Dennis wrote:
Broccoli wrote:
The experiment is interesting; that's for sure. However, whether it improves or weakens cannot really be judged properly considering the story written for JL #1 was done so in a specific way.
|
Really. There's nothing I prefer in the reworked version. Knocking the scene with Vic Stone down to half its pages by chopping up the art and jamming word bubbles closer together messes up the pacing and flow of the thing. |
Perhaps. I bet if JL #1 was released as the "reworked" version, it would be considered "just as good". I'm not intending that as an endorsement of the reworked over the real version; just an observation.
Turtletrekker wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Turtletrekker wrote:
The art was hardly a "sacrifice" if the story and pacing are improved, which they were by far.
|
|
Yes and yes. What you are saying would be like saying that Tin Man was only worth watching for the FX, or that they should have cut out a third of the dialog in exchange for more FX, which would be bull. Tin Man was a well crafted story that would be nothing without the skill of the writer.
I find it astonishing that as a writer yourself, you would place more value on the visuals and the 'splosions more than the story.
Big Michael Bay fan, are you? |
Not to speak for
Dennis (and quite frankly, who would want to?
), but a comic writer pretty much writes not only the dialogue and storyline, but also how each page and panel is set-up. A lot of what you see of the artist's work on the page was "ordered" by the writer. Sure, an artist might have some input, but it is mostly the writer's ball. So if Lee drew a lot of splash pages, it's because it was what Johns wrote and what
he wanted to see.