Jim Lee's Art
Snowlock
Indifferent. Doesn't suck, but so many people have copied it that if
become immune to it. It doesn't catch my eye as much as say, Pollina,
Pacheco, Bachalo, or Kelly Jones.
Snowlock.
Ron Shiflet
aNdrEW MeLbOURne wrote:
>
> I've discovered something interesting in the past week or so, here on the
> net. (And it doesn't have to do with Liefeld at all--more or less.)
> Actually, what I'm talking about is the fact that, apparently, there are
> quite a few people who don't like Jim Lee's art work. (More than I'd
> assumed there'd be.)
>
> So, much in the vein of last Spring's "Rob Liefeld: Artist or Hack" vote,
> I'd like to institue a similar Jim Lee vote.
>
> [And yes, I'm a little nervous doing this, given that Jim has taken to
> lurking about the corners, as of late...]
>
> The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>
> I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
>
> Feel free to back up your answers however you see fit. Post all votes as
> follow-ups to this post, and I'll keep a total and post it after it looks
> like the fervor has died down. (If one ever arises, that is...)
>
> And for the record, I vote "yes".
>
> --AndrewHe's one of the best!
Ron Shiflet
aNdrEW MeLbOURne
Mike Chary
No, I think Jim Lee's art is awful for the reasons I have stated elsewhere.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley "The best argument against
democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
William C Wendel
I like Jim Lee's art a lot more than I like Mike Chary's opinions, so I
vote Yes. He does have flaws, but his work looks so nice to me. And if
he's awful, who do you consider good, Mike? I think I remember you
saying you liked Jeff Moy, but I'm not sure. I think Moy is okay, but
his artwork is too cartoony for me. Jim Lee's work is a lot more real
looking. I like it.
BC
Kevin J Williams
I love Jim's art. What's not to like? His detail is excellent, characters
are diverse and his use of uniforms, vehicles, and backgrounds is at the
top.
Kevin
Dave Miller
melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (aNdrEW MeLbOURne) typed:
>The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
I'd have to say "no."
Lee/Williams has a fairly nice, slick finishing style with a lot of
psuedo-detail, and the kids really seem to go for it. Underneath that
slick surface, though, I just don't see very much interesting stuff
going on. His figures are often posed in unnatural ways. His
anatomy, which I often hear described as "solid" or even "flawless,"
is actually quite distorted, especially in his female figures. Only
when compared to a Todd McFarlane or a Rob Liefeld could his anatomy
be said to be "realistic." All of his female characters look the same
from the neck down, and he has a range of exactly two female faces:
Psylocke... and his other female face. His arsenal of male faces
isn't too impressive either. His page composition really isn't
anything to brag about.... it often feels cluttered. His work seems
to me to be one of Scott McCloud's hollow apples ... it's nice and
shiny, but there's not much underneath.
Dave Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Why hate someone based on the color of their skin when, if
you take the time to get to know them as a human being, you
can find so many other things to hate them for?" -Dennis Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dean George Brackenbury
YES
...though I would rather see him focus on his own (WildStorm) books...if
he could do a WildC.A.T.s monthly with Travis Charest doing a WildC.A.T.s
quarterly (or a WC Team 2 book) I would be ecstatic...
David Hendren
bridw...@indtech.it.ilstu.edu
Jim is in my opinion, one of the best artists to
ever put pencil to a comic book page. Jim pays attention
to detail, that's what I really enjoy about his work. He just
has a great style, and I always look forward to reading his books
In other words YES.
Gabe Bridwell
David H. Gorski
>melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (aNdrEW MeLbOURne) typed:
>
>The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>
>I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
That'd be a big NO from me for these reasons (posted elsewhere in this
newsgroup in the context of commenting on FF #1 and repeated here):
[comments deleted]
First off, the art. I don't know if I'm inviting flames or not, but I
really *hate* the "modern" style of artists like Jim Lee and the folks
who do WETWORKS. The colors are muddy and every man's face has the same
general features (come to think of it, so does every woman's face), such
that it's sometimes hard to tell the characters apart when there are
more than two or three illustrated in a single scene. The only
difference is the hair color, absence or presence of facial hair, and
the occasional addition of a few lines to signify age. To see what I
mean, just look at a page and cover up the hair on all the male
characters of the same age. Pretty hard to tell them apart, isn't it? I
could go on about the ridiculous body proportions that make all women
look like Pamela Anderson Lee and all men look like the Hulk on
steroids, and a few other of my gripes about this genre of comic art but
I need to get on to the second point...
[more comments deleted]
--
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. |"I don't want to achieve immortality through
Department of Surgery | my work. I want to achieve it through not
University of Chicago | dying."
5841 S. Maryland Ave. |
Chicago, IL 60637 | Woody Allen
E-Mail: dgo...@ix.netcom.com|
dgo...@mcis.bsd.uchicago.edu|
John
Jim Lee is all style and no substance - he has NO idea of the female anatomy.
I vote no.
--
- John
j...@primenet.com
Christian Michael Viola
Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
JIM LEE RULES!!!
First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
characters in interesting and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
design from a mile away. Further, all his character renderings are
highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
each character. Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
gatefolds. WOW! Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match. He imbues his art with such
style, such power, such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap off the
page!!!!!!
I vote YAY!!!!!
Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
people, his would be the only vote counted
Benjamin Tao
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Pat Simmons wrote:
>
> melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (aNdrEW MeLbOURne) typed:
>
> >The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>
> >I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
>
>
> A big fat no....
>
> although is used to.. when I was younger and I had no taste at
> all.....hell, i even liked liefeld's x-force....I'm so ashamed..
>
> The fact is his style is nothing special anymore.... there are just
> too many clones that do his style exactally the same.... if not
> better.
>
> Patrick
Too many clones eh? Then don't blame Jim Lee for starting such a awesome
trend, blame the people who copied him...
Ben
aNdrEW MeLbOURne
Ron Shiflet (rshi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > --AndrewHe's one of the best!
Thank you.
And so far, the vote's going 5-2-1 (yes/no/indifferent).
I only post this now, cause I received a mail in from Jason K Landon,
that I wanted to make sure was thrown in.
(So Andrew, when you look at this post again, count in an extra "YES" vote.)
(Okay.)
Sorry, Doctor told me to stop talking to myself, but...
--Andrew
Mike Chary
William C Wendel <wwe...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
>I like Jim Lee's art a lot more than I like Mike Chary's opinions, so I
Damn. Well, please don't tell Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross. Their next big
project was going to be a twelve volume prestige format series called "Mike
Chary's Opinions," and this revelation will just shoot that all to pieces.
>vote Yes. He does have flaws, but his work looks so nice to me. And if
>he's awful, who do you consider good, Mike?
Good?
Mac Raboy, CC Beck, Jack Cole, Jack Kirby, Steve Rude, Steve Lieber,
Frank Miller, Bernie Wrightson, John Totleben, John Byrne, Brian Bolland,
George Perez, Bill Sinkewiecz, Amanda Conner, Tony Harris, Moebius, Carl
Barks, Don Rosa, Mattotti, Kieth Giffen, Robert Crumb, Jose Garcia Lopez,
Humberta Ramos, Jaime Hernandez, Al Williamson, Alex Ross, WC Carani,
Dick Giordano, Carmine Infantino, George Herriman, Gil Kane, Joe Shuster,
Alex Raymond, Phil Foglio, Sergio Aragones, and many others.
>I think I remember you
>saying you liked Jeff Moy, but I'm not sure. I think Moy is okay, but
I think Moy's above average, but compared to the rest of the comics
world, I am not certain he's tending toward good or average. I haven't
seen enough to come to a judgement. He reminds me of Manga and of Alex
Raymond. If he gets closer to Alex Raymond, he'll be good, if not, he'll
be okay. Doc Bright's in the same boat for me. McFarlane too.
>his artwork is too cartoony for me. Jim Lee's work is a lot more real
>looking. I like it.
Which real things do you find to resemble Jim Lee drawings?
Pat Simmons
Mike Chary
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
>only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
>person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
>an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
Christian, you are indeed the tassle on the idiot fringe.
Glen Wadleigh
I think I've got to say: NO
My main problem with Lee's art is that every single character looks
exactly the same to me. He uses one female type and then maybe two or,
at best, three different male types. They all have the same noses,
same ethnic features, same muscle definition, etc. I usually sum it up
by saying that Lee should never, ever be allowed to draw a silent,
black and white comic about bald nudists. It would drive the fans of
such a comic insane trying to differentiate between all the characters.
(btw, the above statement about this hypothetical comic is just to
reinforce my criticism of Lee's art. It's not like I believe that a comic
like that could actually happen)
Andy
aNdrEW MeLbOURne
David H. Gorski (dgo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: who do WETWORKS. The colors are muddy and every man's face has the same
Sorry for completely truncating your letter, but the only point I wanted
to make was that Jim Lee isn't the colorist on FF or any other book. You
have to blame his colorists for that... (And more to the point, you have
to blame the paper Marvel (and some of Image) uses for its books. It's
mainly because of the paper that the colors looks muddy.
Still, "No", got it.
--Andrew
David Alan Carr
melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (aNdrEW MeLbOURne) wrote:
>The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
Yes.
>Feel free to back up your answers however you see fit.
All right.
I don't like how most of the women he draws are either extremely (and
unnaturally) beautiful or extremely unattractive. He constantly
arches their backs to the breaking point for a mere showoff of T & A.
I don't like how characters legs suddenly stretch to twice the normal
size when kicking someone.
I don't like how everyone squints, all of the time.
Having said that, here's why I said "yes"
Reason #1) The Uncanny X-Men issues featuring the return of the Shi'ar
Empire and Professor X. Beautiful depiction of dozens of characters
at once.
Reason #2) Pages 32-33 of Fantastic Four #1, v.2. I've never seen the
Thing so terrifying and sorrowful at once. Wonderful work
The Mole man wasn't bad either.
DAC
Robert A. Jung
In article <kmBXCpm00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
>only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
>person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
>an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
And you wonder why everyone else gets irritated by your ego, Christian.
>JIM LEE RULES!!!
Translation: "Time to dump that Liefeld guy and get myself another person
to promote."
--R.J.
B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
Charlie Griefer
melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (aNdrEW MeLbOURne) wrote:
>The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
As loathe as I am to agree with Christian, I vote YES.
Since the days of the X-Men, I have loved Jim's artwork.
Frankly, I don't care if Sue's legs are 6 feet long. She looks better
that way than if they were only little stubs.
Comics are a fantasty, our escapes from reality. 99% of all comic
characters (both male and female), have perfectly developed anatomies.
Jim may take that perfection to the point of exaggeration (what man
doesn't like long legs on a woman? So let's give her REALLY long
legs), but he's certainly not the only artist to do so.
Please remember, these people are not supposed to look like you or me.
I'd rather see a woman drawn perfectly, and even slightly exaggerated
in society's ideal of perfection, than, let's say, my most recent
ex-girlfriend (the b!tch). :)
Charlie
PatDOneill
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
" As the only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability...."
I attended Pratt Institute's art program. I know others here with similar
backgrounds. And you, Christian? What evidence have we of your artistic
ability?
"... and as the only person (apparently) who knows anything about how to
correctly evaluate an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to
speak."
Ditto.
Best, Pat
Darragh Greene
Jim Lee is a fantastic artist. He demonstrates a consummate knowledge of
the human form and is especially articulate in the portrayal of the human
form in motion. His storytelling ability is one of the best in the business
and his rendering and keen eye for detail are rarely equalled.
Yes, there have been many clones of the Lee style since '92 and
unfortunately this has led to an over-exposure of his style leading to
somewhat of a lessened visual punch from his artwork. Yet the style is his own.
He remains the master and still possesses the ability to arouse wonder in his
audience.
FF #1 is Lee's best work in years. His enthusiasm and energy shines
through each and every page. The man is enjoying himself and when he's
happy we are the beneficeries.
Incidently my all-time favourite Jim Lee work is UXM 275. Let all the
nay-sayers pick up an issue of that and try and berate the visual feast
that it is... 'Nuff said.
Lance Visser
In <kmBXCpm00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
+>Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
+>only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
+>person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
+>an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
The question was if you liked Jim Lee's art. He was not asking
for an objective study of Lee's art or technique.
+>Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
+>people, his would be the only vote counted
The educated people around here don't answer questions like this
because the answer revolves more around what people's tastes in comic art
which are up to the individual.
Bruce
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Christian Michael Viola wrote:
> Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
> only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
> person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
> an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
>
> JIM LEE RULES!!!
>
> First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
> characters in interesting and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
> design from a mile away. Further, all his character renderings are
> highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
> each character. Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
> design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
> WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
> gatefolds. WOW! Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
> composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
> and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match. He imbues his art with such
> style, such power, such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap off the
> page!!!!!!
>
> I vote YAY!!!!!
>
> Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
> people, his would be the only vote counted
Yes, that's very objective. Very objective indeed. How the heck would
you know any of us, and our artistic abilities, from a glob of spit on the
sidewalk? Since your nose is either a) pointed so high into the air that
you wouldn't notice any of us anyway, or b) stuck so high up your arse
that it's doing double duty as your esophogus, I imagine your "objective"
survey of "educated" comic people would come up with just you also (read
the small print in the survey: this survey not only surveys educated comic
people, but also educated comic people with their heads stuck up their
arse)...yes, you would definitely be the only one.
Look, Christian, your opinions might hold more validity if you didn't
include your arrogant sidelines with it. I actually support SOME of the
things you say, because you do appear to know comic art well, and better
than me, so I listen to your opinion with an objective ear. However, with
your little tirades of superiority, it completely eliminates anything
worthwhile that you have said. think about it.
> >
They call me....Bruce!
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~me650492/index.htm
Julian Murgatroyd
Andrew wrote:
>The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
Pretty much indifferent. There's only a few people whose artwork I either
dislike hugely (Marc Hempel springs to mind) or enjoy a _lot_, and Lee
isn't one of them.
--
Kate Martin jul...@haven.boston.ma.us k...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Come the revolution, you'll wish you had watched the squirrels." -- Aardy
"When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important
lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities." -- Groenig
chi...@fred.aurora.edu
Ok he can draw anatomy(Nice Butt Sue! <g>) He cant draw action
When Sue kicks the guard it looks like her legs turned inside out...
course given her leg length shes got to be at least 8 ft tall anyway.
But hey, I like leggy blondes, and it could be worse, trust me.
YES.
Chidder
Jon Daulton
Christian Michael Viola wrote:
(Christian says to look at Jim Lee's work objectively in the part I
snipped)
> JIM LEE RULES!!!
>
> First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
> characters in interesting and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
> design from a mile away. Further, all his character renderings are
> highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
> each character.
Totally agree. Mr. Lee's detailed (yet clean-cut) and provocative
pencils and designs are perfect for modern mainstream superhero comics.
Check out those space suits in the new FF #1 for a good example. Check
out that nice butt-shot of Sue, too. :)
> Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
> design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
> WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE
> triple gatefolds. WOW!
Mr. Lee's good, but he's hardly a "master." For example, those 3 triple
gatefolds you mentioned...does a "master" storyteller really need to
resort to that "IN YOUR FACE!!" approach (which also includes stuff like
that butt-shot) to capture his or her audience's attention...? Lee's
pencils are beautiful, but his storytelling ability is shallow. His
stuff is fun for a while, but without a heart, even the most fun stuff
fades. With a master, like Scott McCloud or Alan Moore, guiding Mr.
Lee's hands, the fun would never stop.
Check out Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" (of which Mr. Lee says:
"If I knew half as much as Scott, this would be the book I'd write!"),
and Alan Moore's Watchmen 5, "Fearful Symmetry," with the "mirrored"
panel layout (page 1's layout and content reflects page 28's layout and
content, page 2's layout and content reflects page 27's layout and
content, and so on, with the "mirror" on pages 15 and 16) and Big
Numbers for some examples of Mr. McCloud and Mr. Moores' awesome
layouts, panel designs, and pacing.
> Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
> composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
> and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match. He imbues his art with
> such style, such power, such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap
> off the page!!!!!!
Again, I agree; Mr. Lee, Mr. McFarlane, and Mr. Liefeld are good at that
"IN YOUR FACE!!" approach, which is fine if you like that sort of thing.
> I vote YAY!!!!!
My opinion:
Mr. Lee's pencils are like an awesome car: perfectly constructed, and a
blast to ride, but without gas, they won't run forever.
> Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
> people, his would be the only vote counted
Depends on what your definition of "educated" means. You must think
"educated" means throwing around a handful of statements without backing
them up; that's not "educated," it's "opinionated," and with your
arrogant tone, some would even say "ignorant."
Joseph Davis
I vote "yes", even though the lack of pupils in many of Jim's characters
kinda bugs me. I like his use of lines and, despite superhuman
purportions, does seem to have a sense of space (which Liefield lacks).
On 10 Sep 1996, aNdrEW MeLbOURne wrote:
(snip)
> So, much in the vein of last Spring's "Rob Liefeld: Artist or Hack" vote,
> I'd like to institue a similar Jim Lee vote.
>
> [And yes, I'm a little nervous doing this, given that Jim has taken to
> lurking about the corners, as of late...]
>
> The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>
> I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
>
> Feel free to back up your answers however you see fit. Post all votes as
> follow-ups to this post, and I'll keep a total and post it after it looks
> like the fervor has died down. (If one ever arises, that is...)
>
> And for the record, I vote "yes".
>
>
> --Andrew
Benjamin Tao
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Pat Simmons wrote:
>
>
> >> although is used to.. when I was younger and I had no taste at
> >> all.....hell, i even liked liefeld's x-force....I'm so ashamed..
> >>
> >> The fact is his style is nothing special anymore.... there are just
> >> too many clones that do his style exactally the same.... if not
> >> better.
> >>
> >> Patrick
>
> >Too many clones eh? Then don't blame Jim Lee for starting such a awesome
> >trend, blame the people who copied him...
>
> >Ben
>
> I certainly will blame jim lee for the clones. The fact is most of
> them work for him. He brought the whole thing on himself.
>
> Patrick
Oh? So if all of a sudden everyone like Frank Miller's art and we have
Miller clones, you gonna blame Miller also? I think many people have
problems with others having commercial success. Why blame the source when
he's the one that started it? You need people to come out with new style
of art, and Jim Lee did that.
Ben
Brian Mulholland
aNdrEW MeLbOURne on 10 Sep 1996 00:18:57 GMT wrote:
> The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
I actually like Jim's drawing ability (meaning I can see by his
drawings that he can produce reasonably good art), but the style
pushes me away. I think Jim has a tendency to make his women a little
to much the comic stereotype. However, I've never really followed
a book he's drawn for any substantial length of time (even X-Men I
took a hiatus just as he was getting going due to monetary reasons),
so I think my answer has to be 'indifferent', but it becomes that because
I have both small positives, and small negatives on either side of a general
lack of knowledge.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mulholland I am available for parties, birthdays,
bri...@cs.wvu.edu weddings and barmitzvahs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Better to have loved and lost than to have loved and caught something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David
Yes, but wuth some modifiers. I'd much rather look at his than
McFarlane's or Liefeld's (not that those two are similar.) But if given
a choice between him and Miller, Keith, Smith, Larsen, Maduria(sp?),
Romita (Sr or Jr), or many othr artists he would lose. He's good, but
not great. He could easily become great, though, with more practice.
BTW, since Rob never attended art school (and it shows), did Lee?
--
-David
"I say thee NAY!!!" -Thor, UXM #336
Dave Miller
I am about to be trolled. Oh, well.
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> typed:
> As the
>only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
>person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
>an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
>First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
>characters in interesting
The adjective "interesting" is not objective.
>and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
>design from a mile away.
To me that would indicate a lack of innovation. If it's easy to spot
a Jim Lee design, that would indicate that all of his designs have at
least one easily recognizable thing in common.
I actually think you're right. You can spot a Jim Lee design from a
mile away. I just consider that a bad thing.
>Further, all his character renderings are
>highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
>each character.
And why, pray tell, is this a good thing? What's impressive about
nonsensical intricacy other than it must have taken quite a bit of
time to draw? (I say nonsensical because very often the little detail
is just random little lines and shapes .... Lee isn't actually drawing
anything, he's just adding psuedo-detail. Geof Darrow, now that guy
can do detail. He draws every little thing.)
>Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
>design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
>WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
>gatefolds.
And why, pray tell, are triple gatefolds good things? You can't vary
the pacing in a triple gatefold. You can't slowly build up suspense
in a triple gatefold. You can't show a masterfully choreographed
fight scene in a triple gatefold. All you can really do is show some
contorted figures leaping, shooting, and grimacing. Too many triple
gatefolds is a bad thing.
BTW, I'm still waiting for the objective comments.
>Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
>composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
>and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match.
But what about these layouts is so great? I think they're weak. What
"objective" grounds make you right and make me wrong?
>He imbues his art with such
>style,
What is good about this style? Objectively speaking, of course.
> such power,
I find much more power in subtlety. Any number of artists can draw a
guy in spandex flying through the air. MY idea of powerful artwork is
a tiny SIN CITY panel showing a black silhouette of a head with only
the eyes visible, eyes that make your skin crawl. Not because they're
emitting some kind of bright energy beam, but because of pure
intensity and emotion. That's power, and in only two square inches.
> such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap off the
>page!!!!!!
Sure. They just don't tell the story like the great artists' panels
do.
Look, I'm really not trying to bust Lee's chops here. Obviously he
appeals to many people. I think the weaknesses in his work are fairly
typical weaknesses for comic artists. I also think that he could
overcome most of his weaknesses, if he would put out the effort.
Before I can consider him a really good cartoonist he will have to
figure out how to draw more than one female figure, and more than one
female face. More than one male face wouldn't hurt, either. He'll
have to become a far more accomplished background artist. He'll have
to learn how to powerfully draw a quiet conversation. Once he's got
those down, THEN ask me what I think of his work.
Dave Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Why hate someone based on the color of their skin when, if
you take the time to get to know them as a human being, you
can find so many other things to hate them for?" -Dennis Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erik Veit
In article <kmBXCpm00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Christian Michael Viola
<cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
>people, his would be the only vote counted
You're so full of shit, er, I mean, yourself. But that's the same thing,
isn't it?
zombie
--
# Lois & Clark -----: http://www.webcom.com/~lnc/index.html ------ #
# The Mutant Page --: http://www.santarosa.edu/~sthoemke/x.html -- #
### Erik Veit ## zom...@netcom.com ## zom...@redeye.ebay.sun.com ###
Karl Hiller
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Good?
:
: Mac Raboy, CC Beck, Jack Cole, Jack Kirby, Steve Rude, Steve Lieber,
: Frank Miller, Bernie Wrightson, John Totleben, John Byrne, Brian Bolland,
: George Perez, Bill Sinkewiecz, Amanda Conner, Tony Harris, Moebius, Carl
^^^^^^^^^^^^
All of them? :)
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
visit The Courts of Chaos: | There is a crack in everything
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/ | That's how the light gets in...
~khiller/home.html | Leonard Cohen
Karl Hiller
aNdrEW MeLbOURne (melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
:
Indifferent.
He's one of the best artists in the Image style, but it's not a style that
I particularly like. Look at Art Adams or Geoff Darrow for examples of
how to use a lot of lines and detail in a way that adds to storytelling
instead of just filling up space. (And how to justify two-page spreads).
Just my opinion,
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
visit The Courts of Chaos: | I remember everything as if it happened
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/ | years ago. Probably it did, so I
~khiller/home.html | remember it. -Robyn Hitchcock
Pat Simmons
Pat Simmons
>Ben
Patrick
vincent radford
I have to vote "yes" for Jim's artwork, but he's by no means my favorite
artist. I've always LOVED Art Adams' work since I first saw it in the
Longshot LS. His characters are so filled with energy and movement in a
cartoony yet serious way. Also, his range of different facial expressions
are also superior to Lee's and like Lee, he has spawned quite a few copy
cats of his own. But my all time favorite artist is Yukito Kishiro of the
Battle Angel Alita series. Unlike the previous two, Kishiro does all his
own artwork with *no* fancy Malibu enhancement or whatever--just a
superior use of pencils and inks (B&W rules!). And his understanding of
the human anatomy and the way he situates it on the page is truly
impressive! You gotta see it to believe it! KISHIRO RULES!!!!!
Oh, yeah...Jim Lee is good, too.
Bruce Baugh
With qualifications, yes, I do enjoy Lee's artwork. I can readily think
of a dozen artists I like more [1], but Lee does not shock or offend me.
His grasp of anatomy is improving, he's not doing such annoying layouts,
and he's reining in the rendering a bit (some of this last is progress
in his inkers, of course).
[1] P. Craig Russell, Scott McCloud, Brent Anderson, John Totleben, Rick
Veitch, Masamune Shirow, Tatsuya Nakadai [2], Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko,
Alan Davis, Art Adams, Gene Colan. I could come up with another dozen,
too. [3]
[2] Does anybody read this sort of digression?
[3] But won't.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100
Mikko Aittola
Pat Simmons wrote:
> although is used to.. when I was younger and I had no taste at
> all.....hell, i even liked liefeld's x-force....I'm so ashamed..
Don't be. Because you actually noticed that there is
other comics you really like.
Part of the problem in the biz was speculators.
Other part is the readers who read X-Men-, Spawn-,
Extreme-tiles etc. exclusively (because they can't
afford more books, and those books are/were the most
attractive ones because everybody else is/was reading
them) and then they notice that they don't actually
like those comics at all and stop collecting entirely.
They assume that *all* comics suck, because their
reading list was so derivative.
/Mikko
Y H Ng
Ron Shiflet (rshi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: > The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
: >
: > I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
Yes, but I think Jim Lee's earlier works were much better, eg the Acts of
Vengeance storyline from Uncanny X-Men that introduced the ninja-Psylocke.
In those days he could draw women like they were women: breast size wasn't
over the top and their costumes weren't ridiculously skin-tight. I don't
know whether the writer had something to do with it as well, but when
Claremont was scripting, Lee's characters seemed a lot more dynamic. I was
shocked, however, when Claremont and Lee re-united for a story in
WildCats... I picked up the very last episode of that and it was
terrible!!!!
--
Alex
--"Night has fallen and the Foul
are abroad! Two days have passed
since the War of the Solstice
began."
Mikko Aittola
Charlie Griefer wrote:
> 99% of all comic characters (both male and female), have
> perfectly developed anatomies.
Huh?
I'll not even dare to guess what books you have been
reading...
/Mikko
Pat Simmons
Benjamin Tao <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> I certainly will blame jim lee for the clones. The fact is most of
>> them work for him. He brought the whole thing on himself.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>Oh? So if all of a sudden everyone like Frank Miller's art and we have
>Miller clones, you gonna blame Miller also? I think many people have
>problems with others having commercial success. Why blame the source when
>he's the one that started it? You need people to come out with new style
>of art, and Jim Lee did that.
>Ben
You missed my whole point...... I would NOT blame Frank Miller for
people who clone his style. Frank Miller doesn't have a studio full
of people who clone him. Yes Lee came out with a new style, but he is
also the most responible for his clones.
In the letter colum of a recent Sin City Miller denounced his clones,
including Jim Lee. Remember Death BLow???
patrick
William Scott
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Christian Michael Viola wrote:
> Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
> only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
> person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
> an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
>
> JIM LEE RULES!!!
Ah. The ever technical and educated commentary. Tell me Christian,
how many years did you take art classes in order to come up with such an
insightful critique such as this ?
As for your self-annointed artistic prowess, we only have your word
as evidence and we all know what that is worth. ZERO. Why don't you try
something different for a change when you post, hmm ? Say, use facts to
back up your points.
> First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
> characters in interesting and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
> design from a mile away. Further, all his character renderings are
> highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
> each character. Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
> design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
> WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
> gatefolds. WOW! Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
> composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
> and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match. He imbues his art with such
> style, such power, such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap off the
> page!!!!!!
>
> Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
> people, his would be the only vote counted
You really never cease to amaze me with your ability to insult.
Let me give you a little hint Christian: When you look up in the uper
lefthand corner of each post and see all of that writing, it is called
the poster's address. With that in mind, did you ever take the time to
notice that a great many of the addresses end in .edu ? This generally
means that the posters are students, primarily college students.
BTW, what exactly are your educational credentials Christian ?
At the risk of sounding like I am haughty (I honestly do not mean to
be) I thought you might like to know that I am currently working on my
Masters degree in Microbiology at Humboldt State University. I believe if
you asked instead of
blathered, you would discover many people on this newsgroup are highly
educated. Again, apologies to all if I seemed self engratiating in my
post here.
Bill Scott
[wj...@axe.humboldt.edu]
Dave Miller
Benjamin Tao <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> typed:
>Oh? So if all of a sudden everyone like Frank Miller's art and we have
>Miller clones, you gonna blame Miller also?
If he opens Blam! Studios and starts hiring his clones to draw titles
like "Sin City Trilogy" or "The Sin City Sourcebook," then you're damn
right I'm going to blame Miller. I'm also going to consider the
clones talentless hacks.
mark trenner
Mikko Aittola wrote:
>
> Pat Simmons wrote:
> > although is used to.. when I was younger and I had no taste at
> > all.....hell, i even liked liefeld's x-force....I'm so ashamed..
>
> Don't be. Because you actually noticed that there is
> other comics you really like.
>
> Part of the problem in the biz was speculators.
>
X-Warrior
Ron Shiflet
Pat Simmons wrote:
>
> Benjamin Tao <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I certainly will blame jim lee for the clones. The fact is most of
> >> them work for him. He brought the whole thing on himself.
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >
> >problems with others having commercial success. Why blame the source when
> >he's the one that started it? You need people to come out with new style
> >of art, and Jim Lee did that.
>
> >Ben
>
> You missed my whole point...... I would NOT blame Frank Miller for
> people who clone his style. Frank Miller doesn't have a studio full
> of people who clone him. Yes Lee came out with a new style, but he is
> also the most responible for his clones.
>
> In the letter colum of a recent Sin City Miller denounced his clones,
> including Jim Lee. Remember Death BLow???
>
> patrick
Yes, and I preferred the "clone" to the original.
Ron Shiflet
Christian Michael Viola
Jon Dau...@som-uky.camp wrote:
> Totally agree. Mr. Lee's detailed (yet clean-cut) and provocative
> pencils and designs are perfect for modern mainstream superhero comics.
> Check out those space suits in the new FF #1 for a good example. Check
> out that nice butt-shot of Sue, too. :)
No..really, I'd put that Sue shot right behind the "pitiful Thing" pic
as the best drawings in the first issue. For years and years I've heard
how desirable Sue is (from Namor, Spidey, etc) but frankly, other than a
few bra and panty pics from Byrne, I've never found her the least bit
sexy. Now in one fell swoop, Lee has totally opened my eyes to this
character. And I'm especially impressed by the subtlety he showed in
doing it...if you look with a careful eye its clear how he made Sue sexy
in a cutesy kind of way rather than in the brazen, shake'em if you
got'em style of say a Psylocke.
> Mr. Lee's good, but he's hardly a "master." For example, those 3 triple
> gatefolds you mentioned...does a "master" storyteller really need to
> resort to that "IN YOUR FACE!!" approach
I totally disagree. Its simply a case of "if you got it, flaunt it."
That Jim Lee has the skill and talent to pull off such a tremendous feat
demonstrates his superior ability. Perhaps to you, someone who may
subjectively prefer a more bland and boring style, you find it excessive
but to somebody who is a appreciator of comic art, such a myself, the
ability to render a comic in that way is extremely impressive.
> Numbers for some examples of Mr. McCloud and Mr. Moores' awesome
> layouts, panel designs, and pacing.
Well, Jim Lee has worked with Moore and the art looks the same to me. I
mean, the style doesn't appear any different. Perhaps its because Alan
Moore knows he's working with one of the greats of the biz and don't
want to monkey around with perfection.
> My opinion:
> Mr. Lee's pencils are like an awesome car: perfectly constructed, and a
> blast to ride, but without gas, they won't run forever.
Nothing lasts forever. Looking at something for the 100th time, by its
very nature, is bound to be a tad less exciting then seeing it for the
first. But the solid base is there in Lee's work, a base that will have
comic artists staring at his work in awe and admiration for years to
come.
> them up; that's not "educated," it's "opinionated," and with your
> arrogant tone, some would even say "ignorant."
How is my tone "arrogant"--because I pointed out I'm the only one who
knows what I'm talking about?? Is a bird being arrogant when it flys?
Is a cat being arrogant when it leaps? Is a fish being arrogant when it
swims? No, its just a fact that they possess something others do
not--in my case that is art knowledge. This is painfully clear to me
because in reading this thread I see the two main criticisms are:
1) Jim is unrealistic--well, that is a stupid, invalid criticism because
there are only a handful of artists that draw realistic and if you
started saying anybody who draws unrealistic is untalented practically
every great artist who ever worked in comics, including King Kirby
himself, would be included.
2) Jim is unoriginal--well, innovators are much more skillful than
imitators and that's a fact. Further, and this is where I really know
I'm dealing with ignorance, if you can't tell the difference between say
Jim and Scott Campell then you really don't know anything about art.
The difference practically hits me over the head. You could give me a
page of a Lee clone's art and a Jim page and I'd tell you every time who
did what. Cause I KNOW what I'm looking at. However, many of you do
not.
Christian
U-KnOwHo
aNdrEW MeLbOURne (melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: The question is simple. "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
: I'm accepting three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Indifferent"
I would say 'YES' though I still prefer his work on Uncanny X-Men when he
worked with Chris Claremont.
+--+
_ _ +----+--+----+
| | | | | INN OF THE |
_ _| | __ _ ___ _____ _ _ _| |___ _____ | LAST HOME |
| | | | |/ /| | | _ | | | | | | _ | +----+--+----+
| | | | < | _ | | | | | | | _ | | | | __ | | __
| |_| | |\ \| | | | |_| | | | | | |_| | \ | |/ _
_______|Homepage-http://www.iscs.nus.sg/~chewteey|__________\|__||/_______
U-KnOwHo
Christian Michael Viola (cv...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
: gatefolds. WOW! Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
Even though I like Jim Lee's art, I do not like the gatefolds which I
think is a silly excuse to fill up the book. You get 1 panel in 3 pages
when so much could have gone into it.
As for character design, he could dressed the characters quite well but I
think his characters all look about the same to me.
Nevertheless I do like his detailed works (though I think part of the
credit should go to Scott Williams).
Kevin J. Maroney
Y H Ng <Y.H...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Yes, but I think Jim Lee's earlier works were much better, eg the Acts of
>Vengeance storyline from Uncanny X-Men that introduced the ninja-Psylocke.
I thought I was the only person who thought that Lee's style has
become more mannered, and with it less effective, over time. His early
Punisher work, while hardly of a level to set the world on fire,
seemed more controlled and thoughtful than his late X-Men or Image
work.
That said, there's still something I like about much of his work, and
would be delighted to have him draw superhero comics I wrote, which is
all I ever ask of artists.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
David
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<kmBXCpm00...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
> Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
> only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
> person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
> an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
>
> JIM LEE RULES!!!
>
Truly an "objactive" statement.
> First, he is a master of character design. He is able to depict his
> characters in interesting and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
> design from a mile away.
I can also tell a Steve Epting design a mile away, but I don't think that
he "RULES."
> Further, all his character renderings are
> highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
> each character.
Lines does not equal detail.
> Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
> design, and pacing.
Huh? How could I forget something I didn't know in the first place?
Evidence perhaps?
> If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
> WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE triple
> gatefolds.
Wow! Gatefolds! Man it takes a lot of skill to draw big pictures!
Wolverine #90 did it too! Mike Grell did a poster caver for Shamean's tears
so he must be a comics god!
> WOW! Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
> composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
> and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match.
Back it up.
> He imbues his art with such
> style, such power, such pure kinetic energy that the panels leap off the
> page!!!!!!
An pokes you in the eye! I have never seen a Jim Lee drawing that made me
say Wow, that guy is great. John Romita Jr. on the other hand...
> Christian, who thinks that if this survey only counted EDUCATED comic
> people, his would be the only vote counted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled egotistical.
-David
"We cure the stupid!"-Milk & Cheese
Tue Sorensen
> "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
Yeah, I like it. But only when it's applied to subject matter that means
something to me. Jim Lee's UNCANNY X-MEN were the best damn issues since John
Byrne's run! I bought four or five copies of # 274 (and two or three copies of
the surrounding issues) just because I *loved* the art. Nothing to do with
value speculation.
However, when WILDC.A.T.S came out, it left me cold. Sure, Voodoo was gorgeous
and all that, but GOD the stories and esp. the characters were bad! And they
still are.
After having generated quite a few rip-offers, Jim Lee's art has lost a lot of
its edge, to my mind. It was "hot" in the exact commercial meaning of the word,
and then it cooled down. In fact, in many ways, it became the norm. And now its
value has dwindled to... well, to something a lot less than what it used to be.
And of course that is doubly so because he doesn't do any high-profile work;
i.e. works on any of the classic super-hero icons - until now, of course. Jim
Lee's FF # 1 was better than I'd expected, but it still has a long way to go
before it will meet with my definition of "a good comic". I thought it was
rather thin and unoriginal, and the pacing and storytelling certainly isn't
anything special.
But, I'm glad to see Lee back on some proper characters again. I just hope he
can maintain a certain level of quality; it seems to me like his style is
becoming a little stiff and unexpressive. I mean, weren't those UNCANNY X-MEN
issues much better drawn? I think so.
- Tue Sorensen
Desmond Mohan
I admire Jim Lees artwork, but to say that he is only rivaled by the
likes of Mr. Liefeld shows the extent of your artistic
abillity...just another lame Jim Lee clone (as so much of the
industry is).
BTW, I do have some artistic abillity considering I am a graduate of
the High School of Art and Design and am currently enrolled the
School of Visual Arts (where a few comic artists teach as well i.e.
Klaus Janson etc.)
Jesus of Nebraska
Christian Michael Viola wrote:
> Okay, you've heard the rest, now you get to hear from the best. As the
> only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
> person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
> an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
>
> JIM LEE RULES!!!
Being new to the forum, I was wondering if there were any complete idiots
who post here.
This guy makes the grade.
Jesus
Gregg T. Allinson
Jesus of Nebraska (00dws...@nsu.edu) wrote:
Heh...you have a keen eye for detail, sir. A hearty welcome to you, Jesus
of Nebraska!
--
Au Bon Pain!,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("We found Grady!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've got a bellyache, and it's a beauty!"
-Captain James Tiberius Kirk-Star Trek: "The Man Trap"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at fox...@delphi.com and the BBC at P...@bbc.co.uk
and request a new season of Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Michael Viola
The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
this GREAT! I grew up reading Cap, the guy is a hero of mine such as a
fictional character can be, but how I've suffered....LORD HOW I SUFFERED
the last few years, with the pathetic art and the horrible horrible
stories. Poor Cap, the luster was gone, he was nearing his end. Now,
in one fell swoop, Rob has descended from the heavens above and restored
Cap, bringing him back in all his greatness. Some highlights:
-Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
incredible!!!
-The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
-The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where he
fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a very
excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan wants
it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
legend--the scene where the shield emerged from the rubble signifying
Cap is BACK is a classic!!!
-The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
absolutely perfect!!!
-Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
Aunt May.
-Finally, I loved Cap's lines while he was whuppin' the thugs. In those
few panels Rob has put forth what Cap IS EXACTLY ABOUT--exactly what he
represents and why he is one of my heroes. Yes, "one man can make a
difference" and in this case that man is Rob Liefeld!!!!!!!
So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
Christian
"I've always believed that all you need is one man to make a difference.
To stand up when others are told to sit down. To speak LOUDLY for
those who have no voice. And to fight the good fight"--Captain America
#1
Christian Michael Viola
Dave Mil...@blue.weeg.ui spouted:
> >only person on racmu with any ACTUAL artistic ability and as the only
> >person (apparently) who knows anything about how to correctly evaluate
> >an artist on OBJECTIVE grounds, it is time for me to speak.
> >characters in interesting
>
The way I meant it it is. I meant interesting in the sense that they
look different than what is typical--they catch your eye by being
different. Whether or not you subjectively like the depiction is one
thing, but you must give credit to anybody who is able to break out from
the boring norm.
> >and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
> >design from a mile away.
>
> To me that would indicate a lack of innovation. If it's easy to spot
> a Jim Lee design, that would indicate that all of his designs have at
> least one easily recognizable thing in common.
HAHAHAHA. What an idiot. Oh..I see, so the fact that art critics can
spot a DaVinci or Renoir a mile away because they have a distinct STYLE,
they must be hacks too, right??? Jim Lee has a STYLE, a distinct style
that nobody can copy and few can match, he is great. Please try and say
something that makes sense.
> I actually think you're right. You can spot a Jim Lee design from a
> mile away. I just consider that a bad thing.
Well, so far no luck in finding a valid statement. Ohh and I'm sure Jim
is quaking that you consider it a "bad thing" given that you so clearly
don't know what the hell your talking about.
> >Further, all his character renderings are
> >highly detailed, he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
> >each character.
>
> And why, pray tell, is this a good thing?
Why is putting detail into character a good thing??? HAHAHAHAHAHA..the
stupidity just keeps on comin' Maybe because the characters are the
MOST IMPORTANT visual aspect, practically every panel uses them as a
focal point. Gee..I'd think you'd want to put a lot of effort into the
most important visual aspect of the book.
> What's impressive about
> nonsensical intricacy other than it must have taken quite a bit of
> time to draw? (I say nonsensical because very often the little detail
> is just random little lines and shapes .... Lee isn't actually drawing
> anything, he's just adding psuedo-detail.
HAHAHAH..here you really show your ignorance. "random little lines and
shapes"....HEHE..have you ever drawn ANYTHING?? Every line is there for
a reason and each adds to the shape, texture, depth and dimension of the
character (or whatever) Lee draws. If you actually knew what you were
talking about and weren't just a pompous blowhard, you'd know this.
> >Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
> >design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
> >WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE
> > triple gatefolds.
>
> And why, pray tell, are triple gatefolds good things?
Because they are tremendously hard to draw, they require great skill to
pull off well and their utilization, in the hands of a master like Lee,
opens up whole new realms of possibility in pacing and layout.
> You can't vary
> the pacing in a triple gatefold.
Yes you can. Lee did.
> You can't slowly build up suspense
> in a triple gatefold.
So?? I see..every single layout in every comic must be geared towards
suspense build up or its worthless. OOOHHHHH...lord, why am I wasting
my time with this dumbass.
> You can't show a masterfully choreographed
> fight scene in a triple gatefold.
Yes, you can. Lee did. Have you actually seen this WILDCATS issue in
question or are you just pulling statements out of your ass as usual??
> BTW, I'm still waiting for the objective comments.
I'm still waiting for some intelligent comments from you. I doubt I'll
see them though.
> >Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
> >composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
> >and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match.
>
> But what about these layouts is so great? I think they're weak. What
> "objective" grounds make you right and make me wrong?
This is hard to do with words. Get a Jim Lee issue and give me your
objective take on why they're weak. I'll then blow your statements to
shreds (e-mail me the post if you please, I promise to respond but it
might not have the time right away)
> MY idea of powerful artwork is
> a tiny SIN CITY panel showing a black silhouette of a head with only
> the eyes visible, eyes that make your skin crawl.
So then you must be really impressed with Rob's artwork in CAP where he
shows MasterMan all silouetted with only his menacing eyes shining
bright.
> Before I can consider him a really good cartoonist he will have to
> figure out how to draw more than one female figure, and more than one
> female face. More than one male face wouldn't hurt, either.
So you must be equally critical of John Byrne since he can only draw one
female face and has like maybe 3 male faces.
> He'll
> have to become a far more accomplished background artist.
HAHAHAH...oh yeah, when I worked at the comic store people always were
opening comics and screaming "YES!!! WHAT A GREAT ARTIST!!! HE DREW 3
TROPHIES ON THE SHELF!!! YEEEESSSS!!" I'm tempted to question your
sanity but as it is, I think your ignorance is explanation enough.
Backgrounds set the scene, nothing more. Jim Lee sets seen extremely
well. Nuff said.
> He'll have
> to learn how to powerfully draw a quiet conversation.
HAHAHAHAHAHA...OHHH man, that does it!!! You've been reading too much
Strangers in Paradise or whatever other sissy book you waste your money
one. Jim Lee can draw two people sitting around a table talking. He
can also draw them fighting to the death. He can do it all. He is a
complete artist and he is a great artist. And I'm done wasting my time.
Vermilion
In article <kmCnU_O00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
<"review" snipped>
Rob's the man, eh? Yeah, he's the man that Toddy Mac and the others
kicked out on his ass. He's the man forced to give up his positions of
authority and made to leave a company he helped found by his companions and
peers. He's the man being sued for not paying people for the work they do.
Rob's the man that the rest of Image did not want. Even your god Todd
MacFarlane voted to force Liefeld out. What sort of twist does that put in
the Viola pantheon?
Yeah, he's the man.... the main man on Image's Least Wanted posters...
- Vermilion, who didn't know being the man entailed being rejected by your
friends and co-workers...
godai
Christian Michael Viola wrote:
>
> The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
> moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
>
> WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
> HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
> Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
> this GREAT! I grew up reading Cap, the guy is a hero of mine such as a
> fictional character can be, but how I've suffered....LORD HOW I SUFFERED
> the last few years, with the pathetic art and the horrible horrible
> stories. Poor Cap, the luster was gone, he was nearing his end. Now,
> in one fell swoop, Rob has descended from the heavens above and restored
> Cap, bringing him back in all his greatness. Some highlights:
>
Now, now Christian - wipe away the spittle and stop drooling, it's
distracting.
> -Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
> lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
> is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
> how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
> past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
> and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
> incredible!!!
>
It worked on a completely different level for me - inducing me to projectile
vomit.
> -The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
> that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
> introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
> Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
> this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
> history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
> brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
>
Y'know, I think Rob doesn't have any problems finding dates, so why do you
feel the need to stroke him, m'boy?
> -The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
> than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
> the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where he
> fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a very
> excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan wants
> it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
> legend--the scene where the shield emerged from the rubble signifying
> Cap is BACK is a classic!!!
>
Clever? I saw that seen coming from a mile away. Try taking off the shades,
you "The futures so bright I gotta wear shades" poster child.
> -The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
> than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
> than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
> absolutely perfect!!!
>
And how was he interesting? We got to see him for a brief moment and he got
what, a few lines? Does the term "mindless fan-boy" sound familiar, hmmm?
> -Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
> great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
> highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
> Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
> giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
> America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
> the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
> stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
> scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
> Aunt May.
>
We must have been reading two different books - all I saw were hideously
deformed characters, gut-wrenchingly amateurish renderings of characters,
constantly changing and *sparse* backgrounds and more mistakes than the eye
can follow without eyestrain.
> -Finally, I loved Cap's lines while he was whuppin' the thugs. In those
> few panels Rob has put forth what Cap IS EXACTLY ABOUT--exactly what he
> represents and why he is one of my heroes. Yes, "one man can make a
> difference" and in this case that man is Rob Liefeld!!!!!!!
>
> So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
> because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
>
In your increasingly worthless opinion. With all the troubles Rob has had
recently, I wouldn't be surprised to see Marvel pull the rug on this rag far
faster than the twelve month deal.
Aaron S. Veenstra
In article <kmCnU_O00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Christian Michael Viola
<cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> -The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
> that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
> introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
> Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
> this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
> history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
> brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
I'll let everyone else handle the rest of this affront to decency, but I
had to do this part myself.
Christian, sit down and brace yourself. I'm going to say something you
may find somewhat troubling. A couple things in fact. Ready? Good.
BARON ZEMO! RED SKULL! Thank you. You may now return to licking Rob's
boots.
Aaron, if I told him anymore I'd have to kill him
Absol 66
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
>moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
>WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
>HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
>Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
<snip>
I think I am going to be sick. I did not hate the issue but I have no
idea how someone could actually manage to think of that many good
things to say about the book.
If you like Cap so much how could you stand to watch him cut a guy
open with his shield? The Cap I am used to reading would not have
done that.
How interesting can you honestly believe the "new" Nick Fury to be?
HE was shown for a total of about 3 pages I think. Well you have your
opinion but don't you ever find anything wrong with Liefeld? I
occasionally find things I don't like with even the best writers and
artists.
Greg Schienke
I am not a big Marvel fan. I was once from about 1965 to 1990, but
the line expanded so much and that I finally said it was time to get
off. Since that time, I started buying the DeFalco/Ryan Fantastic
Four and David's Hulk, a special here and there, Untold Tales of
Spider-Man, but overall I was finished with Marvel comics. I missed
them though and WANTED to read more, but there was a spark, a love,
missing from the books that I hadn't really seen since Jim Shooter's
tenure.
Then came this whole Heroes Reborn storyline. I figured "what the
heck," and decided to try them. And, I went into them open-minded;
the creators are not ones I am overly familiar with except by
reputation, good or bad.
The Fantastic Four was okay, but nothing special. In truth, except
for the price, how does the story being told differ in any way from
the stories being told in Professor X and the X-Men? There we have
classic stories updated, in my opinion, needlessly, to the ninties.
That's all the FF is, nothing new, just updated, as someone here wrote
"the movie version of the Fantastic Four." They could have put out
Professor Richards and His Fantastic Friends and done the same thing
for about two dollars less.
But now Captain America. I have always loved Captain AMerica. I
loved the cartoon in the sixties. The Cap suit was my favorite for
Captain Action. Some of my love for the Golden Age of comics came
from studying Cap's comic history.
The Fantastic Four was still the Fantastic Four, this is the Earth-7
version of Captain America; it is as if Kyle became Green Lantern and
then, to add insult to injury, took Hal Jordan's name. There is
nothing to make me want to buy the book again, but hopefully Marvel
can use this next yea to get a focus on Cap and his setting to truly
return the book to greatness when it returns to Marvel's hands next
year. Hey, Marvel, Karl Kesel is doing some great stuff with
Daredevil, check it out.
Now, by now, you are asking, what am I doing here? Well, I'll tell
you. I vaguely have been paying attention to the battles here at
RACMU concering this Christian fellow. Then I read his comments on
Cap #1; I haven't seen such blind acceptance of anything since, oh, I
don't know, some of the people who say Mark Waid can do no wrong. For
better or worse, I had to respond to some of Christian's comments.
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
>moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
What's that quote, "You can lure more flies with honey than with
vinegar?" If I wasn't reading Cap before, this introductory paragraph
wouldn't entice me to if this was the kind of person who was.
>WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
>HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
>Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
>this GREAT! I grew up reading Cap, the guy is a hero of mine such as a
>fictional character can be, but how I've suffered....LORD HOW I SUFFERED
>the last few years, with the pathetic art and the horrible horrible
>stories. Poor Cap, the luster was gone, he was nearing his end. Now,
>in one fell swoop, Rob has descended from the heavens above and restored
>Cap, bringing him back in all his greatness. Some highlights:
Can you look directly into Rob's face or do you have to turn away lest
ye be blinded? Do you have the glow about your own face or will that
come only when he speaks from a burning bush? Whle I understand
liking someone's work, you should never close your eyes to that
person's faults.
>-Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
>lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
>is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
>how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
>past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
>and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
>incredible!!!
The first time with the Pledge of Allegiance I got where they were
going with the technique. It did begin to wear upon me and smacked
more of filler than anything else; FF #1 may not be as good as Stan
and Jack's #1, but at least we got a whole lot of story for our money.
With this book, I kept expecting Irving Berlin and Kate Smith to pull
up and perform patriotic numbers.
>-The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
>that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
>introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
>Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
>this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
>history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
>brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
"Always lacked that pure ideological opposite." And Cap and the Red
Skull were what? A couple of guys arguing over what team was better,
the Brooklyn Dodgers or the New York Yankees? In the era in which the
characters were created, Cap and the Skull were the archetypes of
ideological opposites and still are; if anything happened, it was that
there was a time when the Skull wasn't a world conquering Fascist, but
a world conquering super criminal. Ask an average comic fan and the
first foe for Cap they will mention will probably be the Red Skull.
To replace the Skull with Masterman is like deciding that Batman's
opposite is not the Joker but the Riddler. It is close, but just not
right.
>-The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
>than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
>the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where he
>fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a very
>excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan wants
>it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
>legend--the scene where the shield emerged from the rubble signifying
>Cap is BACK is a classic!!!
Cap's shield has long been an icon in the Marvel Universe. Aside from
Vance Astro's quest for it in Guardians of the Galaxy, a few stories
over the years dealt with the loss/theft of the shield. I apologize
for not giving issue numbers, but I'm in TX and the bulk of my
collection is in WI.
>-The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
>than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
>than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
>absolutely perfect!!!
Maybe perfect in a different book, but not here. The captions
beforehand were written in a third person, if friendly, style.. All
of the sudden the reader is being addressed directly? Not that there
isn't a history of this occurriing in Marvel comics, God knows they
helped make the Marvel Age of Comics fun, but Stan would start with
that style on page one of a story. You don't start doing it in the
last panel of the last page. Nice line, but poor editing.
>-Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
>great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
>highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
>Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
>giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
>America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
>the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
>stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
>scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
>Aunt May.
Of course, the art. I am not even going to ask why Cap now wears
Wonder Woman's eagle design on his forehead, but, DC, isn't that
design trademarked by you? I'll be honest, I think I was long gone
from reading Marvel on a consistent basis by the time Liefeld was
honored with sainthood, so I don't know what his work was like in the
past, but here he is annoying. This book cries out "filler!" A two
page (sideways!) spread of Steve Rogers with the shield. Captain
America's first appearance in a story in the forties didn't rate even
a splash page. The first panel after Abe tries to present the shield
to Steve, makes either Steve 7'6" or Abe 4'5". And Steve is way too
skinny in that picture to be the same man, shirt ripped off, in the
aforementioned two page spread. Is Dugan human or a Weeble with legs?
And I have a question: how are children brought into the world in
Liefeld's world? I mean, none of the woman look like they could bear
a baby full term. What was it about young Mr. Liefeld's work that set
the comic world afire in the first place?
>-Finally, I loved Cap's lines while he was whuppin' the thugs. In those
>few panels Rob has put forth what Cap IS EXACTLY ABOUT--exactly what he
>represents and why he is one of my heroes. Yes, "one man can make a
>difference" and in this case that man is Rob Liefeld!!!!!!!
You know, while the sentiment may be what we want to hear, the
presentaion could have been better. It does read a little cliche;
what exactly is "the good fight" and who defines it?
>So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
>because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
Well . . . I hadn't heard that Gladstone was going to cancel Uncle
Scrooge any time soon, or Image Bone, but thanks for reassurance
anyway.
Did I like anything about this issue? Steve's friend being a mole was
a little bit of a surprise. Other than that, no. Even Rikki (Bucky)
Barnes is a cliche; hard to believe Dark Knight was ten years ago. It
would have been a twist for Bucky to have been a white male. There's
nothing here to make me want to come back. At least for a year.
Thanks for letting me take up your time.
Greg
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
I'll just add my two bits.
Jim Lee's art is plesant to look at, and very cool.
With that aside, I think he doesn't do a good job of storytelling with the
art. It's art to tell expressions and emotions, for one thing. Some
artists can lend a lot to the story by careful placement of figures,
gestures, etc. I don't think Jim Lee's is one of them.
Still, I'd much rather look at his art work than a lot of other folks. Say
what you will, I don't think that you'd get much debate on whether or not
Jim Lee's drawing themselves are pretty to look at, and that they are very
carefully done. It's just the story-telling aspect that's a bit weak.
--
\\ \\ |_/ The lemmings are back, and there's no place for me to hide \_|
\\-\\ |_\ "Quip _IS_ a valid word in newswriting!" - Me /_|
( X-X) |_/ *Mugger of Troy McNemar* *Mocker of Chris Bird* \_|
{_^_} -|_\ Liberator of Wheeler's Couches! E-Mail:ho...@syr.edu /_|
ozbot
Yes, I, too, will have to say that I like Jim Lee's art, but then
again, I like a range of both "classical" styles and "cutting edge"
enjoying both Buscema and Paul Ryan as well as Madeuria and Capullo.
What was great about Jim Lee (and Ron Lim, too) was that they started
their run on popular series at a time when the artwork there was
mediocere at best. There innovation caused the raise in sales and
artists clones soon to follow.
BTW, the best artist ever to work for Marvel is Alan Davis, period.
Robert A. Jung
The best thing about the whole "Heroes Reborn" is that it's allowing fans
to read Liefeld's horrid renderings of Marvel characters, then compare that
to Viola's lovestruck raves for the same. And that contrast is the most
effective argument for Christian's sheer ignorance...
--R.J.
B-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I write because I am personally amused by what I do, and if other people are
amused by it, then it's fine. If they're not, then that's also fine."
Send mail to rj...@netcom.com --Frank Zappa
xtate
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
>moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
>WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
>HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
>Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
>this GREAT! I grew up reading Cap, the guy is a hero of mine such as a
>fictional character can be, but how I've suffered....LORD HOW I SUFFERED
>the last few years, with the pathetic art and the horrible horrible
>stories. Poor Cap, the luster was gone, he was nearing his end. Now,
>in one fell swoop, Rob has descended from the heavens above and restored
>Cap, bringing him back in all his greatness. Some highlights:
>-Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
>lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
>is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
>how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
>past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
>and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
>incredible!!!
>-The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
>that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
>introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
>Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
>this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
>history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
>brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
>-The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
>than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
>the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where he
>fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a very
>excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan wants
>it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
>legend--the scene where the shield emerged from the rubble signifying
>Cap is BACK is a classic!!!
>-The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
>than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
>than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
>absolutely perfect!!!
>-Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
>great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
>highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
>Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
>giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
>America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
>the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
>stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
>scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
>Aunt May.
>-Finally, I loved Cap's lines while he was whuppin' the thugs. In those
>few panels Rob has put forth what Cap IS EXACTLY ABOUT--exactly what he
>represents and why he is one of my heroes. Yes, "one man can make a
>difference" and in this case that man is Rob Liefeld!!!!!!!
>So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
>because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
xtate
>Christian
This guy is obviously trying to get a rise out of the majority of
discerning comic fans who know crap when they read it. I have the
number of a good eye doctor to cure that myopia, Christian.
xtate.
Dave Miller
Rrr... I'm no longer interested in biting back flames. So, anyone
who gets the urge to write me a "Please try to rise above Christian's
level" response, please don't bother. And Christian, please feel free
to flame me back. I have thick skin.
And yes, I'm probably about to be trolled, again. But it's still a
discussion of comics, so I really don't care.
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> spewed:
>Dave Mil...@blue.weeg.ui spouted:
>> The adjective "interesting" is not objective.
>The way I meant it it is.
Please tell me where I can get a copy of the "Christian Michael Viola
to English Dictionary." It will certainly save me some confusion.
>I meant interesting in the sense that they
>look different than what is typical--they catch your eye by being
>different.
But this is not necessarily interesting.
>Whether or not you subjectively like the depiction is one
>thing, but you must give credit to anybody who is able to break out from
>the boring norm.
"Boring" is not an objective adjective. You aren't very good at this
"reasoning" thing, are you?
And I'll only admire somebody who breaks from the norm if this break
is an improvement, or at least is as good as the norm.
>> >and innovative ways---one can tell a Jim Lee
>> >design from a mile away.
>>
>> To me that would indicate a lack of innovation. If it's easy to spot
>> a Jim Lee design, that would indicate that all of his designs have at
>> least one easily recognizable thing in common.
>HAHAHAHA. What an idiot. Oh..I see, so the fact that art critics can
>spot a DaVinci or Renoir a mile away because they have a distinct STYLE,
>they must be hacks too, right???
Excuse me, I thought we were talking about character designs, not
style. Express yourself more clearly next time. For future
reference, I'll note that you consider the words "style" and "design"
to be interchangeable.
>> I actually think you're right. You can spot a Jim Lee design from a
>> mile away. I just consider that a bad thing.
>I'm sure Jim is quaking that you consider it a "bad thing" given that you so clearly
>don't know what the hell your talking about.
Actually, I'm guessing that Lee isn't really worried about what I
think because I'm not his target audience. Lee seems quite capable of
making his audience happy, but he doesn't provide what I look for in
comic art. I bear no ill will towards Jim Lee personally, but I hate
the trend that his work has set.
>> >he clearly puts a tremendous amount of intricacy into
>> >each character.
>>
>> And why, pray tell, is this a good thing?
>Why is putting detail into character a good thing??? HAHAHAHAHAHA..the
>stupidity just keeps on comin'
I don't think this is said nearly often enough: Fuck you, Christian.
>Maybe because the characters are the
>MOST IMPORTANT visual aspect, practically every panel uses them as a
>focal point. Gee..I'd think you'd want to put a lot of effort into the
>most important visual aspect of the book.
So would I. I'd think an artist would strive to give each character a
distinctive face and a distinctive body. THAT sort of detail
impresses me. Putting a billion lines on a face doesn't.
>> What's impressive about
>> nonsensical intricacy other than it must have taken quite a bit of
>> time to draw? (I say nonsensical because very often the little detail
>> is just random little lines and shapes .... Lee isn't actually drawing
>> anything, he's just adding psuedo-detail.
>HAHAHAH..here you really show your ignorance. "random little lines and
>shapes"....HEHE..have you ever drawn ANYTHING??
Utterly irrelevant. I don't have to be a pro to comment on the work
of a pro.
> Every line is there for
>a reason and each adds to the shape, texture, depth and dimension of the
>character (or whatever) Lee draws.
Who's talking about texturing? I was referring to detail.
There's no real detail going on there. The little lines which
supposedly give texture don't qualify in my mind as detail. To me,
detail is a Geof Darrow or John Byrne background. Detail is an
overturned lampshade in an apartment. Detail is thumbing through a
comic and seeing four totally different types of desks in the same
issue. Detail is little touches that make a scene seem more real.
It has nothing to do with texturing or other superficial surface
effects.
Lee's Little Lines simply use too much ink to accomplish too little.
Despite all of that texturing, Lee's work has no more depth to it than
the work of Jeff Smith or David Mazzuchelli. When it comes to ink,
less is more.
> If you actually knew what you were
>talking about and weren't just a pompous blowhard, you'd know this.
I never cease to be amazed at the unfortunate quirks of random chance.
Billions of possible sperm/egg combinations, and we're stuck with you.
<Sigh.>
>> >Don't forget that he is the master of layout, panel
>> >design, and pacing. If anybody doubts his greatness, just look at
>> >WILDCATS issue where he did, I believe, not one not two but THREE
>> > triple gatefolds.
>>
>> And why, pray tell, are triple gatefolds good things?
>Because they are tremendously hard to draw,
Explain. I see a triple gatefold, I think "Oh look. A big panel."
What makes it so damn hard to draw?
> they require great skill to
>pull off well and their utilization, in the hands of a master like Lee,
>opens up whole new realms of possibility in pacing and layout.
Oh, get off it. How can you vary pacing if you have three fucking
pages devoted to a single drawing?
>> You can't vary
>> the pacing in a triple gatefold.
>Yes you can. Lee did.
Give an example, please, and show me the variation in pacing.
>> You can't slowly build up suspense
>> in a triple gatefold.
>So?? I see..every single layout in every comic must be geared towards
>suspense build up or its worthless.
No, dumbshit, I never said that. Why don't you try taking my comments
in context? We were talking about how impressive a triple gatefold
was as far as a layout goes. Now, I value things like subtle drama,
suspense, and a broad range of emotional expression. You know, the
stuff that can actually appeal to one's brain? How do triple
gatefolds aid in the development of ANY of these things? What can you
do with a triple gatefold? Create a drawing that's IN YOUR
FACE!!!!!!!!!!!! Big fucking deal. Subtlety is far more impressive.
>> You can't show a masterfully choreographed
>> fight scene in a triple gatefold.
>Yes, you can. Lee did.
The hell he did.
> Have you actually seen this WILDCATS issue in
>question or are you just pulling statements out of your ass as usual??
WildC.A.T.S. #5? I've got it right here in front of me. (There was a
time long ago when I was Jim's target audience. I loved his work
then. I'll give the man credit for this .... he can appeal to kids.)
First, we are treated to a quadruple gatefold. In the space of four
pages, this is the extent of fight choreography: Ninja Chick executes
a jump kick while Trenchcoat Guy fires shots from a gun in each hand.
I also have a reprint of Amazing Spider-man #28, drawn by Ditko.
In a *single page* this is the fight choreography:
The Molten Man leads with a left cross which Spidy deftly ducks under.
MM follows through with a two handed punch which smashes the wall, but
Spidey spins out of the way. Raxton tries to catch Spidey with a
right backhand, which Spidey also ducks. Spidey grabs MM's right arm
in an attempt to calm him down. MM pivots and tries to grab Spidey,
but Spidey flips right over MM's head. MM doesn't budge as Spidey
grabs him in mid flip, and Spidey is left holding onto the tattered
remains of MM's shirt. Spidey is now wide open and totally
vulnerable.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which fight sequence was
more intricately choreographed.
>> >Not only that but he is a genius at dynamic
>> >composition, composing layouts and sequences that only a few (like Rob
>> >and Todd) in the ENTIRE industry can match.
>>
>> But what about these layouts is so great? I think they're weak. What
>> "objective" grounds make you right and make me wrong?
>This is hard to do with words. Get a Jim Lee issue and give me your
>objective take on why they're weak. I'll then blow your statements to
>shreds
I think the above comparisons of two fight scenes should suffice for
this.
>> MY idea of powerful artwork is
>> a tiny SIN CITY panel showing a black silhouette of a head with only
>> the eyes visible, eyes that make your skin crawl.
>So then you must be really impressed with Rob's artwork in CAP where he
>shows MasterMan all silouetted with only his menacing eyes shining
>bright.
I saw the panel. It didn't have the emotional punch. It takes more
than shadows to make powerful art. It takes emotional content.
>> Before I can consider him a really good cartoonist he will have to
>> figure out how to draw more than one female figure, and more than one
>> female face. More than one male face wouldn't hurt, either.
>So you must be equally critical of John Byrne since he can only draw one
>female face and has like maybe 3 male faces.
In the past Byrne has had this problem, and I am critical of it.
These days his range of faces (male and female) is actually pretty
good. NEXT MEN is a good showcase of this. Jazz is easily
distinguishable from Bethany (even without the hair as a give away),
who is easily distinguishable from Tony Murcheson (and not just
because of skin color), who is easily distinguishable from Amanda, who
is easily distinguishable from Belabet of DANGER UNLIMITED. He
doesn't yet have the range of the great Dave Gibbons, but he has
vastly improved in this area. I'd say he's got Lee in this case.
>> He'll
>> have to become a far more accomplished background artist.
>HAHAHAH...oh yeah, when I worked at the comic store people always were
>opening comics and screaming "YES!!! WHAT A GREAT ARTIST!!! HE DREW 3
>TROPHIES ON THE SHELF!!! YEEEESSSS!!" I'm tempted to question your
>sanity but as it is, I think your ignorance is explanation enough.
>Backgrounds set the scene, nothing more. Jim Lee sets seen extremely
>well. Nuff said.
Hey, I don't give a shit about what gets the masses that are asses
excited. That's the difference between the two of us. A background
sets the scene. Lee does it competently, sure, but he doesn't do it
with much flair. An artist like Byrne, who not only takes the time to
draw furniture in an apartment, but takes the time to figure out what
style of furniture a character would have, and spends time on other
details, that impresses me. I notice that kind of stuff, and I
appreciate it. Lee can draw an apartment. Byrne can draw a college
student's apartment, a struggling artist's apartment, a well-paid
30-something single guy's apartment, a 30-something single woman's
apartment, or a retired couple's apartment. You can look at Byrne's
depiction of an apartment and just know what kind of person(s) live
there. IOW, Byrne is conveying information to the reader through the
art .... aka STORYTELLING. There are a couple of us out here that
can still appreciate that skill.
>> to learn how to powerfully draw a quiet conversation.
>HAHAHAHAHAHA...OHHH man, that does it!!! You've been reading too much
>Strangers in Paradise or whatever other sissy book you waste your money
>on.
For the record, my reading tastes lie along the lines of Stray
Bullets, Sin City, From Hell, Concrete, Hellboy, Astro City, Bone,
Hate, and Untold Tales of Spider-Man.
>Jim Lee can draw two people sitting around a table talking.
Yes, but can he draw that scene so that it will really impress me?
So that every nuance of expression and body language tells something
about the characters' mental state? Maybe, but I've never seen him do
it.
Sorry, but you've failed to convince me. The things that I look for
in comic art and the things that Jim Lee delivers are two different
things. Lee's art is almost exactly the opposite of what I want to
see, in fact.
ED SANDERSON
YOU ARE KIDDING RIGHT?
THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORST DRAWN AND LAZIEST ATTEMPTS AT A COMIC I HAVE
EVER SEEN.
I AM NOT A CYNICAL PERSON AT ALL,BUT THIS GIVES ME DOUBTS ABOUT THE REST
OF HIS WORK COMING OUT.
-ED
Christopher Bird
Christian Michael Viola (cv...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
In the first place, extennnnnding words or using CAPITALS with lots of
exclamation marks!!!!! does *not* impress people. Sorry.
> -Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
> lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
> is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
> how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
> past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
> and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
> incredible!!!
Trite sensationalism, disgustingly obvious. This is about as subtle as a
train wreck. The fact that you picked it up only proves my point.
> -The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
> that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
> introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
> Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does.
Of course. The Red Skull? Has-been.
> And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
> absolutely perfect!!!
It's also a dull cliche.
> -Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
> great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
> highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
> Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
> giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
> America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
> the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
> stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
> scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
> Aunt May.
I repeat: trite, overblown, and generally boring. Liefeld is trying very
hard to give Captain America the noble tone it deserves. Then again, Joel
Shumacher was trying to direct a decent BATMAN movie, and look where that
got him.
Effort only gets you so far. If Rob had talent to speak of, I might like
this piece of crap.
> So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
> because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
Excepting RARE BIT FIENDS, SiP, CEREBUS, the entire production of DC,
and indeed the entire production of all comics except Extreme (which CA#1 is
ever-so-slightly above).
I also note that nowhere in your post did you give credit to Chuck Dixon
or Jeph Loeb. Funny, that.
> "I've always believed that all you need is one man to make a difference.
> To stand up when others are told to sit down. To speak LOUDLY for
> those who have no voice. And to fight the good fight"--Captain America #1
I can't help but read this and think that it belongs in a Bob Dole speech
or something similar. *Good* Cap writing doesn't bother with this phony
sentimentalism; it goes straight to the core and actually says something.
That little piece of nothingness is distinctive of nobody: any politician,
anywhere, could say it with a perfectly straight face and they might even
be telling the truth. Those comments are so vague in their righteousness
that they have no meaning.
----------- The Church of Cthulhu: http://chat.carleton.ca/~cbird-----------
"Look at what you stole, Warren. Rap; metal; rap; metal; Whitney Houston."
"It's for my girlfriend."
"Sure it is." -- "Empire Records"
CTHULHU FOR PRESIDENT IN 1996- "Why Settle For The Lesser Evil?"
Judge
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Christian Michael Viola wrote:
> The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
> moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
You know, I was about to write something supporting your ideas in
this post, Christian, but rereading this first line has made me decide
that you are just the degenerat egomaniacal cocksucker I initially took
you for. Fuck it.
Merry Christmas,
Judge
I almost cried
When I saw there was nothing inside
This was my dream
Yellow spongecake filled up with cream
Who sucked out the filling?
Who sucked out the filling?
Gregg T. Allinson
: that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
: introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
: Joker or Spidey has/had Venom.
*Coughcoughcough*
Captain America has never had his Venom or Joker, eh...then who's this Red
Skull fellow?
: -The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
: than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
: the battle for good.
Jim Valentino thought so back in 1990, too. See his classic run on
"Guardians of the Galaxy".
: So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
: because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
Oh my lord...Christian is secretly Ric "The Nature Boy" Flair, 13-time
World Heavyweight Champion!
WOOOOOOOOOOOO!
TRIGGS
In article <51e2np$c...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>, Tue Sorensen <sorensen> writes:
>> "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
> However, when WILDC.A.T.S came out, it left me cold. Sure, Voodoo was gorgeous
> and all that, but GOD the stories and esp. the characters were bad! And they
> still are.
I thought his run on Gen 13 was excellent. One thing that has always impressed
me with Jim Lee is his ability to draw very small characters and panels, and
actually make them look good. The only two other pencillers who have shown
this talent out of the last wave of pencillers are Chris Bachalo and Larry
Stroman. It's one of those minor abilities that is overlooked a lot.
ED SANDERSON
ED SANDERSON
ED SANDERSON
Trey Harris
I really do enjoy Jim Lee's art. Admittedly, some of his
detractors have valid points. I'm not an art specialist and maybe my
opinions aren't well thought out and researched. But I like what I like
and Jim Lee's art is very attractive to me.
Peace,
*** MARBLES ***
kr...@atl.mindspring.com
Christian Michael Viola <cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>-The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
>that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
>introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
>Joker or Spidey has/had Venom.
Have you ever heard of the Red Skull or Baron Zemo???
>-The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
>than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
>the battle for good.
Yeh it changed six=ze several times in the story too, it must have Pym
particles on it now huh
>-Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
>great since the King last put down his drawing pencil.
Remember fan boys shouldn't smoke crack.
Ron Shiflet
But, this is hardly a response to the comments made about Captain America
#1. Just more personal attacks on Liefeld.
Ron Shiflet
perl...@ally.ios.com
My thought of Jim Lee....
I thought his Punisher vs Wolverine 5 years back is some amazing stuff...
His run on uncanny was great too...Jim Lee is a good draughtsman and
competant storyteller...But that was 5years ago...When he did X-Men 1 ,
he went down hill with that bad hatching technique...Everything about his
work has gone wonky and too cartoony(I prefer Art Adams cartoony
myself)..His work now has decent storytelling(FF#1), and his
draughtmanship is getting better since his last work...However I much
rather look at Travis Charest's art...Travis is far more show-offy and
has stronger drawing and storytelling ability..He does Jim Lee better
than Jim Lee...I can forgive a lot of things in Travis's work because he
at least has good backgrounds and excellent figures...Its very dynamic...
On another note...John Romita JR kicks all their butts!!!!!!
Jon Daulton
Attention, Rob Liefeld Captain America fans!
Ten years ago, Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns presented
the ideas from Mr. Liefeld's Captain America (listed in Christian
Viola's post below), and addressed every aspect of it, much, much
better.
You disagree? If so, and you wanna debate, please reply and accept this
challenge. The debate'll be held here in public here in RACMU (maybe
RACDU, too...can we do that?), and it'll start as soon as somebody
accepts the challenge. We'll take this debate in steps, a new step
being reached as each issue of Mr. Liefeld's Cap hits the stands.
Of course, we'll start by debating Mr. Viola's opinions listed below.
The purpose of this debate is NOT to trigger a flame war. It's to help
us participants and readers help each other learn more about each
other's opinions on what makes a good story. I, for one, need all the
help I can get! And what better way than a fun, light-hearted debate?
:)
Jon
"I'm loyal to nothing, General...except the dream."
"The soldier remembers the time before he was frozen. He remembers the
smiles. There was so much hope in that time. His time."
-both quotes are from Frank Miller's Captain America, Daredevil 233
Mr. Christian Viola listed some good points about Cap 1:
>
> -Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
> lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
> is what its all about.
> Look at our politicians today, they all speak
> of how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
> past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
> and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
> incredible!!!
>
> -The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
> that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
> introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
> Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does. What's sooo cool is that
> this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
> history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
> brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see > more!!!!
>
> -The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
> than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
> the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where > he fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a >
very excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan >
wants
> it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
> legend--the scene where the shield emerged from the rubble signifying
> Cap is BACK is a classic!!!
>
> -The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
> than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
> than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
> absolutely perfect!!!
>
> -Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
> great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
> highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
> Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
> giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
> America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
> the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
> stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
> scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
> Aunt May.
>
> -Finally, I loved Cap's lines while he was whuppin' the thugs. In those
> few panels Rob has put forth what Cap IS EXACTLY ABOUT--exactly what he
> represents and why he is one of my heroes. Yes, "one man can make a
> difference" and in this case that man is Rob Liefeld!!!!!!!
>
> So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
> because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
>
> Christian
James L. Jones
Did anybody else like Cap #1 better the first time, with Arnold, on
Mars? Can Rob get a clue? Will Waid & Garney ever return to this
character? Will Marvel realize that by doing Heroes Reborn they're
allowing Rob to bastardize an American Legend?
Corey Goettsche
>So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
>because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
I'm sorry Christian, but paraphrasing "Nature Boy" Ric Flair won't entice
me to buy Captain America.
Corey Goettsche : just one of the faceless,nameless racmu people who,
according to Mr. Viola, is a PAD/Waid ass-kissing,
dimwitted, moronic asshole ;-).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around."
Vermilion
Read the title, Ron. Not a word about Cap in it. That's all _I_ wanted
to respond to. I think Cap #1 speaks for itself.
- Vermilion, who'd have reviewed Cap #1, but I didn't get out of the store
with it...
PatDOneill
In article <ImCnUGS00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Christian Michael Viola
<cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I meant interesting in the sense that they
>look different than what is typical--they catch your eye by being
>different.
In what way are Lee's character designs different from the general run of
stuff being done today? Lots of straps and pockets, jackets, metal pieces,
hair in the eyes, thin-lipped tight mouths, eyes without pupils....
You want to see "different" in character design? Look at the work of the
late Mike Parobeck, or Rick Burchett.
>Why is putting detail into character a good thing??? HAHAHAHAHAHA..the
>stupidity just keeps on comin' Maybe because the characters are the
>MOST IMPORTANT visual aspect, practically every panel uses them as a
>focal point.
It is equally possible to make the character the focal point by keeping
him simple and clean and devoid of any except the absolutely necessary in
detail. See, again, the work of Parobeck in JUSTICE SOCIETY and THE FLY.
See Randy Reynaldo's work on ROB HANES. See, in a slightly different
medium, the work of Dick Moores or Jim Scancarelli on GASOLINE ALLEY or of
Leonard Starr on ANNIE.
In fact, when the level of detail on all parts of the image is the
same--foreground, midground, background--the result is often a flat,
perspectiveless mess. Sometimes, less is more.
>Because they are tremendously hard to draw, they require great skill to
>pull off well and their utilization, in the hands of a master like Lee,
>opens up whole new realms of possibility in pacing and layout.
Why, pray tell, is a picture that is (in the original) something like 30
inches by 15 inches more difficult to draw than one that is 10 by 15? Or
smaller? Shouldn't it actually be EASIER to draw, because the larger the
surface, the more room for all that lovely detail? And a triple gatefold,
by my lights, actually limits the "realms of possibility" in pacing and
layout as it absorbs reams of space that might have been used in telling
the story rather than in blowing up one image of that story to ridiculous
size.
>And I'm done wasting my time.
Well, somebody's been wasting his time here, but I'm not convinced it's
you.
Best, Pat
Dave Miller
s013...@unix1.cc.ysu.edu (Anthony R Renze) typed:
>Er, I think you've mistaken Alan Moore (the *writer* of WATCHMEN and BIG
>NUMBERS) for the artists he worked with on those books (Dave Gibbons and
>Bill Sienkiewicz, respectively--two artists who are so tremendously
>talented that Jim Lee would be a bit foolish in hoping to someday reach
>their level of greatness).
Actually, I believe that Moore provides detailed scripts complete with
panel descriptions, not plots. The parallel structure in "Fearful
Symmetry" is almost certainly Moore's doing.
(Not to take anything away from the masterful illustration of Dave
Gibbons or Bill Sienkiewicz.)
Actually, I think that the best thing Lee could do is aspire towards
Gibbons. (Not clone him, but work on developing a range of faces and
body types that is as diverse as Gibbon's is, etc.) Maybe he could
become as good, maybe not. It sure wouldn't hurt for him to give it a
shot. I feel like I've been coming down hard on Lee. Maybe that's
because I see a great deal of potential in his work. I think that he
could overcome his weaknesses and maybe someday be one of the greats.
Liefeld, OTOH, I consider to be pretty much a hopeless case.
The Orphic Sihnesi
gen...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Absol 66) wrote:
>
>How interesting can you honestly believe the "new" Nick Fury to be?
>HE was shown for a total of about 3 pages I think. Well you have your
>opinion but don't you ever find anything wrong with Liefeld? I
>occasionally find things I don't like with even the best writers and
>artists.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!Nick Fury with a clove cigarette instead of a cigar?!?!?
Dum-Dum Dugan in Spandex even???What are you people dogging Christian
for? This IS the best comic ever!!! Put all the issues of Groo and
What The? and throw in everything Hembeck's ever done and you still
wouldnn't come up with this many laughs.
Patch Doran of the new Nazi Regime
"RIGHT ON!"pfffthaha
wierdo#9
In article <32370B...@flash.net>, chu...@flash.net wrote:
> BTW, since Rob never attended art school (and it shows), did Lee?
>
I believe Jim Lee graduated pre-med from Princeton before getting into the
comics schtick. I think I read that in Comics Scene or something eons
ago....
--Bill.
----
William S. Kartalopoulos
w...@dartmouth.edu
-or- w...@marketsource.com
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wsk/
"Everything has to have a point and a reason. But not a conclusion." --Johnny Rotten
Peter Meilinger
: moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
Better than being called a bigot, I suppose.
: WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
: HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
: Ohhh..man...I figured this would be good...I had no idea it was gonna be
: this GREAT! I grew up reading Cap, the guy is a hero of mine such as a
: fictional character can be, but how I've suffered....LORD HOW I SUFFERED
: the last few years, with the pathetic art and the horrible horrible
: stories. Poor Cap, the luster was gone, he was nearing his end. Now,
: in one fell swoop, Rob has descended from the heavens above and restored
: Cap, bringing him back in all his greatness. Some highlights:
I disagree with this paragraph. Vehemently. But you didn't call anyone
a whore so let's say we split the difference and chalk it up to different
strokes?
: -Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
: lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
: is what its all about. Look at our politicians today, they all speak of
: how we must restore the American dream or America has lost its
: past--just like Cap lost his past (the allegory is just soo well done
: and really apropriate). This story works on soo many levels its
: incredible!!!
I liked this too, though not as much as you did. It's a bit too heavy
handed for me. But the heart of the story is in the right place, I'll
gladly grant that.
: -The intro of MasterMan. Another masterstroke. Cap has always lacked
: that pure ideological opposite (there were attempts to fix this by
: introducing that lame Flag-smasher but he sucked)--such as Bats has
: Joker or Spidey has/had Venom. Now he does.
Red Skull. 'Nuff said.
: What's sooo cool is that
: this isn't some pulled out of the air character--he actually has a
: history (check out issues of the Invaders)--I applaud Rob for his
: brilliant understanding of comic history. I can't wait to see more!!!!
I like this guy too, and I do appreciate the use of historical villains.
: -The shield "quest." Cap's shield has always been, in my mind, more
: than just some funny disc, its kinda an artifact or holy relic used in
: the battle for good. I'll never forget that SECRET WARS scene where he
: fuses it back together again. Now, Rob cleverly sets it up in a very
: excaliber (Arthurian legend, not mutant) fashion. How MasterMan wants
: it, how Abe presents it, and then how it triggers the rebirth of the
Definitely liked this, especially Abe's speech about getting it back.
"It was wrong for it to be there. So, I took it." I'd like to have more
stories about Abe. Too bad he died.
: -The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
: than those bozos whacking Fury. Now he LIVES and he's more interesting
: than ever. And the line "If we told you more He'd have to kill you" was
: absolutely perfect!!!
Certainly glad that Nick is back, but it looks like he's being set up
as a lot more sinister than I'm comfortable with. But I'll wait and see.
: -Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
: great since the King last put down his drawing pencil. Particular
: highlights were the page shot of Fury, the great action sequence where
: Cap kicks ass, the tremendous shading effects on the MasterMan sequence
: giving an ominous feeling, the double page spread with "God Bless
: America" and the best of all, the double pager where Steve emerges from
: the rubble standing powerfully tall with the words "where once there
: stood a man named Steve Rogers now there is a legend named Cap"--that
: scene affected me emotionally more so than any since I read the death of
: Aunt May.
Gotta say I didn't care too much about the art one way or another. It's
not great but it's not terrible. If it doesn't get any worse I'll gladly
continue to buy the book as long as the stories stay this interesting.
One quibble: how exactly did the number of panes in the window change
between pages 4 and 5?
: So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
: because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
Can't agree with this, but what the hell.
Pete
Michael Warner
Viola wrote:
> Dave Mil...@blue.weeg.ui spouted:
> > The adjective "interesting" is not objective.
>
> look different than what is typical--they catch your eye by being
> thing, but you must give credit to anybody who is able to break out from
> the boring norm.
Christian, you're still trying to draw objective conclusions about a
medium that is, by its very nature, subjective. What will "catch your
eye" (your words) will not necessarily catch mine. You cannot say that a
certain artist or style is "interesting" to all observers simply because
the work is different. Different, while *possibly* an objective trait,
(depending on the criteria you use to judge difference) does not equal
interesting. And Interesting will be a different quantity for *every*
*person*. *Any* sort of art is inherently subjective.
And who's to say whether the "norm" is boring, or even what the "norm"
actually is? You may not appreciate the current state of affairs, but Joe
Smith down the street might. If we can get beyond the "My opinions are
correct and yours all stink" attitude, and realize that everybody deserves
their own chance to decide *for themselves* what is good or bad, then
maybe we'll all be able to get along a little better.
-Michael R.
----
mwa...@cass.net
Blissfield, MI
"You see so much, see not much at all... We're treading down
serpents, and we're breaking the fall."
- The Vigilantes of Love, "Glory And The Dream"
tue_sorensen
In article <1996Sep1...@rhea.bentley.edu>, TRIG...@rhea.bentley.edu says...
>
>In article <51e2np$c...@gjallar.daimi.aau.dk>, Tue Sorensen <sorensen> writes:
>>> "Do you like Jim Lee's artwork?"
>
>> However, when WILDC.A.T.S came out, it left me cold. Sure, Voodoo was gorgeous
>> and all that, but GOD the stories and esp. the characters were bad! And they
>> still are.
>
>I thought his run on Gen 13 was excellent.
Jim Lee on GEN 13? Did he do the artwork? Wasn't he just writer or something?
If an entire *run* of GEN 13 Jim Lee art existed, I'd find it strange that I hadn't
heard about it. But, small loss, as I don't read GEN 13 and don't intend to start.
John
In article <kmCnU_O00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Christian Michael Viola
<cv...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> The following is about Cap V2 #1--if you haven't read it yet, you are a
> moron who doesn't like great comics so go the hell away.....
>
Well I did go through at the new Cap in my local store - I was going to
get it but after a few pages did not want to waste my money - it obviously
was aimed at people that can not read - so I knew I could finish it in 10
minutes.
> WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CAP IS BACK!! BETTER THAN
> HE'S EVER BEEN!!!!
Better than he has ever been? Have you ever read any Cap from before
1990? Or the recent Waid issues? Check out the original Lee / Kirby issues
or the fantastic run of Roger Stern and John Byrne - THAT was Cap!
> -Opening narration of the American dream being lost because Cap is
> lost--that's just soo brilliant. Cap IS America, America IS Cap, that
> is what its all about.
This Cap may be America is becoming - out of control - incoherent - and
looks like MTV on acid. If this is what America is coming to it is time
to think about moving.
> -The Nick Fury stuff--Nothing pissed me off more in the last few years
> than those bozos whacking Fury.
I do like the idea of Nick being alive - when handled well he is a great
character.
> -Of course, the art. What can I say but a Cap book hasn't looked this
> great since the King last put down his drawing pencil.
Wash your keyboard out with soap! To compare this trash to the king is
like comparing dog S*it to fine wine.
>
> So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
> because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
>
Well live with it for a bit - but I doubt we will have to put up with it
for more than a year (if that long!)
--
- John
j...@primenet.com
JWilson SD
>
>So, whether you liked it or didn't like, you better learn to love it,
>because its the best comic out there today!!!!!!
>
>
I watch Ric Flair, I cant say that Ric Flair is a friend of mine but...
YOU ARE NO RIC FLAIR!!
Until later
John
Why don't the write something good instead of making stuff up!!
-- when talking about the Marvel wide event
LDeutch
I just finished reading CV's HHAHAHAHAHAHAH review that started this
string AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't know if I can hold it together to
read on....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
H
AHAH (deep breath)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! (wipes tears as laugh becomes silent due to
lack of oxygen)
HAAAAAAA! (whew)
Christian Michael Viola
Dave Mil...@blue.weeg.ui wrote:
> Rrr... I'm no longer interested in biting back flames. So, anyone
> who gets the urge to write me a "Please try to rise above Christian's
> level" response, please don't bother. And Christian, please feel free
> to flame me back.
No. I've wasted enough time with you. I'm not interested in flame
wars, I'm interested in talking about art and since I'm the only one of
us two who knows what the hell he's talking about, there's no point in
continuing. You are not interested in LISTENING to anything I or
anybody else has to say, you simply want to keep reiterating the same
two or three PERSONAL LIKES that you have and holding all comic artists
to those standards. Unfortunately, you are too dense in the head to see
said likes have no valid basis in evaluating comic art objectively.
This pointlessness ends right here and now.
PatDOneill
In article <51hobb$5...@kirin.wwa.com>, ros...@wwa.com (Gregg T. Allinson)
writes:
>*Coughcoughcough*
>
>Captain America has never had his Venom or Joker, eh...then who's this
Red
>Skull fellow?
>
>
And, of course, I always thought the equivalent in Spider-Man was Doctor
Octopus.
One doesn't build arch-villains for a 35-year career in just five years.
Best, Pat