Comments on: THEY HATE US — 9/11 Report division

By: The Beat

The Beat — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:07:44 +0000

Okay kids, let’s not argue about all this crap. There are plenty of forums where we can argue Whitewater vs Halliburton. Let’s keep this vaguely comics related.

By: Michael Turner

Michael Turner — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:40:46 +0000

Because the Republicans got fooled into letting Democrats pick half the commisioners (They should have had both sides select everyone in agreement). This led to the Democrats basically selecting people who were known more for being political operatives then anything else. They basically stonewalled and covered up the role of the Clinton administration in their mishandling of intelligence and response to previous Al-Qaeda attacks. Jamie Gorelick was selected when she should have been testifying. It took the Attorney General at the time John Ashcroft to produce a memo from the department that showed she was deeply involved with crafting rules that hindered law enforcement.

By: Brian Spence

Brian Spence — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:42:01 +0000

Every accounting of the 9/11 report I’ve ever read was that there was a lot of blame to go around with both administrations, Mike. Why would the commission, first stonewalled, then created by Republicans, whitewash the Clinton administration’s role?

By: Michael Turner

Michael Turner — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:33:33 +0000

My whole problem with this is that the commission and report itself was a joke. They Democrats made sure they got their attack dogs on it so they could whitewash the failures of the Clinton administration. I suppose none of you know the name Jamie Gorelick is?

By: NILgravity

NILgravity — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:07:12 +0000

The whole project is naive. There is no real point to reading the full commision report, let alone an edited down version, except to be critical of it. We’re looking at an investigation that didn’t begin until over 400 days after the crime, “researched” by a commitee working from assumptions that are baseless.

Don’t believe me? Go look at the FBI profile of Bin Laden and show me where it says he organized 9/11 (According to the Muckraker report the FBI claims there isn’t any evidence). Name any steel structure that burned down to it’s foundation on any day but 9/11 (remember heat rises). Okay rant over, I won’t push your willing suspension of disbelief any further. today.

By: mario boon

mario boon — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:48:30 +0000

I would so rather read an Alan Moore or Kevin Huizinga adaptation of the 9-11 report that this capable though bland artist
In my opinion sometimes a realistic event can benefit better when not using realistic drawings

By: Jamie Coville

Jamie Coville — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:40:16 +0000

But how do you do sound effects in comic books that don’t come off as tacky?

By: Paul O'Brien

Paul O'Brien — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:19:19 +0000

“âEvenâ? superhero comics? Those are not read by the general public. ”

Yes, that’s precisely my point. Big sound effects in comics are so tainted that even the superhero audience finds them a bit tacky and embarrassing these days – and these are the sorts of people who don’t bat an eyelid at characters called “Doctor Doom.”

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it offensive, but I think it’s a seriously bad call for a project that ought to be bending over backwards to avoid any appearance of trivialisation.

By: NVigneaux

NVigneaux — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:00:17 +0000

Karl Rove- Pear Shaped? Stupid things coming out of the mouths of Cheney and Bush the Second? Sounds like a completely accurate representation.

I don’t particularly like the sound effects mentioned in the article. They seem silly. SFX words on a page could never encapsulate the sounds of that day. I would have gone with silent panels and graphic depictions, but that’s just my sensibilities.

I don’t think Niles knows the difference between exploitation and education. I doubt he even read it. He probably just saw news coverage and a few links to certain pages and made up his mind.

Everyone should read this book.

By: La Gringa

La Gringa — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:57:13 +0000

I also think the artwork is sub-par, but I think that the book itself is important as an educational tool. As for the dialogue, well, I believe they are trying to stick with what was actually recorded on that day. If you want this to be an educational tool, you can’t really spice up the dialogue to make it read better.

By: Will

Will — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:05:26 +0000

I’ve got a sneaking feeling that this guy just isn’t ready to explore what happened on that day in any form of media. I know I won’t read this just as I won’t see the two movies until I’m ready. The difference being that I don’t care if someone else is ready before me and wants to read it. This guy is and THAT is a problem…

By: Martha Cornog

Martha Cornog — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:30:19 +0000

I agree with Calvin Reid and Kat Can. And if the Conservatives (or other agenda’ed folk) don’t like it, let them do their OWN adaptation. We may see the graphic novel market getting more diverse, which could get real interesting. The bottom line? More people reading comics, eh?

Martha Cornog

By: BarryDubya

BarryDubya — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:41:17 +0000

Ditto. And for those who dismiss it because it’s a ‘comic book’, they simply don’t have to read it.

By: Heidi M.

Heidi M. — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:05:40 +0000

Indeed. It would not have been appropriate for Alan Moore or Anders Nilsen or even Kevin Huizenga to write this comic.

If you want a heavy fictional take on the zeitgiest of 9/11 read CAN’T GET NO.

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:47:15 +0000

It seems to upset some people that two long-time industry veterans are using the clear tools of comics communication. However, for the mass market, that seems the appropriate thing to do.