Messages

I will both be compelled to watch the series, if it airs, and dislike it.

World of Bliss, if I recall correctly, were pin up's of A MC1 family, with a little biography on each picture.

Juves 'n' the Cradlegrave Block.

Bagwells work on Juves 'n the hood really caught my eye. I didn't know it was him of course, until it was pointed out to me on this board. The art to Cradlegrave didn't just catch my eye it demanded I take notice. Edmund Bagwell had gone from a good artist to one of the very best. Hi menacing hoodie cover had defined an era of 2000ad and sits among the very best.

I don't even look like mine any more.

I disagree, but I buy 80% of my comics for the art.

It's easier to replace an artist, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes it's practical to replace an artist on an on-going story in a way it may not be as practical to replace a writer. arguably at the moment it even makes good business sense an writers have become the draw. What it isn't is any more creatively valid than replacing a writer. 

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now 

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

I don't have a problem with the artist or the writer being changed on IP that's corporate owned. I do have a problem with the idea that changing the artist is OK but changing the writer isn't because some how the writer is more creatively important to a strip then the artist. Stan Lee claimed to be sole creator of his characters on the grounds that he came up with them and if the artist that did hadn't drawn them another one would have. I don't agree with Stan Lee.

as for how long I would wait, I would wait as long as it took if that's the creative model being used.

The writer is the one* who comes up with the story (and yes I know there are loads of examples where the artists make massive contributions to the direction of a strip) but in a lot of cases it is the writer who comes up with the plot and where the strip will go.

or Editors, or publishers, or IP holders...

Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Owning all or part of an IP is an asset for a publisher were as creator owned is not. Publishing 100% creator owned properties is a very different business model as even the biggest hit doesn't add any actual value to your company's value, but with no upfront money for content and the onus for advertising resting on the creators, the overheads/risks are reduced. I can't imagine it would be that easy to work out a profit share on an anthology. 

I think  the risk/reward for both the company and the creator means there will always be company owned properties.

Helpfully some one has collected a bunch or quotes and a video about policing cuts Including (I think) the warning Jim is referring to.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-warned-by-manchester-police-that-cuts-risked-terror-attack-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T

Well sir, you and Jim and any others who think the same are mistaken, I am just posting my opinion, absolutely no offence is intended.

Sometimes it can be a little tricky to work out what your opinion is, or why you believe it to be the case but in general I don't see your posts as trolling. Short statements without context are not really invitation to debate, but as one of the few right wing posters here, your opinion is usually of interest.

The police and the security services knew about some of the scum bags, yet the attacks still happened, how would more bobbys on beat have changed that?

Who said 'bobbies on the beat' would have stopped the attacks? Some have said the cuts severely hindered the polices ability to gathers process and react to intelligence. Police on patrol is just one of many aspects of policing and although it has a effect when it comes to reassuring the public with a visible face it is far from the only thing the police do.

I thought the terrorist attack was caused by the terrorists.

Terrorist attacks are carried out by terrorists.

What causes terrorism is a far more complicated question. You could mean what caused a specific attack or what the rout to violence for a specific attacker was. When thinking about a specific attack you could look at the practicalities, breaking it down into what opportunities the terrorist took and what planning the attack involved. When looking at the philosophy you could ask how these people convinced themselves they were justified in doing what they did and what they think there is to gain.

You could mean what causes terrorism in any form. Or what kind of social structure has to exist before an act of violence can be considered terrorism.

I have a feeling the original post was attempting to draw a line between the level of policing and the opportunities that offered. As Jim said, The culpable negligence argument.

Well done every one!