So it used to be that DC or Marvel or whoever owned the rights to produce Star Trek comics would do a “tie-in” whenever a new movie came out — essentially, telling the movie in the comic book. Yes, I agree, I’d rather see the movie, too. In any case, for whatever reason (probably because the license was between owners at the time) an adaption of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was never produced.
So, in proving the adage that it is indeed never too late to close the barn door, even after the horse has escaped, found bliss, gotten its groove on with a nice lady horse and been long since turned to glue, IDW is “fixing an oversight from 1982*” and producing a three-issue adaption of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
I’m sure there are a lot of non-Trek fans who want to see the eleventh Star Trek film (y’know, the “sexy” one). Give Star Trek II a chance. It’s, okay, early eighties, and the special effects aren’t up-to-par with Abram’s vision, but it’s a solid story, not overly preachy, and there’s a lot of action. Also, Star Trek XI borrowed heavily from Star Trek II — the Kobyashi Maru, the no-win scenario, the slimey things crawling into people’s orifices.
Anyway, here’s a preview of the comic:
* 27 *years* later!
Cross posted to my blog (because I'm a whore like that).
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Wow... that artwork is... megacraptastic. When did Saavik grow giant butterfly elf ears?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Just noticed Kirk's got a captain's pin, not an admiral's ...
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
Shatner looks a lot more like Shatner these days than he did in 1982. Interesting idea, but this panel doesn't inspire much confidence.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Wow! That art IS wretched. Cool that we get a comic of it at all I suppose...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
It's very hard to draw comic books with characters based on real people, the artist usually works from a photo or movie still with one (1) bland expression to choose from.
I think the CSI graphic novels are especially lifeless and boring (could be the source material tho), everyone looks like they are wearing halloween-masks of the people they are supposed to look like, with awkwardly angled necks if they're drawn in any other position than standing, with bland facial expressions that don't match the attitude of the accompanying speech bubble (again, maybe CSI is a bad example because every character is a soulless automaton, constantly cracking cynical jokes no one laughs at (I think "LA Law" was the first show to do that thing with the constant, deadpan, non-reciprocal joking (correct me if I'm wrong))).
Also, most comic books adapted from movies/TV feel like you are watching the feature in 32x fast-forward, due to the absence of music and the excluded filler stuff between scenes.
That said, I think they got Alley and Shatner close enough for jazz, and it would be nice to see the twok-action in panel form. Syke!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Just noticed Kirk's got a captain's pin, not an admiral's ...
Hahahah! In one fowl swoop, in the first few pages you just undermined their entire effort! LOL! This board is awesome! Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
I don't really care for the way they set the shot up. In the film, Kirk enters in silhouette and walks the contour of the bridge while Saavik stands at attention like a cadet review.
Here he sort of stands over her while she chills on the floor. Seems out of character that she wouldn't be at attention when he's giving his performance review.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
To be fair, the staging and ink work looks sloppy, but I rather like the colouring. Of course it's hardly fair to judge a book by just one page and compared to the quality of other "tie-in" books I've seen, this seems to rank near the high end of average. Have a look at some of the early B5 graphic novels and see what I mean.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Regarding the setup of the shots, the scribblers should be entitled some artistic license. If every panel was based pixel for pixel on a screencap, what would be the point? Major events will be recognizable, of course, but film sequence composition and static image composition can have differing needs.
Compare for instance with the alternative panel layout, taking into account relative star drift.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What is the point anyway? They'd be better off screencapping the whole thing if there will be no new information.
I mean, there's great potential for this- showing how Kahn took over the Reliant and Regula One, maybe some additional background between Savik and spock, that edited scene with Kirk and Sulu talking about his pending command of the Excelsior, etc.
I'd buy it if it had those things.
One thing that no one in comics manages to do well is the ships- very often that subtle curve of the saucer is lost and the perspective usually looks terrible- and TWOK is such a ship-intensive movie...
Hey! It would be really cool to see the movie from only the inside of the Enterprise- the Mutara Nebula confrontation would be just like an old submarine movie that way.
But methinks it will surely suck and will lack all creativity- mainly due to Paramount's retrictions which have bound writer's hands in the past.
P.S., Nim, you're a sadist. Funny as hell but your foul attempts to besmirch the beauty that was Kirstie Alley (circa ST:TWOK) will not stand!
Though you could paste the "new" Kirk's head on there and have an infant standing in for Savik... Maybe just an embryo.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not only does it suck ass- the hack artist drew KBOPs attacking in the Kobayshai Maru simulation. You'd think they would have at least referenced the damn movie... Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
"Compare for instance with the alternative panel layout, taking into account relative star drift."
Kirk seems to be having a mighty difficult time pooping out that lens flare.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: It's very hard to draw comic books with characters based on real people, the artist usually works from a photo or movie still with one (1) bland expression to choose from.
Unacceptable, sir. It's simple laziness. ImageGoogle the actor, or buy the movie on DVD and freeze-frame. You've got all the reference you need. Same goes with the ships. I could find a dozen cool angles on any ship from any of the movies in about 15 minutes.
And a lack of reference on the actor doesn't make bad anatomy ok.
I know that time is a factor and they may have all of a day to squat out these pages. But I feel like being crabby since I don't get to draw and paint nearly as much as I'd like to anymore.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aban:
quote:And a lack of reference on the actor doesn't make bad anatomy ok.
Great, now you made Saavik cry, mr bigot. She's had to put up with crap like that ever since she got off the shuttle in San Francisco.
quote:Unacceptable, sir. It's simple laziness.
I'm not so sure, in my experience you can make it worse if you keep copying different reference photos for every panel, you risk ending up with the "South Park Saddam" effect.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Nah. You don't have to copy photos. You can use them for cues on facial structure though.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"Cues on facial structure", I'll cue your facial structure...
I didn't mean copy photos as in copy-paste, just drawing from them. It was a liberal use of the word, granted. I don't have access to the example I have in mind, I'll get it tomorrow.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune:
quote:Originally posted by Nim: It's very hard to draw comic books with characters based on real people, the artist usually works from a photo or movie still with one (1) bland expression to choose from.
Unacceptable, sir. It's simple laziness. ImageGoogle the actor, or buy the movie on DVD and freeze-frame. You've got all the reference you need. Same goes with the ships. I could find a dozen cool angles on any ship from any of the movies in about 15 minutes.
And a lack of reference on the actor doesn't make bad anatomy ok.
I know that time is a factor and they may have all of a day to squat out these pages. But I feel like being crabby since I don't get to draw and paint nearly as much as I'd like to anymore.
Something to keep in mind is the licensing/permissions that the comic may or may not have. Sometimes the comic cannot get permission to use the likeness of a certain actor. This is the reason why Stiles in DC's adaptation of STIII did not look like the actor who played him in the movie - DC did not have permission to use the actor's likeness.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's obviously not the case here though- it's an attempt to depice the actor's likeness- it's just not very well done.
Trek has NEVER had a good art team in the comics- some of the old DC stuff was bad beyond all belief. I read somewhere that books like Trek and movie adaptations (like Krull or Logan's Run) were where they had rookie artists cut their teeth on books like this to see if they could make a deadline- much of the run of such books were "filler" issues that could be published in whatever order, as they were hamstrung by the liscence not to change the characters in any way.
In this case, an artist could have taken screencaps from all the Trek movies, reversed some of the images, traced them from a printout and achieved a better result. They could even have added artistic liscence (shadowing, coloring, whatever) to make it unique.
Aban's right- it's a lazy effort. Comic Book Rescources has the first six pages posted as a preview- none are better than the one linked.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And now they're doing a comic book adaptation of the deleted scenes from ST XI
Are those K'tingas attacking the Narada?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Sweet.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
See, that's a perfect example. The likenesses aren't dead-on, but they don't have to be because it's consistent and it's done well. The art is stylized nicely. The inks are well done and the drawing is solid. The other one is just bad art.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Could it be safe to assume that spacedock design is from before 2233, therefore its design that exists in both timelines?
Posted by danova (Member # 2183) on :
That art IS wretched. Cool that we get a comic of it at all I suppose.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)