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

[RockMyAmadeus]

Folks, can we PLEASE not post HUGE pics that force people to scroll left and right to read? Please?

[kav]

Really

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

 

 

Ok so you like to repeat yourself and use ALL CAPS. Suddenly your argument is sound and reasonable! Oh wait, no it's not...

 

Out of one side of your mouth you're arguing storytelling is essential and out of the other that it doesn't matter for the artists you like.

 

 

Never said that. Nice try.

 

I know! I'll use this same way of arguing on you.

 

 

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

 

Oh really, they're doing great storytelling on their covers? Seriously?

 

Or this one is clearly about how the Joker takes up photography, right?

 

Or how about his one? How to draw a comic book?

 

I really wanted to find the cover of the girl on the toilet. I assume that was about getting bad Mexican food? Riveting!

 

They are great covers, very well rendered and creative and they draw you in, but they certainly don't tell you what happens inside. Not at all.

 

 

Yes. Yes they do. Nice try though. Just because you're used to one dimensional art that shows wrestling poses, doesn't mean that other art isn't able to present ideas that are more abstract and require thought.

 

It might take some practice.... it's so illogical....

 

So you're saying Brian Bolland doesn't know how to draw? Who are you to know what's in his refrigerator?

 

 

 

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.

 

Again and again you people keep assuming you know Liefeld and his intentions. There doesn't need to be some altruistic goal in creating a comic book. For most professionals it's a job. Liefeld has repeatedly stated that what he cares about is creating properties that he can license in the future - which is exactly what Marvel and DC and Wildstorm were bought for - their properties.

 

And as a few people confirmed clearly, he's done that well - people love the work of Alan Moore on Supreme and Deadpool and Prophet and even the Allred version of X-Force.

 

So by the standard of creating properties, I'd say he's done fine.

 

So now you're saying you hate Alan Moore? You've never even MET his beard. He wrote all of the Talking Heads best songs, and saved Ethiopia from drowning.

 

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.

 

So now the creative process doesn't matter, it's just about the payoff? So in effect, you're now entirely supporting Liefeld's approach to cranking out art to make money?

 

Cuz that's what it sounds like?

 

 

You're reading comprehension is as poor as Rob Liefeld's hyena! Long Duck Dong!

 

 

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?

 

How much work do you remember Jim Lee doing back in his heyday? He did a handful of issues of Punisher War Journal before moving to UXM where he did spot issues for the first year or two. I think his only consistent run on the book was maybe 10-15 issues long? Then less than a year on X-Men.

 

It's not like Jim produced a book/month for years straight. Todd did. Liefeld did. Jim was slower.

 

If I wanted to waste the time calculating I suspect we'd be surprised to see his output has been steady for decades.

 

 

So you think math is a waste of time? You think numbers are stupid? How many numbers can you name?

 

 

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.

 

What'd they do for our hobby?

 

Yeah, guys like Neal Adams pushed for artist rights...and never got them. Frank Miller did when he was a huge success. But to this day the Kirbys are still fighting tooth and nail.

 

I don't think you remember well the world at that time. There was talk about all of this but it wasn't happening. If you worked at Marvel and DC you got nothing. If you left you struggled to stay afloat.

 

The world today, full of places like Archaia and Image, is 1000% more encouraging to your artists and their rights. Simply brushing aside a pivotal moment in time as if it was inevitable is just doing a disservice to the whole industry.

 

[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.

 

Please, enlighten me with your wisdom - who would you put in that category?

 

Rob Liefeld - despite your constant insistance to the contrary - is not important. He sold a lot of books, made a lot of money and that's it. He didn't "revolutionize" anything aside from figuring out a way to rip people off and never end up in court over it.

 

He screwed people over, appears to have committed a variety of white collar crimes that got swept under the carpet all while miraculously getting worse at his trade the longer he stays in it.

 

Saying he's "important" implies he has contributed something of value, which he has not. He's done a great many things, but changing the face of comics? You have got to be kidding.

 

Giving him any sort of credit or praise is completely irresponsible and ignorant of what he's done. I could care less whether you like his art, and everyone is entitled to like what they like - but you really come off as uninformed and mindless standing up for someone's in the profession who has done the things he's done.

 

As a collector, you probably don't care that your favorite artist is reviled for his unethical choices and that you can separate his actions from his work, but you should stop being ignorant to the fact that 98% of everyone else in the hobby holds him accountable for the things he has and hasn't done.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS. Something that is not frequently considered, but is nevertheless true:

 

Image Comics ACTIVELY HARMED the ENTIRE comics industry at the time, ESPECIALLY other "independent" creators.

 

How?

 

Because all retailers have to budget. They have to set aside money to pay for what they think will sell, usually a few months in advance.

 

If Youngblood #3 is coming out, it will sell, and it will sell big. So, retailers need to set aside enough to BUY all those copies of Youngblood #3. In the process, they unfortunately have to focus their capital on Youngblood #3, instead of, oh, say, I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6.

 

Meanwhile, Youngblood #3 doesn't come out....but I, Lusiphur #7 DOES, and Bone #6 DOES, and all that capital is still tied up in a book that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST AS ORIGINAL ART YET...and the retailers COULD have used that capital to buy more copies of I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6, and made some MORE money through turnover, and THEN have focused that capital on YB #3...when it ever came out. Instead, it was already tied up, and couldn't be risked on better independent books that actually SHOWED UP.

 

Image Comics did IMMENSE damage to retailers and other independent creators during this time period. IMMENSE. And this was a HUGE reason for the collapse in 1994-1996.

 

So, spare me this "Image Comics revolutionized the industry" bullshift. They DID....in all the WRONG ways.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'll bet RF didn't contend with coming up against this board's industry historians and researchers in this discussion.

 

 

I suspect, every other place he's pulled this stuff, he's gotten the "yeah, well, Liefeld sucks, so there!", with people who were completely uneducated about art, the history of the industry, and particularly Image Comics, and incapable of forming any coherent arguments.

 

[Prince Namor]

PS. Something that is not frequently considered, but is nevertheless true:

 

Image Comics ACTIVELY HARMED the ENTIRE comics industry at the time, ESPECIALLY other "independent" creators.

 

How?

 

Because all retailers have to budget. They have to set aside money to pay for what they think will sell, usually a few months in advance.

 

If Youngblood #3 is coming out, it will sell, and it will sell big. So, retailers need to set aside enough to BUY all those copies of Youngblood #3. In the process, they unfortunately have to focus their capital on Youngblood #3, instead of, oh, say, I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6.

 

Meanwhile, Youngblood #3 doesn't come out....but I, Lusiphur #7 DOES, and Bone #6 DOES, and all that capital is still tied up in a book that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST AS ORIGINAL ART YET...and the retailers COULD have used that capital to buy more copies of I, Lusiphur #7 or Bone #6, and made some MORE money through turnover, and THEN have focused that capital on YB #3...when it ever came out. Instead, it was already tied up, and couldn't be risked on better independent books that actually SHOWED UP.

 

Image Comics did IMMENSE damage to retailers and other independent creators during this time period. IMMENSE. And this was a HUGE reason for the collapse in 1994-1996.

 

So, spare me this "Image Comics revolutionized the industry" bullshift. They DID....in all the WRONG ways.

 

 

That's 100% correct.

 

They found a way to glut the market (Marvel's M.O.) without actually putting any product on the shelves!

 

Retailers were still going to buy Marvel and DC books... but when it came to having to cut some books from the order... yep... independent small press creators.

 

Champions of the Industry!

[Prince Namor]

I'll bet RF didn't contend with coming up against this board's industry historians and researchers in this discussion.

 

 

I suspect, every other place he's pulled this stuff, he's gotten the "yeah, well, Liefeld sucks, so there!", with people who were completely uneducated about art, the history of the industry, and particularly Image Comics, and incapable of forming any coherent arguments.

 

 

Which he would've fit in with nicely.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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 ).

 

Absolute fact.

 

They were sheltered by a company that already existed. Even they were unprepared for the rabidity with which the market desired their work.

 

But once they got on their feet, they jettisoned Malibu as fast as they could.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'll bet RF didn't contend with coming up against this board's industry historians and researchers in this discussion.

 

 

I suspect, every other place he's pulled this stuff, he's gotten the "yeah, well, Liefeld sucks, so there!", with people who were completely uneducated about art, the history of the industry, and particularly Image Comics, and incapable of forming any coherent arguments.

 

 

Which he would've fit in with nicely.

 

I'll give him a little credit...he's a little better.

 

Not much....but a little.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's 100% correct.

 

They found a way to glut the market (Marvel's M.O.) without actually putting any product on the shelves!

 

It was the greatest con in the entire history of the comics industry.

 

At least...at LEAST...Marvel made sure their trash actually showed up, month in and month out.

 

 

But this guy was a kid when all this happened, not an adult....so he had no idea what was going on in the industry outside of his local comic store racks.

 

And in the ensuing time, he has completely failed to educate himself otherwise....but has the chutzpah, the moxy, to keep making his arguments.

 

He really ought to give it up.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

You misread my post. I didn't, and wouldn't, say that.

 

See above posts for the whole explanation.

 

Reader's Digest version: it's one thing to produce a few books a year, and say "you'll get 'em when you get 'em" (Fantagraphics)...it's another to promise them next week, and they show up 9 months later (Image.)

[MR SigS]

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.

 

[Maccai3]

i would argue that the Killing Joke cover is very telling of the story

 

it could be the best cover ever IMO

 

 

Good lord, I do think that Liefeld fan is high....but best cover ever? I wouldn't even rank it in my top 1000. It's a very, VERY good illustration, but not a good comic book cover IMHO.

 

it depends what you're after, Batman 225 or 235 are my favourite for telling a story but Killing Joke is so memorable that i think it surpasses them for what a cover is supposed to do (i.e. being attracted to/buying the book)

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

But that does not mean he wasn't a great salesman, and didn't fill a marketplace with what people wanted.

 

Oh, you've got that right. The marketplace wanted the promise of ultrahot books, and that's exactly what they got: the promise of ultrahot books and nothing else. The market got precisely what it asked for.

 

The books sucked, yes. They never hit deadlines, yes. But without that constant steam of media attention and rising sales Image would very easily have vanished in a year(as many pundits repeatedly claimed it would).

 

The arguments about Image Comics have gone on for years and years, but guess what - they're still around, and producing far better comics than Marvel or DC are.

 

Image Comics is still around despite Liefeld, and to a lesser extent Lee, and to a lesser extent McFarlane. Liefeld had nothing to do with Image "re-imagining" itself 15 years ago. Eric Stephenson has done far, far, far more to accomplish what you state than Rob Liefeld has ever done, or ever could do.

 

It's not much different from any industry where it takes years and growth for a company to find it's real place. It's not like Marvel Comics appeared in 1960 and just started cranking out amazing books. It was a barely surviving vestige of 30 years before that had mostly copied what everyone else did to make a profit. There was little to no art form then as much as a desire to make a living. It was only after decades of time and near collapse that it became what everyone now thinks of.

 

1. Timely Comics showed up in 1939. Timely was on the ground floor as much as anyone else was. And while some of the work was derivative of Superman and National, it wasn't all. And Timely managed to stay alive, while others like Fawcett (sued out of existence), Dell, Quality, and Standard did not.

 

2. Valiant comics appeared in 1990 and just started cranking out amazing books, on time, monthly, by late 1991.

 

3. Pacific Comics appeared in 1982 and just started cranking out amazing books (though the Schanes' poor management sunk them.)

 

4. First Comics appeared in 1981 and just started cranking out amazing books.

 

5. It was the DIRECT MARKET, more than anything else, that made these ventures successful. The rules were now different, and yes, it allowed companies to skip the "years and growth for a company to find its place."

 

Valiant I think is a great example here - what happened to them? They went under. They hit a high peak where everyone clamored for their books and the prices soared...and then crashed because people stopped caring and they were poorly run and had to be resurrected to be around today.

 

Valiant went under because they failed to be responsible with what they had. They printed comics with greedy glee, and failed to understand the longterm effects of what they were doing. People didn't "stop caring"....Valiant committed suicide by devouring itself.

 

And the Valiant that exists today has absolutely nothing...nothing....to do with the company Jim Shooter founded, except the trademarks.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that they rapidly "found their place."

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

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.

 

And where did any of that start from? Would Kieth have left Marvel to start his own book? Doubtful.

 

"Left Marvel"?

 

Kieth didn't WORK for Marvel. He did work for HIRE, not contract work.

 

Kieth had been an independent artist for 8 years before doing any work for Marvel.

 

Image was in the right place at the right time for KIETH, not the other way around. He would have found a way to publish Maxx...just as Aragones found a way to publish Groo....whether Image existed or not.

 

And then you point to Stormwatch, a Jim Lee book, and Supreme, a Rob Liefeld book, again refusing to give credit to the creators, and only those who followed along afterwards.

 

 

Stormwatch was never a "Jim Lee" book. Supreme was never a "Rob Liefeld" book. That their names appeared on the books in the beginning means little to nothing. By the time Alan Moore got to Supreme, and Warren Ellis got to Stormwatch, they had been abandoned by Lee and Liefeld as creators for years.

 

And, AGAIN, you're changing what I said to make your weak arguments sound better. No one is "refusing" to give anyone credit. Liefeld and Lee don't DESERVE credit for these books, because they had almost nothing to do with them.

 

 

Clearly you have a thing for Alan Moore. He is sexy, I'll give you that.

 

I DO have a thing for Alan Moore, though you wouldn't know that from this discussion, this being the first time his name has been brought up.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Oh really, they're doing great storytelling on their covers? Seriously?

 

Or this one is clearly about how the Joker takes up photography, right?

 

Or how about his one? How to draw a comic book?

 

.

 

These are irrational, illogical, fallacious arguments. The exclusion of one possible meaning does not therefore exclude all other possible meanings.

 

 

The cover to Killing Joke has nothing to do with the Joker "taking up photography"....but it DOES reveal a crucial plot point to the story, and, in that respect, it is a good example of STORYtelling.

 

The cover to Animal Man #5 has nothing to do with "how to draw a comic book"...it is a METAPHOR, used to describe both the story inside, and the direction that Morrison was going with the series. As such, it performs DOUBLE duty as a STORYtelling device.

 

Metaphor is one of the better storytelling devices that exist. Only a LITERALIST would fail to recognize the validity of both those covers as telling the story.

 

You argue like a teenager, filled with angst, yet utterly devoid of basic logic, inventing points simply because they sound good in your head at the time, but which have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

You: "Rob Liefeld is the greatest artist, EVER!"

 

Logic: "What a minute. What about the standard rules of art, like perspective, anatomical accuracy, proportion, and all the rest?"

 

You: "Hogwash! Liefeld doesn't have to follow any stupid "rules", he's EXCITING!!"

 

Logic: "But even the most exciting 'art' has to follow basic rules, or it will eventually get stale and boring."

 

You: "You don't know what's going on in his mind! You don't know that he doesn't know the rules!"

 

Logic: "How can you possibly make such a claim, when there is absolutely no evidence, over the course of nearly 30 years, that Rob Liefeld "knows" the standard rules of art? That's like saying you're the greatest inventor ever...you just haven't invented anything yet. It's a fallacious argument."

 

You: "Oh, so you're saying Rob Liefeld doesn't know the rules of art? How can you possibly know that? Are you a mindreader?

 

Logic: "Yes, by the complete lack of any demonstration, it can be quite reasonably concluded that Rob Liefeld does not know the basic rules of art."

 

You: "You just hate Rob Liefeld, and are jealous of his success."

 

Logic: "That's right, it's all stemming from jealousy. Brilliant deductive reasoning, there. Of course, that's not even remotely what I said, but you seem quite impervious to facts."

 

You: "Here's a lamp for you."

 

 

Just stop...you're making yourself look incredibly silly.

 

[Chip Cataldo]

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

David Peterson and Mouse Guard could be argued as a huge moment in time since he did a strange format book that has since been copied by many,

 

 

 

But Liefeld created a large number of popular characters still known to this day, created a comic company, created a clone army, and brought a lot of people into the hobby.

 

Liefeld CO-created (talk about "refusing to give credit") those characters (and "large number"...?), created a clone army that either got better or found themselves out of a job, and brought a lot of people into the hobby, who all promptly left when they realized what they had gotten into.

 

Do you simply not know that the industry crashed, from which it has NEVER recovered, in 1994-96?

 

For good or for bad, there's no doubt that without him the comic book world would be a very different place today.

 

Right. We wouldn't have Cable, we wouldn't have Deadpool, and....?

 

The fact is, without Rob Liefeld, the comic book industry wouldn't have been changed much at all. As Chuck said, it was MCFARLANE, not Liefeld, who came up with Image, so there goes that one.

 

And I can name 50 people who are more important to comics in the last 25 years than Rob Liefeld.

 

Here, let's start:

 

Alex Ross

Neil Gaiman

Grant Morrison

Jim Lee

Karen Berger

Ron Perelman (ugh)

Steve Geppi

Brian Michael Bendis

Robert Kirkman

Geoff Johns

 

etc...etc...etc...

[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.

 

That's not what he meant.

 

 

Gawd, how I hate the "growing roses" defense for being lazy. Not only is it BS, but it puts down dozens of artists who have been able to get high quality work done on time for decades.

Depends on your standard of quality. Like I stated earlier, I find monthly comics to be universally low quality.