Talk:Rob Liefeld/Archive 1

message: the levis ad happened before image comics
it was aired as late as 1990
Here's the image I want to put up - "The Art of Homage". It shows six examples of Liefeld's work, juxtaposed with 6 images created by other artists, and lets the viewer decide. Would this count as fair use? DS 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: What is the criteria for being a "self-taught" artist? Has he never taken an art class in his life? Otherwise, maybe it should be replaced with something like "comicbook artist". --Moncubus 23:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Self Taught Artist" 

message: *In the introduction, I would separate allegations of creating generic characters from allegations of legal plagiarism. While most of Liefeld’s characters have been called uncreative adaptations of superhero stock characters, there are only a few instances in readers have noted that a characters is obviously based on another specific character (Deadpool, Fighting American). Liefeld himself has, however, admitted that Youngbloods is based on a Titans project that DC refused to greenlight.
**Okay. Have any of these accusations (except the American, as already noted) actually gone to court? Because otherwise, it's just people complaining, and I would find it hard to draw the line between "people complaining about generic characters" and "people complaining about characters that are obviously based on another specific character." Personally, I always felt that Deadpool only stole the least important parts of his character from Deathstroke - his name, mostly, and other details. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a plan for a different organization of this section, I'd love to see it, either as an edit or in a /temp page. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
*I don’t think it’s POV to state that his Image line "helped popularize Liefeld’s repetition as a style-over-substance creator." It just goes into specifics of why it gained no critical respect. I was a yuggin then and it was a while ago, but I remember 1993/94 as the time when it became embassarring to admit you liked Liefeld-owned Image books.
**A couple of the changes I made were not because I disagreed with the phrasing, but just to cut down on the sheer density of the criticisms. There was a point where almost every single sentence was reminding the reader "oh yeah! have we mentioned his art is ridiculous and everyone hates him!?" The reader has surely gotten the point; there's no need to keep beating a dead horse. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
*I would also put a picture in the intro, just as an introduction to Liefeld's art. Maybe X-Force #50 because it just doesn't really fit anywhere elese
--Rorschach567 23:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues with Jan 5 edits by Phthoggos 

message: I’ll just continue with the first issue because I see your reasoning in the second and I don’t think there’s any big disagreement in the third.
Anyway, my intro would go like this:
Rob Liefeld (born March 10, 1967) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who was one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. Although an undeniable superstar in the 1990s, a backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism made him known as "The Most Hated Man in Comics."
In the early 1990s, Liefeld became a superstar due to his work on Marvel Comics’ X-Force. In 1992 he and other popular Marvel illustrators left the company to found Image Comics, which helped bring about a wave of popular comic books owned by their creators rather than a large publishing house. Although somewhat high-profile, Liefeld’s line of comics failed to gain much critical approval. [Seperated recap of career and recap of criticism]
Fans praise Liefeld’s artwork as energetic and action-packed but it has been widely criticized for excessive flamboyance, limited versatility, and impractical anatomy. [I cut “undeniably” just because it seemed strange. I suppose someone could deny it if they really felt that such artwork was banal. Also “impossible anatomy” wasn’t totally true either. It’s possible that a real person could be shaped like a Liefeld drawing; it’s just very unlikely. How about "improbable"?] Liefeld's original creations, like many Image properties, have been panned as two-dimensional and generic. A few of his characters bear specific similarities to previously existing ones, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist. 
Most fans agree that bombastic artwork and deceased focus on character development were widespread trends in mainstream comic books in the early 1990s. For this reason, many consider Liefeld merely the most vilified representative of an industry-wide fad.
*I like it a lot. How about the slight modifications I've made? Using "deem" twice in any article is probably a misdemeanor. The only thing that still makes me a little uncomfortable is the use of the past tense in the lead paragraph. I mean, he is still making comics. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
----
With the exception of the Captain America lawsuit, both criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism are “just people complaining.” But I would say that the main difference between the two allegations is:
* Generic characters generally follow the mold of classic characters. In the 1990s, many superhero teams had a Cyclops character (strict, morally upright leader), a Wolverine character (gruff, emotionally tormented loner) and a Storm character (strong, independent-minded female) ect. without copying any specifics from their forerunners.
* Plagiarized characters take specifics from other characters. As the Deadpool entry noted:
:: “Both characters' costumes share similar themes, both are mercenaries who use similar weaponry, and (most tellingly) Deathstroke's real name is Slade Wilson, while Deadpool's is Wade Wilson. Deadpool's relationship with Siryn also mirrors Deathstroke's relationship with Terra. Additionally, Deadpool routinely clashes with X-Force, a group of teenage superheroes, which is not unlike Deathstroke clashing with the Teen Titans, a group of teenage superheroes.”
I also think it is especially important to note the difference between criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism here because almost all Image creators, and many others throughout the industry in the 1990s, were accused of the first but only Liefeld, as far as I know, has been accused of the second on multiple occasions.--Rorschach567 22:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've looked at the article's history, I can see you guys are already dealing with this issue.  ike9898 20:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
This let's-all-blast-Liefeld situation has gotten out of hand. Latest example: N. Caligon claims to have improved the POV situation with his last edit, but just made it worse.  SpaceCaptain 15:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My idea for an intro

message: Is this section absolutely neccesary?  I don't deny it's all fairly true, but isn't it overkill?  I mean, Fiore's review(halfway down) is perhaps a better place to point people than performing such a hatchet job, because Liefeld certainly holds appeal, for all his faults.  He'd make a good pin up artist. Hiding 19:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic Criticisms, etc 

message: I've removed the part about Liefeld being still more popular than some alternative and independent artists, because I don't think it's particularly important.  Which independednt artists?  How do we tell?  Also removed balancing comments in criticisms of art, because Liefeld is felt to have gone further than the standard having a version of a big companies heavy hitter.  As for the copying of panels and calling it tribute, I'm not sure Liefeld's used the phrase, and it isn't felt that his use of the technique is homage. Hiding 17:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Okay, I can go along with a balancing comment along the lines of some people call it homage, some call it plaigarism, because he's never actually, all said and done, been succesfully sued, off the top of my head.  Wasn't the Fighting American a draw? Hiding 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: So, how should this rewrite be written? Someone want to start?
Original text with my commentary:
"Rob Liefeld (born October 3, 1968) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who is one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. "
This first sentence is fine.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Liefeld is actually one of the "most popular" figures in modern comics is open to debate.  Many fans/readers regard him as a one-trick pony who happened to be in the right place during a speculative bubble.  It would be better to say "best-known and controversial figures." "Most popular" is no more appropriate than "most notorious." We really don't know what percentage of the comics that dealers bought actually sold on the market, and we don't know what percentage of retail sales went to speculator-collectors who didn't care (in terms of personal taste)  whether the book was created by Rob Liefeld, Rob Reiner, or Rob Zombie. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! That's not a run-on sentence. It's long, syntactically complex, and difficult to follow, but it's grammatically sound. "Bombast" is not an inherently negative term; if you search the site, you'll find dozens and dozens of uses of it -- some negative, some descriptive, some complimentary (check the Carroll O'Connor as an example of the latter). Liefeld was by no means a "superstar" in 1989 -- his first New Mutants is the February 1990 issue which might have hit the racks in late 1989. (I just don't remember when the cover dates got adjusted to reflect reality, but in this case that detail doesn't matter.) "Widely derided writing" is an accurate description of the way his work was received, and he later acknowledged the flaws to some extent (but shifted the blame to his writing partner, Hank Kanalz.) X-Force 1 made him a superstar, as the comment about "breaking" him worldwide later in the article indicates, but the time the Youngblood mini had finished up, his  superstar run was over. The Image controversy should be detailed in the bio, not the intro. The "eclipsing" reference means that the later controversies now pretty much define him in the public eye, not his early artistic success. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From recollection Liefeld's first New Mutants is actually in the 1989 Annual, although it's a short back-up story (but in 1994 it still commanded silly prices for an annual of that era - I haven't looked since). Marvel brought the dates closer in 1989 - the July issues are coverdated November, August "Mid November", September December, October "Mid December" and then from November onwards they're all two months ahead.
Next:
"Liefeld and his partisans now flaunt his image as "The Most Hated Man in Comics," a particularly ironic form of self-aggrandizing in light of the frequent accusations of plagiarism: The label is lifted from Jim Steranko's self-promotional materials."
Personally, I find calling Liefeld's fans "partisans" offensive. Liefeld and his fans are not self-aggrandizing. His fans like him and his art because it's what they enjoy. Also, plagiarism has not been an accusation in a very long time. Finally, What are Jim Steranko's self-promotion materials? I've never seen them before. Reguardless his opinions, are not popular belief--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I added this, and I'm not calling all of Liefeld's fans partisans; I'm describing the behavior of a particular group of his more devoted fans.  Steranko applied the label to himself way back in 1997, in the publicity material for his autobiography, "Steranko: Graphic Prince Of Darkness." Maybe the sentence can be NPOV'd a bit more, but there's no real denying the underlying source. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This is mostly a description of reputation, and as such is accurate.  Maybe "bear" isn't quite the right word, but there's very little argument about the underlying similarities. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well Timrock, at least I am not a part of an organized effort to change this page, like you and the other herorealm.com  trolls.
Ok, sorry, i was just having fun.  In all seriousness, there is an organized effort to change this article and sanatize this man, who whether they will admit it or not, has said and done things that haven't always been honest.  I will make an effort to bring these things to light for i belive they should be noted.  But to play devil's advocate critism of his art should be left off this article because it is after all subjective.  
For any one who doesn't belive me just go too Herorealm.com and click on Rob liefeld forum. Find the wikipedia thread.  You might just recognize some names.
If anyone has anything to add it is welcomed, but remember to keep a NPOV. Facts are good also. Degrading remarks or rumors about Liefeld or his fans can stay out of this page and the Liefeld article.--Timrock 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Just to explain the most recent edit, after I blocked the unlogged editor we had a conversation by email and I unblocked them as long as they promised to behave.  They have been warned however that with even a hint of their previous behaviour the block will be re-instated.  One of their wishes was to come and make some of their previous comments "more constructive", which I don't have a problem with, as long as they haven't changed any conversations substantially, or edited what anyone else has said (I haven't looked very closely tbh - too tired). -- Francs2000 | Talk  00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree about the previous comments not being terribly constructive, but they do refer to matters that have been openly reported and discussed for a long time. I think most comics observers view them as significant matters; the cocaine references, while they might (from the the postings) seem to apply only to his private life, go back to at least one interview Liefeld gave where he discussed creating full comics issues in 48-hour full-tilt cocaine binges and pretty much said that was the way he and his studio colleagues worked. Aside from opening himself up to unsurprising ridicule, it also apparently alienated him from some of his previous colleagues, who denied sharing in his excesses. Unfortunately, the full text of the interview and followup discussion isn't easy to find right now, if it's online at all, but its general substance is solidly documented in reports on other websites. N. Caligon 18:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edit to talk page 

message: It is standard Wikipedia practice to remove personal attacks, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia policy to delete personal attacks. An admin should know this. Also even though the users comment was a bit course it was not a personal attack.--198.93.113.49 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks will continue to be removed from this page regardless of your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Those who persist in posting personal attacks will be blocked. Gamaliel 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is my personal interpretation? Follow the link you posted where you can read the following for yourself: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy...." Furthermore, the probem is you have a habit of declaring anything you don't want to read a personal attack to justify deleting it. You need to stop threatening to block users for pretended violations.--198.93.113.49 17:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are comments being deleted from the talk page?

message: This should be further discussed as it’s fairly well substantiated from many sources and makes for a more comprehensive report on the relationship between Rob and Image and chronicles part of the reason for his fall within the industry. Before Rob was fired he left Image and tried to raid the talent pool of Top Cow by attempting to bring Michael Turner with him. As a result Top Cow left Image, then only returned when Rob was gone completely.
::It's in the article already, just not in that much detail.  But is this pro or con vis Liefeld anyway -- why should the Image partners agree not to compete for work-for-hire artists to sharecrop books for them? Why was it wrong for Liefeld to offer Turner a raise in return for jumping to his studio for Silvestri's? One of the rare issues where Liefeld may have been on the right side? N. Caligon 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get out much, do you? Headhunting and talent pool raiding aren't exactly unusual (in any industry), and Image Comics itself was just a giant raid on the Marvel talent pool. N. Caligon 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read up on antitrust law and learn why "competitive partners," such as teams in sports leagues or members of marketing cooperatives, cannot agree not to compete for the services of employees and contractors in the absence of a statutory exemption or an appropriate collective bargaining agreement.  Maybe I have studied business law, too. Maybe you should brush up on your spelling and punctuation rather than straining so hard on your invective. N. Caligon 19:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: DC just signed Adam and Andy Kubert away from Marvel, since you hadn't noticed.  Image recruited Dale Keown off Hulk in the 90's. DC signed Byrne to do Superman, while he was working on FF and Alpha Flight etc at Marvel in the 80s. DC got an unsatisfied Jack Kirby away from Marvel in the early 1970s.  The entire Cross Gen kickoff.  Valiant hired Bob Layton away from Marvel. On the writing side, Marvel hired Gerry Conway away from DC in the mid-70s. Is that enough of a cross-section, in terms of times and talent for you, or should I mention DC's hiring away most Charlton's top talent in one swoop? Don't you understand what the "free" in freelance means? N. Caligon 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "You do know there was an agreement among the original Image creators to not go after each others talent right?" If there was, it was an illegal agreement -- particular to the extent that Maximum Press, a non-Image publisher, was involved.  When Kirby first left Marvel, he didn't finish the last issue of the FF he was working on. And what's your source for the dubious information that Turner was under a contract which barred him from taking other work than Top Cow offered? N. Caligon 17:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Liefeld History 

message: Since User:Francs2000 will no longer be working on this article and I don't think it's necessary to drag yet another admin into this mess, I'm going to unprotect this page.  Play nicely, please.  The article will get locked again at the first sign of an edit war.  Please adhere strictly to the 3RR, and if you have any doubt, let someone else revert - there are plenty of people watching this article.  Gamaliel 18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection