Cover Review: Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #101

If you take out this comic's title, you are left with a simple, yet dynamic black and white cover that catches the eye and doesn't let go.

The covers for this series were typically full of action and usually centered on Spider-Man and whatever villain he faced that issued.  This cover goes the more artistic route, and in doing so may have attracted more glances than the other titles surrounding it on the rack at the time. 

The year was 1985, and John Byrne was the cover artist.  This is obviously before his artistry went totally south. 

If you're looking at the cover trying to figure out what doesn't look quite right, you wouldn't be alone.  At first you are taken in by the excellent lack of color, but the more you stare at it the more something seems off.  It's the buildings, and it's brilliant.

The layout of the buildings makes no rational sense.  If this were a photograph, it would be doctored, as there is no place where buildings would be laid out like this.  It's almost reminiscent of Germany's own Expressionist masterpiece The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Byrne wasn't going for realism.  Here he was using pure art.  He was playing with the standard poses readers were used to seeing Spider-Man in, and then he used the black costume and made something that could easily grace a museum's wall.  Imagine if he had done the same thing in red and blue using Spider-Man's standard costume.  It would not have worked.

I've given Byrne plenty of flack in my writing, but I will admit that with this cover he shines.  Would it have made me pick up the book to read?  No, but it would've caught my eye, and it still does.  In a series that had few truly memorable covers or moments, this one stands out, and it's all due to Byrne.

Punishment

Marvel has a real knack for fucking up characters. Whether it's exploiting Wolverine or ruining a classic character like Spider-Man, Marvel has proved time and time again that it can take a decent concept and run it through the wringer all while thinking the outcome was a great idea.

Enter Punisher.

He's been a vigilante ... and that's what he needs to stay. In DC's hands he probably would keep to his role. In Marvel's miserable, miserly mitts, however, he's been an angel, black and a Frankenstein-style creation. What. The. Fuck?

What the powers-that-ruin don't understand at Marvel is that Punisher works best when he's either in his own little world, untouched by the usual Marvel universe fodder, or he's on the outskirts of the Marvel universe. Granted, many of the stories he's been in while in vigilante mode have sucked (that taxi war storyline is a great example), but at least he's true to character. When he's donning tubes, forehead wards, or a "black" nose he's no longer Punisher. He's a cartoon creation. A roadrunner to the criminal coyote. In other words: He's a joke.

Money, obviously, drives Marvel's desire to screw with the character. What Marvel fails to remember, however, is that what really drives up sales for the long term is solid writing with a character that stays true to its roots.

Marvel has done this from time to time and has enjoyed success. It needs to stick with that plan, though. No more gimmicks (and that's all those things are). Readers see through them, and some, like myself, are resentful. Solid stories. Solid characters. No cartoons.

Save that shit for Wolverine.

Discovering Nightcrawler

I don't even think I have this issue of Amazing Spider-Man anymore, but this is the one that made me appreciate Nightcrawler. I don't remember much about the story, either, other than the Punisher was involved and someone on that rollercoaster got shot (and of course there were a few fights along the way). If I had an issue of Uncanny X-Men with the fuzzy elf in it, I don't remember, as it was this story that made him my favorite X-Man.

I don't have a deep answer as to why Nightcrawler is my favorite mutant. It's not that he's a great, interesting character, and nor are his powers that impressive. No, my reasons were much more base.

I just really liked the way he looked.

Nightcrawler is a hero, yet he looks kind of evil. Sharp teeth. Blue, fuzzy skin. A tail. Three fingers and toes. Those eyes. He looks like a demon, which is often mentioned when people reference him.

The second X-Men film got his powers down pretty good, but thoroughly fucked up the look with that scarification. He no longer looked all that scary to me. Instead, he looked kind of goofy, though I know a lot of people liked his character. I can't complain about anything other than the look when it comes to his movie character, though, because most everything else was done right.

Later on, as I read more storylines showcasing him, I became more appreciative of the character's flaws, inner-strength and faith. My focus shifted from looks to actual character, and I ended up liking him even more. Of all the X-Men he is probably the most actualized.

The first Nightcrawler limited series was a bust. His solo series that came out a few years ago wasn't garbage, but it wasn't so hot, either. He remains, however, far more interesting than Wolverine, Cyclops, Emma Frost or Deadpool. Or at least that's my opinion. Wolverine may get all the attention, but Nightcrawler will always be the number one mutant to me.