Do you think have superstar artists would increase sales?

[random_havoc]

I remember back in the day when comic sales were at record levels Marvel had a bunch of superstar artists. E.g. Spider-Man #1 (Todd McFarlane) and X-Men #1 (Jim Lee) are two of the highest selling comics of all time, both drawn by very recognized and loved artists of the time, each of which was associated with a particular character or team.

Nowadays it seems like Marvel cares less about keeping great artists around and when they do have a great artist they're never on the same book long enough to get associated with that character/team.

Or for another example that's not as far back, at the beginning of New Avengers they launched it with, sure, one of their fastest rising writers but also with an art team that consisted of going back and forth between Steve McNiven and David Finch, both of whom are INCREDIBLE and have styles similar enough that they fit together well on the book.

Obviously there's a lot of other factors that are in play but I feel like Marvel could start getting their comics noticed more again if they put some top talent artists on some books and actually kept them on them for a while. Because right now a lot of their comics have art that ranges from so-so to bleh.

Thoughts?

 

[Mad Ones]

Yeah, consistent is a perk but not the norm these days. I wish Cheung was going to draw every issue of Astonishing, for example. But artists have a hard time meeting deadlines as it is now. I think rotating artists is the only way big publishers can function. DC and Marvel would have to restructure how their companies run.

 

[random_havoc]

Why do you you think rotating artists is the only way they can function? They didn't have to do that in the past so I'm unclear as to why they'd have to restructure their companies.
Not to mention a lot of the art is just low quality compared to what they used to have.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It's possible, but someone like Steve McNiven and Jake Cassidy are reputed as procrastinator artists, so I don't think they will be much help.

 

[Sithborg]

This isn't the 90's anymore.

 

[random_havoc]

This isn't the 90's anymore.

No, in the 90s Marvel was having massive success whereas now their comic division is comparably in the toilet.
One key difference is that back then they had superstar artists.

 

[random_havoc]

It's possible, but someone like Steve McNiven and Jake Cassidy are reputed as procrastinator artists, so I don't think they will be much help.

True, but like I mentioned above they had McNiven on rotation with Finch for New Avengers back when that was selling like hotcakes

 

[Sithborg]

No, in the 90s Marvel was having massive success whereas now their comic division is comparably in the toilet.
One key difference is that back then they had superstar artists.

You mean the 90's where Marvel almost went out of business?

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Is it the art or the writing that is in need of improvement?

Comics are a visual medium so of course the art should be good to attract readers but the art isn't even the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the problems with Marvel these days.

IMO, the front offices need an overhaul.

 

[random_havoc]

You mean the 90's where Marvel almost went out of business?

Are you expecting me to believe you're so dumb that you didn't know what I meant?
OK I'll play along. No, I meant the early 90s when comics were selling in record numbers, including Spider-Man 1 and X-Men 1 which both set records and sold in large part due to being drawn by superstar artists.

Yes Marvel almost went bankrupt later in the 90s but that was after all their biggest artists left at once to found image and the entire comics industry went through a crash.

 

[random_havoc]

Is it the art or the writing that is in need of improvement?

Comics are a visual medium so of course the art should be good to attract readers but the art isn't even the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the problems with Marvel these days.

IMO, the front offices need an overhaul.

I agree their are multiple problems and you've nailed a few. But comics with bad writing have sold really well in the past based on the artist. Basically all of early Image comics are examples of that

 

[Sithborg]

Are you expecting me to believe you're so dumb that you didn't know what I meant?
OK I'll play along. No, I meant the early 90s when comics were selling in record numbers, including Spider-Man 1 and X-Men 1 which both set records and sold in large part due to being drawn by superstar artists.

Yes Marvel almost went bankrupt later in the 90s but that was after all their biggest artists left at once to found image and the entire comics industry went through a crash.

No, it was the crash of the comic speculation market. The creative teams were not the major factors in the crash. The business factors of the 90's were more of a factor than creative teams. The same applies to what Marvel is going through right now.

 

[random_havoc]

No, it was the crash of the comic speculation market. The creative teams were not the major factors in the crash. The business factors of the 90's were more of a factor than creative teams. The same applies to what Marvel is going through right now.

You're oversimplifying. There were multiple factors involved in both the record sales before the crash and the crash itself. I'm not arguing that having superstar artists was the only factor or even the single biggest, but I am arguing that it was one of the biggest reasons Marvel was selling such huge numbers. And Marvel's loss of those artists to Image was one of the reasons Marvel's sales dropped even before the crash hit

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I agree their are multiple problems and you've nailed a few. But comics with bad writing have sold really well in the past based on the artist. Basically all of early Image comics are examples of that

ASM#25 was the best selling issue for that comic thus far, not because of the writing but because it featured a bunch of variants that mostly depicted MJ and/or Black Cat, both of whom are not anywhere to be found in the comic itself. Marvel has been using certain fan favorites on their covers for years to promote sales so, yes, people do buy these products when there is nice looking art. This tactic is pretty lame imo. I'd rather they have both nice art and good stories. Marvel needs an overhaul and not a shiny new coat of paint...on that note, it begins...

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07/31/marvel-comics-executive-restructuring/

 

[random_havoc]

Yeah, again, I'm not saying only great art and superstar artists are what's needed, but that's part of it.

No matter what you're trying to sell, if you have a big name that people like the work of it will help sales. I just can't see what Marvel hasn't produced another Todd McFarlane or Jim Lee in like 20 years. A person who was associated with one of their prime intellectual properties and who people actively seek out his art to buy. I feel like Marvel doesn't really want to make superstar artists any more. Maybe they feel like if they empower them too much they'll ask for too much money or run off to do a creator owned book like the Image guys did

 

[misscomic410]

I don't think the status of an artist is as relevant as it used to be especially with the younger generation. Its seems like the storytelling is what is attracting people these days. Art is the essence of comics but relying on them for sales just means there is no other creative way to attract readers.

 

[random_havoc]

I don't think the status of an artist is as relevant as it used to be especially with the younger generation. Its seems like the storytelling is what is attracting people these days. Art is the essence of comics but relying on them for sales just means there is no other creative way to attract readers.

Again, is not the only factor but is one important factor. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation regarding great artists vs good storytelling