>>102549833>Anon must post their work to prove they're better than NatIf anon's gonna talk about how they're jealous and literally anyone can do better, yes, that's a fair request. They aren't just saying it's bad, but that they're superior.
>It doesn't matter that Nat's art was sub-par for a monthly because it's a favourIt's moot as a criticism of the comic or Marvel at large because it's a fill-in. It's literally whatever they can get done in time to ship. That reflects poorly on Marvel's precautions for publication emergencies, but not to their standard practices. And holding an artist's rushjob for something they don't even work on as an example of their ability is dishonest. By that logic Quietly is garbage.
Nat herself is a bad artist, but that's beside the point.
>Nat's an animator which also makes it a moot point that her still art was subparNo, it makes using her as a metric for what they want from comics moot. She's not a comics artist. She's even worse at comics than storyboarding. She is not an example of Marvel's low standards, as standards don't apply in such a situation. They have to grab someone fast, comics artist or not.
Nat's bad at her job, but that's irrelevant when talking about Hellcat. It's like critiquing DC's standards in the 90s with a fill-in for Fate. That's not indicative of what they consider acceptable.
And seriously, this comic's normal art was actually worse at points. There's better examples. Using Nat's comic misrepresents the trashfire that is Hellcat.
