Heck, as long as we're dreaming give me Elliot S! Maggin as the writer with art by Alex Ross.
You know, even though I was excited as anyone when Alex Ross first showed up, I have to admit I'm pretty tired of his stuff, now.
When I was a kid, I thought being a great artist meant recreating reality as closely as possible. Not just in the comics, but in paintings and sculpture as well. Neal Adams was my hero in those days, and anyone who couldn't draw as "realistically" as he could was a hack. Over time, though, I've developed a real appreciation for more abstract sculpture and impressionist paintings (though I've still no use for cubism or modern "shock art") and, at the same time, a great love for the more cartoony artists in comics history. For my money, a Kirby, Eisner, Cole or Sprang is much more entertaining than an Adams because they create their own reality, they develop whole worlds that are often more interesting and fun than our own.
I think this is why Ross is losing his appeal to me. His paintings look like real people dressed in superhero suits...because they're based on photos of real people dressed in superhero suits. But guess what? Real people dressed in superhero suits don't look cool, they look silly. Much as I rail against Hollywood tinkering with superhero costumes, I have to admit that Alex Ross has proven a literal, spandex-only translation to real human figures would look goofy. (His Flash, in particular, looks like the guy you'd avoid at a Halloween party).
Comics need a sense of unreality to work for me. A sense of whimsy and imagination. Curt Swan was as close to "real" as I'd ever want to go.
On the other hand, if Ross did the art, the book would sell like hotcakes. And I have to admit, based on the pencil sketches I've seen him do, the prospect of a pen-and-ink Ross comic, as oppsed to a painted one, is very intriguing...