What Happened to Jim Lawson?

[Venom]

Before I get flamed or attacked or whatever, let me say that I'm not bitching about Jim's artwork. It's quirky and it does grow on ya after a while. Besides, if it wasn't largely for him, we wouldn't have had most of the TMNT books that have came out in the last several years.

I've seen his blog and his portraits on there are quite amazing! Very photorealistic with very close attention to detail. So the guy can draw...

But what happened to the Jim from the late '80's? The one whose Turtese were drawn almost exactly like Kevin's? Hell, even the people's heads he drew looked good for the most part. Now, perhaps it was the inker/toner filling in some spots, but all in all Jim's work was fantastic!

I've wondered how/why he chose his new visual style for the Turtles when there was nothing wrong with his old style. Is something wrong with his hands and he can't hold a pencil for very long so he tries to rush it?

C'mon Jim, show us you've still got the old gritty look in ya.

[DrSpengler]

Well, it wasn't some snap decision to stop drawing like a professional. If you look through RTNY, Tales Vol. 1, CaW, Vol. 2 and finally Vol. 4 you can see it was a gradual process with his style declining at a steady pace. So it's not like he suddenly broke his hand and couldn't draw anymore, it was a decision on his part.

I imagine the gradual change is because drawing everything super stylized is a lot easier than drawing things with detail or realism. I mean, if you look at the environments in Vol. 4 and recent material, the man doesn't even use a ruler anymore when drawing buildings, making everything look all lopsided and deformed. That right there is the definiton of "rush job" or just plain "lazy".

Basically, a simpler style means an easier workload, so by cutting corners in his art and calling it "style" he doesn't have to work as hard.

[Buslady]

I know what you mean. There was alot of detail back then, really nice stuff. Now it's like really shakey and choppy, and his people look terrible. Gimme Dooney's art or anybody else's cos Lawson's lost it.

in reference to the rulers: in other words he's lazy, he doesnt care to give quality work anymore. no wonder TMNT comics makes no money cos the product sucks. They need to end this corny storyline, change artist and get on with a better story.

[DrSpengler]

I see it as a matter of cronyism.

Laird and Lawson are best friends and no matter how BAD Lawson's art can be, Laird will never fire his friend (probably becuase this is the only job an artist like Lawson could possibly get). And considering Laird's "don't buy any of my books" policy, I imagine a change in artists is never gonna happen.

[Rooish]

Keep in mind that in "Return to New York"--probably three of the best-drawn issues of TMNT ever--Kevin Eastman did the layouts and he really went overboard on the detail, with very tight lineart. Jim Lawson basically just copied those drawings almost exactly when he pencilled "Return to New York." Then other guys inked it ... and they actually inked it, and didn't use some crappy computer program to add dot shading (as is done in Volume 4). "Return to New York, Part Three," is, in my opinion, the one with the best art, and that one was even inked by Eastman.

In "City at War" Lawson's art was more cartoony, but the people who inked it worked with that style. Also Lawson seemed to try harder then, and the characters were drawn with more detail.

In Volume 4, he doesn't really spend much time on each individual panel (so it seems), and the inking is pretty damn half-assed (no variation in lines or shadow, and the fake-looking computer shading). It's too bad, really, that they don't remember that the whole point of a comic book is that it expressed a story through art. Oh well.

[DrSpengler]

Just to keep this from becoming a 100% "Lawson BAD" thread...

To Lawson's credit, while his art has declined in quality, the man DOES know how to tell a story. He paces everything out very well and he knows how to set up panels for maximum effect. While the art itself is nothing special, the angles he draws everything at are very dynamic.

[Rooish]

That's true, I definitely agree that he uses a lot of variety in his angles. And I love how he writes his stories and characters.

[Andrew NDB]

I don't think his art has changed at all over the years. He's just not a guy you'd really ever want to have ink himself, or saddle with an inker that isn't going to inject a bit of their own vision over the pencils -- which is exactly what we see of late.

[jenna]

I was really shocked actually. One of the first comics I read (just recently) was Return to New York and I viewed the art with slack-jawed awe. Thought it was beautiful. Next one was tales 34 and when I opened the comic I was surprised that the artist was the same. It seemed stylised but.... lazy, like Buslady said and I was sad that it didn't have the same quality to it. That said, from the POV of someone who is new to the comics, it takes some getting used to - the more square style of drawing, but I think Lawson has such a unique style - I would love to see more of his work.

The quality of Paul Harmon's art in Tales 36 to me was amazing and though I'm reticent to compare artists, I enjoyed the story so much more than Lawson issues because it was so visually spectacular.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by jenna

I was really shocked actually. One of the first comics I read (just recently) was Return to New York and I viewed the art with slack-jawed awe. Thought it was beautiful. Next one was tales 34 and when I opened the comic I was surprised that the artist was the same. It seemed stylised but.... lazy,

Look at the inkers. The Return to New York one must be Vol. 1 #21 (the only RTNY he did the pencils on), which was inked by Kevin-effing-Eastman -- of course it's going to look awesome, because Eastman is going to take liberties with Lawson's pencils to make them appear more Eastman-esque. Guess who the inker was in Tales #34? Lawson just inked himself.

[Mandi-chan]

Lawson's art seems really cheap and lazy, and the inking doesn't help...because it seems to be equally cheap and poor.

His stuff wasn't that bad in City at War, his people looked much better than they do now anyway.

[VaughnMichael]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Look at the inkers. The Return to New York one must be Vol. 1 #21 (the only RTNY he did the pencils on), which was inked by Kevin-effing-Eastman -- of course it's going to look awesome, because Eastman is going to take liberties with Lawson's pencils to make them appear more Eastman-esque. Guess who the inker was in Tales #34? Lawson just inked himself.

See but yeah that doesn't work all that well because Lawson inked his own art in his base biker and orson series as well as in the roll playing mutants down under and other art he did for those books.
I think it's more of a case that Lawsons art just doesn't look good with dark thick lines he used to use very thin lines on his art and it looks allot better for the cartoonish style he draws in.
I remember him saying at some point not to long ago why exactly his art is differnt now he even admited it himself I believe he said he really wanted to draw like another mirage artist Michael Dooney or some one along those lines I can't remember the exact person but he said he felt as if he wasn't being true to himself and thats what caused his art to change to the style we see before us now.

[Vegita-San]

Just as an aside. Laird doesn't have too fire him. He could bring him on as a story editor, manager, brainstormer, etc.... As I posted on another board, Laird did awesome buildings in the Donatello movie issue, but the rest of the books art stunk...

Same goes for the movie adaption book. The cover looks great. But inside, it was way too toony is the best way I can describe it. The way donatello looked on the cover, April, et al is how the designs in the actual book should have looked.

[Ninjinister]

My favorite rendition of Leatherhead ever is in his debut issue, which was pencilled by Lawson. This is what I wish his art still looked like today. The Turtles weren't boxy (no pun intended), Leatherhead looks like an actual anthropomorphic gator/croc/w'ever, and the humans looked like humans!

For the record, Dan Berger's Leatherhead is a very f%&ing close second. I feel that man owns the character now.

[jenna]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Look at the inkers. The Return to New York one must be Vol. 1 #21 (the only RTNY he did the pencils on), which was inked by Kevin-effing-Eastman -- of course it's going to look awesome, because Eastman is going to take liberties with Lawson's pencils to make them appear more Eastman-esque. Guess who the inker was in Tales #34? Lawson just inked himself.

That's definitely something I've noticed in my limited exerience - that the inking makes the image. Eastman's art is awesome - it's a shame he doesn't do it anymore. I love Laird's art too.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by The S

For the record, Dan Berger's Leatherhead is a very f%&ing close second. I feel that man owns the character now.

Yes he does.

[Raph'N'Roll]

I just read Tales 36 today and Harmon's work is fantastic, overall it was one of the most enjoyable issues in a long time.
I made the mistake of reading Tales 36 before Raphael Bad Moon Rising, visually Bad Moon is such a step down from Tales 36 in an absolutely shocking way.
I may as well be reading a novel, because the art just doesn't please the eye at all, would Harmon's art not inspire Lawson to do better? or has he lost the passion and the will to be a better artist.
Harmon's take on the Turtles is what I'd love to see on a permanent basis, it was dark, gritty and had bags of atmosphere, the Turtles looked lethal and dangerous.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by RAPH 'N' ROLL

I just read Tales 36 today and Harmon's work is fantastic, overall it was one of the most enjoyable issues in a long time.
I made the mistake of reading Tales 36 before Raphael Bad Moon Rising, visually Bad Moon is such a step down from Tales 36 in an absolutely shocking way.
I may as well be reading a novel, because the art just doesn't please the eye at all, would Harmon's art not inspire Lawson to do better? or has he lost the passion and the will to be a better artist.
Harmon's take on the Turtles is what I'd love to see on a permanent basis, it was dark, gritty and had bags of atmosphere, the Turtles looked lethal and dangerous.

Well... let's not use Tales #36 as a springboard to attack Lawson. He's had a thankless job for as long as I can remember, no matter what style of artwork we may personally prefer.

[Raph'N'Roll]

Maybe I am being a little harsh, I do like some of Lawson's previous work, and the man can certainly draw a mean dinosaur, lately it just seems rushed and it's little bit too stylized for my liking.

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by RAPH 'N' ROLL

Maybe I am being a little harsh, I do like some of Lawson's previous work, and the man can certainly draw a mean dinosaur, lately it just seems rushed and it's little bit too stylized for my liking.

I don't think it's too harsh. I think it's honest criticism. How many people are desperately trying to get into the comic book industry? A lot, and even some of the most talented will never make it. If Lawson were trying to get into the industry today with the work that he does, no one would everever hire him. Paul Harmon's art may be particularly exceptional, but there are still dozens of fan artists who can deliver better than what Lawson has in the last few years.

Murphy's said it pretty clearly that Lawson continues to draw issues to stay employed. We're stuck with him until he decides to quit.