Registered: 12/08/07
Posts: 30220
Loc: Virginia, USA
Originally Posted By: Chuck Gower
But being one of the biggest superstar artists of the time; being as outspoken as he was (remember the McFarlane/Peter David debate?); and on top of that, becoming as successful as he did; it sort of makes him the #1 target of blame to anyone who looks at how the industry changed and collecting changed during that period. And of course it led to a market implosion that we still haven't recovered from.
The ongoing court case with Gaiman didn't make McFarlane look the best either.
But being one of the biggest superstar artists of the time; being as outspoken as he was (remember the McFarlane/Peter David debate?); and on top of that, becoming as successful as he did; it sort of makes him the #1 target of blame to anyone who looks at how the industry changed and collecting changed during that period. And of course it led to a market implosion that we still haven't recovered from.
The ongoing court case with Gaiman didn't make McFarlane look the best either.
No it didn't, though that came a bit later. Todd needs to stay away from the court's or get a new lawyer. I don't think he's won anything he's gone to court for!
Since I'm always looking for GI Joe trivia let me throw out these questions about McFarlane's tenure at Marvel:
So in 1987 McFarlane did interior art for 2 GI Joe comics; issues 60 & 61. The story I've always heard is that the interior art for #61 was rejected by Marvel and the comic was redrawn by someone else and then released. About 8 years later in 1994, 2 months after the series had ended, the interior for 61 originally rejected by Marvel was compiled and sold with the Snake-Eyes cover that was drawn after the McFarlane Spidey pose on Spiderman #1 (apparently the art wasn't so bad that Marvel didn't think they could make a dime off of it!).
So was this the only McFarlane art known to be rejected by Marvel? When did McFarlane leave Marvel and then start Image? I guess Marvel had already paid for the issue to be drawn so they owned the rights which allowed them to publish it 8 years later?
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 7333
Loc: Southern California
He's genuinely not a good artist in my opinion, although there have been some images he's done that came out okay. Although I don't like him, I think there are a ton of artists who draw exactly like him and escape the criticism. I bought the Anita Blake trade for a dollar on Black Friday and a few pages in had to double check the credits to make sure it wasn't a Liefeld comic. Exact same style and exact same mistakes throughout
EDIT: Oh, we're not talking about Liefeld
Same can be said for McFarlane though, as well as Lee, Valentino, and every other artist of the era that drew super heroes
But being one of the biggest superstar artists of the time; being as outspoken as he was (remember the McFarlane/Peter David debate?); and on top of that, becoming as successful as he did; it sort of makes him the #1 target of blame to anyone who looks at how the industry changed and collecting changed during that period. And of course it led to a market implosion that we still haven't recovered from.
The ongoing court case with Gaiman didn't make McFarlane look the best either.
No it didn't, though that came a bit later. Todd needs to stay away from the court's or get a new lawyer. I don't think he's won anything he's gone to court for!
My favorite was the Tony Twist trial/suit. Twist argued the Tony Twistelli character defamed him. McFarlane argued the character was not named after Twist. The litigating attorney produced a letters page where McFarlane stated he liked to name characters after hockey players.
Game over.
_________________________ 'Rosie had 'Property of Tom' tattooed on her arm when we got married. So, for a while there, I was the fourth largest property owner in California' Tom Arnold, at the Roseanne Barr roast
Since I'm always looking for GI Joe trivia let me throw out these questions about McFarlane's tenure at Marvel:
So in 1987 McFarlane did interior art for 2 GI Joe comics; issues 60 & 61. The story I've always heard is that the interior art for #61 was rejected by Marvel and the comic was redrawn by someone else and then released. About 8 years later in 1994, 2 months after the series had ended, the interior for 61 originally rejected by Marvel was compiled and sold with the Snake-Eyes cover that was drawn after the McFarlane Spidey pose on Spiderman #1 (apparently the art wasn't so bad that Marvel didn't think they could make a dime off of it!).
So was this the only McFarlane art known to be rejected by Marvel? When did McFarlane leave Marvel and then start Image? I guess Marvel had already paid for the issue to be drawn so they owned the rights which allowed them to publish it 8 years later?
Since I'm always looking for GI Joe trivia let me throw out these questions about McFarlane's tenure at Marvel:
So in 1987 McFarlane did interior art for 2 GI Joe comics; issues 60 & 61. The story I've always heard is that the interior art for #61 was rejected by Marvel and the comic was redrawn by someone else and then released. About 8 years later in 1994, 2 months after the series had ended, the interior for 61 originally rejected by Marvel was compiled and sold with the Snake-Eyes cover that was drawn after the McFarlane Spidey pose on Spiderman #1 (apparently the art wasn't so bad that Marvel didn't think they could make a dime off of it!).
So was this the only McFarlane art known to be rejected by Marvel? When did McFarlane leave Marvel and then start Image? I guess Marvel had already paid for the issue to be drawn so they owned the rights which allowed them to publish it 8 years later?
