Update: Marvel Trying To Capitalize On The Loss of Stephane Peru?

Let's examine a few press releases from Marvel:




No mention of the colorist.




None here, either. I think that Marko might do his own colors, though. Don't have any of his current work handy to be able to say for certain, though.




I know for certain that Joe Mad doesn't do his coloring, though.

So...I think it is fair to say that we've established that Marvel generally doesn't mention inkers or colorists in their PR.



So...here? They skip right over crediting an inker to credit Stephane?

Just seems a bit off to me. I'd like to think it is just trying to help bring attention to a great colorist that fans will, unfortunately, not get to see further work from.

I fully recognize that others might not be so quick to think this is Marvel trying to cash in. Trying to look at it fairly, I can't come up with a scenario where they could have mentioned him in the PR that would have came off any more sincere and admirable, nor would I suggest that it is fair to say they should simply not have mentioned him at all. Possibly the only thing that might have saved it was that, if they were going to go all the way to crediting the colorist, maybe they could have credited the inker as well.

Edit: looking at David U.'s mention of Hulk #2 having the colorist noted, it might be that this is a new decision by Mark Paniccia to credit colorists because of the huge effect they have on the comics they help produce. Maybe the loss of Peru and the realization that probably not enough people recognized his great contribution to the titles he worked on led to this change?

Credit David U. for finding the one possibility that could eat its way through my normally insurmountable cynicism and allow me to see a sincerely noble reason for the crediting.

Update 2 (7/11/12): I had this old entry brought to my attention in a discussion with Stephen Wacker on BleedingCool.com. Man, I'm embarrassed that I considered this as not only a possibility, but one worth sharing with the masses. I'm, also, embarrassed that I responded with snark to David Uzumeri pointing out how appalling my cynicism was, since he was pretty much right on the money. I'd just delete the whole thing, but I feel like that'd seem more like I was trying to hide from my error. It's unlikely that many will bump into this addendum, but, if they do, my sincerest apology for the offense caused by my cynical theory.