I should be able to come up with some perfect examples, but I'm not sure. Tan En Huat on Annihilators and Larry Stromen's short stint on the current volume of X-Factor come to mind, but it might have been more that the art was bad than unfitting (though they might have fit a horror comic or more surreal comic better).
I'm gonna say Ben Templesmith on Silent Hill, somehow. I normally like Templesmith's work, but his art on the SH comic just didn't suit the source material's eventual, high-precision, high-detail graphics. In fact, none of the art for the comics I've seen from SH have.
I also think that Frank Cho's art on The Mighty Avengers from 2007 just didn't gel, somehow.
Do not obey in advance.I have this reaction every time I see Spider-Man drawn by Jack Kirby. Kirby was the king, but his Spidey always looked somewhat odd.
Apparently, Kirby was the first artist Stan Lee approached with Spider-Man (according to Lee and Kirby, anyhow), and he thought Kirby made him look too muscular and powerful (when what he wanted was a skinny kid). Kirby did end up doing that iconic cover for Spidey's first appearance, though. Funny how he couldn't make Spidey skinny; he always drew Johnny Storm and Reed Richards as fairly lean.
![]()
I had heard that it was a marketing thing. Ditko was always Lee's choice for Spidey artist, since he was the artist for Amazing Fantasy at the time. But Stan thought that his cover wouldn't attract readers, so he had King Kirby draw a more heroic-looking Spidey for the cover.
As far as I can tell, it worked out pretty well.
A name that came to mind. Ron Lim. I've looked at his other stuff and it's good, but he was just terrible at drawing any of the Sonic characters in Archie Comics Sonic The Hedgehog.
Hate to break it to you but I started out this thread with that Ron Lim/Sonic example.
Here is another Archie example: Jim Lawson on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures. I know he was from Mirage Studios and created the Rat King but his artwork just didn't work with the cartoony nature of the comic.
edited 6th Dec '12 4:31:16 PM by DS9guy
I always thought that Dave Cockrum's second X-Men run was unfortunately timed, following as it did directly on John Byrne's heels. Cockrum was a great artist and composer of scenes, but "kinetic" isn't the first word you'd use to describe his style. Byrne's lines, however, were so sinuous and elongated that—like him or dislike him—everyone's motions always seemed ready to break out of the panels and snake into the white space. Coming immediately after Byrne's, Cockrum's characters looked positively rigid and juiceless by contrast ... even though the latter's stuff never gave that impression in isolation.
John Romita Jr. does great work on Spider-Man and Eternals, but it took some getting used to when he started drawing Bendis' Avengers. He's got sort of a boxy, sketchy style, and it didn't really gel with Iron Man or Thor. And I can't stand how he draws Wolverine.
The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]John Romita JR is a great artist who keeps drawing comics which lack a matching level of writing. The Eternals is okay but it's more generic than anything else I've ever read by Gaiman.
As for Cockrum, as I I tended to elaborate, I think there is more wrong with his second X-Men run than just following Byrne. It really doesn't compare well to the peak of his first run, the stiffness is more noticable and there's a general lack of enthusiasm. In addition Claremont's writing suffers during this run; Doom isn't handled well, and the space stuff is boring, repetitive I think a lot of people assume his writing never recovered from this point and never bother with the later stories.
Am I a good man or a bad man?

Have you ever seen an otherwise great artist put onto a comic book that doesn't match his or her style? Ron Lim on Archie's Sonic the Hedgehog comes to mind. He just couldn't draw Funny Animal characters that well.