Don’t Let These Covers Deter You! 1 1

[Number 6]

1 hour ago, Ken Aldred said:

Thinking from the POV of a non-comic reading member of the public, seeing this cover on a rack, unaware that inside is peak period work from a comic artist god, unaware that the preceding cover, a simple silhouette against a lightning bolt, is a brilliantly-designed all-time classic, might there be a chance that they’d look at this scrappy, rough image and move on, missing the brilliant Miller / Janson / Varley pages inside?

I’ve always thought it looks absolutely terrible.
 

 

Yeah, you’re probably on to something there. 
 

I had a t-shirt with that image on it when I was in high school.  Of course, I thought it was super cool I had the comics.

But the comic-reading population at my hs was very small and I got a lot of “what’s wrong with Batman?” comments along with a look like I had doo-doo on my shirt. 

[StillOnly25Cents]

on the opposite side of the spectrum (I guess that may fall into,  "don't judge a book by its cover")

how can Incredible Hulk 340 have such an awesome cover yet have such horrendous interiors

Edited June 25, 2020 by StillOnly25Cents

[oldbsturgeon]

21 minutes ago, StillOnly25Cents said:

on the opposite side of the spectrum (I guess that may fall into,  "don't judge a book by its cover")

how can Incredible Hulk 340 have such an awesome cover yet have such horrendous interiors

I have owned 2 and have never opened them so can’t say what they look like on the inside 

[StillOnly25Cents]

14 minutes ago, oldbsturgeon said:

I have owned 2 and have never opened them so can’t say what they look like on the inside 

these should give you an indication 

that silly looking Miller Batman above reminds me of how ridiculous McFarlane's Hulk looks (Wolverine isn't any better)

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by StillOnly25Cents

[kav]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Thinking from the POV of a non-comic reading member of the public, seeing this cover on a rack, unaware that inside is peak period work from a comic artist god, unaware that the preceding cover, a simple silhouette against a lightning bolt, is a brilliantly-designed all-time classic, might there be a chance that they’d look at this scrappy, rough image and move on, missing the brilliant Miller / Janson / Varley pages inside?

I’ve always thought it looks absolutely terrible.
 

 

Its largely because it looks like an amateur drew it as there is no line wide variation/brush strokes.  something a 7th grader would draw with a ball point pen.

[kav]

[littledoom]

17 hours ago, Myowncollector said:

I am very shallow. I never give a chance to discover the inner beauty if the outer doesn't catch my attention.

Shallow Hal?

[oldbsturgeon]

1 hour ago, StillOnly25Cents said:

these should give you an indication 

that silly looking Miller Batman above reminds me of how ridiculous McFarlane's Hulk looks (Wolverine isn't any better)

 

It’s like there is lots of detail and not somehow at the same time. 

[kav]

8 minutes ago, oldbsturgeon said:

It’s like there is lots of detail and not somehow at the same time. 

It's because he has no skill at drawing backgrounds.  Compare to George Perez.  That's what happens when you practice only drawing pinups as an amateur.

[comicginger1789]

10 minutes ago, kav said:

It's because he has no skill at drawing backgrounds.  Compare to George Perez.  That's what happens when you practice only drawing pinups as an amateur.

This is 100% correct. As was what was said about there being a lot but nothing happening at the same time. I think that’s why I’ve always appreciated McFarlane and some of what he’s done but at the same time had a hard time really loving it.

I think that is why his covers are iconic because he can get away with drawing a focus character or image and just use colours in the background. But then you look at the backgrounds and interiors and many are sloppy looking.

[comicginger1789]

4 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Thinking from the POV of a non-comic reading member of the public, seeing this cover on a rack, unaware that inside is peak period work from a comic artist god, unaware that the preceding cover, a simple silhouette against a lightning bolt, is a brilliantly-designed all-time classic, might there be a chance that they’d look at this scrappy, rough image and move on, missing the brilliant Miller / Janson / Varley pages inside?

I’ve always thought it looks absolutely terrible.
 

 

I agree. The whole series inside look terrible too and this cover was the worst by far. If the story wasn’t as intriguing as it was this comic would be in dollar bins. Sadly this marked the decline of Miller. Mind you I am saying that having never read Sin City but I can barely take the art in this so I have always remained wary of trying out Sin City.

[kav]

4 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

16 minutes ago, kav said:

It's because he has no skill at drawing backgrounds.  Compare to George Perez.  That's what happens when you practice only drawing pinups as an amateur.

This is 100% correct. As was what was said about there being a lot but nothing happening at the same time. I think that’s why I’ve always appreciated McFarlane and some of what he’s done but at the same time had a hard time really loving it.

I think that is why his covers are iconic because he can get away with drawing a focus character or image and just use colours in the background. But then you look at the backgrounds and interiors and many are sloppy looking.

This is why when they do portfolio reviews at cons they say NO PINUPS.

[Larryw7]

4 minutes ago, Beelz said:

Now there's a phrase I've never heard before 

I like Novick too, especially his Bronze stuff. It's STUpendous.

 

[HuddyBee]

35 minutes ago, Beelz said:

Now there's a phrase I've never heard before 

While not my favorite artist, I really didn't mind him on Flash or Batman. Maybe not GREAT, but pretty good.

[Jeffro.]

41 minutes ago, Beelz said:

4 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

great Irv Novick interiors

Now there's a phrase I've never heard before 

Get out of my head!

[Artboy99]

On ‎2020‎/‎06‎/‎25 at 2:54 PM, kav said:

Never really liked his art. Lots of tiny scratchy little lines everywhere.

And similar line weights throughout.

[kav]

1 hour ago, Artboy99 said:

Never really liked his art. Lots of tiny scratchy little lines everywhere.

And similar line weights throughout.

repugnant

[KirbyJack]

Great innards, bad covers?

The entire run of EC’s Panic.

[Doctor Dositheus]

On 6/25/2020 at 6:47 PM, Erik Thorvaldsson said:

On 6/25/2020 at 6:06 PM, Beelz said:

On 6/25/2020 at 2:04 PM, HuddyBee said:

great Irv Novick interiors

Now there's a phrase I've never heard before 

Get out of my head!

I always had a soft spot for Novick as well, growing up with his Flash work.

Sometimes his skulls could get a little Dillin-esque, but the guy is underrated when it comes to drawing dynamic motion.

[Ken Aldred]

51 minutes ago, KirbyJack said:

Great innards, bad covers?

The entire run of EC’s Panic.

Just imagine though if you'd managed to get a Frazetta sketch on this blank?