Meg 224 - Incredible Thong

[The Amstor Computer]

Conexus:

Disagree with Si, dislike the piece - I think you'd have a lot of company there - but there's no need for slinging insults at him.

[Demon Chicken]

Frank: - It's only Si, he enjoys these sorts of things.  We can't have his ego getting too big, he might thing he can write or somethign :-P

[Tiplodocus]

Yes. That is out of order. You are hereby banished to Luton.

[Dudley]

Ooooh!  Now that's nasssssty!

[Patrick]

Here's some thoughts.

Bite Fight: unremarkable generic Dredd story - until the last page. This could be fun.

Simping Detective: "Innocence: a Broad" is a fantastic title, the art's lovely, and I now know more about DeMarco's personal grooming habits than I think I needed to.

Burnsy interview: interesting generally, but I thought his comments on Si Fraser were uncalled for, not to mention plain wrong. Dante was the most exciting strip in tooth for years, down in large part to the way Si drew it and brought the character and his world to life. Morrison has never looked so good a writer with any other artist. Burnsy's a fine artist, but making him Dante's lead artist killed the strip.

Shimura. And still Andy Clarke gets better. Nice colouring too. Early days for the story, but a promising start.

Anderson seems to treading water a bit, but a nice start to Middenface with some lovely Ridgway scribbles.

Heatseekers: there's something about a section that reviews nothing but geek stuff - superhero films, Star Trek, comics and anime - but is so defensive and sneery in its desperation to not be seen as geeky that leaves a bit of an unpleasant taste. Oh, and Spurrier, I take it we can expect to see Bec and Kawl combating Chechen school hijackers instead of tooth fairies and Vertigo parodies some time soon?

Meat Patrol: made me laugh, and I'm warming to Coleby's art.

[Richmond Clements]

Being contraversial in a review is the easiest thing in the world.
It's there to prevoke just this sort of reaction. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[Bad Andy]

What's the score with the reaction to the text pages then?

I think with a little tweaking they could be an interesting part of the Meg. If the text stories and interviews can keep up with that kind of quality and some tweaking is done on the other columns, I reckon they will fit in nicely.

Or would people prefer to see more reprint again?

[Bolt-01]

I'd rather give the time for the articles to develop.

Or failing that they should run Sprouts articles from the 2000adreview site.

Bolt-01

[The Amstor Computer]

I'd quite like to see the text pages stay, but I'd prefer something more in line with Jonathan Clement's piece on Ghost in the Shell than Si's Spiderman article, or the Star Trek column.

[paulvonscott]

Yup, I think all the articles are a good idea, give it a bit more general appeal and have some informative stuff in it.  I don't think we should bring Roxilla back though :)

No, despite the few points I made about the text articles before, I thought the new Meg was a good idea, and the way forward.

They do need to be better, I want to be informed and entertained by em.

[penelopecat]

Have to admit, on first glance, I wasn't impressed by Si's Spider-Man 2 review either.  It just seemed to completely miss the point.  Then I gave it a second read, and realized that it was really an essay about how silly comic book superhero standards appear when thrust into the real world, disguised as a review of Spider-Man 2.

And I still wasn't impressed.  Because, yeah, that's a position you can argue, and you can agree with it or not, but as something insightful and interesting, it's about as groundbreaking as someone pointing out the subtext of conflict and angst in Hamlet.

Andrew

[VampiraJen]

Then I gave it a second read, and realized that it was really an essay about how silly comic book superhero standards appear when thrust into the real world, disguised as a review of Spider-Man 2.

what gets my is that he's saying  silly looking blue and red spandex looks stupid in realistic style film (so does a guy with four mechanical arms).  but it's a film.  it's make believe.  it's fantasy.  it's enertainment.  it's not supose to be taken as seriously or as cynically as si has (unless it's really bad, and i don't think it is)

i mean, look at dredd.  i'm sorry, but he looks silly in that uniform.  he looked silly in the film, but no one moans and bitches about that aspects of the film (coz everything else was bad, okay bad example....errr......)  no one moans that the x-men are runing around in black leather (black is cool, okay another bad example.....)  okay, wolverine looks a twat in yellow spandex, but it's just a bunch of pretty pictures.  it's not suppose to be taken seriously.

i just don't understand why si has done so much bitching about it.  i mean, it's just entertainment.  if you don't like it, don't watch it, and don't bother going to see spiderman 3.  



Jen, who hasn't seen spiderman 2





P.S.  i have no idea what the purpous of the above is.

[Devons Daddy]

just received mine.

F%@K ME. you aint kidding.

MR Spurrier, you may well have created the greastest new character this decade in 2000ad with simping dectective.
and just for the record
(sadcomicfanboy mode on).MR IRVING,NOW THATS ART!
CLAP CLAP CLAP.i am sure you may well have a few beers passed you way with nothing more then a nod of appreacation should you be at dreddcon.
JOE whats wrong with you Man?
you turned her down??


as for the rest of the meg.
creative team in charge.
finest piece of printed matter ever to have the words Judge Dredd Megazine as its title.

[JayzusB.Christ]

This might be a bit late, but yes, Eason's has the Megazine in, I bought it there on Thursday. Great Megazine, by the way.

[El Spurioso]

Folks - not going to respond to each poster seperately for the simple fact that it's not going to make any difference: I'd simply say that the point of the "Heatseeker" section, as I understand it, is not to offer deeply instructional/informative reviews, but to provide entertaining and/or provocative column-style opinion-pieces regarding cultural artefacts (read: stuff) currently in the spotlight.  Maybe you don't think they were entertaining, maybe you don't think they were provocative, maybe you don't think they were either:  whatever the score, there was at no point an instruction saying "Thou Shalt Agree".  It ain't journalism, it ain't an essay, and if you don't agree with the opinions contained therein, it's really not the end of the world.

As for calling someone a twat because you disagree with them, especially in an enlightened forum like this; I'd like to believe that would go down like the pigshit-laden juvenile arseballoon it so clearly is. [shrug]