Their drawing is so very, very bad.

And for the record I'm not particularly interested in any superhero comics and really don't care one way or the other about Stan Lee.

You know how in those old fairy tales, there was always a wicked old queen, whose goal was to maintain her social status by sabotaging and undermining younger, more sexually-fertile princesses?

That's Stan Lee.

John Cena confirmed for Evil Homer alt.

No, it's just that me and Cena are like McFarlane and Liefeld. Two best buds, kicking ass, and all the old farts like Stan Lee are super jealous of it.

I'm not really into comics, but I hate Stan Lee. Here you have two enthusiastic kids being shat on by a crotchety has been. I'd totally watch an Overkill movie.
Nominal, having similar opinions totally makes people the Sam person.......,...... NOT!

I always figured that Old Zircon and Nominal were the same person, thanks for the proof.

Liefeld and Mcfarlane are prime examples of why "indie" doesn't always mean "good." Erik Larson was the only one of the Image founders who actually had something to contribute to the medium.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "well" is. Even guys like Leifeld have their defenders among artists most would consider "good", like Jim Lee. They've argued that Leifeld brought a sense of dynamism, movement and impressionism to superhero comics that was able to tap into the id of comicbooks' biggest demographic, the teenage boy, like few others before him had, and in doing so, did a lot to keep the industry as a whole afloat during the 90s. From that perspective, actual technical merit of the work was kind of beside the point.

also, i tend to agree with that. Comic books are a diverse enough medium to have room for both your Alex Rosses and your Rob Leifelds, and both have made contributions. Many good artists who use a more impressionistic take on the human form (Portacio, Staples, Quitely) likely wouldn't be working without Leifeld coming first.

I'm no comics aficionado but my big criticism of Liefeld's art (other than being cookie cutter repetition of a handful of component parts he could draw from memory and rearrange to create "new" characters) isn't his technical skill (which is... let's say "untrained" - not an inherently bad thing but when it becomes fetishized or otherwise rewarded for its own sake, it stunts artistic growth) are actually lack of dynamism (in that his illustrations feel flat, motionless and don't lead the eye at all - it seems like he;s not even aware that leading the eye is a thing that graphic artists do).


For comparison, here are some shitty album covers that are technically even cruder than liefeld and yet awesome in the ways he isn't:

http://tinyurl.com/gv28zq2
http://tinyurl.com/j4bg885
http://tinyurl.com/zrfw425

Especially the Phil Flowers, there's more motion and dynamism and characterization in that scrawl then in every Liefeld drawing I've ever seen combined.

"Sonichu" is my favorite comic book, and the gloriously shitty art is a significant part of its charm! So, for me, the short answer is: no.

It all depends on context, really. You can have comics with great art that work (Shirow Masamune), comics with poor art that work (Persepolis), comics with great art that don't work (Stan-Lee-era anything), comics with poor art that don't work (Ted Rall), comics with minimalist art that is nevertheless brilliant art and which work (Calvin & Hobbes) comics with exquisitely detailed art that ends up looking kinda shitty yet despite this still work (Gaiman) etc etc etc.

Liefeld might not have been able to draw feet, but he knew what kids loved and he knew how to deliver it to them. He was a man of vision, so much vision that no mere art could contain it.

OZ - maybe that's a point against Liefeld, but don't forget, McFarlane did one of the most badass album covers of all time:

http://spawnalley.ru/music/TheDarkSaga_big.jpg

I tend to be partial to Mike Allred, Stephen Bisette, John Totlebein, Phil Jiminez, etc. I was never into Liefeld, McFarlane or Jim Lee and felt like they were pushing the art to overshadow the story at the expense of quality.

Plus they suck.

The 90s were a pretty sucky time for comics outside of some indie titles and non-superhero books.

But the important thing about Liefeld, and what got him in the business and kept him going, is that the guy could finish a book on time. Once all the fame went to his head for a bit, maybe not, but he could consistently turn out his terrible stuff at a pace that let him make some striking (but terrible) art consistently on a monthly basis into the early 90s.

Everything you need to know on why Rob Liefeld is the worst thing to ever happen to comics

http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/4/21/2960508/worst-rob-li efeld-drawings