> This famously wasn't the case in the early days of Marvel, when Ditko and Kirby were co-plotters with Stan Lee, but weren't credited as such. In backlash some fans have suggested that Stan Lee wasn't even co-plotter but was strictly the scripter, with Ditko and Kirby doing absolutely all of the plotting. This isn't plausible, as any quick reading of Kirby or Ditko solo books will make obvious. Stan Lee was the editor also, and as such, he had veto power and clearly exercised it with respect to plots.
>
> Two of the best books of the 80's - The Teen Titans and The X-Men - were co-plotted, the first by Wolfman and Perez and the second by Claremont and Byrne (when the book was at its peak). I believe the practice of co-plotting was the magic element that helped both comics rise to the top in terms of quality. Wolfman isn't the same without Perez and Claremont isn't the same without Byrne.
|
Maybe the question in a different way:
Which would you quit buying faster?
a) great writing with lousy art
b) lousy writing with great art
Perhaps 25 years ago I'd buy the flash over substance. But now with so many other options for spending my entertainment dollar, I'd much rather have the conceptual substance rather than the visual substance. I'd buy a comic with Fred Hembeck doing the art if the story was compelling.
Ohotmu
