2000 AD Online Forum

Cover -- Lovely stuff

Dredd -- Gorgeous art & a great surprise (or it should have been - more in a mo')

Anderson -- Plodding along, this hasn't really engaged me yet & the strip art lacks something that the cover has

Satanus -- Mental art & mental script. There's little point complaining about it, so I'm just enjoying the lunatic ride & treating it as fan-fic from some obscure indy comic

Reapermen -- Still great, and one of the great 2K missed opportunities IMO

The Angel Gang -- Fun, but beginning to lose me a little in spite of some clever moments & some gorgeous art from Roberts

Text Features -- Molcher & Berridge hit the mark while  the film articles miss as usual

Small Press -- Meh.

Letters -- I must admit I did have a little snigger at Matt's skewering in the last letter. Sorry!

...and back to my Dredd complaint:

What idiot thought it would be a good idea to ruin the surprise in this month's Dredd by plastering it on the cover of the Meg? Thanks a bundle, whoever you are.

I didn't read the cover, so it was a suprise to me!

I was annoyed by the cover spoiler, too, but then I realised Maybe's involvement was hardly treated as a big revelation in the story. He simply turns up on the third page.

I think this is a bloody good Meg. The lead Dredd is second-to-none. The continuing adventures of PJ Maybe are some of the best parts of Dredd over the years. MORE!

I'm enjoying Anderson a bit more, but mainly due to the art. I think it's one of those occasional stories to suffer from the Meg's frequency. It would've been better in the weekly, perhaps, given its action-heavy and text-light make-up.

The reprint's very interesting. It's a half-decent story and, although it's recognisably Jock, it's obviously his early work! Is that a Dean Ormston influence there?

Lastly, the Angel Gang story roars along at a blistering pace. I'm loving every page.
Somehow, Si Spurrier's developing these much-loved characters in interesting ways, but staying true to a long-term reader's familiarity with them.
That's bloody difficult to do, and I am deeply impressed.
At the same time the story's really entertaining and the art's a delight.
Give these buggers a pay rise, Meg-Tharg.

Blood of Satan's Arse, as the editor himself has dubbed it, remains unreadable. I made only a half-hearted effort. Life's too short and you're a long time dead.

I also enjoyed the small press story and Revenge of the 1970s, although it could've been given a bit more room. Strong stuff.

I'm looking forward to Mike Molcher's article on Pat Mills. I've skimmed it and it looks good.

Overall verdict: much-improved. The Meg's getting there...

- Trout

I'm with Trout over Anderson, there's just not enough each month to keep up the pace.
It feels like a story paced for 2000ad ended up in the Meg.

Still avoiding Blood of Satanus, I just can't look at the art.

Dredd was top notch.  Always nice to see PJ in the pikshure.

I maintain we are due an apology over Blood of Pat's Anus.

I maintain we are due an apology over Blood of Pat's Anus.

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!

as much as i enjoyed mr molcher's article, for me the timing was a bit unfortunate due to it's proximity to the release of TPO

i'm very much aware of Pat Mills' standing and his massive contribution to the direction and survival of 2thou, but i'm all Millsed out due to (para)phrases such as "they knew if i created it, it was a guaranteed success... if someone else created it, it would be a massive failure"

this could be due to his massive ego or - as is equally likely - his continued and prolonged resentment at his treatement (perceived or otherwise) at the hands of various bosses, and the continual struggle for creator rights

either way, he's been a bit too much "in your face" recently.

thinky

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)

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?

Maybe a lesson learnt by Pat?

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

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

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

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.

I really like Henry Flints new art style on Dredd. But did anybody else think the colours slightly drown it somewhat when compared to the pages shown in the Meg interview? I think I would have preferred if it had been printed in black & white.

"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."

[Round of applause]

Cheers!

Jim

Well, I actually quite liked the first episode of BOTSIII. The bored shopgirl narration as Hell opened up was funny and I was willing to cut the artist some slack as the good grotesque bits made up for some sloppy drawing elsewhere. Two months ago it managed a couple of really cracking lines from Dredd which redeemed it very slightly, but this month's is just beyond the pale.

The "story" is a sequence of incomprehensible leaps interspersed with stilted dialogue: "However, when the doc has finished developing our new bullets it will be another matter." anyone? There are still good things in the art but they are so outnumbered my brain is ready to give up. As an example, look at Page 4, Panel 3: that's not detail or action or imagination, it's just plain bad.

As Rufus says, nobody sets out to produce bad art (except me, as "bad" is so far above the level I'm capable of it'd be like winning the Nobel prize) and I actually feel a bit sorry for John Hicklenton being thrown in at the deep end in this way. It would perhaps have been preferable for him to get back into the Prog with a Terror Tale or somesuch before being asked to produce a more lengthy work. Unfortunate.

See, my view with writing reviews is this:
You cannot just say 'This is shite.'
But you can say 'This is shite', if you follow it up with 'and this is why:'
If you're going to be vitriolic about someones work, you better have good fucking reasons to do so.

"See, my view with writing reviews is this:
You cannot just say 'This is shite.'
But you can say 'This is shite', if you follow it up with 'and this is why:'
If you're going to be vitriolic about someones work, you better have good fucking reasons to do so."

I agree with you absolutely. Mind you, not everyone has just been saying, "This is shite." Some people have pointed out the poor dialogue in general, the poor Dredd dialogue specifically, and the rather disorded and incoherent way they story is being told. Even I - as a huge fan of Hicklenton's art for Nemesis - am finding his work here messy.

Just calling it shite is lazy criticism, but it's not far from the truth.

Regards

Robin

"If you're going to be vitriolic about someones work, you better have good fucking reasons to do so."

Hear, hear!

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.

is it this that allows Mills' work in 2thou to always be six pages long, while many other writers have to make do with five?

thinky

Wagner gets six pages.

Wagner gets six pages.

yep, i know that not everyone has to make do with a meagre five, which is why i wrote "many other writers" instead of "all other writers"

it would be impossible for all writers to get six pages anyway as 6x5 = 30 + cover + back = the alloted 32...

please don't everyone give me a roll-call for all other 6page-rich writers thanks ;)

thinky

"Wagner gets six pages."

Could he be given 30, please? Except for when there's a new Dante or Strontium Dog, obviously.

Regards

Robin

"Wagner gets six pages."

Could he be given 30, please?

What a terrific idea. If only...

Except for when there's a new Dante or Strontium Dog

I haven't been reading Satanus since I 'read' the first episode. I couldn't get over the terrible dialogue. I actually quite like the artwork, and each month I flick through and examine it with glee, whilst never bothering to read the story. I don't think the art is suitable for Dredd, however, but it's weird gruesome sickness is quite pleasurable to behold and I'd like to see it on a new story. But I hate the fact that it's Dredd, because it just doesn't fit at all.
As far as shovelling shit onto creators go- if you are a creator, best shore up your jaw, cos youre gonna get punched repeatedly no matter what you do. There's always someone who will hate it and you can't please everyone.
If you're the sensitive type who can't take public humiliation on the chin, then don't strut your stuff in public- go work in McD's or dig holes in the road, because maybe you just aren't cut out for that line of work- it's all part of being in the public eye, regardless of the size of that eye. It makes no difference whether you're a writer, artist, musician, actor, politician etc- it's part of your job to enure yourself to harsh criticism, reasonable or not. It's the other side of the 'we love everything you do' coin. That's just sycophantic bullshit, and every creator benefits from the truth.
Every creator is also looking for public plaudits, if you think you aren't then you're kidding yourself- that's what that warm glow is when someone praises your work.I know others won't agree, but that's humanity- not always sweetness and sugar.
Why show respect for someones work when you don't have any?
I do agree that the knockers should qualify their dislikes, and they more often do.

Damn- victim of lazy cut and paste!
The line about sycophantic bullshit should come after "Why show respect...".

"This isn't creativity. This isn't radical comic art. This is confused, slapdash shit."

You're a fool. Plain and simple. Open your eyes and flick through the latest Meg. Then re-read the drivel that you've just written...

Xface on the Fux news channel with his puppet Judge...the "I am the law" Dredd shot, the exquisite detail of Satanus.

It may not be your cup of tea, trout boy, but to say it lacks creativity and skill shows how impotent your artistic insight is.

Upload something you've drawn lately...

show us what "radical comic artwork" looks like nowadays in your world...

I'd love to know...

You don't need to be able to do art to have an opinion on it.
Whilst I agree with you partially on the whole BOSIII art thingy, I can also see trouts point that a comic story should be readable, and it is hard to decipher- not that I'm particularly interested in that, as BOSII was shit enough for me.
However, it might be an idea to back off a bit on the baiting and goading, as you're coming across as a bit of a dickhead, which isn't doing your argument any favours.
Message boards are for airing opinions and just because someone takes a different view from you, doesn't give you licence to verbally attack them. It might also result in a banning, which will effectively prevent you from sticking up for the stuff you like about 2k.

Upload something you've drawn lately...

it's an old and tired argument that gets trotted out in many different arenas, including comics

as a football fan i get pissed off when i'm told that i can't criticise players because i'm a shit player...

this thread, despite the occasional ranty diversion, has been a model of restraint whereby boarders have discussed exactly how far we can criticize script/art without wandering into the realms of direct abuse against a creater

you obviously don't like trout's opinion - and that's fine because it's your opinion - but directing disproportionate abuse on someone who has exercised his grud-given right to say "i don't like this story" is a bit much.

welcome to the board by the way

thinky

"You don't need to be able to do art to have an opinion on it."

Absolutely not... I just find it disheartening to hear people talk such rubbish. The story is convoluted, for sure... but radical stories, and art, should be encouraged, not lambasted. Trout may not like the artwork, and he is entitled to his (misguided) opinion, but he should remember that it is far easier to destroy something, than to create it.

In terms of "baiting and goading", I think I was rather restrained...

It's a valid comment. Like film critics who slag off films without ever having picked up a camera. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

"i don't like this story"
That would have been fine. But his comments were more barbed than that, and deserved rebuking. To say Hicklenton's artwork lacks skill, however much it may not be to his own particular taste, is simply idiotic. That's not "a bit much". That's a fact. "Facts do not cease to exist simply because you ignore them" - Huxley.

"disproportionate abuse"

Read his comment again. Then read mine. I have no shame...

And I like to think that I'm a really great guy- but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Is there something in the water, lately?

The fact is films and comics are generally made for the appreciation and consumption of the masses, so everyone has the right to criticise at least constructively. Nothing should be free of criticism except when critics go on personal crusades to destroy someone's career.

"The fact is films and comics are generally made for the appreciation and consumption of the masses, so everyone has the right to criticise at least constructively"

Exactly right - indeed, it might well be argued that by putting your neck on the block, you can't be surprised if a few people start swinging axes at it.

"It makes no difference whether you're a writer, artist, musician, actor, politician etc- it's part of your job to enure yourself to harsh criticism, reasonable or not. It's the other side of the 'we love everything you do' coin. That's just sycophantic bullshit, and every creator benefits from the truth.
Every creator is also looking for public plaudits, if you think you aren't then you're kidding yourself- that's what that warm glow is when someone praises your work."

Now, in essence, I'm kind of in agreement with you - not about the positive feedback thing though, as I don't remember ever recieving any, other than one negative review in CI that I perversely agreed with wholeheartedly.

However, I don't think that it is in any way part of a creator's 'job' to accept criticism - their work is in writing or drawing something and getting paid for it. End of. Don't get me wrong, constructive criticism can be useful for personal development, but it's relatively rare that you do get it. You need to develop a thick skin, as you say, but you also need to learn to rely on your own instincts - if you can't judge whether what you're creating has some worth or not, then you're not really cut out to be a professional.

Problem is, what starts off as criticism too often tails off to just simply become 'X was shite' - which isn't particularly enlightening or interesting to read. Nothing wrong with saying that you don't like something, but it's always nice if it's quantified by stating what you thought was wrong, how it could be improved or what you would have in its place. And remember: judge the work, not the man. Too often it seems that people take against a story because of a particular creator involved, which can lead to ridiculously vitriolic personal tirades. Remember, it's only a bloody comic - sure, we've all got a lot invested in the thing emotionally, but at the end of the day it's just a bit of paper. It's not like Writer X has dug up your Nan and desecrated the corpse by shitting on her bones whilst skullfucking the eye sockets.

Also, is it just me or do people in this country seem to be quicker to complain than they are to compliment? I don't know if that's something to do with the national character, or simply because things are just slightly more shit over here than elsewhere.

***Also, is it just me or do people in this country seem to be quicker to complain than they are to compliment? I don't know if that's something to do with the national character, or simply because things are just slightly more shit over here than elsewhere.***

Ireland is the worst for that, we are known as a nation of begrudgers, especially for our own. There is a counterphrase..."FUCK the BEGRUDGERS".

"Problem is, what starts off as criticism too often tails off to just simply become 'X was shite'...Also, is it just me or do people in this country seem to be quicker to complain than they are to compliment?"

Amen to that...perhaps it's hardwired into the national psyche to complain...

I also can't help thinking that if someone like Bisley, for example, logged in here... his comments would not be as vitriolic as some of the navel gazers here who have never picked up a pencil...

For Art to be consistently stimulating and interesting, like anything else, it needs to be tested, broken, transcended... Opinions are subjective, naturally, but I feel a healthy respect for anything challenging or different, even if it is not to my personal taste. Creative freedom of expression is to be celebrated, not denigrated simply because it doesn't float your own particular artistic boat.

The obsession with tradition and consistency, particularly when it comes to the hallowed ground of Dredd, is tiresome. I want to see new, different interpretations of Dredd. What I like about the current Meg is the diversity in the artwork, leaving the coherence of the stories aside for now...

Extremes are good, and I don't want to read a comic where the artists first thought has had to be "I've got to make sure Dredd has six buttons, and his visor points don't go out further than the visor..."

Let them go wild. There be gold in the madness...

You're a fool. Plain and simple.

You're making a personal attack, which devalues your comments. Stick to the point.

Open your eyes and flick through the latest Meg. Then re-read the drivel that you've just written... Okay. My opinion hasn't changed.

Xface on the Fux news channel with his puppet Judge...the "I am the law" Dredd shot, the exquisite detail of Satanus.
I don't agree. The art is detailed, but it remains difficult to follow. If it was a TV show and we found it hard to follow, it wouldn't be allowed on TV. There's nothing wrong with a story being challenging, but if it's too challenging, then it loses the attention.

It may not be your cup of tea, trout boy, but to say it lacks creativity and skill shows how impotent your artistic insight is.

Another personal attack. It's my right as the consumer to say it lacks creativity and skill. It's my opinion. Someone else said it was creative. I disagreed.

Upload something you've drawn lately...
show us what "radical comic artwork" looks like nowadays in your world...

No. Why should I? I'm not a comic artist.

I'd like to add that I am, of course, prepared to accept that other people like this art. You don't seem prepared to accept that I don't, despite your comments about subjectivity.

As for vitriol, it's built over the months we've had to put up with a bad story.

I haven't made any personal attack. I've repeatedly said I'm not a Hicklenton fan. But I'd be a lot kinder if the story was easier to follow. He seems a talented artist, but in my opinion lacks the storytelling abilities a comics artist needs.

I am taken aback that you've made direct attacks on me, adwah, just because our opinions are different.
I don't think you're being restrained. You've made several comments directed at me, including use of the words "impotent" and "misguided".

I'm not quicker to complain than compliment. I make an effort to be as positive as possible in my comments on the board. I also make an effort to take the time to make comments, as I know feedback is read and valued by the people involved in 2000AD.

Which brings me to this: you're not exactly positive, are you?
Just who are you, adwah? You seem to have signed up only to post on this topic.

Your behaviour on the board is already very different from the majority's. Calm down and stop the personal attacks, please.

Back to the point: Blood of Satanus III is messy and difficult to read. Its dialogue is poor. The same thing seems to happen every week. It's boring.

I'll be very glad when it ends.

- Trout

It occurs to me I should probably post a link here, to avoid this issue spreading out over multiple threads.
The site automatically creates a thread when you start a poll.

As I said elsewhere, apologies for not breaking this down for story and art. I wanted to keep it simple.

The aim is to allow people to express their opinion even if they don't want to get involved in protracted debate.

- Trout

Link: Poll

"Which brings me to this: you're not exactly positive, are you?
Just who are you, adwah? You seem to have signed up only to post on this topic."

Your behaviour on the board is already very different from the majority's. Calm down and stop the personal attacks, please."

Well,I was driven to sign up to post on this topic because, as Byron says, people rarely make as much effort to say they like something as they do to express their dissatisfaction.  OK, so I love the Hicklenton art (Pandora was my favourite and looking forward to the Nemesis reprints next month)- some of you hate it, but love it or hate it I'd had enough of hearing it being slated as unskilled. And it all sounded so pompous that by the time I posted I'd got a bit cheesed off. It's hardly line art with a colour wash like a lot of strips, which people seem to love.  And I've never seen anyone give a character so many expressions without having any eyes to work with....Flint's judges just look to me like the same heads pasted on each time.

Quite digging the Reapermen style.  Loved the first Anderson but for some reason hated it ever since - the sickly sweetness of the palette makes me feel a bit queasy and the vehicles/bikes look a bit like weird sausages/old scooters respectively.

I don't mean it's part of a creators job to accept criticism- just to accept that it will happen, and that they need toughen up to it- for their own sake really.

"I'm kind of in agreement with you - not about the positive feedback thing though, as I don't remember ever recieving any"

Now, that really is the worst of it- weeks, even months of work on a project, and nothing but the wind blowing and tumbleweed. Even criticism is far preferable.
Although a creator might not be conciously seeking out personal glory on a megalomaniacal scale- one would hope that at least one person likes it is really the essence of what I'm trying to say. It's not like your average creator is going to think- "Fuck I hope this one gets through without anyone noticing", or "Heh! Heh! Everyone will really hate this".
As I say, constructive criticism is always preferable, and as you point out creators often might find themselves in agreement with critics of their work- mainly because short-comings are often amplified due to proximity to a project. Unfortunately, humans frequently maim, torture, humiliate and murder each other with apparent glee. Calling someone a talentless cunt seems rather mild in comparison.

We're all adults, Mr. Trout, and if you're going to hang your ideas out for all to read, then you have to expect a little flack...

"If it was a TV show and we found it hard to follow, it wouldn't be allowed on TV."

erm...does that mean that films that are dense and layered should be ignored because they take some time to understand?

You are a fool. Call it whatever you want. My honest opinion. Anyone that feels the need to justify their thoughts with the comment "I'm a happy and fulfilled person" generally is not.

You may well wonder why I've only signed up to this post, 'King' Trout. You see, my life is filled with other exciting things. Unlike your good self, the highlight of my month is not picking up a comic book, and perhaps if you sucked  
the marrow from life a little more, you might offer something more than hot air.

Here's hoping...

"You've made several comments directed at me, including use of the words "impotent" and "misguided"."

If these comments are hurting you...perhaps it will make you think twice before opening your own mouth.

What gives you special dispensation to give it out, but not receive it? I suspect, 'King' Trout, that judging my the amount of posts you've put on here, that you would very much like to be more involved in 2000AD than you actually are. Stunted dreams that never flowered to fruition.  

But I'm no psychologist.

That's just my opinion.

I hope it doesn't cut too deep.

All my love, Adwah.

"You are a fool."

And you are a trolling twat.

Have a nice life.

Jim

"And you are a trolling twat."

Is that a twat with a penchant for the sport of trolling, or is trolling a new verb?

Take a breath, Jim.

It's all going to be okay...

"It's all going to be okay..."

Oh, FFS ... did I miss a memo on National Fuckwit Week, or something?

"Is that a twat with a penchant for the sport of trolling, or is trolling a new verb? "

Don't try pedantry with me. Honestly.

Jim

Look in the mirror and say "I'm Jim, and I have lots of love to give." 5 times. You know, like a mantra...

"Don't try pedantry with me. Honestly."

What about paediatrics?  

Since I seem to be offending everyone I speak to on here...

just thought I'd say that, as a whole, I thought Meg 261 was great. Nice cover, good stories, good interview with Mills. Didn't rate the film reviews (as always) but I've leave that little rant until next Meg...

Maybe you should stop calling people names if you don't want to offend people?
I was going to post a review of the meg but I think I'll come back later.

"does that mean that films that are dense and layered should be ignored because they take some time to understand"

And just because they are hard to understand, does not mean they are dense and layered... sometimes they are just poorly written/ acted/ produced shit. Different/ inovative does not always mean good. Life is full of shit ideas- like razor-combs.
You disagree with Trout, we get the message- no need to go on and on about it. You patently will defend the colour of Mr Mills' turds (and I'm not a Pat Basher- I went against popular opinion on Black Siddha, as it was fantastic, as is Savage and I admire his maverick ethos).

I'm not keen on the film reviews either, but not because of anything inherently wrong with them- I just don't want film reviews in the Meg, they're irrelevant. The articles on Pat Mills and British comics characters were good, although I think the Mills interview could have been split over two Megs- too much text hurts my ignorant brain.
The Anderson story has done nothing for me at all- nice colours, but thats about it really. I've found it silly and boring.
The Angels is fine without really being top notch- and for my money this has to be the best work I've seen from Steve Roberts- spiffing.
The Gingerbread man is looking like another fine addition to the PJ Maybe saga, and I think he's overtaken Death as JD's arch-nemesis.
I havent read Reaperman or the small press offerings yet, as my rich and fulfilling life has not allowed the time.

"I'm not keen on the film reviews either, but not because of anything inherently wrong with them- I just don't want film reviews in the Meg, they're irrelevant. The articles on Pat Mills and British comics characters were good, although I think the Mills interview could have been split over two Megs- too much text hurts my ignorant brain."

I'm in complete agreement. I used to avidly by 2000AD etc. as a teenager, and have returned to sporadically buying in bursts when the mood takes me. I was pleased to still find a good broad spectrum of crisp art, but disheartened by the film reviews / interviews / articles...

call me old-fashioned... but I want more art, and less chat...

I hereby vow to stop complaining...

 

Oh wow, that's pretty frightening - Trout is being bullied by someone using the anonymity of the internet.
How brave.

You know...It's threads like this that made me suggest implementing a code of conduct.

I really feel this board needs a proper moderator.

I suggest people step back and try and be polite to each other please.

 The old adage 'If you haven't got anything nice to say..' really works very well on the internet, where some of the subtler edges of quips and jokes can be misconstrued/misunderstood.

A bit of civility really should be a prerequisite for anyone even thinking of using this, or any board.

 Thanks, play nice, or if that's an impossibility, how about just turning off your computer, and going for a walk.

Rufus

" bit of civility really should be a prerequisite for anyone even thinking of using this, or any board."

Fuck off, you big poof!

Jim

On that note...I give up.... See you all in the funny books.

Yours sincerely,
Rufus

"On that note...I give up.... See you all in the funny books."

Now, this is the problem ... when I can't hurl random and entirely good-natured abuse at Mr Dayglo, for whom I have nowt but respect and goodwill, without him taking offence and/or the hump, then there is something horribly wrong on this board.

Honestly, Roof - I was just being ironic.

Or sumfink.

You twat.

Aaah! What's wrong with me? I can't help it!

Cheers

Jim

Drink! Girls! Feck!

Ah, Rufus, we'd be very sorry to see you go. Jim didn't mean anything by it. I'll go and get my Rufus sketches out and have a good cry now...

Adwah's trolling hasn't changed anything. I'll keep expressing my opinion.

Rufus' point here - and on the other thread - is well-taken, though. As we've said on the board before, we should agree to avoid making criticism of the prog any sort of personal attack on a creator.

I've tried very hard to refer to content only whenever I've commented. If my comments were taken another way, that wasn't my intention.

But if we remove all negativity from the board, and only post nice, happy thoughts about 2000AD and the Meg, what would be the point in having a board? The feedback is important, or so I've been told.

As for Adwah, I'm only being bullied if I react to it. I'm just not interested and his unacceptable conduct hasn't changed a thing.
But my thanks to everyone who disagreed with the way he was acting and spoke up for my right to comment!

By the way, poll results (as of Sunday lunchtime):

Excellent 4 10%
Good 3 8%
Average 3 8%
Bad 9 23%
Terrible 21 53%

I realise I'm interpreting these results for my own purposes, but I make that 30 people rating the strip as "bad" or "terrible".
It's satisfying to know mine is not a lone voice on this.

Some people like it, and some people don't. That's anthology comics, as this board has proved again and again.

- Trout

"But if we remove all negativity from the board, and only post nice, happy thoughts about 2000AD and the Meg, what would be the point in having a board? The feedback is important, or so I've been told."

This is true Trout, so when you make a negative comment about an artist, qualify it, rather than just calling it "shit". This was my only point of contention with your comments.  

Adwah

This is true Trout, so when you make a negative comment about an artist, qualify it, rather than just calling it "shit". This was my only point of contention with your comments.

That's a fair point. Re-reading my posts on this thread, I note the only way I qualified it before you started to post was "messy... done on the bus in a hurry..."
I've expanded on that since.

I always have made an effort to support negative comments with some sort of detailed, thought-out criticism, and I'll continue to do so.
I've certainly done that about Blood of Satanus III in past Meg threads.

Are you going to stop making personal attacks? Are you going to leave this message board?

- Trout

"Are you going to stop making personal attacks? Are you going to leave this message board?"

I believe I have as much right to be here as you. There are no personal attacks, and this is not bullying, my friend. Simply trying to get you to acknowledge that your rather barbed comments were unnecessary. You are not a Hicklenton fan, and that is fair enough (he's pretty wild, and in my opinion constrained by the limited size of the Meg...).

You have just acknowledged that you over-stepped the mark, and that is gracious of you.

 "I always have made an effort to support negative comments with some sort of detailed, thought-out criticism, and I'll continue to do so."

I shall endeavour to do the same... and keep the personal comments to a minumum...

I'm just quite excitable...

Adwah

You have just acknowledged that you over-stepped the mark, and that is gracious of you.

Okay, that's appreciated. I honestly thought my initial comments were more detailed than they were. I've been saying the same thing for months now.

I'm glad you're sticking around, and have said what you said about personal comments.
I remain pretty angry about some past comments on this thread, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut. I'd rather see the argument die.

I look forward to the next Meg coming out, so you, Werepire and others can give us positive comments on Blood of Satanus III.

- Trout

Definitely something in the water...