|
|
Post by starseed on Dec 17, 2013 11:01:18 GMT -5
Having recently looked over the Broadway and Defiant Comics covers that were produced, it seems to me most were well below average. It also seems to me in both cases this was Shooter's responsibility. Could terrible covers have hurt Broadway and Defiant? Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Dec 17, 2013 12:22:53 GMT -5
Having recently looked over the Broadway and Defiant Comics covers that were produced, it seems to me most were well below average. It also seems to me in both cases this was Shooter's responsibility. Could terrible covers have hurt Broadway and Defiant? Thoughts? I don't think covers hurt them. With the Broadway covers, the design format of the early ones was bought and paid for. They were forced to do the framed covers. It looks like the requirements were removed towards the end. Sadly, the best and most enticing covers are those released by Marvel when John Romita Sr. was responsible for them. The art of making enticing covers has been lost for a long time. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by vikingspawn on Dec 17, 2013 13:43:59 GMT -5
I like the design of all the Broadway ones even though the early were meant to look like magazine covers. Those looked cool to me. The one cover art I wish they would have used for number #1 was the Plasm #0 issue. Issue one's cover seemed a better fit for a later issue in the story arc. To me, Plasm zero had a more iconic cover for an issue 1 with the Lorca stance. Plasm Zero was too hidden inside the Previews catalog for fans to enjoy. And the binder was too hard to group with the comics.  |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Dec 17, 2013 22:07:33 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that Lapham had free reign to do what he wanted by the time DEFIANT started publishing.
Defiant1
|
|
