Despite its critical acclaim (or perhaps because of its heavy-handed political soapboxing), Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams' Green Lantern/Green Arrow title was canceled with issue #89 in 1972. For the next several years, Green Lantern's only solo gig was as a backup feature in The Flash (good ol' Barry...letting his buddy stay in the spare room despite the wife's grumbling).
In 1976, the Green Lantern and Green Arrow title was revived, resuming its previous numbering with issue #90. Though writer Denny O'Neil returned to the title, Neal Adams didn't (probably too busy crusading against something)...so the art chores fell to Mike Grell, who'd been making a name for himself on DC's Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes.
Sort of a "Poor Man's Neal Adams" (right down to the Adams-wannabe signature), Grell's work was wildly inconsistent. Sometimes there were glimmers of Adams-like polish...yet much more often his work suffered from odd layouts, bizarrely proportioned figures (usually really big heads), unconvincing foreshortening, and dull backgrounds.
All of those weaknesses (and more) were on full display
here on the cover of Green Lantern/Green Arrow #94:
What's so bad about this cover? Oh, let me count the ways!
1. The odd, tangent-riddled placement of the view screen (and its neutral blue edging) makes it disappear somewhat against Green Arrow's legs. Pair that with the floor-level image of Green Lantern, and it appears (at first glance) as if Hal is laying on the floor staring up at Ollie's crotch.
2. Ollie's tiny, whithered left arm holding the bow...a really good example of really bad foreshortening (the illusion of an object dramatically receding into the background).
3. The two giant gears that Black Canary is strapped to have almost no detail and large fields of flat color...which creates big problems with the area's negative space. Instead of being an "easy read" that Canary is strapped to a pair of huge gears, the negative space creates the incorrect impression that she's lifting or supporting a big piece of machinery over her head. Making matters worse is the positioning of Canary's feet...which are a good distance into the room...yet her hands are strapped to gears located behind her in the room through the doorway. Looks like Mike should have spent less time perfecting Canary's curvaceous torso and more time on her basic positioning.
Also, is it just me, or does her face look like Tori Spelling?
4. Although an artist doesn't want too much background detail to steal attention from the main characters, I think Mike could have thrown a bit more detail into that vast, dull expanse of an orange wall. At least throw a shadow from Green Arrow on there!
5. The villain's word balloons look like an afterthought, desperately crammed along the right edge of the scene.
6. A great cover can be enhanced by clever headlines or blurbs of copy, which can dramatically increase the "gotta buy it" factor. Conversely, a lousy cover can be made even worse by unimaginative or nonsensical blurbs...like this cover's "Green Arrow without a beard? WHY?" Was that really the most exciting thing they could think of to highlight? Green Lantern is supposedly dead and Black Canary may be torn asunder at any moment...but we're supposed to be worried about Green Arrow's lack of facial hair?
7. Ironically presiding over this mess is the "Award Winning Comic!" blurb along the top...a classic example of the old expression "putting lipstick on a pig".
8. Don't even get me started on the positioning of Green Arrow's arrowhead in relation to Black Canary. Ahem.
Moving along, since this marks the 13th installment of the nauseating Worst Cover Ever series, what better way to celebrate that dubious milestone of doom and gloom than by featuring another spectacularly bad Green Lantern cover by Mike Grell?
Green Lantern #103 has it all: comically bad foreshortening on GL, a claustrophobic layout, a flat-faced Black Canary, and a villain with not only the worst costume design in the galaxy (dig that kickin' mini-skirt!), but a body so poorly drawn and contorted that not even his camel-toe KISS boots or that Christmas ornament hanging from his right elbow can fully distract our attention from his unwieldy Ode To Quasimodo frame.
Strangely, the lack of beard does almost excite me. Is this an early tale? Did he have to shave it off? Is it Hal in disguise?
Posted by: Siskoid | September 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Yeah, Ollie had his familiar beard prior to this issue....but I have no idea why he shaved it off. It wasn't Hal in disguise....he was preoccupied with being dead while gazing intently at Ollie's manly nether regions.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | September 10, 2007 at 11:26 AM
"Looks like Mike should have spent less time perfecting Canary's curvaceous torso"
No, no, no. A thousand times no.
Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement.
Posted by: Brian Disco Snell | September 10, 2007 at 04:29 PM
If you want withered limbs, check out the Hulk's leg on this cover of Hulk #5
Hulk's fist is as big as his thigh.
I'm surprised Stan didn't have Jack redraw it.
Posted by: Richard | September 10, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Well, as you've no doubt noticed by now, there's human anatomy...and then there's KIRBY ANATOMY. I usually don't even bother trying to apply normal rules of proportion and accuracy to Kirby's stuff....he's an entity unto himself. Actually, his looser and wildly caricatured version of the human body was what allowed him to draw so many books during this period (since the guy was almost single-handedly drawing their entire line).
Yeah, it's goofy looking...but it's KIRBY GOOFY....and much better than GRELL GOOFY. Well, maybe not...but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | September 10, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Useless copy is a hallmark of 1970s comic book covers. But I think Julie Schwartz's line of comics were quite egregious in that domain. I don't know if he was making the decisions on cover copy, but BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS often had stupid cover copy -- in spite of the fact that Neal Adams and (sometimes) Michael Kaluta created moody, dramatic artwork evocative of the pulp magazines. Really, their cover illustrations alone would have intrigued you enough to pick up the book ... but someone always thought those covers needed a blurb. Once, they even say so in a BATMAN letter column -- followed by the sound of a thousand fans groaning.
Posted by: rich | September 19, 2007 at 03:54 PM
"Useless copy is a hallmark of 1970s comic book covers. But I think Julie Schwartz's line of comics were quite egregious in that domain.
I would agree....though Julie was guilty of plenty of overheated hyperbole on his 1960's covers as well. I think it's a generational thing, since Stan Lee seemed to be prone to the same sort of copy-heavy covers. It reminds me of an old ad salesman I used to work with years and years ago on a newspaper. His idea of a great display ad was to fill it with every adjective known to man ("Amazing! Incredible! Shocking!"), forgetting that the Barnum and Baily style of carnival barker advertising/marketing was long past.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | September 19, 2007 at 04:24 PM
I have to say, I love the old Mike Grell covers, especially the old GL/GA covers. One of the best DC covers of that era was his giant S-boy/Legion wedding special. Grell was not the only Adams wannabee...Rich Buckler, Dick Giordano (even though he maybe developed by inking adams), even later with Seinkewicz (spelling wrong?). For the last one see the first issue of Moon Knight. Mike who gave us Warlord Grell...a 70's/80's legend in my book.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm a professional classically trained artist and I have to respectfullydisagree with the technical comments you make, too. I am big fan of your site appreciate all the effort you put into it. I think its really cool that we can even talk about this stuff!!Thanks!
Posted by: joe | September 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Oh, I don't think you're being a jerk at all, Joe....though I'd be interested in hearing your defense for that awful drawing of the villain on issue #103. We can always disagree on the subjective stuff (color choice, layout, etc), but man....that's some pretty twisted anatomy on that guy. I can't for the life of me understand how a DC editor could have green-lit that drawing.
I liked some of Grell's Legion stuff, though a few of the costumes got a little kinky for my tastes. At times it looked like an S & M convention instead of a gang of benevolent intergalactic teens.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | September 21, 2007 at 11:11 AM