Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorAndrew_H
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2011
    I dunno why one compare such totally different things. Watchmen is very, very 80s, Cold War fiction. FreakAngels is (as has oft been stated) a post-apocalyptic narrative. It seems to me (but what do know) to have roots in a fair bit of English traditions of SciFi, and it's not really a meta-narrative about super heroes, unlkess I've REALLY missed something. In a way it's very nostalgic - I get reminded of 2000 AD, which I grew up reading.
  1.  (9838.22)
    it's not really a meta-narrative about super heroes

    Thank you.

    I get reminded of 2000 AD, which I grew up reading.

    As did I.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew_H
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2011 edited
    of course, such a comparison could be solely for comedic purpsoes.
    • CommentTimeMay 6th 2011
    Personally I like Freakangels a lot. Didn't really care for the Watchmen, and didn't see any similarities between the two. D: Even after reading the post with "similarities" I still don't see them. :o

    As for today's update, I could have sworn I heard dramatic music playing when the revelation about Mark happened. Dun Dun DUNN!
  2.  (9838.25)
    Yeah, well, I knew comparisons like that are only about personal tastes. I've also noticed that both X-Men and Freakangels are mutants with superior powers amd are persecutes for this.
    • CommentAuthorDan Kelly
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2011
    @Andrew_H I've always felt that FreakAngels is the 2000AD story that Warren couldn't write for them due to the rights issues that he has talked about elsewhere...

    ...Would love to have seen it in 2000ad, but that would never have happened without even longer gaps in publication (for those that don't know 2000ad tend not to run long ongoing stories in single blocks - normally 8-10 x 6 page episodes in a run I think, then something new. )
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2011
    One more comparation between Watchmen and FA's? I think FA's have much more background and filosofical body in the story itself. The FA-story obviously has been thoroughly thought through, not only on the aspect of action and effect, but also in motivation and reasoning in the style of "Suppose if, what then?"

    Last week was not bad, next week will be great: VACATION!!! :-D
  3.  (9838.28)
    Sory, I confused Watchmen and X-Men
      CommentAuthorHEY APATHY!
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2011 edited
    not to distract from the beautiful story but I just wanted to praise the Webcomic presentation (again) . Been reading it for a year now and evertime I open it I'm just like WOW, the way it reads online is stunning. Thanks (again) for such a magnificant and free book

    edit- never read 2000 AD but if it's anything like this I must investigate
    • CommentAuthorMrMonk
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2011
    A good episode, even if a little disturbing in the way things are revealed.

    A niggling question about the art: didn't Kirk used to have head stubble?
    • CommentAuthorkatrina
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2011
    Terrific episode; I love how everyone starts closing in on him in the last panel. Poor guy.

    I'm sure someone's said this before, but I wouldn't be surprised if the resemblance between Mark and popular depictions of Jesus were intended. The word 'messianic' comes to mind.
  4.  (9838.32)
    "didn't Kirk used to have head stubble?"

    That was last week. He's been clean shaven ever since Alice started giving him relief on the tower (I would hope he started bathing and eating regularly again too...!)
  5.  (9838.33)
    "the resemblance between Mark and popular depictions of Jesus were intended"

    Nothing's scarier than Jesus gone bad!
  6.  (9838.34)
    Give me a break! No-one even knew if Jesus actually grew a beard. Or kept his hair long. Or if he shaved his head. The popular iconography of Jesus is entirely fictional. For all we kmow, Jesus could have been a black-skinned albino. For the Gospels tell us nothing about the physical appearance of Jesus (they didn't know, or didn't think it was important).The Jesus of Michelangeloìs Universal Judgement is anything like the traditional image of Jesus, pour example. To be sure, Jesus probably wasn't pale, didn't have violet eyes, and didn't wear military camouflage attire.
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011 edited
    popular iconography of Jesus

    Meaning the one most people will recognize and identify with, accuracy notwithstanding. I'd really recommend relaxing - no one went out of the way to piss you off or offend you.
  7.  (9838.36)
    I'm not pissed of or offended...I omly fail to see any reasonable similarity between Mark Fox and Jesus, save a generic resemblance with conventional iconography.
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
    I agree with Jack, it is easy to see the physical similarities based on popular imagery. I feel it is better to compare characteristics rather than appearance. Which is so, incredibly far from similar.
  8.  (9838.38)
    There is no consciously intended similarity to Jesus - as he may have been actually, or as he is popularly. There wasn't any mention of Jesus in the FA script, and I wasn't thinking of Jesus when I first drew Mark. So there.
  9.  (9838.39)
    To tell you the truth, I'm actually pretty sick of the kind of analysis that assumes that there are only (x) possible stories and every new story is really one of them. It's not the Bible, it's not Watchmen, it's not a veiled reiteration of either of them or anything else I recognise and frankly I wouldn't still be wasting my time reading it if it was. Such derivative stuff exists, sure, but you'd be drawing a long bow to say that FA is within cooee of it.
  10.  (9838.40)
    Machiavelli, maybe? A humanist who was exiled for his ideas on exerting power over people? Believed dead and returned seven years later to kill his enemies? Mark-iavelli?

    I can't help it! I have an interpretation disease!