• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Alternative Cover to Avengers #37

Started by rodan57,

30 posts in this topic

rodan57

rodan57

Posted
Posted

Lewis Wayne Galleries (Heritage) is selling the original art for a rejected cover to Avengers #37, Feb. 1967. It's a really nice piece. A bit of a treat for an Avenger's fan.

 

Don Heck never gets the recognition for his work that he deserves.

 

When Heck is inking himself, it's classic Silver Age.

 

Unfortunately, reprints never reproduce the range of fine to bold line work visible in original comic books (and art) and many comic book fans tend to define Heck by his work of the mid-70s when his work suffered during a period of personal crises.

 

 

The cover by Don Heck.

 

Av37AltCover.jpg

 

 

The published cover by Gil Kane.

 

Av37Cover.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdjunker

jdjunker

Posted
Posted

 

 

The cover by Don Heck.

 

Av37AltCover.jpg

 

 

 

WOW! This is insanely bad work by Heck. Having heroes with their backs to the audience is amatuer enough, but, um, that is a really poor choice of placement and positioning between Colossus and Goliath. And what is with the splash-like burst between them? And Colossus' expression? What exactly is Colossus doing to Goliath? Will Ned Beatty be playing Goliath in the movie?

 

Although, it would have been a "classic cover" in its own right! Or at least notorious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted

I prefer the cover that was used...not the alt.

 

The alt is too crowded with way too much going on.

 

Cool to own nonetheless but not better than what was selected.

 

Thanks for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodan57

rodan57

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

The cover by Don Heck.

 

Av37AltCover.jpg

 

 

 

WOW! This is insanely bad work by Heck. Having heroes with their backs to the audience is amatuer enough, but, um, that is a really poor choice of placement and positioning between Colossus and Goliath. And what is with the splash-like burst between them? And Colossus' expression? What exactly is Colossus doing to Goliath? Will Ned Beatty be playing Goliath in the movie?

 

Although, it would have been a "classic cover" in its own right! Or at least notorious!

 

This is one these situations in which I have simply wonder what you are looking at.

 

How can this cover be "insanely bad". Is something wrong with Heck's command of the pencil or the brush? It's beautifully crafted.

 

The "heroes with their backs to the audience is amatuer (sic)". Show me the rule.

 

One can manipulate a character's placement for a myriad of artistic reasons. In this case, three (out of the seven heroes) are placed in the foreground with their backs to the viewer.

 

This accomplishes two things: as a viewer, you are brought into the composition ("standing at the edge") and emphasizes the size and threat of the Colossus.

 

 

And frankly, when I view a comic book cover I don't use my "critical vision" to search out sexual innuendo. That's just seeking a cheap laugh at the expense of the artist's integrity. :sumo:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdjunker

jdjunker

Posted
Posted

 

This is one these situations in which I have simply wonder what you are looking at.

 

How can this cover be "insanely bad". Is something wrong with Heck's command of the pencil or the brush? It's beautifully crafted.

 

The "heroes with their backs to the audience is amatuer (sic)". Show me the rule.

 

One can manipulate a character's placement for a myriad of artistic reasons. In this case, three (out of the seven heroes) are placed in the foreground with their backs to the viewer.

 

This accomplishes two things: as a viewer, you are brought into the composition ("standing at the edge") and emphasizes the size and threat of the Colossus.

 

 

And frankly, when I view a comic book cover I don't use my "critical vision" to search out sexual innuendo. That's just seeking a cheap laugh at the expense of the artist's integrity. :sumo:

 

 

 

 

I guess I was perhaps a bit harsh in my previous comment, just having a bit of fun with it. Did not mean to slam you personally in any way and did not mean to slam a piece of art that someone has for sale. Any silver age Marvel cover, rejected or not would be very cool to own.

 

Still, while Heck's rendering of the figures and background on this cover is fine, his choices are very poor. It is very rare that a comic's main character is depicted from the back on the cover. Hiding the faces of three male heroes on the cover is a poor choice. I'm sure cover layout on team titles like this was difficult, but take a look at other covers from this era, the artists almost always found a way to avoid a pure back shot of any character.

 

And you can choose not to "use my "critical vision" to search out sexual innuendo" but an editor has to. Did you know that the word "flick" was off limits in comics just because of possible ink bleed? Granted, I was having a little fun with it, but come on. Goliath is bent over, tied up or bound, submissive and his rear end is right in Colossus crotch. What's more, there is an explosive burst right there, between them! And Colussus himself is grimacing, thrusting out his chest. The un-intended picture is pretty obvious.

 

And the other posters are right, there is way too much going on. There is nowhere for any word ballons or even the story title.

 

Heck's rendering is 100% professional and right up there with any of his work. His cover layout however is horrible and there are numerous reasons why this cover would be rejected.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted
It is very rare that a comic's main character is depicted from the back on the cover.

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote about the layout but this statement just isn't true based on the comics I own.

 

I have several early Iron Man's that have his back to cover. For example

 

IM 2, 3, and 7 all have the main character's back on the cover. I personally like those covers even though no face is shown.

 

It's not happening all the time but I wouldn't call it rare.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdjunker

jdjunker

Posted
Posted
It is very rare that a comic's main character is depicted from the back on the cover.

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote about the layout but this statement just isn't true based on the comics I own.

 

I have several early Iron Man's that have his back to cover. For example

 

IM 2, 3, and 7 all have the main character's back on the cover. I personally like those covers even though no face is shown.

 

It's not happening all the time but I wouldn't call it rare.

 

 

Well, IM #2 is a great cover, and while it doesn't show his face, I wouldn't call it a back shot.

 

As to #3 & 7, even those two covers are not as much of a back shot as Cap and Hawkeye on this cover. On both of those covers, you can at least see some of Iron Man's "face".

 

Perhaps rare is an over statement in general, but looking at other Avengers covers of this era it would appear to me that 100% back shots/"back of head" shots were something they consciously tried to avoid. With so many characters to depict on the cover, it was probably a monthly challenge to avoid the back shots.

 

Maybe we are splitting hairs, but take a look at Avengers #23 for example. The villian is large, and in the background, with four heroes in the foreground. But there is not a single complete back shot amongst them.

 

It is all about choices by the artist, and I contend that Heck's choices on this cover were terrible. That is often the difference between a good cover and a bad cover, particularly from an editorial standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodan57

rodan57

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's worth bearing in mind that this is not just a rejected idea.

 

This work was pencilled, OKed, then inked and the masthead pasted on.

 

It was pretty far along in the process before being replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted

I still prefer the alternate version. Should some of the main characters have their "backs to the camera"? Not on every cover but I've got no problem with two out of seven in this cover.

 

This cover seems more dynamic and more detailed. The protagonist looks imposing on the alternate cover and looks a bit lame on the actual cover IMHO.

 

As for the text blurb, that could be fitted on the left hand side above Cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing