Main Menu

High Rise of the Robots! -- Megazine 261

Started by The Amstor Computer, 23 July, 2007, 06:39:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rio De Fideldo

To clarify I was replying to Werepire's contention that artists wouldn't stoop to trawling the message board

Leigh S

Heh - I'm going to pretend you're not Pat so i can make a defence of the article and BOS without seeming like a suck up!

Firstly, the article - thought it was great. I still learnt new things in there, such as a bit about Slaine and a helmet, which was interesting, given that scene where Slaine is offended by the suggestion he should wear a helemt always struck me as a great summation fo the character

Also there was more detail about the Ken Reid thing (my post about Ken being the first art to actually make me sit up and listen went off to an alternate dimension thread)

Talking of which... Blood of Satanus III - For me, if its not written by Wagner nowadays, its not 'really' Dredd.  Rennie, Spurrier, Edgington, even Grant.  So, with that in mind, would I rather have a pastiche of Wagners style that rarely feels right, or something so bonkers that it just exists in its own right?  I think a lot of the ideas would have been perhaps better served in their own character and story, as I think they are pretty groovy in Pats usual inimitable style - theres enough world building material to spin off a totally independent thing.  Even so, the further from Mega City it gets, the more I'm enjoying it for what it is.

Its not that I want safe from my Dredd - I want Wanger from my Dredd, so mental is better than sub-Wagner, if that makes any sense!

Werepire

well, there's criticism, which I think a lot of artists take on board and you can actually see the work develop as a result....... and then there's shit slinging - I don't think I'd bother with looking at it either if I was a writer, too much to wade through.

Leigh S

I want wanger from my Dredd...

put it on my Tombstone!

Trout

Check the detail, the action, the IMAGINATION

None of which matters if the story is difficult to follow. It defeats the purpose of printing it in a comic. The aim is to tell a story which people might want to pay money for. This crap's got me thinking of cancelling the Meg.

Blood of Satanus III is simply bad, in my opinion.
I think it's possibly the worst story 2000AD or the Meg have ever printed.

The story is bad enough - with poor characterisation, silly dialogue and a narrative that's far, far too loose - but the art is its worst element.

I was never much of a Hicklenton fan, but this is a new low. It's a mess. It looks like it was done on the bus in a hurry. This isn't creativity. This isn't radical comic art. This is confused, slapdash shit.

Werepire, your argument is damaged by your personal attack on members of this board and what seems to be a generalisation about comic fans, or 2000AD fans.

Why don't you continue to undermine yourself by attacking me? I've got a life, by the way. I'm a fulfilled and happy person.

I also hold my temper better than you.

- Trout

paulvonscott

"I want wanger from my Dredd..."

'put it on my Tombstone!'

Are you REALLY sue that's what you want, Leigh?

Werepire

I'm not attacking you personally, and I certainly haven't lost my temper. It's more about the way a lot of people seem to represent themselves here and I've just got a bit bored and frustrated with the general vibe. Criticism's a good thing, rudeness/spite another.  Take Keith from wherever's letter to Tharg this month, and how many times he said he "hates doing this, but...". He loved it. If they've got something to say, say it, but say it well, I say!!

I'm sending you all unconditional love.

Trout

I'm sending you all unconditional love.

Erk! Use protection, kids!

Werepire, your boredom and frustration is noted and understood. Your opinion's valued. Please post more and keep sticking up for Satanus!

- Trout

Bad Andy

I think it's possibly the worst story 2000AD or the Meg have ever printed.

It is the only story I have EVER stopped reading in Tooth or the Meg. Granted I'm not the longest running reader but I have a solid eight years under my belt.

The writing was starting to improve just before I stopped, but I just couldn't get past the art anymore. I find it looks like an overenthusiastic A-Level art project.

I've started to wonder if this is in there to make the Small Press stuff look better! (only kidding)

Richmond Clements

Satanus is a bizarre one.
I like the art, but apart from moments of lucidity now and again, the script is just tosh. Though to be fair, I sometimes think Pat's taking the piss when he writes something as bad as this, because surely it must be deliberate?

And am I the only one who finds his admirable defence of Angie Kincaid as the co-creator and first artist on Slaine jarr somewhat with his decision to use an artist other than Carlos for the first Dredd strip?

Leigh S


Trout

I find it very easy to separate Mills the editor from Mills the writer.

He used invasive surgery on scripts during the early days of 2000AD and laid the foundations of the best comic in British history. I can't fault him for it, even if he rode roughshod over people's feelings then.

But it's been a long time since then. I can understand if his opinions have changed or if, while he's on the other side of the fence, he argues very strongly for creators' rights. I see it as circumstance, not hypocrisy.

This is where Molcher pops up and points out I'm a dirty turncoat for going from writing to subbing...

Also, excuse the mixed metaphors. I'm on holiday this week...

- Trout

thinky

I find it very easy to separate Mills the editor from Mills the writer.

He used invasive surgery on scripts during the early days of 2000AD and laid the foundations of the best comic in British history. I can't fault him for it, even if he rode roughshod over people's feelings then.


i think that's a neat and accurate summary of the two sides of Pat's influence. It's very obvious that his drive and experience made 2thou what it was (and ultimately what it became). I'd go even further and say that his story ideas (along with Wagner of course) helped shape the kind of story required, giving a template to future and aspiring comic writers.

however, his hit-miss ratio is quite low these days. i like defoe (although if it's book 1 of x i may well scream), and love savage (all of them!), but everything else... nah, it's not for me, and i'm entitled to say so.

touching on comments by Rufus on another thread re abuse given out to creators, i think it's okay to say "i think that story is shite", but not to say "i think that writer is shite"

i know one kinda follows the other - and that a creater may be viewed as only being as good as their last piece of work - but that's my opinion

thinky
you think this isn't me? that's so sweet...
//http://www.adverseCamber.co.uk

Trout

Mills' work is subject to such direct criticism, I think, because it stands out from the crowd. That's no bad thing.

I finally had time to reread Mike Molcher's rather good article in depth (Rose is finally in bed!) and it's made me want to add two thoughts to my earlier comments:

1) I have no problem with Mills changing his tune since he was an editor, and I fully believe he's worthy of respect as an established creator and 2000AD's greatest-ever ideas man (IMO).
But I think it's a very dangerous thing to have someone who, due to his ability to assert himself, is subject to different editorial standards than everyone else.

I just don't understand how Blood of Satanus passed the editorial stage. Someone should always have the authority and courage say, "Hang on - this isn't good enough. We need the following changes..."

2) Related to that is my reaction to Mills' constant use of the word "political" in the Meg article.

It's not about politics - it's about the politics of one man. I happened to love Third World War and similar Mills stories, but because they were good stories.
The political element added spice, and I even agreed with a lot of it, but was never the main draw for me.

Blood of Satanus III commits the cardinal sin - it's not a good story.
It doesn't matter how weird or creative it is, if it doesn't hold the reader's attention as a story, it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

- Trout

I, Cosh

At the bottom of the fifth page of the Dredd it says 'Profits go to the Baron Ambrosemission' rather than the Byron Ambrose mission. I hope someone gets fired over that howler!

I thought that was a vital clue.
We never really die.