FSF

With all the people walking around, sometimes in a very congested room, it seems like the notion of bumping into random people could be a concern and that books you may be carrying around, may be prone to some damage, primary corner bends and such.  I was thinking of like a 10 comic box holder inside of a backpack or something.  I'm not sure what to do with a CGC book situation though I'm boycotting the product for now (due to the Newton Rings issue) but what do you folks do with them when you buy CGC books being that even a few of them is quite bulky?

Really surprised this is still available.  I don't collect CGC books as I sold off my 9.8 last year but best of luck with the sale!

I don't see any reason why not.  comics4less is also a good ebay seller though the seller's name is rather ironic.

11 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Also, I know this theory has been floated around here many times before, but it feels like the CGC Effect, i.e. slabbing of moderns, has nurtured a cover-driven market. A pretty pin-up looks pretty nice in a plastic case. I get it, I just don't care for the books personally.

I hadn't consider that but I somewhat peruse a fair amount of that material and what you say makes good sense.

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

How about Fantastic Four #1 and Amazing Fantasy #15 for big time books with conversation bubbles?  Did FSF really say it's a modern thing?

No I did [not] say that.

9 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

I don't have a bone to pick here, but is this worth your energy?

I'm in front of a computer typing.  It takes a lot less energy for me to post on the internet than just about anything else I have to do. 

1 minute ago, VintageComics said:

Boy, you are really aggressive towards me. Have we tangled in the past?

I said it was ludicrous that covers don't match what's going on inside the book. You don't think it's ludicrous that covers don't match interiors? All that matters is what's on the cover? That's fine.

May as well collect post cards.

Personally, I don't think it's healthy for the market. There are only so many different poses you can put a woman in to sell a cover before it gets dull.

 

I'm not at all aggressive toward anyone. If anything, you seem very aggressive toward me on various threads but that's fine.  I play along on whatever level anyone wants.  I already stated that I don't think it's that big of a deal.  That's why the age old saying "Don't judge a book by it's cover" was invented and will stand the test of time for the rest of humanity, regardless of what the topic is.

I think all of your opinions are fine and I have no problem with your comments.  In fact, your comment about how you think the art is good or whatever but that it plays more like a postcard is exactly the type of opinion I was trying to elicit.  The only issue I have with your comments is that the cover not tying to the story is an entirely different issue.  One worthy of discussion to be sure but it's not because this new style of art came along that we're seeing what frustrates you so much.  So once again, I'm not sure why you keep wanting to beat that dead horse.

53 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

And you sound like your opinion is the only one that matters.

 

You're the one making comments about how "ludicrous" it is because YOU don't like even though the market seems just fine with it and somehow I'm the one who thinks my opinion is the only one that matters.  Get a clue.

1 hour ago, bc said:

Can you define "caption" ? I think we are missing something.

Most comic books utilized several cover "text boxes" to prelude the contents.

Do you consider the text "Do strange sinister creatures walk among us.....in Human form?" on this cover a caption?

 

I was referring to the bubble captions of conversation. 

27 minutes ago, Copman said:

No one's going to take you seriously after this comment.

Educate yourself: https://www.comics.org

I think you need the education. What I stated is complete fact.  It's not even debatable if you are referring to the use of captions.

If you are referring to the part about focusing on stories, I'm talking about for the purposes of this thread and not the medium itself.  Of course comic books need stories.  Otherwise, they'd just be prints for viewing. 

4 minutes ago, Aweandlorder said:

Isn't it simpler to just call them painted covers? Even though most ore computer generated today they still are considered painted because of their painted texture. 

Painted covers were huge in the golden-silver era with Gold Key/Dell books and of course occupied most pulps even before then. They weren't as prominent in the 70s and much less in the 80s/ early 90s (I can only think of Steve Rude and Dave Doorman as painted cover artists in that era)

Theres nothing new about them. It's definitely a plus

This is what I was wondering about.  Beyond whether one likes it or not, Is it even fair or appropriate to think of these covers as "comic art?"

Because once again, this is not  about the stories inside the book. That issue exists whether we want to talk about these realistic covers or the endless amount of traditional comic art covers so once again, the conflating of these matters is pretty confusing.  One issue has nothing to do with the other as I see it.

1 minute ago, TwoPiece said:

I already did that via the bolded.

The answer is up to the respondent and is entirely an opinion based situation so I still don't know why it's so difficult to express one's opinion on the matter.

Just now, TwoPiece said:

Contradiction is contradictory...

Please clarify.

1 hour ago, thunsicker said:

Did someone say photorealistic comic book covers?

http://dougbloodworth.com/work

That's pretty crazy.

The point of the thread is very simple.  Do you like the increasing new style of art or not?  I suppose that as an extension of that is whether it is even appropriate to consider it comic art at this point though this part was not obvious.  Beyond that, there is no objective or agenda or any other consideration.  I'm just curious what the audience thinks of this pretty significant shift in what is being defined as "comic art."  As far any notion that I'm upset, that is completely absurd.  Feel free to post whatever you want and lots of threads get derailed so I get that and am guilty of it myself from time to time but I still don't understand this need to focus on the stories and even more so, the talk of "captions" as if there were that many books that actually even used them on the cover even before the modern era.  And regarding any sort of notion that I think Artgerm or any other books that I buy are going to be valuable is completely laughable.  I'm well entrenched in the camp that thinks that virtually all comic books will be essentially worthless sometime before i die.  I'm in my mid 40s if that helps.  I don't do comics, or any collectibles, for money.

Marwood, that's all fine and dandy and I respect anyone's opinion or personal preferences.  But none of that has anything to do with the topic of the thread.  You guys aren't talking about artists who draw is a realistic style, you're talking about substance and variants in general, the vast majority of which are still drawn in the old stye of comic art.  

I'm not sure why VintageComics felt the need to conflate a completely off-topic matter right out of the gate and make it the central issue when that isn't the point at all whatsoever of this thread.

No it doesn't seem strange.  The notion that it is "ludicrous" is way overstating things. It's a comic book, not the Manhattan Project. 

As for conveying the work to the artist, do you really think Marvel or DC are going to spend time reaching out to all of the potential shops and cover artists even as stories might change as they're writing them.  I'm not sure if you ever worked for a "real" company but businesses do not operate that way. Never have and never will.

Of all the things to complain about the comic world, which jumped the shark over a decade ago, that would be way down on my list of things to worry about.  Candidly, I don't really read any new comics.  Lots of people don't but want to book for cover art.  It is the only thing one sees when it is bagged and boarded and immensely important.

I'm not sure why you are extending this to society in general.  You sound like a tired old guy talking about the "good old days."  Nothing is more tiresome on the internet.

My main questions are:

Are there a lot of comic books to buy?

Are there a lot of comic art prints to buy? 

Don't really care for all the Cosplay stuff or panels or whatnot.

First off, I am a huge fan of the art and Artgerm has already catapulted to my top artist of all time.  However, one of the reasons I ask the question is that it isn't traditional "comic art" which lends more toward a caricature look.  It certainly is different than what we've all been used to for so many decades. 

While I agree that it may be annoying that the cover may not reflect the story inside, I wonder if that's even doable in many if not most instances.  I would think that in many of these situations, the artist may not know what the storyline is, especially when it is a store ordered cover. 

18 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I think the bigger problem is that covers don't tie into the stories. They're poster pieces to themselves.

I think I'd like captions back on comic book covers.

I'm not sure why you consider it a "problem" insofar as the covers themselves.

After some reflective thought, I think Ryan Gosling would get my vote for the new Bond.  He's tall enough, unlike a Cilian Murphy who might otherwise make a good Bond, and he's at the right age where he's not too young but not too old, like a Jon Hamm who might have worked 10 years ago.

Perhaps it's overstating things to call it a "movement" just yet but what are your thoughts on artists like Stanley "Artgerm" Lau, Natali Sanders, Josh Middleton and the like who are drawing covers that depict characters in a very realistic way, sometimes even photograph like.  To be clear, I am not referring to photo covers. 

1 hour ago, mrc said:

Then I realised I was suffering from motion sickness. I found the shakycam style irritating and gimmicky and the overlong action sequences completely incoherent. Surely this can't be the future of action movies, I thought? I certainly hope not.

I can certainly see that being disorienting to some.  I guess you never watched NYPD Blue in the 1990s that did a similar thing.  It did not catch on with other shows.

[edited for a small typo]

You know, it's very interesting that you bring up Superman.  Because it's a good analogy to compare Bond to him.  While movies like Wick or Bourne and some others like it, but not really the MI movies, are characters I would be more apt to compare to a Spider-Man or a Batman.  The Bond character, at least in film form, is always very superficial.  You really never get your hands around the character.  He's just some suave badass that in your words women love and men want to be.  The books may read better since they are books and usually provide more indepth detail but I wouldn't know.  However, the movies are so superficial and basically really drawn out for little reason in most of the movies.  You don't get much background on the criminals or Bond himself after so many movies.  Unlike Wick or Bourne where there are a lot of intricate indepth character analyses and lots of personal history between the good guy and bad guys with intricate sub-plots along the way.

The comics for Superman read exactly like Bond.  You rarely get any real insight into Superman.  He's just Superman who eventually comes to save the day.  He's a non-descript reporter who's got a corny sidekick and a girl that he fancies.  Boring!!!  Unlike Spidey and Bataman who are anti-heros and they so often delve into their thoughts, personalities, motivations, fears, angers, etc.  Give me the more intricate and involved characters any day.

Personally, I've never understood the fascination with James Bond.  While I can see the concept and character certainly holding a certain allure for people, for me the movies are mediocre to insufferably boring.  I've seen virtually all of them going back to the 1960s and I just can't understand as hard as I try.  The Craig movies are decent.  But give me John Wick or Jason Bourne any day and twice on Sundays.