| |
|
I’m with Thrax on this one : maybe people who’ve read it can comment, until then, it’s all guesswork. Which reminds me of that Onion gag about two fanboys arguing about the LOTR and Harry Potter films on the basis of only having seen the trailers…
If we’re going to look at past history, it’s difficult to guess whether Miller returning to the scene of a former glory will be a good or a bad thing. People here seem to think that the series featuring Martha Washington have been less good as time went on, whereas a recent thread on Daredevil seemed to rate the Born Again sequence very highly – and this was Miller returning to the character for a second stint, after all. As was Batman Year One.
Revisiting something can be useful and interesting (Eisner’s work using the Dropsie Avenue locale, for example), allowing a creator to find more to express and explore, or it can be a letdown (Claremont’s recent X-work doesn’t appear to have had the same success as his past stuff, for instance). We’ll actually be able to say something useful about 'DK2' when we've seen it, right ?
And Cameron : I’m sure that you see your work as an ongoing process of evolution and learning (which is only right – Neil Gaiman made a comment about Will Eisner to this effect recently, so let’s face it, you’re in good company with that mindset), but I think you’re being too hard on yourself there. I’ve seen a goodly amount of your work, and I think it's very impressive. Sure, there’ll be stuff you’ve done in the past that embarrasses you (in the final analysis, that’s going to be the case for all of us, right?) in later times, but that in itself shows that you’re not content to stagnate. Which is exactly the sort of approach that does you credit, and can only help the medium…
DBC |
|
|
