|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Sept 17, 2016 23:43:11 GMT -5
I love seeing us all bicker about this issue like a buncha old married farts, but have just realised that the addition of the poll has essentially changed the original question.
So I would now say that I am attracted by the art, we're visual creatures, and picking up a comicbook, album, trade etc. the first thing we're confronted with is cover art. The Attraction.
However Im more likely to follow a writer, because as pretty as the books may be I just cant be bothered reading them if the writing doesnt hold its own. The Following.
Good writers tend to have their choice of good artists willing to work with them (unless you're Garth Ennis at Avatar for example,being stuck with some hack who is being paid stuff all).
Oddly, in trying books by new creators, I am less likely to try an ugly book, if Im going to devote time to something new it has to tick multiple boxes first...like interesting premise and functional art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 18, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5
I think that's just a sign of Neil Gaiman growing in popularity while the artists in question never became "stars." I just don't see Gaiman as the type to request that his name grow in size with each new edition. Still, I agree with the premise. Fair billing should be the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 18, 2016 12:13:08 GMT -5
I'd be shocked if Gaiman had anything to do with that. He has a reputation of being great to his collaborators. I'm quite sure it was purely a decision made by marketing that Gaiman was a big award winning novelist, so let's make sure that his name is there in really big letters.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 19, 2016 8:36:47 GMT -5
For me, as a lifelong Marvel reader, it's always been 100% about the writer and never about the artist. Sure, as a kid, I liked artists like Byrne, etc. But it was Claremont, etc. who told the stories and made the characters interesting as far as I was concerned. I'm not a Byrne fan, but after he left I found the book unreadable. |
|
|
|
Post by rom on Sept 19, 2016 8:56:10 GMT -5
IMHO excellent art can elevate a mediocre story any day.
|
|
RikerDonegal
Full Member
Most of the comics I'm reading at the moment are Marvels from 1982.
Posts: 128 
|
Post by RikerDonegal on Sept 19, 2016 8:59:37 GMT -5
For me, as a lifelong Marvel reader, it's always been 100% about the writer and never about the artist. Sure, as a kid, I liked artists like Byrne, etc. But it was Claremont, etc. who told the stories and made the characters interesting as far as I was concerned. I'm not a Byrne fan, but after he left I found the book unreadable. I was the opposite  I stuck the book thru the 80s and thought it got better and better. My favourite run being post-225. And just like you with Byrne, as soon as Claremont left (with 279) I found the book unreadable and within a few months had stopped collecting it. And I've never been back. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Sept 19, 2016 9:11:17 GMT -5
IMHO excellent art can elevate a mediocre story any day. As long as you don't read the words, I guess you're right. It's true, however, that writers tend to do better, when paired with good artists. The percentage of comics with good writing and poor art, is really low. I'd say this is because of a combination of: - "saving" their best plots for another day
- not applying all of their scripting abilities
Inversely, a good artist will inspire writers to give it their best, and even get beyond that, thanks to the artist contribution, via storytelling. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 19, 2016 11:42:27 GMT -5
I'm not a Byrne fan, but after he left I found the book unreadable. I was the opposite I stuck the book thru the 80s and thought it got better and better. My favourite run being post-225. And just like you with Byrne, as soon as Claremont left (with 279) I found the book unreadable and within a few months had stopped collecting it. And I've never been back. Claremont was certainly the driving force that made the X-Men great, but he always had good to great artists which certainly helped. His run with Byrne is the gold standard and the reason why the X-Men became so iconic. I think Dave Cockrum's second run is underrated and of course Paul Smith was fantastic on the series. I've only read till the end of the Smith run and didn't start collecting the series till around 1988/89 around the time Jim Lee came on board. I've still yet to read the JR.JR. years. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 19, 2016 11:45:17 GMT -5
Jim Aparo's 70's Batman work is a good example of art over writing for me. Haney had his charms, but Aparo was, for the most part, often saddled with goofy plots. Aparo was such a definitive Batman artist that it didn't really matter. That's how much I love Aparo's Batman.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Sept 19, 2016 11:56:40 GMT -5
For me, as a lifelong Marvel reader, it's always been 100% about the writer and never about the artist. Sure, as a kid, I liked artists like Byrne, etc. But it was Claremont, etc. who told the stories and made the characters interesting as far as I was concerned. I'm not a Byrne fan, but after he left I found the book unreadable. I wouldn't say it got unreadable, but it did drop in quality. I thought the Cockrum and Paul Smith issues were good, but it did become unreadable when John Romita jr. took over, IMHO. This from a comic that had been my favorite during the Claremont/Byrne run. |
|
I stuck the book thru the 80s and thought it got better and better. My favourite run being post-225. 
