Listen to the podcast here!
Art by David Wynne. Wanna buy the original? Drop him a line!
What you see is pretty much what you get. (X-Force #1)
Welcome to X-Force! Hope you like leaping! (X-Force #1)
The most amazing thing about this page is the idea that an actual body is supposed to be in that armor. (X-Force #1)
Aw, that’s a noble sentiment! Hope you can keep it up! (X-Force #1)
Two whole pages later.(X-Force #1)
Is there an adult lubricant called Bodyslide? If not, there probably should be. (X-Force #1)
Boom Boom, never change. (X-Force #1)
Guys, that’s not how… ah, never mind. Have fun. (X-Force #1)
G.W. Bridge leverages S.H.I.E.L.D.’s significant spy network to keep a running tally of who has been naughty and who has been nice. (X-Force #1)
Lies? Continuity error? Retcons? WHO EVEN KNOWS ANYMORE? (X-Force #1)
THIS DELIGHTFUL SCAMP! (X-Force #1)
I spent hours combing through and comparing Shatterstar’s use of numbers in this arc. If you are expecting a useful revelation to follow that, you’re out of luck. (X-Force #2)
“No, two BLADES, not two… oh, never mind.” (X-Force #2)
Not pictured: Probably a really enthusiastic hug where Juggernaut picked up Black Tom and spun him around a bunch. (X-Force #2)
Siryn’s costume is actually pretty rad. (X-Force #3)
This commute is the worst. (X-Force #3)
What. (X-Force #3)
Cable, what are you even wearing? (X-Force #3)
That word balloon, though. (Spider-Man #16)
LOOK AT THAT FACE IT IS SO EXCELLENT (Spider-Man #16)
Dispatches from a more innocent time. (Spider-Man #16)
Cannonball is the best, but the faces in this issue are generally just incredibly good. (Spider-Man #16)
Did Todd McFarlane ever draw Judge Dredd? God, I hope so. (Spider-Man #16)
I’m honestly not sure what graphic enucleation would have added to this page; but you do you, I guess? (Spider-Man #16)
PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE “SHATTY” HAPPEN. Please. (X-Force #4)
Remember when they only killed in self-defense, LIKE TWO ISSUES AGO? (X-Force #4)
MAYBE BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU DROP THEM DOWN ELEVATOR SHAFTS (X-Force #4)
Somewhere, there’s a universe where Mignola drew a bunch of X-Force, and the ’90s were a very different time. (X-Force #4)
NEXT EPISODE: The not even remotely triumphant return of Technet!
LINKS & FURTHER READING
- The concerns expressed in Tom Lehrer’s “MLF Lullaby” don’t age wildly well, but it’s still a catchy song.
- Mr. Burns, A Post-Electric Play is definitely a thing on Earth-4935, only instead of a Simpsons episode, it’s the Pizza Hut X-Men comic where Cyclops doesn’t think it’s cool to have an adventure in Cyberspace.
A loving analysis of Liefeld’s X-Force art. Thomas posted it last week and I found it very interesting:
https://mercurialblonde.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/rob-liefeldx-force-comics-love-in-part-iii-decoration-in-comics/
Interesting article, but I’m with the commenter who said that Liefeld drew those abstract backgrounds because they were easier than something realistic. Which is not to say that his instincts didn’t lead him to produce something worthy of Sarah’s analysis, just that she’s probably more aware of what’s going on in that art than Rob ever was.
For me, this is where the whole concealing-the-feet thing does present a problem.
After all, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter where one sets the balance between conscious and unconscious in this sort of thing (and, of course, it appears that an awful lot of what we remember as conscious decisions are ex post facto impositions on decisions we already made unconsciously). And Liefeld would not be the first person in artistic (or other) history to come up with something effective because they wanted to save time and effort.
But the feet — it’s not just a silly trivial thing that everybody points out as Liefeld Cliché No. 1. (And, personally, means that I can’t stop myself from looking for the feet as the first thing that I notice about any Liefeld panel, which makes for a very odd reading experience.) It matters, because it’s communicating that constant sense that Liefeld does have a problem with his limitations, and is trying to hide them.
One point* at which the article failed to convince me was when it said “What about this art says to you that it wants you to judge it by the standards of realistic anatomy?” To which the answer has to be, “The fact that it repeatedly tries to hide one of its most serious deficiencies in that area. If it didn’t want me to care, it wouldn’t.
*The other is the refrain of “If it’s bad, why was it so popular?” I don’t completely dismiss the argument from popularity as something to take into account (although definitely not dispositive!). But you can’t discuss popularity in that era as a historical question without talking about the speculator boom.
Unrelated… for Jay
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/prisoner-jack-kirby-gil-kanes-unpublished-issues-be-released-1077049