|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2021 21:14:55 GMT -5
as Eddie Campbell was involved (ie: he did it) with the colorized version? I'd absolutely go with that one. here's a story from when he first announced he was doing it. www.comicon.com/2020/06/19/from-hell-master-edition-by-alan-moore-and-eddie-campbell-a-classic-colorized/ a key part of the review here: "But overall, Campbell has chosen his colour palette so carefully and well that the main difference in the reading experience is actually rather minimal. There are a huge number of pages where the setting of the page is such that Campbell’s palette of minimal browns and greens and greys that it’s a very subtle change from the stark black and white."
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 19, 2021 22:09:09 GMT -5
I'm a purist and the black and white fit the mood, so well. Besides, the world was black & white before the 1930s....
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Aug 20, 2021 5:39:51 GMT -5
I bought and read them originally as they came out, I currently own the TPB, which is the nicest edition for me. I'm sure Moore wouldn't be thrilled about the coloring, if he were told.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 20, 2021 10:47:00 GMT -5
I bought and read them originally as they came out, I currently own the TPB, which is the nicest edition for me. I'm sure Moore wouldn't be thrilled about the coloring, if he were told. I don't think Moore would care one way or the other. It was Campbell that decided to color it, not the publisher. And Moore has talked a number of times about adding another Appendix to the book, but hasn't ever gotten around to doing it.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 21, 2021 20:09:22 GMT -5
When did it become common practice to credit the creators of comics? I've been reading some Silver Age DC stuff and a lot of the work is uncredited. There are a few artists who put their name on their work, and a couple of writing credits, but aside from that, the only recognition of the creators involved seems to come in the letters pages. How did the average fan know who was creating the books at the time? The creators are credited in modern day databases. Where did that information come from? Was it Marvel that began crediting the creators?
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 21, 2021 20:43:28 GMT -5
When did it become common practice to credit the creators of comics? I've been reading some Silver Age DC stuff and a lot of the work is uncredited. There are a few artists who put their name on their work, and a couple of writing credits, but aside from that, the only recognition of the creators involved seems to come in the letters pages. How did the average fan know who was creating the books at the time? The creators are credited in modern day databases. Where did that information come from? Was it Marvel that began crediting the creators? Marvel was a big practitioner of it; but, some comics had credits, going back to the beginning. The Silver Age is where you see it become common practice. A lot of the credits came from fandom, as they purchased original art or poured over work and identified artists. Over time, records were uncovered, creators made convention appearances, correspondence filled in gaps. Credits are pretty solid from Silver Age on, but, a lot of Golden Age material has only partial credits, especially for writers. It's a lot easier to identify specific artists than writers. For instance, Carl Barks wasn't credited on his Disney stories; but, fans referred to his work as being by the "good Duck artist." Eventually, he became known, by name, to them and then they filled in the gaps as to what he did and others did, with his help, after he interacted with fans. Simon & Kirby often had a byline, Eisner did on some, Quality Comics had bylines on some comics, Charles Biro was credited on stuff, Siegel & Shuster, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 20:43:53 GMT -5
When did it become common practice to credit the creators of comics? I've been reading some Silver Age DC stuff and a lot of the work is uncredited. There are a few artists who put their name on their work, and a couple of writing credits, but aside from that, the only recognition of the creators involved seems to come in the letters pages. How did the average fan know who was creating the books at the time? The creators are credited in modern day databases. Where did that information come from? Was it Marvel that began crediting the creators? actually. .it was DC who did it first
tho it did become way more popular in the late 80's / Early 90's. . I suspect Image had a lot to do with that. . the superstar artists splitting off, so putting their names on the cover helped sell issues.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,586
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 22, 2021 9:33:18 GMT -5
I've never read From Hell before. I see there's a colorized Master Edition, but I understand it's originally black & white. Does anyone have an opinion on which version/edition is best? Me, I'm a purest, so I say go for the original black & white, as it better conjures the ambience of the filthy, gaslit Victorian streets of Whitechapel and Aldgate where the majority of the story is set. That said, I saw plenty of examples of the new colouring online and it is very tastefully done, but yeah...it adds nothing, in my opinion, and it might even detract from the overall period feel of the book.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 22, 2021 10:16:35 GMT -5
When did it become common practice to credit the creators of comics? I've been reading some Silver Age DC stuff and a lot of the work is uncredited. There are a few artists who put their name on their work, and a couple of writing credits, but aside from that, the only recognition of the creators involved seems to come in the letters pages. How did the average fan know who was creating the books at the time? The creators are credited in modern day databases. Where did that information come from? Was it Marvel that began crediting the creators? Marvel was a big practitioner of it; but, some comics had credits, going back to the beginning. The Silver Age is where you see it become common practice. A lot of the credits came from fandom, as they purchased original art or poured over work and identified artists. Over time, records were uncovered, creators made convention appearances, correspondence filled in gaps. Credits are pretty solid from Silver Age on, but, a lot of Golden Age material has only partial credits, especially for writers. It's a lot easier to identify specific artists than writers. For instance, Carl Barks wasn't credited on his Disney stories; but, fans referred to his work as being by the "good Duck artist." Eventually, he became known, by name, to them and then they filled in the gaps as to what he did and others did, with his help, after he interacted with fans. Simon & Kirby often had a byline, Eisner did on some, Quality Comics had bylines on some comics, Charles Biro was credited on stuff, Siegel & Shuster, etc. Printed credits were pretty loose. It wasn't unusual for credits in the golden age to be house/studio names: Joe Shuster, Bob Kane, Will Eisner, Simon & Kirby signatures don't mean they actually worked on it. Other artists signed their jobs if they wanted and the editor left it in. I don't think credits on Marvel would've been a thing if Stan Didn't see a chance to put his name there. Hell, he found d away to keep his name on the books long after he had anything to do with the stories in them. He did make a big deal,though, about crediting Wally Wood on the cover of his first Daredevil
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on Aug 22, 2021 12:08:29 GMT -5
EC comics in the 50s made a point to highlight each artist in a way I believe was pretty atypical for the time. It's been said that Lee admired their general open and fan-friendly style (self-deprecating, making the publisher seem like a fun place to work, etc) but it wasn't until the beginning of the Marvel age that he adapted it to his books
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2021 13:08:28 GMT -5
I've never read From Hell before. I see there's a colorized Master Edition, but I understand it's originally black & white. Does anyone have an opinion on which version/edition is best? I've only read the original version. My initial belief was that it would be like colorizing a classic movie, but Ive flipped through the color version and it looks pretty good. Still, I think black and white captures the mood of the dark underbelly of late 19th century Victorian London better Hate me if you must, but Captain Pedantic is here... I always used the phrase "dark underbelly" until someone older and wiser than I pointed out that in nature, underbellies tend to be white or pale in color, because camouflage. "Pale underbellies are most often found among animals that need to worry about danger from below. Creatures that swim, fly, or climb may blend into the background water or sky above if their bellies are light. Animals can also benefit from a camouflage concept called countershading. By having darker pigment on the part of the body that receives the most light and lighter pigmentation on the part that receives less light, the animal’s appearance tends to flatten out and is less conspicuous." Thank you, slate.com/technology/2013/12/soft-white-underbelly-why-did-animals-lose-gastralia.htmlAnd then I also remembered Twain's horrifying description of Pap Finn... "There warn't no color in his face, where his face showed; it was white; not like another man's white, but a white to make a body sick, a white to make a body's flesh crawl -- a tree-toad white, a fish-belly white."
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,586
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 22, 2021 19:44:41 GMT -5
I've only read the original version. My initial belief was that it would be like colorizing a classic movie, but Ive flipped through the color version and it looks pretty good. Still, I think black and white captures the mood of the dark underbelly of late 19th century Victorian London better Hate me if you must, but Captain Pedantic is here... I always used the phrase "dark underbelly" until someone older and wiser than I pointed out that in nature, underbellies tend to be white or pale in color, because camouflage. "Pale underbellies are most often found among animals that need to worry about danger from below. Creatures that swim, fly, or climb may blend into the background water or sky above if their bellies are light. Animals can also benefit from a camouflage concept called countershading. By having darker pigment on the part of the body that receives the most light and lighter pigmentation on the part that receives less light, the animal’s appearance tends to flatten out and is less conspicuous." Thank you, slate.com/technology/2013/12/soft-white-underbelly-why-did-animals-lose-gastralia.htmlAnd then I also remembered Twain's horrifying description of Pap Finn... "There warn't no color in his face, where his face showed; it was white; not like another man's white, but a white to make a body sick, a white to make a body's flesh crawl -- a tree-toad white, a fish-belly white." I always assumed it was a dark underbelly because it was usually in shadow. Not because of the colour of the belly itself.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 22, 2021 21:30:15 GMT -5
Hate me if you must, but Captain Pedantic is here... I always used the phrase "dark underbelly" until someone older and wiser than I pointed out that in nature, underbellies tend to be white or pale in color, because camouflage. "Pale underbellies are most often found among animals that need to worry about danger from below. Creatures that swim, fly, or climb may blend into the background water or sky above if their bellies are light. Animals can also benefit from a camouflage concept called countershading. By having darker pigment on the part of the body that receives the most light and lighter pigmentation on the part that receives less light, the animal’s appearance tends to flatten out and is less conspicuous." Thank you, slate.com/technology/2013/12/soft-white-underbelly-why-did-animals-lose-gastralia.htmlAnd then I also remembered Twain's horrifying description of Pap Finn... "There warn't no color in his face, where his face showed; it was white; not like another man's white, but a white to make a body sick, a white to make a body's flesh crawl -- a tree-toad white, a fish-belly white." I always assumed it was a dark underbelly because it was usually in shadow. Not because of the colour of the belly itself. Good thought.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Aug 22, 2021 22:08:56 GMT -5
I've only read the original version. My initial belief was that it would be like colorizing a classic movie, but Ive flipped through the color version and it looks pretty good. Still, I think black and white captures the mood of the dark underbelly of late 19th century Victorian London better Hate me if you must, but Captain Pedantic is here... I always used the phrase "dark underbelly" until someone older and wiser than I pointed out that in nature, underbellies tend to be white or pale in color, because camouflage. "Pale underbellies are most often found among animals that need to worry about danger from below. Creatures that swim, fly, or climb may blend into the background water or sky above if their bellies are light. Animals can also benefit from a camouflage concept called countershading. By having darker pigment on the part of the body that receives the most light and lighter pigmentation on the part that receives less light, the animal’s appearance tends to flatten out and is less conspicuous." Thank you, slate.com/technology/2013/12/soft-white-underbelly-why-did-animals-lose-gastralia.htmlAnd then I also remembered Twain's horrifying description of Pap Finn... "There warn't no color in his face, where his face showed; it was white; not like another man's white, but a white to make a body sick, a white to make a body's flesh crawl -- a tree-toad white, a fish-belly white." As a fellow pedant, I thank you for pointing out a fresh example for me to annoy someone with some day! I'm running out of people to tell they really mean " shallow learning curve"...
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 23, 2021 3:56:09 GMT -5
Hate me if you must, but Captain Pedantic is here... I always used the phrase "dark underbelly" until someone older and wiser than I pointed out that in nature, underbellies tend to be white or pale in color, because camouflage. "Pale underbellies are most often found among animals that need to worry about danger from below. Creatures that swim, fly, or climb may blend into the background water or sky above if their bellies are light. Animals can also benefit from a camouflage concept called countershading. By having darker pigment on the part of the body that receives the most light and lighter pigmentation on the part that receives less light, the animal’s appearance tends to flatten out and is less conspicuous." Thank you, slate.com/technology/2013/12/soft-white-underbelly-why-did-animals-lose-gastralia.htmlAnd then I also remembered Twain's horrifying description of Pap Finn... "There warn't no color in his face, where his face showed; it was white; not like another man's white, but a white to make a body sick, a white to make a body's flesh crawl -- a tree-toad white, a fish-belly white." As a fellow pedant, I thank you for pointing out a fresh example for me to annoy someone with some day! I'm running out of people to tell they really mean " shallow learning curve"... Love it! Thank you for another example for me! And you’re not begging any questions, either. 😄
|
|