RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Comic book blasphemies

On issues of race and politics, I'll stand by my lucid and factual arguments to your insults and personally slanderous innuendo any day of the week.

Regarding Gibbons' storytelling contribution in WATCHMEN, I'll concede that you and G-man have each cited sources that Gibbons contributed more to WATCHMEN's story and design than I initially thought.
But I still see it ultimately as an Alan Moore show, that Gibbons made a contribution to. I still find Gibbons' linestyle bland and unspectacular, and merely functional. Gibbons is no Neal Adams, John Bolton, Alan Davis, Brian Bolland, Bissette/Tottleben, no Michael T Gilbert, no Don Simpson. Gibbons' work does not have the personality, energy or decorative linestyle comparable to any of these other artists.
WATCHMEN is great, and Gibbons was a part of that collaboration. And as I said, maybe the fact that Gibbons' art was functional to the story , make it work better than an artist who might draw attention to himself and his pin-up pages, and away from the story.

But for me, I just can't help thinking another artist than Gibbons could have made WATCHMEN even more great.

I don't really get why you think the Bissette/Tottleben page is... I don't know what you're saying when you say I'm "talking out [my] ass" to prefer Bissette/Tottleben. But you imply that it is somehow inferior (page 1 of SWAMP THING 22, if the link expires later).

I think it's a beautiful and decorative page, that also demonstrates good composition and story narrative.

Not that I think the WATCHMEN 3 page you linked is unimaginative. It's good composition and an arguably more complex story narrative, with the "Tales of the Black Schooner" scroll-framed caption balloons separating the story-within-a-story" narrative from the street scene of the newsvendor and the kid reading the comic, and the radiation sign on the wall that references the Dr. Manhattan story and origin to come later in this and the next issue.
Again, while the layout composition by Gibbons on the WATCHMEN 3 page is intelligent and complex, it is still bland in its linestyle, and not what I would term beautiful, or representative of the best in comic book art. The story certainly is, but the art less so and more functional. I won't argue that it demonstrates complex design and storytelling, but it is ultimately not beautiful the way a Wrightson, Windsor-Smith, Arthur Adams or Mike Mignola page is.


Although I guess the same argument can be applied to Kirby. In terms of dynamic energy, design and page layout, Kirby is certainly a master storyteller. But for some, Kirby's linestyle, squared faces and hands, and often lesser level of detail make his work less attractive to them. For me, I like both, Kirby's layout design, as well as his linestyle. But I can understand that others don't.

I never said the page was inferior. You're missing the entire point. Bissette was the perfect artist for Swamp Thing, but he would have done a shit job on Watchmen. Gibbons is the perfect artist for Watchmen, but he would have done a shit job on Swamp Thing. Swamp Thing needs atmospheric terror; Gibbons isn't good at that. Watchmen needs a high level of detail and very careful composition in order to cramp the insane amount of elements in Moore's descriptions for this comic into a panel and still look intelligible; Bissette isn't good at that. In fact, few artists are as good as that as Dave Gibbons. Gibbons is so good at it, in fact, that (INTERLUDE: you're racist) according to the interview I linked to above, the level of detail he worked with changed the entire story and gave us the Watchmen we know. The End.

Like I said.... I think WATCHMEN is a masterwork as is. I like the work of both Moore and Gibbons in it.

And if not Dave Gibbons, I think it would be equally good if not better if another artist had drawn it, such as Alan Davis, David Lloyd, or some other then-unknown artist who would have drawn in equal detail with a more decorative linestyle than Gibbons.
Gibbons' work is competent, but a bit comic-booky and lackluster. It gives WATCHMEN a unique look, and reminiscent of the late-1960's Charleton work on the characters WATCHMEN is adapted from. In this sense, Gibbons' art is arguably perfect for the series. Compatible with work of guys like Ditko and Boyette who drew the original Charleton versions.

But any artist who collaborated with Moore would have brought his own contribution to WATCHMEN, just as Gibbons did. I just wonder if WATCHMEN could have been even better if it had been drawn by the likes of a Wrightson, Kaluta, Neal Adams, Arthur Adams, John Bolton, Charles Vess, Jim Starlin, David Mazzuchelli, Michael Golden, Tim Conrad, Alan Davis, David Lloyd, or some other then-undiscovered talent.
That's not a sense I get when I look at SWAMP THING by Moore/Bissette/Tottleben, or MIRACLEMAN by Moore/Leach/Davis, or "Pictopia" by Moore/Simpson, or MR MONSTER by Moore/M.T.Gilbert.


In a parallel example, CONAN by Barry Windsor-Smith is arguably unthinkable in its origins by any other artist. But Smith was actually Marvel's second choice. They originally wanted to give the series to John Buscema, but Buscema wanted too much per page, so they gave it to Windsor-Smith because he was cheaper, and they didn't want to budget much for a series then seen by Marvel's leadership as a risky non-superhero book. Which unexpectedly turned out to be enormously successful. After which Smith left, and they gave the book to Buscema anyway.

If Bissette/Tottleben had drawn WATCHMEN, you'd say "How could you possibly imagine anyone else drawing WATCHMEN?!?"
And suggesting Gibbons could have drawn it would now be the blasphemy!