No new comics. No worthwhile news. So, a quick thought:
A thought occurred to me while watching some of the bonus discs included with the newly released Stanley Kubrick DVD as I got the box-set containing 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut and Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures this week. I was watching one of the features on the Eyes Wide Shut bonus disc and someone was discussing how Kubrick's films were accused of being so planned, so controlled that they lacked energy, often coming off as stale--of course, the speaker also said that if that's true (which most people would at least recognise is possible), then the trade-off of energy for those fantastic scenes of perfection was worth it. It reminded me a lot of my biggest complaint regarding Alan Moore's work, which is the lack of energy and I'm just wondering if it's the same thing. Are Moore's works so planned, so controlled that they lack the energy of spontaneity, but the results are so great that the trade-off is worth it? (I also find it interesting that Kubrick pretty much only adapted works for the screen while Moore's latest obsession is playing with fictional characters created by others. Of course, I hate stuff like calling Moore the comic book Kubrick, so don't think I'm doing that.)
Phoenix #5 annotations
6 hours ago
