Today, we have professionals and readers who are so embarassed to have anything to do with superheroes (yet are addicted to them, in the first case for the money, in the second for the "fix") that they must try to knock down the stories of yore. "Oh, those were just giant slugfests! They didn't have any depth." Right. The saga of Bruce Banner or Ben Grimm had no "depth". The death of Franklin Storm had no "depth". The first coming of Galactus had no "depth". The Master Planner arc had no "depth". Hell, did the death of Junior Juniper have no "depth"? Not a month went by that there was not a steady flow of comics that were exciting, dynamic, bursting with energy -- and full of human drama. More in a single issue, in other words, than a year's worth of monthlies too often contains today.*



*Of course, for some books that is a single
issue!

Didn't think you were, Andy. But my point remains. In days of yore, your list would have been much, much longer.

> I enthusiastically second the recommendation of Invincibles. 

Ron, that was Invincible. The Image series by Robert Kirkman. A nice read that smacks of traditional superhero storytelling.

Grandeur and dynamism missing? Well, I think you got the point.

Today there are several comics which seem... Uh, how do you call them in English? "Photonovels"?
Tecnically, they're great. I see what Epting is doing on CAPTAIN AMERICA and I cannot say it's bad. But... What's really missing, is the "atmosphere".  

Some week ago I have read the early issues of HIDDEN YEARS. Arts by JB and Tom Palmer, you know. There is a Savage Land story, just like when JB was drawing UNCANNY: I get the 2 books and compare them. That UNCANNY isssue is from 1979, HY from 2000. Same artist, but different styles.
Fanboys tell that "his old stuff was better". UNCANNY should be "old stuff". Well, that was great. Beautiful artworks, the best I have seen in the series. HY is drawn with a different style. Less elegant, maybe, more "rough". But, look at those pages. I read it and my first thought is "It's a comic book!". I appreciate what JB is doing. I admit I prefer how he drawn Superman or the X-Men, but I like the evolution of his style. He's trying to create a true comic book atmosphere, and, in my opinion, he is doing it well. No photos, no graphic realism... Yet he still does good COMIC BOOKS. JB, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you still trying to evolve your style in something different? Following your most recent works, I'd say so.

Another example. As told billions of times before, the most popular comic here is TEX, a western. TEX's major artist was Aurelio Galleppini, who drawn most of the first 400 issues and all the covers. With issue #401 he was replaced by one of our best talents, Claudio Villa. Villa is amazing, every cover drawn by him is a little masterpiece. Despite this, I still prefer Galleppini's covers. And not for the style (Villa is #1), but for the impact of those images. Always a good idea for every cover, always a great atmosphere. These are 2 covers drawn by him, 2 of my favorites.

See? Those aren't perfect artworks. But I can't help but admire them.
Pure comic book.