>>109910509>I have no idea why you're saying this. And I have no idea what you're trying to say.
>The individual images are niceThe individual images are the weakest point because his anatomy is shit but it's hidden by time consuming and eye pleasing rendering.
>but Todd's composition for pages is pretty legendary for being shitAmong super conservative Golden, Silver and Bronze age fags maybe but generally he's acknowledged for being revolutionary regarding innovation in terms of panelling and page composition.
>especially once he tried to write his own bookHe didn't just try to, he actually did write his own books. Didn't you know?
>The panels are often far too zoomed inThis is highly subjective. Love it or hate it though, his extreme close up were innovative and achieved a look that hadn't been done before and was copied a lot after.
>there's no real sense of motion between themThis just isn't true, he very often draws floating panels like animation frames, with sequential art in them. You can't get any more sense of motion than literally mock animating something, you stupid oaf.
>there's no consistency in terms of conveying the passage of timeWhat are you even trying to say here. This makes no sense. Do you want him to draw a clock?
>context is largely absent and forces you to make assumptionsAgain, what? What kind of context are you talking about? What's missing that is present in other stuff?
>action tends to be limp, emphasis is often placed on static moments instead of dynamic onesThis is complete nonsense. He constantly draws leaping, kicking and punching characters. Foes and heroes crashing into walls and stuff like that. Lots of movement, highly dynamic. You are flat out lying.
>he often tried to cheat actually drawing fights by having attacks be off panel or only drawing the exact location of impact, etc.This is hilarious, he cheats by adding something impactful that hadn't been done before? Okay, buddeh.
