Post Good/Bad Comic Book Art - Stop Posting Liefeld

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > BSS: Bisexual Super Son > Post Good/Bad Comic Book Art - Stop Posting Liefeld

«‹›2 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Onion Knight posted:

It is always shocking to me how often professional artists, specifically inkers and colorists, can have poor taste, constantly make terrible decisions, or just wholly lose a great deal of the power or subtlety of the original piece or a page of pencils. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with deadlines or mismanagement but in my head guys like Vozzo are just lovable idiots that no one can bring themselves to fire.

Like his boss hands him that Sandman page and his immediate reaction is "Aw jeez ladies' heads ain't PURPLE! And this old guy is YELLOW?! C'monnn! Whatta bunch a knuckleheads, I'll have this fixed up for you real quick, boss!" and never gives it a second thought. No one is happy with his work but he's always done on schedule and he's so friendly around the office and, hell, no readers are really complaining that much...

In that context it's more likely that this was an editorial policy. It's also worth noting that in some cases (I believe Killing Joke being one of them), the psychedelic original coloring choices were not to the taste of the author.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 23:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 00:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lurdiak posted:

Even though the original coloring job is not 100% great, the recolored Killing Joke TPB is a crime against humanity.

from the wikipedia page:
"Bolland envisaged the flashback sequences in black and white, and instructed Watchmen-colorist John Higgins to use "muted November colors". He was upset when he saw the finished comic had "garish ... hideous glowing purples and pinks ... and my precious Eraserhead-esque flashback sequences swamped in orange."[3] The 2008-published 20th anniversary edition of the book featured new colouring by Bolland, restoring his artistic intentions to the palette."

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 03:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

from the wikipedia page:
"Van Jensen of ComicMix said that "the new colors really do improve the book, giving it a subtlety and grimness not present in the original."[20] James Donnelly of Pop Syndicate said that the original version "is outdone by Bolland's recoloring", which he said "gives the comic a more timeless quality".[19] Seb Patrick of Den of Geek had a lukewarm reaction, calling the recoloring of the flashbacks "superb", but commenting that "some of the [other] changes seem to have less of a point � increasing definition for the sake of it, but giving the book too much of a present-day feel rather than looking like it was printed in the 1980s."[25]"

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 09:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The only positive thing that can be said is that some of the musculature on her left arm is in the right places, which is probably a sign it was traced.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2015 03:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

A Gnarlacious Bro posted:

Are you guys stalking him?

It's in his avatar and the image.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 20:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

zoux posted:

Is there a name for the type of art that guys like Frazetta, Vallejo and Ken Kelly do. The fantasy/sci fi themes with murky painted effects with giant space backgrounds? There are a ton of people that do that style and I was wondering if it had an actual term.

Fantasy, science fiction, and pulp.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2015 21:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I suspect many of those are derived from famous paintings and films- the hawkeye one in particular, though I can't put my finger on it- the agents of SHIELD is Klimt's the Kiss.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 18:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Flesh Forge posted:

Not empty quoting this.

e: nice upskirt too!

I feel it's generous to call that a skirt to up. Fully pulled down from straight ahead, the viewer would still be getting an eyeful of whatever that is underneath.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2015 22:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Choco1980 posted:

Part of that is the trick of perspective, as the three on the right are several feet ahead of the rest. If Logan caught up he'd probably be maybe like 2 inches taller than Emma. Kitty meanwhile looks absolutely tiny, and Hank's enormous, being even farther behind than the other two.

Ohh, now I get it. It's just that Storm and Emma's breasts and hips are much closer to us, while the rest of them are off in the distance. :v:

# ¿ Aug 1, 2015 05:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Something like this?

Exactly. Also, I feel I no longer need sleep.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2015 03:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fish Of Doom posted:

Whoa, what the hell happened? Did he have cancer or something? He went from looking 45 to like 90 years old in ten years.

Severe mental illness.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 01:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The eyematch in the middle isn't terrible, I guess.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2015 07:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Is that watercolor? It's gorgeous. There are a couple showoffy perspective bends in the first image I don't love, but I don't really care- the whole thing is so drat beautiful.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 17, 2016

# ¿ Jan 17, 2016 19:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Crossposted from Funny Panels (not Badass, thank heavens)

# ¿ Feb 1, 2016 23:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Keromaru5 posted:

I wish I could remember for sure, but didn't Comics Should Be Good once have a "Ron Lim Rule," that if Ron Lim couldn't draw your costume design, it wasn't any good?

Or am I thinking of a completely different artist?

I googled his work and saw some of the most extraordinarily off-model, horrific Sonic the Hedgehog art imaginable.

so...if we extend that from costumes to character design, I think the rule holds.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Feb 18, 2016

# ¿ Feb 18, 2016 08:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rotten Red Rod posted:

holy poo poo, he made BOOB BADGE POLICE FORCE

Not even Peter Chung would make something this dumb. (I think.)

OFFICER 069

# ¿ Mar 2, 2016 09:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cap should probably be prioritizing the guy ordering the demolition of a munitions store in the background there.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2016 00:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Selachian posted:

The Blob's secondary mutation: 42 teeth.

35. 21 on the lower jaw, 14 on the upper. I counted. Kill me.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 05:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

wayfinder posted:

They're not all visible. 11 per quadrant, so 44 in total.

You're making a number of assumptions about Blob/Liefeld Anatomy that I don't think hold true.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 13:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Endless Mike posted:

This is what happens when a Sonic the Hedgehog guy is kicked off Sonic comics and takes their original creation that he stole.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2016 16:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Begemot posted:

I'm still baffled as to how he won that lawsuit to keep all his echidna characters that are just Knuckles in different costumes.

The original contract guaranteeing IP rights to created concepts to Archie/SEGA was lost due to poor recordkeeping. They were afraid he could prevail.

Endless Mike posted:

They settled out of court. But let's be real: who the gently caress would want to go back to that particular well?

They new team were doing a really nice job of reforming the characters, then the case was settled and they had to force a continuity reboot. The resulting continuity is good, I hear, but it's a shame they lost everything they had been working on up to that point, as well as ~85% of the characters they had.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2016 01:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Travis343 posted:

There have to be numerous better ways to depict a hologram than just having the top half of someone's skull float away.

The image is cut off- there's more distortion going on with it and it's clearly being emitted from something, iirc.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2016 16:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rhyno posted:

Well you guys clearly don't remember him shilling his comic in every other thread and throwing a huge temper tantrum when the forum collectively told him no one was interested in reading it. And he's the one who came here and posted "LOOK WHAT I DID LOVE ME LOVE ME LOVE ME."

I was here when he was, and I didn't see any of that. You seem to be the only person itt with a problem about it.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2016 23:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The depiction of female characters in One Piece is worthy of criticism, even by the standards of japanese comics.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2016 15:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Post Good/Bad Comic Book Art - Faces of Miller edition

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 22:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's the same story with Sandman- everyone on the original production team quoted in the linked articles is on record saying the original color job was basically them not having enough time to do it right.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 06:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Android Blues posted:

But the recolour just cuts it all out entirely and takes a strict literal approach: Batman is here, the Joker is here, Batman is looking at the Joker on a screen.

But it doesn't do that. It's specifically only highlighting the characters, the tea service, and the Joker on the screens.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 22:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"Quiet or Papa spank"?

# ¿ Jan 19, 2017 17:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

purple death ray posted:

In a just world, it would be the nicest thing anybody ever said about the Killing Joke.

Killing Joke's a great book, it's what people did with it, and their inability to move on from it, that was a problem.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 17:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Some of those were good.

# ¿ May 19, 2017 18:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's a veiled ad for a very sketchy looking addiction rehab referrer group.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2017 17:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Teenage Fansub posted:

Backup in Bug: The Adventures of Forager #3 by James Harvey. The second page isn't the easiest to follow, but

This is incredible, and extremely my poo poo.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2017 14:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Say Nothing posted:

Disturbing.

I just realized that there's not going to be many reasons to post terrible Archie Sonic art anymore.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2018 21:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

zoux posted:

Adi Granov

Wow, these are very good, even if some are oddly porny. I wonder how the other se-

zoux posted:

Gabriele Del'otto

holy cow.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2018 21:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I think the author is on the right track, but he doesn't go quite far enough. Miller really wants his whites to stand out. He's well known for being uncomfortable with coloured work.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:29 on May 5, 2018

# ¿ May 5, 2018 18:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"lifeglass glass"?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2018 02:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Objectivism is a pseudo-philosophy, a sham philosophy that appeals to disaffected, privileged individuals through a combination of psychotically extreme free market libertarianism and empty appeals to reason, primarily through narrative accounts (atlas shrugged and fountainhead).

These fictional narratives revolve around what are now referred to as "Randian supermen", which basically means men (always men; Rand was hosed up) who are perfectly rational and possess magickal talents and gifts in every area of importance, which are innate to their being and independent of any causal factor in their background. The narratives are designed to make the reader constantly identify with these perfect, completely impossible beings. As narrative accounts, they're trash, and read with the smallest amount of critical thought they're clownish garbage at best, but if the reader is someone who feels put down, who thinks their intelligence or worth is underrated, someone psychologically vulnerable(regardless of how wealthy or privileged they actually are)...it's a fantastic recipe for making narcissistic, borderline solipsistic anarchocapitalists. Rand basically used the narrative to have her followers give her money and wank about their superiority.

The philosophical "content" of Objectivism is basically immaterial. Its citation of other work and concepts is selective and self-serving, existing only to reaffirm the superior intuitive beliefs of the reader/Rand. It wields the theoretical elements that it proposes like sledgehammers. It's a rhetorical argument designed to separate the credulous and privileged from their money.

I don't know Ditko half as well as y'all, but judging from what I've seen of his later work, his stuff is like a feverdream fanfiction expression of his own projection of the Randian superman idea, crossed with every insecurity of the age.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2018 01:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Lurdiak posted:

Ditko strongly believed that art should elevate the common man instead of putting him down, whatever that means. He was very much against your typical Noir stories where everyone is terrible and part of an unsolvable system. I don't think anyone can truly understand what the guy was on about. And believe me, I've tried.

The little men around the gun have little bulletholes in them... :allears:

# ¿ Jul 10, 2018 14:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Archyduke posted:

good words

I hear you, but what I was trying to get at is there's really no there there with objectivism- it's the counterfeit of a philosophy, not an actual philosophy. Rand and Ditko's beliefs and positions consist entirely of circling around to how great a superhuman ego proxy is, with industry and science (and "reason" and "facts") and all other deployed concepts being mere plot devices to serve that process. There's nothing really to digest; it's "I am good/perfect" reflected through itself a thousand times, with no other meaningful content.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2018 19:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 00:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Servoret posted:

Ditko does mock liberal do-gooderism in his comics as an irrational emotional impulse that's wasted on a bunch of losers who are either crybabies who won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or irredeemably vicious criminals, so there are forms of heroic posturing that he's opposed to. I don't know how his personal views stack up against orthodox Objectivism.

His heroes aren't innately better than others, which is why the mediocrities' jealousy is ironic and misplaced. We could all be like Spider-Man or The Question if we tried.

It's bog-standard Objectivism, with the underlying factor that he identifies himself with his hero characters and everyone he dislikes with one of his many dissolute ideologies.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2018 14:59

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > BSS: Bisexual Super Son > Post Good/Bad Comic Book Art - Stop Posting Liefeld

«‹›2 »