RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Liefeld's Twitter Meltdown.

vs. Tom Brevoort

vs. Scott Snyder

Remember back in the day that when an artist or writer left a book citing "creative differences" and that's all we knew or would ever know?

These days,it's all been out in the open regarding editorial moves,artist/writer changes and so forth with the occasional venture into some juicy "DC/Marvel sucks and I'm not working for them anymore!!" type verbal from one or more comic professionals. This however is of epic Oakley-esque full on meltdown by Rob Liefeld. He first tweeted how we was walking away from his gig at DC to "preserve his sanity"....well it looks like he didn't get away soon enough as the above articles show how he of little feet and giant man-boobs went the Twitter equivalent of going postal,lashing out and verbally attacking the editors and some of the people he worked with and then going off on Snyder for no real reason. I always used to view Liefeld as an enthusiastic comic guy. Sure his art wasn't great but it was dynamic and fun at times. This though is just full on nutjob and all I can do is shake my head. Maybe he didn't need the work at DC anymore,but this kind of action really burns bridges and I highly doubt he'll be getting any work at Marvel or any other major publisher. Not to mention that he'll lose a good number of fans and potential buyers of anything he might do down the road.

Not a fan of his work at all.

However, at least initially with the tweets it sounded as if he had some legitimate points about DC (points I've read others, including George Perez and Judd Winnick, make as well).

As such, I can't blame him for getting riled at Brevoort for, basically, sticking his nose into it.

However, I can't fathom what set him off at Snyder (even if I agree with him to some extent that Batman's built in audience is going to guarantee a writer a certain level of success no matter who that writer is).

As for "the good old days," some of this is a result of the instant world of internet.

In the old days if an artist or writer quit DC or Marvel they might, naturally, spout off to their buddies while pissed off, cool down and then say something more subdued in the official press. But now, they jump on twitter before they calm down and send that shit out to everyone. Or they call up/email Rich Johnston or some other blogger.

Yes,he did have a legitimate gripe with the way books are being editorial driven but man,he just went bat-shit crazy with it though. Like you said,instead of calling a bud up and venting about it,grab that phone or keyboard and tell the world......when you can't take it back. According to Pete Woods,in his FB posting,that when Liefeld was having an issue with the other Image founders back in the mid-late 90's,he was pretty much the same way when he was asked to leave.

I actually agree to an extent that Batman sells Batman. That said, a good writer, artists, or both on the book can help sales out beyond padding. Snyder's Court of Owls was damn good. Sales reflect that. Finch's Batman:TDK was utter shit. I'd think a look at sales would reflect that, too.

Looks like Dark Knight is a possible cancellation with the announcement that Finch will be the artist on the new Justice League of America series. Batman and Detective Comics will sell decent no matter who's on the book,but the spin-off books like Batman & Robin and Dark Knight won't. Look to past titles like Shadow of the Bat,Gotham Knights and to a lesser extent,Legends of the Dark Knight(it had a healthy run but the last 3-4 years of that book didn't sell very well as I recall which led to it getting axed) for examples of how spin-off books featuring Batman don't always guarantee sales. Scott Snyder's run on Detective Comics really brought readers to that title,so the lateral move to "Batman" with the relaunch was natural and the book sells better now than it did before the relaunch last year.

I can't recall too well those last few years of LotDK, but I seem to remember it becoming more tied in to canon/continuity than it seemed to be in the early issues. While storylines like "Venom" did find their way into the main books, early issues really seemed more like a chance for creators to tell the Batman stories they wanted to tell without being weighed down by all the continuity...almost a Vertigo-esque Batman book.

The thing with Batman as a whole is that while throwing the name on the book is a pretty good guarantee the people will pick it up and give it a try because Batman sells Batman, it is up to the team to hook the readers into coming back for issues three, four, and beyond. Finch failed miserably at that and I won't miss Dark Knight at all.

[comment removed because I completely forgot how long Grant was on the book. But, yeah, I like Stelfreeze's SotB covers]

On the Liefeld note,his FB page has him stating he's selling ALL his DC art.

the thread about this on bleeding cool devolved into an argument over Snyder referring to himself as "head writer" of batman. Honestly, I think the guys who had a problem with the term are the ones who actually place too much importance on the label.

Snyder and several writers (including Gail Simone) confirmed that it's what they call the current writer of the flagship title over at the bat books, as the continuity in the flagship title usually take precedence over the satellite titles during continuity conflicts.

I hereby declare myself the Head Poster of the RKMBs.

Indeed you are. I still have the marks to prove it!

Really, I see little difference between this and the various feuds in the pre-internet days that were transcribed in the "Blood and Thunder" letters section of the COMICS JOURNAL.
Or JOURNAL interviews, for that matter.
One interview in particular (COMICS JOURNAL 53, of Harlan Ellison, got an angry backlash from dozens of comics professionals, and a costly lawsuit by Michael Fleisher, that lasted nearly a decade and nearly bankrupted THE COMICS JOURNAL/Fantagraphics.)

So even though the delayed-time of offline writing and publishing comments arguably allows creators to pull back and comment with calmer heads, they often still don't.

Perez, Wolfman, Moench, Colan, Byrne, Claremont and many others in pre-internet days certainly pulled no punches in the printed versions of their feuds with Marvel, Jim Shooter, or each other.

Kill yourself.

Ig's drinking.

No, just giving Wondy some good advice.

And the petty vindictive obsession continues...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/09/14/s..._medium=twitter

he traced work from perez in the latest deathstroke!
more at the link

Stealing panels is nothing new.

go to the link. he stole the entire comic book!

I should have clicked. It's the same panels because it's the same story.

yeah but perez/wolfman got no credit for his tracing. liefeld is stealing.

Yeah, there should be an "after Perez" on every panel there.

At the very least he could have/should have put "acknowledgement to the art of George Perez" in the credits box.