I just finished Osamu Tezuka's Alabaster, which the autor hated and so did a bunch of his fans.
I'll elaborate on my opinion, but now I want to ask... how many of you besides me actually enjoyed this? It wasn't perfect but I found it pretty worthwhile.
It's dark and grotesque as fuck, there's not much of a lesson to learn from it, and it's overall just a messed-up and ultimately really sad and hopeless work. But it's also made during Tezuka's most depressive years, so it's an interesting look into a dark side that Tezuka wasn't very keen on showing us. And the art and writing are a notch above some of his older work: there's more interesting use of perspective, the characters look more solid, and while it still has that oh-so-common "THIS IS THE CONCLUSION OF THIS STORY" redundant one-liner ending it overall lacks the pointless narration of Astro Boy and thus feels far less redundant. Some parts I would even call SUBTLE.
From what I recall (correct me if I'm wrong in paraphrasing this) Hox made a post some time ago criticizing the "cartoonish characterization" and saying that it's "proof Tezuka failed at mature Gekiga works", and that would be a good criticism... is not for the fact that this is a shonen series. It's made, if not for prepubescent kids, then at least for teenagers; it's not intended as "adult literature". It's fucked up, there's still a Go Nagai-esque dark comedy to it all.
Being the care bear that he is Tezuka's main complaint was that it came out too dark and bitter, but honestly, things can trurn out absolutely, irredeemably awful for some people. You probably won't end up using a ray gun to turn people into Assassin's Creed glitches, but you CAN end up as a mentally ill psychopatic mass murderer and you can die without any kind of redemption. Hopelesness is something that exists in the world and it's not worthless to put such an emotion on paper if you're feeling it and, in Tezuka's own cartoony, weird-ass style, this manga does a good job at that.
>>139026339
Also I'm sorry for always talking about dead authors as if they were still alive but I'll probably screw that up more and more along this thread as it always happens to me
>>139026339
fuck I posted the wrong thing
look at this goddamn fucking elephant
LOOK AT IT
Also Alabaster himself is a good villain. Cartoonish as fuck even if you take into account his backstory but cartoonish doesn't have to mean bad.
>>139026563
Tezuka also said he tried to make an "erotic" work which means all the fucked up sexual shit gave him a boner given how many deviantart fetishes he had
I'll have to admit invisibility is a new one for me though.
>>139026593
He also probably got off while drawing which is probably part of why he hated himself for this incarnation of Rock.
>>139026618
And god damn Rock is so over-the-top bastardly here it's wonderful.
>>139026641
So if you avoided this till now because of its reputation give this a shot, you might be positively surprised. The closest it has to objective flaws (occasional awkward writing, cartoony characterization) are also found in his more revered shonens like Black Jack and Astro Boy, anyway, so if you could handle it there it's actually less rampant here.
>>139026825
Well at least the redundant writing; the titular villain is still batshit and cartoony as hell. But in a fun way.
I didn't hate it. I just thought that Tezuka definitely could've loved it more. Cause it really need more love by the author.
>proof Tezuka failed at mature Gekiga works
Personally, some of his other series do a much better job of exemplifying this. Alabaster had potential, to do something really interesting, but failed miserably at it. I don't think it's nearly as fucked up as you seem to think. Honestly, I can't actually recall the thing that well, but it's definitely not my least favourite by a long way.
>>139026850
I'm not saying it's particularly fucked up, I'm saying Tezuka's main issue with it was that it was too fucked up and nihilistic by his own standards. Even the darkest chapters of Black Jack had some silver lining from what I've read but there was none here. Still, I just thought it was an interesting story that kept my interest all the way through. I wanted to know what happened next and I liked the way the story was delivered, and ultimately I think that's what Tezuka was best at: coming up with bizarre, interesting ideas and delivering them well visually. It sounds like you expected it to be deeper than it was when the comic itself is basically telling you to not take it THAT seriously constantly through its irreverent drawings.
I think there's a lot of hype backlash to the pretentious "anime scholar" clique with people like Helen McCarthy that secretly hate anime/manga treating Tezuka as some kind of holy god whose work will change your perspective of life radically. So when he turns out to be a guy who was really, really good at delivering weird dramatic-yet-cartoony stories in an interesting, revolutionary art style that mixed everything from Carl Barks comics and Fleischer cartoons to Milt Gross they experience hype backlash that he's not the genius storyteller of life-changing masterpieces they thought he was.
>>139027013
I mean, is this what you'd call a "dead-serious, mature war flashback for mature dead serious high literature gekiga readers"? Not to mention the many Hyoutan-Tsugi appearances. You're supposed to take this about as seriously as Astro Boy; it makes some observations about human nature but it's all wrapped in a humble packaging.
>>139027013
>>139027072
And don't get me wrong, I actually truly think Tezuka was a genius - just not in THAT way. He was a genius at coming up with entertaining ideas and delivering them visually in a fantastic and inspiring way that took great advantage of the medium. You'll feel for a lot of his characters but not because of his "literary genius" which was not really there.
>>139027013
>kept my interest all the way through
It never got really more than lukewarm in my opinion. I never felt he decided what he wanted it to be. Most of what he's done, I feel actually had a direction. And this manga just fizzled at just novel ideas that never really amounted to even a decent story.
I think shit like this was why Tezuka was a genius.
>but Ode to Kirihito was poorly written wannabe-Gekiga garbage, go read some Tatsumi for some truly deep and mature gekiga about crying dramatically-shaded dogs crying after being fucked you silly silly man!
That's not my point. The visual delivery and unique use of the medium is what made Tezuka amazing; I think too many lose sight of this. If you're reading Tezuka mainly for things your English (or whatever your first language is) teacher taught you makes a good novel I feel you will be disappointed.
>>139027173
Which one of his works, if any, would you consider to be genuinely good?
I don't feel it really needed much "structure" since I see it as simply Tezuka letting out his "inner demons" to use a cliche term cuz I'm lazy. It's a mess because that's how depression can feel, but End of Evangelion is like that too and that movie is amazing.
I didn't actually know about its reputation when I first read it. It wasn't so memorable (being so short helps) but at least I remember Alabaster the character well.
>>139027352
I'm a fan of his short stories to be honest. Out of his more famous, maybe Buddha, but Dororo, Apollo no Uta and Fuusuke are easily up there.
>>139027352
The guy was literally going through the worst time of his life while making this. I think that's what makes it interesting as fuck all the way.
>>139027298
>visual delivery and unique use of the medium
He's also part of what held the medium back. The industry was going three speeds during the 60s and 70s with mainstream, gekiga/Garo and Year 24. Visual delivery and unique use of the medium are also reasons Garo itself and its authors are so well known. It's not just fucked up stories either.
>>139027385
By short stories do you mean the individual stories in long-running stuff like Black Jack and Astro Boy? Cuz man, are those easy to dissect from a literary standpoint. But from a comic-making standpoint they still kick ass.
>>139027373
Alabaster himself is appealing and fun as fuck in almost the same way Dio Brando is in Phantom Blood.
But people hate Phantom Blood and think Part 3 is good and I'm the opposite so I'm still gonna be in the minuscule minority here.
I guess for a better comparison he's equally as visually imposing as Deadcross from Astro Boy except he actually gets shit done far more.
>>139027469
But he remains careful of acknowledging gekiga. Apollo no Uta does it well, I don't even know what he was thinking with MW though.
>>139027503
No I mean shit like Clockwork Apple, Kuuki no Soko and The Crater.
>>139027469
>He's also part of what held the medium back.
Are you referring to publishers making people draw like him because "durr he's popular"? Cuz that was not the fault of Tezuka himself. His actual work is full of great visual ideas and a lot of artists could learn from him even today.
He also laid the groundworks for anime aesthetics to the point where most appealing "traditional anime" designs in modern anime are still the ones following the very same principles of appealing stylization that Tezuka laid down by mixing his influences in an unprecedented way. A lot of hacks back in the 40s took ideas from American cartoons but it was Tezuka who understood and loved the stuff enough to use the influence so thoughtfully and create something that was more than parts of its whole.
Never heard about this, i'll tell you something after I've read it
Overall its true what hox said though, Tezuka managed to avoid cartoon characterization very rarely, like in Adolf
its not a bad thing per se, it makes emotion stand out even more, specially when the visual style feels out of place with the story
>>139027615
No, I'm referring to the moments he appears like an asshole to other mangaka. He was a prideful guy, unsurprisingly, but it did him well.
>>139027645
He was not the nicest person from what I've read but what did he say that "held back" other artists?
Also, post some pages from Garo magazine and explain why they are important/revolutionary/etc as far as pushing forward the *medium* goes. I'm not trying to say you're wrong as I'm sure others could experiment too, I just want to make sure you know your shit instead of citing someone else who maybe knew their shit.
>>139027641
>the visual style feels out of place with the story
Would the Buddha manga really be better if it looked like the movie?
Would Black Jack really be better if it looked like the Dezaki anime?
Would Phoenix be better if it looked like the Rintaro adaptation?
If so, I think the reasons you guys appreciate Tezuka are kinda misguided. No offense and "misguided" is very subjective, but that's how I feel.
>>139027778
>>139027641
Because I think the contrast was fucking awesome and part of what makes his stuff so engaging. It's like if a 30s Popeye short suddenly stopped being a surreal slapstick comedy and instead started touching upon such themes as minority presidents, the police gunning down disadvantaged groups and the impact that violent riots has on race relations. It works and has an impact BECAUSE it's so unexpected given the presentation.
>>139027778
Well that depends on what you intend for "better". Devilman would have been better if Nagai was a decent artist? i doubt it.
but it would have been aesthetically more pleasant for sure
I'm just saying that the dissonance between the parts is more fascinating than the work itself.
>>139027739
What do you expect me to talk about? Things like Nejishiki? His surrealism caught the attention of lots of people, and featured in the Comics Journal. Even now, there's nods to him, in fucking Space Dandy of all things. Apparently animators or someone has a real interest in him.
And yet at the same time, there's all these unknown authors that no one really knows about (but thanks to a guy scanning copies, we get to see some of them and all the experimentation). Lots of them failures, but all in some way interesting. Garo ran for decades, even going out of money. Numerous of them overdosed on psychedelic drugs, but you know, that was hip. All kinds of names featured in Garo, like Shigeru Mizuki finally made his first living in it. I read about that recently in Showa. He was barely scraping by before Garo came and gave him total freedom.
![[DOMO]Goku_no_Daiboken_04[F4085C0E].mp4_snapshot_11.33_[2016.03.24_14.49.22].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yP4ejxy.jpg "[DOMO]Goku_no_Daiboken_04[F4085C0E].mp4_snapshot_11.33_[2016.03.24_14.49.22].jpg")
>>139027883
Actually, I think making the art styles "fittingly serious" and saving the actual Tezuka style for the stuff made for a younger audience (but sometimes looking like shit anyway as is the case for Black Jack; Astro Boy 2003 was beautiful though) is the biggest mistake modern adaptations make.
I won't blame Urusawa for Pluto even if some of the drama involving cartoony "old-model" robots and realistic everything else made me laugh because that's the man's style and he honestly wanted to make a tribute to his favorit Astro Boy story arc the way he wanted. But as for the rest, anime production companies had a clear part in it. It's not like Dezaki couldn't handle a cartoonier style; not only did he direct a chunk of the Lupin specials, he also directed a great episode of the 60s Goku no Daiboken anime for Mushi Pro.
>>139027883
Exactly what i'm saying
His art remaining cartoony in every contextually becomes something like a voice telling you a story, more than regular art.
>random Tezuka thread gets actual discussion instead than shitposted into oblivion
I love when you illude me that there is still hope /a/
>>139028030
>Urasawa
Reposting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxechWniioI&feature=youtu.be
>>139028027
I'm not seeing the unique use of the medium there. Unique style yes, but nothing special in terms of, say, paneling.
>>139027984
...are you seriously implying Tezuka was a technically bad artist and comparing him to Nagai in terms of understanding of anatomy, perspective etc? Cuz that's utterly ridiculous.
Devilman's writing was goofy as hell; it was once again the thematic ideas, Nagai's honest belief in them and ABOVE ALL ELSE the art that made it a classic and what cemented every major scene in your head. It was garbage by /ic/ standards of what make good art but utterly fantastic by standards of what makes good visual storytelling. His sense of paneling and composition and just giving a scene EMOTION was glorious, and not even just in Devilman's days. Mao Dante was absolutely impossible to take seriously, far more ridiculous than Devilman at its silliest (and Devilman had Akira using his eyebrows to decapitate a demon). But it was a wonderful ride because of genius visual ideas like this.
>>139028199
His greatest accomplishment in my mind is his ability to create ridiculous yet terrifying monsters.
>>139028199
Look at Palepoli then. Transformed the idea of 4-koma in my mind forever. Untouched by any manga, classical art-teacher turned mangaka he just blindly created this. And hasn't done anything to match it since.
I know it's hard to get what I'm saying cuz when I was a teenager learning how to draw I thought Devilman had "objectively bad art" and that I was "subjective" in liking it because of his "style". I told myself that "style" was the only thing Nagai used to get across the emotion I felt while looking at his drawings, and so it was objectively not quantifiable. I only later considered that things like "varied use of line to suggest a different atmosphere depending on the scene" was like the comic book equivalent of utilizing different animators with different styles in anime based on the tone of the scene, and that the presence of such a technique is objectively quantifiable. And even then I never thought about paneling until VERY recently when an /a/-shitposting friend talked to me about it.
It's slowly that I opened my eyes and learned that there is more to "good art" than what /ic/ stresses or what John K goes on about in his "must-have principles of animation".
>>139028342
Better yet, turn to COM (the thing Tezuka started in opposition to Garo as an alternative magazine). I even agree somewhat with Tezuka on his assessment of the thing, but he just rips straight into Ishinomori. And he was his mentor no less. JUN has a lot of visual fascination, but ends up being a little masturbatory.
>>139028400
No offence, but you should stop capitalizing random words. You clearly read too many western comics and you read like Dark Horse. And yes, lots of those emphasis genuinely add nothing, if not detract from what you're trying to say.
>>139028342
That page you posted reminds me of a chapter of one of my favorite manga, namely Fuan no Tane. It was a likely influence that I had no idea about because I know very little about the history of manga and I will definitely check that series out; I normally don't give a hoot about 4koma, but if you use it creatively to get across dark comedy then sign me the fuck up son.
That said, that manga is from 1996, and you were initially talking about how other great artists were moving the medium forward from the place Mean Bad Tezuka put it in, and Tezuka was trying to "keep them back" by being an asshole to them for being the REAL innovators of the 60s and 70s. Maybe you're a different nice anon just recommending interesting stuff, and in that case I thank you, but that guy has yet to substantiate his points. The only example he had was a manga with a unique art style; and yeah, that's cool, but "drawing differently from everyone else" is IMO someone everyone can do. The kind of inventive shit you posted is what requires more special thought IMO.
>>139028420
Was he really ripping into him for his use of wacky 4th wall breaking panel gags though? If he did then I agree he went too far since it was just something he picked up from his mentor and lovingly used.
Though to be fair, I don't see that as new and "going beyond Tezuka"; Tezuka did tons of stuff like that in his own manga. So... no, I still don't see your point about how Tezuka "held back the medium" by being conservatively assholish about manga. When are you going to justify that?
And I'll have to point out again that I don't think I'm an expert, I don't know SHIT about manga and I'm just piecing shit together. So far I've rarely read manga and when I did it wasn't to uncover history but more because an art style caught my eye. I've done the historical stuff far more with anime but even then nowhere near "expert" level. So if you're gonna own me with some Tezuka quote that makes him look like he was anti-progress then I'll graciously accept that ownage.
>>139028543
I don't read American comics at all, almost. A lot of the awkward shit in my writing that I need to get rid of comes from my early learning of the English language from reading 2000s e-celebs like Seanbaby, Maddox, David Wong and Lowtax.
I actually am bothered by western comics and official translations by people like Schodt bolding up words and feel that it's dumb but I never figured drew the line to my own use of capitals and you're definitely right. My writing has been getting less and less shitty the more I've read actual literature but there's still a lot of "internet cool guy" writing style to rub off.
>>139028793
>I don't see that as new and "going beyond Tezuka"
Considering you're trying to judge everything you're seeing from a single page, it's quite clear you neither know much about the history nor about the actual manga.
You're looking at times when diagonal lines all over the page were provocative. And they still are. You can read all about it in A Drifting Life. These guys weren't even sure they were doing manga anymore. You don't see the changes in page sizes or genuine physical media at all, because everything is blown up. There's so much you don't see, and I think that's unfortunate.
>>139028793
This is another thing that likely influenced my ANIME ANALYST MAN writing in an early stage https://web.archive.org/web/20060212134908/http://www.emgmonthly.com/v7/page.php?p=ani/flcl.txt
Genuinely sad 90% of this is lost though, it was good shit.
>>139028047
Yeah exactly, he had his own weird visual language that came from adding his own personal touch into a mix of different, sometimes outright contrasting (Bambi eyes, 30s Fleischer anatomy) western comic/cartoon influences. It's a style that's easy to look at and think "oh I can do that too" and yet fuck up, the 60s Astro Boy anime has some good side-by-side comparisons.
Or look at Keiji "I am a giant faggot" Inafune and all his shitty Tezuka-wannabe chicken scratch
>>139029007
I kinda highly doubt there are no Tezuka chapters made before that with diagonal lines like that, but god knows.
>You don't see the changes in page sizes or genuine physical media at all, because everything is blown up. There's so much you don't see, and I think that's unfortunate.
Okay, point made, but did Tezuka ever say "don't draw on bigger pages you dumb faggots, manga needs to be tiny"?
Give quotes from Tezuka that justify your "Tezuka was against the medium going forward" comment. I'm not saying this to argue but because if he did say that it would be valuable information to me.
>>139028793
>conservatively assholish
Except the fact he unmistakably holds like all the readership.
>>139029165
I don't get this comment. Are you blaming him because his work sold better in the 50s than Tatsumi's or what?
>>139029149
He probably something more like, write longer sustained stories so they can keep paying you.
>>139029252
>probably
I'm not seeing any direct quotes; and even if he said that (which you've yet to provide), it's simply harsh reality. There are plenty of post-mortem "wait this is actually good" discoveries out there (pic related), but also a lot of great artists that knew how to balance audience appeal with innovation. If you're aiming for extremely niche appeal that won't put food on the table, you'll have to work part-time. It's not conservatism as much as it is reality.
Once again, I don't know shit about manga. My only experience with Tatsumi was Abandon the Old in Tokyo, where I thought some stories were brilliantly depressing while the dog-fucking story was one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever read. But if there are some pages of A Drifting Life that make Tezuka look like some big bad meanie that was keeping manga back then show me, but I highly doubt Tatsumi was not respectful of Tezuka given the influences in his own style are blatant.
>>139029203
Why does this have to have anything to do with Tatsumi?
Look, no one argues that Tezuka didn't pioneer all kinds of things when he started. [That's actually not true in the case of New Treasure Island http://www.tcj.com/tezuka-osamu-outwits-the-phantom-blot-the-case-of-new-treasure-island-contd/ http://www.tcj.com/manga-finds-pirate-gold-the-case-of-new-treasure-island/]
Regardless, he was in the industry for many years and had an enormous sway in the industry. Then guys like Otomo come around, shake things up and Tezuka would respond with retorts that he could draw like him if he wanted.
This interview is actually quite enlightening:
https://mangabrog.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/naoki-urasawa-and-hisashi-eguchi-talk-about-manga-in-the-70s-and-80s-mostly-otomo/
>>139028130
Monster's story would have actually worked better with Tezuka-ish art, that way bizarre anime logic like a little kid poisoning his doctors with candy would have been more believable.
>>139029508
Can you please summarize how those 5-page "PLEASE KEEP CLICKING THIS" articles render no part of Treasure Island ahead of its time and impressive? I've seen the art comparisons to the Phantom Blot story, I know they're there, I still think Treasure Island was extremely ahead of its time especially since the twist ending was not even originally allowed to be published. Is there more to it? Can you cite the important parts or do I really have to read all of this, in this awkward clickbaity format?
>>139029687
At least read the interview, that part was just an aside.
>>139029687
>>139029508
OH AND
>Urasawa: There is that famous anecdote about how Tezuka told Otomo that he could draw like him if he wanted. (laugh)
Not a direct quote, but an "anecdote" which could have easily been said as a joke or at least half-joke.
Even if Tezuka somehow said that without the slightest hint of jest, how did that "hold the medium back"? Who would be so much of a fucking pussy as to stop drawing in their style and start copying Tezuka because of a dumb comment he made? You are grasping at straws really hard here.
>>139029754
see
>>139029775
Also: no, please elaborate. Is there some "dark secret" to New Treasure Island that I'm missing beyond some pages resembling some Disney comic pages? Because by that logic Hirohiko Araki is the most disgusting plagiarist of all time given the huge amount of reference material he uses from models and whatnot.
>>139029754
Ctrl+F-ing "Tezuka" here
> Tezuka was much more about the pictures back then. Then he started claiming that the pictures in manga were nothing more than symbols, and manga in Japan started becoming simplified into stories and characters.
I've heard of this quote before from a friend, and I think it was part of Tezuka's pretentiousness and insecurity; there is a hint of it in Astro Boy too, when you feel that he's afraid of making the story TOO serious. I don't think he took that (shitty) opinion about art to his grave, however, given that he clearly worked to improve his art as time went on. Black Jack looks much better than 50s Astro Boy.
>>139030012
>manga in Japan started becoming
Do you not see the influence here? Just by what he's saying? You're ignoring the perception made by these mangaka as well, facts being asserted or not, they're not no-names.
>>139030072
Then you know what? In that case I agree with you; the time in Tezuka's career when he said drawings aren't that important in manga was shitty and absolutely horrible advice to give to young artists. I think Tezuka was fooling himself just as much as some of his fans that it was the "writing" that made his work good.
But as I said, do you REALLY think he took that opinion to his grave? He clearly tried really hard to improve his art as time went on. I can see how some of that gekiga influence held back his art as they say in the interview (some pages in, I think from what I recall, MW are too try-hard "serious" and stiff and working against his strengths) but I also feel like he got better in some ways and Black Jack and sometimes Alabaster show this off. The cartoonier parts were done better and framed better in a way that showed more understanding of perspective and dramatic composition and just drawing solid three-dimensional shapes.
So yes, I think Tezuka was full of shit when he said that about drawings in manga and I'll agree 100% with you that it was a harmful thing to say. I just don't think he truly believed it, or believed it for a long time.
As for the Otomo stuff, I just chalk it up to him being a very competitive guy. This is a guy who started Dororo because he was jealous of Mizuki's success (I think you're the one who taught me that earlier?); he just really wanted to be the best out there for better or worse.
>>139028027
As for Nejishiki reference, don't forget Spirited Away!
>>139029508
Oh and I'm not just saying Tezuka "pioneered all kinds of things when he started", I'm saying that even if he didn't he would still be really good at visual storytelling if only because he understood his influences extremely well and mixed their best parts into his own work.
There are artists who are better at solid draftsmanship than Tezuka today (though he was not bad at it ta all) but I feel a lot of them could learn from Tezuka's way of delivering his shit. Tezuka just drew shit that had IMPACT, he knew very well how to frame and pose shit and all that. Tezuka manga to this day is a great example of how to make stuff that's just fun to follow the visual narrative of.
>>139030346
>>139030072
To add to this: I know that at one point in the 80s he (pretentiously IMO) said to Fred Patten that he needs to stop writing about lamestream trash like Gundam and Urusei Yatsura and cover people like Yoji Kuri who he called "the best living animator in Japan"
That guy's shit is ENTIRELY driven by surreal visuals. A Tezuka who doesn't believe in the power of drawings and sees "writing" as above it would never say that, as dumb and try-hard "muh art house animation" as that opinion is.
Tezuka was a weird fucking man and I'll be the first to admit he was very flawed. This is a guy who tried to claim ownership of the laws of robotics not knowing they were first outlined by Asimov a DECADE before Astro Boy debuted. But I still think he was amazingly good at his craft and I still like him more as a flawed and weird person than, say, Miyazaki.
>>139029822
>Also: no, please elaborate. Is there some "dark secret" to New Treasure Island that I'm missing beyond some pages resembling some Disney comic pages? Because by that logic Hirohiko Araki is the most disgusting plagiarist of all time given the huge amount of reference material he uses from models and whatnot.
Can someone answer this question so I won't have to read two massive articles of a guy talking about a variety of subjects that range way beyond what we're talking about here?
How was New Treasure Island a complete ripoff and not important and pioneering in any way?
>>139030679
Did the Phantom Blot story also have the elaborate camera motion around the car or something? Cuz in that case yeah I can see how something was wrongly credited to Tezuka. But even then, he still wrote a twist ending that publishers of the time would not accept in a kids' magazine.
>>139030724
Cuz I've read a ton of Disney comics as a kid, some of them old, as my country's translations threw together all sorts of shit in their releases. I haven't read that particular Phantom Blot story but I can't for the life of me imagine such elaborate use of "cinematography". If it's that much of a smoking gun that NTI's revolutionary status is !!!!ALL A LIE!!!! then I doubt you couldn't pinpoint the exact line in the article.
Also, the second comparison the guy makes is not even from Treasure Island; Rock wasn't a character in that one.
>>139030821
Okay I skimmed through it and found it
>If, in contrast, Gottfredson’s “camera work” looks novel in New Treasure Island, it is not so much because such techniques themselves were new in Japanese comics – that they predate the Occupation has been repeatedly demonstrated in recent manga studies – but rather because of their peculiar framing within the traditional 1×3 grid, whereas in previous manga “cinematic” breakdowns generally called for subdividing the standard horizontal rectangle into smaller, sometimes irregular quadrilaterals. If one champion of New Treasure Island described the opening pages as “widescreen,” it is due to this effect: the placement of cinematic action in an older non-cinematic template.
If the similarity of the camera work is so flagrant, why did this dude only make one comparison where the drawings aren't even all that similar? Yes he obviously thought of that comic when drawing it but it's hardly the copy he makes it out to be. If he had a better case, why would he not have had a better side-by-side comparison at the ready?
I really gotta go look for this Phantom Blot story.
>>139030821
If anything, from all the scans I can find, I can only see that Tezuka took Gottfredson's cinematic framing and took it to a whole other level. Things like the part where the camera zooms in on the eye of the dog or the complete camera movement around the car seem like taking it a step further, not merely imitating.
>>139026201
Does this have an english release yet?
>>139031023
And oh my fucking god comic book journalism
>It’s rough, and looking back at it with modern sensibilities, it’s really hard to get through — particularly if you’re looking at it for entertainment rather than for its value as a historically important comic. And what makes it especially frustrating is that the stories that aren’t weighed down by all this racist imagery are genuinely great.
>It’s rough, and looking back at it with modern sensibilities, it’s really hard to get through — particularly if you’re looking at it for entertainment rather than for its value as a historically important comic. And what makes it especially frustrating is that the stories that aren’t weighed down by all this racist imagery are genuinely great.
Chris Sims you fat fuck you're not even black, how the hell could you be getting slavery PTSD flashbacks from blackface drawings in a Mickey comic strip
>>139031033
Both official and one by Hox. The Hox one is on Madokami, I don't think anyone scanned the official one.
>>139031023
I keep looking at the comparisons and not one shows that level of elaborateness IN COMIC FORM. There's been pretty three-dimensional framing and background animation in old cartoons including a short where Mickey walks through what looks like an old-timey Windows 95 screensaver, but comics?
Not to mention it makes perfect sense for the story to be full of references; the entire narrative, before the ending, is meant to be the kind of fun escapist adventure a little kid would picture in his mind before being thrown back to reality. It's he story of a kid living his dream, then realizing his dream is realistically unachievable. It's the best possible way of thematically justifying a pastiche.
The shark scene was also referencing a Mickey short, and the TCJ guy didn't point out that reference. It still doesn't make New Treasure Island look like uncreative tripe to me.
This right here is what was to me the most impressive paneling in New Treasure Island. And I've never seen ANYTHING like this in old Disney comics.
>>139031369
Or was the "zooming in on the eye of the dog" thing never part of the original printing? Because I've never managed to find that.
>>139031589
I can't find a single scan of the original that shows the entire scene, specifically the dog running over thing.
>>139031643
I give up; I highly doubt anon knows what Shin Takarajima's intro originally looked like beyond those first two pages either.
>In addition to the famed vehicular action, Sakai and/or Tezuka have borrowed some of Mickey’s facial expressions (transposed to the first panel of New Treasure Island)
Oh come on that's not the same expression at all.
I get what this guy is saying. New Treasure Island is full of shit that directly references Disney cartoons or comics, even beyond what this guy noticed. Tezuka did not invent "cinematic framing" in comics. But there's still some huge straw-grasping at work here to make it look less like more proof of something everyone knew (Tezuka liked Disney comics) and more like some 'smoking gun' that removes creative merit from New Treasure Island, the second TCJ article specifically.
These two in particular are a huge stretch.
I have no doubt Tezuka or the animator guy working with him read the Mickey comic and it influenced what they did significantly but come the fuck on.
So far I've read
-a bunch of Astro Boy volumes
-a bunch of Black Jack volumes
-Alabaster
-A bunch of Ode to Kirihito and I should finish it one day
Beyond that what Tezuka stuff that has been translated would you guys say is worth recommending? There's a bunch of it on Madokami; I downloaded one called "Vampires" because I wanted to see Rock in a different "role" but I've never seen it talked about anywhere.
>>139032889
I'm not sure why it's called Vampires when it's clearly about werewolves
>>139032951
reminder tezuka admitted he had a boner every time he drew a transformation
I do want to mention that I still enjoyed Alabaster for similar reasons you stated, since I wouldn't have translated it otherwise. But at the same time, I do think it's a good example of a premise that could have been so much more.
>>139035715
Really my main message to you is that it was wrong to judge it as a "serious gekiga attempt" because it wasn't. It's aimed at the same audience as Black Jack.
I thought it was a very silly mistake to make since you translated the whole thing.
![dd75be0ecf855780ffef5dc2af21f266cea563ee.26.2.9.2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hpgB6eh.jpg "dd75be0ecf855780ffef5dc2af21f266cea563ee.26.2.9.2[1].jpg")
>>139028027
If you're interested in Garo artists, you should try to get yourself a copy of Sasaki Maki's anthology, Umibe no Machi, if you can. He's gained renewed interest in Japan over the past decade for being Murakami Haruki's favourite illustrator.
>>139036168
The pic you posted made me think "man I'd have expected Haruki to have better taste than that" but googling his name brought up much more creative and fun stuff
Like yeah it's 'artsy' but it has a cartoony playfulness to it that I like
>>139036588
I should have posted the pic I was referring to instead of another Alabaster page
>>139032951
It's because according to the folktales, they were the same.
