CBR: CCI: Kirkmania

[CBR News]

As an Image partner and acclaimed writer of "Invincible," "The Walking Dead" and "The Astounding Wolf-Man," Robert Kirkman had a whole lot to stay to his fans at Comic-Con International. CBR has the rundown on Kirkman's future plans.


Full article here.

[grphxkindaguy]

Great coverage of the panel, it sounded like a lot of fun!!!

Um, what are children doing, reading Walking Dead?!? Thats f'ed up, IMO.

Did anyone else's mouth drop in shock, when Kirkman said he thought McFarlane was a great writer? I really hope RK was just kissing up to him, and doesn't really think that. What's next, he loves Liefeld's artwork....?

[prismablue]

He does love Liefelds work. he's the main reason Rob is back at Image. Why is it so hard to belive people can grow up reading comics by Mcfarlane or Liefeld and still like them as adults. I think it's far more bizzare to go around claiming they ruined your childhood.

[dan bailey]

Why is it so hard to belive people can grow up reading comics by Mcfarlane or Liefeld and still like them as adults. I

Because people of intelligence often (but obviously not always) tend to develop something remotely resembling taste as they mature?

Anyway, yeah -- Kirkman's fondness for wallowing in absolute bilge from the '90s is pretty notorious. Luckily, it seems not to have tainted his own work to any appreciable extent.

[prismablue]

Because people of intelligence often (but obviously not always) tend to develop something remotely resembling taste as they mature?

Anyway, yeah -- Kirkman's fondness for wallowing in absolute bilge from the '90s is pretty notorious. Luckily, it seems not to have tainted his own work to any appreciable extent.

Using the word maturity when talking about superhero comics always makes me laugh.

His enjoyment of some of those books informed his work, because he's been able to capture alot of the excitement those books generated for their audience back then and apply that in a modern fashion.

[dan bailey]

I see where you're coming from (see my sig, for instance), but in this case I meant "mature" in the sense of "growing older."

Probably if I'd grown up on the (to me) painfully hideous stuff Image was pumping out 15 years ago, I'd feel differently, but I was (IMHO) lucky enough to cut my teeth on late Silver Age & early Bronze Age stuff.

Even so, y'know, even though I loved both issues of DC's infamous Brother Power, the Geek as a kid, I'm not going to pretend they were wonderful works of art. If Kirkman or his fellow apologists for the inexcusable likes of Liefeld, McFarland, etc were my age, I'm not sure they'd be able to come to grips with that realization, which strikes me as somewhat sad.

[GRANT!]

McFarlane described the process of the Haunt suit: "When the costume comes out, he literally barfs it up from his mouth and it comes and it wraps up [his face]. His chin is bare, and the reason is when he barfs out the costume, for lack of a better word, it wraps up this way." McFarlane made a loud vomiting noise that Kirkman hoped was being recorded.

Well I'm sold

I wish they could do audio covers.

[GRANT!]

You know I read early Image comics and a lot of them were no worse then what was coming out from Marvel and DC at the time. Still I think at their best they had an energy that a lot of other companies lacked and that was something I appreciated when I was a kid. I think Kirkman gets that and he's able to take that and gives it a much stronger and more well crafted take (though I think Larsen and Valentino were underrated writers even back in the 1990s).

I read and appreciate all sorts of books now. I like my Chris Ware, Jack Kirby, Frank Miller, Matt Wagner, Hernadez Bros, Alan Moore, Paul Pope and many others. But once in a while I dig some Todd McFarlane and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[dan bailey]

As I said, probably I'd feel differently if I'd been part of the target audience when those comics came out. (For the record, the vast majority of Marvels & DCs from that era don't do anything for me, either. Of course, at the time I hadn't looked at a new comic [& darned few old ones, having sold off 99.9 percent of my collection in '81] since the cover price rose to 40 cents in 12/78.) So it goes.

[prismablue]

I see where you're coming from (see my sig, for instance), but in this case I meant "mature" in the sense of "growing older."

Probably if I'd grown up on the (to me) painfully hideous stuff Image was pumping out 15 years ago, I'd feel differently, but I was (IMHO) lucky enough to cut my teeth on late Silver Age & early Bronze Age stuff.

Even so, y'know, even though I loved both issues of DC's infamous Brother Power, the Geek as a kid, I'm not going to pretend they were wonderful works of art. If Kirkman or his fellow apologists for the inexcusable likes of Liefeld, McFarland, etc were my age, I'm not sure they'd be able to come to grips with that realization, which strikes me as somewhat sad.

I don't think many people look at them as works of art. They were entertainment for a specific set and for people that grew up on them and people who liked them then can still enjoy them for what they are while have developed a more cultured set of tastes.

I'm not sure what is so inexcusable about Liefeld or Mcfarlane though.

[Beto_Machado]

This page Todd posted today on Twitter sold me on Haunt:

http://twitpic.com/doa3x/full

I just reallt hope the coloring is not like the style they're using on the sample covers (the same as in current Spawn). It's the dullest coloring ever. Flat, and everything is brown.

[Dave H]

Todd's inking has actually made me decide not to get Haunt.

He destroys Ottley's pencils.
Practically redrawing his head/face every single time and going so far as to change the poses.
If he wanted to be the penciler he should have signed on for it.

[dan bailey]

I'm not sure what is so inexcusable about Liefeld or Mcfarlane though.

Terrible art?

[prismablue]

Terrible art?

That would make them artists you don't like, not inexcusable.

[dan bailey]

True enough.

Except maybe for Liefield. That crap is pretty objectively horrible, no matter who's looking at it (assuming the absence of complete blindness &/or hopeless brain damage, of course).