Eighties and Nineties Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,435
Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 at 11:01:36 am CDT (Viewed 745 times)

There may have been thread about Image here once, can't remember.

So, what's your take? Here's mine:

McFarlane, Leifeld, Lee were all rational in their move to make Image. It was their way to not be screwed over like creators of the past. The industry had all ready profoundly changed with Direct Market. So they attempted, and succeeded, to make themselves very wealthy. They were driven by making money and keeping money for themselves instead of the big publishers.

Artistically, Image was the worst crap I've ever seen. Catering to the absolute lowest impulses of comic fandom. Their characters, art, and stories were utter rubbish. Look, most comics were and are shlock, but this stuff was a step below if possible. Uglier and more crass.

IMO, Leifeld/Lee/McFarlane are ALL generally lousy and vomitous artists, even in their hey-days. They simply had flashy stylistic flourishes that appealed to the lots of young dopes high on too much sugar or something. They're not really artists, just highly astute businessmen (and smart/nice guys personally) who cashed in the Miller grim'n grittiness and X-Men dystopia style stories. "Heroes Reborn" sold, but it was also garbage. Jim Lee as a big boss at DC is a big reason their comics/movies are so "grim n gritty" imagey.

Comics has always been a dirty business, and I can't fault themselves for making themselves very rich. But I don't believe they had no real love or inspiration in their hearts or their art like S&S, Finger, or Kirby/Lee/Ditko. Nor were they real storytellers like a Byrne, Adams, Perez, Miller or Moore.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 67.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software