Delete this - Rob Liefield is unworthy

edited July 2015 in Off Topic
Originally split from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30749

ew shut this topic down, he doesn't deserve his own thread
Square wrote:
raisinbman wrote:
He's a bad artist. Seriously.
He really isn't. Any criticism people have (draws things the same, weird proportions, inconsistency in details) is basically things people used to say about Jack Kirby. The popular opinion of Liefeld will be pretty different in 20 years when people who are ashamed of buying five or more poly-bagged copies of X-Force #1 no longer dominate the comics-Internet world.

~

I simply don't remember most bad covers, more of bad iterations... star.pngstar.pngstar.pngstar.png Capwolf anyone?
10capwolf.jpg

I wouldn't use any cover with the character getting beaten up though.

4-2.jpg
Your defense is the history books will remember him?

icon_rolleyes.gif

Can't really argue with that so I'll just state it again:

The internet has declared him a bad artist. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

But I've gotta side with Eschergirls on this one.
«1

Comments

  • SquareSquare Posts: 380 Mover and Shaker
    raisinbman wrote:
    Your defense is the history books will remember him?

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Can't really argue with that so I'll just state it again:

    The internet has declared him a bad artist. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

    But I've gotta side with Eschergirls on this one.
    Second best selling comic artist of all time. He is also one of the last artists to create new superheroes of any staying power (Cable and Deadpool). So he must have done something right. Really, he gets no credit, just knee-jerk backlash from the hive mind of comic forums. Which he wouldn't if he hadn't been so super popular and put under a hyper intense kind of scrutiny that other artists never get.

    But if the Internet tells you he's bad, it must be true? icon_rolleyes.gif Because people read comics for the realistic body proportions...
  • Square wrote:
    raisinbman wrote:
    Your defense is the history books will remember him?

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Can't really argue with that so I'll just state it again:

    The internet has declared him a bad artist. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

    But I've gotta side with Eschergirls on this one.
    Second best selling comic artist of all time. He is also one of the last artists to create new superheroes of any staying power (Cable and Deadpool). So he must have done something right. Really, he gets no credit, just knee-jerk backlash from the hive mind of comic forums. Which he wouldn't if he hadn't been so super popular and put under a hyper intense kind of scrutiny that other artists never get.

    But if the Internet tells you he's bad, it must be true? icon_rolleyes.gif Because people read comics for the realistic body proportions...
    Selling does not make you immune from being bad. Do you truly think whatever the top 10 songs are right now deserve to be there? That their quality, messages, and how hard the artists have worked is represented in the top 10?

    Cars is a selling disney franchise. It's mediocre.

    Hottest rapper out is hardly the best.

    Pokemon games say you can catch 'em all, but you actually can't.

    the greatest athlete of all time, serena williams, isn't revered as she should be

    Young Justice got cancelled because it attracted women viewers and didn't sell toys. They changed its timeslot relentlessly. Does that show in "sales"?

    Avatar got screwed by Nick yet still went on to show progressive, real moments for kid's T.V.. It undoubtly "sold" less because Nick forced it too.

    Then there's Elvis

    Then there's the beatles


    Don't get me started on movies....go look at the top 10 movies and tell me all of them belong there.

    Other artists never get scrutiny? rofl

    So you're arguing people don't read for realistic body proportions? I recommend you go to Eschergirls.

    I'm a person.

    Which makes me people.

    I would like representative, realistic body shapes and features for kids to absorb and relate to.

    So, just disproved your last point there.
  • Square wrote:
    raisinbman wrote:
    Your defense is the history books will remember him?

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Can't really argue with that so I'll just state it again:

    The internet has declared him a bad artist. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

    But I've gotta side with Eschergirls on this one.
    Second best selling comic artist of all time. He is also one of the last artists to create new superheroes of any staying power (Cable and Deadpool). So he must have done something right. Really, he gets no credit, just knee-jerk backlash from the hive mind of comic forums. Which he wouldn't if he hadn't been so super popular and put under a hyper intense kind of scrutiny that other artists never get.

    But if the Internet tells you he's bad, it must be true? icon_rolleyes.gif Because people read comics for the realistic body proportions...

    He's absolutely notorious for swiping from other artists. He's really, really bad about it. History will not remember him kindly; it tends not to hold thieves in high regard.
  • MikeG72MikeG72 Posts: 111 Tile Toppler
    Let us not forget the many, many, many pouches and cracked swords that Liefeld loves adding to all of his characters.
  • MikeG72MikeG72 Posts: 111 Tile Toppler
    Also, Jack Kirby absolutely destroys Liefeld in terms of art.. and this is coming from someone who isn't exactly a fan of Kirby's style. I grew up loving John Byrne's art.
  • ClydeFrog76ClydeFrog76 Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,350 Chairperson of the Boards
    Square wrote:
    raisinbman wrote:
    He's a bad artist. Seriously.
    He really isn't. Any criticism people have (draws things the same, weird proportions, inconsistency in details) is basically things people used to say about Jack Kirby. The popular opinion of Liefeld will be pretty different in 20 years when people who are ashamed of buying five or more poly-bagged copies of X-Force #1 no longer dominate the comics-Internet world.

    Did you actually just compare Liefeld to Kirby?

    I...need some air.
  • ClydeFrog76ClydeFrog76 Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,350 Chairperson of the Boards
    MikeG72 wrote:
    Let us not forget the many, many, many pouches and cracked swords that Liefeld loves adding to all of his characters.

    I don't know what you mean?

    rob-liefeld15.jpg
  • MikeG72MikeG72 Posts: 111 Tile Toppler
    Hah. That's Liefeld holding back on those pouches and swords. Also, judging by that picture, WarChild should not be able to even lift his left arm up.
  • Dragon_NexusDragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2015
    Square wrote:
    Second best selling comic artist of all time. He is also one of the last artists to create new superheroes of any staying power (Cable and Deadpool). So he must have done something right. Really, he gets no credit, just knee-jerk backlash from the hive mind of comic forums. Which he wouldn't if he hadn't been so super popular and put under a hyper intense kind of scrutiny that other artists never get.

    But if the Internet tells you he's bad, it must be true? icon_rolleyes.gif Because people read comics for the realistic body proportions...

    He was creating stuff people wanted in the 90s, stupidly muscular guys with big guns and big swords who teamed up with females with rubber spines, no internal organs and often no pupile or irises.

    His characters were mostly rip offs of other existing characters (he's made loads of Wolverine rip offs, for example).

    The fact Deadpool and Cable still exist today is not down to their design but due to the writers who picked up these characters later after Liefeld had given them up.
    Deadpool at the start was not the fourth wall breaking, narration conversing merc with the mouth at the start, he was yet another aggressive, angry, violent sociopath with swords and guns.

    And there are plenty of other artists who get dumped on, it's just that Liefeld gets dumped on harder because his stuff is often so hilariously bad and the dude was prolofic in starting teams (but never finishing them).

    I mean, is this good?
    2835584-youngblood_3.jpg
    The rock dude has no neck. His body is about 7 heads wide, when normal proportions should be about 3 heads. He's bulky to the point where he shouldn't be able to move. His thighs are bigger than his head, hell they're practically tree trunks.
    And that woman? You realise spines can absolutely not bend that way, right? Not if you have any organs. And she's wearing enough armour to cover Peter Dinklage's **** and not much more. And always ALWAYS with *one* shoulder pad and not another. And the pouches, my God the pouches. It would be silly enough if we ever saw the characters reach into those tiny stupid things, but they never do!

    Oh and the tracing.

    3435484-6928748144-03-co.jpg

    3435485-9286590814-99062.jpg

    It's okay to like his artwork and stuff, but to suggest it's *good*...is just wrong.
  • SquareSquare Posts: 380 Mover and Shaker
    Ben Grimm wrote:
    He's absolutely notorious for swiping from other artists. He's really, really bad about it. History will not remember him kindly; it tends not to hold thieves in high regard.
    He certainly did swipe when he was first hired and in his early 20's, just like pretty much all comic artists do when they're too young. Joe Madueria swiped Art Adams, David Mack swiped Alan Davis. I've heard John Byrne did it a bit in the very early 70's. If you're swiping ten years into a career, then it's a problem. I don't read Liefeld's stuff whatsoever now, but I highly doubt he was swiping by the time he moved to Image.

    <Two swiping artists I hated in the 90's, Roger Cruz and Dan Panosian are really solid comic artists now. I loathed Panosian back in the day, but to see his work now, it's gorgeous (http://40.media.tumblr.com/104d0ed62c42 ... 1_1280.jpg) It seems pretty poor to take an artist who was literally thrust in front of the mainstream at age 21 or so, take the mistakes they made then, and say that's who they are forever. Most people are lucky enough to be able to develop in anonymity, and not be saddled with that sort of reputation nearly 25 years later.>

    ~~~~

    Anyway, everyone can go on about how terrible he is, and pretend like realistic proportion matters in super-hero comics (ask artists like Humberto Ramos, Chris Bachello, Paul Pope, Joe Madueria etc etc how unrealistic proportions have destroyed their careers icon_lol.gif ), but the truth is, he's just a whipping boy for a lot of people out of habit, not for actual discernible reasons. There's a lot of **** comic art out there, but Liefeld takes 95% of the criticism. Have you ever actually looked at how McFarlane drew Spiderman's face? The nose was jacked up practically between his eyes (look at a profile shot sometime). Peter would have a pug nose to fill it out like that. Who cares? Nobody. Because nobody bought that comic for realistic art in the first place.

    I don't even like Liefeld's art, since I don't read those kinds of stories (ones aimed at 12 year old boys). I just find it so lame that the same vapid opinion gets perpetually spun by would be know-it-alls (anyone on this page can choose who that comment refers to). Next we should start a thread about how Aquaman sucks, then after that about how bad airline food is. That's the go-to punchline, so it must therefore be true icon_e_ugeek.gif
  • Square wrote:
    Second best selling comic artist of all time. He is also one of the last artists to create new superheroes of any staying power (Cable and Deadpool). So he must have done something right. Really, he gets no credit, just knee-jerk backlash from the hive mind of comic forums. Which he wouldn't if he hadn't been so super popular and put under a hyper intense kind of scrutiny that other artists never get.

    But if the Internet tells you he's bad, it must be true? icon_rolleyes.gif Because people read comics for the realistic body proportions...

    He was creating stuff people wanted in the 90s, stupidly muscular guys with big guns and big swords who teamed up with females with rubber spines, no internal organs and often no pupile or irises.

    His characters were mostly rip offs of other existing characters (he's made loads of Wolverine rip offs, for example).

    The fact Deadpool and Cable still exist today is not down to their design but due to the writers who picked up these characters later after Liefeld had given them up.
    Deadpool at the start was not the fourth wall breaking, narration conversing merc with the mouth at the start, he was yet another aggressive, angry, violent sociopath with swords and guns.

    And there are plenty of other artists who get dumped on, it's just that Liefeld gets dumped on harder because his stuff is often so hilariously bad and the dude was prolofic in starting teams (but never finishing them).

    I mean, is this good?
    2835584-youngblood_3.jpg
    The rock dude has no neck. His body is about 7 heads wide, when normal proportions should be about 3 heads. He's bulky to the point where he shouldn't be able to move. His thighs are bigger than his head, hell they're practically tree trunks.
    And that woman? You realise spines can absolutely not bend that way, right? Not if you have any organs. And she's wearing enough armour to cover Peter Dinklage's **** and not much more. And always ALWAYS with *one* shoulder pad and not another. And the pouches, my God the pouches. It would be silly enough if we ever saw the characters reach into those tiny stupid things, but they never do!

    Oh and the tracing.

    3435484-6928748144-03-co.jpg

    3435485-9286590814-99062.jpg

    It's okay to like his artwork and stuff, but to suggest it's *good*...is just wrong.


    The cavalry has arrived, upvoted and icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    Square wrote:
    Ben Grimm wrote:
    He's absolutely notorious for swiping from other artists. He's really, really bad about it. History will not remember him kindly; it tends not to hold thieves in high regard.
    He certainly did swipe when he was first hired and in his early 20's, just like pretty much all comic artists do when they're too young. Joe Madueria swiped Art Adams, David Mack swiped Alan Davis. I've heard John Byrne did it a bit in the very early 70's. If you're swiping ten years into a career, then it's a problem. I don't read Liefeld's stuff whatsoever now, but I highly doubt he was swiping by the time he moved to Image.

    <Two swiping artists I hated in the 90's, Roger Cruz and Dan Panosian are really solid comic artists now. I loathed Panosian back in the day, but to see his work now, it's gorgeous (http://40.media.tumblr.com/104d0ed62c42 ... 1_1280.jpg) It seems pretty poor to take an artist who was literally thrust in front of the mainstream at age 21 or so, take the mistakes they made then, and say that's who they are forever. Most people are lucky enough to be able to develop in anonymity, and not be saddled with that sort of reputation nearly 25 years later.>

    ~~~~

    Anyway, everyone can go on about how terrible he is, and pretend like realistic proportion matters in super-hero comics (ask artists like Humberto Ramos, Chris Bachello, Paul Pope, Joe Madueria etc etc how unrealistic proportions have destroyed their careers icon_lol.gif ), but the truth is, he's just a whipping boy for a lot of people out of habit, not for actual discernible reasons. There's a lot of **** comic art out there, but Liefeld takes 95% of the criticism. Have you ever actually looked at how McFarlane drew Spiderman's face? The nose was jacked up practically between his eyes (look at a profile shot sometime). Peter would have a pug nose to fill it out like that. Who cares? Nobody. Because nobody bought that comic for realistic art in the first place.

    I don't even like Liefeld's art, since I don't read those kinds of stories (ones aimed at 12 year old boys). I just find it so lame that the same vapid opinion gets perpetually spun by would be know-it-alls (anyone on this page can choose who that comment refers to). Next we should start a thread about how Aquaman sucks, then after that about how bad airline food is. That's the go-to punchline, so it must therefore be true icon_e_ugeek.gif
    So now you admit YOU DONT EVEN READ HIS STUFF NOW?

    You don't even know if he steals art anymore yet you defend him? ****? Just stop.

    Okay, but as you said yourself YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HE DOES NOW SO HOW CAN WE TELL IF HE'S STOPPED MAKING "MISTAKES" OR COPYING OTHERS?

    It's official, you're talking out of your EXPLETIVE.

    Oh, so now you've reworded yourself on whether body proportions matter or not since I've said they matter for me and impressionable kids? Really mature.

    He's a whipping boy? Did you actually read the responses people gave you or are you going LA-LA-LA CANT HEAR YOU??? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    I get it, you're a Rob Liefield Stan/White Knight

    AND NOW YOU ADMIT

    YOU DONT EVEN GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT ROB LIEFIELD'S WORK? WHY ARE YOU SO SET ON DEFENDING IT? YOU HAVE NO INVESTMENT IN IT!

    And now you're passive aggressively trying to "not name names"(real mature)

    A) Aquaman doesn't suck, he wasn't utilized right. Since were all comics fans here, I'd assume we've seen a couple episodes of Justice League, so whatever comparison you're trying to make there is null.



    Anyway,...it's pretty obvious now you just want to waste our time since, in summary:

    A) You ignored what everyone else said, you ADMIT you don't know what he does in the present, or even if he's still an art thief(****????), B) Your argument died so you just rephrased it, C) You don't care about his art, you don't even like his art, and are just defending him because you feel he's a damsel in distress from the mean ol' art critics.

    TLDR: Ignore this person, I'd downvote them if I could. Wasting everyone's time, Rob Liefield Stan...
  • ew shut this topic down, he doesn't deserve his own thread
  • SquareSquare Posts: 380 Mover and Shaker
    raisinbman wrote:
    So now you admit YOU DONT EVEN READ HIS STUFF NOW?
    I don't buy his comics, but I see previews for stuff on the Internet, particularly during the Nu 52 era.I follow comics, because that's just what I do. I've seen what he's doing relatively recently. I've read articles about his swiping, and they all tend to be about 1995 stuff (as in the posts on this thread, which are pre-image stuff). That's pretty lame to label a guy based on that. On top of that, most of the pics in this thread are based on stuff 20 years old. That's pretty lame.

    I don't think he's a great artist, who will join the pantheon with Jack Kirby (Liefeld hasn't created dozens of the most popular characters of the last 50 years, and is unlikely to). But the criticism of Liefeld is a lot like the criticism of Kirby in the late 70's, since Kirby wasn't a 'realistic' artist like Neal Adams or John Byrne. I think Liefeld's a competent artist who added a lot of energy to comics, to the point that loads of artists ripped him off for years. And when comics were over-flowing with his clones, and people grew sick of it, they blamed him, and still to this day, people with little imagination rake him over the coals and think they are being clever. If he had never been as influential as he became, he would simply be considered a C-list artist, and people wouldn't care whatsoever. Think... Keith Giffen, a totally stylistic, non-proportioned artist who some like, and some hate, but nobody feels compelled to start a web page to insult him.

    People who make a point of insulting Liefeld are just towing to a trite opinion. It really means zero, and that's just how it is. They hate Liefeld in the same proportions as Liefeld's anatomy. Suck on it.

    Hey, while you're at it, take every complaint about Liefeld's massive characters, and throw them on "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz. Go for it.
    love_and_war_06_stor.jpg
    <HIS BACK IS A GODAMN PENTAGON! OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (faints)>

    or http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhmf ... 1_1280.jpg
    Do you think a man could walk if he were that huge? How many heart attacks? How does he get dressed in the morning? That's not something Vincent D'Onefrio could ever look like. This is not proportionate whatsoever. Not at all. You must be punching your computer from merely viewing such an unrealistic image.

    Where is the vitriol for "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz? Either Bill Sienkiewicz is bad, or there is such a thing as stylistic license in comic art, and the fanboy brigade against Liefeld is just another case of people incapable of having their own opinion (in that they mimic hate, not that they don't love it. The logical opinion is apathy as most people are apathetic about most things... For me, I legitimately hate fanboys, they are the worst thing about comics. They are destroying comics from the inside. I'm apathetic about Liefeld. It's the fanboy **** about him that is legitimately the comics against comics crime) Form your own opinions, don't be lazy, don't use EscherGirls as an argument.
  • JVRealJVReal Posts: 1,884 Chairperson of the Boards
    I liked his early stuff because it was new, it was different. It wasn't cartoony. It was highly stylized and I thought it was refreshing even though disproportionate in anatomy. That was part of the appeal, how absurd could you make the characters and still make it seem cool?

    Forgive me, but when reading comic books, you have to suspend reality. There is no if/and or buts about it. Once you suspend reality enough to accept comics and their story lines, you must also suspend reality of proportions. If a man made of rock can actually move, then a person can have giant arms and tiny hands, feet and waists.

    The only realistic comic art that I can recollect is Andreas Englund, Alex Ross.

    I'm also a fan of Todd McFarlane's early style too, when he took over Spiderman, I loved what he did with his poses.

    I was a teen then as well, so it is a snapshot of nostalgia for me. Can I look back and see what other people see as far as criticism of the art? Yeah, I see what other people are talking about, but it doesn't rob me of the joy of the images I recall seeing for the first time and the impact they had on future comics.

    It was a nice change, but I was also bummed that everyone and their brother began drawing that way, so when the next style came around, it was also a good thing.

    I do love to see, and I have an appreciation for the varying styles of comic book art. I especially love graphic novels.
  • JVReal wrote:
    I liked his early stuff because it was new, it was different. It wasn't cartoony. It was highly stylized and I thought it was refreshing even though disproportionate in anatomy. That was part of the appeal, how absurd could you make the characters and still make it seem cool?

    Forgive me, but when reading comic books, you have to suspend reality. There is no if/and or buts about it. Once you suspend reality enough to accept comics and their story lines, you must also suspend reality of proportions. If a man made of rock can actually move, then a person can have giant arms and tiny hands, feet and waists.

    The only realistic comic art that I can recollect is Andreas Englund, Alex Ross.

    I'm also a fan of Todd McFarlane's early style too, when he took over Spiderman, I loved what he did with his poses.

    I was a teen then as well, so it is a snapshot of nostalgia for me. Can I look back and see what other people see as far as criticism of the art? Yeah, I see what other people are talking about, but it doesn't rob me of the joy of the images I recall seeing for the first time and the impact they had on future comics.

    It was a nice change, but I was also bummed that everyone and their brother began drawing that way, so when the next style came around, it was also a good thing.

    I do love to see, and I have an appreciation for the varying styles of comic book art. I especially love graphic novels.
    Eh, there's a place for each, and Eschergirls shows a big discrepancy.

    There's nothing saying you can't enjoy his stuff, or have enjoyed his stuff as a teen.
  • Dragon_NexusDragon_Nexus Posts: 3,701 Chairperson of the Boards
    Square wrote:
    raisinbman wrote:
    So now you admit YOU DONT EVEN READ HIS STUFF NOW?
    I don't buy his comics, but I see previews for stuff on the Internet, particularly during the Nu 52 era.I follow comics, because that's just what I do. I've seen what he's doing relatively recently. I've read articles about his swiping, and they all tend to be about 1995 stuff (as in the posts on this thread, which are pre-image stuff). That's pretty lame to label a guy based on that. On top of that, most of the pics in this thread are based on stuff 20 years old. That's pretty lame.

    I don't think he's a great artist, who will join the pantheon with Jack Kirby (Liefeld hasn't created dozens of the most popular characters of the last 50 years, and is unlikely to). But the criticism of Liefeld is a lot like the criticism of Kirby in the late 70's, since Kirby wasn't a 'realistic' artist like Neal Adams or John Byrne. I think Liefeld's a competent artist who added a lot of energy to comics, to the point that loads of artists ripped him off for years. And when comics were over-flowing with his clones, and people grew sick of it, they blamed him, and still to this day, people with little imagination rake him over the coals and think they are being clever. If he had never been as influential as he became, he would simply be considered a C-list artist, and people wouldn't care whatsoever. Think... Keith Giffen, a totally stylistic, non-proportioned artist who some like, and some hate, but nobody feels compelled to start a web page to insult him.

    People who make a point of insulting Liefeld are just towing to a trite opinion. It really means zero, and that's just how it is. They hate Liefeld in the same proportions as Liefeld's anatomy. Suck on it.

    Hey, while you're at it, take every complaint about Liefeld's massive characters, and throw them on "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz. Go for it.
    love_and_war_06_stor.jpg
    <HIS BACK IS A GODAMN PENTAGON! OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (faints)>

    or http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhmf ... 1_1280.jpg
    Do you think a man could walk if he were that huge? How many heart attacks? How does he get dressed in the morning? That's not something Vincent D'Onefrio could ever look like. This is not proportionate whatsoever. Not at all. You must be punching your computer from merely viewing such an unrealistic image.

    Where is the vitriol for "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz? Either Bill Sienkiewicz is bad, or there is such a thing as stylistic license in comic art, and the fanboy brigade against Liefeld is just another case of people incapable of having their own opinion (in that they mimic hate, not that they don't love it. The logical opinion is apathy as most people are apathetic about most things... For me, I legitimately hate fanboys, they are the worst thing about comics. They are destroying comics from the inside. I'm apathetic about Liefeld. It's the fanboy **** about him that is legitimately the comics against comics crime) Form your own opinions, don't be lazy, don't use EscherGirls as an argument.

    Are you really comparing something with an artistic style to...Rob Liefeld?
    Really?

    Seriously, the two images you've shown depict art with a style. There's a stylistic choice as to why they're the way they are.

    Rob Liefeld simply cannot draw and does not understand anatomy, hense why his characters always have tiny feet, bodies way too large, females with rubber spines capable of showing **** and butts at the same time.

    There's a difference between a stylistic choice and poor art work.
    Hell, even if you look at the non-anatomical things, the gun in the image I showed was preposterous. It's got a funny ring thing on the front that serves no purpose. It has two barrels that apparently both work despite there not being enough places to put the ammo.

    Like I said, it's okay to like the guy, but to say his art work isn't bad is insane. Also, the "Hey, there are way worse Xs out there" argument never holds water. It's like saying "Hey, you may have terminal brain cancer, but at least you're not getting tortured to death!" ...that doesn't make the brain cancer any better, dude. Just because there's worse stuff out there doesn't make his stuff good.
  • SquareSquare Posts: 380 Mover and Shaker
    Yeah, you're just a zombie parroting a repeated opinion. Your criticisms are applicable to umpteen artists, but you only apply them to Liefeld. Noted. In the future, I won't bother. Why waste time discussing something with someone with borrowed opinions?
  • MalcrofMalcrof GLOBAL_MODERATORS Posts: 5,971 Chairperson of the Boards
    Different people like different styles. I happen to dislike rob, but am a huge fan of Stephen Platt, who is similar in style.. then we add in Erik Larson, who is one of my favorites, but sometimes does some horrific work.
  • Square wrote:
    raisinbman wrote:
    So now you admit YOU DONT EVEN READ HIS STUFF NOW?
    I don't buy his comics, but I see previews for stuff on the Internet, particularly during the Nu 52 era.I follow comics, because that's just what I do. I've seen what he's doing relatively recently. I've read articles about his swiping, and they all tend to be about 1995 stuff (as in the posts on this thread, which are pre-image stuff). That's pretty lame to label a guy based on that. On top of that, most of the pics in this thread are based on stuff 20 years old. That's pretty lame.

    I don't think he's a great artist, who will join the pantheon with Jack Kirby (Liefeld hasn't created dozens of the most popular characters of the last 50 years, and is unlikely to). But the criticism of Liefeld is a lot like the criticism of Kirby in the late 70's, since Kirby wasn't a 'realistic' artist like Neal Adams or John Byrne. I think Liefeld's a competent artist who added a lot of energy to comics, to the point that loads of artists ripped him off for years. And when comics were over-flowing with his clones, and people grew sick of it, they blamed him, and still to this day, people with little imagination rake him over the coals and think they are being clever. If he had never been as influential as he became, he would simply be considered a C-list artist, and people wouldn't care whatsoever. Think... Keith Giffen, a totally stylistic, non-proportioned artist who some like, and some hate, but nobody feels compelled to start a web page to insult him.

    People who make a point of insulting Liefeld are just towing to a trite opinion. It really means zero, and that's just how it is. They hate Liefeld in the same proportions as Liefeld's anatomy. Suck on it.

    Hey, while you're at it, take every complaint about Liefeld's massive characters, and throw them on "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz. Go for it.
    love_and_war_06_stor.jpg
    <HIS BACK IS A GODAMN PENTAGON! OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (faints)>

    or http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhmf ... 1_1280.jpg
    Do you think a man could walk if he were that huge? How many heart attacks? How does he get dressed in the morning? That's not something Vincent D'Onefrio could ever look like. This is not proportionate whatsoever. Not at all. You must be punching your computer from merely viewing such an unrealistic image.

    Where is the vitriol for "fine artist" Bill Sienkiewicz? Either Bill Sienkiewicz is bad, or there is such a thing as stylistic license in comic art, and the fanboy brigade against Liefeld is just another case of people incapable of having their own opinion (in that they mimic hate, not that they don't love it. The logical opinion is apathy as most people are apathetic about most things... For me, I legitimately hate fanboys, they are the worst thing about comics. They are destroying comics from the inside. I'm apathetic about Liefeld. It's the fanboy **** about him that is legitimately the comics against comics crime) Form your own opinions, don't be lazy, don't use EscherGirls as an argument.

    Are you really comparing something with an artistic style to...Rob Liefeld?
    Really?

    Seriously, the two images you've shown depict art with a style. There's a stylistic choice as to why they're the way they are.

    Rob Liefeld simply cannot draw and does not understand anatomy, hense why his characters always have tiny feet, bodies way too large, females with rubber spines capable of showing **** and butts at the same time.

    There's a difference between a stylistic choice and poor art work.
    Hell, even if you look at the non-anatomical things, the gun in the image I showed was preposterous. It's got a funny ring thing on the front that serves no purpose. It has two barrels that apparently both work despite there not being enough places to put the ammo.

    Like I said, it's okay to like the guy, but to say his art work isn't bad is insane. Also, the "Hey, there are way worse Xs out there" argument never holds water. It's like saying "Hey, you may have terminal brain cancer, but at least you're not getting tortured to death!" ...that doesn't make the brain cancer any better, dude. Just because there's worse stuff out there doesn't make his stuff good.
    just put Square on ignore, (S)he's defending someone (S)he's admitted (s)he isn't actually familiar with

    I don't understand the motivation for defending something you have nothing resembling a stake in

    agree completely BTW
    Malcrof wrote:
    Different people like different styles. I happen to dislike rob, but am a huge fan of Stephen Platt, who is similar in style.. then we add in Erik Larson, who is one of my favorites, but sometimes does some horrific work.
    Sure, but the style in question is tinykitty

    I mean, really, let's put it like this: Would YOU let students who want to learn to draw start with Liefield's style?

    How will they be able to apply that in various industries?

    **** poses

    Bad proportions

    impossible stuff

    As an artist, the first thing you learn are the BASICS. And yes, you can deviate, but there's a reason why they say don't exclusively draw in animu style...
  • MikeG72MikeG72 Posts: 111 Tile Toppler
    Liefeld is lazy. He coasts on his 90's popularity and he never pushes himself to get any better since he has people willing to pay him for his subpar work now. That's what drives me nuts. He's got talent, I can see it in some areas of his artwork, but he never refines anything. Instead, it's the same three facial expressions and terrible anatomy.

    Also, Square, when you tell us that we're just "parroting borrowed opinions", you are basically saying that we have no insight into what is good art and what is bad art. To just baldly say, "No, he's a good artist" and ignore everything that has been pointed out. Who are you to be able to say that to us? That's very condescending and dismissive, to say the least.
Sign In or Register to comment.