Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 18, 2015 4:18:52 GMT -5
I can't believe people didn't like the Black Freighter parts, those were by far my favorite sections so much so that I've picked up Watchmen several times and skipped around just reading the pirate sections. One could arrgh!-ue that pirate comics have never been terribly popular, nor is there avast! audience for such material. 
Sorry. I'm with you. I thought The Black Freighter was outstanding and absolutely gripping. Matey. 
I liked the Black Freighter bits so much because they reminded me of EC's old Piracy series, which I also love. I've always assumed that the Piracy comics were probably what Moore was attempting to reference in those segments. |
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Nov 18, 2015 5:42:01 GMT -5
I remember enjoying the animated black freighter special dvd I bought in conjunction with the movie when it was released. I liked it (obviously more than the book version) and specifically bought/watched it to maybe understand it or see what it added to the overall story. I don't think the book loses anything at all w/o it personally.
Didn't they release a cut of the movie with the Freighter cartoon inserted? I think I remember they did and I wasn't about to buy it. Even though I liked it, I've had no desire to rewatchable it. Similarly I've Never been compelled to re-read the book itself.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 18, 2015 5:59:14 GMT -5
Didn't they release a cut of the movie with the Freighter cartoon inserted? I think I remember they did and I wasn't about to buy it. I specifically waited for that version to be released. It's the one I own and the only way that I've ever watched the film. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 18, 2015 6:19:51 GMT -5
Didn't they release a cut of the movie with the Freighter cartoon inserted? I think I remember they did and I wasn't about to buy it. I specifically waited for that version to be released. It's the one I own and the only way that I've ever watched the film. I didn't realise that this was ever released. I have the regular cinematic version of Watchmen on DVD and I have also watched the Black Freighter DVD as a stand alone thing once. How well do the two work together? Does it effect the pacing of the movie? Also, are there additional live action scenes -- like, say, of the young boy reading the comic, for example -- linking the cartoon bits to the main film? |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Nov 18, 2015 6:37:13 GMT -5
10 easily.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 18, 2015 7:44:13 GMT -5
I specifically waited for that version to be released. It's the one I own and the only way that I've ever watched the film. I didn't realise that this was ever released. I have the regular cinematic version of Watchmen on DVD and I have also watched the Black Freighter DVD as a stand alone thing once. How well do the two work together? Does it effect the pacing of the movie? Also, are there additional live action scenes -- like, say, of the young boy reading the comic, for example -- linking the cartoon bits to the main film? It's been a very long time since I watched it, so I don't recall if they had the young boy reading the comic. The additional scenes did feel jarring at times, and I think they did in the original comic too, but I was expecting them, so it wasn't a problem. I probably wouldn't show this version to someone who doesn't know Watchmen. Then again, I wouldn't start them with the movie either. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 8:17:39 GMT -5
I wished I could said it better. The art was average to above average - but with a series of books showcasing the Watchmen I wished the art was impressive enough that anyone wants to buy it. I brought it because I like the characters in that series. I have the Comic Books and the Hardcover as well. This is why I said it was subjective. An awful lot of people consider the art on Watchmen to be a lot better than just "above average", and a big part of why it's as great as it is. You're making the mistake of considering your personal taste in art styles to be an objective measure of quality. I love Gibbons's art on Watchmen. I think it's perfect for the book. And I very much doubt that it's ever put anyone off buying it. I'm understand what you are saying here - but Dave Gibbons is a talented artist; but I find his work on this series is still above average. You have to understand that and I know many people of the where I lived consider Gibbons is an above average artist. I know in your heart that you love him - but I have a hard time considering that his art is great on the Watchmen. Above Average is a "B" Grade and there is nothing to be ashamed about his work on this series - but I've seen just as many artists in the Comic Book World and very few of them gets an excellent rating - or "A" Grade. On the whole series - The Watchmen - this was my first glimpse of Dave Gibbons and I've have to stick with my original assessment - average to above average and having said that - I will give you this that his work on this series is above average and I do like his work on drawings of Nite Owl and Rorschach and I'm saying that these two characters were Excellent and I do give him a A grade on those two characters - the rest of them a "B" So my final grade is a B+ |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 18, 2015 18:12:22 GMT -5
This is why I said it was subjective. An awful lot of people consider the art on Watchmen to be a lot better than just "above average", and a big part of why it's as great as it is. You're making the mistake of considering your personal taste in art styles to be an objective measure of quality. I love Gibbons's art on Watchmen. I think it's perfect for the book. And I very much doubt that it's ever put anyone off buying it. I'm understand what you are saying here - but Dave Gibbons is a talented artist; but I find his work on this series is still above average. You have to understand that and I know many people of the where I lived consider Gibbons is an above average artist. I know in your heart that you love him - but I have a hard time considering that his art is great on the Watchmen. Above Average is a "B" Grade and there is nothing to be ashamed about his work on this series - but I've seen just as many artists in the Comic Book World and very few of them gets an excellent rating - or "A" Grade. On the whole series - The Watchmen - this was my first glimpse of Dave Gibbons and I've have to stick with my original assessment - average to above average and having said that - I will give you this that his work on this series is above average and I do like his work on drawings of Nite Owl and Rorschach and I'm saying that these two characters were Excellent and I do give him a A grade on those two characters - the rest of them a "B" So my final grade is a B+The strange thing about Gibbons, is that even though he's not exactly the best artist I can think of, he was probably the best one for the job. I'm not just talking about the panel composition, or whatever else he brought to the table, story-wise. With such a complex script, the last thing you want is some art, that will distract the reader's attention from what's really important. An equally exceptional artist, might very well get you hooked up on the pictures, and while you were busy contemplating the scenery, something would surely slip under the radar. From a practical point of view, a great artist, with a corresponding ego, would also be a problem. Just remember Big Numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 18, 2015 18:15:44 GMT -5
I'm understand what you are saying here - but Dave Gibbons is a talented artist; but I find his work on this series is still above average. You have to understand that and I know many people of the where I lived consider Gibbons is an above average artist. I know in your heart that you love him - but I have a hard time considering that his art is great on the Watchmen. Above Average is a "B" Grade and there is nothing to be ashamed about his work on this series - but I've seen just as many artists in the Comic Book World and very few of them gets an excellent rating - or "A" Grade. On the whole series - The Watchmen - this was my first glimpse of Dave Gibbons and I've have to stick with my original assessment - average to above average and having said that - I will give you this that his work on this series is above average and I do like his work on drawings of Nite Owl and Rorschach and I'm saying that these two characters were Excellent and I do give him a A grade on those two characters - the rest of them a "B" So my final grade is a B+The strange thing about Gibbons, is that even though he's not exactly the best artist I can think of, he was probably the best one for the job. I'm not just talking about the panel composition, or whatever else he brought to the table, story-wise. With such a complex script, the last thing you want is some art, that will distract the reader's attention from what's really important. An equally exceptional artist, might very well get you hooked up on the pictures, and while you were busy contemplating the scenery, something would surely slip under the radar. From a practical point of view, a great artist, with a corresponding ego, would also be a problem. Just remember Big Numbers. Don't mention Big Numbers. It makes me sad. I remembering thinking Moore was going to surpass Watchmen. And we only got two issues. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 18, 2015 18:21:58 GMT -5
Gibbons's style of figure drawing doesn't appeal to me, but his contribution to Watchmen in terms of page design and panel layout was so huge that what would usually be a major problem in the way of my appreciation of a superhero comic is pretty much irrelevant in this case. If you rate Watchmen highly, then you have to rate Gibbons's work on that book, because it's intertwined so closely with Moore's writing it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 18, 2015 18:49:28 GMT -5
I'm understand what you are saying here - but Dave Gibbons is a talented artist; but I find his work on this series is still above average. You have to understand that and I know many people of the where I lived consider Gibbons is an above average artist. I know in your heart that you love him - but I have a hard time considering that his art is great on the Watchmen. Above Average is a "B" Grade and there is nothing to be ashamed about his work on this series - but I've seen just as many artists in the Comic Book World and very few of them gets an excellent rating - or "A" Grade. On the whole series - The Watchmen - this was my first glimpse of Dave Gibbons and I've have to stick with my original assessment - average to above average and having said that - I will give you this that his work on this series is above average and I do like his work on drawings of Nite Owl and Rorschach and I'm saying that these two characters were Excellent and I do give him a A grade on those two characters - the rest of them a "B" So my final grade is a B+The strange thing about Gibbons, is that even though he's not exactly the best artist I can think of, he was probably the best one for the job. I'm not just talking about the panel composition, or whatever else he brought to the table, story-wise. With such a complex script, the last thing you want is some art, that will distract the reader's attention from what's really important. An equally exceptional artist, might very well get you hooked up on the pictures, and while you were busy contemplating the scenery, something would surely slip under the radar. From a practical point of view, a great artist, with a corresponding ego, would also be a problem. Just remember Big Numbers. Yeah, totally agreed. His stuff is crystal clear and it grounds the book in mundane reality - Kinda like Curt Swan on Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 19, 2015 1:44:34 GMT -5
Gibbons's style of figure drawing doesn't appeal to me, but his contribution to Watchmen in terms of page design and panel layout was so huge that what would usually be a major problem in the way of my appreciation of a superhero comic is pretty much irrelevant in this case. If you rate Watchmen highly, then you have to rate Gibbons's work on that book, because it's intertwined so closely with Moore's writing it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other. I don't think any other artist at the time would have been able to pull off that perfect fusion so effectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 19, 2015 9:34:01 GMT -5
Don't mention Big Numbers. It makes me sad. I remembering thinking Moore was going to surpass Watchmen. And we only got two issues. You didn't know that issue three was scanned, before Al Columbia went nuts? |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 19, 2015 18:26:29 GMT -5
I remember enjoying the animated black freighter special dvd I bought in conjunction with the movie when it was released. I liked it (obviously more than the book version) and specifically bought/watched it to maybe understand it or see what it added to the overall story. I don't think the book loses anything at all w/o it personally. You want spoilers on this? |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Nov 21, 2015 2:32:01 GMT -5
The strange thing about Gibbons, is that even though he's not exactly the best artist I can think of, he was probably the best one for the job. I'm not just talking about the panel composition, or whatever else he brought to the table, story-wise. With such a complex script, the last thing you want is some art, that will distract the reader's attention from what's really important. An equally exceptional artist, might very well get you hooked up on the pictures, and while you were busy contemplating the scenery, something would surely slip under the radar. From a practical point of view, a great artist, with a corresponding ego, would also be a problem. Just remember Big Numbers. I kind of agree, kind of disagree. I agree Gibbons was the best artist for the job. But I partially disagree on the reasoning. It's certainly a plus that Watchmen didn't have amazing dynamic eyecatching artwork that distracted from the story, but one of the strengths of Gibbons' work on the book is how engrossing it despite the stiffness. Gibbons was able to put a huge amount of detail and storytelling into the art, to the point that if you do take the time to contemplate the scenery you come away understanding the story better than if you had just read the words. Off the top of my head, Rorschach's identity is revealed halfway through Chapter V. We see, from Rorschach's POV, him sit in the Gunga Diner and watch his maildrop on the opposite corner. Then on the next page we see Bernie talking about how people can't see the signs and how everything is connected, and in the background we see the End Is Nigh man exit the diner and dig through the trash can. It's drawn with little detail and on the surface no attention is drawn ot it, yet in how the panels are framed with the figures and the balloons he is the true focus of the panels. The way the composition and dialog so strongly reference this while still playing it under the radar, to the point where people read the book many times and still don't catch it, is something not just any artist could do. Thats a really subtle play by Moore for scripting it and Gibbons for being able to draw it. I think thats the big thing that sets Gibbons apart. He is meticulous. He drew schematics and layouts to make sure everything was arranged consistently from panel to panel and he never really slipped up. Gibbons art is, appropriately, like clockwork. Everything is exactly where it needs to be, never drawing attention to itself but working totally smoothly to the point where you cease to really notice it. Even the character designs are down to a science. Theres a scene where Laurie yells at Eddie and we see their faces in consecutive panels. Their eyes and mouths are identical, revealing Laurie's true paternity through likeness alone. And when Laurie looks in the snowglobe what is reflected? Those same eyes and that mouth, her link to the Comedian. It's easy for a writer to put that in the script but for an artist to pull it off? Smart. |
|
