One of the first comics I owned was when Batman fought Ras Al Ghul, a sword fight in the desert. I "owned" it because my Dad bought it at 7-11 and passed it to me after he read it. I was 5 at the time. Sure wish I had that early collection....sigh.

So anyway, I was trying to Google early Adams versus modern Adams, and all I found was one awesome work after another, regardless of when he drew it.

I think Neal is as awesome as he wants to be in that moment.

All hail Neal Adams.

I guess my question was confusing. Not whether we like Neal or not - you'd have to be a bit silly not to like his work - but more what he has been since say 1980.

I'd say my general thoughts are:

Old Neal (pre 1980)

Brilliant artist

Revolutionized comic book art

Brought realism to comics

Responsible for some of the best stuff 1960s/1970s

Often imitated, beloved by many, pioneer

Later Neal (1980-current)

Still better than most

Not quite what he was

Motivated by money?

Less dynamic art style

Even more photo reference

Lazier looking drawing

Draws women less like real women but comic book sex objects

Pre penciled or copied art?

Not disputing Neal's contribution to comics and I said, definitely one of my all-time favorite comic artists, but seems nowadays more about churning out product to make money than the brilliant artist who burst on the scene many decades ago. And there's nothing wrong with that - he's entitled. He did his part. Just noticing and wondering if anyone here has noticed a change as well.

What do you mean by:

Lazier looking drawing (implies it was always lazy looking)

Pre penciled or copied art?

Some fairly recent samples of his work:

Still,I'll always be sentimental to Adams' Batman-

Not to mention a convention schedule that would wear out most people half his age.