Eighties and Nineties Message Board >> View Post
Post By
America's Captain 

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,435
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2019 at 07:36:46 am EDT (Viewed 636 times)
Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 at 12:01:36 pm EDT (Viewed 737 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.

A reasonable goal and they did pretty well at it, especially McFarlane.

    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.

And on purpose, which is what fascinates me, because their comics sold pretty well. The lowest common denominator is a perennial money maker.

    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.

The only Image comic from those days that interested me at all was Youngblood. I only bought the occasional issue, I think partly for stupid reasons that made sense to my younger self, like, "Independents shouldn't sell out by doing superheroes." That sounds ridiculous to my older ears but back then it drove my purchases. I bought superheroes from Marvel and DC and non-superheroes from everybody else, and I felt best about my non-superhero purchases. Sounds like a teen-ager, right? Yet I was in my late 20s and early 30s.

    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.

Oddly enough, I think Liefeld had an artistic vision. Yes, there were weird torsos, heads too small, legs too long, a lot of tracing, etc., etc., but he had an aesthetic. Yes, it involved big guns, big knives, big teeth, lots of explosions, etc., etc., in fact it was classic B-movie stuff, and that was the aesthetic: B-movies.

80s B-Movies

Hmm, I think I know what our next banner may feature.

Posted with Google Chrome 74.0.3729.169 on Windows 10
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