|
That's Juan Bobillo, who's always had a cartoony style (see: She-Hulk and Howard the Duck). Honestly, just because something isn't photo-realistic, doesn't mean it's terrible. Maybe an editor should have questioned whether an artist that's best-suited for humor, should be drawing a big kickin' and punchin' kind of comic, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the art itself.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
I'm not going to bother arguing the point. I enjoy Bobillo's style, and critiquing it for anatomical exaggerations is like doing the same for Tom Beland, or Richard Moore. It's like complaining about Quitely's potato-head-people. If you don't like it, that's fine. I don't like Ed Benes or Ivan Reis, but I accept that some people do. And really, does it matter if Beast is off-model? People griped about Beast looking funky in SWORD, too. But, I'd rather see more of that kind of art, than another generation of Jim Lee knockoffs. Honestly, I think there's some stuff you can objectively call "bad." Stuff that breaks perspective, has lovely line quality, or is inconsistent. But Bobillo's style is consistent within itself, his perspective is fine (I'm not sure what the issue is you're seeing there), and his panel layout there is actually quite smart. Notice where the thin and thick borders are? The thin ones lead your eye to the next panel, while the thicker ones don't. I will admit, the sparse backgrounds aren't terribly appealing, but I haven't read the entire book, so I have no idea if that one page is indicative of the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 01:03
|
|