Posts Tagged ‘ tick ’
Mr. C has decided to grace us with 30 festive frames per second of animated (and puppetized) Christmas cheer.
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Sometimes children are naughty; sometimes they are nice.
Sometimes Santa is naughty, too. In the far future, Santa has been replaced (secretly defeated??!) by a HIDEOUS ROBOT OF DOOM, RAINING DEATH ON ALL IN ITS PATH!!!
On alternating Fridays, Michael Carlisle examines the world “outside” sequential art to find… more sequential art. Expect mathematics, a bit of madness, and a dash of pessimistic optimism.
“I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances.” – Alan Moore666
Non-exhaustive list of forms of the mythos known as The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
- radio series (1978, 2003)
- book series (1979-1992)
- BBC TV miniseries (1981)
- text-based video game (1984)
- comics (1993-1996)
- movie (2005)
Remember the first time you said something to the effect of, “No, they can’t remake [adapt] THAT! I love that!”
If you’re reading this, you probably don’t, since it’s happened so many times you’ve either been worn down, grown accustomed to it, or, possibly, screamed in righteous Fan rage every time.
Part of the notion of “sequential art”, art in sequence, is the idea of a sequence of art. If we consider a piece of art (not necessarily “sequential”) as an individual entity, then a remake or adaptation of that particular work creates (or adds to) a particular sequence of works sharing characters and/or certain other plot elements. This sequence, if it becomes large and/or popular enough, gains its own name: canon19.95.
These two notions2,
have covered a large share of popular culture over the last 100 years. My
esteemed smurfologist colleague waxed frustrated on this topic recently, in regards to a specific plague of adaptations called the “comic book movie”.
