Posted by GTJDorris at nat-gateway-1.top.biltmorecommunications.net on December 11, 2003 at 01:39:42:
In Reply to: It's not the plot posted by JCEFalconi on December 11, 2003 at 01:18:54:
Well I've already had the discussion about the artwork and I disagre whole-heartedly with that claim. The "art direction" (I think is what you'd call it: what to draw a picture of and how they relate frame by frame, etc.) was pretty nice, but I don't think Gibbons is a talented artist at all. That sounds harsh, it really does, but its not a question of style I just don't think he can depict scenes with his pencil very well. But that's a minor part of it...
The style was okay to me, but not that great. I'll obviously have to take your word that this was the first really good depiction of not cut-and-dry superheroes do good and that's that and things don't end up nice and neat in packages, because I was 4 when this came out so I obviously didn't finish reading it until tonight, and have been biased by years of reading other stuff first. But I have to disagree with you about knowing who's good and who's bad at the end. It seems pretty obvious to me FOR THE MOST PART, not entirely but there is no doubt to me that Dan Dreiberg (the newer Nite Owl) is good, that Laurie (the newer Silk Spectre) is good, that Doc Manhattan (Jon Ostermann) is good. Rorschach could be argued one way or another but I think you judge based on what they stand for and Rorschach wants to rid the earth of scum, which makes him good. Ozymandis (Adrian Veidt) would have to be bad because his goal is NOT to save the world, but rather to be the guy who saved the world. He's doing it for vanity's sake, not for anything he believes in. Not to mention killing millions without much thought.
You said:
The issue exploring how Manhattan perceives time and space is seriously one of the best comics I've ever read.
And that just blows me away because that seemed the weakest issue by far to me. I think if you subtract that issue from the rest of the story you understand Manhattan just as well without it, and the story obviously isn't hindered, and reading it was a pain to me as opposed to the joy you obviously got from it.
I guess in the end I'm thoroughly let down. I suppose I'll have to appreciate it for bringing enough attention to start to have characters as complex as the anti-hero (which ironically today has flooded the marketplace in place of the traditional hero, and now a trend seems to be going back to the iconic do-gooders). I guess I'll have to say it was important, but not neccessarily "good" in my eyes. Shame. I really wanted to like it, hell I wanted to love it.