Worst Comic Covers Ever - Let's See 'Em!

[mica]

But hey, there's a lot of terrible cover art on those 70's Charltons. ....

The only Charlton Romance I buy is Just Married.

And even then I only have 4 issues.

[Flee-Marquette]

I don't care what you guys think, she's hot!

 

And I will specifically hunt that one down!

 

But hey, there's a lot of terrible cover art on those 70's Charltons. I was alsways confused how some of the horror titles would have cool painted covers one month and the next month would be a line drawing executed with the skills of an 11 year old.

 

I think we have found another target audience! Seriously though, if you really want a copy, PM your address and I will send you this one for free.

[Ogami]

The good ole' Armored Spidey.....You could take any Saviuk or Sal Buscema cover from that era (1990-94) and it would qualify for this thread.

 

Sal sure fell from grace in the 90's. He did some pretty solid artwork in his heyday (mid-70's). Even his earlier work on his second go-around on Spectacular was good (the Sin-Eater storyline, late #130's?). His artwork changed over to gawd awful when Tombstone was introduced (right around when McFarlane started hitting it big on ASM). FFB has noted before a change in the inking style.

 

I agree with every word of this sentiment.

 

Month after month, year after year, Buscema kept cranking out the *spoon* on Spec. Gawd, it just never stopped.

 

It's only been in the last couple of years that I've begun to appreciate it at all.

[the blob]

thanks, that's cool, but I'll pass, although it probably is extremely rare! but not worth whatever postage it'll cost to get to me even if you'r offering to pay the postage!

 

put it out at a yardale and i betchah get a couple of bucks for it!

[ft88]

Sal was the number 1 reason I stopped buying modern comics. As the typical 80s reader I bought the X-men lines and Spidey lines. Both Web and Spectacular just started to really SLICK and the X-men weren't much better. At least Amazing was good with McFarlane but then Larson came as a bad TM imitator followed by Bagley who was a poor Larson imitator and I said good-bye.

 

Thats Marvels number one character had this for its mainline cover art is basically inexcusable.

 

 

[Ogami]

Sal was the number 1 reason I stopped buying modern comics. As the typical 80s reader I bought the X-men lines and Spidey lines. Both Web and Spectacular just started to really SLICK and the X-men weren't much better. At least Amazing was good with McFarlane but then Larson came as a bad TM imitator followed by Bagley who was a poor Larson imitator and I said good-bye.

 

Thats Marvels number one character had this for its mainline cover art is basically inexcusable.

 

 

 

I'm right with you on SPEC and WEB. Just descents into abysmalness.

 

On Amazing, I'm ambivalent. On one hand, from a marketing standpoint, I get it. Let's get a guy who can draw like McFarlane. And then when he becomes too popular, another who is slightly less like him, then so forth and so on. And in that sense, they respected their audience to the degree that they were trying to meet demand.

 

On the other,

 

McFarlane > Larsen > Bagley > Saviuk? (is that right?) makes for art 3X removed from good.

[goldust40]

McFarlane > Larsen > Bagley > Saviuk? (is that right?) makes for art 3X removed from good.

 

Yep, the law of diminishing returns. Buscema may have descended into bland formula, but Bagley and Saviuk were the worst artists ever to draw Spidey. A clone of a clone of a clone etc. is always going to be grim when the original artist wasn't really that good to begin with. All right, his work on the Hulk was great.

[MutantKeys]

I hate this cover. I only own this because its part of my run

 

[deathlok]

Sal was the number 1 reason I stopped buying modern comics. As the typical 80s reader I bought the X-men lines and Spidey lines. Both Web and Spectacular just started to really SLICK and the X-men weren't much better. At least Amazing was good with McFarlane but then Larson came as a bad TM imitator followed by Bagley who was a poor Larson imitator and I said good-bye.

 

Thats Marvels number one character had this for its mainline cover art is basically inexcusable.

 

 

I remember that cover. It's not that bad.

[the blob]

i don't think the Bagley covers were all that bad. i didn't particularly like them, but it is nothing like the upset stomachs I got looking at late Sal.

[mica]

For me it was the BIG-EYED spidey that kept me away. In ten years the eyes will cover all of his head. I stopped reading spidey when they supposedly brought back his parents. Never did find out if they were real, and am not losing any sleep over it.

It's hard making your covers look good when they start having this ridiculous banner at the top.

[Scrooge]

For me it was the BIG-EYED spidey that kept me away. In ten years the eyes will cover all of his head. I stopped reading spidey when they supposedly brought back his parents. Never did find out if they were real, and am not losing any sleep over it.

It's hard making your covers look good when they start having this ridiculous banner at the top.

 

Aunt May kinda looks like Dr. Death from This Magazine is Haunted -

[mica]

Aunt May kinda looks like Dr. Death from This Magazine is Haunted -

What a name to have while going through medical school.

[HarrisonJohn]

I always thought 'the non-mutant super hero' was a stupid cover blurb.

[Ogami]

I always thought 'the non-mutant super hero' was a stupid cover blurb.

 

or the one on Submariner, "The World's First Mutant!"

[1st-and-keys]

I guess this is pretty bad

[MutantKeys]

[deathlok]

I guess this is pretty bad

 

been discuseed before.

[1st-and-keys]

 

been discuseed before.

Thanks for the update

[deathlok]

 

been discuseed before.

Thanks for the update no problem, now go post something new.