I recently wrote a "mission statement" for the direction I want 2000 AD to take during my tenure as Editor, and distributed it amongst our creators. So far it has met with great enthusiasm. I thought you lot might be interested to read it, if only to initiate debate. Think of it as my "Manifesto for Thrill-Power"...
Andy
2000 AD: A NEW BEGINNING
THE PROBLEM
"2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over the last 23 years... not to mention the 100,000 who have abandoned the comic during that time. Sure, nostalgia plays a part, but that's not the whole story. On the whole, I think 2000 AD is better right now than it has been for several years - but at the same time, I can read progs from 20 years ago that still pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now. So what's gone wrong?
2000 AD was created with a powerful sense of energy and vision - you can still feel it in those early progs. But over the years, that original vision has become diluted. For quite a while now, 2000 AD seems to have been running on autopilot, and somebody needs to stand up and question whether it's actually heading in the right direction.
I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, we'd better figure out what's wrong, and fix it - sharpish! That's what this document is all about. I believe we can make 2000 AD a lot more fun and exciting than it is at the moment.
What follows is basically my vision for the future of 2000 AD, and the kind of stories I think we should be publishing. It would be naïve of me simply to try and set the clock back to 1977 - the world, the market and the readers have obviously changed radically since then - but a lot of the core values of those early days are sorely missing now. 2000 AD used to appeal to readers young and old alike - and it should do again. I really believe that if we can put some of that energy, that imagination and that attitude back into the great work we're already doing, we can once more make 2000 AD a creative force to be reckoned with.
THE HIT
2000 AD readers talk about getting their weekly 'hit' or 'fix' of Thrill-power, and they're only half joking. The comic should be a drug; a jolt of raw, unrefined energy and imagination. We aren't there just to raise a faint ironic smile on the readers' lips; we should blast them into a whole new reality! 2000 AD should be fast, dense, bizarre, twisted, funny, insane, rebellious, dark, ironic, imaginative and exciting! We should blow the readers' minds wide open, and give them something they can't get anywhere else!
What we should never be is bland, derivative and familiar. 2000 AD should be the comic other people copy... not the other way round.
We may all have different ideas of what 2000 AD is all about, or what it should be. I think it's the editor's job to provide a vision for the comic, a common goal for us all to aim for. So let's get down to the basics, and build it up from there.
WHAT IS 2000 AD?
2000 AD IS A SCI-FI ACTION COMIC. The three pillars of its foundation are sci-fi, action (ie. violence!) and humour. Any story that doesn't include all three is liable to run into trouble... unless it's very, very good! Almost all the stories in 2000 AD include some element of humour, but out-and-out comedy strips that don't put an emphasis on physical action and jeopardy tend to get crucified by the readers.
I want to make the readers happy... because I'm one of them. I'm a 2000 AD fan. I want to publish the kind of stories I like. The kind of stories that blew the back of my head off 20 years ago, and have kept me hooked ever since. Let's give 2000 AD its balls back!
What follows is a general call-to-arms for every 2000 AD creator. Much of it is undoubtedly grandmother/eggs stuff, but it never hurts to re-state the obvious...
DENSITY
One of the reasons ex-2000 AD writers have been so successful in the American comics market is that 2000 AD (and the whole British boys' adventure market of old) teaches writers how to condense. When you can tell a complete action story with a beginning, middle and end (and a point!) in five pages, you've cracked the art of comics writing. So let's keep it dense, tight, snapping along at a cracking pace. Never use two panels (or pages, or episodes!) where one will do. In comics, less really is more. Condensing the action down into the least possible number of panels actually increases the drama; it's like a form of distillation. Boil that barrel of beer down into a shot-glass of rocket fuel!
Atmosphere is all well and good, but when it takes six panels for somebody to find their car keys, the readers just aren't getting their money's worth.
CONCEPT
The best 2000 AD series are based around a single character with a strong defining motivation, simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence. For example, "He's Dirty Harry in New York of the future; judge, jury and executioner!" or "He's a genetically engineered soldier who goes AWOL to search for the traitor who killed his fellow GIs;" or "She's an ordinary girl living in a futuristic slum who dreams of just getting out."
Plot and setting are important, but still very much secondary to the core character concept: Who is the hero, and what does he/she want?
EYE CANDY
There are too many 'talking heads' stories in 2000 AD. There's nothing wrong with good dialogue and character interaction, but conversation itself must never be the be-all and end-all of the story. Stories must unfold though visual action, not verbal exposition. The rule of thumb is; no more than three balloons/captions per panel, and no more than 25 words per balloon/caption.
If a casual browser leafs through the pages of 2000 AD and just sees a succession of talking heads, he'll probably put it straight back on the shelf. If he sees big, eye-grabbing visuals, weird locations, cool-looking hardware and exciting action, he might just stop and read it long enough to decide whether he wants to buy it.
This applies to characters as much as situations. 2000 AD used to be full of bizarre-looking aliens, cyborgs, robots, freaks and mutants - and they were the heroes! Nowadays, most of our characters look like they just stepped out of a mainstream Hollywood movie. Let's remember to create characters with a bold and unique visual style.
Comics is a visual medium, and we've only got five or six pages to grab the reader and give him that hit. Writers need to give the artists plenty of incredible, dynamic images to draw which will fire their imaginations. Okay, so we can't expect a big, in-yer-face 'money shot' (so to speak) on every page... but let's aim for one on every other page, where possible - especially for the cliffhangers. Speaking of which...
GRAB 'EM BY THE BALLS!
2000 AD is an action comic, remember. It's in danger of becoming too 'sophisticated' for its own good. Sure, a touch of knowing irony is one of the key ingredients for a successful 2000 AD story - but at the same time, we should never be too 'sophisticated' to go for the big, cheesy, grab-'em-by-the-balls cliffhanger. There used to be an energy and rawness to the action which is missing nowadays. It's all part of the 'hit' the readers crave - they want thrills, dammit!
End every episode on a high note, and leave the readers gagging to find out what happens next. It's the only way to maintain a weekly readership. If they don't care, why should they pick up the next issue?
GET WEIRD!
Another of the dangers of becoming too 'sophisticated' or, dare I say it, 'mature' (shudder) is that it can stifle the imagination. If, when you're writing a story, there's a little voice inside your head saying, "Yeah, but that would probably never happen in real life," take it out and shoot it! We need to take the readers to the weirdest, most whacked-out fringes of our fevered imaginations. That's what they're paying us for!
We should give the readers something they can't get anywhere else - be it movies, TV, video games, whatever. When 2000 AD looks bland and conventional compared to the average computer game, we're in trouble. First and foremost, let's all BE ORIGINAL!
ENOUGH, ALREADY...
So there you go, that's what I'd like us all to aim for. Shouldn't be a problem - most of the creators I've spoken to have echoed similar sentiments. The fact is, everybody loves 2000 AD - they just don't all love what it became. But I think the comic has been steadily improving over the last few years, so we're heading in the right direction. Now that 2000 AD has a new look, a new editor and a new owner, let's have some fun with it!
Andy Diggle Editor, 2000 AD
"I'm with Rowdy Yates Block! Who you fighting with?"
> I recently wrote a "mission statement" for the direction I want 2000 AD to take > during my tenure as Editor, and distributed it amongst our creators. So far it > has met with great enthusiasm. I thought you lot might be interested to read > it, if only to initiate debate. Think of it as my "Manifesto for > Thrill-Power"...
> Andy
> 2000 AD: A NEW BEGINNING
> THE PROBLEM
> "2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the > consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over the last > 23 years... not to mention the 100,000 who have abandoned the comic during > that time. Sure, nostalgia plays a part, but that's not the whole story. On > the whole, I think 2000 AD is better right now than it has been for several > years - but at the same time, I can read progs from 20 years ago that still > pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now. So what's > gone wrong?
> 2000 AD was created with a powerful sense of energy and vision - you can > still feel it in those early progs. But over the years, that original vision > has become diluted. For quite a while now, 2000 AD seems to have been > running on autopilot, and somebody needs to stand up and question whether > it's actually heading in the right direction.
> I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, we'd > better figure out what's wrong, and fix it - sharpish! That's what this > document is all about. I believe we can make 2000 AD a lot more fun and > exciting than it is at the moment.
> What follows is basically my vision for the future of 2000 AD, and the kind > of stories I think we should be publishing. It would be naïve of me simply > to try and set the clock back to 1977 - the world, the market and the > readers have obviously changed radically since then - but a lot of the core > values of those early days are sorely missing now. 2000 AD used to appeal to > readers young and old alike - and it should do again. I really believe that > if we can put some of that energy, that imagination and that attitude back > into the great work we're already doing, we can once more make 2000 AD a > creative force to be reckoned with.
> THE HIT
> 2000 AD readers talk about getting their weekly 'hit' or 'fix' of > Thrill-power, and they're only half joking. The comic should be a drug; a > jolt of raw, unrefined energy and imagination. We aren't there just to raise > a faint ironic smile on the readers' lips; we should blast them into a whole > new reality! 2000 AD should be fast, dense, bizarre, twisted, funny, insane, > rebellious, dark, ironic, imaginative and exciting! We should blow the > readers' minds wide open, and give them something they can't get anywhere > else!
> What we should never be is bland, derivative and familiar. 2000 AD should be > the comic other people copy... not the other way round.
> We may all have different ideas of what 2000 AD is all about, or what it > should be. I think it's the editor's job to provide a vision for the comic, > a common goal for us all to aim for. So let's get down to the basics, and > build it up from there.
> WHAT IS 2000 AD?
> 2000 AD IS A SCI-FI ACTION COMIC. The three pillars of its foundation are > sci-fi, action (ie. violence!) and humour. Any story that doesn't include > all three is liable to run into trouble... unless it's very, very good! > Almost all the stories in 2000 AD include some element of humour, but > out-and-out comedy strips that don't put an emphasis on physical action and > jeopardy tend to get crucified by the readers.
> I want to make the readers happy... because I'm one of them. I'm a 2000 AD > fan. I want to publish the kind of stories I like. The kind of stories that > blew the back of my head off 20 years ago, and have kept me hooked ever > since. Let's give 2000 AD its balls back!
> What follows is a general call-to-arms for every 2000 AD creator. Much of it > is undoubtedly grandmother/eggs stuff, but it never hurts to re-state the > obvious...
> DENSITY
> One of the reasons ex-2000 AD writers have been so successful in the > American comics market is that 2000 AD (and the whole British boys' > adventure market of old) teaches writers how to condense. When you can tell > a complete action story with a beginning, middle and end (and a point!) in > five pages, you've cracked the art of comics writing. So let's keep it > dense, tight, snapping along at a cracking pace. Never use two panels (or > pages, or episodes!) where one will do. In comics, less really is more. > Condensing the action down into the least possible number of panels actually > increases the drama; it's like a form of distillation. Boil that barrel of > beer down into a shot-glass of rocket fuel!
> Atmosphere is all well and good, but when it takes six panels for somebody > to find their car keys, the readers just aren't getting their money's worth.
> CONCEPT
> The best 2000 AD series are based around a single character with a strong > defining motivation, simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence. For > example, "He's Dirty Harry in New York of the future; judge, jury and > executioner!" or "He's a genetically engineered soldier who goes AWOL to > search for the traitor who killed his fellow GIs;" or "She's an ordinary > girl living in a futuristic slum who dreams of just getting out."
> Plot and setting are important, but still very much secondary to the core > character concept: Who is the hero, and what does he/she want?
> EYE CANDY
> There are too many 'talking heads' stories in 2000 AD. There's nothing wrong > with good dialogue and character interaction, but conversation itself must > never be the be-all and end-all of the story. Stories must unfold though > visual action, not verbal exposition. The rule of thumb is; no more than > three balloons/captions per panel, and no more than 25 words per > balloon/caption.
> If a casual browser leafs through the pages of 2000 AD and just sees a > succession of talking heads, he'll probably put it straight back on the > shelf. If he sees big, eye-grabbing visuals, weird locations, cool-looking > hardware and exciting action, he might just stop and read it long enough to > decide whether he wants to buy it.
> This applies to characters as much as situations. 2000 AD used to be full of > bizarre-looking aliens, cyborgs, robots, freaks and mutants - and they were > the heroes! Nowadays, most of our characters look like they just stepped out > of a mainstream Hollywood movie. Let's remember to create characters with a > bold and unique visual style.
> Comics is a visual medium, and we've only got five or six pages to grab the > reader and give him that hit. Writers need to give the artists plenty of > incredible, dynamic images to draw which will fire their imaginations. Okay, > so we can't expect a big, in-yer-face 'money shot' (so to speak) on every > page... but let's aim for one on every other page, where possible - > especially for the cliffhangers. Speaking of which...
> GRAB 'EM BY THE BALLS!
> 2000 AD is an action comic, remember. It's in danger of becoming too > 'sophisticated' for its own good. Sure, a touch of knowing irony is one of > the key ingredients for a successful 2000 AD story - but at the same time, > we should never be too 'sophisticated' to go for the big, cheesy, > grab-'em-by-the-balls cliffhanger. There used to be an energy and rawness to > the action which is missing nowadays. It's all part of the 'hit' the readers > crave - they want thrills, dammit!
> End every episode on a high note, and leave the readers gagging to find out > what happens next. It's the only way to maintain a weekly readership. If > they don't care, why should they pick up the next issue?
> GET WEIRD!
> Another of the dangers of becoming too 'sophisticated' or, dare I say it, > 'mature' (shudder) is that it can stifle the imagination. If, when you're > writing a story, there's a little voice inside your head saying, "Yeah, but > that would probably never happen in real life," take it out and shoot it! We > need to take the readers to the weirdest, most whacked-out fringes of our > fevered imaginations. That's what they're paying us for!
> We should give the readers something they can't get anywhere else - be it > movies, TV, video games, whatever. When 2000 AD looks bland and conventional > compared to the average computer game, we're in trouble. First and foremost, > let's all BE ORIGINAL!
> ENOUGH, ALREADY...
> So there you go, that's what I'd like us all to aim for. Shouldn't be a > problem - most of the creators I've spoken to have echoed similar > sentiments. The fact is, everybody loves 2000 AD - they just don't all love > what it became. But I think the comic has been steadily improving over the > last few years, so we're heading in the right direction. Now that 2000 AD > has a new look, a new editor and a new owner, let's have some fun with it!
> Andy Diggle > Editor, 2000 AD
> "I'm with Rowdy Yates Block! Who you fighting with?"
> I recently wrote a "mission statement" for the direction I want 2000 AD to take > during my tenure as Editor, and distributed it amongst our creators. So far it > has met with great enthusiasm. I thought you lot might be interested to read > it, if only to initiate debate. Think of it as my "Manifesto for > Thrill-Power"...
> Andy
> 2000 AD: A NEW BEGINNING
> THE PROBLEM
> "2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the > consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over the last > 23 years... not to mention the 100,000 who have abandoned the comic during > that time. Sure, nostalgia plays a part, but that's not the whole story. On > the whole, I think 2000 AD is better right now than it has been for several > years - but at the same time, I can read progs from 20 years ago that still > pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now. So what's > gone wrong?
> 2000 AD was created with a powerful sense of energy and vision - you can > still feel it in those early progs. But over the years, that original vision > has become diluted. For quite a while now, 2000 AD seems to have been > running on autopilot, and somebody needs to stand up and question whether > it's actually heading in the right direction.
> I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, we'd > better figure out what's wrong, and fix it - sharpish! That's what this > document is all about. I believe we can make 2000 AD a lot more fun and > exciting than it is at the moment.
> What follows is basically my vision for the future of 2000 AD, and the kind > of stories I think we should be publishing. It would be naïve of me simply > to try and set the clock back to 1977 - the world, the market and the > readers have obviously changed radically since then - but a lot of the core > values of those early days are sorely missing now. 2000 AD used to appeal to > readers young and old alike - and it should do again. I really believe that > if we can put some of that energy, that imagination and that attitude back > into the great work we're already doing, we can once more make 2000 AD a > creative force to be reckoned with.
> THE HIT
> 2000 AD readers talk about getting their weekly 'hit' or 'fix' of > Thrill-power, and they're only half joking. The comic should be a drug; a > jolt of raw, unrefined energy and imagination. We aren't there just to raise > a faint ironic smile on the readers' lips; we should blast them into a whole > new reality! 2000 AD should be fast, dense, bizarre, twisted, funny, insane, > rebellious, dark, ironic, imaginative and exciting! We should blow the > readers' minds wide open, and give them something they can't get anywhere > else!
> What we should never be is bland, derivative and familiar. 2000 AD should be > the comic other people copy... not the other way round.
> We may all have different ideas of what 2000 AD is all about, or what it > should be. I think it's the editor's job to provide a vision for the comic, > a common goal for us all to aim for. So let's get down to the basics, and > build it up from there.
> WHAT IS 2000 AD?
> 2000 AD IS A SCI-FI ACTION COMIC. The three pillars of its foundation are > sci-fi, action (ie. violence!) and humour. Any story that doesn't include > all three is liable to run into trouble... unless it's very, very good! > Almost all the stories in 2000 AD include some element of humour, but > out-and-out comedy strips that don't put an emphasis on physical action and > jeopardy tend to get crucified by the readers.
> I want to make the readers happy... because I'm one of them. I'm a 2000 AD > fan. I want to publish the kind of stories I like. The kind of stories that > blew the back of my head off 20 years ago, and have kept me hooked ever > since. Let's give 2000 AD its balls back!
> What follows is a general call-to-arms for every 2000 AD creator. Much of it > is undoubtedly grandmother/eggs stuff, but it never hurts to re-state the > obvious...
> DENSITY
> One of the reasons ex-2000 AD writers have been so successful in the > American comics market is that 2000 AD (and the whole British boys' > adventure market of old) teaches writers how to condense. When you can tell > a complete action story with a beginning, middle and end (and a point!) in > five pages, you've cracked the art of comics writing. So let's keep it > dense, tight, snapping along at a cracking pace. Never use two panels (or > pages, or episodes!) where one will do. In comics, less really is more. > Condensing the action down into the least possible number of panels actually > increases the drama; it's like a form of distillation. Boil that barrel of > beer down into a shot-glass of rocket fuel!
> Atmosphere is all well and good, but when it takes six panels for somebody > to find their car keys, the readers just aren't getting their money's worth.
> CONCEPT
> The best 2000 AD series are based around a single character with a strong > defining motivation, simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence. For > example, "He's Dirty Harry in New York of the future; judge, jury and > executioner!" or "He's a genetically engineered soldier who goes AWOL to > search for the traitor who killed his fellow GIs;" or "She's an ordinary > girl living in a futuristic slum who dreams of just getting out."
> Plot and setting are important, but still very much secondary to the core > character concept: Who is the hero, and what does he/she want?
> EYE CANDY
> There are too many 'talking heads' stories in 2000 AD. There's nothing wrong > with good dialogue and character interaction, but conversation itself must > never be the be-all and end-all of the story. Stories must unfold though > visual action, not verbal exposition. The rule of thumb is; no more than > three balloons/captions per panel, and no more than 25 words per > balloon/caption.
> If a casual browser leafs through the pages of 2000 AD and just sees a > succession of talking heads, he'll probably put it straight back on the > shelf. If he sees big, eye-grabbing visuals, weird locations, cool-looking > hardware and exciting action, he might just stop and read it long enough to > decide whether he wants to buy it.
> This applies to characters as much as situations. 2000 AD used to be full of > bizarre-looking aliens, cyborgs, robots, freaks and mutants - and they were > the heroes! Nowadays, most of our characters look like they just stepped out > of a mainstream Hollywood movie. Let's remember to create characters with a > bold and unique visual style.
> Comics is a visual medium, and we've only got five or six pages to grab the > reader and give him that hit. Writers need to give the artists plenty of > incredible, dynamic images to draw which will fire their imaginations. Okay, > so we can't expect a big, in-yer-face 'money shot' (so to speak) on every > page... but let's aim for one on every other page, where possible - > especially for the cliffhangers. Speaking of which...
> GRAB 'EM BY THE BALLS!
> 2000 AD is an action comic, remember. It's in danger of becoming too > 'sophisticated' for its own good. Sure, a touch of knowing irony is one of > the key ingredients for a successful 2000 AD story - but at the same time, > we should never be too 'sophisticated' to go for the big, cheesy, > grab-'em-by-the-balls cliffhanger. There used to be an energy and rawness to > the action which is missing nowadays. It's all part of the 'hit' the readers > crave - they want thrills, dammit!
> End every episode on a high note, and leave the readers gagging to find out > what happens next. It's the only way to maintain a weekly readership. If > they don't care, why should they pick up the next issue?
> GET WEIRD!
> Another of the dangers of becoming too 'sophisticated' or, dare I say it, > 'mature' (shudder) is that it can stifle the imagination. If, when you're > writing a story, there's a little voice inside your head saying, "Yeah, but > that would probably never happen in real life," take it out and shoot it! We > need to take the readers to the weirdest, most whacked-out fringes of our > fevered imaginations. That's what they're paying us for!
> We should give the readers something they can't get anywhere else - be it > movies, TV, video games, whatever. When 2000 AD looks bland and conventional > compared to the average computer game, we're in trouble. First and foremost, > let's all BE ORIGINAL!
> ENOUGH, ALREADY...
> So there you go, that's what I'd like us all to aim for. Shouldn't be a > problem - most of the creators I've spoken to have echoed similar > sentiments. The fact is, everybody loves 2000 AD - they just don't all love > what it became. But I think the comic has been steadily improving over the > last few years, so we're heading in the right direction. Now that 2000 AD > has a new look, a new editor and a new owner, let's have some fun with it!
> Andy Diggle > Editor, 2000 AD
> "I'm with Rowdy Yates Block! Who you fighting with?"
One thing that struck me that comes out of all that, but would be a headache for the editor, would be to experiment a little more with the formats. There have been a couple of threads on this ng about varying the page length of strips (most recently regarding future shocks), and a return to 2-4 page strips would very much force back that "density" that Andy is hankering for.
It has also been recently stated that a return to double page centre spreads would be cool. The way 2kad is formatted at the moment, with 5 5-6 page strips, that would be difficult. But by having different formats, that would be less of a problem.
Personally, I'd much rather have more, shorter strips: it would make the comic much less predictable, enable artists to work over longer runs, and encourage more economical story telling.
> I recently wrote a "mission statement" for the direction I want 2000 AD to take > during my tenure as Editor, and distributed it amongst our creators. So far it > has met with great enthusiasm. I thought you lot might be interested to read > it, if only to initiate debate. Think of it as my "Manifesto for > Thrill-Power"...
> Andy
> 2000 AD: A NEW BEGINNING
> THE PROBLEM
> "2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the > consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over the last > 23 years... not to mention the 100,000 who have abandoned the comic during > that time. Sure, nostalgia plays a part, but that's not the whole story. On > the whole, I think 2000 AD is better right now than it has been for several > years - but at the same time, I can read progs from 20 years ago that still > pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now. So what's > gone wrong?
> 2000 AD was created with a powerful sense of energy and vision - you can > still feel it in those early progs. But over the years, that original vision > has become diluted. For quite a while now, 2000 AD seems to have been > running on autopilot, and somebody needs to stand up and question whether > it's actually heading in the right direction.
> I believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, we'd > better figure out what's wrong, and fix it - sharpish! That's what this > document is all about. I believe we can make 2000 AD a lot more fun and > exciting than it is at the moment.
> What follows is basically my vision for the future of 2000 AD, and the kind > of stories I think we should be publishing. It would be naïve of me simply > to try and set the clock back to 1977 - the world, the market and the > readers have obviously changed radically since then - but a lot of the core > values of those early days are sorely missing now. 2000 AD used to appeal to > readers young and old alike - and it should do again. I really believe that > if we can put some of that energy, that imagination and that attitude back > into the great work we're already doing, we can once more make 2000 AD a > creative force to be reckoned with.
> THE HIT
> 2000 AD readers talk about getting their weekly 'hit' or 'fix' of > Thrill-power, and they're only half joking. The comic should be a drug; a > jolt of raw, unrefined energy and imagination. We aren't there just to raise > a faint ironic smile on the readers' lips; we should blast them into a whole > new reality! 2000 AD should be fast, dense, bizarre, twisted, funny, insane, > rebellious, dark, ironic, imaginative and exciting! We should blow the > readers' minds wide open, and give them something they can't get anywhere > else!
> What we should never be is bland, derivative and familiar. 2000 AD should be > the comic other people copy... not the other way round.
> We may all have different ideas of what 2000 AD is all about, or what it > should be. I think it's the editor's job to provide a vision for the comic, > a common goal for us all to aim for. So let's get down to the basics, and > build it up from there.
> WHAT IS 2000 AD?
> 2000 AD IS A SCI-FI ACTION COMIC. The three pillars of its foundation are > sci-fi, action (ie. violence!) and humour. Any story that doesn't include > all three is liable to run into trouble... unless it's very, very good! > Almost all the stories in 2000 AD include some element of humour, but > out-and-out comedy strips that don't put an emphasis on physical action and > jeopardy tend to get crucified by the readers.
> I want to make the readers happy... because I'm one of them. I'm a 2000 AD > fan. I want to publish the kind of stories I like. The kind of stories that > blew the back of my head off 20 years ago, and have kept me hooked ever > since. Let's give 2000 AD its balls back!
> What follows is a general call-to-arms for every 2000 AD creator. Much of it > is undoubtedly grandmother/eggs stuff, but it never hurts to re-state the > obvious...
> DENSITY
> One of the reasons ex-2000 AD writers have been so successful in the > American comics market is that 2000 AD (and the whole British boys' > adventure market of old) teaches writers how to condense. When you can tell > a complete action story with a beginning, middle and end (and a point!) in > five pages, you've cracked the art of comics writing. So let's keep it > dense, tight, snapping along at a cracking pace. Never use two panels (or > pages, or episodes!) where one will do. In comics, less really is more. > Condensing the action down into the least possible number of panels actually > increases the drama; it's like a form of distillation. Boil that barrel of > beer down into a shot-glass of rocket fuel!
> Atmosphere is all well and good, but when it takes six panels for somebody > to find their car keys, the readers just aren't getting their money's worth.
> CONCEPT
> The best 2000 AD series are based around a single character with a strong > defining motivation, simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence. For > example, "He's Dirty Harry in New York of the future; judge, jury and > executioner!" or "He's a genetically engineered soldier who goes AWOL to > search for the traitor who killed his fellow GIs;" or "She's an ordinary > girl living in a futuristic slum who dreams of just getting out."
> Plot and setting are important, but still very much secondary to the core > character concept: Who is the hero, and what does he/she want?
> EYE CANDY
> There are too many 'talking heads' stories in 2000 AD. There's nothing wrong > with good dialogue and character interaction, but conversation itself must > never be the be-all and end-all of the story. Stories must unfold though > visual action, not verbal exposition. The rule of thumb is; no more than > three balloons/captions per panel, and no more than 25 words per > balloon/caption.
> If a casual browser leafs through the pages of 2000 AD and just sees a > succession of talking heads, he'll probably put it straight back on the > shelf. If he sees big, eye-grabbing visuals, weird locations, cool-looking > hardware and exciting action, he might just stop and read it long enough to > decide whether he wants to buy it.
> This applies to characters as much as situations. 2000 AD used to be full of > bizarre-looking aliens, cyborgs, robots, freaks and mutants - and they were > the heroes! Nowadays, most of our characters look like they just stepped out > of a mainstream Hollywood movie. Let's remember to create characters with a > bold and unique visual style.
> Comics is a visual medium, and we've only got five or six pages to grab the > reader and give him that hit. Writers need to give the artists plenty of > incredible, dynamic images to draw which will fire their imaginations. Okay, > so we can't expect a big, in-yer-face 'money shot' (so to speak) on every > page... but let's aim for one on every other page, where possible - > especially for the cliffhangers. Speaking of which...
> GRAB 'EM BY THE BALLS!
> 2000 AD is an action comic, remember. It's in danger of becoming too > 'sophisticated' for its own good. Sure, a touch of knowing irony is one of > the key ingredients for a successful 2000 AD story - but at the same time, > we should never be too 'sophisticated' to go for the big, cheesy, > grab-'em-by-the-balls cliffhanger. There used to be an energy and rawness to > the action which is missing nowadays. It's all part of the 'hit' the readers > crave - they want thrills, dammit!
> End every episode on a high note, and leave the readers gagging to find out > what happens next. It's the only way to maintain a weekly readership. If > they don't care, why should they pick up the next issue?
> GET WEIRD!
> Another of the dangers of becoming too 'sophisticated' or, dare I say it, > 'mature' (shudder) is that it can stifle the imagination. If, when you're > writing a story, there's a little voice inside your head saying, "Yeah, but > that would probably never happen in real life," take it out and shoot it! We > need to take the readers to the weirdest, most whacked-out fringes of our > fevered imaginations. That's what they're paying us for!
> We should give the readers something they can't get anywhere else - be it > movies, TV, video games, whatever. When 2000 AD looks bland and conventional > compared to the average computer game, we're in trouble. First and foremost, > let's all BE ORIGINAL!
> ENOUGH, ALREADY...
> So there you go, that's what I'd like us all to aim for. Shouldn't be a > problem - most of the creators I've spoken to have echoed similar > sentiments. The fact is, everybody loves 2000 AD - they just don't all love > what it became. But I think the comic has been steadily improving over the > last few years, so we're heading in the right direction. Now that 2000 AD > has a new look, a new editor and a new owner, let's have some fun with it!
> Andy Diggle > Editor, 2000 AD
> "I'm with Rowdy Yates Block! Who you fighting with?"
If this isn't a good reason to take out a five-year subscription I don't know what is!
Seriously though, I think a lot of this stands up for artists as well as writers. I wanted to offer a "visual" response to Andy's manifesto.
> I can read progs from 20 years ago that still > pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now.
Visually, a lot of this punch was delivered through artwork that played to the strengths of black and white. Colour is great, but it can't have the same impact as BW. That's why I for one am glad to see some black and white content back in the pages of 2000. We need the mix.
> For quite a while now, 2000 AD seems to have been running on autopilot,
In "the good old days" one prog would be an assault on the eyeballs, with the highly individual styles of people like O'Neill, McMahon and Ezquerra all instantly recognisable. In the nineties Tooth's visual identity was bogged down with Bisley clones and artwork that seemed to lack the boldness of the early days. Now that's starting to change, with people like our very own Frazer & Fraser, and Jock, all of whom have reintroduced an element of individuality to thieir strips.
> 2000 AD should be fast, dense, bizarre, twisted, funny, insane, > rebellious, dark, ironic, imaginative and exciting! We should blow the > readers' minds wide open, and give them something they can't get anywhere > else!
Sounds like a perfect description of Henry Flint's Deadlock
> What we should never be is bland, derivative and familiar. 2000 AD should be > the comic other people copy... not the other way round.
This should be the case for the artwork at least as much as the scripts. What a cover should never be is "bland, derivative and familiar"
> Stories must unfold though visual action, not verbal exposition.
This puts a lot of responsibility on the artist's shoulders, and rightly so. For the story to unfold visually, the artist must know, first and foremost, how to tell a story clearly.
> If he sees big, eye-grabbing visuals, weird locations, cool-looking > hardware and exciting action, he might just stop and read it long enough to > decide whether he wants to buy it.
The visuals are the most immediate information the reader takes in. If the artist doesn't do his job well, the writers efforts may not even be read.
> This applies to characters as much as situations. 2000 AD used to be full of > bizarre-looking aliens, cyborgs, robots, freaks and mutants - and they were > the heroes! Nowadays, most of our characters look like they just stepped out > of a mainstream Hollywood movie. Let's remember to create characters with a > bold and unique visual style.
Don't know about anyone else, for me that hits the nail squarely on the head.
> Comics is a visual medium, and we've only got five or six pages to grab the > reader and give him that hit. Writers need to give the artists plenty of > incredible, dynamic images to draw which will fire their imaginations. Okay, > so we can't expect a big, in-yer-face 'money shot' (so to speak)
I take it Andy means the original meaning of "money shot", otherwise the close proximity of "in-yer-face" is unforgivable :-)
> There used to be an energy and rawness to > the action which is missing nowadays. It's all part of the 'hit' the readers > crave - they want thrills, dammit!
IMO energy and rawness is easier to do in black and white than colour, especially computer colour, but it can be done. Colour composition needs to be considered from the very start, otherwise the penciller leaves the colourist with a difficult task to do anything other than colour in the gaps. For this reason I'd like to see more artists colouring their own work.
> When 2000 AD looks bland and conventional compared to the average computer
game, we're in trouble. First and foremost, let's all BE ORIGINAL!
2000AD should be inspiring computer games, not the other way round. In the EDGE, they stated that 2000AD's influence on their industry was vast, and even suggested the designers of one of the most visually influential films of all time, BladeRunner, may have been reading 2000AD while they worked... That's what we have to live up to!
> But I think the comic has been steadily improving over the > last few years, so we're heading in the right direction. Now that 2000 AD > has a new look, a new editor and a new owner, let's have some fun with it!
not technically dead, more 'fused to his transport (forgot the name) and the human guy (i forgot his name too, i've had four hours sleep in three days, so i've got an excuse) and not going to get any better' but seeing as i forgot half of what i was going to type as i typed, i should have just agreed with you...............
Wow. I think we have just found the man who has the job he always wanted! I'm with you Andy, but I'd like to raise a few points. If they're all already in the document (and I missed them) then forgive me.
The emphasis is put on short, sharp balls-out stories, which is fair enough, but will there still be room for tales that take longer to tell? Would Nikolai Dante be distilled into smaller, easy-to-swallow mouthfuls? Can you really capture the series in a sentence?
Also, you mention talking head series. Off hand, I can't think of any talking head series that have appeared in recent times. I'll grant you, it's fairly late and I've not wracked my brains, but nothing springs to mind. The only example I can think of would be the S/D one episode tales, which I like.
Apart from those points I'm with you all the way, but let's not forget Button Man (obviously not as he's returning), and other, more serious stories. Weird is good, but how much Ren & Stimpy do you want before you want an episode of King of the Hill? Make it weird / different / what-it-was, but keep a balance.
In article <20001001172616.15448.00000...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, andydig...@aol.com (Andy Diggle) wrote:
> THE PROBLEM
> "2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the > consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over the last > 23 years... not to mention the 100,000 who have abandoned the comic during > that time. Sure, nostalgia plays a part, but that's not the whole
story.
Well, I hope Rebellion will fork out for a high-profile advertising campaign to get this message across to some of those 100,000 former Squaxx.
> One thing that struck me that comes out of all that, but would be a > headache for the editor, would be to experiment a little more with the > formats. There have been a couple of threads on this ng about varying the > page length of strips (most recently regarding future shocks), and a > return to 2-4 page strips would very much force back that "density" that > Andy is hankering for.
> It has also been recently stated that a return to double page centre > spreads would be cool. The way 2kad is formatted at the moment, with 5 5-6 > page strips, that would be difficult. But by having different formats, > that would be less of a problem.
> Personally, I'd much rather have more, shorter strips: it would make the > comic much less predictable, enable artists to work over longer runs, and > encourage more economical story telling.
I agree there - most of Steve Moore's Future Shocks seemed really padded out in order to reach the page count. Take the one with the pupae punchline for instance...all those loose threads about the alien's religion to fill the intervening 4 pages.
As Andy's thinking about ensuring 2000AD is never predicatable a simple thing would be to have varying length future shocks...and varying the writers and the styles so future shocks become a pleasant surprise rather then a routine strip. I'm delighted about the return of Future Shocks but so far as well as being by the same writer they have been a bit sci-fi heavy - ie fleets of spaceships while the oldies were often more profound - remember Alan Moore's The Big Clock? Only the first of the new ones had had an idea behind it that seemd new.
> One thing that struck me that comes out of all that, but would be a > headache for the editor, would be to experiment a little more with the > formats. There have been a couple of threads on this ng about varying the > page length of strips (most recently regarding future shocks), and a > return to 2-4 page strips would very much force back that "density" that > Andy is hankering for.
> It has also been recently stated that a return to double page centre > spreads would be cool. The way 2kad is formatted at the moment, with 5 5-6 > page strips, that would be difficult. But by having different formats, > that would be less of a problem.
> Personally, I'd much rather have more, shorter strips: it would make the > comic much less predictable, enable artists to work over longer runs, and > encourage more economical story telling.
I agree there - most of Steve Moore's Future Shocks seemed really padded out in order to reach the page count. Take the one with the pupae punchline for instance...all those loose threads about the alien's religion to fill the intervening 4 pages.
As Andy's thinking about ensuring 2000AD is never predicatable a simple thing would be to have varying length future shocks...and varying the writers and the styles so future shocks become a pleasant surprise rather then a routine strip. I'm delighted about the return of Future Shocks but so far as well as being by the same writer they have been a bit sci-fi heavy - ie fleets of spaceships while the oldies were often more profound - remember Alan Moore's The Big Clock? Only the first of the new ones had had an idea behind it that seemd new.
Lets start a new campaign for shorter future shocks, let's have some two pagers, some 4 pagers and even some 3 and a half pagers. Fill the rest with old weetabix ads :) (y'know the ones with the breakdancing weetabix - OT: I saw a bloke in the shopping centre yesterday with a *very* faded tatto of one of the weetabix crew - and there's a lesson in that for all of us :)
-pj
"Adrian Bamforth" <u...@fegmania.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > One thing that struck me that comes out of all that, but would be a > > headache for the editor, would be to experiment a little more with the > > formats. There have been a couple of threads on this ng about varying the > > page length of strips (most recently regarding future shocks), and a > > return to 2-4 page strips would very much force back that "density" that > > Andy is hankering for.
> > It has also been recently stated that a return to double page centre > > spreads would be cool. The way 2kad is formatted at the moment, with 5 5-6 > > page strips, that would be difficult. But by having different formats, > > that would be less of a problem.
> > Personally, I'd much rather have more, shorter strips: it would make the > > comic much less predictable, enable artists to work over longer runs, and > > encourage more economical story telling.
> I agree there - most of Steve Moore's Future Shocks seemed really padded out > in order to reach the page count. Take the one with the pupae punchline for > instance...all those loose threads about the alien's religion to fill the > intervening 4 pages.
> As Andy's thinking about ensuring 2000AD is never predicatable a simple > thing would be to have varying length future shocks...and varying the > writers and the styles so future shocks become a pleasant surprise rather > then a routine strip. I'm delighted about the return of Future Shocks but so > far as well as being by the same writer they have been a bit sci-fi heavy - > ie fleets of spaceships while the oldies were often more profound - remember > Alan Moore's The Big Clock? Only the first of the new ones had had an idea > behind it that seemd new.
> > One thing that struck me that comes out of all that, but would be a > > headache for the editor, would be to experiment a little more with the > > formats. There have been a couple of threads on this ng about varying the > > page length of strips (most recently regarding future shocks), and a > > return to 2-4 page strips would very much force back that "density" that > > Andy is hankering for.
> > It has also been recently stated that a return to double page centre > > spreads would be cool. The way 2kad is formatted at the moment, with 5 5-6 > > page strips, that would be difficult. But by having different formats, > > that would be less of a problem.
> > Personally, I'd much rather have more, shorter strips: it would make the > > comic much less predictable, enable artists to work over longer runs, and > > encourage more economical story telling.
> I agree there - most of Steve Moore's Future Shocks seemed really padded out > in order to reach the page count. Take the one with the pupae punchline for > instance...all those loose threads about the alien's religion to fill the > intervening 4 pages.
S'funny... I was just scribbling some notes for a potential f/shock. The idea was to have four pages of increasingly convoluted shennanigans and intrigue and then on the fifth page have the main character accidentally shoot himself in the head, or something. But I don't think it'd go down too well with the green-dude. ;)
First off, let me say that the 'mission statement' gives the long term fan the first cause to be really optimistic in a long, long time! Although David did his best, one often felt that he was shackled by 'you know who' and it seems that this will no longer be the case, but in order for the magazine to improve, the right person has to be at the wheel, so to speak.
You and we seem to have the best of both worlds.
>"2000 AD just isn't as good as it used to be." That seems to be the >consensus opinion of the 25,000 readers who have stuck with us over >the last 23 years...
I think there's a problem of rose-tinted glasses, but this was massively exemplified by the editorial decisions of the mid-'90s that pretty much ignored all of the old characters and piled on four new characters every eight weeks or so.
Personally, I don't think 2000AD is any worse than it was during the 600s, when I started reading every week (having picked up the odd copy since the 300s) - but I think it was lacking stability and consistency, at least until the last six months or so.
>but at the same time, I can read progs from 20 years ago that still >pack more of a punch than some of the stuff we're publishing now. So >what's gone wrong?
I'd like to know what progs these are. For me, there are certain stories that pack more of a punch, but generally speaking this is rare for whole issues. I think the points you touch on later in the post, namely those of imagination (both artistically and via prose), the use of the bizarre, and the old gung-ho nature has been deserted for a more mature approach. Generally, I actually prefer this, but I can see where you are coming from - 2000AD certainly lack the immediacy of old, and that's problematic for getting in new readers.
Again, I think this is a problem of 'balance'. In the 'old days' it was all action, action, action - this was pretty tedious at times. However, just going down the 'mature' route also proves ultimately fruitless. Both sets of ideals need to be used on an almost constant basis, or strips found that have both, Button Man being a great example of that (although I have to say, I think three series for this character is really pushing it).
>It would be naïve of me simply to try and set the clock back to 1977 >- the world, the market and the readers have obviously changed >radically since then
Thankfully then, we won't be seeing Mach Two, Harlem Heroes 3, Invasion: the early years, or Bonjo from Beyond all Hope.
>2000 AD used to appeal to readers young and old alike - and it >should do again.
It's going to be hard to do this - get back the kids who are embroiled in their console twitch-fests (although I had a computer when I was young and still actually read stuff - go figure!) whilst not alienating the current readership, which is apparently in its 20s on average, unless I misread that somewhere.
>2000 AD IS A SCI-FI ACTION COMIC. The three pillars of its foundation >are sci-fi, action (ie. violence!) and humour.
The later in a non-convoluted sense, please! De-facto humour stories, as you mention have historically been spectacularly unsuccessful in 2000AD, the sole exception in my memory being DR and Quinch, and we're not very likely to see them again unless Alan Moore has a severe change of heart.
I think you hit on the point when you say include an element of humour in some strips instead. Dredd can be very, very funny on occasions, usually in strips which perhaps were not actually intended to be! (I also think Wagner falls down when he tries to make Dredd funny - the situations should never be forced.)
>Any story that doesn't include all three is liable to run into >trouble... unless it's very, very good!
Saved by the second half of that sentence! To my mind, some of the very best 2000AD stories have fallen outside of the sci-fi arena, Button Man and Luke Kirby being the most obvious two. Sadly, I think Luke is never to return, for obvious reasons, but you get the drift!
Perhaps those that skew and contain only a small element of sci-fi can also make a 'comeback'. Tribal Memories is one of the very best 2000AD stories ever published, but the de-facto sci-fi element is actually quite small.
>Let's give 2000 AD its balls back!
Unless they are 'Brothers'...
>DENSITY >Never use two panels (or pages, or episodes!) where one will do. In >comics, less really is more.
In which case, surely two or three page Future Shocks are to be encouraged? Surely the remaining pages can be filled with adverts, extra letters, full-page artwork, features, or something else?
>CONCEPT >The best 2000 AD series are based around a single character with a >strong defining motivation,
Which is exactly how Rogue Trooper ended up being such a repugnant pile of dross - he ended up having all secondary motivation, and no real purpose.
>EYE CANDY >There are too many 'talking heads' stories in 2000 AD. There's nothing >wrong with good dialogue and character interaction, but conversation >itself must never be the be-all and end-all of the story.
This is usually a weakness of script and highlights something else that seems to have all-but-disappeared from 2000AD in recent years: the art of the caption. Sometimes it is easier, faster, and more efficient to use a caption block to set a scene than a series of panels with the central characters talking.
>Let's remember to create characters with a bold and unique >visual style.
Like Nemesis? Oh bugger, he's (kind of) dead :-) Good point, though - there's little point in having fifteen 'Hollywood Heroes' running round the pages of the Galaxy's Greatest.
>GRAB 'EM BY THE BALLS! >2000 AD is an action comic, remember. It's in danger of becoming too >'sophisticated' for its own good.
One of the most 'sophisticated' stories 2000AD ever ran was Zenith, yet it still had plenty of action! Perhaps this is a milestone to look up to, erm... mix a couple of metaphors.
By the way, if Andy happens to read this: Zenith TPB! Zenith TPB! Zenith TPB!
Okay, enough.
>End every episode on a high note, and leave the readers gagging to >find out what happens next. It's the only way to maintain a weekly >readership. If they don't care, why should they pick up the >next issue?
I actually find this a real problem with 2000AD. Some of the cliffhangers seem so damn convoluted. Perhaps some stories can be written in longer parts to help get around this? Certainly, John Smith suffers in this format at times - I thought Devlin Waugh's last outing was pretty awful until I went back and read the whole thing in one sitting. The five/six page format killed it. I don't think this would have happened with ten pages per week. Sure, that's a lot of 2000AD's 'real estate' taken up, but then (very) short Future Shocks could always provide a counterpoint.
>GET WEIRD!
Agreed, in every sense of what you say. 2000AD has probably become too normal at times, and that's a very bad thing!
Finally, in this week's letters page you ask if there are any creators you would like to see return to the pages of 2000AD. In terms of artistic 'shock' value, you could do a lot worse than the old McCarthy/Riot combination, who produced some of the most exciting, colourful and downright weird Dredds ever. Jamie Hewlett might be another consideration, if he's still in the 'biz'.
Best of luck, Andy. It's going well so far.
------ http://listen.to/veer - Veer MP3s - dance - noise - post rock "Colouring their thoughts with the lights in their eyes" ------
In article <BZoC5.10990$uq5.204...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, pauljhol...@No-ntlworld-Spam.com (Paul J Holden) wrote:
> OT: I > saw a bloke in the shopping centre yesterday with a *very* faded tatto > of > one of the weetabix crew - and there's a lesson in that for all of us :)
Who can name all of them? I remember there was Brian, Brain, Dunk, but that's it.
> S'funny... I was just scribbling some notes for a potential f/shock. The > idea was to have four pages of increasingly convoluted shennanigans and > intrigue and then on the fifth page have the main character accidentally > shoot himself in the head, or something. But I don't think it'd go down too > well with the green-dude. ;)
What about four pages of increasingly convoluted shenannigans, and then the main character suddenly gets flattenened by a falling hippo. They'll not see that coming.
>> S'funny... I was just scribbling some notes for a potential f/shock. The >> idea was to have four pages of increasingly convoluted shennanigans and >> intrigue and then on the fifth page have the main character accidentally >> shoot himself in the head, or something. But I don't think it'd go down > too >> well with the green-dude. ;)
> What about four pages of increasingly convoluted shenannigans, and then the > main character suddenly gets flattenened by a falling hippo. They'll not see > that coming.
I don't know what's wrong with 2000AD, maybe it's that the readership has grown up and that in it's current form it doesn't appeal to the youngsters with all their segamegaplaystationdrives. Isn't it just the way, I remember in my day (sic, I sound middle aged!!) that there where a plethora of WWII mini graphic novels (commando, warlord) running stories that wouldn't pass the censor these days, suffice to say it was all about fighting Jerry the Hun who just used to exclaim "Achtung" and "Die Englander" a lot.
What is the secret formula?
I don't know I can't analyse what I saw in 2000AD, part of it was social, part of it was the genuinely creative storylines, part was the quality artwork.
How do you recreate something so subjective as your individual recollection of a childhood fantasy hero? (Oh God, I'm going all maudlin now)
My favourite character was of course JD, because he was really a bastard, a cold analytical machine that dispensed whitty retort with as much ease as he dispensed death. The hairline cracks in his character gave you the glimmer of hope that he was human, but it never lasted. Apart from that dodgy period when he was accompanied by Walter the Wobot
The villains were somehow more interesting, it was like a desperate struggle for JD to keep up with the latest fad that overtook the citizens of MC1.
None of the other characters really did it for me in the same way, Strontium Dog was OK, same for Rogue Trooper and Slainé. I loved the old style ABC warriors stories with the classic RO-JAWS & HAMMERSTEIN dual act and when it went all Si Bisley, but when the artwork switched it wasn't the same.
It always suprises me how jaded I've become to things like this.
I mean when they revived Dr.Who for the TV Movie it just did not live up to expectations. Is it that my expectations of a decent bit of SCI-FI were too much or whas it that it was just plain crap execution. I think the latter, as I have read at least 1 fabulous New Adventures of Dr.Who novel since "Legacy of the Daleks" - fucking brilliant, you must read it.
If 2000AD is to get better then it has to bring back some of it's ultra-violently best characters, e.g the Kleggs, and Caligula, what about a clone of Judge Caligula storyline. Or an alien invasion story. The odds have to be massively stacked against JD and he then pulls off an amazing victory that just makes you think "what a guy/bastard!!" (Delete as applicable"
Anyway this could go on forever...
Dude
Check out the website, Dudes a dot com now!!
-- alhaza...@freeuk.com (long live the revolution) A...@zared.freeserve.co.uk (when it works) alhaza...@appleonline.net (coz I love my iMac) ICQ: 68969502
|
