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

[RabidFerret]

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.

 

 

What planet do you live on where everything a person accomplishes can be cast aside with excuses?

 

Image Comics would not exist without Rob Liefeld. Period. End of story.

 

Liefeld decided to self publish his own books. He decided to leave Marvel. He got McFarlane on board and together they brought on the best and most popular creators of the day. Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

Creator rights began on day 1 of Image and led to a large variety of people taking the leap, and not just at Image. Prior to Image every set of artists who tried to set up their own company failed. None lasted.

 

 

Liefeld was the creator and driving force behind Image Comics, Deadpool, Cable, and Domino - all successful to this day. Whine as much as you want, it is what it is. There may not be a more important figure in comic book history over the last 25 years.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

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:)

 

The intervention is starting to fail.

[RockMyAmadeus]

together they brought on the best and most popular creators of the day.

 

 

I wasn't aware that Frank Miller, Jeff Smith, Barry Windsor-Smith, and Charles Vess were Image founders, too!

 

 

"Best" and "most popular" were definitely NOT convergent during that time period.

[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.

 

 

 

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

 

The intervention is starting to fail.

 

It's always darkest before the breakthrough, as the grip of the addiction on the ego forces it to fight for its life....until it is finally, fatally, put to an end.

 

[dupont2005]

While I appreciate what Image has done for the industry, it was not founded with the best creators of the time. In fact, I'm not a fan of a single one of the founders work.

 

Not a single one.

 

But they got Sam Keith over there pretty quick and he did alright, except for the unfortunate (and I'm assuming mandatory) guest shot by Pitt.

[Maccai3]

just realised i have never read anything that Image have put out, checked a list and the only thing that jumped out that'd interest me (i'm sure there are more but by name alone) was The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft (2009), unfortunately Wikipedia linked me to Ron Howard's page...Howard being the only similarity in the two

[RockMyAmadeus]

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content.

 

It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out.

 

A.

 

YEAR.

 

And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6.

 

The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years.

 

Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane.

 

Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time.

 

The rest...?

 

You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received.

 

By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.)

 

So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

just realised i have never read anything that Image have put out, checked a list and the only thing that jumped out that'd interest me (i'm sure there are more but by name alone) was The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft (2009), unfortunately Wikipedia linked me to Ron Howard's page...Howard being the only similarity in the two

 

There is some quite good stuff published by Image, none of it by "the founders."

 

The Maxx is quite fun, for one.

 

Stormwatch by Ellis is another, as is Supreme by Moore.

 

Then there's been some quite good stuff published in the 21st.

 

Worth checking out.

[RockMyAmadeus]

While I appreciate what Image has done for the industry, it was not founded with the best creators of the time. In fact, I'm not a fan of a single one of the founders work.

 

Not a single one.

 

But they got Sam Keith over there pretty quick and he did alright, except for the unfortunate (and I'm assuming mandatory) guest shot by Pitt.

 

Miller was doing his own thing through Dark Horse with Sin City, Smith was doing Bone (self-published, even, until they fooled him to temporarily join Image), Barry was doing unparalleled work at Valiant, and many others were doing mostly fantastic work on their own.

 

Image....?

 

Shambles.

 

In fact, the company was such a mess that Silvestri LEFT the company in 1996 to form his own company, Top Cow, because of Liefeld. Liefeld got the boot by McFarlane, and two months later, Silvestri was back in the Image fold.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

 

Don't change my point to make your weak argument sound better. No where did I say 'storytelling trumps all' or 'artists are defined largely on their storytelling'.

 

 

WHAT I SAID WAS: "storytelling ability, backgrounds (perspective), and anatomy are the ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS of SEQUENTIAL STORYTELLING in the SUPERHERO GENRE".

 

How'd you miss that? I said it TWICE.

 

Brian Bolland cover? Generally tells a story (or something about the story inside), always understands perspective, and always understands anatomy.

Art Adams cover? Generally tells a story (or something about the story inside), always understands perspective, and always understands anatomy.

That's what a professional does.

Rob Liefeld cover? Rarely tells a story (or something about it), doesn't understand perspective, and doesn't understand anatomy.

 

Pretty easy really.

 

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.

 

I've spent plenty of time in this forum blaming Marvel for many of the ills of this hobby, and blaming the FANS for the ills of this hobby. It's NOT all Rob's fault.

 

But here, in this thread, we're discussing his part of it.

 

He took that success and he didn't make things better. He didn't make himself better. He just kept milking it for more. He just kept milking YOU for more.

 

Todd realized, his comics are dumb. So he expanded into other things.

 

Jim Lee realized his comics were dumb. So he went back to Marvel and DC.

 

Rob never really realized his comics were dumb, and if he did, he had no problem letting the fan boys lap it up.

 

It's embarrassing to this hobby.

 

 

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?

 

No. I'm not.

 

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.

 

And that's the point I'm making. Another great lesson from our heroes. It's not about the creative process, it's about the payoff.

There's no question Todd works hard. Very hard. Seems like he's having a blast doing what he loves.

And that no longer includes drawing comic books.

 

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.

 

NOW he is. His butt's on the line with this New 52 thing and He/DC knows that a Jim Lee book will sell no matter what. He HAS to keep that thing afloat.

Before that it was what... 3 years between New 52 and All Star Batman and Robin 10 issues published over the course of 3 years? 3 years between that and Hush?

 

Slow down buddy! You're getting ready to lap the other two guys walking backwards with one leg tied behind your back!

 

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.

 

The only thing I think it says is: DAMN IT! Why couldn't HE have fled the industry??? Why God??? WHHHHYYYY??

 

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?

 

Revolutionize the comics industry? How?

Artists had left Marvel and DC before that and published there own work.

 

Give artists back the rights to their own stories?

That had been going on for some time, they didn't start that.

 

A place for them (artists) to get their work out?

There were already places for that.

 

Their success today has nothing to do with any of them, other than maybe Todd's money helped nurture it along when those bozos did everything they could to run it as poorly as they did.

 

You ask a good question though.

 

What DID those guys do?

 

All that success.... all that money.... all that power and fame....

 

What'd they do for our hobby?

[Prince Namor]

just realised i have never read anything that Image have put out, checked a list and the only thing that jumped out that'd interest me (i'm sure there are more but by name alone) was The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft (2009), unfortunately Wikipedia linked me to Ron Howard's page...Howard being the only similarity in the two

 

There is some quite good stuff published by Image, none of it by "the founders."

 

The Maxx is quite fun, for one.

 

Stormwatch by Ellis is another, as is Supreme by Moore.

 

Then there's been some quite good stuff published in the 21st.

 

Worth checking out.

 

One of Liefeld's few smart moves: Stepping completely aside and letting Moore take over Supreme. that was good stuff.

 

And those two issues of Youngblood that Moore wrote (with Steve Skroce doing the art) I enjoyed very much.... until the whole thing went bankrupt because Rob could no longer pay the bills.

[dupont2005]

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content.

 

It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out.

 

A.

 

YEAR.

 

And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6.

 

The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years.

 

Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane.

 

Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time.

 

The rest...?

 

You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received.

 

By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.)

 

So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

 

I've never liked monthly comics. I have one monthly comic on my pull list, just one. Many comics on my list have no set schedule, and a year wait between issues is not uncommon. I'm of the opinion that an actual quality work is extremely unlikely to happen in thirty days.

 

 

Not saying any of the Image launch titles were good, just saying I can see a staggering difference in quality between comics that emphasize on schedule when compared to those that release when they're ready. Gary Groth has the same philosophy on schedules, and compare the comics he publishes to the best of the best and you have a run for your money. There's too many comics to keep up with anyway, I don't need my Love And Rockets fix every month.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

 

What planet do you live on where everything a person accomplishes can be cast aside with excuses?

 

Image Comics would not exist without Rob Liefeld. Period. End of story.

 

Liefeld decided to self publish his own books. He decided to leave Marvel. He got McFarlane on board and together they brought on the best and most popular creators of the day. Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

Creator rights began on day 1 of Image and led to a large variety of people taking the leap, and not just at Image. Prior to Image every set of artists who tried to set up their own company failed. None lasted.

 

 

Liefeld was the creator and driving force behind Image Comics, Deadpool, Cable, and Domino - all successful to this day. Whine as much as you want, it is what it is. There may not be a more important figure in comic book history over the last 25 years.

 

That Big Kool-Aid pitcher that comes crashing through walls in those commercials.... you drank that whole thing, man.

 

He got McFarlane on board

 

According to McFarlane, it was the other way around.

 

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years.

 

There really needs to be a 'snickering' icon. I see RMA addressed this misunderstanding of yours quite clearly.

 

Prior to Image every set of artists who tried to set up their own company failed.

 

This may be one of the silliest things you've posted and so grossly incorrect it's downhill ludicrous.

 

Liefeld was the creator and driving force behind Image Comics

 

Image Comics was a bunch of individual creators publishing their own work under an umbrella icon. Rob's all failed.

 

There may not be a more important figure in comic book history over the last 25 years.

X 1,000,000

[Prince Namor]

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content.

 

It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out.

 

A.

 

YEAR.

 

And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6.

 

The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years.

 

Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane.

 

Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time.

 

The rest...?

 

You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received.

 

By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.)

 

So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

 

I've never liked monthly comics. I have one monthly comic on my pull list, just one. Many comics on my list have no set schedule, and a year wait between issues is not uncommon. I'm of the opinion that an actual quality work is extremely unlikely to happen in thirty days.

 

 

Not saying any of the Image launch titles were good, just saying I can see a staggering difference in quality between comics that emphasize on schedule when compared to those that release when they're ready. Gary Groth has the same philosophy on schedules, and compare the comics he publishes to the best of the best and you have a run for your money. There's too many comics to keep up with anyway, I don't need my Love And Rockets fix every month.

 

What about when you're like Liefeld and you're a year apart in issues but the story and art still blow?

[Prince Namor]

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content.

 

It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out.

 

A.

 

YEAR.

 

And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6.

 

The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years.

 

Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane.

 

Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time.

 

The rest...?

 

You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received.

 

By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.)

 

So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

 

I've never liked monthly comics. I have one monthly comic on my pull list, just one. Many comics on my list have no set schedule, and a year wait between issues is not uncommon. I'm of the opinion that an actual quality work is extremely unlikely to happen in thirty days.

 

 

Not saying any of the Image launch titles were good, just saying I can see a staggering difference in quality between comics that emphasize on schedule when compared to those that release when they're ready. Gary Groth has the same philosophy on schedules, and compare the comics he publishes to the best of the best and you have a run for your money. There's too many comics to keep up with anyway, I don't need my Love And Rockets fix every month.

 

And the point RMA is making isn't in regards to 'taking their time = quality of work'.

 

Love and Rockets doesn't solicit an issue, get 500,000 orders for it (which retailers had to budget for) and then NOT deliver it for a year.... THAT is what the problem was.

 

It HURT the smaller publishers, because those 'hot' Image books, that hadn't even been released yet, kept taking up retailers budget money.

 

It also hurt the retailers ultimately, because that money they budgeted for those issues just sat because those books DIDN'T come in, so they couldn't make the sales on those books.

 

By the time those books DID finally come out, they were NOT hot anymore and suddenly retailers were stuck with 200 copies of Brigade #4 or whatever.

[Logan510]

It seems he's also forgotten that Image was initially an imprint of Malibu , so the huge risk the Image founders were taking wasn't that huge ( especially when you consider they all would've been taken back by the big two with open arms if Image had bombed ).

[dupont2005]

I understand that Chuck, but in RMA's post it sounded like someone who can only get five issues per year out is a slacker. I don't think that's the case. Not coming through with solicits is poor managing, but five issues a year is actually a lot of output in the comics I read. A reasonable excuse for not putting out more than five comics in a year is comics actually take time to make when you care about the content. They should have not solicited until the issue was 80% complete or so, waiting on coloring and lettering or whatever.

[dupont2005]

Liefeld launched the first book of the company that set the precedent and was a large part of their output the first 2 years. (Yes, it was fairly bad quality books, but the most vital part of growing as a publisher is having content).

 

The most vital part of growing as a publisher is, precisely as you have said, having content.

 

It took a YEAR for the first five issues of Youngblood to come out.

 

A.

 

YEAR.

 

And then it was ANOTHER year between issues #5 and #6.

 

The company was so horrifically mismanaged, the entire Direct market had to completely rewrite the return and solicitation rules that had been in place for nearly 15 years.

 

Of the original 7 founders, ONE of them....ONE!...managed to put out more than 5 issues in the first year, and that was McFarlane.

 

Portacio was the only one with a reasonable excuse, as he was going through intense family problems at the time.

 

The rest...?

 

You're damn right Liefeld set a precedent: for broken promises, late books (I don't think Image's records for re-solicitations and cancelled solicitations has ever been broken), making the audience wait...and wait....and wait....and screwing retailers over in a GIGANTIC fashion...retailers who made business decisions based on what they were promised, yet never received.

 

By comparison, Valiant put out the same amount books in TWO MONTHS (November & December of 1992) as the ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE IMAGE FOUNDERS for 1992 (18 books.)

 

So, you really ought to think twice about holding the founders of Image up as a good example of a "growing publisher."

 

I've never liked monthly comics. I have one monthly comic on my pull list, just one. Many comics on my list have no set schedule, and a year wait between issues is not uncommon. I'm of the opinion that an actual quality work is extremely unlikely to happen in thirty days.

 

 

Not saying any of the Image launch titles were good, just saying I can see a staggering difference in quality between comics that emphasize on schedule when compared to those that release when they're ready. Gary Groth has the same philosophy on schedules, and compare the comics he publishes to the best of the best and you have a run for your money. There's too many comics to keep up with anyway, I don't need my Love And Rockets fix every month.

 

What about when you're like Liefeld and you're a year apart in issues but the story and art still blow?

Less drek on the shelves

[Prince Namor]

I understand that Chuck, but in RMA's post it sounded like someone who can only get five issues per year out is a slacker. I don't think that's the case. Not coming through with solicits is poor managing, but five issues a year is actually a lot of output in the comics I read. A reasonable excuse for not putting out more than five comics in a year is comics actually take time to make when you care about the content. They should have not solicited until the issue was 80% complete or so, waiting on coloring and lettering or whatever.

 

That's not what he meant.

[Dr. Balls]

There may not be a more important figure in comic book history over the last 25 years.

 

 

I am now convinced RabidFerret is just trolling. No one would legitimately think that, ever.