|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 10, 2005 10:31:51 GMT -5
1. Al Milgrom 2. Don Heck (anything after his initial run, which I actually liked -- I think Don's skills deteriorated in the 70's both for Marvel and DC). 3. Richard Howell (I know he did Vision and Scarlet Witch, but it was baaaaaadddd).
|
|
|
Post by Adrian J. Watts on Nov 11, 2005 3:38:31 GMT -5
There are only two Avengers artists I dislike:
1. David Finch.
2. Oliver Coipel.
- Adrian
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 11, 2005 6:35:29 GMT -5
Uhm, the one of the Lionheart of Avalon storyline (I think it was Coipel) and Erik Larsen (who made a SpiderMan/Avengers crossover once, and that was enough for a lifetime).
|
|
|
Post by captparamedic on Nov 14, 2005 18:27:08 GMT -5
Liefeld.
|
|
Ultron
Reservist Avenger
"Die, Humans!"
Posts: 196
|
Post by Ultron on Nov 15, 2005 13:10:06 GMT -5
Unfortunately if we go be the recents, there's alot, from Finch's constipated figures, Coipiels's now-everyone-is-an-hip-hop-star-without-spandex-just-baggy-crap.
But in the old days for me it was Don Heck, that made the whole Zodiac run unbearable for me, when it took long and actually looks interesting, but the art's so horrible it totally screws the issues for me.
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Nov 16, 2005 11:14:22 GMT -5
Though I don't believe he's ever worked on the AVENGERS book itself, John Romita, JR drew Iron Man for a while, during the Michelinie-Layton first run, and was great.
Then he developed this style he has now, which is "rougher" and makes everyone look as if they're biting their lower lips, pensive. It's really weird, to me.
So, as popular as JR JR is, I really, really hope he never gets the AVENGERS gig...
|
|
Ultron
Reservist Avenger
"Die, Humans!"
Posts: 196
|
Post by Ultron on Nov 17, 2005 5:58:35 GMT -5
Though I don't believe he's ever worked on the AVENGERS book itself, John Romita, JR drew Iron Man for a while, during the Michelinie-Layton first run, and was great. Then he developed this style he has now, which is "rougher" and makes everyone look as if they're biting their lower lips, pensive. It's really weird, to me. That run on Iron Man is one of the best, ever. He also did Spider-Man with that classic style, and it's for me, the definite way to draw spider-man. Then, he started doing X-Men, Daredevil, with to be fully honest what's a really s***** style... exagerated anatomy, weird lines everywhere, well, it's beyond me how a guy that can draw as good as Iron Man or Spider-Man ends up doing that crap, go figure. Anything he's done since, simply doesn't appeal to me, it's as if it's a different person.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 17, 2005 19:52:27 GMT -5
Echo on Romita, Jr. Can't really see, other than his name, why he gets so much work. Sal Buscema now has kind of the same, rough style. Of course, Sal's in his 70's, so at least he has an excuse...
How about Carmine Infantino's Wonder Man/Beast story (maybe issue #203 or so?)? UUGGG-LLYYYYY!!!
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 22, 2005 10:34:45 GMT -5
I know these two guys rarely if ever worked on the Avengers, but I want to solicit opinions anyway -- Gil Kane and Steve Ditko. Any feelings?
|
|
curt
Great Lakes Avenger
Posts: 30
|
Post by curt on Dec 3, 2005 21:54:21 GMT -5
In defense of the likes of Sal and Carmine, Steve and Gil, Don and even Jack Kirby in his latter days- these were all artists that made their mark and paid their dues long before many of us were born. Sal Buscema had a great run on the Avengers, and an even better run on the Hulk. Carmine Infantino brought the Flash to greatness. Steve ditko MADE Spider-man and Dr. Strange what they are today. Gil Kane was fantastic on Green Lantern back in the day. Don heck did WAY too many titles to even count, and they were all pale shadows of Kirby. These were the artists that today's favorites credit as inspiration, and thankfully both Marvel and DC has seen fit to reprint their earlier work for all of us to enjoy again.
And as far as degrading skill, I could say the same for the likes of Miller and Liefeld. Miller's Dark Knight 2 was horrible despite the best efforts of Jansen and Varley- purely an attempt to get my money, which he did, and Liefeld has always left me cold since day one, getting more frigid w/ every issue he puts out. Just how elongated can his characters get?
But that's just me...
Curt
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyearcher on Dec 3, 2005 22:56:49 GMT -5
I've got to go with Finch (although I think his Moon Knight looks awesome). While reading Avengers #500 I had to reread the opening several times because I couldn't tell the difference between Hawkeye and Captain Britain with their masks off. In costume was alright; at least I could tell who everyone was. (Except, was that Rick Jones towards the end of 502? No clue...)
A close second is Oliver Copiel. God, my 11 year old son can draw better than that...
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 5, 2005 12:22:08 GMT -5
Curt --
Your points concerning aging artists are well taken. I didn't mean at all to denigrate their body of work, and maybe this thread's heading was a bad place to bring it up. I was more looking for what is appealing/not appealing to everyone out there. Personally, even at the height of his powers I was never a Steve Ditko fan. I fully understand his quirkiness gave Spidey his original look and feel, much better than if Kirby had drawn him (see Amazing Fantasy #15's cover). Same for Gil Kane. His early Green Lantern and Atom stuff is much better than when he came on Spider-Man, but I never cared for his Spidey like I did Romita's (and the most dynamic Spider-Man might have been Buscema inked by Romita). Kirby on Cap in the 70's = no. Kirby on the FF in the mid to late 60's? None better!!
I'm just looking for people's feelings on various artists.
|
|
|
Post by BoredYesterday on Feb 24, 2006 11:35:41 GMT -5
I remember the Beast/Wonderman story from around issue 203. No degree of excellence in the drawing could have saved that story. It was really a pretty lame story.
Not familiar with the 70s Heck. I am not a fan of Deodato jr., circa 1996. His Scarlet Witch looks like Jean Grey. Quicksilver looks like Wolverine, and facial expressions are either extreme fury or extremely ernest stares. Also don't think he lays out action sequences very well. I do like his rough-edge panels though.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 24, 2006 13:18:26 GMT -5
I would say the "Image influence" in general has been bad for comics. Yes, they are more realistic looking and detailed than in the Silver Age, but some of the comments above concerning exaggerated anatomy and terrible facial expressions are so true. I think many young artists are finding jobs without ever having taken an anatomy course. I personally like Alex Ross' work, and if you've seen it, you know he draws heroes and villains who look like they are wearing costumes, not paint.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Mar 3, 2006 9:56:32 GMT -5
I have finally managed to read some recent (Italywise) issues of Amazing Spider Man in which Deodato Jr draws the Avengers, and I quite liked them, more than Finch for sure. Having said that, I managed to get an handful of issues from the Stern period, and even the long attacked Milgrom looks much better than people like Coipel or Finch.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 9, 2006 13:23:35 GMT -5
While computer coloring has certainly been good for comics, is there anyone else out there that feels that sometimes its just so dark in the books? I don't know if it's heavy inks or just too much "mood", but I kind of just like good ol' four-color comics!!
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Mar 10, 2006 7:49:12 GMT -5
I actually enjoyed the coloration of volume 3 quite a lot, whilst it does seem a bit too dark in New Avengers.
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Mar 23, 2006 4:20:12 GMT -5
Yeah, the Don Heck issues in the 70's weren't great. The Milgrom art is the main drawback imo to the Fall of Yellowjacket storyline. Liefeld is terrible.
I enjoy Gene Colan's art from his brief stint around #62-65, but he and Carmine Infantino combined to add some pretty bad art to some absolutely terrible scripts around #202-209.
And as bad as Milgrom was on Avengers, he was amazingly worse on WCA. He also did a rush-job fill in for an issue of Captain America around Cap #355 -- apparently he had only like 2 days to pencil the whole thing. And wow, it is probably the worst art I've ever seen in a comic.
Someone mentioned Gil Kane -- he did some great, classic Avengers covers in the #125-145 range, including the cover of #141 where the Avengers face off against the Squadron Supreme. He also did the covers for the Vision's origin in #134-135, the 1st Hellcat in #144 and a cool cover featuring Thor and the Inhumans for #127. I don't recall him doing interior art at any point, though I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bobster on Mar 28, 2006 9:00:56 GMT -5
among the worst - al milgrom [especially his WCA run], deodato, liefeld, copiel, finch
among the best - perez, adams, j. buscema, buckler [the early 100's], s. buscema, byrne, epting, davis, cockrum, frank
generally like - kirby [i'm not a fan of anything post-1970 that he did], heck [love the heck/wood art], windsor-smith, brown, colan, tuska, mooney, hall, larocque, p. ryan, d. ross, ordway, garcia, dwyer, kolins [love EMH], cho [he doesn't have a broad range, but his women....]
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Mar 30, 2006 11:51:28 GMT -5
I hate Bob Brown, Heck, Sal Buscema, Al Milgrom, and any of that Image stuff. God I hated, in the 90's, when those Image people would draw those huge bodies with the tiny heads. It was so frikkin annoying.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 30, 2006 14:33:33 GMT -5
Bob --
Totally agree with your assessment of the Image artists as a whole. It's funny how Jim Lee used to be cutting edge, and while I still think he's pretty good, his stuff doesn't pack the "wow" that it used to. I always thought Todd McFarlane was great on Amazing Spider-Man (declined once he started getting the big paycheck on his own Spider-Man), and his Batman: Year Two stuff was good. Erik Larsen and of course Liefeld -- how did they get jobs in the first place??
In regard to Bob Brown, however, what is your specific complaint? Stiff? Facial expressions? I kind of consider him to be from the same "school" as Jim Aparo of Batman and Deadman fame. Like Aparo was a poor man's Neal Adams, Brown for me is a poor man's Jim Aparo. Maybe it's fond memories from when I was a kid, but I like his Collector story from Avengers 119 as well as the multi-part Zodiac story that followed. I also have a coverless copy of Daredevil 102 (?) with a cool Stiltman story that Brown drew. Bob's not one of my top favorites, but definitely servicable in my opinion.
We've certainly had to deal with far worse...
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Mar 31, 2006 10:43:58 GMT -5
Hi Dl. My problem with Image comics is that that whole "look" was gimmicky. Suddenly everybody was drawing huge bodies with teeny heads, jackets with ten thousand pockets, and muscles on bodies that don't exist in nature. Most of those artists needed a good life drawing class or two. I still think Jim Lee is really talented--he was definately the best of that bunch.
I see Image the same way I see 80's music in hindsight--a couple of producers like Jam/Lewis got super popular with a gimmicky sound, and then suddenly everything that came out had that sound for like ten years straight. I can't even listen to 80's music anymore.
Anyway--I'm not sure what I hated about Bob Brown other than the fact that his work was so sketchy that it seemed dull and under-done after years of Buscema/Palmer. Art is subjective, of course, but I prefer looks of darks and lights--that shadowy style Palmer pulled off so well. The Black Knight, Vision, and Black Panther never looked so cool.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 3, 2006 7:32:46 GMT -5
Anything by John Buscema is at the top of my list. Even though some have argued that Joe Sinnott buried the artists he inked (under a lot of India ink, of course), I'll take Big John's run on FF, too. You're right about John and Tom Palmer -- they really define the Avengers for me. I would, however, say that after Vol. I concluded, that Perez has been the torch-bearer since.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 3, 2006 10:28:06 GMT -5
Hey--I thought John Buscema's early 70's FF work was amongsthis best! John was so incredibly talented--it was almost like he wasn't capable of drawing an awkward pose. Whereas most comic artists have a "catalogue" of poses, John could draw anybody in any position and pull it off beautifully every time. As far as human anatomy is concerned, nobody, but nobody, could match John B for consistancy.
I have a friend who knew John B, and I was broken hearted to learn that John B hated drawing comics--with the exception of Conan. John didn't even know who Ultron was, and had to be reminded that he created him. I'm dead serious
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 3, 2006 10:31:19 GMT -5
Yep, heard that. I 've read a few biographies on him. Have you ever seen Owen O'Leary's website? It's a nice tribute... home.ca.inter.net/owenandsusan/I met Sal at the Chicago Comicon several years ago, and he seemed to really love his job. He described his brother as kind of a grump. Pity -- the man was incredibly talented and brought joy to so many.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 10, 2006 10:12:26 GMT -5
I just remembered George Tuska. God I hated his art. All those up-the-nose shots.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 10, 2006 16:02:35 GMT -5
You sure you don't mean Gil Kane? He was a master of the up-the-nose shot -- see his run on Amazing Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 11, 2006 8:41:52 GMT -5
I have a friend who knew John B, and I was broken hearted to learn that John B hated drawing comics--with the exception of Conan. John didn't even know who Ultron was, and had to be reminded that he created him. I'm dead serious Oh, that's sad ! We usually espect the best writers and artists to be the ones who love their job the most, and it's a pity to find out the opposite. It kind of makes it unfair for those who truly love their characters but just are not that good.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 11, 2006 21:35:05 GMT -5
I didn't like Gil Kane either. Yeah come to think of it he was the kind of up the nose shots, but george Tuska drew the long pointy noses on everybody.
Shiryu--John also told my friend that the only reason he did comics is because he couldn't make as much money doing anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 12, 2006 10:12:56 GMT -5
Getting worse and worse Oh well, at least his art inspired and entertained millions of fans, so there was something good in the end.
|
|