X-men #1 Is The Winner

[theturquoisegoblin]

I can't see how anyone would think Jim Lee and Todd McFarlane suck. They both turned around lukewarm books in the late 80's and early 90's into must reads!! (Cue old man voice) I remember hanging on the edge of my seat each month waiting for the next issues and being at the comic shop as they opened the box just to get my hands on the latest books. ASM 316 will always go down as one the top Spidey books in history to me!! I was so excited for X-Men 1 to come out, I actually fell for the trick of buying all those multiple copies!! Anyhow, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I do agree with you on Byrne and Perez. Iron Fist was awesome (check out Essential Iron Fist) and his run on X-Men and FF took the industry to new heights. But the last 20 years have been rough on old John. I remember seeing that revamped Spidey book he did several years ago and thinking, "this is John Byrne?!!" He has my sympathies, it's pretty hard to equal all that success from his early days.

[marvel77]

Kirby, Ditko, Romita, Byrne, Buscema, Mcfarlane, Jim Lee, Kubert, and Everett. these were always my favorites. pure artist legends in the comic industry.

[pogoman]

Jim Lee is a great artist. He definitely made me pick up X-Men #1 as my first comic ever and I was really impressed by his art.

 

I don't care much about Byrne, but mostly also because of his personality that has driven many fans away.

[synch]

Rob can do decent stuff too though its not everyones cup of tea theres no real reason to dis his talent either way hes out there and doing something you can only dream of if that got to give them credit for that alone!

 

[pogoman]

Yo synch, I need that sketch!

[marvel77]

Ughh...

 

I can't stand Jim Lee. IMO, he's a horrendous artist.

 

All of his character's faces look exactly the same. In addition, he has no grasp of human anatomy, and has vividly created whole muscle groups that simply don't exist. His characters are also consistently over-muscled, or, if female, possess ridiculously over-endowed chests with little, narrow waists.

 

He also has a "stock" pose that he constantly puts his characters in, especially for covers...chin up, chest out, shoulders forward, arms bent at the elbows, hands clenched in fists, and one leg bent at the knee and resting on a rock or a ledge. If the character wears a cape, the fists are always clutching the cape...a VERY cliche' 90's pose.

 

I realize this puts me at odds with a lot of folks on this board who grew-up reading comics in the 90's, and think Jim Lee is good. Sorry if that offends, but I think he sucks. He's exemplary of that entire wave of "Image"-type artists, very few who actually had any classical training in art, including studies in human anatomy.

 

I figured this image would win, as this board is heavily populated by "X-babies" of that era.

 

In addition, if this imager is the winner...does that mean I get to look forward to another Hulk, another Wolverine, and another Deadpool??...Oh, happy day...

 

Jim Lee stinks.

 

 

haha your posts are turning into a running joke of ranting about every topic. Is there anything you don't hate? I bet John Byrne, George Perez and Todd Mcfarlane are also pathetic artists huh? I hate their kind, they stink!

John Byrne: He was a great artist back in the 70's when he debuted at Marvel. Check-out early editions of "Iron-Fist" (both in his own mag and in Marvel Premiere), and you'll see what I mean. However, he's a prime example of wisdom (or skill) not improving with age. His penciling has definitely deteriorated in the last 15-20 years...personally, I don't like his current work at all.

 

Todd Mcfarlane: Sorry, but if you were expecting me to be a Mcfarlane supporter, you're going to be disappointed. I put Mcfarlane in the same category as Lee, one of the Image "Wunderkinds" who, IMO, can't draw worth a damn. I've never liked his stuff...ever. But I don't think he's losing sleep over that...

 

George Perez: Like fine wine, he improves with age. He was great back in the 70's on Avengers and Fantastic Four, great in the 80's on Teen Titans, great in the 90's on the Avengers ("Hero's Return"), and he's great today. One of the best, most prolific artists ever in the biz, he'll be remembered up there with Kirby, Kubert, Everett, Ditko, Kane, Romita, and Buscema when he finally hangs up his brushes.

[/size]

 

@loll@

Neal Adams should be added to your short-list, btw.

[/size]

 

 

 

hey So No Tornato

 

what is your problem with the artists from the 90's. they drew some of the best stuff of that era, not all but some. the x-men looked awesome when drawn by lee in my opinion. you go ahead and bash anyone and everyone for liking the stuff from the 90's and it is just not right. i myself started reading comics in the late 80's. however over the years i have accumulated a collection that spans from 1963 all the way thru 1996. i was buying collections at auctions and from private sellers. i myself have just about every spider-man, fantastic four, x-men, avengers, and the list goes on and on for these comics. i have no problem with any artist from any era for marvel comics. i think all of them are great for the eras they were part of.

 

you also happen to mention mcfarlane and how he does not know how to draw worth a damn. this guy has more talent in his little finger than you have in your entire body. if he couldn't draw worth a damn then he would have never had the job he has. he is a damn good artist. do you remember his work for the spider-man comics and how great it was. or how about spawn, which was a hot selling comic when he was drawing it.

 

what i am trying to tell you is that certain people like certain artists and others don't. you don't have to go around on the message boards and basically insult people for who they like. i myself like them all and yes i do have my favorites but that does not mean i don't like the rest. you also stated that jim lee did not know about anatomy and didn't like how he drew the characters especially the women. do you have a problem with how the women look. this isn't real life they are just artist renderrings of how the artists want them to look. when lee drew them they looked like women.

[So No Tornato]

hey So No Tornato

 

what is your problem with the artists from the 90's. they drew some of the best stuff of that era, not all but some. the x-men looked awesome when drawn by lee in my opinion. you go ahead and bash anyone and everyone for liking the stuff from the 90's and it is just not right. i myself started reading comics in the late 80's. however over the years i have accumulated a collection that spans from 1963 all the way thru 1996. i was buying collections at auctions and from private sellers. i myself have just about every spider-man, fantastic four, x-men, avengers, and the list goes on and on for these comics. i have no problem with any artist from any era for marvel comics. i think all of them are great for the eras they were part of.

 

you also happen to mention mcfarlane and how he does not know how to draw worth a damn. this guy has more talent in his little finger than you have in your entire body. if he couldn't draw worth a damn then he would have never had the job he has. he is a damn good artist. do you remember his work for the spider-man comics and how great it was. or how about spawn, which was a hot selling comic when he was drawing it.

 

what i am trying to tell you is that certain people like certain artists and others don't. you don't have to go around on the message boards and basically insult people for who they like. i myself like them all and yes i do have my favorites but that does not mean i don't like the rest. you also stated that jim lee did not know about anatomy and didn't like how he drew the characters especially the women. do you have a problem with how the women look. this isn't real life they are just artist renderrings of how the artists want them to look. when lee drew them they looked like women.

 

Where do I start??

 

In my opinion, the era of the 1990's was a blight on the comics industry, dominated by under-talented artists, under-talented writers, and piss-poor management.

 

The dominant characteristic of the 1990's comic industry was "style over substance". However, the comic industry is not solely to blame for this phenomena, as it also accurately reflects the zeitgeist of the era. The 1990's were a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic decade becasue that's what "the people" wanted. It's why we elected a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic President in 1992. No one wanted a challenge...they wanted a party...and they got one. And parties are generally frivolous and vacuous affairs...

 

...but I digress...

 

I don't like the comics of the 90's because, with rare exceptions ("Kingdom Come"; "Astro-City"), most of them sucked. (Not coincidentally, the two examples of quality I reference were both derivatives of comic's Silver and Golden Ages). Sorry if that bothers you, but too bad. There it is.

 

In the 1990's comics ceased being fun, and became pretentious, overbearing, and trite. Comics professionals began to think of themselves as real Raconteurs, not just guys who made funny books for a living. The artists in particular were responsible for this problem, led by the cry-babies who left MARVEL and formed the execrable company known as "IMAGE" (a perfect name for a company with no substance in the 1990's...). Most of these individuals were young know-it-alls, short on real talent but big on ego - like McFarlane, Liefeld, etc. The influence of IMAGE, and their obsession with "style over substance" nearly killed the industry.

 

I'm getting bored with explaining myself, so I'll leave it at this: If you like 90's comics and Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, etc - swell. Good for you. I think they suck. I think they can't draw. And I think the fact that so many comics fans adore them means that many comics fans are short on good taste (not surprising when one sees the individulas that hang out at most comic stores...)

 

If you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, you must have a difficult life.

 

#US1#

[marvel77]

hey So No Tornato

 

what is your problem with the artists from the 90's. they drew some of the best stuff of that era, not all but some. the x-men looked awesome when drawn by lee in my opinion. you go ahead and bash anyone and everyone for liking the stuff from the 90's and it is just not right. i myself started reading comics in the late 80's. however over the years i have accumulated a collection that spans from 1963 all the way thru 1996. i was buying collections at auctions and from private sellers. i myself have just about every spider-man, fantastic four, x-men, avengers, and the list goes on and on for these comics. i have no problem with any artist from any era for marvel comics. i think all of them are great for the eras they were part of.

 

you also happen to mention mcfarlane and how he does not know how to draw worth a damn. this guy has more talent in his little finger than you have in your entire body. if he couldn't draw worth a damn then he would have never had the job he has. he is a damn good artist. do you remember his work for the spider-man comics and how great it was. or how about spawn, which was a hot selling comic when he was drawing it.

 

what i am trying to tell you is that certain people like certain artists and others don't. you don't have to go around on the message boards and basically insult people for who they like. i myself like them all and yes i do have my favorites but that does not mean i don't like the rest. you also stated that jim lee did not know about anatomy and didn't like how he drew the characters especially the women. do you have a problem with how the women look. this isn't real life they are just artist renderrings of how the artists want them to look. when lee drew them they looked like women.

 

Where do I start??

 

In my opinion, the era of the 1990's was a blight on the comics industry, dominated by under-talented artists, under-talented writers, and piss-poor management.

 

The dominant characteristic of the 1990's comic industry was "style over substance". However, the comic industry is not solely to blame for this phenomena, as it also accurately reflects the zeitgeist of the era. The 1990's were a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic decade becasue that's what "the people" wanted. It's why we elected a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic President in 1992. No one wanted a challenge...they wanted a party...and they got one. And parties are generally frivolous and vacuous affairs...

 

...but I digress...

 

I don't like the comics of the 90's because, with rare exceptions ("Kingdom Come"; "Astro-City"), most of them sucked. (Not coincidentally, the two examples of quality I reference were both derivatives of comic's Silver and Golden Ages). Sorry if that bothers you, but too bad. There it is.

 

In the 1990's comics ceased being fun, and became pretentious, overbearing, and trite. Comics professionals began to think of themselves as real Raconteurs, not just guys who made funny books for a living. The artists in particular were responsible for this problem, led by the cry-babies who left MARVEL and formed the execrable company known as "IMAGE" (a perfect name for a company with no substance in the 1990's...). Most of these individuals were young know-it-alls, short on real talent but big on ego - like McFarlane, Liefeld, etc. The influence of IMAGE, and their obsession with "style over substance" nearly killed the industry.

 

I'm getting bored with explaining myself, so I'll leave it at this: If you like 90's comics and Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, etc - swell. Good for you. I think they suck. I think they can't draw. And I think the fact that so many comics fans adore them means that many comics fans are short on good taste (not surprising when one sees the individulas that hang out at most comic stores...)

 

If you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, you must have a difficult life.

 

#US1#

 

 

 

 

 

 

it seems to me you have the difficult life. you have disagreed with a lot of people on this thread. i myself am not disagreeing with you at all i am simply saying that you need to respect what these guys have done in the ways of their artwork and talent whether you like them or not and bash the fans of these artists. you write all of your complaints in this thread against people who like particular artist from the 90's and how bad thier artwork is then how about you give it a try. let's see if you could draw like these guys or maybe even better. don't come on here and throw around big words and you are impressing anyone because you are not. unless you can show us that you can do better than those artists you so much hate then you are looking like a total ass.

[So No Tornato]

hey So No Tornato

 

what is your problem with the artists from the 90's. they drew some of the best stuff of that era, not all but some. the x-men looked awesome when drawn by lee in my opinion. you go ahead and bash anyone and everyone for liking the stuff from the 90's and it is just not right. i myself started reading comics in the late 80's. however over the years i have accumulated a collection that spans from 1963 all the way thru 1996. i was buying collections at auctions and from private sellers. i myself have just about every spider-man, fantastic four, x-men, avengers, and the list goes on and on for these comics. i have no problem with any artist from any era for marvel comics. i think all of them are great for the eras they were part of.

 

you also happen to mention mcfarlane and how he does not know how to draw worth a damn. this guy has more talent in his little finger than you have in your entire body. if he couldn't draw worth a damn then he would have never had the job he has. he is a damn good artist. do you remember his work for the spider-man comics and how great it was. or how about spawn, which was a hot selling comic when he was drawing it.

 

what i am trying to tell you is that certain people like certain artists and others don't. you don't have to go around on the message boards and basically insult people for who they like. i myself like them all and yes i do have my favorites but that does not mean i don't like the rest. you also stated that jim lee did not know about anatomy and didn't like how he drew the characters especially the women. do you have a problem with how the women look. this isn't real life they are just artist renderrings of how the artists want them to look. when lee drew them they looked like women.

 

Where do I start??

 

In my opinion, the era of the 1990's was a blight on the comics industry, dominated by under-talented artists, under-talented writers, and piss-poor management.

 

The dominant characteristic of the 1990's comic industry was "style over substance". However, the comic industry is not solely to blame for this phenomena, as it also accurately reflects the zeitgeist of the era. The 1990's were a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic decade becasue that's what "the people" wanted. It's why we elected a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic President in 1992. No one wanted a challenge...they wanted a party...and they got one. And parties are generally frivolous and vacuous affairs...

 

...but I digress...

 

I don't like the comics of the 90's because, with rare exceptions ("Kingdom Come"; "Astro-City"), most of them sucked. (Not coincidentally, the two examples of quality I reference were both derivatives of comic's Silver and Golden Ages). Sorry if that bothers you, but too bad. There it is.

 

In the 1990's comics ceased being fun, and became pretentious, overbearing, and trite. Comics professionals began to think of themselves as real Raconteurs, not just guys who made funny books for a living. The artists in particular were responsible for this problem, led by the cry-babies who left MARVEL and formed the execrable company known as "IMAGE" (a perfect name for a company with no substance in the 1990's...). Most of these individuals were young know-it-alls, short on real talent but big on ego - like McFarlane, Liefeld, etc. The influence of IMAGE, and their obsession with "style over substance" nearly killed the industry.

 

I'm getting bored with explaining myself, so I'll leave it at this: If you like 90's comics and Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, etc - swell. Good for you. I think they suck. I think they can't draw. And I think the fact that so many comics fans adore them means that many comics fans are short on good taste (not surprising when one sees the individulas that hang out at most comic stores...)

 

If you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, you must have a difficult life.

 

#US1#

 

 

 

 

 

 

it seems to me you have the difficult life. you have disagreed with a lot of people on this thread. i myself am not disagreeing with you at all i am simply saying that you need to respect what these guys have done in the ways of their artwork and talent whether you like them or not and bash the fans of these artists. you write all of your complaints in this thread against people who like particular artist from the 90's and how bad thier artwork is then how about you give it a try. let's see if you could draw like these guys or maybe even better. don't come on here and throw around big words and you are impressing anyone because you are not. unless you can show us that you can do better than those artists you so much hate then you are looking like a total ass.

 

Dude, get a grip.

 

I don't have to respect anything that Jim Lee, Robb Liefeld, or Todd Mcfarlane have ever done as artists.

 

I think they're all over-rated, especially Jim Lee. IMO, McFarlane and Liefeld simply suck.

 

Let me turn up the volume for you, in case you didn't hear:

 

JIM LEE STINKS. HE'S AN OVER-RATED HACK. LIEFELD AND MCFARLANE SUCK.

 

You like them??? Good for you.

 

And to answer yourt (dumb) question, I'm not an artist...I don't get paid to draw comics...so yeah, it's a safe bet that they can draw better than me...DUH!!!!!!

 

But in my book, they couldn't hold the jock-straps of any of the great Silver Age and Bronze Age artists at Marvel or DC.

 

 

 

[marvel77]

hey So No Tornato

 

what is your problem with the artists from the 90's. they drew some of the best stuff of that era, not all but some. the x-men looked awesome when drawn by lee in my opinion. you go ahead and bash anyone and everyone for liking the stuff from the 90's and it is just not right. i myself started reading comics in the late 80's. however over the years i have accumulated a collection that spans from 1963 all the way thru 1996. i was buying collections at auctions and from private sellers. i myself have just about every spider-man, fantastic four, x-men, avengers, and the list goes on and on for these comics. i have no problem with any artist from any era for marvel comics. i think all of them are great for the eras they were part of.

 

you also happen to mention mcfarlane and how he does not know how to draw worth a damn. this guy has more talent in his little finger than you have in your entire body. if he couldn't draw worth a damn then he would have never had the job he has. he is a damn good artist. do you remember his work for the spider-man comics and how great it was. or how about spawn, which was a hot selling comic when he was drawing it.

 

what i am trying to tell you is that certain people like certain artists and others don't. you don't have to go around on the message boards and basically insult people for who they like. i myself like them all and yes i do have my favorites but that does not mean i don't like the rest. you also stated that jim lee did not know about anatomy and didn't like how he drew the characters especially the women. do you have a problem with how the women look. this isn't real life they are just artist renderrings of how the artists want them to look. when lee drew them they looked like women.

 

Where do I start??

 

In my opinion, the era of the 1990's was a blight on the comics industry, dominated by under-talented artists, under-talented writers, and piss-poor management.

 

The dominant characteristic of the 1990's comic industry was "style over substance". However, the comic industry is not solely to blame for this phenomena, as it also accurately reflects the zeitgeist of the era. The 1990's were a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic decade becasue that's what "the people" wanted. It's why we elected a silly, superfluous, and hedonistic President in 1992. No one wanted a challenge...they wanted a party...and they got one. And parties are generally frivolous and vacuous affairs...

 

...but I digress...

 

I don't like the comics of the 90's because, with rare exceptions ("Kingdom Come"; "Astro-City"), most of them sucked. (Not coincidentally, the two examples of quality I reference were both derivatives of comic's Silver and Golden Ages). Sorry if that bothers you, but too bad. There it is.

 

In the 1990's comics ceased being fun, and became pretentious, overbearing, and trite. Comics professionals began to think of themselves as real Raconteurs, not just guys who made funny books for a living. The artists in particular were responsible for this problem, led by the cry-babies who left MARVEL and formed the execrable company known as "IMAGE" (a perfect name for a company with no substance in the 1990's...). Most of these individuals were young know-it-alls, short on real talent but big on ego - like McFarlane, Liefeld, etc. The influence of IMAGE, and their obsession with "style over substance" nearly killed the industry.

 

I'm getting bored with explaining myself, so I'll leave it at this: If you like 90's comics and Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, etc - swell. Good for you. I think they suck. I think they can't draw. And I think the fact that so many comics fans adore them means that many comics fans are short on good taste (not surprising when one sees the individulas that hang out at most comic stores...)

 

If you don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you, you must have a difficult life.

 

#US1#

 

 

 

 

 

 

it seems to me you have the difficult life. you have disagreed with a lot of people on this thread. i myself am not disagreeing with you at all i am simply saying that you need to respect what these guys have done in the ways of their artwork and talent whether you like them or not and bash the fans of these artists. you write all of your complaints in this thread against people who like particular artist from the 90's and how bad thier artwork is then how about you give it a try. let's see if you could draw like these guys or maybe even better. don't come on here and throw around big words and you are impressing anyone because you are not. unless you can show us that you can do better than those artists you so much hate then you are looking like a total ass.

 

Dude, get a grip.

 

I don't have to respect anything that Jim Lee, Robb Liefeld, or Todd Mcfarlane have ever done as artists.

 

I think they're all over-rated, especially Jim Lee. IMO, McFarlane and Liefeld simply suck.

 

Let me turn up the volume for you, in case you didn't hear:

 

JIM LEE STINKS. HE'S AN OVER-RATED HACK. LIEFELD AND MCFARLANE SUCK.

 

You like them??? Good for you.

 

And to answer yourt (dumb) question, I'm not an artist...I don't get paid to draw comics...so yeah, it's a safe bet that they can draw better than me...DUH!!!!!!

 

But in my book, they couldn't hold the jock-straps of any of the great Silver Age and Bronze Age artists at Marvel or DC.

 

Now grow up, and learn to use punctuation.

 

 

 

first off i am not saying that these guys are better than the silver age or bronze age artists, but i am saying i like their work.

 

as far as i am concerned you need to realize that these guys deserve some sort of credit for what they have done. i mean sure they are not as good as the legends, but their are a lot of people who like their work and all you seem to do is bash them for that.

 

finally, you don't need to turn up the volume so i can hear it..