What is better with a modern book.......

[slackjawcomics]

AMAZING ART and a bad story or.......

 

a AMAZING STORY and horrible art?

 

 

I am not sure, because an example was the Superman story when Jim Lee was doing the art on the 12 issue run. I hated the story, but loved the art and stayed through it until the end.

On the other end...

Jonah Hex has had some amazing stories, but some terrible art. I loved the fact that they were going to tell the origin of Hex but hated the art.....again I finished the arc though.

 

Just wanted to hear other opinions.

[DrWatson]

Good art - bad story is better than bad art - good story. I dropped the New Mutants because I couldn't stand the Bill Sienkiewicz art. If I can't look at it, then I can't read it. I usually just hope for a happy medium.

[awe4one]

Great art can overcome a bad story. A great story cannot overcome bad art. Comics are a visual medium...if the visuals are bad then the comic suffers...

 

Jim

[slackjawcomics]

I am surprised how some of these artist stay in the game with the art they are producing.

[DKB]

 

Great art can overcome a bad story. A great story cannot overcome bad art.

 

 

I feel pretty much the exact opposite.

[fastballspecial]

I am sorry but I disagree and sight Superman 204- Jim Lee/Azz storyline as an example.

 

The art was incredible, but the story was a joke and couldnt follow it so I dropped along with ALOT of people.

 

Great Story Bad or Average Art

 

PPSM 107-110 Sin Eater Saga

The art was average at best, but the story was incredible and kept me entertained.

 

Exiles 23-25 With an Iron Fist

Winnick story was incredible and the art was horrible, but the story was so good I still remember it.

 

 

[fastballspecial]

I am surprised how some of these artist stay in the game with the art they are producing.

 

I think they only stay in the business because they can hit deadlines when artists like Art Adams and such just come out and say they cant point blank so they do one shots and annuals.

 

 

 

 

[Aman619]

to me, the story is more important. If the story is really involving, I can suffer thru bad art. The comic wont really be a "classic" because the art will drag it down placingundue pressure on the story to be INCREDIBLY special or important.

 

on the other hand, a comic with great art is always enjoyable, but, just only to look at. Its a quick scan and the drawings get looked at, not really soaked into the brain as they do when you read every word and glance back at the art to see the connection how the images work with the text. I dont get as involved with a great art/bad story comic.

 

But, the question is academic since 95% of all the comics we ever buy or read are far from satisfying on both levels. They all fail either in the story or the art. Except the very few, the classics we remember for decades. Few and far between.

[helionaut]

I have to go with good art/bad story. It's kind of like porn. Good art you can at least look at and you don't need a story at all if it's good enough. But a good story can be severely hampered by bad art. Take, for instance, Planet Hulk (no I don't want to see Hulk porn). I really liked that story, but so often I was confused by the art on a panel-to-panel level, what was going on, who was saying what to whom, or what the motion of a scene was (I think I recall one part where Hulk hit someone over the head with a spaceship, but the way it was drawn you couldn't really tell that the ship had moved and the Hulk was the reason, so it didn't make sense until I really worked it all out). If Rob Liefeld or someone drew Watchmen, it wouldn't be nearly as compelling. But I can read George Perez books all day even if the writing is overblown, underthought, and boring.

[Jayman]

to me, the story is more important. If the story is really involving, I can suffer thru bad art. The comic wont really be a "classic" because the art will drag it down placingundue pressure on the story to be INCREDIBLY special or important.

 

on the other hand, a comic with great art is always enjoyable, but, just only to look at. Its a quick scan and the drawings get looked at, not really soaked into the brain as they do when you read every word and glance back at the art to see the connection how the images work with the text. I dont get as involved with a great art/bad story comic.

 

But, the question is academic since 95% of all the comics we ever buy or read are far from satisfying on both levels. They all fail either in the story or the art. Except the very few, the classics we remember for decades. Few and far between.

 

Totally agree. Not that either situation is enjoyable, but good story wins out every time.

Shaolin Cowboy comes to mind...incredible artwork but the decompressed storyline (if it could even be called that) was like wtf?

[followtheleader]

Count me as wanting (between the two):

 

AMAZING STORY and horrible art

 

Pat

[The Brain]

I brake it down using two modern books. All Star Superman, and All Star

 

Batman and Robin the Boy wonder. All Star Superman offer's the best of both,

 

great art combined with great story telling, win/win. ASBARTBW is, depending on

 

what you like either good art with what some here have called 'a joke' on the

 

writting or it is good story telling gone far-a-feild with over-blown-art win/lose,

 

or lose/win. I tend to like both books, but it is easyer to get into a book if

 

I can 'see' the story as the writer tells it. Thats my... .

 

 

[EvilAsh]

Put my vote down for AMAZING story / BAD art being the better of the two choices.

If the story is really gripping and sucks me in, the art just isn't as important (thumbs u

[Kevin Boyd]

I could go either way. I follow artists and I follow writers, and often they are saddled with creative partners who don't match the calibre of their work. If I had to choose one method over the other, I would choose art over story (as that pretty much sums up my bronze and copper buying experiences) as comics are a visual medium. It's only over the last 20+ years that we've seen the writer become as or more important than the artist to the mix.

[Fan4Fan]

None of the above.

 

I have put both back on the shelf if it is truly bad in either art or writing.

 

If the art is only something I'm not used to, I'll likely look for the trade in the local library and read it there to see how I react.

[superman20]

good art/bad story.

 

for me its all about the ART...

[mister_not_so_nice]

Strong story/Weak art. (thumbs u

 

For me moderns are all about the continual search for the next great story. And 99% of any art in moderns today is 'passable'

 

If the story is weak, good art won't keep me interested. Similiar situation just happened on Saturday while watching TRANSFORMERS. Tried to hold out to enjoy the special effects, but the story sucked to bad I had to turn it off an hour in.

[CJ]

If the story is AWSOME then it doesnt matter to me as much about junky art....

The opposite for AWSOME art is not true. The most amazing art will not keep me buying a book if the writting is a joke.

 

But I found very few moderns that having amazing story or art...one of the other is usually just good enough to keep me interested.

The last amazing art and amazing story I can remember reading is Marvel Zombies (the first 3 issue)

 

[DrWatson]

If you are looking at two different titles on the self, that you are not familiar with, and one has sucky art and one has great art, then you are more likely to buy the one with good art. The story inside is a crapshoot at this point. That's how I always picked my books anyhow.

[Raphael]

great artwork can make even the worst stories bearable.

 

terrible art can really detract from an amazing story.