Marvel Universe >> View Post
Post By
Brigadier

In Reply To
SQUEAK

Subj: Re: Item: The Establishing Illustration For Barbarus Was Awful!
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:38:01 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: Item: The Establishing Illustration For Barbarus Was Awful!
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:22:15 am EST

Previous Post

I actually like Paul Smith's work myself; I think 4th rate is more than a bit harsh on the guy. I'm with you on Avalanche, though.

The 80s Handbooks had new art for most entries. The current Handbooks don't have the budget for that, apparently - 150 characters, with a wild guess at, what, maybe $100 a page for a new pin-up, so it'd only be maybe an extra $15000 in creative costs to commission original art? I guess they don't think the extra sales that might generate would be worth the costs. In any case, I'm sure that's not a surprise - if not having new art is a deal-breaker, yeah, don't buy the books. \:\(

SQUEAK / Mark O'

> That's one of my main dislikes--complaints--about this new volume. Barbarus is a very cool character and deserved somehting better than the 4th-rate illustration he got--the same with Avalanche (and about 15 others)--his establishing illustration is terrible.
>
> John Buscema must be rolling in his grave.
>
> As I said below, one of the editors should have rejected those illustrations as acceptable. In the classic 80s handbook, we never, ever saw such lousy artwork.

And then again its a job for Mr. Podscum and the rest of the restoration team \:\-\)

I like adapted/restored art to match the profile, it gives context to the write-up and some sort of continuity than having a new pin-up by a hot new artist (though it would not hurt!). It makes the profile shot non-manikin like and more dynamic (and its a blast when one knows what story they actually culled the image from!)

But then some profile shots are taken from previous 80s and 90s handbooks (like Barbarus)...still OK for me personally \:\-\)

I hope they make it more balance by taking classic poses by Herb Trimpe, Keith Pollard and Gil Kane, et al \:\-\)

Cheers!

Eric


> I actually like Paul Smith's work myself; I think 4th rate is more than a bit harsh on the guy. I'm with you on Avalanche, though.
>
> The 80s Handbooks had new art for most entries. The current Handbooks don't have the budget for that, apparently - 150 characters, with a wild guess at, what, maybe $100 a page for a new pin-up, so it'd only be maybe an extra $15000 in creative costs to commission original art? I guess they don't think the extra sales that might generate would be worth the costs. In any case, I'm sure that's not a surprise - if not having new art is a deal-breaker, yeah, don't buy the books. \:\(
>
> SQUEAK / Mark O'
>
> > That's one of my main dislikes--complaints--about this new volume. Barbarus is a very cool character and deserved somehting better than the 4th-rate illustration he got--the same with Avalanche (and about 15 others)--his establishing illustration is terrible.
> >
> > John Buscema must be rolling in his grave.
> >
> > As I said below, one of the editors should have rejected those illustrations as acceptable. In the classic 80s handbook, we never, ever saw such lousy artwork.