I thought Ian Gibson's interview in today's Megazine 400 was excellent.
Clearly if his health allows, the man is willing to work for 2000ad again so let's make it happen.
That is all.
The work of a comic-deity:
(http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/hires/376.jpg)
Gets my vote for a return
Yes, also noticed that he said he'd written Book IV, plotted Book V and there was something about Book VI too. I'd love to know when he did all that...
Normally I'd be in favour of having one of 2000AD's most prolific and brilliant artists return to the Prog.
But we're talking about someone who once drew a pair of tits! Gen-u-ine mammary glands.
Is that the kind of artist we want in 2000AD in 2018? Won't someone think of the children, etc?
Timeline check: Ian's last 2000AD work was in 2008. The topless HJ kerfuffle was in 2013.
Therefore, whatever went wrong with his 2000AD relationship happened well before then.
Yeah, I've not got around to reading the interview yet, but didn't it all come to a head around the Samantha Slade story? My memory may be failing me though.
Perhaps the tone comes across poorly, but to me the interview read rather arrogantly.
Quote from: SIP on 20 September, 2018, 12:38:11 PM
Yeah, I've not got around to reading the interview yet, but didn't it all come to a head around the Samantha Slade story? My memory may be failing me though.
If memory serves, Alan was basically writing Samantha Slade to give Ian some work, but Ian felt the scripts were sub-par and didn't interest him, as became increasingly apparent from the effort he was putting into the art, until he jacked it in mid-way through a series and Anthony Williams had to finish the thing off.
Not long after that, Ian penned a rather sour piece for a comics website arguing that 2000AD had cost 8p when he first worked for them, and (I think) £1.90 at the time he was writing, which meant he should now be getting £1500 for a page of B&W art.* Because, obviously, in thirty years there had been no increases in overheads or production costs, the magazine hadn't moved to much more expensive printing processes, and hadn't seen an 80-odd percent reduction in sales.
*Note: I'm not arguing that comic artists are well, or even adequately, paid. In fact, I think it's probably the most labour-intensive and least rewarding way someone can find to monetise artistic talent.
Right, I remember the Slade strip troubles and the change in artist at the end of the story. Always assumed Ian Gibson had downed tools and walked unexpectedly without finishing the strip and that incident had been the end of the relationship. Only my assumption at the time though based on what appeared to be rushed pages and then his sudden disappearance.
Hadn't heard about the subsequent website article.
His ongoing dismissal of that sort-of-but-not Halo pic irks too. Just own the fuck up. Stop blaming other people.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 20 September, 2018, 03:33:08 PM
His ongoing dismissal of that sort-of-but-not Halo pic irks too. Just own the fuck up. Stop blaming other people.
But wasn't he commissioned to draw the piece? *
Just like Carlos was when he recently drew topless Durham Red?
Don't see anyone throwing shade at Carlos...
*(Apologies if I'm wrong here!)
I don't see any arrogance in the interview... but it's no-holds barred, for sure. I have a better idea of the man than I did before reading it. Kudos to the Meg for running a seemingly unsanitised conversation with one of the prog's all-time greats.
Downing tools in the middle of a strip, if that's what happened, is a great way to poison a professional relationship. Unforgivable? Hopefully not, but we don't what else went on, if anything. Surely the interview itself could be seen as a sign that the ice is melting?
Quote from: wedgeski on 20 September, 2018, 03:47:32 PM
I don't see any arrogance in the interview... but it's no-holds barred, for sure. I have a better idea of the man than I did before reading it. Kudos to the Meg for running a seemingly unsanitised conversation with one of the prog's all-time greats.
Downing tools in the middle of a strip, if that's what happened, is a great way to poison a professional relationship. Unforgivable? Hopefully not, but we don't what else went on, if anything. Surely the interview itself could be seen as a sign that the ice is melting?
Just for clarity, I'm not asserting that he DID down tools and then walked, only that it's what I assumed had happened. The truth may be entirely different.
Where's Bish-op when you need him? :-X
Gibson's stated clearly (including in this month's Megazine interview) that he stopped drawing the final Samantha Slade story because he thought it was poor. Other parties, who have a dim opinion of Gibson and his actions, confirm this version of events (http://thrillpoweredthursday.blogspot.com/2012/08/177-samantha-slade-short-goodbye.html).
Given the personal problems that mean Gibson can no longer take on commercial work*, it's possible to imagine other factors may have been in play, but those are the established facts. Some discussion, from 2007, here (https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=20600.msg349385#msg349385).
* See this lengthy audio interview 59m:30s (http://ecbt2000ad.libsyn.com/ecbt2000ad-ep300)
Quote from: Link Prime on 20 September, 2018, 10:18:34 AM
...we're talking about someone who once drew a pair of tits ... Won't someone think of the children, etc?
I hadn't heard about the topless Halo episode, but found an article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson) about it.
I do think it's unfair to downgrade a strong female role model to the level of cheap titillation. Link Prime: your rather hysterical reaction suggests you're not much of a feminist?
Quote from: Woolly on 20 September, 2018, 03:41:55 PMJust like Carlos was when he recently drew topless Durham Red? Don't see anyone throwing shade at Carlos...
I'd not heard of that one. Frankly, I'd say that's also a crappy thing to do, despite his original design for Red was cheesecake (vs Halo's rather more standard appearance). But really Gibson's OMG SJW-style response to the anger about what was done speaks volumes.
AFAIK the only reason anyone has seen that Carlos peice is because the fan who commissioned it put it in their Facebook and Frank reposted it here. I'm not a fan of it but that seems pretty different from selling prints of it.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 20 September, 2018, 07:03:21 PM
Link Prime: your rather hysterical reaction suggests you're not much of a feminist?
Disengage your sarcasm filter.
Love to see Gibson back in the prog, one of the all-time greats, later books of Halo and Robohunter standing as some of the best art to ever grace the comic. As he has always been a cheesecakey artist (Maze Dumoir a well-established fave of my adolesence), Tharg has paid him to draw a fair few boobs in his time, and artists have to make a living, it's hard to hold the Halo business against him. However much I personally disapprove of that treatment of a unique and special character.
I hope Alan Grant has gotten an apology.
Quote from: Art on 21 September, 2018, 12:46:04 AM
AFAIK the only reason anyone has seen that Carlos peice is because the fan who commissioned it put it in their Facebook and Frank reposted it here.
Carlos put it on his own Facebook page.
Quote from: TordelBack on 21 September, 2018, 09:22:12 AMAs he has always been a cheesecakey artist (Maze Dumoir a well-established fave of my adolesence), Tharg has paid him to draw a fair few boobs in his time, and artists have to make a living, it's hard to hold the Halo business against him.
If it had been 'Gibson does topless print', then fine. The second he knowingly aligned it with Halo Jones (and it's pretty clear he's very media-savvy, not least with his sound-bites and slogans), it becomes something else entirely – riffing off of a property he doesn't have ownership of, and repositioning one of 2000 AD's very few prominent female characters in a manner no-one would ever have done under normal circumstances.
Occam's razor suggests his hand-waving dismissal of the people who were pissed off about this means he either doesn't understand that element of the importance of Halo Hones or, more than likely, he just doesn't give a shit.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 21 September, 2018, 10:05:53 AMThe second he knowingly aligned it with Halo Jones (and it's pretty clear he's very media-savvy, not least with his sound-bites and slogans), it becomes something else entirely – riffing off of a property he doesn't have ownership of, and repositioning one of 2000 AD's very few prominent female characters in a manner no-one would ever have done under normal circumstances.
Like I say, I don't approve at all, for largely the same reasons as you, but at the same time I'm not going to let it outweigh Gibson's body of work or how I'd be happy to see more from him in 2000AD.
I personally don't think that print had anything to do with Halo Jones, it looked nothing like her and everything like a standard Gibson cheesecake poster, so the real misdemeanour was labelling it as such to shift some extra units - wrong of course, but this is Gibson's art and artists have to eat, so after a decade I cant really sustain my indignation.
Far less rationally: Halo Jones is special, and seeing the character re-purposed in an inappropriate way irritates me in the same way Before Watchmen does.
Well, like I've said elsewhere, I've nothing against his body of work, nor the prospect of more Gibson art in 2000 AD if his health allowed. I just take umbrage at the nature of responses along those lines in interviews. It feels very much of a certain kind of way of thinking these days, arguing that people are somehow being 'PC', despite someone's actions being knowingly provocative and crapping on a legacy for the sake of some press attention. (And 2000 AD _itself_ has form here – remember that Anderson centrefold in some special or other, or that DeMarco cover? So I'm not singling Gibson out. But I am rather hoping this kind of crap becomes history, and also that people who partake in it understand why perhaps they shouldn't have done so.)
EDIT: And having now seen that Durham Red image, I kind of wish I hadn't. The comments thread beneath it is a fucking sewer as well (where the one person who says he's disappointed in the picture is naturally ridiculed).
You can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt8Dxpb3b6E)
I love Ian Gibson's work. I love it when he draws humour, I love it when he draws tech, I love it when he draws Dredd and I love it when he draws cheesecake.
Whatever happens with Gibson i'll always buy what he's involved with (unless it all turns mike reed Brexit fascist racist shit). None of these 'controversies' matter. Ian did a sexy halo jones, Carlos did a sexy Durham red.... big whoop.
Sexy is one thing. Exploitative pseudo-porn bollocks (Red) or 'glamour' model Page-3 poses (Halo) is another. Not least in an industry that still has massive problems with representation, and from a publication that has historically been very male.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 23 September, 2018, 04:58:59 PM
Sexy is one thing. Exploitative pseudo-porn bollocks (Red) or 'glamour' model Page-3 poses (Halo) is another. Not least in an industry that still has massive problems with representation, and from a publication that has historically been very male.
Please pretend I also said all those words in that exact order.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 23 September, 2018, 04:58:59 PM
Sexy is one thing. Exploitative pseudo-porn bollocks (Red) or 'glamour' model Page-3 poses (Halo) is another. Not least in an industry that still has massive problems with representation, and from a publication that has historically been very male.
Such a weirdly conservative Anglo Saxon view of sex and erotica. One highly prescriptive of women's views on their representation and ability to be portrayed as sexual beings. One that also denies the proven popularity of sexual imagery through millennia. I realise twitter might be on the side of your argument but twitter is about as representative as the people's front of Judea.
Not sure what 'an industry that still has massive problems with representation' has got to do with this unless of course you're arguing that Ian Gibson and Carlos Ezquerra have somehow limited the participation of women in the comics industry. And that we should pulp vast works of many of the greats of comics or let Alex di Campi decide whether Manama is beyond the pale but Crepax okay.
The participation of women in the industry is not helped by overtly sexualized imagery produced by men, for men. When women are producing art in to express their own sexuality they rarely paint women on their knees.
The main issue here for me is not that sexy art has no place in comics (there's a full spectrum of comics from cheery cheesecake through the hardest of porn, that's true of ANY medium), but that Halo is a fully-rounded, highly regarded and largely unsexualised female character, one of the first in 2000AD's almost-all-male history - slapping her name on (to my mind) an unconnected bit of boob art to sell more prints is just very poor form.
Halo's other creator has written more than his share of pornography, both explicitly (Lost Girls) and implicitly (LoEG I'm looking at you), with other writers' characters that were never intended for that purpose. But with Halo Jones, a regular woman in a milieu desperately short of them, it just seems wrong.
if one of Halo Jones creators what's to depict her as having a sensual side, a violent side, a maternal side, a fetishistic side, a nasty side, a narcissistic side... that's their right and quite why anyone else feels entitled to delineate what side is / isn't acceptable is beyond me.
Much like those twats complaining about a female doctor who... if you don't like it you know what to do.
Quote from: Modern Panther on 23 September, 2018, 09:11:15 PM
The participation of women in the industry is not helped by overtly sexualized imagery produced by men, for men. When women are producing art in to express their own sexuality they rarely paint women on their knees.
That's a nifty slogan but it's not exactly true. The history of erotica has many women wanting to and exercising creative control of hetero-normative imagery. Plenty of which includes women being on their knees.
Kinda funny 2000ads best cheesecake droid is female. Maybe she should take a long hard look at how's shes oppressing women in the industry.
And even though I have previous in the opposite camp, me too.
I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.
Quote from: Richard on 23 September, 2018, 11:54:15 PM
I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.
No, you're right - Ian Gibson actually co-created Halo Jones so he has even more license to do with the character what he wants than the custodians of the current run if Dr Who have. But in terms of fandom dictating to a creator the point stands. Anything else is conflicting the instance with the principle and imposing your / fanboys own whims over a creators.
Quote from: BPP on 23 September, 2018, 12:38:41 PM
None of these 'controversies' matter.
Except that they actually do matter, because they have a studied material effect (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-child-abuse/201203/the-sexualization-women-and-girls).
As for this "as the co-creator of Halo Jones, his depiction of the character must be accepted as completely valid" shite....well, Alan Moore didn't seem so impressed:
QuoteAccording to Moore, Halo Jones – cited as one of one of the top 50 comic characters by Empire magazine in 2008 – was conceived as "an attempt to introduce a realistically observed and realised female character into the alpha-male dominated line up of 2000AD".
"I fail to see how my original intentions for the character are served by a long-lens shot of her with her 50th-century tits out," he added. "In fact, rather the opposite."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson)
Whose creative opinion seems more valid here: the guy who thought up the character and her world, or the guy who drew her after someone else had thought her up?
Maybe we could ask some of the many women who post on this forum...
Quote from: GordonR on 24 September, 2018, 07:42:09 AM
As for this "as the co-creator of Halo Jones, his depiction of the character must be accepted as completely valid" shite....well, Alan Moore didn't seem so impressed:
QuoteAccording to Moore, Halo Jones – cited as one of one of the top 50 comic characters by Empire magazine in 2008 – was conceived as "an attempt to introduce a realistically observed and realised female character into the alpha-male dominated line up of 2000AD".
"I fail to see how my original intentions for the character are served by a long-lens shot of her with her 50th-century tits out," he added. "In fact, rather the opposite."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson)
Whose creative opinion seems more valid here: the guy who thought up the character and her world, or the guy who drew her after someone else had thought her up?
Both equally. It's not antithetical for Gibson to do one thing with halo and Moore another.
Unless you're advocating returning to the idea of the artists simply being guns for hire and the writer as the sole creator. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.
Quote from: Richard on 23 September, 2018, 11:54:15 PM
I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.
Quite. I'm finding bits of this thread baffling. The entire point of the issues people have about these images is they're entirely about male gaze. It's nothing to do with women, bar as objects for blokes to get off on. And
especially in Halo's case, the fact Gibson cannot see why people were annoyed is astonishing. (As for Red, the image Ezquerra created was grim on several levels, but also we're into Smurfette territory there. She was the only female character of note in the vast majority of Strontium Dog, and was throughout dressed in 'something for the boys' garb. So the obvious next thing to do, clearly, is draw her tits-out, ready to be consumed by two slavering beasts.)
Near as I can tell, the idea is that plenty of women like being portrayed as sex objects, as evidenced by there being some women who work in comics. Not portraying women in this way is sexist, slavishly following cultural norms. Creators can do what they want with their creations, even if its entirely counter to the original concept and the view s of co-creators. And if you don't like women being set free in this way, that's just like the people who think women shouldn't be involved in DrWho, and you just should buy the art, just like they shouldn't watch the show. Also, you probably think that all Ian Gibson art should be pulped. Is that what you want? Well? Is it?!
Yes, that all sounds about right. It's certainly an interesting angle to suggest the agency of women is somehow reduced by people suggesting it's distasteful and not a good idea to title a picture of a semi-random bit of glamour-model art after a feminist comics icon, in order to drum up press and sell a few extra prints. And that this is somehow sexist and basically the same as people who can't stomach a female Doctor. (Mrs IP silent stare after I ran the above past her. Clearly, she's anti-women as well or something.)
Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 September, 2018, 09:38:36 AM
Near as I can tell, the idea is that plenty of women like being portrayed as sex objects, as evidenced by there being some women who work in comics. Not portraying women in this way is sexist, slavishly following cultural norms. Creators can do what they want with their creations, even if its entirely counter to the original concept and the view s of co-creators. And if you don't like women being set free in this way, that's just like the people who think women shouldn't be involved in DrWho, and you just should buy the art, just like they shouldn't watch the show. Also, you probably think that all Ian Gibson art should be pulped. Is that what you want? Well? Is it?!
Far as I can tell you seem to think there is one way for all women to view and express their sexuality and everything else is pandering to the patriarchy, well? Is it?
"Ask me about my Halo-Tits agenda"
Final comment on this thread for me- irregardless of all other perceived issues / absolute nonsense (pick your preference), I'd genuinely love to see the venerable Gibson Droid return to 2000AD.
Maybe even another successful Dredd collaboration with the acclaimed Rennie Droid.
Quote
Far as I can tell you seem to think there is one way for all women to view and express their sexuality and everything else is pandering to the patriarchy, well? Is it?
I think that women can express their sexuality and way they want. I also think that a bloke drawing a picture of a woman for an audience of blokes is not a woman expressing her sexuality. To pretend that its somehow liberating for a male creator in a male dominated industry to take a feminist character and draw her in her pants is an gross simplification. But I'm male, so my views are pretty much irrelevant. As I've said, it would be interesting to hear the views of female boarders...unless, of course, their are hardly any, possibly because they're not drawn to this sort of representation
I was also making fun of the several false dichotomies you introduced into the argument.
Quote from: BPP on 24 September, 2018, 09:51:08 AM
Far as I can tell you seem to think there is one way for all women to view and express their sexuality and everything else is pandering to the patriarchy, well? Is it?
Which woman is expressing her sexuality here? Isn't Halo a fictional character created by two blokes, and her (Rebellion-owned) name was used to sell prints?
IMHO here have been very few images in 2000AD more genuinely sexy than that panel of Luiz Cannibal nuzzling Halo's bare shoulders, so I'm definitely not arguing that the character herself doesn't have a sexual identity. But let's be honest: that print had nothing to do with Halo.
Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 September, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
Quote
Far as I can tell you seem to think there is one way for all women to view and express their sexuality and everything else is pandering to the patriarchy, well? Is it?
I think that women can express their sexuality and way they want. I also think that a bloke drawing a picture of a woman for an audience of blokes is not a woman expressing her sexuality. To pretend that its somehow liberating for a male creator in a male dominated industry to take a feminist character and draw her in her pants is an gross simplification. But I'm male, so my views are pretty much irrelevant. As I've said, it would be interesting to hear the views of female boarders...unless, of course, their are hardly any, possibly because they're not drawn to this sort of representation
I was also making fun of the several false dichotomies you introduced into the argument.
Likewise my reply to your own sweeping generalisations and reductive totalising. No surprise you missed it tho.
Oh well, count me out of the faux morale outrage brigade and say that whatever a creator wants to do with their work is up to them and not me. Toodle pip.
No. I got it.
Quote from: BPP on 24 September, 2018, 08:41:43 AM
Quote from: GordonR on 24 September, 2018, 07:42:09 AM
Whose creative opinion seems more valid here: the guy who thought up the character and her world, or the guy who drew her after someone else had thought her up?
Both equally. It's not antithetical for Gibson to do one thing with halo and Moore another.
Unless you're advocating returning to the idea of the artists simply being guns for hire and the writer as the sole creator. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.
Occasionally the artist is a hired gun for hire, just drawing what somebody else has written and little more. Very rarely the opposite is true (most recently I'm thinking of Michael Carroll writing new words for John Higgins' Razorjack - going back a bit Simon Harrison create Revere and got John Smith to turn it into a story, though I don't know how much of each went in to the final product).
For Halo, though, right from the beginning the two of them create Halo and her world - you'd actually have to have been there in the studios, pubs, telephone conversations and IPC offices (or wherever they hammered out the details) to truly know who created what. I wouldn't place either of them above the other as co-creator status, except maybe for Book II, which Gibson is on record as saying was partially dialled-in.
I agree with Sheridan; the issue isn't whether one co-creator's views should take precedence over the other's, or whether artists should always defer to writers, or whose contribution was more important or creative. After all, if Alan Moore had written a misogynist prose story about Halo and Gibson had denounced it, I'd be on Gibson's side in that one. But it was the other way round.
I'm happy to agree that artist and writer co-creators have an equal right to have a say in what happens to their characters. But it doesn't follow that they both must be right, or even that their views are equally valid. For me, this controversy turns on two issues (not necessarily in any order of importance):
1) Rebellion owns Halo Jones. I don't know what the law or what Gibson's contract say about any of this, but legal niceties aside, I think it's a little bit off to unilaterally publish a picture of someone's intellectual property (whatever the circumstances of why they own it and not you) -- expressly labelled as that character -- which looks nothing like how they were depicted throughout the entire body of work for which they are famous (especially given point 2).
2) Halo Jones is a rare example, especially for the 1980s, of a female character in a comic (or any other SF medium) who was portrayed as a strong, resourceful etc heroine without also having to get her kit off. Gratuitous nudity is always a cheap trick, and I'm not being prudish here -- I love nudity, but there's a time and a place for it: porn is fine with me, but Halo with her tits out is a different kettle of fish -- I feel like it undermines the integrity of the character or the work she appeared in. Does that make any sense? Tordelback made a good point about this: Halo isn't asexual, she had a boyfriend in Book Three, but that was shown much more subtly and maturely than the infantile, in-your-face image that looks like something from Zoo or Nuts (if they did paintings instead of photos). This picture is nothing like that, it's completely unlike all previous depictions of the character, and for no good reason at all. I won't presume to speak for female readers, but I think it was a huge error.
I'd have let Gibson off if he'd apologised, if it was just a momentary lapse of judgement, and I'd have forgotten all about it. But he's dug himself in and joined battle, with no recognition of the other point of view and no leg to stand on, so if I want to see his work again I'll re-read Verdus.
P. S.: I meant to say: I'm not offended by it, I just massively disagree with it.
^What he said.^
Quote from: matty_ae on 19 September, 2018, 03:54:35 PM
I thought Ian Gibson's interview in today's Megazine 400 was excellent.
Clearly if his health allows, the man is willing to work for 2000ad again so let's make it happen.
That is all.
Nobody is
seriously suggesting a day-one living legend of
2000ad should be ostracised over a single tacky image*, so I interpret the preceding four pages of tangential rhubarb as a collective effort to keep Matty's original, well-intentioned suggestion in the public eye.
I love Ian Gibson's work too,
Matty. I doubt his personal problems would allow him to create new strip art, but if Tharg wanted to give Gibson an open-ended commission for generic covers** that could be completed as and when his difficulties allow, I'd be delighted.
* If Tharg chooses not to work with Gibson because of the way he exited Samantha Slade, that's a different matter and entirely up to him. Difficult not to reassess that exit in the light of his subsequent problems, though, regardless of the reasons Gibson insists were behind his actions.
** As I presume he did with Cliff Robinson.
Sometimes it is best to forgive and to forget. I will love to see his work in the prog again.
I was re-reading Halo Jones (the colored versions) and this just made me more want to see him return. I would really like if we can have more Halo Jones but that is wishful thinking from my side.
Quote from: Frank on 24 September, 2018, 07:04:56 PM
Nobody is seriously suggesting a day-one living legend of 2000ad should be ostracised over a single tacky image*, so I interpret the preceding four pages of tangential rhubarb as a collective effort to keep Matty's original, well-intentioned suggestion in the public eye.
Quite so.
I'd love to see Ian Gibson do covers for further collected reprints & maybe a few images of Halo's possible futures. He's a definitive 2000ad artist and a singular talent.
I agree Frank
I was just thinking that a lot of Meg interviews in the past seem to lead to either cover work or a couple of one-offs. Certainly this has proved the case for Ian Kennedy, Gerry Finley-Day etc.
As the Meg is edited by Matt Smith I thought the door for some sort of return, might have opened and I thought a ground swell of fan love for Ian Gibson might be the push needed to open it wider.
I hope that's still the case.
Quote from: Frank on 24 September, 2018, 07:04:56 PM
Quote from: matty_ae on 19 September, 2018, 03:54:35 PM
I thought Ian Gibson's interview in today's Megazine 400 was excellent.
Clearly if his health allows, the man is willing to work for 2000ad again so let's make it happen.
That is all.
Nobody is seriously suggesting a day-one living legend of 2000ad should be ostracised over a single tacky image*, so I interpret the preceding four pages of tangential rhubarb as a collective effort to keep Matty's original, well-intentioned suggestion in the public eye.
I love Ian Gibson's work too, Matty. I doubt his personal problems would allow him to create new strip art, but if Tharg wanted to give Gibson an open-ended commission for generic covers** that could be completed as and when his difficulties allow, I'd be delighted.
* If Tharg chooses not to work with Gibson because of the way he exited Samantha Slade, that's a different matter and entirely up to him. Difficult not to reassess that exit in the light of his subsequent problems, though, regardless of the reasons Gibson insists were behind his actions.
** As I presume he did with Cliff Robinson.
Quite bemused by this thread, some saying Alan Moore is owed an apology, himself saying it's not what he intended for his character.
Eeeerhemmmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls
Pot calling kettle black, you receiving over?
As for Carlos and Durham Red, it was a commission for character he established, so what?
Neither were for the mass market. Both fall well within the boundaries of freedom of speech and expression- some folk need to get over themselves, Mary Whitehouse redux we don't need.
(http://static.cdn.ubi.com/0034/int/forum/pictures/2015_10_halloween/zombie.gif)
I'd love to see Ian Gibson back for 2000ad in any capacity. I'd love to imagine he's busy on a new cover for the inevitable collection of the re-coloured material, health permitting. I've loved his Dredd, Halo, Slade and always wished he'd done more Anderson, Tomb of the Judges was a cracker!