Classic Comic Covers

In comics, contrary to the old saying, you frequently can judge a book by its cover. Covers can be representative of the story inside, or have nothing to do with it. They can be powerful, thought provoking, funny or even iconic. So I thought I'd start a thread to showcase some of the best. Feel free to add your favourites and tell the world why they're your favourites. This first one is from Excalibur #4 (Marvel, 1988) and is here just because it always makes me laugh...



...as did this one, from the same series. Alan Davis drew both.

I'm also going to throw in this one: Strange Tales #97, a classic pre-Marvel 'sci-fi B movie' cover from the era when the world thought it was on the verge of the apocalypse. Interestingly, this issue's last story-a short drawn by Steve Ditko-features two characters who are unmistakeably Aunt May and Uncle Ben from Spider-Man (they're even named!) several months before their 'official' debut in Amazing Fantasy #15.

Had these kicking around on my web-space for ages, my collection has expanded hugely since so i'll need to have another look!

Seeing that Viz cover, I'm now itching to read the A-Z of Charlotte Church...

anyway-here are some more from me, classics from the Golden Age!

You've gone scan-crazy!

I was a big fan of early Excalibur, and then later when Davis returned as scripter too, it was even better if anything.

I'll have to think of covers then see if I can find 'em on the net..

Spiff_B wrote:You've gone scan-crazy!

I was a big fan of early Excalibur, and then later when Davis returned as scripter too, it was even better if anything.

I'll have to think of covers then see if I can find 'em on the net..

Excalibur was a terrific book about 30% of the time-when Davis was actually drawing it! Unfortunately it quickly became plagued by fill-in artists, and as for the terrible way Captain Britain was treated following Claremont's departure...ah, but that's a gripe for the Captain Britain thread...

How about a bit of Barry Smith?

This one is from John Byrne's She Hulk series, and I think perfectly illustrates how Byrne broke down the fourth wall in that book, having Shulkie not only be aware of her own nature as a comic character (much to the bewilderment of her less perceptive fellow characters) but also of her writer and readers, whom she frequently addressed directly!

I REALLY like those last two. Do you have anymore Conan covers Tony?

Hourglass wrote:I REALLY like those last two. Do you have anymore Conan covers Tony?

I'll have a look...

FF 57 is it - the one with Black Bolt and 'Doomsday' - classic Jack - who is STILL the best and always will be...

GBF wrote:FF 57 is it - the one with Black Bolt and 'Doomsday' - classic Jack - who is STILL the best and always will be...

Can't be #57, there's no Black Bolt on #57...

tony ingram wrote:Seeing that Viz cover, I'm now itching to read the A-Z of Charlotte Church...

Sherlock Homeless was much funnier, in fact one of the funniest things they've probably ever done (up there with Student Grant watching 'Ai No Corrida'). It even ends with a slap-up can of Brasso each on a park bench!

A classic 1945 humour title, on a then popular theme: the ditzy girl who has misadventures. Suzie, a creation of the Archie line, spent most of her time getting and losing various jobs...

It's the one with the yellow background and the typical Kirby illis of the other characters all around Black Bolt. At the bottom it says "Doomsday". I think its the one where The Inhumans break out when BB shouts...is it 67? Probably not!!!

59?

Got it! Issue #59, you're right! A very nice piece of work, pure Kirby!

That's the one - and what a beauty!!! Jack is STILL the King!!!

GBF do you own this copy of fantastic 4?

3hZ wrote:GBF do you own this copy of fantastic 4?

He may own a copy, but not that copy...

tony ingram wrote:

3hZ wrote:GBF do you own this copy of fantastic 4?

He may own a copy, but not that copy...

do you own this coy Tony?

3hZ wrote:

tony ingram wrote:

3hZ wrote:GBF do you own this copy of fantastic 4?

He may own a copy, but not that copy...

do you own this coy Tony?

Yes, though it took me awhile to work out which cover he was talking about.

I really like that last one. When would you say the art work changed style (by this I mean from the quite basic styles as seen up thread to that which we've come to expect our comics to look like today)?

Hourglass wrote:I really like that last one. When would you say the art work changed style (by this I mean from the quite basic styles as seen up thread to that which we've come to expect our comics to look like today)?

Well, Marvel started to develop away from the initial house style surprisingly early on, with the arrival of people like Steranko, Neal Adams and Gene Colan in the late sixties. DC retained a more traditional feel for the most part for quite a bit longer, though there were exceptions-their books really began to look quite different in the eighties, but the marked difference we're seeing these days is I think a lot of the time down to the effects of computer colouring, which tend to make the art look more three dimensional (though often rather muddy). I still prefer a comic to look like a comic, personally.

Computer colouring is not only 'muddy' it's basically cheating. For my money you can't beat hand drawn illustrations and colouring. Hand lettering too. Too many gadgets these days folks - and people without real talent. There's nothing quite like picking up a pencil, looking at an empty piece of paper and putting something on it...and don't forget - if computer generated artwork is the norm, in the not too distant future there will be no original artwork to savour, seek and and collect...

That's very true-and the artists lose a nice little sideline, since these days many of them are flogging their original art.

Any chance you can show a comparison for my benefit?

Hourglass wrote:Any chance you can show a comparison for my benefit?

OK, take a look at these two pictures: a JLA cover from 1970 and another from this year. See the difference in the colouring? The earlier one is hand done by a colorist and is bright, vibrant and eye catching. The newer one is computer coloured and has a much wider palette, but I think it looks muddy and less noticeable on the rack. That's just my opinion, of course. Other views may differ. But also, consider the logo; on the earlier cover, it takes up a sizable chunk of the cover and draws attention to itself. You know what book you're looking at at a glance. The logo on the newer cover, I'd say, is so unobtrusive you'd likely not even notice it unless you were looking. It isn't a badly drawn cover-but it's less dynamic and eyecatching.

In my opinion, of course.

Tony is correct - and the art on the 'Out of the Ashes' cover is typical of what I believe is wrong with a lot of comic art today: The first cover instantly tells you something is wrong - our heroes are struggling and in pain. There is threat, danger and something is wrong. We want to know what that is and we would buy the comic for that reason. The 'Ashes' cover is a set of good looking, finely tuned, heaving busomed super people just posing. Even the woman at bottom right, unconscious or even dead pushes her tits out. Batman looks like - er Batman, Wonder Woman looks like a man and Superman looks like he's going to give the reader a good thrashing - which is what he shouldn't be doing. The woman in Yellow looks like an almightly chest.
It doesn't say anything to me and I wouldn't buy it, because I'm not interested in the characters. Maybe I'm missing something...

Is it just me or did the hand coloured version have a more limited pallet? was this for cost cutting measures?

Hourglass wrote:Is it just me or did the hand coloured version have a more limited pallet? was this for cost cutting measures?

No, simply technical ones I think. There was a limit to what you could achieve with the older method, I gather (Glenn will correct me if I'm wrong, no doubt). Modern computer colouring offers more choice but the results aren't necessarily better.

GBF wrote:Tony is correct - and the art on the 'Out of the Ashes' cover is typical of what I believe is wrong with a lot of comic art today: The first cover instantly tells you something is wrong - our heroes are struggling and in pain. There is threat, danger and something is wrong. We want to know what that is and we would buy the comic for that reason. The 'Ashes' cover is a set of good looking, finely tuned, heaving busomed super people just posing. Even the woman at bottom right, unconscious or even dead pushes her tits out. Batman looks like - er Batman, Wonder Woman looks like a man and Superman looks like he's going to give the reader a good thrashing - which is what he shouldn't be doing. The woman in Yellow looks like an almightly chest.
It doesn't say anything to me and I wouldn't buy it, because I'm not interested in the characters. Maybe I'm missing something...

To be honest, the first time I looked at the newer cover, I didn't even register the people at the bottom, just Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. It took a second or two to realise the others were there, which doesn't really push home the idea that you should care about their plight.

The colourist would only be limited by his talent while at the same time taking into account the four colour printing process: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (CMYK). All these colours mix to get other colours (eg: 100% Magenta + 100% Yellow will give you a nice full Red). The printing process is a lot more sophisticated today. Back in 1965, TV Century 21 was printing on via the 'photo gravure' process, which is why, along with the nice paper, it looked so fantastic and why the Bellamy et al artwork was so beautiful. They all used coloured inks directly on their artwork, which was then scanned. The old way was to produce penciled artwork which was the inked in black. The colouring was done via overlays that didn't directly become a part of the art. That was then thrown together at the press stage and printed on crappy paper - which is why the colours are 'muddy'. The colourists today look to me like they use Photoshop. The black & white art would be scanned and the files put onto the computer, all the colours are 'flat' and perfect, thus, to me, rendering the illi boring. Go to your local art gallery and look at the artists brush strokes on the canvass...you can see what they are trying to do with a simple stroke of the brush...

I wonder how long the current technique takes to colour a page, compared to the older one? Come to think of it, I wonder how long the photo gravure technique took on average...

'Photo Gravure' is a printing technique, not something the artist does. The artist produces the artwork - the way it's printed is usually out of his hands.
In my experience, it takes longer to colour with Photoshop than with ink or watercolour. Photoshop is purley mechanical and takes ages(or maybe I'm not that up to speed) to get the blends. I recently coloured a full page for a graphic novel I'm working on it took me a day; seven panels; using coloured inks. I can then add other media in the artwork to get some great results. I'm not sure a colourer can do that with Photoshop as he is only adding an 'effect', not using the actual medium. It's best to use coloured ink in our work as watercolour is obviously water based and can be lost; inks are transparent and dry almost instantly and so don't get smudged or 'lost' under, or mix with, another colour. Frank Bellamy, Mike Noble and Ron Embleton were masters of this technique. They were also aware of the process TV 21 was to be printed on and so used very vibrant inks on their work. Look at it. It's beautiful.

TV21 was really ahead of its time. I absolutely loved the Dalek Chronicles art work and colouring.

Hourglass wrote:TV21 was really ahead of its time. I absolutely loved the Dalek Chronicles art work and colouring.

Some amazing stuff on that strip, I agree-the later ones in particular.

How many times has Dr Who crossed over into other comic ranges?

Hourglass wrote:How many times has Dr Who crossed over into other comic ranges?

How d'you mean? If you mean how many times have Doctor Who strips appeared in non Doctor who based publications, aside from the Daleks in TV21 there were also Who strips in TV Comic, Countdown/TV Action, the Radio Times and the Marvel Bumper Comic, as well as a reprinted story from Doctor Who Monthly in a US published Star Lord Special edition in the early eighties. If you mean how many times has the good Doctor himself crossed over into other comics, the only explicit one I can think of is his guest appearance in an issue of Marvel UK's Death's Head title, though characters from Doctor who have turned up 'unofficially' in several comics (The Brigadier, Benton and Yates, for instance, appeared in an issue of Uncanny X-Men).

tony ingram wrote:

Hourglass wrote:How many times has Dr Who crossed over into other comic ranges?

How d'you mean? If you mean how many times have Doctor Who strips appeared in non Doctor who based publications, aside from the Daleks in TV21 there were also Who strips in TV Comic, Countdown/TV Action, the Radio Times and the Marvel Bumper Comic, as well as a reprinted story from Doctor Who Monthly in a US published Star Lord Special edition in the early eighties. If you mean how many times has the good Doctor himself crossed over into other comics, the only explicit one I can think of is his guest appearance in an issue of Marvel UK's Death's Head title, though characters from Doctor who have turned up 'unofficially' in several comics (The Brigadier, Benton and Yates, for instance, appeared in an issue of Uncanny X-Men).

You dont happen to have the Xmen issue do you?

Hourglass wrote:

tony ingram wrote:

Hourglass wrote:How many times has Dr Who crossed over into other comic ranges?

How d'you mean? If you mean how many times have Doctor Who strips appeared in non Doctor who based publications, aside from the Daleks in TV21 there were also Who strips in TV Comic, Countdown/TV Action, the Radio Times and the Marvel Bumper Comic, as well as a reprinted story from Doctor Who Monthly in a US published Star Lord Special edition in the early eighties. If you mean how many times has the good Doctor himself crossed over into other comics, the only explicit one I can think of is his guest appearance in an issue of Marvel UK's Death's Head title, though characters from Doctor who have turned up 'unofficially' in several comics (The Brigadier, Benton and Yates, for instance, appeared in an issue of Uncanny X-Men).

You dont happen to have the Xmen issue do you?

I'll have a look...

"Strange Tales 146" (Which I have) has the classic finale cover (Steve Dikto's final work for Marvel) where the entities `Eternity` and `Dormammu` clash in quite a spectacular end to the `Dr Strange` saga!

Just found the cover on the net. I see what you mean..



This wasn't Ditko's last work for Marvel, though: he returned to them in the seventies to take over from Jack Kirby on Machine Man, and later drew such titles as Micronauts, Rom and Speedball. He was, admittedly, arguably past his best by then, though.

I've always liked the Superman Action comics cover. From the first time you look at it you know it's something special

It is. Though it's hard to see just whose side Supes is on from that cover...

There was a fantastic Green Lantern cover from 1968 titled "Dry up and Die" great cover-but misleading via the actual story-but what a cover! Might it be on the nert?

alanultron5 wrote:There was a fantastic Green Lantern cover from 1968 titled "Dry up and Die" great cover-but misleading via the actual story-but what a cover! Might it be on the nert?

Yep-found it!

Thanks Tony. I think it is a superb cover. The story inside though isen't relevant to the cover.

alanultron5 wrote:Thanks Tony. I think it is a superb cover. The story inside though isen't relevant to the cover.

Really? What was the story? I never read that one...