self, it was one of the greatest movies I ever saw on Saturday afternoon TV. I can separate what my adult self knows about the reality from the cherished memories of my 8 year old self, and say "yeah, man, that movie was an absolute disaster...and not the good kind. But MAN, I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid!"...and neither is offended nor dismissed.

 

 

Anyone can like any artwork for any reason they want, and not have to defend it to others. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it" needs no explanation.

 

But when we start analyzing it, that's when we have to face reality and accept the work for whatever....good, bad, or indifferent....it is.

 

 

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man.

 

 

But I still challenge the last point, and this blanket "accept it for what it is", with the tone that it's universally bad and there's no disputing that.

 

To this day I continue to look at his prime work and learn from it. Sure, there are plenty of things you learn to avoid, but there's plenty to still learn from. The way Liefeld inked himself on X-Force #1 still influences the way I ink. The way he tried to make every panel interesting and "awesome" is a valid positive because it engaged the audience and pulled them in. Even if it's the passion of a 12 year old mind, you don't hear that same passion for a large number of other books and artists we read at that time. Even if it's only appealing to a 12 year old, there's something there that makes it so.

 

I don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, but there are some things he did right, at least for a little while.

[Prince Namor]

Let's clarify something, so everyone's on the same page:

 

This entire thread, no one (that I have seen) has said anything along the lines of "what you collect sucks, what I collect rules." The discussion has never, at any time, been dismissive of the excitement of Liefeld's work, especially to younger people who first saw it in the late 80's/early 90's. It WAS exciting. It WAS different. It WAS cool.

 

And no one has said anything to take away from that. If some of the participants in this discussion were actual kids, and cynical adults were telling them that liking (insert current cool thing here) was dumb, and they should be ashamed for liking it, that would be one thing.

 

But that's not the case (though, I suspect that in many of these discussions, that's precisely who is being addressed: the child in the mind, whose memories are offended.)

 

Poseidon Adventure (1972) is a terrible, awful, terrible movie. But to my 8 year old self, it was one of the greatest movies I ever saw on Saturday afternoon TV. I can separate what my adult self knows about the reality from the cherished memories of my 8 year old self, and say "yeah, man, that movie was an absolute disaster...and not the good kind. But MAN, I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid!"...and neither is offended nor dismissed.

 

 

Anyone can like any artwork for any reason they want, and not have to defend it to others. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it" needs no explanation.

 

But when we start analyzing it, that's when we have to face reality and accept the work for whatever....good, bad, or indifferent....it is.

 

 

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man.

 

 

But I still challenge the last point, and this blanket "accept it for what it is", with the tone that it's universally bad and there's no disputing that.

 

To this day I continue to look at his prime work and learn from it. Sure, there are plenty of things you learn to avoid, but there's plenty to still learn from. The way Liefeld inked himself on X-Force #1 still influences the way I ink. The way he tried to make every panel interesting and "awesome" is a valid positive because it engaged the audience and pulled them in. Even if it's the passion of a 12 year old mind, you don't hear that same passion for a large number of other books and artists we read at that time. Even if it's only appealing to a 12 year old, there's something there that makes it so.

 

I don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, but there are some things he did right, at least for a little while.

 

Well, if you don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, then I can kind of see what you mean.

 

Then again, storytelling ability, backgrounds (perspective), and anatomy are the ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS of SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING in the SUPERHERO GENRE.

 

When Marvel, Archie, Harvey, and to some degree DC all had 'House Styles', following those essential guidelines, it led to a fertile period of expansion through the Silver Age and into the Bronze Age. The new talent that started to take over learned those essentials and continued that into the Copper Age as the comics and publishers expanded like no one had seen since the pre-code days.

 

Then Liefeld got rich without being able to properly draw and all hell broke loose. McFarlane started to do more and more splashes and not worry about storytelling. Even Jim Lee got drawn into their little circle... leaving Marvel to try and duplicate the success of those three, by giving any Liefeld clone off the street a chance to draw.

 

Oh my God, it was the most awful time for comics. Ugliest stuff ever.

If I wanted to read a superhero comic I had to pick up a DC comic for god's sake!!!

Just to get away from that ugly nonsense!

 

Dave Ross and Tim Dzon?

Rik Levins?

Dan Panosian?

Mike Manley (at that time)?

Andrew Wildman?

Steve Montano?

 

You know how many of those books got cancelled because those guys were doing the best Rob Liefeld impression they could?

 

And what did McFarlane, Lee and Liefeld do with the success they achieved?

Get better? Create the greatest new ideas comics had ever seen? End world hunger?

 

Not even close.

 

Todd stopped drawing and kept himself afloat by creating the greatest action figures ever.

Jim Lee stopped drawing to run a comic book studio.

Rob Liefeld, who couldn't draw in the first place, KEPT DRAWING and WENT BANKRUPT.

 

Our heroes of the comic book profession!

 

 

 

 

 

[kav]

Anyone who gets paid to draw and stops drawing was never an artist in the first place but a hack

[Lazyboy]

Let's clarify something, so everyone's on the same page:

 

This entire thread, no one (that I have seen) has said anything along the lines of "what you collect sucks, what I collect rules." The discussion has never, at any time, been dismissive of the excitement of Liefeld's work, especially to younger people who first saw it in the late 80's/early 90's. It WAS exciting. It WAS different. It WAS cool.

 

And no one has said anything to take away from that. If some of the participants in this discussion were actual kids, and cynical adults were telling them that liking (insert current cool thing here) was dumb, and they should be ashamed for liking it, that would be one thing.

 

But that's not the case (though, I suspect that in many of these discussions, that's precisely who is being addressed: the child in the mind, whose memories are offended.)

 

Poseidon Adventure (1972) is a terrible, awful, terrible movie. But to my 8 year old self, it was one of the greatest movies I ever saw on Saturday afternoon TV. I can separate what my adult self knows about the reality from the cherished memories of my 8 year old self, and say "yeah, man, that movie was an absolute disaster...and not the good kind. But MAN, I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid!"...and neither is offended nor dismissed.

 

 

Anyone can like any artwork for any reason they want, and not have to defend it to others. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it" needs no explanation.

 

But when we start analyzing it, that's when we have to face reality and accept the work for whatever....good, bad, or indifferent....it is.

 

 

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man.

 

 

But I still challenge the last point, and this blanket "accept it for what it is", with the tone that it's universally bad and there's no disputing that.

 

To this day I continue to look at his prime work and learn from it. Sure, there are plenty of things you learn to avoid, but there's plenty to still learn from. The way Liefeld inked himself on X-Force #1 still influences the way I ink. The way he tried to make every panel interesting and "awesome" is a valid positive because it engaged the audience and pulled them in. Even if it's the passion of a 12 year old mind, you don't hear that same passion for a large number of other books and artists we read at that time. Even if it's only appealing to a 12 year old, there's something there that makes it so.

 

I don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, but there are some things he did right, at least for a little while.

Since it is possible to have an exciting style without being fundamentally clueless and unsound, your "point" is moot.

[HarveySwick]

Is that Rai in the fourth panel?!?!

 

 

repost

[slym2none]

Why not, it looks like his grandfather in the second panel.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[RockMyAmadeus]

Let's clarify something, so everyone's on the same page:

 

This entire thread, no one (that I have seen) has said anything along the lines of "what you collect sucks, what I collect rules." The discussion has never, at any time, been dismissive of the excitement of Liefeld's work, especially to younger people who first saw it in the late 80's/early 90's. It WAS exciting. It WAS different. It WAS cool.

 

And no one has said anything to take away from that. If some of the participants in this discussion were actual kids, and cynical adults were telling them that liking (insert current cool thing here) was dumb, and they should be ashamed for liking it, that would be one thing.

 

But that's not the case (though, I suspect that in many of these discussions, that's precisely who is being addressed: the child in the mind, whose memories are offended.)

 

Poseidon Adventure (1972) is a terrible, awful, terrible movie. But to my 8 year old self, it was one of the greatest movies I ever saw on Saturday afternoon TV. I can separate what my adult self knows about the reality from the cherished memories of my 8 year old self, and say "yeah, man, that movie was an absolute disaster...and not the good kind. But MAN, I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid!"...and neither is offended nor dismissed.

 

 

Anyone can like any artwork for any reason they want, and not have to defend it to others. "I enjoy it because I enjoy it" needs no explanation.

 

But when we start analyzing it, that's when we have to face reality and accept the work for whatever....good, bad, or indifferent....it is.

 

 

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man.

 

 

But I still challenge the last point, and this blanket "accept it for what it is", with the tone that it's universally bad and there's no disputing that.

 

To this day I continue to look at his prime work and learn from it. Sure, there are plenty of things you learn to avoid, but there's plenty to still learn from. The way Liefeld inked himself on X-Force #1 still influences the way I ink. The way he tried to make every panel interesting and "awesome" is a valid positive because it engaged the audience and pulled them in. Even if it's the passion of a 12 year old mind, you don't hear that same passion for a large number of other books and artists we read at that time. Even if it's only appealing to a 12 year old, there's something there that makes it so.

 

I don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, but there are some things he did right, at least for a little while.

 

Well, if you don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, then I can kind of see what you mean.

 

Then again, storytelling ability, backgrounds (perspective), and anatomy are the ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS of SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING in the SUPERHERO GENRE.

 

When Marvel, Archie, Harvey, and to some degree DC all had 'House Styles', following those essential guidelines, it led to a fertile period of expansion through the Silver Age and into the Bronze Age. The new talent that started to take over learned those essentials and continued that into the Copper Age as the comics and publishers expanded like no one had seen since the pre-code days.

 

Then Liefeld got rich without being able to properly draw and all hell broke loose. McFarlane started to do more and more splashes and not worry about storytelling. Even Jim Lee got drawn into their little circle... leaving Marvel to try and duplicate the success of those three, by giving any Liefeld clone off the street a chance to draw.

 

Oh my God, it was the most awful time for comics. Ugliest stuff ever.

If I wanted to read a superhero comic I had to pick up a DC comic for god's sake!!!

Just to get away from that ugly nonsense!

 

Dave Ross and Tim Dzon?

Rik Levins?

Dan Panosian?

Mike Manley (at that time)?

Andrew Wildman?

Steve Montano?

 

You know how many of those books got cancelled because those guys were doing the best Rob Liefeld impression they could?

 

And what did McFarlane, Lee and Liefeld do with the success they achieved?

Get better? Create the greatest new ideas comics had ever seen? End world hunger?

 

Not even close.

 

Todd stopped drawing and kept himself afloat by creating the greatest action figures ever.

Jim Lee stopped drawing to run a comic book studio.

Rob Liefeld, who couldn't draw in the first place, KEPT DRAWING and WENT BANKRUPT.

 

Our heroes of the comic book profession!

 

 

 

 

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

I will only respond with this:

 

 

This is the kind of absolute amateur trash that is Liefeld's legacy.

 

:facepalm:

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

This is...a surprisingly solid post from you. Good stuff man.

 

.

 

 

Funny what you see when you stop being a dink and pay attention for a bit, eh?

[RabidFerret]

Funny what you see when you stop being a dink and pay attention for a bit, eh?

 

Hahaha, no, its not that, it's that you wrote a fair minded post.

 

Clearly that era has ended quick:)

[RabidFerret]

Well, if you don't look at Liefeld for his storytelling ability or his backgrounds or his anatomy, then I can kind of see what you mean.

 

Then again, storytelling ability, backgrounds (perspective), and anatomy are the ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS of SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING in the SUPERHERO GENRE.

 

I read comics for fun and entertainment. This is not a college class where people are trying to achieve high grades and appease a textbook definition of good and bad.

 

Yes, storytelling is incredibly important, but it's not everything. I would generally prefer a lesser artist with more skill telling a story, no doubt. And yeah, Liefeld certainly falls at the other end of the spectrum.

 

But comics are not about having 1 or 2 core skills on a checklist. It's about telling a story and entertaining your audience.

 

And let me throw out another thought - what comic art sells for the most money? What is it that the vast majority of collectors chase after and appreciate? Is it the sequential storytelling? The panel pages? Or is it the covers, the splashes, and the doublepage spreads?

 

It's the art with the least amount of storytelling possible.

 

And there are plenty of amazing artists who do nothing else these days but covers - Art Adams and Brian Bolland come to mind right away. I believe Bolland's last feature length sequential story was The Killing Joke?

 

So continuing to stick with this attitude that storytelling trumps all and artists are defined largely on their storytelling is ignoring a large number of artists and what fans seem to focus on.

 

Then Liefeld got rich without being able to properly draw and all hell broke loose. McFarlane started to do more and more splashes and not worry about storytelling. Even Jim Lee got drawn into their little circle... leaving Marvel to try and duplicate the success of those three, by giving any Liefeld clone off the street a chance to draw.

 

Oh my God, it was the most awful time for comics. Ugliest stuff ever.

If I wanted to read a superhero comic I had to pick up a DC comic for god's sake!!!

Just to get away from that ugly nonsense!

 

Dave Ross and Tim Dzon?

Rik Levins?

Dan Panosian?

Mike Manley (at that time)?

Andrew Wildman?

Steve Montano?

 

You know how many of those books got cancelled because those guys were doing the best Rob Liefeld impression they could?

 

And this is all Liefeld's fault how?

 

Because Marvel became greedy? Because the standards for artists dropped? Because Liefeld's books sold and they paid him well?

 

I'm with you 100% that the world of comics went to complete mess in the wake of the boom, but this is half of my point in this thread - fandom continues to point the finger at one person, a cog in the machine, and tries to put this all on his shoulders. He was one person in an industry that employed hundreds or thousands. Let's ignore the publisher who kept approving the stories and art. Let's ignore the investors who were demanding higher profits at all costs. Let's ignore the fans and speculators who bought all this stuff. Let's instead focus on one person who rode the wave.

 

And what did McFarlane, Lee and Liefeld do with the success they achieved?

Get better? Create the greatest new ideas comics had ever seen? End world hunger?

 

Not even close.

 

Todd stopped drawing and kept himself afloat by creating the greatest action figures ever.

Jim Lee stopped drawing to run a comic book studio.

Rob Liefeld, who couldn't draw in the first place, KEPT DRAWING and WENT BANKRUPT.

 

Our heroes of the comic book profession!

 

I don't even know where this rant is coming from. Are you seriously insinuating that successful comic book artists are supposed to stop world hunger?

 

McFarlane continues to draw to this day, just not penciling comics. Follow him on FB or Twitter and you'll see all the work he continues to do, inking Spawn, drawing for his toy business, designing entire video game universes, character art for others, directing music videos, etc. He's arguably the most actively creative person of the 3 you list.

 

Jim Lee stopped drawing for a brief time while when he ran Wildstorm and nurtured an entire studio of artists, before he took over much of DC and has continued to work steadily since on Hush, Superman, B&R, etc. I'd even be tempted to suggest he may be more productive today than he was when he was doing Uncanny and X-Men.

 

And Rob Liefeld, for all the negativity, has continued to draw comics nonstop for 20+ years. Yeah, he was a horrible businessman. He squandered his money. But he didn't flee the industry like Platt or Keown or the vast majority of artists from that era. He continued to work. And that says a lot.

 

 

And yeah, what DID they do...except start Image Comics? Revolutionize the comic industry? Give artists back the rights to their own stories and a place for them to get their work out? A company that has lasted 20+ years and is arguably one of the best publishers in the market today?

Edited May 9, 2014 by RabidFerret

[RockMyAmadeus]

Funny what you see when you stop being a dink and pay attention for a bit, eh?

 

Hahaha, no, its not that, it's that you wrote a fair minded post.

 

Clearly that era has ended quick:)

 

That's ok. I accept that as part of the process of coming to terms with your Liefeld induced deliria.

 

[RabidFerret]

Funny what you see when you stop being a dink and pay attention for a bit, eh?

 

Hahaha, no, its not that, it's that you wrote a fair minded post.

 

Clearly that era has ended quick:)

 

That's ok. I accept that as part of the process of coming to terms with your Liefeld induced deliria.

 

 

 

I think it's pretty clear I can't be cured:)

[RockMyAmadeus]

And yeah, what DID they do...except start Image Comics? Revolutionize the comic industry? Give artists back the rights to their own stories and a place for them to get their work out? A company that has lasted 20+ years and is arguably one of the best publishers in the market today?

 

You are hopeless.

 

 

Image today has nothing to do with Rob Liefeld, almost nothing to do with Jim Lee, and very little to do with Todd McFarlane. Image got where it is now despite these three, not because of them.

[kav]

Final word: even if an artist is reviled by most, if some people can appreciate him, that's ok. Arguing about something someone else likes in pointless. If he like it, he likes it.

You can't judge someone for what they appreciate. And, it takes a lot of courage to stick up for Liefeld.

[dupont2005]

Is that Rai in the fourth panel?!?!

 

 

repost

That chick has a sweet goatee. Is that on purpose?

 

A decent bulge in that leotard as well

Edited May 9, 2014 by dupont2005

[RockMyAmadeus]

Final word: even if an artist is reviled by most, if some people can appreciate him, that's ok. Arguing about something someone else likes in pointless. If he like it, he likes it.

You can't judge someone for what they appreciate. And, it takes a lot of courage to stick up for Liefeld.

 

Um.

 

Yeah.