This cover is horrible, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar! 5 5

[Ken Aldred]

 

A female Watcher

 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[Get Marwood & I]

8 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

Because one night when he and I went out, we let our egos get the better of us, competed in a series of events and activities and discovered that his art was the only thing where he was my better. 

That's what we all love about you Buzz. Your humility 

[Get Marwood & I]

7 hours ago, SameLame said:

I feel he same way about the Travis Charest stuff posted here. The difference between Liefeld and artists like Sharp, Charest etc is that the latter always tried to improve their art (as their later work shows). Liefeld said screw it, good enough!

Indeed.  And cool board name! Very appropriate given the threads content 

[Get Marwood & I]

6 hours ago, B2D327 said:

My contribution to this horrific thread. I cringe whenever these pop up in a comic search. A small dose of gamma radiation and I'd go on a rampage wanting to destroy the offices of the editors that approved these

Jesus 

There's something so much more unforgivably horrific than horrific art from people who clearly can draw, as opposed to people who can't draw. 

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, letsgrumble said:

So proud to have slabbed this 

 

 

You'd think CGC would have referenced the significance accordingly wouldn't you: "Terrible mullet cover"

[Lucky Baru]

That's the Superman that Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton were going to give us.

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, Lucky Baru said:

That's the Superman that Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton were going to give us.

[Logan510]

23 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

 

 

 

 

 

Steve, you’re clearly not as much of a John Byrne fan as I am, so what’s your assessment of this classic cover?

Interesting use of empty space, or phoned-in laziness?

I'll bet anything that it stood out from the rest of the pack on the stands. Considering the story inside it's a perfect cover and honestly anyone who would call that a "lazy" cover is just ignorant.

[Logan510]

On 1/15/2018 at 7:56 PM, Artboy99 said:

That cover is actually a photograph

I was going to say the same thing, but then thought maybe they were being sarcastic...now I'm not so sure

 

[Logan510]

On 1/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Marwood & I said:

He did, didn't he? 

No, unfortunately his pages were filled with awkwardly constructed figures, bizarre faces and superfluous "detail". His work was enough to drive me off of two titles ( Hulk and ASM ).

I cannot argue his success, but I will never think of his work as being good.

[Get Marwood & I]

18 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

On 16/01/2018 at 1:56 AM, Artboy99 said:

That cover is actually a photograph

I was going to say the same thing, but then thought maybe they were being sarcastic...now I'm not so sure

Sic 'em Ken! 

 @Ken Aldred

[Get Marwood & I]

15 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

No, unfortunately his pages were filled with awkwardly constructed figures, bizarre faces and superfluous "detail". His work was enough to drive me off of two titles ( Hulk and ASM ).

I cannot argue his success, but I will never think of his work as being good.

It's probably shallow of me, but I've never been able to read a comic with bad art. Bad art kills great story for me. Great art elevates bad story. That's the way it has always been for me. Comics are a visual medium though, so maybe it makes some sense.

I have always detested McFarlane's art. I can see the skill and competence that others laud, but I just hate the end product. Ditto Byrne, although for different reasons. It's personal taste. My brain is hardwired to dislike it. My gut reaction is 'yuck'. I can't help it. It's similar with music, films etc.

So, Mr (ex) Spidey completist here, who has owned 8,000 Spidey books and pretty much had everything ever in his time, has never read a McFarlane run ASM book. Ditto Byrne. 

Being one of lifes 'lucky' types, which is why I probably gravitated to early Parker in the first place, if I entered a pub quiz on Spider-Man it would probably be full of McFarlane and Byrne run questions. So I'd score zero, and all my mates would laugh and say "Completist! You don't know jack sheet about Spider-Man". Except I don't go to pubs. And have no mates.

I'll get me coat. 

 

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, Marwood & I said:

It's probably shallow of me, but I've never been able to read a comic with bad art. Bad art kills great story for me. Great art elevates bad story. That's the way it has always been for me. Comics are a visual medium though, so maybe it makes some sense.

I have always detested McFarlane's art. I can see the skill and competence that others laud, but I just hate the end product. Ditto Byrne, although for different reasons. It's personal taste. My brain is hardwired to dislike it. My gut reaction is 'yuck'. I can't help it. It's similar with music, films etc.

So, Mr (ex) Spidey completist here, who has owned 8,000 Spidey books and pretty much had everything ever in his time, has never read a McFarlane run ASM book. Ditto Byrne. 

Being one of lifes 'lucky' types, which is why I probably gravitated to early Parker in the first place, if I entered a pub quiz on Spider-Man it would probably be full of McFarlane and Byrne run questions. So I'd score zero, and all my mates would laugh and say "Completist! You don't know jack sheet about Spider-Man". Except I don't go to pubs. And have no mates.

I'll get me coat. 

 

To quote one of my favorite artists from an old AOL comics chat:

"Taste in art is subjective...and then there's just bad"

He was referring to Rob Liefeld.

[Ken Aldred]

49 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I'll bet anything that it stood out from the rest of the pack on the stands. Considering the story inside it's a perfect cover and honestly anyone who would call that a "lazy" cover is just ignorant.

I thought it was an okay, one-off issue.

Interesting idea at the time.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[Ken Aldred]

50 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I was going to say the same thing, but then thought maybe they were being sarcastic...now I'm not so sure

 

 

30 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Sic 'em Ken! 

 @Ken Aldred

Dry humour.

Two Limeys messing about.

[Get Marwood & I]

Now, someone give me a fulsome critique of this beauty:

[Ken Aldred]

Nighthawk's in mental turmoil, thinking...

'No! I'm trapped in this cover, and it's utter pants!

[Get Marwood & I]

...or, an explanation of how you can go, in 27 short issues, from this:

 

....to this:

 

 

In London Lurks the Hulk! I love the London land marks on the covers of these London based issues. Here, you can clearly see the Houses of P- Oh, hang on 

[Ken Aldred]

37 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

It's probably shallow of me, but I've never been able to read a comic with bad art. Bad art kills great story for me. Great art elevates bad story. That's the way it has always been for me. Comics are a visual medium though, so maybe it makes some sense.

I have always detested McFarlane's art. I can see the skill and competence that others laud, but I just hate the end product. Ditto Byrne, although for different reasons. It's personal taste. My brain is hardwired to dislike it. My gut reaction is 'yuck'. I can't help it. It's similar with music, films etc.

So, Mr (ex) Spidey completist here, who has owned 8,000 Spidey books and pretty much had everything ever in his time, has never read a McFarlane run ASM book. Ditto Byrne. 

Being one of lifes 'lucky' types, which is why I probably gravitated to early Parker in the first place, if I entered a pub quiz on Spider-Man it would probably be full of McFarlane and Byrne run questions. So I'd score zero, and all my mates would laugh and say "Completist! You don't know jack sheet about Spider-Man". Except I don't go to pubs. And have no mates.

I'll get me coat. 

 

I really liked McFarlane at the time.

After reading the whole of Claremont's New X-Men run, soon afterwards, I decided to revisit Amazing Spider-Man, eventually reaching the Michelinie / McFarlane issues.

At first, he's quite consistent, and at the level of his run on Incredible Hulk, but, I sense that he starts to overextend himself once you get to issues where he's churning it out bi-monthly.  I often spotted an issue where the first few pages would be done quite well, but, all of a sudden, the artwork starts looking very rough, with poorly-considered layouts and figurework.  It's also around this period that his characters' faces start looking more and more flattened.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

Nighthawk's in mental turmoil, thinking...

'No! I'm trapped in this cover, and it's utter pants!

He needn't worry though Ken. The floating heads of Hulk, two birds and a toad looking bloke are on hand to save the day. It's only Madame Webb anyway! Isn't it?