Original AF 15 Ditko Cover

[VintageComics]

Strange to think of alternate reality where this is the cover of AF 15.

 

I don't think it would have been a lot different. The Spider-man character is what resonated with readers - the cover wouldn't have changed that, especially since it's the same concept, but at a different angle.

 

If this were the one that were published, we'd be looking at Kirby's cover wondering the same thing.

 

I disagree. Kirby's covers drew readers in. He was a master at plotting action scenes and making them look larger than life. Kirby's AF #15 cover is much more powerful than Ditko's. Ditko's cover imitates life. Kirby's blows real life out of the water.

 

Spider-man would have flopped with Ditko's cover? That's a pretty big statement.

 

Not sure that it would have flopped but it may not have had as big an impact.

 

Sometimes in comics, real life doesn't sell as well. And While Kirby did make many scenes overly complex, this "simpler is better" theme seems more appealing and enigmatic.

 

The "bad guy" is proportionally smaller than Spidey in Kirby's cover. It makes Spidey stand out in much bolder fashion. Also, the rooftop onlookers capture a "frenzy" type atmosphere. Much more exciting than someone just looking outside a window. Finally, the angle of the web shows Spidey is swinging past the apex of the curve...he's about to let go and move onto whatever it is he's moving onto. Much more dynamic.

 

Ditko's cover, while much more realistic in proportion and better representing motion is busier and more "normal" looking.

 

Jeffro has a point that we have been ingrained as accepting this as the cover to one of the greatest keys in the hobby but I think the cover still wins on artistic merit, which is why Stan chose it in the first place.

 

Stan knew what excited people.

 

 

[supapimp]

Just curious, after that cover, did Kirby ever draw Spider-Man again? Maybe in a cross-over or something? I don't think he ever drew a standalone Spider-Man issue.

 

Strange Tales Annual #2, Avengers #11

 

He never did it as well as the AF #15 cover though.

 

 

FF annual 1

ASM 10 just spidey not the enforcers

[smithdatura]

Just curious, after that cover, did Kirby ever draw Spider-Man again? Maybe in a cross-over or something? I don't think he ever drew a standalone Spider-Man issue.

 

Outside of the covers mentioned Kirby drew the backup story in ASM 8, which was a lighthearted romp involving Spidey butting heads with the Human Torch. That whole ish was actually a lot of fun, come to think of it, despite not featuring any of the key early developments as the issues around it...

[VintageComics]

Just curious, after that cover, did Kirby ever draw Spider-Man again? Maybe in a cross-over or something? I don't think he ever drew a standalone Spider-Man issue.

 

Outside of the covers mentioned Kirby drew the backup story in ASM 8, which was a lighthearted romp involving Spidey butting heads with the Human Torch. That whole ish was actually a lot of fun, come to think of it, despite not featuring any of the key early developments as the issues around it...

 

That was a very fun read, remember enjoying it greatly as a kid.

[Dick Pontoon]

Just curious, after that cover, did Kirby ever draw Spider-Man again? Maybe in a cross-over or something? I don't think he ever drew a standalone Spider-Man issue.

 

Outside of the covers mentioned Kirby drew the backup story in ASM 8, which was a lighthearted romp involving Spidey butting heads with the Human Torch. That whole ish was actually a lot of fun, come to think of it, despite not featuring any of the key early developments as the issues around it...

 

Yup.

 

For the record, let's straighten out the previous posts.

 

Strange Tales Annual #2: cover and story.

 

Avengers #11: cover only.

 

FF annual 1: cover and story.

 

ASM 10: cover only, just spidey not the enforcers

 

Kirby also redrew part of the cover ASM #35 and possibly another that escapes me at the moment.

 

Let's not forget various posters either, such as this one:

 

 

 

[miraclemet]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

To me the keys are:

• The pose of Spidey, the crossed legs in Ditko's version are very ungraceful
  
• The less cluttered composition of the cover for Kirby focuses the eye on the main point (Spidey) and not processing all of the other "noise"
  
• I'm assuming the titles were also author designed? Ditkos feels very GA pulpy, while Kirbys seemed very evocative of the future marvel titles.
  
• Also Ditko's spider only has 6 legs.
  

 

 

 

 

(kidding about the last one)

[rjpb]

Ditko went on to show that he could do excellent covers for ASM, but clearly this would never have been considered one of them. Had it been used and the Kirby one surfaced years later, I have no doubt that fandom would be wishing that Kirby had prevailed.

[gregreece]

While not a huge Kirby fan (I don't hate it either, just neutral), he clearly knocks it out of the park with the AF 15 cover. Hands down Kirby's version over Ditko's.

[Logan510]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

[Logan510]

Just curious, after that cover, did Kirby ever draw Spider-Man again? Maybe in a cross-over or something? I don't think he ever drew a standalone Spider-Man issue.

 

Strange Tales Annual #2, Avengers #11

 

He never did it as well as the AF #15 cover though.

 

 

I believe ( correct me if i'm wrong ) that AF15 is the only time Ditko inked Kirby drawing Spider-Man.

 

 

 

 

[smithdatura]

Just had to post a little side by side...

 

 

 

To be fair - and I'm a massive fan of both artists - what we're looking at in Ditko's cover is "tainted", in my view, by a modern interpretation of how the cover would/should have been colored... and a bad one, at that. If I'm not mistaken, this was released in a relatively recent publication, and colored for that purpose off the original B&W art, correct?

 

As such, there's no doubt in my mind that graphically the Kirby version presents better from the upward angle perspective (more dramatic) to what you see of Spidey (more of him, spreading across the center of the cover) to the simplicity of the elements (less visuals to distract from Spidey), but let's consider how the coloring aids the Kirby version immeasurably:

 

- The bright colors used are in the title and text (yellow) and in Spidey's costume (red) to catch your eye - everything else is drab and subdued to let what needs to "pop", "pop".

 

...vs. how the colors on the Ditko version weaken it:

 

- The washed-out red (almost orange) of Spidey's costume is lost as a contrast with the same color in the title; the building, rather than an appropriate grey, is purple (!!!), while the rest of the background is a sky blue that extends down onto the ground itself. You also have brightly-lit yellow windows in the purple building, and two bystanders wearing brownish clothes that further compete with the reddish visual of the costume and AF title.

 

Also, the clean, straightforward way of showing "Introducing --> SPIDER MAN" on the Kirby cover is subtle and again fits with letting Spidey have center stage, while the "Introducing: In this epic, surprise-filled issue... --> SPIDER-MAN!" not only further crowds the cover, but actually squeezes the AF title and Spidey himself...

 

So all in all, Ditko was done a disservice in the "finishing" of his vision, as best I can tell.

 

I'd actually love to see someone with a good hand in Photoshop try tweaking the colors on the Ditko version to match the Kirby version as best as possible. Again, based on the graphics alone I'm sure Kirby's would rule the day, but Ditko's could definitely be improved with a sane coloring job.

[DiceX]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

Do you keep a running list of things I say that irritate you? I can't think of two things you've said in the last week.

 

 

[Logan510]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

Do you keep a running list of things I say that irritate you? I can't think of two things you've said in the last week.

 

 

Not at all, I just remember the really stupid ones

[chrisco37]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

It's not the greatest, but it's one of the best ones, IMO.

 

It's easily the best of all the X-movies. And, I thought it was easily the best of the comic movies from last year (better than Cap or Thor).

[Chespirito]

I think a 7 year old kid would have chosen Ditko's cover over Kirby's ... Who were these books intended for anyway?

[Logan510]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

It's not the greatest, but it's one of the best ones, IMO.

 

It's easily the best of all the X-movies. And, I thought it was easily the best of the comic movies from last year (better than Cap or Thor).

 

I respect your opinion, but I honestly wish I hadn't watched it. The only saving grace for me is that I didn't pay to see it.

[chrisco37]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

It's not the greatest, but it's one of the best ones, IMO.

 

It's easily the best of all the X-movies. And, I thought it was easily the best of the comic movies from last year (better than Cap or Thor).

 

I respect your opinion, but I honestly wish I hadn't watched it. The only saving grace for me is that I didn't pay to see it.

 

Why do you dislike it so much? I thought it was well done. They didn't amp up the cheese factor too much.

 

I paid $1.06 (RedBox) to watch it.

[Logan510]

The only thing worse than Kirby art is Ditko art.

Stan made the wise choice. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Aren't you the guy who said X-MEN : First Class was the greatest comic book movie ever made?

 

It's not the greatest, but it's one of the best ones, IMO.

 

It's easily the best of all the X-movies. And, I thought it was easily the best of the comic movies from last year (better than Cap or Thor).

 

I respect your opinion, but I honestly wish I hadn't watched it. The only saving grace for me is that I didn't pay to see it.

 

Why do you dislike it so much? I thought it was well done. They didn't amp up the cheese factor too much.

 

I paid $1.06 (RedBox) to watch it.

 

 

To me, the characters were off and I found the story fairly dull and stupid. I believe this was based on a mini series I never read so I cannot say they ignored continuity and it may have been dead on. If I seperate myself from being a fan of the X-MEN ( admittedly hard to do ), I still didn't like it as a superhero / action film. I didn't like the fist X-MEN movie...but as a popcorn / action movie I thought it was OK.

 

 

[Chespirito]

Although it is incredibly hard to make a good comic book movie, I believe that some are pretty decent, like this one. I also believe that some people will never be pleased, no matter what...

[Logan510]

Although it is incredibly hard to make a good comic book movie, I believe that some are pretty decent, like this one. I also believe that some people will never be pleased, no matter what...

 

I don't think it's that hard. The first Iron Man and Batman Begins were both very strong IMHO.