Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Brevoort's avatar

Emmanuel, Patrick, you're both welcome here, but I need you both to calm the hell down and stop getting into arguments with everybody else in this section. It's proving to be disruptive, and if it keeps on happening, I'm going to be forced to take action. I'd rather not do that, but I'm going to need you both to relax, all right?

Expand full comment
Karl Kesel's avatar

Gotta say, I love that NEW WARRIORS #74 cover! But as much as I love it as an IMAGE, I have to wonder how well it works as a COVER. There's really nothing in the upper third/left side of the cover to attract attention— or even define which comic this is— if/when it's shelved in most comic stors— which flies in the face of "accepted cover theory." Still, it does evoke those striking and memorable Infantino/Cardy AQUAMAN covers from the 60s. And, like you said, you likely only got away with it because the book was already canceled.

But this brings up another thing I think about from time to time: how differently do you approach covers today than you did, say, 20 years ago? It seems to me a good portion of modern sales are generated through Preview orders (or whatever remains after the Diamond disaster is sorted out) making a striking IMAGE that's shown with the solicit much more important than worrying about that upper/left side of the cover.

The best answer, of course, is "do both!" But are you more open to "experimental" covers now than you used to be, given the changing market?

Expand full comment
145 more comments...

No posts