Why are Marvel's covers so bloody boring?
Rob Hansen
earlier and they're almost all utterly generic with absolutely zero
bearing on the contents of the issue they're on. Nor is this the only
title this applies to. These covers are as utterly generic and as dull
as hell. I assume a decision was taken somewhere along the line to go
this route, but why? Perhaps buying, say, a half-dozen generic shots
of Spidey from a given artist means you always have something you can
slap on the front regardless of content? Or maybe Marvel figures
having these covers show up in PREVIEWS and the like gives less away?
It's a puzzle.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Paul O'Brien
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes
>I was looking at the covers on the JMS run of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
>earlier and they're almost all utterly generic with absolutely zero
>bearing on the contents of the issue they're on. Nor is this the only
>title this applies to. These covers are as utterly generic and as dull
>as hell. I assume a decision was taken somewhere along the line to go
>this route, but why?
Possibly because the covers are used for solicitation purposes long in
advance of the actual issue being complete. It leaves more scope for
late changes.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
BritReid
and they're almost all utterly generic with absolutely zero bearing on the
contents of the issue they're on. Nor is this the only title this applies to.
These covers are as utterly generic and as dull as hell. I assume a decision
was taken somewhere along the line to go this route, but why?>>
<<Possibly because the covers are used for solicitation purposes long in
advance of the actual issue being complete. It leaves more scope for late
changes.>>
As a matter of production procedure, the entire book *should* be
laid-out/pencilled, and the cover inked and mocked-up, by the solication stage,
making "late changes" unnecessary.
These days that rarely happens.
Funny how ongoing generic covers weren't a problem until recently. I don't
remember a single "generic" cover on FF 1-125 or Avengers 1-125 or X-Men 1-66
or ANY Marvel or DC Silver-Age book for that matter. Guess they didn't have
"late changes" in those days...
Or maybe they knew how to meet deadlines... ;-)
Brit
Richard
"BritReid" <brit...@aol.comnostuff> wrote in message news:20020727232232...@mb-mi.aol.com...
>
> Funny how ongoing generic covers weren't a problem until recently. I don't
> remember a single "generic" cover on FF 1-125 or Avengers 1-125 or X-Men 1-66
> or ANY Marvel or DC Silver-Age book for that matter. Guess they didn't have
> "late changes" in those days...
In the '60's, the cover was generally done before the story was even
drawn.
Richard
Rob Hansen
wrote:
Yep. As I understand it, Jack Kirby's designs for new characters on
those covers often served as the model sheet that the artist drawing
the interiors would then follow. (Kirby designed a vast number of
characters back then, and even where these were later changed Marvel
often subsequently went back to the Kirby design.)
In the case of DC, the editors would often come up with an
eye-catching cover and then get the writers to come up with a story
that fit the cover. It would be fun if, say, the Marvel editors
planned a line-wide 'Silver Age cover month' several months down the
line, came up with the sort of Silver Age-style covers that made you
really, really want to buy the comic to discover how the heck the
writers could carry off such an idea, and then assigned them to the
individual writers to plot. A 6-7 month lead in would give the writers
time to decide wheter to do standalones or to incorporate this into an
ongoing storyline, of course. As well as being kinda fun, such an
event would demonstrate whether or not these sorts of covers generated
more sales than the generic character shots they use these days.
Mela SN
> In message <fei5kuosmc8nt8jk9...@4ax.com>, Rob Hansen
> <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I was looking at the covers on the JMS run of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
> >earlier and they're almost all utterly generic with absolutely zero
> >bearing on the contents of the issue they're on. Nor is this the only
> >title this applies to. These covers are as utterly generic and as dull
> >as hell. I assume a decision was taken somewhere along the line to go
> >this route, but why?
>
> Possibly because the covers are used for solicitation purposes long in
> advance of the actual issue being complete. It leaves more scope for
> late changes.
Also, during Joe Q's question & answer panel at the Philly Wizard
World, he said that the generic covers are better for merchandizing
(think notebook covers, T-shirts, etc.). I've already seen a few
Ultimate Spidey covers made into posters at the local Wal-Mart. So
the marketing & money are probably a big factor as well.
Mela SN
-------
Info Club #95389
Shameless Quinton Flynn groupie
In the end, it's all about $$$.
DESSCRIBE1
>drawn.
>
>Richard
And even into the 1970s, at least on some titles. As an example, some time back
I bought the original art of John Romita Sr.'s cover to "Chamber of Chills" #6
(one of Marvel's horror anthology books). The cover depicts an archetypal US
Midwest farmer's daughter (blonde, pigtails, jeans) being menaced by a hulking
monster. I later tracked down the actual comic, and in the story itself
(written by John Albano with art by Paul Reinman), after the 2-page opening
sequence of the monster's attack on the farm (still with the stereotypical
Midwest look on both the farmer and his daughter), the rest of the story makes
it clear that it's set in some unspecified, vaguely Bavarian-looking Eastern
European country. The discrepancy in costuming made it pretty clear that the
story was drawn to fit the cover, rather than vice versa.
Erich
"I'm like a tree, I'm all root, hep to the jep what it's all aboot."--Cab
Calloway
"And so it was, baby/As the miller told his tale/Better face it first, just go
see/Turn a whiter shade of pale"--The World's Worst Karaoke Transcription
Jack Bohn
><<Possibly because the covers are used for solicitation purposes long in
>advance of the actual issue being complete. It leaves more scope for late
>changes.>>
>
>As a matter of production procedure, the entire book *should* be
>laid-out/pencilled, and the cover inked and mocked-up, by the solication stage,
>making "late changes" unnecessary.
>
>These days that rarely happens.
>
>Funny how ongoing generic covers weren't a problem until recently. I don't
>remember a single "generic" cover on FF 1-125 or Avengers 1-125 or X-Men 1-66
>or ANY Marvel or DC Silver-Age book for that matter. Guess they didn't have
>"late changes" in those days...
>
>Or maybe they knew how to meet deadlines... ;-)
I have seen back issues where the "Dreaded Deadline Doom" came
and a reprint was substituted but the cover corresponded to the
issue that *should* have been printed.
--
-Jack
Landru99
was substituted but the cover corresponded to the issue that *should* have been
printed.>>
Yes, one example of this was FF # 180, which reprinted FF # 101 but had a cover
featuring the Thing, Tigra, Thundra, and the Impossible Man (a storyline was
currently underway invovling the latter three as guest-stars).
Landru
Jack Bohn
Exactly the one I was thinking of! Rather annoying, as I was
buying up the Brute saga (not too annoying, it was in the quarter
bin.)
--
-Jack
WRH Bill
>earlier and they're almost all utterly generic with absolutely zero
>bearing on the contents of the issue they're on
Mileage varies...personally I like the poster-style covers of the JMS run of
ASM a lot. They're good to look at (IMO) and it doesn't bother me that they
usually don't relate directly to the inside story
On the other hand, I hate the covers of the Marvel Knights DAREDEVIL. Aside
from the muddy, semi-abstract art that doesn't appeal to me, it's hard to tell
one issue from another.
"You can't kill the truth. Well, actually, you CAN kill it...but it'll come
back to haunt you later." (Capt. John Sheridan)
Billy Bissette
news:ak99ku44udc7qgu28...@4ax.com:
>>Or maybe they knew how to meet deadlines... ;-)
>
> I have seen back issues where the "Dreaded Deadline Doom" came
> and a reprint was substituted but the cover corresponded to the
> issue that *should* have been printed.
The second run of Dr. Strange has two or three sequential covers
messed up where a story was apparently postponed. (The Wormworld
story)
BritReid
<< I have seen back issues where the "Dreaded Deadline Doom" came and a reprint
was substituted but the cover corresponded to the issue that *should* have been
printed.>>
<<The second run of Dr. Strange has two or three sequential covers messed up
where a story was apparently postponed. (The Wormworld story)>>
1) Such foul-ups were the rare exception, rather than the rule. When something
did happen, it was due to illness or disaster, not an artist who "didn't feel
inspired" or just didn't feel like working! Every effort was made to get a book
with new material out. Examples...
A TALES OF SUSPENSE Iron Man story where Gene Colan drew three pages and became
ill. Jack Kirby (With an already back-breaking schedule) did the remaining
seven pages in two days. The book shipped on time.
IRON MAN #39 had a twenty-page fill-in by Herb Trimpe PENCILLED & INKED in a
WEEK! It shipped on time.
In the middle of his short run on CAPTAIN AMERICA, Jim Steranko needed more
time to finish his artwork. Jack Kirby (Him again!) stepped in to do a 20-page
book over a weekend, to give inker George Tuska (who was already pencilling one
book and inking another on an ongoing basis) a week to do the inking. It
shipped on time, and actually tied-in to the ongoing storyline!
During Neal Adams' superb X-MEN run, Don Heck filled-in with an issue inked by
Tom Palmer. Few people noticed the difference in pencillers due to Tom's
incredible inking!
During the first run of DR. STRANGE, only ONE issue was fill-in/reprint. The
reprint used a new cover by Barry Windsor-Smith, and was a reprint of Ditko's
SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #2, featuring Doc Strange & Spidey together. (I can live with
that.) The book shipped on time.
Ya don't see that sort of dedication to getting product out anymore, folks.
2) At least there WERE issues out that month.
Now the book simply doesn't ship, making a monthly book a bi-monthly,
quarterly, or worse. (Marvel Knights/Daredevil, anyone?)
3) When there was a reprint, sometimes the original story's cover was used,
sometimes the scheduled one. In either case a new, non-generic, cover appeared
on the next issue.
4) The on-time delivery rate by creatives for books was far, far better
pre-1990 than now.
We're getting away from the question, though. Whay the prevelance of "generic"
covers? Can you name ANY "generic" covers on Marvel books pre-1980? I can think
of only six out of hundreds...AVENGERS ANNUALS #1 & 3, SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #2,
IRON MAN/SUB-MARINER #1, MARVEL SUPER-HEROES #12 (first Mar-Vell) and the first
DR. STRANGE after receiving his own title (forgot the number).
Brit
Tom Galloway
WRH Bill <wrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mileage varies...personally I like the poster-style covers of the JMS run of
>ASM a lot. They're good to look at (IMO) and it doesn't bother me that they
>usually don't relate directly to the inside story
>
>On the other hand, I hate the covers of the Marvel Knights DAREDEVIL. Aside
>from the muddy, semi-abstract art that doesn't appeal to me, it's hard to tell
>one issue from another.
But it seems that Marvel (and DC for that matter) have forgotten what the
point of a cover is. It's there to get someone who *isn't* reading the book
on a regular basis to pick up the issue, at least to leaf through it. A
generic poster shot of the title character doesn't do that, except at the
most elementary level (gee, I wanna read about Spider-Man, and yep, that's
a picture of Spider-Man). Many DC Silver Age covers may have been silly,
but you sure wanted to find out what the heck happened to cause/resolve
that image.
I think there are three reasons for the generic covers;
1) The lack of use of word ballons and captions to emphasize/explain what's
happening.
2) Part of the reason for 1); it seems that editors are looking at the cover
purely as art, rather than as something that's there to sell the book. Can't
clutter it with text, don't need to tie it into the actual issue, etc.
3) Too many books are being written such that there is no key scene in the
book that works for a cover. In other words, there's no scene you can pull
out that is significant to the book and serves as a "I wanna find out what
happens next" tease.
OK, four reasons. Just not enough gorillas on covers these days. :-)
tyg t...@panix.com
Billy Bissette
news:20020730035743...@mb-fd.aol.com:
> Now the book simply doesn't ship, making a monthly book a bi-monthly,
> quarterly, or worse. (Marvel Knights/Daredevil, anyone?)
The consumer seems a lot more likely to complain if a monthly title is
a reprint these days. Particularly with such a percentage being long-time
readers and thus have probably read or even own the story being reprinted.
But also due to the volatile nature of artwork trends and other aging
affects. A Ditko reprint of Dr Strange might even work today, but would
a McFarlane Spiderman reprint? Particularly since his Spiderman style
has faded. (Heck, go to a comic book shop and mention his Spiderman art,
and see how many people say something along the lines of "I used to like
that art. I don't know what in the world I was thinking.")
As for rushed art fill-ins, look at the complaints of Kordey's art on
New X-Men when he was pulled in to do rush fill-ins. (Though New X-Men
is exactly the kind of situation you refer to. They hire a regular artist
who is *known* to be slow. Get him a fill-in artist. Then get a fill-in
artist for the fill-in artist when even he can't keep schedule.)
And complete fill-in stories that are out of any current storyline?
Look to the fill-in thrown into Daredevil when it was running excessively
late. A rather bad story that left people wishing Marvel had just
accepted the next issue would be even later and hadn't bothered with the
fill-in.
> We're getting away from the question, though. Whay the prevelance of
> "generic" covers? Can you name ANY "generic" covers on Marvel books
> pre-1980? I can think of only six out of hundreds...AVENGERS ANNUALS
> #1 & 3, SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #2, IRON MAN/SUB-MARINER #1, MARVEL
> SUPER-HEROES #12 (first Mar-Vell) and the first DR. STRANGE after
> receiving his own title (forgot the number).
Well, they weren't generic, though they often didn't actually involve
any scene from the book other than having the right villian on the cover.
Heck, Marvel covers were notorious for being almost bait-and-switch.
I don't really know how I sit on generic covers now. They often can
look better than story-specific covers for example. But you can also get
really good story specific covers, like the Malice cover of Black Panther.
BritReid
When I design a cover, whether for books or comics, I try to achieve two
objectives...
1) make a person familiar with the character buy it.
2) make someone unfamiliar with the character buy it.
Generic covers accomplish #2, but not #1.
There are two landmarks in cover design that I use as criteria. If I can do
half as well as they did, I've done my job...
The Doc Savage covers by James Bama
The James Bond posters by Bob Peake
The Doc covers had only the series logo, book title and illustration. And,
there were only 2 generic covers out of 64 by Bama. (#1 Man of Bronze & #38 Red
Snow)
Yet, the series sold millions during the 60s, powered primarily by the covers.
Every cover was an introduction to a new reader, gripped by the imagery, while
being an incentive for a previous reader to return! (When Bama left, sales
plummeted and the books went from monthly to bi-monthly, to quarterly to
semi-annually in five years. The run eventually finished, but over a decade and
a half later than if they had stayed on a monthly schedule!)
The James Bond posters by Peake are considered the ultimate in series poster
design. And they achieve both objectives with ease!
And both the Doc and Bond covers are considered "adult/sophisticated", as
opposed to the "juvenile" traditional comics look that Marvel seems desperate
to avoid.
Brit
Rob Hansen
>it seems that Marvel (and DC for that matter) have forgotten what the
>point of a cover is. It's there to get someone who *isn't* reading the book
>on a regular basis to pick up the issue, at least to leaf through it. A
>generic poster shot of the title character doesn't do that, except at the
>most elementary level (gee, I wanna read about Spider-Man, and yep, that's
>a picture of Spider-Man).
Exactly so. I sometimes refer to generic covers as 'soup can label
covers' since they serve exactly the same purpose as that label. If
editors are now thinking of covers merely as labels to identify the
product for the consumer, it's not that big a leap to using the same
cover on every issue, as soup manufacturers do on every can of soup.
You only need to make the month and issue number larger so the
consumer can identify this as the freshest batch of the given product
and this becomes entirely feasible. No one could possibly complain
either, of course, because covers are just soup-can labels, right?
>Many DC Silver Age covers may have been silly,
>but you sure wanted to find out what the heck happened to cause/resolve
>that image.
Sure did. There were many occasions as a child I bought DC titles I
didn't usually by for that exact reason. I tell you, DC had child
psycholgy down to a science.
>
>I think there are three reasons for the generic covers;
>1) The lack of use of word ballons and captions to emphasize/explain what's
>happening.
Marvel did away with word balloons on covers for a while, then went
back to them. Captions should be enough to get the point across with a
strong enough cover, but even these are now frowned upon.
>2) Part of the reason for 1); it seems that editors are looking at the cover
>purely as art, rather than as something that's there to sell the book. Can't
>clutter it with text, don't need to tie it into the actual issue, etc.
I think they're wrong. The current aging and attenuated audeience will
by the comics regardless, but they're missing a trick that would bring
in at least a few extra readers per issue, and these days every single
new reader is precious.
>3) Too many books are being written such that there is no key scene in the
>book that works for a cover. In other words, there's no scene you can pull
>out that is significant to the book and serves as a "I wanna find out what
>happens next" tease.
Yeah, well, a lot of things that were part of the basic craft of a
comics writer seem to have fallen by the wayside now. (See previous
discussions of the effortless way in which old-time writers would
manage to establish who characters were, what they could do, and what
had happened previously in every issue of a comic, even in the middle
of a multi-part epic.)
>
>OK, four reasons. Just not enough gorillas on covers these days. :-)
I assumed that DC's 'Gorilla Warfare' x-over of a few years back was -
at least in part - to see if there was anything to that old chestnut
about gorillas on covers selling comics. Anyone know if that was
proved one way or t'other?
Rob Seegel
>on a regular basis to pick up the issue, at least to leaf through it.
I agree with this yet I disagree that covers as art can't
serve the purpose you state. An eye-catching cover
can compel someone to take a look at what's inside,
There are even some books that I have bought in the past
as much for the cover as anything else.
It may seem silly, but I have even bought a book or two
based on the strength of a cover. I really enjoy Kaare
Andrews work on the Hulk -- I especially liked the Norman
Rockwell one. It made me laugh and was the primary reason I bought that issue.
I stuck around since then.
(in no particular order, and off the top of my head)
Glen Fabry, John Cassady, Dave Mckean,
Charles Vess, John Bolton, Scott Hampton,
Dave Dorman, Brian Bolland, and Alex Ross
and others I'm sure all can get me to buy a book,
or at least seriously consider buying it on the
strength of their cover art, even if I might not be
sold on the story... I'm sure there are others as
well.
Rob
For some of my favorite comics, the cover was one
part of the whole package. The icing on the cake.
Glen Fabry, Dave McKean,
Samy Merchi
> Many DC Silver Age covers may have been silly, but
> you sure wanted to find out what the heck happened to
> cause/resolve that image.
> 1) The lack of use of word ballons and captions to
> emphasize/explain what's happening.
I miss these covers.
"Superboy, turn back! That spaceship is glowing with kryptonite!"
"I can't, Cosmic Boy! No matter what happens to me, THAT SHIP MUST
NEVER REACH EARTH!"
Those were the days...
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>Hello, BritReid!
>You wrote:
>
>> Funny how they never had that problem before "the last decade".
>
>Well they are doing a hell of a lot more licensing in recent
>years than they did 20 years ago.
I'm not sure if this is true. Marvel 20 years ago had action figures (Mego in
70s and Toy Biz in 80s), coloring books, TV series (Hulk live action,
Spider-Man and other cartoons), puzzles, games, books, trading cards/stickers,
candy, T-shirts, etc. Outside of Spider-Man The Movie, I don't see a huge
increase in licensing for Marvel today. Now, I know they are planning to do
so, but I don't think that is driving the cover art.
The difference is, now Marvel is a publicly traded entity and needs to satisfy
shareholders (at least the preferred stock holders, since the common stock
holders are constantly getting their shared diluted.) Cutting costs everywhere
(1/4" smaller comics books, generic covers to be used elsewhere, no overprints,
etc.) is the order of the day so they can make a profit and rid themselves of
that huge debt.
RJRJR