The Amazing Spider-Man - Campbell Collection (1/5 scale)(Steve Schumacher).

[Spidey976]

Originally Posted by Peedi

Our modern depiction of Spider-Man is because of Todd McFarlane. Prior to him, Spidey's body was usually bulkier just like any other super hero (instead of actually looking like a slender but muscular 5'11 hero), and while always athletic, he wasn't normally depicted in the extremely agile, contorted poses Todd came up with that artists have been using ever since.

He also started the overly large eyes and the stranded out webbing.

He also designed Venom.

Although JSC's artwork is great and he was a cover artist on "Amazing" during Straczynski's run, Todd's influence on Spider-Man is far greater to the overall history, and JSC's stylings of Spider-Man owe greatly to McFarlane's redesign, just like most modern artists.

You are correct of course. However, I would give Bagley some credit as well. He has managed to put out a FAR larger body of work when it comes to Spidey, and comics in general. For the longest time it was Bagley's work that appeared on all of the marketing materials (back packs, binders, etc.) until the animated Ultimate Spiderman stuff took over. However, yes the modern design esthetic definitely was altered by McFarlane.

[SolidLiquidFox]

Erik Larsen took both the Venom and Spidey design to the next stage when he took over ASM and then Spider-Man from McFarlane. I give Larsen more credit than Bagley.

Bagley gets plenty of credit for consistency and work ethic though.

[Spidey976]

Originally Posted by SolidLiquidFox

Erik Larsen took both the Venom and Spidey design to the next stage when he took over ASM and then Spider-Man from McFarlane. I give Larsen more credit than Bagley.

Bagley gets plenty of credit for consistency and work ethic though.

Hmmmm .... I would say tha Bagley had more influence. I always thought Larsen went a little to far with his designs, and after that most artists back off and followed Bagley's lead.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by COI

I actually think the entire "limited edition" label in collectibles is faulty for this very reason. It's an inherent flaw in the logic of a manufactured collectible (manufactured, as in the demand is manufactured based on a perception of rarity). Traditionally, older collectibles or antiques are rare because they didn't survive the ravages of time, or simply weren't preserved because no one thought to preserve them. That's a collectible in the truest sense. Manufacturing the rarity by setting a number and calling it "limited" is a way to accelerate the natural cycle that makes more traditional antiques and collectibles "collectible". We eat it up with a spoon because it puts a fancy shine on these expensive nick nacks we love.

Anyway, I want to emphasize that I don't like variants, and I think that Sideshow is putting out too many pieces. That's my personal view, so I naturally don't begrudge you or anyone for sharing that view. I just get a little annoyed with the "sky is falling" hyperbole.

I have to disagree. It doesn't matter how rare a piece is, if its not a quality piece, most people will have no interest in it. Thats not to say that there aren't people out there who buy things based solely on the rarity of a particular piece, but the VAST, and I do mean VAST, majority of collectors aren't going to buy something just because its limited. Overall demand is largely dictated by the overall quality of a particular piece. Of course, adding rarity onto a quality piece is a different story entirely. In those cases, rarity can play a HUGE role in overall demand and value. Rarity by itself is pretty much meaningless.

Yes, one can make the argument that everything is basically a limited edition as nothing remains in production forever. Even if a company produced a hundred billion of a particular item, its still technically limited. The main difference between limited editions and open editions is that people know the exact number of pieces created with limited editions and that is a VERY powerful thing in the world of art/collectibles.

There is also an urgency to limited editions. If only 100 of a particular item exist, as a buyer it adds a legitimate urgency as you have no clue when, or even if, you will ever have the opportunity to buy that piece again. You see that same effect in regards to Sideshow statues, mostly due to Sideshow raising the overall edition sizes. You see people all the time now saying things like "I am not going to pre order this statue as its very unlikely it will sell out anytime soon. I will wait and see how it turns out and make my decision then". Of course, back when Sideshows editions were much smaller people were pre ordering the second they had the chance as they knew the risk of selling out was much greater. With open editions or non limited edition pieces, there is absolutely no urgency at all. Why buy something now when you can buy it next year, or the year after? I myself have put off buying lots of items I wanted due to the fact that I can simply buy them at a later date. There is a very real sense of urgency when it comes to purchasing rare items and the rarer they are, the more urgency one feels.

Its also important to note that limited editions are not a new thing. There are countless examples of limited editions that date back....well, pretty damn far. A good example is the Limited Editions Club. It was started by George Macy in 1929 and its purpose was to publish finely made and finely illustrated limited editions of literary classics. He even commissioned many of the popular artists of the time to illustrate the books with original lithographs, engravings and etchings, which were bound into the books. You can find countless other examples, in pretty much every manufacturing field that exists. Watches, furniture, luggage, clothing, artwork, etc.

I just don't see anything faulty with the concept of limited editions, so long as the manufacturer/artist is actually honest and doesn't produce more than the stated edition size. Wether it happens naturally by the passing of time or its done on purpose by the manufacturer/artist, the end result is the same, a product/piece of art that is rare.

I will admit that the modern markets have changed a vital aspect in regards to the subject of rarity, that being that rarity itself is no longer rare. So many rare items are being produced now that rarity is becoming common place. Comics are the prefect example. Just look at the number of limited variants that are being produced in the comic market. 10-15 years ago, those kinds of variants were pretty rare. Now the market is absolutely flooded with them. You even have comics now with hand drawn covers that are basically limited to 1. Dynamite is producing comics limited to just 25 now and Aspen is producing prints that are limited to just 5 to 10 prints. Rarity itself really is becoming common place in many collectible markets. What effect this will ultimately have over the long run remains to be seen, but I can't see it being a positive thing in the long run.

Here is an interesting article on perceived scarcity and consumer spending.

The Psychological Effects of Perceived Scarcity on Consumers’ Buying Behavior

[Quarthon]

I don’t think I could sum it better than Peedi. Mcfarlane wasn’t easy to meet. In fact, anyone who wanted to meet him needed a ticket ahead of the signing.
Of course it was already handed out earlier at the Image booth, which I ended up arriving late.
I ended up going back to the booth 15 minutes before the signing, hoping that someone would be able to have it signed for me.
As it turns out one of the guy at the front of the line had an extra ticket. He was willing to give it to me for free, but I ended up giving him cash for it and joining him.

I did not have the Kotobukiya’s Spiderman with me. If I did I’m sure I would have gotten Mcfarlane to sign that one instead, but I wanted Mcfarlane to sign the Campbell’s base.
The signing went well. When I got to Mcfarlane I told him I flew from Canada and that he should come to the Calgary Expo.
Mcfarlane smiled and give me a fist pound. The rest of his team told me Calgary Expo is an awesome show. Little did I knew that Todd Mcfarlane is from Calgary.

The next day I did not realized that J Scott Campbell was also at the show.
Campbell saw the Mcfarlane’s signature and thought it was awesome.
He told me himself that Mcfarlane had a great influence with Spiderman.

Sure Mark Bagley was also at the show. Perhaps next time I will have him signed my Carnage.

[JP Sarri]

Originally Posted by Spidey976

You are correct of course. However, I would give Bagley some credit as well. He has managed to put out a FAR larger body of work when it comes to Spidey, and comics in general. For the longest time it was Bagley's work that appeared on all of the marketing materials (back packs, binders, etc.) until the animated Ultimate Spiderman stuff took over. However, yes the modern design esthetic definitely was altered by McFarlane.

Originally Posted by SolidLiquidFox

Erik Larsen took both the Venom and Spidey design to the next stage when he took over ASM and then Spider-Man from McFarlane. I give Larsen more credit than Bagley.

Bagley gets plenty of credit for consistency and work ethic though.

I agree with both of you. Although McFarlane gets the credit for the modern rendition of Spider-Man, it was Larsen's and Bagley's contributition that gave it its everlasting and now definitive presence in pop culture. Many people came to know and love Spidey through their pages and their wonderful art.

In my opinion, Larsen took Mcfarlane Spidey to the next level, making him less cartoony and more athletic. His backgrounds were lively and very dynamic. Bagley improved and polished the formula with added details and more anatomically correct character representations. Of course, the art of each one of them exaggerates form and movement, but that is the art of comics in general.

Erik Larsen:




Mark Bagley (old and new):




J. Scott Campbell:




Every time I see Campbell's Spider-Man drawings, I am reminded of Larsen's and Bagley's more than McFarlane's.

[JP Sarri]

Originally Posted by Quarthon

I don’t think I could sum it better than Peedi. Mcfarlane wasn’t easy to meet. In fact, anyone who wanted to meet him needed a ticket ahead of the signing.
Of course it was already handed out earlier at the Image booth, which I ended up arriving late.
I ended up going back to the booth 15 minutes before the signing, hoping that someone would be able to have it signed for me.
As it turns out one of the guy at the front of the line had an extra ticket. He was willing to give it to me for free, but I ended up giving him cash for it and joining him.

I did not have the Kotobukiya’s Spiderman with me. If I did I’m sure I would have gotten Mcfarlane to sign that one instead, but I wanted Mcfarlane to sign the Campbell’s base.
The signing went well. When I got to Mcfarlane I told him I flew from Canada and that he should come to the Calgary Expo.
Mcfarlane smiled and give me a fist pound. The rest of his team told me Calgary Expo is an awesome show. Little did I knew that Todd Mcfarlane is from Calgary.

The next day I did not realized that J Scott Campbell was also at the show.
Campbell saw the Mcfarlane’s signature and thought it was awesome.
He told me himself that Mcfarlane had a great influence with Spiderman.

Sure Mark Bagley was also at the show. Perhaps next time I will have him signed my Carnage.

Congratulations on the signed piece! Hopefully you can get Bagley and Larsen to sign it also at some point. That would be awesome!!

[built2shred]

Jpsarri broke the page, I don't have a 80" widescreen monitor, fix your pics

[JP Sarri]

Originally Posted by built2shred

Jpsarri broke the page, I don't have a 80" widescreen monitor, fix your pics

Get yourself a tablet or a smartphone.

[Halcyon]

Spider Woman is next in this marvel line.