Count-

>>Since that means Segar's POPEYE, Gould's TRACY, Raymond's GORDON & X-9, Foster's TARZAN, Crane's WASH TUBBS & BUZZ SAWYER, etc., I don't see that as a failing?<<

>No, what I mean is just that. It looked like a comic strip. Which isn't bad. If you're drawing comic strips for newspapers. Comic books have far more potential. Compare any comic strip with Kirby's comic book work, or Stearanko's. I want cool backgrounds and detail in my comics, not newspaper-bare blank backgrounds or simple filler.<

Wow, do I have to disagree there. POPEYE is "toon style, " yes; the others - especially Raymond's & Foster's work - fits your demands. And takes the prize. Ever see any Sundays?

>>To dismiss it all out of hand comes close to being analgaous to the thread elsewhere calling Silent Film "not Real Movies." And worst of all, closes off some dang satisfying reading!<<

>That's not all that bad an analogy though. Silent films had bad, grainy stock, poor lighting, nearly no special effects, no sound, no color, etc.<

Simply not true. Some ill-treated ones do now; nearly none did then (please check out the Silent Films thread.) A well-preserved and/or restored Silent can be breathtaking. There was always music; often, orchestral - in big cities, sometimes a chorus & live sound effects. Most were tinted - and some, tinted & toned (in other words, a blue sky with green trees). Lighting could be amazing.

(See the most current DVDs of SUNRISE, NOSFERATU, PHANTOM, etc.)

I'd have to agree with your own theory: Old is not necessarily bad, and New is not always better.

Best,
-Craig W.

Monsterkid since the Kennedy Era
Last Edited By: Wich2 Jan 26 08 12:16 AM. Edited 1 times.