| |
|
| I can think of a hundred reasons why the art in dk2 is absolutely brilliant, but if i do so am i being unnecessarily kind? I love the way he has learnt the lesson of Windows when plotting and then framing the strip. panels swoop in to show us the action wherever it is without using the movie convention of having a character appear on tv or whatever. if he wants to convey an effect with the script, he doesn't seem to be using a grownup real-world sitch to frame the panel's 'eye'. here the context is comics coming face to face with the future. hence the [deliberately?] anachronistic-seeming colouring [i find the idea of a billion available colours being boiled into a latter-day approximation/evocation of the four basics available to Kane and Paris quite effective really]. choric and narrative functions becoming mutually synonymous. reminiscent of the wild untrammelled ergs-per-page of jack cole's plastic man work. i know none of this shit makes sense but when reading dk2 i keep getting the feeling that something very clever and important is happening just below the surface. it's taken such a dissing from so many quarters that it's practically underground man. give it a year or two maybe. the only example i can think of miller never looking rushed is sin city bk1. the rest of the time, that's its charm isn't it? sorry i'll stop. |
|
|
