Credits
"New Order" (22 pages)
|
writer:
|
Kurt Busiek
|
|
art:
|
George Perez
Al Vey
|
|
colors:
|
Tom Smith
|
|
letters:
|
Richard Starkings
|
|
editor:
|
Tom Brevoort
|
|
|
|
xxxxx
| September 5, 2002 |
Site Update |
|
From Vu
Not much going on, I saw this on Ebay (user lanting), and I figure some of you out there would like this for coloring, as it is in really good detail.
|
AVENGERS #27 (vol 3) Original, from lanting, Ebay
|
| July 23, 2002 |
Brevoort's Avengers v.3 #27 |
|
From Silver Bullet Comics
AVENGERS #27
(Apr 2000)
Marvel Comics
|
Avengers v.3 #27 - April, 2000
Tuesday, July 23
By Tom Brevoort
This is one of the best single issues I've edited not so much because of
the story content--though it is a good story, and one which certainly
stirred up controversy among AVENGERS readers--but instead because of
the format.
I make no bones about it: I stole the idea for the 100-Page Monster
format from the DC 100-Page Super-Spectaculars of the 1970s--in fact, I
wish that DC would similarly bring that format back on some of their
books. But I think this is a great format, and the best bargain in
comics right now--64 pages of story material for an extra buck. You'd
pay more than that for an annual.
Of course, there were fans who complained about being forced to buy
reprints they didn't want, which is why we won't be upgrading a given
series to Monster status more than once a year. And, frankly, I feel
that we're giving much more than a dollar's extra entertainment value.
But then, I like reprints, and I like big, thick comics.
From Vu
Over at Slush Factory
there is an article called "Marvel Comics: The Monster Format" written
by Jim Henry, which examines the perks of reprints. The example cover
art used was AVENGERS #27 (vol 3), which was one of the first "new" monster format, if I'm not mistaken.
xxx |
|
LOS VENGADORES #27 (Spain)
(2002)
DIE RÄCHER #5
(Oct 2001)
