Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JOE SOAP

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 943
News / Re: Mills & Skinner's ACCIDENT MAN - The Film
« on: 27 April, 2017, 08:31:47 pm »
I liked the comics, so I'm looking forward to seeing this. As for the trailer, don't worry about it; a lot of good films have had terrible trailers.

That's not the trailer for this Accident Man but a previous low-budget version. The trailer hasn't been released yet.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 27 April, 2017, 01:23:36 am »
Of course all commercial artists have deadlines, and there's a point at which any one of them needs to declare the page as finished. That's understood.

Why in the world Smith should choose to focus on the time demands of the work as opposed to any other aspect (that presumably his fans would be more interested in focusing on) baffled me. He's making a distinct choice to not discuss the artistic aspects of his work, but purely the timeclock-punching involved from his perspective. It just seemed like a strange response to an interviewer with curiosity regarding the work under consideration, to be preserved for the edification of the magazine's history.

Ron Smith is from a different generation - a modest old gentleman who flew Spitfires during World War II. He's  probably surprised people admire and are so interested in work that was considered throwaway and ephemeral back in the day. It's a testament to how great his work still is that people rate him so highly, out of so many other artists, decades later.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 26 April, 2017, 10:49:33 pm »

While Ron was drawing for the weekly prog he was also knocking out several Daily Star strips every week for several years so I'd say his days were fairly packed.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 26 April, 2017, 06:50:44 pm »
It depends on how you look at it, I guess. All I can see is an employee who cared more about making sure he got his calculated hourly wage, than an artist who cared more about what his work looked like in print -- it just seems more like a factory-worker mindset. His choice, of course. I don't know what kind of bills he had to pay every month.

If the art was crap or sub-par you might have a point – but it isn't. I see him as someone who mastered his craft a long time ago to a very high standard and was disciplined and confident enough to know what he could respectably achieve in a set time. We also don't know how long his days actually were before the buzzer went off compared to those of other artists.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 26 April, 2017, 09:03:57 am »
I think ultimately the most telling indictment of his work to me, was when I read in Thrill-Power Overload that he used to set himself a specific amount of time to work on each page, based on his page-rate from 2000 AD. When that time elapsed, he was done, regardless of what the page looked like at that point. Apparently it was a system that worked for him, in justifying his page-rate, but it seemed a bit mercenary to me, and hard for me to respect from the point of view of the-artist-as-craftsman.

The fact that is true makes his level of artistry even more astonishing.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 24 April, 2017, 10:27:29 pm »
In this picture, what is it that people like about the way Dredd is drawn? I mean, there is very little detail in his face, it looks very easy to replicate for anyone with out any artistic experience. By that, I mean he just looks so basic. I don't get any sense of realism from that image, no personality in Dredd's face, he just looks like a cartoon

Facial detail depends on how close up Dredd's face is in the frame. Dredd has experience written all over his chin on this page.

Books & Comics / Re: Whats everyone reading?
« on: 24 April, 2017, 08:46:53 pm »
Why 100B hasn't already been turned into a premium cable TV series is a mystery to me. It's so cinematic you could almost just film it verbatim and it would work on screen.

Tom Hardy Tackling Vertigo Comic '100 Bullets' for New Line

General / Re: DREDD 2012 Sequel
« on: 24 April, 2017, 01:44:15 pm »
Is the only hold up on us finally getting a sequal, money?

Fundamentally, yes, and I assume finding a studio/producing partner that is willing to collaborate with 2000AD to a degree where they don't demand total control of the property and want to change it beyond recognition. Not easy considering the amount of money involved.

The DNA FILMS iteration is now out of contract and the film-rights have returned to Rebellion so while I'm sure the actors could return to their respective roles - if requested - a new film it might require a slight redesign of the look as the specific designs from the 2012 version are the previous studio's copyright. I'm not sure if 2000AD can get around that since they publish the comic based on the same designs.

Either way I suspect a reboot of some order will eventually happen.


Off Topic / Re: Modern Life Is Rubbish
« on: 23 April, 2017, 11:48:12 pm »
Answering my own question here, but films used to be better in the olden days too. Star Wars, Citizen Kane, Alien....

There's an almost 40 year gap between those two and there was fair amount of shite produced in that time that has conveniently been forgotten and a fair amount after that too. The 80s and 90s were nowt much better. 

It might seem like there are more less good films now than ever but more content is produced and we do get to see more than our parents ever had the chance to.

There's also more good stuff from the past because there's simply more 'past' to choose from.

General / Re: I may get shot for this...
« on: 23 April, 2017, 11:07:15 pm »
I prefer the way Carlos Ezquerra lays-out a page and the gritty, dynamic feel of his work.

The visual energy from the interplay between the angle of composition and the alternating direction of deep black/high-contrast line work in these pages is extraordinary. You feel like you're being drawn into the black swirl of the last frame of the second page.

I don't get the same intense flow of story-action from more static, illustrative artists like Brian Bolland or Greg Staples. I also think Carlos Ezquerra has a unique feel for character design.

Off Topic / Re: Testing…
« on: 23 April, 2017, 06:54:08 pm »

Sauchie/Bikini Kill/Butch/Frank/Willie Russell is preparing his loins for the upcoming release of Tom of Finland

Film & TV / Re: IMDB IS SCUM (so is rotten tomatoes)
« on: 23 April, 2017, 01:22:49 am »
As always it's entirely subjective and even when a majority of critics actually agree with a proportional number of the audience, 'good' films still bomb.


Film & TV / Re: IMDB IS SCUM (so is rotten tomatoes)
« on: 23 April, 2017, 12:18:34 am »
My money then goes into the pockets of the makers of the Furious film which means a never ending stream of sequels is churned out while we wait an eternity for our Dredd sequel.

As mentioned earlier, DREDD got good reviews yet few went to see it. It got better reviews than all the Fast & Furious films but it doesn't stop those films consistently making a billion dollars each because the franchise has a massive, built-in, global audience that prefer those films. In this case reviews are negligible and don't decide what films get sequels.



Film & TV / Re: IMDB IS SCUM (so is rotten tomatoes)
« on: 22 April, 2017, 11:11:34 pm »
I don't think the ratings are supposed to be read as a competition between different films but how a film is judged in terms of the goals it has set for itself or whether it satisfied its own audience – not whether Batman is better than The Godfather.

Regardless of if you use the scores these websites give to decide on what film to see, the fact is these numbers do impact film viewing for a lot of people. This is one of the reasons we have 8 (BLOODY EIGHT!) Fast And Furious films. I'm not sure where I'm going with this...but there is a point somewhere. I'll leave it to you to figure out.

Reviews rarely have that much of an effect on box-office – between 10-20% is the estimated range of possible financial impact depending on the film.

Much like brands such as Star Wars, most audiences don't read the reviews of Fast & Furious films before they go see them, or if they do, don't wholly deprive themselves of seeing a film they have set their mind on seeing. That series of films has well established itself with its audience so they know exactly what they're going to get before they see it – it's critic proof. Those films are successful because the audience wants them and continues to show support, not because they get good/bad reviews. Transformers films get terrible reviews yet they constantly earn money.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 943