It looks quite well done - but on the other hand the original text is so relentlessly visual, and it has those wonderful Ralph Steadman illustrations, so I can’t really see why it’s necessary. Even so, I might buy it …
The only movie I’ve ever walked out of. I’m not sure if it was the movie itself or the forced laughter of the only other person in the theatre that really got to me. A combination I guess, but to stay another minute would have been unbearable. Digesting it as a graphic novel would be more palatable, I think.
This very book arrived on my doorstep about three days ago and I’m quite…(as Cory might say) chuffed with it.
I will own this (likely) because.
I’d have liked to see an original take, though- Hunter was, as I recall, not a giant fan of Gilliam’s version. That doesn’t really bother me, as I find it quite good myself. But: why re-do what already exists? Why not offer another vision? Another lens?
I can’t even. Steersman just occupies this universe so thoroughly.
Hm. What would constitute an “original take”? Are you saying that comics as a medium is too close to film for a comic to stand on its own next to a movie based on the same material, or that this particular comic is too faithful to the source?
As your attorney, I advise you to buy this book at top speed, it’ll be a god damn miracle if we can read it before you turn into a wild animal.
Well, after you read it, it sticks in your head, and I can imagine an illustrator obsessing over needing to draw it all.
I find when I am re-reading it, I start to talk like Hunter. I start calling people Rat Bastards. It’s very infectious.
I’m not entirely sure.
I guess I wish the comic referenced the movie less, and used the book as it’s source material. Specifically, the text of the book (and not the illustrations that went with it. Though I love Steadman’s work).
But, again- I’ll likely buy this regardless.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.