Yellow Hat Guy

[Tiplodocus]

Ah, so if Leifield had drawn the entire page as crap and angular and out of proportion and with a bad understanding of anatomy, that would have been better?

(I'm being deliberately obtuse here, I know the answer really).

[Tiplodocus]

In fact, come to think of it, if, as a new comer, you were presented with a page of Leifeild and a page of angular McMahon stuff, and new nothing about the artists, you'd probably think Rob was better because he got some of the stuff right.

[Jim_Campbell]

You're really determined to make a pointless fucking argument out of this, aren't you?

You're wrong. You know you're wrong, and at this point what you're actually doing is trolling. Pack it in.

Bah!

Jim

[Peter Wolf]

I really should stop this but this one always made me laugh. How Cap A as drawn by Rob Liefeld would look sans uniform



I should say he has got better

I havent been here for a while and just when i think i have seen it all something else appears and i realise i was wrong .

I have to say that if this is the product of someone of formidable talent experimenting with different styles then they would have to be being willfully perverse to come up with something like this.

[Proudhuff]

is he over conmpensating for something? Capt A not PW

[Jim_Campbell]

is he over conmpensating for something? Capt A not PW

There's probably a PhD in Psychology waiting for someone who can analyse the significance of what Rob Liefeld thinks a man's body looks like (see Cap'n America pic above) and what he thinks a woman looks like:



Cheers!

Jim

[Roger Godpleton]

Here is Rob's Levi's commercial. It's oddly quaint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhoa2SVGNA

And he is with Dennis Miller. Women scream at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK35-QKLG1k&feature=related

[Peter Wolf]

is he over conmpensating for something? Capt A not PW

It certainly looks like he cant quite reach it.

[SuperSurfer]

In fact, come to think of it, if, as a new comer, you were presented with a page of Leifeild and a page of angular McMahon stuff, and new nothing about the artists, you'd probably think Rob was better because he got some of the stuff right.

I will take up this point and say that this depends on whether the imaginary 'critic' had any art sense or ability to appreciate good art. If said 'critic' has no art sense or appreciation of good art, then I can imagine that he might be able to relate to Leifeild tosh more than McMahon genius. (Well it wouldn't be a she, would it?)

This reminds me of when we had our final degree show many moons ago. One guy's work was picked out by a student's relatives as the best in the entire show. But this guy was the only one who failed the course and had chucked three years down the drain. Yet his work strangely had something that appealed to these visitors.  

Even John Byrne's fine work (left) is not sacred and is up for being ripped off by Mr Leifield:


Man, this and the All Star Batman thread are almost putting me off American comics for good.

[Tiplodocus]

"You're wrong. You know you're wrong, and at this point what you're actually doing is trolling. Pack it in."

No, I don't think I'm trolling, I was just thinking out loud and bouncing ideas around. 

Some people may look at it the way I suggested and I feel it's often (if not always) worth considering the other person's point of view every now and again.  "Seek first to understand then to be understood" and all that sort of thing. 

[Jim_Campbell]

Balls.

Nobody bit on your first attempt, so you came back with a more inflammatory spin on the same thing.

FWIW, I don't like McMahon's more recent stylistic experiments. I find them visually interesting, but pretty much impossible to relate to on an emotional level, and therefore not suitable for a storytelling medium. All of which is fine, because Mick doesn't really do comics any more.

You were the one who decided to draw an equivalence between McMahon's experimentation and a lack of artistic ability. That is clearly not true, as has been explained at some length. At the same time, your right not to like what he's doing has been acknowledged without question, so I genuinely don't see what point you're trying to explore here.

Unless you're just trying to provoke further argument for its own sake. Which is trolling.

Bah.

Jim

[Tiplodocus]

No, it wasn't a case of "Nobody Bit", it was more a case of I posted something (which I acknowledged at the time with the "I know the answer, I'm just being deliberately obtuse").

Then a bit later, I thought of something else that extended that same strange line of thinking even further, wondering what could go on in somebody's head who preferred one to the other, so I decided to add that as well. I thought it was amusing. (Obviously just to me).

I'm not worried about the art debate now by the way, I'm just worried that you've taken umbrage at these posts which were meant to be light hearted. 

I feel "trolling" and "balls" is a bit of an over-reaction on your strong. 

It's not like I have a long history of persistent "trolling" or abusing people and or this forum (though, if you look, you'll find examples where on occassion I have posted things I've later regretted). 

I do speak a fair amount of "balls" though - I just don't feelthat last post was one of them.

[Mike Gloady]

Hmmmmm, I feel sure this could all be fixed by an image of a kitten.

[Proudhuff]

Dear Diary, I'm worried about Jim...

[King Trout]

This is a fun piece:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/10/26/comicsalliance-video-vault-the-comic-book-greats-rob-liefeld/

(BTW if Tiplodocus was trolling then I've stumbled into a weird parallel dimension. He doesn't troll, ever. I think there was a misunderstanding above.)

- Trout