It's great with another Kinney and Hubbard volume, but that cover art feels SO out of place compared to the first volume's cover. Why not just take a panel from one of Hubbard's stories and edit it to fit as a cover?
It's great with another Kinney and Hubbard volume, but that cover art feels SO out of place compared to the first volume's cover. Why not just take a panel from one of Hubbard's stories and edit it to fit as a cover?
That IS a weird cover. There’s so much good Hubbard stuff they could be using instead. Not that it’s bad art - it just doesn’t fit with Hubbard’s style, IMHO. Is that a faux-Murry cover on the latest Murry book, too?
That IS a weird cover. There’s so much good Hubbard stuff they could be using instead. Not that it’s bad art - it just doesn’t fit with Hubbard’s style, IMHO. Is that a faux-Murry cover on the latest Murry book, too?
That's the problem... that cover art (by Rota?) looks nothing like Hubbard and just sends out the wrong signal as to what we're getting.
That IS a weird cover. There’s so much good Hubbard stuff they could be using instead. Not that it’s bad art - it just doesn’t fit with Hubbard’s style, IMHO. Is that a faux-Murry cover on the latest Murry book, too?
That's the problem... that cover art (by Rota?) looks nothing like Hubbard and just sends out the wrong signal as to what we're getting.
Also, yeah, that does look like Not Murry.
This reminds me of the cover illustration on the “Blot’s Double Mystery” Scarpa book…it’s good, but doesn’t look like Scarpa at all. Before I knew how appealing Scarpa actually drew, and how his actual style differed so much from that front cover, I actually didn’t want to buy the book because the cover turned me off so much.
This reminds me of the cover illustration on the “Blot’s Double Mystery” Scarpa book…it’s good, but doesn’t look like Scarpa at all. Before I knew how appealing Scarpa actually drew, and how his actual style differed so much from that front cover, I actually didn’t want to buy the book because the cover turned me off so much.
You were that turned off by a cover from Cavazzano, another of the greats?
That's your right, of course, but I have to admit I liked it more than that! (In fact, since Scarpa himself had never drawn a cover for "The Blot's Double Mystery," I'd been waiting for years to use Cavazzano's cover on a new edition of the story...)
There's a long tradition—going back to the Gladstone Comic Albums—where collected editions that principally showcase one artist employ cover art by another... *when* an appropriate cover drawing by the featured artist can't quickly be found. How did readers in 1989 feel about all-Barks collections with a Rosa or Jippes cover? How did Italian readers feel about two collections of Cavazzano's Dragonlords with covers by Marco Gervasio and Andrea Freccero? (Or, for that matter, a collection of Bottaro's Rebo with a Gervasio cover, which we also used on our first Rebo book here?)
I don't recall it ever being a problem (as long as the substitute cover artist is good!); and to be fair, that's the tradition I grew up in.
My Fanta team and I put a Brazilian cover on this new Murry volume, and a Rota cover on the Kinney/Hubbard book, only after being unsatisfied with our first efforts to make covers using clip art from the included stories.
To be fair, neither of these covers are final—they're just early preliminaries, because Amazon needed some—so things could still change.
But I should note, too, that the level of frustration I'm seeing in this thread seems unprecedented, given that we're discussing a tradition that publishers have engaged in for decades...
It doesn’t really matter to me as I know what I get, but occationally, if the cover art is too different (better!) than the story art, I feel like it can border to false advertising. Especially for new readers.
There's a long tradition—going back to the Gladstone Comic Albums—where collected editions that principally showcase one artist employ cover art by another... *when* an appropriate cover drawing by the featured artist can't quickly be found. How did readers in 1989 feel about all-Barks collections with a Rosa or Jippes cover? How did Italian readers feel about two collections of Cavazzano's Dragonlords with covers by Marco Gervasio and Andrea Freccero? (Or, for that matter, a collection of Bottaro's Rebo with a Gervasio cover, which we also used on our first Rebo book here?)
I don't recall it ever being a problem (as long as the substitute cover artist is good!); and to be fair, that's the tradition I grew up in.
My Fanta team and I put a Brazilian cover on this new Murry volume, and a Rota cover on the Kinney/Hubbard book, only after being unsatisfied with our first efforts to make covers using clip art from the included stories.
To be fair, neither of these covers are final—they're just early preliminaries, because Amazon needed some—so things could still change.
But I should note, too, that the level of frustration I'm seeing in this thread seems unprecedented, given that we're discussing a tradition that publishers have engaged in for decades...
Misleading was too strong a term, sorry. I'm not frustrated, just a bit befuddled. It gives off a mixed message when you have a named author on the front cover, and the corresponding image is by someone else. Especially in the case of Hubbard and Kinney, which is more of a collected library than some of the other volumes in the series. I think that merits some extra dedication to consistency. Plus, there's always some people going in blind when buying a comic, and not every online retailer gives access to the previews inside. In that case, the inside content might be a bit of a shock. Sure, that number is probably low on a title like this. In that case, would a prettier cover sell that much better?
My feelings about representative cover art go back to my earlier days as a fan. Disney comics have only recently started listing artists on the front cover. Before I had Inducks on my smartphone, I would go into comic shops picking out issues with covers by artists whose work I recognised and liked. Sometimes that would turn out great, like when I bought a Gladstone-era comic issue with a Don Rosa cover -- and discovered No Such Varmint for the first time. Other times, the surprise would not be as pleasant. It makes it hard to guess which issues features the artists you like best unless you are well-informed. After all, that's how Disney comics databases got their start! Overall, I think American Disney comics strike a good balance between the two.
I understand that some art lends itself more to clipping than others. But you're presenting archive material by artists whose names may only be in the spotlight for the first time in English. If you can't find fitting clip art, I think you'll find a pretty forgiving audience.
It also depends on how closely the art is associated with one another. Jippes illustrated the Dutch Barks album series. In the 1970s, he was a close mimic. Around 2000, he had a more aggressive style, that didn't suit Barks as much IMO. Later, he toned it down again. Nobody'll bat an eye over the Freccero cover on the De Vita volume. The Gervasio cover on the Bottaro volume, I'm less of a fan. Rota on Hubbard? That's a quantum leap if you ask me.
Last Edit: Nov 9, 2021 23:58:37 GMT by That Duckfan
I don't like buying a collection volume by an artist whose work I like a LOT,and have another's artwork on the cover. I would rather have had a clipping out of a panel from the lead story IF there is no cover drawing by the featured artist. I always HATED getting another artist on an almost all Barks book, or a book in which his story was featured as the largest and lead story. That happened a lot in 1950-52.
The same goes for Michel Nadorp drawing the covers on books featuring a Daan Jippes story. I didn't mind have Daan's covers on Dutch Barks collections, as I already had Barks covers on the original US books featuring those stories, And when Barks never had drawn a cover for a particular featured story, I appreciated Daan's drawing for it, in the style closest to Barks'. I always got very disappointed when I first saw a Donald Duck comic book whose cover was drawn excellently by Carl, but opened the book to find the were drawn completely by artists far inferior to his work. I like Rota's Duck style better than Hubbards. Yet I really dislike putting a Rota drawn cover on a Hubbard collection. I don't like Paul Murry's Mickey Mouse artwork very much. But, I'd rather see Murry covers on a Murry collection than even a cover drawn by Gottfredson or Scarpa, whose work I like much better. I would have been much more glad to lose ALL those Barks covers he drew for comic books with stories by other artists (like "Robert The Robot", "The Flying Horse", "Maylayalaya", "Rags To Riches", Crocodile Collector", etc.), if he'd only drawn the covers for "The Magic Hourglass", Bigtop Bedlam", "Dangerous Disguise","No Such Varmint", and "In Old California".
Personally, I don't mind if the covers are from different artists if they are nicer covers. But there is a lot of merit in having the books author draw the cover, and I can understand peoples opinion on this.
I also believe Fanta stirred a hornets nest by deciding to drop the boxsets and then maybe/possibly/one day returning them.
I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything but David said a while back in this thread only.
"For whatever it's worth, I now have additional confirmation that we'll start with #13-18. Looks good so far."
He said that they'll possibly start releasing them in fall of next year.
But one thing you all should realize that, these books clearly do not sell as well as other Fantagraphics offerings that get box sets, like the Pogo collections or Crepax collections. Because all of them are still getting new box sets without stopping as soon as 2 volume are out.
If these books did sell well enough, I'm sure Fantagraphics would've never dropped the box sets in the first place.
So it's just a waiting game at this point. Constantly asking about these boxes ain't gonna do much good.
How did Italian readers feel about two collections of Cavazzano's Dragonlords with covers by Marco Gervasio and Andrea Freccero?
I believe there are three categories when it comes to this topic:
1. A new cover drawn by a different artist for a classic story that originally didn't have a cover. This is completely acceptable.
2. A cover drawn by a diffferent artist for a new story. (Such as those covers by Marco Gervasio and Andrea Freccero for Cavazzano's Dragonlords.) Acceptable but not ideal. Why do the collections of that long 12-part epic not have covers drawn by Cavazzano?
3. An artist specific collection not having a cover drawn by the artist the collection showcases. (Such as the proposed covers for the new newly announced Disney Masters volumes.) Not acceptable. And no, Dragonlords does not fit into this category as those two Italian collections you mentioned aren't "Cavazzano books", he wasn't the main selling point.