Hey guys,

As some of you may have heard me reference in various posts and/or chat sessions over the past few years, I have been on a personal quest to read every Amazing Spider-Man comic from Amazing Fantasy #15 up to around issue #400.  After about four years I am now up to issue #324 (Nov. 1989). 

The point of all this is these issues in the early 300s are among the first comics I ever bought, read and loved.  Todd McFarlane was the first artist that I remember really following and thinking was something special.  As they say, the Golden Age is 12.  I was about 10 to 12 years old during McFarlane's reign at MARVEL in the late 80s/early 90s.

So like I was saying...this is the first time in a long time that I've gotten out these McFarlane Spider-Man issues and read them.  I had been anticipating it for a long time to see what I would think about them from a more adult perspective (I'm 27 now).

The answer is...mixed.  There is something about McFarlane's art that is very different and I think there is a place for it.  However, I see lots of stuff that I do not like.  I notice problems with anatomy (and I don't just mean the figures of Spider-Man swinging through the air) and just the way some of the characters look.  If I had been 27 years old in 1989 I would've been pretty upset with some of these things....like the way Mary Jane looks (Ugh).

I guess I'm having trouble putting into words exactly how I would critique McFarlane's work.  I'm curious what the rest of you think?  Especially those of you who were, like me, McFarlane fans back in the day....what do you think of him now?

The Golden Age is when you're 12?

Years ago, I was thinking to my early days as a superheroes reader/collector (note: I have read comics since 1986, but only in 1995 I started to read superheroes regularly). I decided to call that particular moment "My golden age". Guess how old I was?

I loved McFarlene on AMAZING, especially his first 12/15 issues. The artworks were spectacular, with a modern, dynamic Spider-Man. Great stuff. The last issues weren't as good as the first ones, for me, but they weren't bad. Instead, I never appreciated McFarlane's work on SPIDER-MAN, it seemed too extreme to me, so exagerrated...

Joe, I'm trying to do the same thing you're doing now, more or less... I'm re-reading everything from the post-Gwen's death to "I don't know where". There are stories I haven't read in 10 years!

My Golden Age of Comics is 1967-68, which is a few years before I was born.

Alas, he became such a major force without learning to draw and, worse, like many of his cronies at Image, became trapped by his own success. He simply couldn't get any better, for fear of losing the fanbase he had created. (Or, more accurately, Marvel had created for him.)

I never quite got Mcfarlane. I was pretty much coming out of comics as he was coming in. 

I would say my golden period was 10 to 20 I know that is a long time but I remember very fondly the summer of '76 sat in my back garden reading comics and being moved to tears by the death of Gwen Stacy ten years later I was doing virtually the same thing over the death of Supergirl. As much as I am enjoying reading comics again these day I can't imagine being quite so wrapped up in them as I was back then.

It's funny, reading this today, because I was just thinking about McFarlane's art when a customer bought an issue of "Spider-Man." As I gazed at the cover, I noticed how bad the anatomy was, and so on, yet how the overall work was appealing on some level.

I've long since noticed that how popular an artist is is based on the "it" factor. Some of the best draftsmen in comics don't have "it" when it comes to being widely popular. Some of the worst artists, in terms of the technical aspects of drawing, have that "it" factor that still makes the average fan take notice of the artist's work.

That's a good point, Matt.  I think a good example is Deodato's work.  I can't stand it, but I see why some people like it.  I do find it ironic that so many comics past and present have used a "hot" artist on the cover and someone less than perfect inside, yet in Deodato's case, I sometimes find better work on the inside.  I just finished the Punisher/Bullseye tp and although I hated the cover, I found Dillon's work inside to be really good.  Same with the Bullseye mini from a short while back. 

As far as McFarlane, I have always considered him to have a really good sense of layout and design, but his anatomy reeks.  . 

His style had a very playful attitude and off the wall
exagerations which complimented the work of the
writer David Michelline at the time.

Also being that I enjoyed Arthur Adams work and he
(Adams) did not have a monthly book, McFarlane
who was a "student" of Adam's earlier style I found
easy to like.

******

I once read an interview, I think with Erik Larsen, where he explained he felt McFarlane was popular because he was, in essence, a poor-man's Art Adams, but he did it monthly.

I liked McFarlane's art a lot when I was a kid, because he was pretty consistent for awhile there (I think Amazing Spider-Man was twice a month during most of his run) and he packed a lot of surface detail.  While his perspective was pretty wonky, I used to love his backgrounds.

In a way, he's similar to Frank Miller (and JB) in his ability to create really memorable images that stick in my mind.  As someone explained above, he had that unexplainable quality to a lot of his work that somehow made it stand out.

Trevor wrote:

"My Golden Age of Comics is 1967-68, which is a few years before I was born."

++++++++++++

Just to clarify...the phrase "The Golden Age is 12" refers to the idea that whatever you enjoy when you are 12 will always seem "great" or "neat" to you at least in a nastalgic sort of way.  In this context, Trevor, 1967-68 is not your "Golden Age" since you weren't alive.  I have come to appreciate the entire 1960s decade as the greatest era of comic books but my "Golden Age" would be about 1989-91...everything from that era has a certain glow of nastalgia for me even though a more mature and adult perspective also lends a more critical eye....if that makes sense...

I got this on my 12th birthday with a stack of other comics from my Grandmother.  I had been reading and collecting for years by then, but this is as good a golden age as any, huh?

My particular "golden age" was the early '80s and I loved the Amazing Spider-Man book of that time. Stories by Stern, and art by Romita Jr. that just knocked me for a loop. I loved how his SM looked contorted in the midst of his awesome acrobatics, but never too much so. The character's legs and arms were spider-like, even extreme at times, but Romita Jr. never seemed to push it too far. And he was a solid artist in his depictions of the architecture, bad guys, supporting characters, etc. - at least to my young eyes. The stories felt complete to me. Back then, for me, it was Byrne, Miller and Romita, Jr. Those guys were my mainstays.

When I saw McFarlane's work years later (admittedly, not much of it) it seemed like he went too far, so much so that I was knocked out of the story. Also, I didn't care for the webbing (strands wrapped around strands, etc) or the way he depicted the character's faces. Just my personal taste.

You are correct, Francesco. McFarlane brough energy to the table, but absolutely nothing we had not seen before at one time or another.

I never cared for his stuff mainly because I had studied anatomy and perspective myself, and his art didn't seem to have either.  I stopped reading comics right around ASM #300 for reasons not related to McFarlane.  When I came back, Larsen was about to take over, so I was only a sporadic reader at most until Mark Bagley came aboard (what a breath of fresh air!).  I later picked up most of the back issues because I wanted to read the stories, and the art did nothing for me.  McFarlane was just in the right place at the right time.

I remember, back when I was in Argentina, I went to my Art teacher with two comics, one was Mc Farlane's Spiderman, the other was Liefeld's X-Force. I was absolutely blown away (Mc Farlane's odd but fascinating aesthetic, and Liefeld as a sort of an unconscious Art Adams Placebo) and wanted to share it with her...' look at these, what do you think about them???'..... I remember her smile while she said.... '..... uh....   they really know their anatomy.'.

Heh, I didn't have a clue and missed the sarcasm completely. I even took it literally and assumed anatomy was really vital (for all the wrong reasons), so I started studying it....

Years later now, I still turn red in embarrassment when I think of it.

Not a comparison per se, and I don't know if that's the Spider-Man pin-up mentioned earlier, but that's a portion of Golden's legendary Marvel poster from the 80s. Notice Spider-Man's posture and most certainly the webbing.

The next time, I think, we ever saw something like that, was when Arthur Adams handled the character in a Web of Spider-Man annual, featuring New Mutants' Warlock, the difference that Art's version was wearing the black costume.

Todd was really strong when we first saw him, but it got too tired too soon, for me. The adjectiveless Spider-Man was a bad choice, I think.

I would love to see some of McFarlane's Amazing Spider-Man pencils, I've search the internet I can't find one fan or site besides McFarlane toys.

McFarlane was way past my "Golden Age". Never liked him much on Infinity Inc. It was a step downward in quality from Ordway and Newton. A bit clunky and he was trying too hard to make "interesting" layouts. Wasnt a Spider-man or Hulk fan so I passed on his runs there. Sure I glanced at them in the shop but wasnt impressed. Caught the Golden/Adams influences, but didn't see any thing new in those riffs. Larsen wasa turn off from the start. He took over Doom Patrol and I stopped buying it. Liefield. hawk and Dove was the first thing I bought with his name attached. Saved by the Kessel inks mostly. New Mutants dropped from my buy list once he came aboard. Lee was the only one I liked of that group. And he was a bit too "busy" for my tastes. had a weird Byrne/Miller synthesis going on. Not sure it worked.

 I wonder why Michael
Golden didn't become an huge star, maybe the books he was on, not the
right place at the right time. I wish he took over for JB on X-men, that
would have been awsome to say the least.

Golden said in one of his few interviews that he pitched a lot of things with Larry Hama, but Marvel and DC only wanted to do superheroes.  He also has a reputation for being slow, though he says he's faster than he's given credit for.  He was Marvel's art director in the late 90s, he did the redesign on the War Machine armor.

I found McFarlane on the spanish reprint of Spider-Man, and at the moment i thought that it looked sensational and odd at the same time. Now i have mixed feelings everytime i see his work on Spider-Man or the earliers Spawn.

You know...'tis funny seeing all that McFarlane art and the mention of Liefeld...because some have said that they were popular, in part, because of the "copiability" of their art.  Meaning it looked like something ANYBODY could do!

I tried to copy that stuff and just couldn't make it work.  Too many years of copying Jim Aparo and JB, I guess, for it to "make sense" in my head.  Even now, I doubt that I'd be able to pull off a credible copy.

MPH

Some of my earliest comics (Spider-Man or otherwise) come from the Conway/Buscema run on Spectacular in the late 80s. I think the reason I never had any issues of Amazing from that period is because my parents thought McFarlane's art was too weird.

And I still remember my folks looking at JB's She-Hulk story featuring the Headmen (and guest-starring Spidey) at a comic shop and saying it was too "weird" for me to have. Heh.

The thread has taken an interesting drift toward Michael Golden. I was instantly taken with his artwork, although I could only find it once in a while. My first exposure were the first Marvel Fanfare issues (a very enjoyable X-Men Savage Land adventure. Paul Smith took over the arc halfway through, and finished up everything nicely (loved 'ol Paul Smith, too).

From there I found the Micronauts run which had come out a year or three before. I really loved this series. Two "toy" comics really worked for me --Rom and Micronauts.

Next I found Avengers Annual #10 (written by Claremont) which remains one of my favorite comics to this day. Finally, I found a Batman Annual (or a Special?), a real gem, featuring Batman against his opposite number. Like Avengers Annual 10, this is one of my beloved stories.

After that, I was quite aware that Golden began lengthy work on The Nam. I caught none of it. I had my reasons. I thought perhaps that many punches would be pulled in regards to the language and combat. It sounds like I missed some of his best work. A mistake.

Michael Golden was (is) one of the artists that really awed me with his drawing style. I still think of him to this day. I should search out his 'Nam issues.

I always thought McFarlane was a great artist, as long as he was part of a unit, rather than the star of the show.

That's what made his tenure on Amazing Spider-Man so good. He had pros like writer Dave Michelinie and editor Jim Salicrup to work with. That creative team (emphasis on the word "team") had a great, lengthy run together.

When he became this fan favorite and received carte blanche to write and draw whatever he wanted, the result wasn't nearly as good.

Sadly, he did not have the staying power, and eventually he faded back to relative obscurity, leaving it for a young punk named Miller to come along and do serious damage to the pedestals upon which George and I perched.

Greg, when you wanted to buy a comic, did your parents look over it to see if it was good every time?

+++++++++++++

Only when I was really young. But, even then, I wasn't really attracted to stuff that wasn't age-appropriate.

++++++++++++++++++

I love the Frenz stuff. He deliberately injected a Ditko-style into his early issues, then moved towards Romita.

And I love it how the old Ditko spider-symbol (with the name "Spider-Man" on it) was brought back on the spash pages of those Frenz issues.

McFarlane was a poor mans Arthur Adams, then Adams was a poor mans
Michael Golden, after Butch Guice & Kelly Jones had their turns at being
a poor mans Golden !

* * * * *

I see the Michael Golden connection in McFarlane's work, and I was also a massive Golden fan back in the Micronauts era.*  I also remember thinking that McFarlane seemed to be riffing on Pat Broderick, too (not especially well).

It's strange to think back about ten years and remember what big stars the Image guys were, or thought they were, or whatever. 

(edited to be marginally less insulting)

*This, though, is my fondest Michael Golden memory:

Here you go, Sam:

****

Thanks Matt.  Where did you get McFarlane's art page? 

Never was a fan of McFarlane. A friend showed me an issue of Infinty Inc. years ago and was raving about the artist. I wasn't too impressed. Tho, I do see his appeal.

My golden age for Spider-Man would have to be Ross Andru. He was the artist when I first started reading Amazing. Not that Romita, Frenz or a host of others that followed haven't been good. They can never compete with warm and fuzzy childhood memories. Add in the fact that Ross was one talented artist and you have a winning combo!

I couldn't find a nice big image of it but Golden's GI Joe Yearbook #2 blew me away.  I had never even paid attention to the credits box before but I remember rereading that story many times and taking note of Golden's name.  Not that I saw it very often after that.

Golden was a favorite of mine too.  Avengers Annual 10 is just a classic.  I remember trading for it as a kid, and never havin' "trader's remorse."  I particularly like how Golden drew Iron Man with so much power.  I like the circles of power coming out of Iron Man's boots and gauntlets.  I have done google searches for more of Golden's work, but it is few and far between.  I got a nice scan of Golden's Dr. Strange from his portfolio and posted it here on another thread. 

Can anyone follow up on what Golden is doing now?  Or post more of his work?

Regarding McFarlane . . . he had a great dynamic nature to his work.    But even back then, I often noticed that 1) his feet and poises for Spider Man never made much sense, 2)he drew really goofy eyebrows, 3)and things tended to skew to the "too cartoony" end of the spectrum. But, I still enjoyed his Spider-Man.  HATED SPAWN on just about every level.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5484/GG.html - Here's a small site with some of his work, Charles.

Golden did a stint as M*****'s art director a few years back.  Then he was doing covers on Nightwing.  He did a fill-in issue of Birds of Prey last year (the one that was solicited as having an Alex Toth cover, but it didn't happen. Thanks, DC).  Most recently, an Art of Micheal Golden book was solicited from Image, but was cancelled from Diamond last I checked.  He also did the covers for the mini-series Ocean last year.  Although you really couldn't tell it, as the covers were less subjective. 

Mig, Golden only did one issue of Dr. Strange and a page or two in another.

Howard the Duck page from the magazine of the same name. 

And Kaluta, too!

I have heard that Golden was very interested in machines, so now he designs bolts and various components.

Looking at his desing for War Machine II, this doesn't seem so incredible!