Well guys, after just 50 years, The Avengers have finally made it. They’ve reached the true mark of the pinnacle of success, passed the goalpost of true cultural relevance that marks the beginning of a media frenzy… they’ve been poorly photographed and comped shittily onto an Entertainment Weekly cover!
Fuck yeah consistent lighting!
The cover hit the web this morning with a cacophonous WUMP and has been enraging geeks in the hour since. But I say, “fret not!”
In fact, I say, “Rejoice!” for your beloved heroes have finally taken their place in a long and storied history of gracing the cover of a national publication that puts as much efforts into their covers as a studio marketing department puts into the art they print on trapper-keepers, binders, and posters that sell for $5 at Wal-Mart. For EW bad composition, shitty typograpy design, retarded headlines, and poorly lit/poorly composited photoshop jobs aren’t mistakes… they’re an aesthetic. Don’t believe me? Take a look at some of the other covers from over the years that baffled anyone with a working set of eyeballs. Not every single cover is of a superhero, as I just couldn’t pass up a few of these babies. And if you feel like I missed something, let me know on twitter and I’d be happy to update.
Otherwise, see you in the comments!
Ah the stock textured photo background, photoshop glow, and over-lighting a costume to death... a true hero's standard for EW. Served them well for 20+ years.
I think they were less concerned that Bond wasn't returning as that he might be making a cameo in the Paranormal Activity franchise. I assume that's why they comped that poster in behind him. Also, Daniel is looking positively radioactive, even for EW.
Another glowy blue background, but this time a hyper-corrected alien in front! To be fair, Spock's a smooth-ass Vulcan... But get it? They're all ears! (Because Vulcans have silly ears, you can even see that the tip overlaps the E!
Sometimes even the biggest of effects companies has some crossfire, and in this case a DISTRICT 9 comp got run through an half-assed AVATAR pre-viz. Poor Sharlto.
I noticed "bobbleheads" being thrown around about today's Avengers cover. They've got a long history of unflattering poses, and it's happened to the best...
That said, they've managed to fuck up Iron Man from all angles.
Get it? They're zany! And Cooper is "holding things together." LOLfuck
I'm not one to argue about the sanctity of TWILIGHT imagery, but even fuckmyface deserves better than this baffling piece of work.
EW loves 'em a Superhero group. So many different scales, lighting sources, photo distances, and image qualities to cram together!
This is from EW's "avant-garde" period of proportion and human posing. It's a shame this version of the franchise didn't take off, and Routh never had another chance to stand around and point his fist skyward. I LOVE HIS LEFT ARM.
No comment.
i guarantee a handful of non-fans are going to look at that cover and wonder to themselves, “who’s the twilight villain in the bottom right?”
should’ve taken the opportunity to give us another look at the HUUULLK SMAAAASSHH!!
You’ll find that the poor bastard saddled with trying to cobble a viable cover from a handful of stock character images that the studio sent him (in other words, almost all superhero covers, especially when there’s a team – nobody is going to pay to have all the actors show up in costume for an actual photo) can only be so effective. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Also it’s good to remember that the general public is the target audience, not hyper-protective genre geeks with cracked copies of photoshop who consider themselves experts and always have something to be critical about.
Also, The Fifth Element was really bad.
You can tell Joss Whedon likes female characters because he puts Black Widow front and center and makes the rest of the heroes somehow all look like bitches. Did Bruce Banner just eat something sour, or is he just being sassy?
This is a website that runs lime green text on a black background and contrasts differing opinions in the same article with 9 and 10 pixel type. You also have a mother fucking lens flare in your logo. So, that said, guess how much room you have to criticize others for their “typography design”?
Zero. Zero ground.
Nothing you posted is untrue, but CHUD’s ugliness has become part of its charm over the years. If the site wasn’t ugly, it wouldn’t be CHUD.
The Avengers cover’s biggest crime is that it doesn’t tell you anything. Hawkeye and Banner (at least Ruffalo-Banner) haven’t been established, and we don’t get good character shots, so why are they even there? I’m sure they could have cobbled together an image of the Big Three and Black Widow and left it at that, maybe sticking some head shots of Renner, Ruffalo, and Jackson down the side or in the corner or something.
Also, you can’t necessarily blame EW for the shitty Superman cover, as every magazine around that time seemed to have pictures from the same shoot, and not many of those covers were very good either.
The Watchmen cover is actually pretty decent as far as showcasing mostly B-listers as characters that the general public aren’t going to recognize. It might have made some people want to actually read what was inside. Imagine that!
Don’t forget the Wolverine one (http://bit.ly/oUsqRV) — almost as bad as the movie.
Could Jeremy Renner be any more BORING?
Why was Syndrome on that final cover? “The Incredibles” was not a TV show.
The Watchmen cover, with Rorschach at the center, is fairly symmetrical which at least seems relevant.
How could anyone have forgotten the Green Lantern cover?
I never realized how godawful these are.
The best: An early 90s fold-out cover of Julie Newmar rockin the Catwoman suit at 60 years of age. Yes, she was still WAY hot.