From: jed@matilda.vut.edu.au (Jed Bowtell)
Subject: Re: Wild C.A.T.S. = X-Men? NOT!<--YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:34:11 GMT

dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David VanDomelen) writes:

>     Personally, I think that Lobdell's X-Men is an improvement over some of 
>the recent stuff.  His scripting is in the same league/style with PAD, and more
>than makes up for any deficiencies his plotting may have.  As for the art, I 
>think Raney is at least as good as Lee, as is Thibert.  True, Rurik's 
>breakdowns/pencils are a bit cartoony (after all, he started on What The as 
>well), but not so much so that it detracts from the overall quality.  As far as
>I can tell, for every artist fleeing Marvel to Image, a new artist of equal or 
>greater talent shows up at the door, portfolio in hand, saying "Hi, I 
>understand you have an opening."  Especially with Liefeld inspiring a new 
>generation of college-age students who wouldn't have otherwise thought they 
>could make a living in comics.  Raney, Capullo, Quesada and others are doing an
>admirable job, and soon will be as exploitable as the Image pack.

Raney is not as good as Lee because he is not consistent. Consistency
is the only good think about Jim Lee's recent art. He has become
lazy. Marvel may have artists as good as Lee (Thilbert) and Liefeld
(Panoshan) but they cannot match Portacio or McFarlane or Silvestri.
Thilbert is an improvement on current Jim Lee art.
Panoshan is a bad clone of Liefeld. Are they twin brothers? I don't
think Raney, Capullo and Quesada will ever be as exploitable as the
Image pack because they dont have a distinctive style that suits a
certain team or character. McFarlane did (Spiderman). Lee did 
(X-Men).

>     As far as taking all of Marvel's best pencilers, I disagree more than just
>as mentioned above...I don't think all the Image crew are "best".  Valentino, 
>for example, is quite talented, but the style he uses in Shadowhawk just plain 
>bites.  At least he can write (based on previous experience, I haven't read 
>Shadowhawk, just paged thru it), unlike alot of other Image artists.

I agree in a way. Image did get the best (McFarlane,Portacio,Silvestri,
Keown) but they also got the average slightly above average artists
like Lee, Larsen, and Valentino. Although I might have to reassess
my view on Larsen after a review I heard by done by some guys I
respect a bit.

>     Another point is that DC has little to worry about from Image.  It hasn't 
>used the "star system" for artists as heavily as Marvel, being better known for
>its writers.  I mean, try to name a "hot new DC artist"...it won't be nearly as
>easy as naming a "hot new Marvel artist".

DC is known for its books and established characters. Marvel uses
an artist to launch a new book and then the artist leaves but
a lot of people stay on the book.

>     Marvel and DC do have one major advantage over Image beside money and 
>distributors...an established continuity.  No matter how snarled it may get on 
>individual titles, a new story can simply plug into the canonical background 
>and have that wealth of detail available.  Image is trying to build that detail
>from scratch, and from the postings I'm seeing here, I'd say that they are 
>trying to get too complex too fast.  If a universe hopes to last, it has to 
>build its continuity up slowly and comprehensibly...start at chapter one, not 
>chapter 8, or you'll end up in Chapter 11.  True, you can't tell much story in 
>an introduction, but you can tell a better one if you aren't trying to set up 
>all the book's background in that one chapter.  In a well written story, 
>information comes out slowly and naturally, perhaps foreshadowed a few chapters
>in advance...not all dropped on the reader in one lump at the beginning.  Since
>Marvel and DC don't have to explain the whole world in any given new title, 
>they can devote more space to writing a good story, and to giving information 
>on the specific characters.  Wild CATS didn't just have to intro 8 characters 
>in 32 pages, they had to intro a good chunk of the world as well.  Perhaps 
>Image would have been better suited to publish a handbook with all the 
>background in it (maybe a 32-page text heavy comic), and make sure the 
>'writers' stuck to that info.  I know that's what DC tried to do with Impact, 
>but that attempt failed because A: it was too expensive, and B: it was ignored 
>in less than 5 months (what happened to the Wolf, or the Black Witch?).  If the
>core group of original Image artists had gotten together and designed the 
>universe, then published the outline of it, they could have spent more time in 
>the individual issues trying to grow into the job of telling a story, instead 
>of simply performing core-dumps with nice art.

I agree but I sort of think they rushed it a bit too much and got
a bit overexcited. They should have taken about 3-6 months extra
to get their books out and spend that time in setting out the 
basics and the history of the Image universe. They would then
enforce that history. If they did that I think they might even
get a bit of respect from people besides fanboys.

>     Finally, I'd like to address the post about modern techniques being so 
>much better than those of even 5 years ago, let alone 30.  I grew up with a 
>father who was a music teacher, so I often got to hear things like "Oh, he was 
>a good technical musician, but that won't get him far."  Mastery of technique 
>is helpful, but necessary to a true artist.  Tools do not an artist make.  If 
>you don't have that certain something, your art will never look quite right no 
>matter how outstanding your technique.  Innovative artists shine through even 
>when scribbling with a dull pencil on a cocktail napkin.  Wooden artists stay 
>wooden even with $30000 of inking equipment and computers.  They may look good 
>on the surface, but the surface is all they have.  An artist with depth can 
>always be helped out by the addition of some gimcrack, but a shallow artist is 
>nothing without his toys.  True talent endures the ages, while good technique 
>is lucky to get a footnote after a generation.  It's true of music, it's true 
>of comics, it's true of any art form.

What can I say, Neal Adams, Art Adams, Barry Windsor Smiths, Frank 
Millers art still looks excellent to me. Current art is glossy 
and nice but the guys I mentioned above are definately something
special in the art department.

Jed