Dudes! What's with the cover on Prog 1827?!?

ChickenStu · 10 April, 2013, 09:18:26 PM

Look, you know I love you guys and am a huge fan - but the cover this week was a bit much wasn't it?

When my wife picked it up from the newsagents for me earlier, she had a RIGHT look of disgust on her face when she handed it to me, and told me to put it upstairs straight away so the kids didn't see it!

I know 2000AD can be very gory at times, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I kinda like it! But a headless dude on the front cover?!?! My newsagent only gets in two copies a week now, and always kind of reserve one for me. The one they have left behind they have no choice to put out with the kids comics cause there is no other room on their shelves. Apparently, the lady behind the counter wasn't impressed either.

This isn't a complaint, it's just a bit of a moan - so please take it the way it was intended and don't flame me. I just felt something had to be said, that's all.

Hawkmumbler · 10 April, 2013, 10:13:17 PM

Although lavish and a bit bloody good to boot I have to agree with CS on this. Perhapse a tad to far is all.

vzzbux · 10 April, 2013, 10:21:01 PM

I am quite comfortable letting my kids see this cover. 5 and 8 respectively. They are not shocked or disgusted by it at all. Your wife is over reacting a little there.

V

IndigoPrime · 10 April, 2013, 10:29:12 PM

I thought it was cartoonish. I've seen a lot worse.

Mabs · 10 April, 2013, 10:30:47 PM

Having had the pleasure of seeing the cover up close today after purhasing it, i must confess it's a work of bloody art - quite literally! i can understand the reaction from people though, the image is quite eye grabbing and gory, but damn me, i'm impressed with Mr. Percival's work here!

I, Cosh · 10 April, 2013, 11:55:21 PM

Don't really see the problem myself. Isn't that the sort of thing children find entertaining?

JOE SOAP · 11 April, 2013, 12:00:06 AM

Childsplay. These are far more disturbing:

I, Cosh · 11 April, 2013, 12:11:38 AM

This one sprang to mind for me. My 12th Prog

Colin YNWA · 11 April, 2013, 08:22:25 AM

Though I was only 5 when these came out I always remember the early Flesh covers being very shocking as a kid. In a good way though. In a 'That's so cool I get to see this stuff way." not in a giving me nightmares making me go out and burn cats way. The two that sprang straight to my mind were.

http://www.2000ad.org/functions/cover.php?choice=3&Comic=2000ad

http://www.2000ad.org/functions/cover.php?choice=17&Comic=2000ad

2000ad has a good long history of shocking, brutal covers and for me, though these things are of course very personal, this weeks cover just sits firmly in that tradition. As Indigo Prime says it strikes me as very cartoony and clearly not very serious or, to me, scary at all. If anything its a bit of silly fun.

stacey · 11 April, 2013, 09:21:36 AM

I think it's gorgeous, my little one didn't batter an eyelid. She is *my* kid though so ya nah!

Proudhuff · 11 April, 2013, 09:59:44 AM

its a comic, kids love that gorey stuff

I'd be more worried about the violence to droids and its proximity to the Freudian neck hole...

mygrimmbrother · 11 April, 2013, 12:47:15 PM

I don't mind the gore, just thought it was a terrible painting.

Mister Macheath · 11 April, 2013, 02:00:17 PM

It isn't my favourite cover of all time but that's mostly due to it seeming overly flat, with some wonky perspectives going on. I don't find it particularly gruesome, just a bit fun and silly in an adventure movie kinda way. Slightly evocative of The Goonies et al.

I guess it mightn't be well placed next to magazines aimed at mich younger children, maybe there's somewhere else your newsagent could make room for the prog if it is a concern.

As has been said though, there have been faaaar more disturbing covers in the past and personally I sure hope to see many more that push the envelope a bit. No compromise on Thrillpower!

Mabs · 11 April, 2013, 02:19:31 PM

I think it's better to have a visual representation of the cover in question, just for anyone who's yet to pick up the copy...

I still thinks it's a beautiful piece of work by Nick Percival. And it makes a whole difference seeing it up close too. When i saw it online it looked way more gruesome and more photoreal i suppose because of the size of the image. But up close you can see the work better and like IndigoPrime has cited, it's more cartoony. I think the freudian hole at the stump (if you believe it is indeed freudian!) is what makes it a little gory. Probably just a stump would've elicited less reaction, well probably. But that's one of the things i love about this cover, the fact it's creating this debate.

coastguardjackuk · 11 April, 2013, 02:47:03 PM

Can't agree with that one. There's not even barely any red on the cover at all. OK, gore doesn't necessarily have to have any red (TWD) but they kind of go hand in hand. Funny enough a REAL shock horror gory cover might just be enough to get the tabloids in a frenzy and get some publicity which probably WOULD get some new readers on board.