This forums here are gonna get busy in the next few months, so let's go totally off-topic here, in teh LOUNGE!
the thing I don't understand about classic comics... could the artists not draw as well as they can today? lol. like everything looks so visually poopy
I often wonder just the opposite. Many comic books published now look as if the artists just don't give a damn and will put anything out for a paycheck.
granted I don't read comic books but whenever I'm over on "the site that shall not be named" I'll check out the cover art/pages they preview and they usually seems to be pretty nice work. The old cover always look so silly to me, unrealistic faces and just overall shotty looking art. I prefer things looking realistic I guess so it's probably just personal preference. (please no examples of crappy looking art today haha, I understand nothings ever perfect.)
Why did people wear different clothes in the olden days? Why was CGI not as good? Why was music different?
I understand things change with the times and technology, but drawing ability isn't something that is limited by time. Just a minor gripe I have sorry to get anyone worked up lol.
It's a matter of individual taste. I grew up with Silver Age Marvel Comics, so the visual styles of various artists are very familiar to me and I enjoy them. Artists like Kirby, both Buscemas, Starlin, Steranko, Gil Kane, Ditko, Romita Sr., Cockrum, Adams, etc., were and remain giants of the field. They were expert visual storytellers, working in conjunction with some of the best writers ever to grace the medium. If you put the worst work of those artists up against the best work being turned out today, I would still choose the old masters over the current crop of artists.
yup totally get where you're coming from cause I'm a 22 year old who's never read a comic in my life hehe I just can't get into them for some reason. as they say, to each their own