Forthcoming Thrills!

[Hawkmumbler]

It'll be interesting to see if Anderson's Crusade is as bad as everyone make's it out to be...

[Grant Goggans]

It isn't.  It isn't good, but it's not as bad as its reputation.  For one, the frequently-mentioned scene of "nuking" millions of children never actually happens.

[Molch-R]

The IDW cover is definitely not Bolland; all his computer coloured work has layer upon layer of eggshell textures and a distinctive palette. I haven't checked his fantastically cranky blog for a while, but if he hasn't seen this image already the email I'm about to send him will produce something that makes his berating of Erró Gudmundur, the Icelandic fine artist who 'appropriated' his Tank Girl cover, look like a pleasant chat between old friends.

If Bolland took umbrage at John Higgins's decent colour work on The Killing Joke, god knows what he'll make of this.

God, I bet you were popular at school. For the record, Brian has not only seen and approved the cover but he's also written an introduction for the book. This is nothing like the incident you mention (which was a case of plagiarism) and your comments are highly insulting to IDW, everyone at 2000 AD, and Brian himself.

I would like an apology to all concerned, please.

[radiator]

ISTR reading that there is going to be both B&W and coloured versions of the Bolland and Ezquerra IDW books - is that right?

[IndigoPrime]

On Anderson, I guess I wasn't too far off with my estimate, then. It's a pity the book won't quite wrap up 'old' Anderson (i.e. all the stuff before the current Meg era), but the flip side of that is a more complete set of strips from annuals, which I wasn't expecting, so: hurrah!

Crusade: not read that in years, but I recall it being OK. Still, most of the problems I've had with Anderson have been catastrophic events not remotely referred to in Dredd, and so whereas at one time the strips were clearly heavily linked, they ended up feeling like two entirely separate continuities. On their own, however, the run in my recollection varied from readable to very good indeed, and the 'Satan' stuff (included in the upcoming book) was when I read it a genuinely hard-hitting story with some great character work (including a [spoiler]typically glacial Dredd shift in attitude towards Anderson, which felt very right and also similar to how he was in the recent film[/spoiler]).

[Frank]

The IDW cover is definitely not Bolland; all his computer coloured work has layer upon layer of eggshell textures and a distinctive palette. I haven't checked his fantastically cranky blog for a while, but if he hasn't seen this image already the email I'm about to send him will produce something that makes his berating of Erró Gudmundur, the Icelandic fine artist who 'appropriated' his Tank Girl cover, look like a pleasant chat between old friends.

If Bolland took umbrage at John Higgins's decent colour work on The Killing Joke, god knows what he'll make of this.

God, I bet you were popular at school. For the record, Brian has not only seen and approved the cover but he's also written an introduction for the book. This is nothing like the incident you mention (which was a case of plagiarism) and your comments are highly insulting to IDW, everyone at 2000 AD, and Brian himself.

I would like an apology to all concerned, please.

If you felt insulted personally or professionally by anything in that post, Michael, I apologise - but the comparison to the Gudmundur incident you mention was made with reference to the imagined scale of Bolland's reaction, not the act of repurposing the artwork. Bolland actually replied to my email, confirming that he'd been involved in the production of the book; and since Bolland does not disapprove of Kirchoff's colouring, my conjecture regarding the scale of his reaction has no more validity than my speculation on the nature of his reaction.

[Jim_Campbell]

Sorry, sauchie, but that's the weaseliest attempt at a non-apology I've seen on the Internet in quite some time. The intent of your original post was either very clear or catastrophically open to misinterpretation. Either way, man up. Offence is in the eye of the offended, and apologies are free. Even I'm not this much of a dick.

Cheers

Jim

[Frank]

Sorry, sauchie, but that's the weaseliest attempt at a non-apology I've seen on the Internet in quite some time. The intent of your original post was either very clear or catastrophically open to misinterpretation. Either way, man up. Offence is in the eye of the offended, and apologies are free. Even I'm not this much of a dick.

My last sentence says that Bolland likes the book and I was talking shite.

[Jim_Campbell]

My last sentence says that Bolland likes the book and I was talking shite.

I have an honours degree in English and I didn't read it that way. Perhaps my comprehension skills are lacking, or perhaps yours was a weaselly non-apology. I don't much give a fuck.

Bah. Again.

Jim

[Molch-R]

If you felt insulted personally or professionally by anything in that post, Michael, I apologise - but the comparison to the Gudmundur incident you mention was made with reference to the imagined scale of Bolland's reaction, not the act of repurposing the artwork. Bolland actually replied to my email, confirming that he'd been involved in the production of the book; and since Bolland does not disapprove of Kirchoff's colouring, my conjecture regarding the scale of his reaction has no more validity than my speculation on the nature of his reaction.

It's not really about me at all - and I'm afraid Jim's right, that's a very mealy mouthed 'apology' for your actions, which are not those of someone keen to support 2000 AD and the wider brand. For reasons I can only imagine, you took it upon yourself to run off and tell tales to teacher without considering for a second that IDW had got this covered. Your assumption was insulting to them and insulting to us. Please consider yourself on indefinite warning.

[TordelBack]

Blimey, what a to-do.  I'm afraid I read Sauchie's apology/clarification entirely differently - to me it was a simple admission of being wrong, in itself a rarity on the internet. 

I'm not sure why he has to apologise for communicating his mistaken concerns to Bolland, or why he has to take it as fact that IDW would automatically do things properly with regard to creators (although they obviously did) - the US comics industry isn't exactly known for it, so I think a bit of wary scepticism is, in gereal, justified. If Bolland hadn't been involved, he was well within his rights to tell him, and if he had been consulted (as he was), then what harm?  He got a correction from the horse's mouth, and reported it here. 

Does this really justify an 'indefinite warning' for a contributor who is consistently supportive of 2000AD and its creators, as well as generally being amusing and informed?

And BTW, I love that cover, the little flying thing in particular makes it Dredd and not FuturoFascist No. 35.

[Molch-R]

I'm not sure why he has to apologise for communicating his mistaken concerns to Bolland, or why he has to take it as fact that IDW would automatically do things properly with regard to creators (although they obviously did) - the US comics industry isn't exactly known for it, so I think a bit of wary scepticism is, in gereal, justified. If Bolland hadn't been involved, he was well within his rights to tell him, and if he had been consulted (as he was), then what harm?  He got a correction from the horse's mouth, and reported it here.  Does this really justify an 'indefinite warning' for a contributor who is consistently supportive of 2000AD and its creators, as well as generally being amusing and informed?

Yes, it does. And this is not a debate.

[TordelBack]

And this is not a debate.

That much is obvious.  I'll assume this is a corporate relations matter, and not one of manners or propriety, and leave it there.

[Pioneer]

Anyone know anything about the recently released Dredd/Batman files and its availability over here? Doesn't seem to be readily available on Amazon even though its saying it was released on the 4th, does that mean it's not actually out yet or that it's been released and the first lot have sold out?

[Batman's Superior Cousin]

It's already arrived at my house, via Amazon UK and is currently awaiting Christmas morning!!!