Neil's Miracleman wasn't Alan's, but then, he didn't get to finish it, so it's hard to say what it might have become.

IMP.

Kevin Pierce wrote: I hate to see Neil screw up yet another Marvel title, now I am not familiar with the Marvelman/Miracleman so it' s hard for me to comment on what he did to the Marvelman character good or bad

What other Marvel title did Neil screw up?

A certain type of change.

Well there's the rub.Was Moores change negative or positive. You say neative. I saw positive. Besides the history of comics is an history of change and even if Moore hadn't written what he wrote the comics of now wouldn't be anything like theose of 30 years ago.

We're never going to agree on this are we? But I think Moore wrote some great stories and added new shade to the genre.

And don't mistake my Prometheus analogy as an'acknowledgement' of anything other than your point of view. Which you're welcome too. But like so many others on the net I'm glad it's not mine.

I don't usually buy comics for the art (and in this case it's by Neil Gaimen, so I'd be buying it anyway) but I'll gladly buy any comic that looks this good:

*********

I have a thought about this: back when I was a comic devouring kid, there was a British strip called The Trigan Empire.  The illustration in there was, I think, painted - whatever the case it was beatifully rendered work.  And it left me - a ten year old comics fan - absolutely cold.  Because it looked impossible.  Part of the appeal of comics to me as a child was that I could do them too.  When I read the books I would dream of a time when I could emulate the artists - and it only seemed a matter of practice.  After all I could do line drawings with shading - I just couldn't do them as well as the artists I admired.  I admired their skill because it was, or seemed, within reach.  Modern comics - those I have seen anyway - with their computer generated colours and painstakingly produced artwork have lost that, I think.