>gurihiruI'm on the fence on whether I like them. In a few specific ways, I really like how they design their characters. There is a lot of appeal. The girls they draw also tend to be really cute. I see a lot of Bruce Timm in their work, who I love.
Still, their stuff always looks so sanitized. Like, they never have any interesting or varied linework, especially when it comes to their characters (they try harder with backgrounds and environments) and their coloring always consists of blocked flats and gradients, with rare instances of texture for noisier areas like rocks and the like. There's no interesting use of emulated mediums, no use of color shifting. Their characters tend to have very simple, rounded faces, which make all of their girls look the same and all of their men look really effeminate. They're also really unskilled when it comes to showing interesting action and gesture. It makes everything look cheap, stiff, and confusing without a good way to infer previous and following panels.
>>108660584Prime example. Why is the baseball bat shattered? Did the kid swing so hard at Superman that he broke it when he struck him? Did Superman break it? Where's the action? Yes, Superman is standing there all big and imposing and they were conscious of the composition, but what the fuck happened to the bat? The composition implies nothing. Yeah, I haven't read the book, so I don't know the context, but these panels should really do a better job of communicating what happened in the panel before.
Timm also had really bad sameface, but at least he used physical media, and the imperfections of working with actual pens and papers made his stuff more interesting.
In all likelihood, I may be off base, but I'm just saying that their background is in graphic design, where flat, simple designs are king, and it really shows.
inb4 I'm called a nazi. Fuck off. Felt the exact same way about Gwenpool. 
