As frustrating as it is to read these short stories, it is worth it. Granted, I’m still not quite happy with the art, especially as it on occasions tend to work in combination with the general dialogue to create what I experience as a staccato narrative flow. This is particularly so with the action sequences. Case in point, the fight between Illyria and Angel, and Illyria and Dragon in issue 3 — although these fights weren’t technically where the main wheight of the focus was at at the time, it was still where the visual focus was, and so it influenced the rest of the reading process.
But apart from this tiny, little issue, my only beef with the comic is something for which it can’t be blamed, as it is inherent in the medium — namely the length, that there is so little of it.
Because this is awesome. It’s so awesome, I want more. (Okay, so saying anything of Whedon’s is so good you want more is technically a pleonasm, but I kinda like pleonasms.) In just a few short issues they’re able to span rather extreme topoi and thema (heh), but always, always there’s that dark, wistful tone playing in the background. That is, when it’s not occupying centre stage.
Even though I think I might prefer the TV show Buffy over Angel, I think I’ll take After the Fall over Season 8. To the extent that it makes sense to say stuff like this, all the time I don’t really have to choose — I can have both! 
Posts
So, when you finally do come around to post something it’s only to remind me that I haven’t posted reviews of AtF 5-6 or Buffy 13 yet? Meanie!
10. April 2008 @ 11:01 ( Permalink )
I obviously disagree about the art thing. Urru is in my opinion a lot more talented than Jeanty, who often missed the mark in the first issues but have gotten better of late (or maybe it’s taken this long for my mind to adept to his style). Also, I seem to like the artists who have a more artsy flair to their work compared to the more comical ones like ‘Jeanty’.
In other news; Yay, the Terjmeister is has popped up again like the proverbial Jack(or Terje?)-in-the-box.
10. April 2008 @ 16:51 ( Permalink )
Yes, Loki, and I did it just to be a creep, too!
And Lotta, I usually agree. I mean, I’ll take the average art of Sandman or Lucifer over, say, most of the Ultimate X-Men artists any day of the week, for instance. But… well, it’s not so much his style as what he draws that bugs me. Hells, as long as the art doesn’t get in the way of the story, I don’t really notice it much, except if it’s flabbergastingly good, but my pseudo-beef with Urru is that, from time to time, I have to read a page several times over to get what the hell is going on, and that’s mostly due to the at times chaotic art.
But hey, I still like the guy’s art. Just not all the time.
10. April 2008 @ 20:25 ( Permalink )
Also, the whole chaotic art thing is a much more pressing issue when I read downloaded versions of the issues, as it’s dull to scroll back and forth and up and down in CDisplay. In the paper copies I get, it’s generally much easier to take it all in at once and to move the eyes back a bit if something’s unclear.
10. April 2008 @ 20:28 ( Permalink )
Agreeing with Terje - I rarely notice art unless it’s truly bad or truly magnificent. To me, the comic book artist is like the editor on a tv-show - invisible as long as she/he’s doing his job.
That being said, I feel both Jeanty and Urru capture the respective shows nicely. Buffy is bright and actiony, Angel is darker and “deeper” somehow. If put up against a wall, I’d prefer Urru as Jeanty is a little bit more comic-book-generic-feeling.
That being said, Jeanty never gives me the “have to read over to get what’s going on in the drawings”-problem, but Urru frequently does.
Also, Terje? I think it’s a little bit disrespectful to the creators to complain about the quality of a comic book in an illegally downloaded format…
10. April 2008 @ 20:46 ( Permalink )
Yeah, that struck me, too, but the thought that I actually buy the freaking things physically and that I’ll most likely buy TPB collections of them as well, made me ignore it.
Besides, it’s not really disrespectful; it’s more of a moot point, really.
10. April 2008 @ 21:35 ( Permalink )
I agree that the moral aspect of it isn’t (in my mind, anyway) disputable when you buy the comics anyway - but complaining about their lack of quality when expressed in a media they’re not only not intended for but forbidden from… that seems a little on the disrespectful side. Regardless of whether or not you buy them. It’s like critizising ice cream for being warm if you heat it in the micro-wave before eating it.
10. April 2008 @ 21:38 ( Permalink )
It’s complaining with rather severe reservations, though.
10. April 2008 @ 21:54 ( Permalink )
Alright, alright…
10. April 2008 @ 21:55 ( Permalink )
“Agreeing with Terje - I rarely notice art unless it’s truly bad or truly magnificent. To me, the comic book artist is like the editor on a tv-show - invisible as long as she/he’s doing his job.” - Loki
Then I think we’ve got very different approaches to what the art should do in a comic book. The art and the writing should be equally important; like a melded symbiosis where one can’t exist without the other. I’ve actually found that the comic books that uses its art to greater extent have a deeper impact on me as a reader compared to meatier comics like ‘Watchmen’, which could in some instances could have benefited from separating the art from the text, giving it a better punch and a less crowded feel.
If the art isn’t good as good as the story, then I can’t see any benefit of it being in a comic book form at all. Better if it were a prose novel, then, where all my money could go to the guy who actually has some talent.
10. April 2008 @ 23:54 ( Permalink )
Should be equally important? Yeah. And I never said it wasn’t. That’s the point. To me, it’s VERY important. It’s just that I’m not very picky about it. As long as it doesn’t strike me as outright bad, I don’t notice it.
It’s the exact same thing with movies and tv-shows and picture quality. I don’t need it to be crystal-clear widescreen HD TV with gods only know what else. I need to see what’s going on without the picture being so bad I can’t follow. I care about the story that’s being communicated. The point is that the drawings tell the story without taking attention away from it. To me, the story is what matters, no matter the media. Sure, it has some effect how the drawings are done. But as long as they communicate the story well, that effect is subconscious. I don’t notice it. That’s what I mean with it being invisible. That’s what I mean about a good editor on a show being invisible. If I notice it, it pulls me out of the story. It makes me go “hey, pretty pictures” which ruins the feel of this as something that’s going on and reduces it to ink on paper. It’s like seeing a cameraman on the side of a shot on a tv-show. See?
11. April 2008 @ 00:03 ( Permalink )
Story comes first. I get that, of course I get that, but… A film doesn’t have to come with crystal clear dolby 7.1 sorround sound and the most awesome picture quality known to man, but it certainly helps if it does. It can even redeem something that doesn’t have the strongest of stories; the cases in point here being things like ‘Deja Vu’ og ‘Transformers’ (which is just HORRIBLE story wise, but the special effects are waaaay impressive). I don’t need it, but I like the perks, and Urru feels like a perk to me, whereas Jeanty comes off as passable.
11. April 2008 @ 00:13 ( Permalink )
And I don’t notice or care about that stuff, and it certainly does not mediate for a bad story. It might be a subconscious frosting on the cake if everything else is awesome, sure, but that’s all it is. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about something like the special effects as long as they’re not so crappy or omnipresent they bring me out of the story.
11. April 2008 @ 00:43 ( Permalink )