Bad Comic Book Art(ists)!

We've obviously got a thread with hate for Greg Land but there seems to be a need to have a thread to vent on all the bad art and artists we see.

I'm particularly displeased at seeing the Greg Land technique of light boxing real images/photos of actors or real people to produce comic panels. I don't know if it's because of the pressure of deadlines imposed by publishers or the need to have one's art be more realistic because amazing artists such as Alex Ross are making others look bad, but the results are turning off a lot of fans from otherwise well written books.

An example which came to mind recently is the Penance: Relentless mine. I thought the mini was very well written by Paul Jenkins and otherwise well drawn by Paul Gulacy, but from panels such as the following it is clear that at some point, Gulacy decided to make Norman Osborn look just like Tommy Lee Jones:



I just hope at the end of the day, Tommy Lee Jones got a check for the use of his likeness.

Since the Warren Ellis take over of the Thunderbolts Osborn has been caste as Tommy Lee Jones. It's not just one artist.

As for Land, he's not the only one who uses models for his artwork--I assume that most do. I know for a fact that (gay) Superman artist Phil Jimenez takes pictures of his boyfriend and uses them as reference for Superman, or did when he was on the book, even tracing his facial lines. I saw him on some documentary about gay artists (my wife was watching it and then Jimenez showed up so I watched that part of it....what!) taking pictures, using a lightbox under his paper and everything--it was no secret and DC certainly must have known. This has been a huge complaint in regards to Greg Land. It's something that I don't care about at all. They are still good artist. The thing that I hate about Land is that he uses the same images so often and he's blatantly stolen other people's work. That is the only part that bugs me AND yes, it is complete bullshit. Marvel should reprimand him for this. The image of Pixie on Uncanny #500 has been soooo over done. His artwork is seriously suffering from short cuts--like reusing images and stilling other people's art. Of course they will keep hiring him, his art still sells books and (for the most part) looks good.

Mr.Wholesome wrote:

Since the Warren Ellis take over of the Thunderbolts Osborn has been caste as Tommy Lee Jones. It's not just one artist.

As for Land, he's not the only one who uses models for his artwork--I assume that most do. I know for a fact that (gay) Superman artist Phil Jimenez takes pictures of his boyfriend and uses them as reference for Superman, or did when he was on the book, even tracing his facial lines. I saw him on some documentary about gay artists (my wife was watching it and then Jimenez showed up so I watched that part of it....what!) taking pictures, using a lightbox under his paper and everything--it was no secret and DC certainly must have known. This has been a huge complaint in regards to Greg Land. It's something that I don't care about at all. They are still good artist. The thing that I hate about Land is that he uses the same images so often and he's blatantly stolen other people's work. That is the only part that bugs me AND yes, it is complete bullshit. Marvel should reprimand him for this. The image of Pixie on Uncanny #500 has been soooo over done. His artwork is seriously suffering from short cuts--like reusing images and stilling other people's art. Of course they will keep hiring him, his art still sells books and (for the most part) looks good.

By the way I just found this...

"My Superman"

Jimenez's boyfriend, Joe Hosking, was his model for drawing Superman in the 2005-2006 limited series Infinite Crisis. In an interview for the PBS show In the Life, Jimenez introduced Hosking as "my Superman. And I mean that literally." [9]

My boyfriend actually has this perfect Clark Kent face and I asked if he’d be a model and he said yes. So the interesting thing about that is that he has this perfect Superman face, but what we realized is that Superman’s most powerful icon images of him, he had a very thick neck and a flat head. So that was actually an adjustment we had to make -- once you figure those things out, they became character traits, they became part of the way I drew him. That was actually my editor and me trying to figure out why my Superman was so different than the sort of more popular version. What made that Superman so super? We realized that there were two major elements -- the shape of his head and the size of his neck. It sounds really silly but it’s a big deal. [10]

http://gaycelebrities.wikia.com/wiki/Phil_Jimenez

as far as I know....


it was an Ellis/Dedato? decision to draw Norman like Tommy Lee Jones... then others followed. I have no problem with it.



The issues with Land have been addressed. Its obvious that he steals celebrity images....


Mack or Maleev recently stole an image. Whoever was doing recent covers for NA. It was the reason why New Avengers... 39 was delayed. The one with Echo, I'm sure you can find the original cover online, and the redone one was the one we own...


Alex Ross uses pictures... but from models that he hires and stuff... so there's nothing wrong with that.

I have no complaints about artists like Alex Ross using life models draw and/or paint their superheroes, but when as a result of laziness or having to meet a deadline an artist uses a lightbox for the same images over and over again, and particularly a photograph, the creativity is lost for me.

As far as Norman Osborn being modeled after Tommy Lee Jones, this is news to me. I know that Thunderbolts is one of the few Marvel books I haven't been following but I've been reading Spider-Man comics forever, and Norm Osborn has never looked liked that before. I'd like to see a little more consistency or if an artist wants to be original...keep it original and don't model after a hollywood celebrity.

I completely understand Patrick Stewart being used as Prof X because of the popularity of the X movies, but to reintrepret a character's physical appearance in an unoriginal and lazy fashion is uninspiring and unimaginative.

DanElectro wrote:

I have no complaints about artists like Alex Ross using life models draw and/or paint their superheroes, but when as a result of laziness or having to meet a deadline an artist uses a lightbox for the same images over and over again, and particularly a photograph, the creativity is lost for me.

As far as Norman Osborn being modeled after Tommy Lee Jones, this is news to me. I know that Thunderbolts is one of the few Marvel books I haven't been following but I've been reading Spider-Man comics forever, and Norm Osborn has never looked liked that before. I'd like to see a little more consistency or if an artist wants to be original...keep it original and don't model after a hollywood celebrity.

I completely understand Patrick Stewart being used as Prof X because of the popularity of the X movies, but to reintrepret a character's physical appearance in an unoriginal and lazy fashion is uninspiring and unimaginative.

I heard it was just something as a joke.... like an Ellis thing or something..


though I have no proof on it.



Wow... you follow crap like BND but don't read Thunderbolts? Wha?

PeteWisdom wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

I have no complaints about artists like Alex Ross using life models draw and/or paint their superheroes, but when as a result of laziness or having to meet a deadline an artist uses a lightbox for the same images over and over again, and particularly a photograph, the creativity is lost for me.

As far as Norman Osborn being modeled after Tommy Lee Jones, this is news to me. I know that Thunderbolts is one of the few Marvel books I haven't been following but I've been reading Spider-Man comics forever, and Norm Osborn has never looked liked that before. I'd like to see a little more consistency or if an artist wants to be original...keep it original and don't model after a hollywood celebrity.

I completely understand Patrick Stewart being used as Prof X because of the popularity of the X movies, but to reintrepret a character's physical appearance in an unoriginal and lazy fashion is uninspiring and unimaginative.

I heard it was just something as a joke.... like an Ellis thing or something..


though I have no proof on it.



Wow... you follow crap like BND but don't read Thunderbolts? Wha?

I'll overlook the BND comment (for now)...but, yeah, I honestly don't know where to even start with Thunderbolts. I was thinking of getting the two Ellis trades and then catching up with the rest later, but I'm not sure how much I'd be behind.

DanElectro wrote:

PeteWisdom wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

I have no complaints about artists like Alex Ross using life models draw and/or paint their superheroes, but when as a result of laziness or having to meet a deadline an artist uses a lightbox for the same images over and over again, and particularly a photograph, the creativity is lost for me.

As far as Norman Osborn being modeled after Tommy Lee Jones, this is news to me. I know that Thunderbolts is one of the few Marvel books I haven't been following but I've been reading Spider-Man comics forever, and Norm Osborn has never looked liked that before. I'd like to see a little more consistency or if an artist wants to be original...keep it original and don't model after a hollywood celebrity.

I completely understand Patrick Stewart being used as Prof X because of the popularity of the X movies, but to reintrepret a character's physical appearance in an unoriginal and lazy fashion is uninspiring and unimaginative.

I heard it was just something as a joke.... like an Ellis thing or something..


though I have no proof on it.



Wow... you follow crap like BND but don't read Thunderbolts? Wha?

I'll overlook the BND comment (for now)...but, yeah, I honestly don't know where to even start with Thunderbolts. I was thinking of getting the two Ellis trades and then catching up with the rest later, but I'm not sure how much I'd be behind.

well in all honesty,


the first Thunderbolts book I read was the current Ellis series. Different team, new direction, so figured it was an excellent jumping point. I think it was like 113 or something. Anything else I haven't read.

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

PeteWisdom wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

PeteWisdom wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

I have no complaints about artists like Alex Ross using life models draw and/or paint their superheroes, but when as a result of laziness or having to meet a deadline an artist uses a lightbox for the same images over and over again, and particularly a photograph, the creativity is lost for me.

As far as Norman Osborn being modeled after Tommy Lee Jones, this is news to me. I know that Thunderbolts is one of the few Marvel books I haven't been following but I've been reading Spider-Man comics forever, and Norm Osborn has never looked liked that before. I'd like to see a little more consistency or if an artist wants to be original...keep it original and don't model after a hollywood celebrity.

I completely understand Patrick Stewart being used as Prof X because of the popularity of the X movies, but to reintrepret a character's physical appearance in an unoriginal and lazy fashion is uninspiring and unimaginative.

I heard it was just something as a joke.... like an Ellis thing or something..


though I have no proof on it.



Wow... you follow crap like BND but don't read Thunderbolts? Wha?

I'll overlook the BND comment (for now)...but, yeah, I honestly don't know where to even start with Thunderbolts. I was thinking of getting the two Ellis trades and then catching up with the rest later, but I'm not sure how much I'd be behind.

well in all honesty,


the first Thunderbolts book I read was the current Ellis series. Different team, new direction, so figured it was an excellent jumping point. I think it was like 113 or something. Anything else I haven't read.

That'll prob be my jumping on point as well. If the new team is as interesting as what was in Penance: Relentless, I'm interested. The story lines were a bit confusing during the Civil War run so I stayed away from the book at the time.

By the way, in no way does my criticism of Gulacy's Norman Osborn depiction should be meant as a criticism of the Penance:Relentless mini overall. The series was excellent!

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Oh, yeah! Absolutley. Olivetti's run was really good!

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Oh, yeah! Absolutley. Olivetti's run was really good!

I think if Olivetti was drawing right now the current arc would be incredible

(I'm liking the story but the art is really distracting)

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Oh, yeah! Absolutley. Olivetti's run was really good!

I think if Olivetti was drawing right now the current arc would be incredible

(I'm liking the story but the art is really distracting)

I'm really not that big of a fan of Olivetti.... its okay, fits sometimes but not all the time.


Course its leagues better than the chicken scratch know as Chaykins artwork.

PeteWisdom wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Oh, yeah! Absolutley. Olivetti's run was really good!

I think if Olivetti was drawing right now the current arc would be incredible

(I'm liking the story but the art is really distracting)

I'm really not that big of a fan of Olivetti.... its okay, fits sometimes but not all the time.


Course its leagues better than the chicken scratch know as Chaykins artwork.

I think Olivetti is an acquired taste, but yea we can all agree that Chaykin sucks

PeteWisdom wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

DanElectro wrote:

Shaun wrote:

I am HATING Howard Chaykins run on Punisher War Journal, the covers are good but the interior is just crappy

Isn't that because he's not the one doing the cover art?

I don't really dislike Chaykin so much. He used to be much better in my opinion. He just tends to draw some faces a bit too cartoony sometimes, especially the eyes.

Maleev's doing the covers but I'd rather have Olivetti doing the interiors

Oh, yeah! Absolutley. Olivetti's run was really good!

I think if Olivetti was drawing right now the current arc would be incredible

(I'm liking the story but the art is really distracting)

I'm really not that big of a fan of Olivetti.... its okay, fits sometimes but not all the time.


Course its leagues better than the chicken scratch know as Chaykins artwork.

I go back and forth with Olivetti. I know I really liked him alot at one point when he was doing Daredevil but right now I'm hating his work on Cable. Looks like shit, especially the baby.

GoZ wrote:

Wave to the people douche bag...

Oh no.

Why GoZ?

Dan, do not enter this thread!

I'm warning you Dan, stay away from this thread!

Think he heard me . . .

GoZ wrote:

Wave to the people douche bag...

Oh no...



here's the part where a good handful of people mention how Liefeld is a Hack, someone posts the top 40 worst Liefeld drawings, We all laugh at #17 or #18 and never see Johnny Storm or Ben Grimm in the same light. Dan defends him as if Rob was his own child, mentions that the list is invalid because the person who compllied should have contributed to society, yet Dan takes the time to NOT contribute to society, and comes up with a few mediocre arguements on the list.


then we just make fun of Land and Chaykin.

True Believer wrote:

GoZ wrote:

Wave to the people douche bag...

Oh no.

Why GoZ?

Dan, do not enter this thread!

I'm warning you Dan, stay away from this thread!

Think he heard me . . .

I fucking love how we both started our responses to this with...


"oh no"

PeteWisdom wrote:

True Believer wrote:

GoZ wrote:

Wave to the people douche bag...

Oh no.

Why GoZ?

Dan, do not enter this thread!

I'm warning you Dan, stay away from this thread!

Think he heard me . . .

I fucking love how we both started our responses to this with...


"oh no"

Well, it was pretty ominous.

We all know the song and dance.