Post artwork published by the big 2 so bad that it pisses you off

Post artwork published by the big 2 so bad that it pisses you off

inbefore liefeld and land

deviant art called, they want their lack of talent to draw human heads back

Sometimes I wonder if you kids have even read comics before 1986.

This isn't great, but it's not horrible either. It's thoroughly mediocre.

...

just why

>comics before 1986.
old artwork usually was BETTER than the crap that we got, even the Thanos Copter thing has a better use of perspective, backgrounds that are not just a flat color. decent anatomy, etc

and honestly you must be blind if you don't think that OP pic looks beyond shitty

What's wrong with that

this is actually really good

There's works of majesty and utter shit in every era. OP's example is relatively stiff, but middle of the road compared to the average. I mean, unless you're a putz and think the hacks who add a trillion lines for a sense of a high LoD while having even worse composition and fluidity are somehow better.

Pic related, our old buddy Bobby Kane was about the same or worse despite tracing everything instead of actually drawing.

The only thing wrong here is the line weights on the foreshortened fist.

Leave it to Sup Forums to mistake atypical styles for shit art.

>Bob Kane was a hack
Yeah, we've known that for some time now

>OP's example is relatively stiff, but middle of the road compared to the average

Look at the hands in every panel.
Gwenpool's arm in the last panel, which is a copy paste panel from the one above

and for fucks sake, that's not how Robbie should look

inb4 that page from Arcade Academy or whatever it's called, the one with the extremely webcomic aesthetic

How can you tell it's good?
I don't mean it's bad, just really weird style.

that wasn't published, Willumsen had a falling out with marvel over it and never completed it

this looks so fucking bad, wow, thanks a lot tumblr

I think you mean Hellcat you doofus

Composition, focus (the level of detail relative to where the reader's eye is meant to go, among other things), use of blacks and negative space.

It's a skillfully put together page.

This is what pass for profesional artwork these days.

4 bucks for this.

What? It's the same artist? Guess poor coloring really gets in the way of good art

And the Gwenpool is copy-pasted from the previous panel, with rotated arm.

The third panel is nicely exaggerated, the panels flow into each other well, and the lines are appealing and varied.

How the images work as a whole matters more. Look at illustrations if all you care about is technical proficiency

He did, like, half of the art for the first issue, but that's it.

yes, willumsen mostly work in b/w or if he uses colors he colors himself. most bad comic art gets attributed to the penciler when the inker and colorist also bear responsibility for it, it also can work vice versa where the penciler gets elevated by those two.

Looks like puke to me. I couldnt read a whole run drawn like this.

>focus
Am I getting it right?

My point was saying "OMG I'M SO ANGRY CAN'T BE-LIEVE THEY PUBLISHED THIS" is silly when they've published worse for 80 years.

Well no shit it's not good, I'm not arguing otherwise. There's problems here I several areas, and of course it looks bad next to A+ talent like Tradd.

I'm saying that this is standard levels of ineptitude. You're only keying in on the common problems (off model, halfassed or cheating appendages, mediocre composition, repeating shit to save time) because it's a simpler style instead of the Jim Lee school of egregious crosshatching. It's the same lazy angles and shortcuts, just without a realistic jawline and pointless zigzag lines on the cheeks.

Yep, it guides you visually with Logan's body, the negative space and the balance of dark and light. It's a great page.

Faggot like
get butthurt if their comics don't come from the Kirby/Adams school of aesthetics and ignore the actual mechanics at work in making a page tick.

Okay, now you've got my full interest, Sup Forums.
Are there any respectable essays/books dedicated to breaking down comic book art/storytelling techniques?

>How can you tell it's good?

tons of detail that give the artwork and expressions more weight

great composition, the way he uses the characters and background to makes things stand out

the use of different angles when needed

the original and out of the box style

while this is just ugly and amateurish, stiff, terrible inking with tons and tons of mistakes, Popeye's arms, etc

>I'm saying that this is standard levels of ineptitude

stop defending that trash


>You're only keying in on the common problems because it's a simpler style instead of the Jim Lee

Its not a simpler style, is just trash.
Let me guess, you think that Gwenpool is among the only good things that Marvel has published in the last 2 years?

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.

It sums up the essential elements of things Eisner, Kubert, etc taught while giving the individual aspects of page creation names so you can help contextualize things. His other books aren't as important, but Understanding will change the way you look at comic pages and art in general.

meanwhile at DC

It appears comic books have the same problem that video games do. Video game developers that are coming in to make games grew up playing games in the 90s and have almost no clue how or why games became what they are today.

I'm not butthurt, its just not appealing to me. I don't read comics sitting in a parlor chair wearing a smoking jacket while puffing on a pipe. And I don't go 'hmmm' and scratch my chin every time I see an artistic device used. It sure as fuck sounds like you do though.

>Entire rebuttal is "NO BUT IT'S SHIIIT"
Don't know why I expected better.

>Let me guess, you think that Gwenpool is among the only good things that Marvel has published in the last 2 years?
Not really. Is that even an issue of Gwenpool? Vision was pretty good. I've liked US Avengers. Platoon just got published, Tamaki's Hulk is a seven story coming out at exactly the wrong time, and I'm pretty sure Genndy's Cage was In that timeframe. Haven't been reading much Marvel lately, though.

My only issue is the halftone filter and maybe that's more on me than the artist.

How can you tell its not just an atypical style like this guy says

>You have to be pretentious to understand how a page works and like good pages instead of going "Ewww he's LUMPY >:("
If that makes me pretentious, I'll take it over the alternative. God forbid a fucked up weirdo look weird and gross.

You have to be pretentious to insult someone for not 'understanding' art.

While a lot of people are going to give it shit for being a style they don't like, there are a lot of fundamental problems. Problems that are rampant in DC/Marvel books, but problems all the same.

It's unambitious. It's unfocused. It uses trite, safe angles and gestures. It's an abstracted style but doesn't use this to any sort of advantage with meaningful distortion or exagerated motion.

The fundamentals of what's drawn here isn't inherently bad, but it's a lazily composed page full of characters drawn in the simplest way the artist could manage while still communicating The correct info.

Hayne's art on Gwenpool is the worst I've seen recently on Marvel. Even worse than Malin on Cable and Thunderbolts.

You'd be insulted for saying fish eye lens looks like shit without understanding its purpose.
You'd be insulted for complaining about allegory "taking time away from the plot" in a novel.
You'd be insulted for asking why Mario doesn't just use a gun.

It has nothing to do with pretension. It's about insulting a piece of media without understanding it in the slightest. This isn't some deep read into the author's mind, it's design 101.

>How can you tell its not just an atypical style like this guy

because there is no consistency to it whatsoever.

And the Wolverine pages have a brilliant use of inking that not many would be able to achieve

While the Gwenpool pages just look like crap, the artist can't draw hands, the inking invades parts of the artwork that they shouldn't, most of the characters are just standing there in a really boring way, the backgrounds are too empty and flat.

Compare the anatomy from the wolverine pages to that Gwenpool turd and is day and night.

people that think old comics look bad

To be fair EVERYONE looks lumpy and gross in that style.
Not that I think it's bad but "the character is supposed to look ugly" doesn't work when even the gorgeous people are hideous.
Not that "it's pretty" is really the end all of art either.

wellll.... Fish eye lens does look like shit. Why does Little X use it in all his rap videos?
There's nothing worse in literature than dream sequences.
Mario is an Italian from Brooklyn he should not only use a gun he should have one readily available at the start of his adventure.

Insult away you pompous ass.

I think it's a fair cop when it's a consistent kind of abstraction. Erica's different in that her style is bog standard with horrific, misdrawn faces instead of weirdly exaggerated folks. Also her page composition sucks.

>Any insult to my ignorance means you're pompous!
Or you're just ignorant and Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.
Like come on, m8. Allegories aren't just dreams.

You're putting way too much faith in Sup Forums here, user.

You just can't help yourself can you? You're clearly the one with the superiority delusion. The fucked up thing about it is you don't even realize you're being a douche nozzle. In your head you're a man of unparalleled refinement. Go sniff your own farts you self-important jerk.

You sure are projecting a lot.

I'm no savant. I'm just saying composition is basic ass shit, like gameplay in a video game and thematic elements in literature. It's not hoity toothy bullshit. It's the basic stuff.

You're calling me pretentious for saying only fags care about how sexy Logan is instead of the whole page. It's crazy talk. You may as well have said the same thing with me pointing to game design whole you complain about graphics. There's both in pretentious about caring about parts besides spectacle.

clearly this is the gwenpool fag because all he does is reply with his sperging mode activated, personal attacks and in general not even addressing the topic in question.

this is your average mature comic book fan that cares about arguin a subject instead of name calling and sperging

now you know

Don't do that. It's just gonna make this pointless argument drag out.

whats going on in that last panel

I love New Super-man but damn is the art offensive as hell.

fishing

I bet you either see the fish in the next page or him next a fire eating fish

Sure thing, there were some bad stuff, but that's the deal, my dumb fellow user poster, it was fucking before 1986.

The implication was that kids who grew up on the mid-80's onwards are used to equating anatomy and detail with "quality," not that comics were worse back tgen.

I kind of want to see it dragged out. It's pretty funny.

>You're being a douche right now
>No I'm not! You're just too stupid to understand how stupid you are!

...

But that's not what either argument is.

this, the argument goes something like this

>Gwenpool fails because X and Y
>No! Clearly you have never even seen the cover of the book, let alone read it! fuck you!!!

>being so mad about Gwenpool you have to insert it into every conversation

OBSESSED

? is...is this a webcomic?

Im more bothered by the writing

this one upsets me because the writing was pretty good

Maaan, thats garbage.

Poser?

Resistance is futile

Nope you're just a dumb cunt

No, tracing.

the absolute state of comics

I'm still shocked this is an actual comic, and not just a webcomic

...

>inbefore liefeld and land

Bitch, I'll take those two back any day of the week.

.....what?

What the fuck. Who drew this shit? I haven't been following the new issues but this looks like deviantart fanart

>that fucking manface

at least the first redhead girl is cute

Since when was Arcade a girl?

...

Fill-in artist from Brubaker's DD run

I can't say for sure but this looks more like the inker's fault than anything else tbqhwyf.

...

that's some pretty epic for the win bait, my friend

...

>being this fucking dumb

This distortion effect hurts my eyes

>disliking Allred

Going from Soy to this was a horrible change.

...

Jim Lee and Ed Benes

They can't draw more than two faces. That's the mark of a bad artist if anything

Frank Cho only has one face but he's still a phenomenal artist.

Thor's beard and hair style are different in every single panel

Oh Christ, is this Larroca? Has he somehow gotten even worse since the last time I paid attention?

Don't quite agree with the reasoning, but the diagnosis is correct imo.
He's a good artisan.

This isn't bad. Just stylized in a bad way.

Could be wrong, but i think Azaceta inks himself. This page is kinda fucky, but i generally like his stuff

Did the indian die?

Yep. He just straight up traces photos now.