But more important than this, is that such a cover -- along with all the other single-character-posing covers that have become the industry standard -- speaks almost exclusively to the customer who came into the store intending to buy the issue in question. The "audience" is people who ordered their comics three months before they hit the stands, out of a catalog, with little or no idea what might be on the cover (which probably wasn't even done when the orders were taken). There is little or no "Hey! Lookit Me!!" in modern covers. Nothing, in short, that compels a potential reader to… ask a question, and pick up the issue to find the answer.

I think a good cover is like a good movie trailer...make you want to see the movie without giving the movie away...nowadays that seems lost on both covers and movies...but I loved the old covers like Julius Schwartz were famous for. I remember the comic being so good...I didn't mind the cover lied to me :)

If superhero comics aren't finding a way to make covers compelling and exciting via the plotlines within, therefore prompting the question, there's no doubt the "magazine" pose shots aren't doing it. What about this:

Use the cover to illustrate who or what the character is about, through physical action unrelated to the issue in question.

It seems it was about the 80s when the "posing" began, but you could still be drawn to a comic by a cover that illustrates something cool the character is doing, even if they are, essentially, posing.

I think here, you get enough to at least question who and what the character is, and are intrigued by his aggressive martial abilities, and can speculate on his hidden face.

Another, you get the basics of the character. The gyst, without the cover copy, is a young terrified man turns into a ravening animal. A transformation is certain to occur, and can suspense, terror and excitement be far behind?

I wish the current companies would use covers more like reviews of what the characters are or stand for.

Thinking more, isn't the problem with modern covers related to the glum, murky art superimposed over what should be a garish, exciting character?

Superheroes are adventure heroes almost across the board. They wear costumes or uniforms, usually with a design and colors to make them "stand out". There are logical reasons within their origins for this.

Now, to my eyes, covers of modern superhero comics look dark, depressing, even on characters like the Flash, Superman, FF, Spider-Man.

What I can't understand is why the covers are not designed to ATTRACT the eye. Why don't these covers use representative colors and motion to sell a product like a SUPERHERO, who is made up of color and motion? I mean in the most basic design sense?

Why does the art that has that doom-laden weight of "reality" to it, like something that should be on the cover of EERIE, be shoe-horned onto the Flash?

The whole style is wrong on superhero comics. It's like everyone involved has forgotten that they are producing works of pulp that are designed to SELL.

Where a lot of those "adult" kind of mags used art by Frazetta, that style isn't really what you want on Spider-Man, is it? Maybe ONCE, or as a pin-up, but not all the time. It's NOT representative of what a superhero character like Spider-Man is about. He's not rippling muscles and a vicious menacing pose. He's energy and motion and color, performing strange contortions, swooping down on an enemy.

I mean, isn't he?

And to my eyes, all the mags just look stuffed with this kind of gloomy "style". Even the comics that don't use a harsh worldview to represent adventure heroes have too much...production in them. Like the covers for SHE-HULK, which I like, but which kind of beg the question: do I buy with my wallet or my dick? And if I was a kid, why would I want to buy the comic unless I was looking for a naked or semi-naked She-Hulk to appear inside?

The problem is that comics aren't produced on time. The mundane "pose" covers are assigned to issues without any merit to the story inside. Apparently, this is because the companies believe that the covers are "brand names". The fact of the existence of the new Superman comic is enough, since the companies are in fact NOT producing comics for the general public.

This is summing up my understanding, not adding anything new. I just find it hard to believe that comics have grown so inbred that the companies refuse to put the time and energy into the possibility of reaching readers "outside" their select cult.

Most of today's covers are all about these generic "money shots". And a vast majority of them end up on posters and t-shirts. Many of them aren't even drawn by the same artist who draws the book's story.

Even the covers of classic books like Fantastic Four # 1 or Amazing Fantasy # 15, while containing scenes that do not really appear inside the books, still reach out and grab the reader, either with a great image, or provocative text/captions/dialogue.

Today's covers (and a large portion of the interiors) are so gloomy, so "posed", so overly computer-colored, there's no life to them.

Whatever happened to bright colors and motion lines and shocking cover blurbs? For me, comics are all about the illusion of motion, bright colors, and the exciting usage of words.

How did things go from this:

...to this?

There is little or no "Hey! Lookit Me!!" in modern covers. Nothing, in short, that compels a potential reader to… ask a question, and pick up the issue to find the answer.

***

I find this has become the case as well. Today's covers more replace the plot with the character's image than involve the reader in the story's animation.

Apparently, this is because the companies believe that the covers are "brand names".

***

I also see this. Back when John Byrne and John Romita Jr. were a Marvel staple, trademarks were earned issue by issue in a way that made the reader proud to be a part of the action. Now it seems that the direct edition shop is for mass cover production appealing only to the reader's will to buy.

I thought the nineties would bring about more amazing stories as did the two or three previous decades preceding, as it did. Though, the rush into 2000 seems to have changed the industry coniderably.