 |
| Copyright relevant owner. (Will they have the guts to admit to it?) |
Take a look at the above abomination - TRIFFIK!, from 1992. If a worse comic than this ever saw the light of day, then thankfully I don't remember ever seeing it. From the amateurish, awkward masthead to the sub-standard, awful balloon lettering, almost everything about this comic was wrong. Even the handful of strips that were quite well drawn suffered from being poorly lettered and surrounded by other strips which must have been scrawled by drunken chimps with a burnt match during a break-out from the zoo.
I duly contacted the editor, who had no previous experience working in comics, and suggested that the lettering needed to be improved. (I wasn't looking for work, being quite busy with my regular assignments in 1992.) His response? "I like it the way it is!" I even sent him a detailed colour 'rough' of a new logo, based on the old one, but bolder, brighter and better. His response? "Roughs are no good - I can't envision the finished result. You need to show me why yours is better by doing the proper, finished article." (Despite the quotes, I'm paraphrasing his comments from memory.) So, an editor with no ability, no vision and no clue. Don't get me wrong - he was a nice enough bloke, but he was never cut out for comics in a professional capacity.
I understand that the comic only lasted for twelve issues - which was about a dozen too many in my humble estimation. I never bought another one as I had plenty toilet paper at the time and had no need for more. It remains an object lesson on how not to do a comic.
You'd think a certain Dundee-based publication currently having circulation problems would have learned a valuable lesson from the sad but inevitable fate of Triffik!, eh? H'mm, apparently not. What is it they say? "Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Let's all hope it doesn't turn out to be the case.
11 comments:
Get over yourself 'Kid'.
You were an average letterer. No comic failed because you were not contributing to it.
More importantly, no comic failed because I WAS contributing to it.
My opinion, however, is that of a comics consumer, not a contributor.
And your assessment of my lettering abilities is at odds with those who employed me. Average? Straight down to Vision Express for you, m'lad.
So why did 2000AD sack you?
So you had the arroganse to out of the blue to tell an editor how to do his job. Don't you ever stop to think how your attitude rubs people up the wrong way? Go back to blogging about bog rolls. That's your level.
No, Anon, I had the generosity of spirit to try and help a novice try and improve his product - simply because I love comics.
I do however, have the arrogance to correct you on your spelling. It's a 'c' in 'arrogance', not an 's'.
And Skunk, I was a freelancer - freelancers, on account of their status, can't actually be 'sacked'. Why are you called Skunk? Is it because of the nasty smell you bring with you?
A lot of your posts mention wiping your ass. You should set your sights a little higher.
Actually, only one does. Never let the facts get in the way of an attempted putdown, eh? Maybe it's just you who are obsessed with asses, but kindly leave mine out of your thoughts, thanks very much.
Perhaps you should raise your sights when it comes to insults. You're not doing too well so far.
I have to agree "Triffik! was probably the worst comic I can remember (possibly one of the many awful "Viz" rip off's may have come close) I thought it was published by some kid with a rich father - the logo was terrible as well - McScotty
At last. Someone who knows whereof he speaks, yea, verily.
Wow. Just...wow. I used to work for Acne and that could be pretty rough around the edges, and I've gone into detail elsewhere about Oink! apparently basing itself on a rough-as-guts punk fanzine, but Triffik really trumps the lot.
To be rigorously fair, the art in 'Doctor Blood' isn't bad (in spite of the ruddy great bar code stuck over one of the frames - obviously the layout artist was one of the drunken chimps of which you speak) but the state of those speech bubbles (balloons?) - ouch.
'Frank the Plank' and 'Angry Angus' look as if they were rejected by Zit and Gutter. Actually this is making me wish I still had a few back copies of Zit and Gutter (and Humour Publications' other delightful title 'Gutted') just so I could scan some of the 'art' and take the piss out of it!
Actually, the pages were chosen more to illustrate the inferior lettering than anything else. Their inclusion on this post does not NECESSARILY mean that I consider them really bad examples of comic art. ('Though in some cases it may not necessarily mean that I DON'T.)
Post a Comment