I'ma look up McCloud and see if he can give me the key, or whatever to turn my brain that quarter-turn.

He might.

As a warning, he does the book in comic format, but it works really well if you can make it the whole way through: scanning it won't help.

It's odd that you're so focused on the art, Beverly, because I love comics and for me, art is one of the last things I care about. It is the text that draws me in: the dialogue, story, characterization, ideas. I do like the art, mind you (have you seen any David Mack? Christ), but I know I'm not catching all the nuances. Plei and ita talk about inkers and pencilers and colorists, but I can hardly tell the difference from one issue to the next if you change them on me (though there was this one time I thought the art in Fables was weird and I checked and sure enough, the artist was different). And I read titles of all different styles. My point is don't let the art hold you back. And if you're going to give it a try, join us in the comics thread and we'll help you out.

My oldest sister bought into buying comic books when we were in High School. This was back in the early '70's. Along with all the regular books, Marvel and later DC started putting out books that were called graphic novels rather than comics. Marvel had an excellent bunch of supernatural ones based on famous horror figures like Dracula, the Werewolf, even Frankenstien's monster. DC started Swamp Thing and Marvel countered with Man Thing. IIRC Howard the Duck spun off from Man Thing.

I got pretty caught up in them myself. Later she subscribed to Cerebrus and Elfquest, which I quite liked.

IIRC Howard the Duck spun off from Man Thing.

Yup. Actually, I ran across some of the books you're talking about when I was rummaging through my attic yesterday. Savage Sword of Conan, some Howard the Ducks, some of the others. All were black & white, large format books. They don't seem to be marked "graphic novels," but I remember the term being used when they were marketing them. Not that Stan Lee would hyperbolize or anything.

You know,other than The Last Unicorn when I was 5, I can't think of any movie that's truly scared me. I just don't think my brain is built for horror movie appreciation.

Seeing SUSPIRIA at 13 pretty much covered me on anything else, horror-wise. Disturbed happens - Selected bits of Cronenberg, IRREVERSIBLE, and TROUBLE EVERY DAY all have squicked me out at various points, but for out-and-out terrifed, nothing has equalled that first Argento experience. Once bitten; forever jaded. Only movie that ever put me under the seat at the movie theater.

The original film of THE HAUNTING did spook the crap out of me when I saw it at 10, though.

Not that Stan Lee would hyperbolize or anything.

Stan Lee on The Simpsons is one of the funniest things EVAH.

I just saw the new Manchurian Candidate, and it didn't suck at all. The way the storytelling's been updated from Cold War paranoia to War On Terror paranoia is very successful, I think. And Meryl Streep is just amazing. She has by far the most difficult role, and she just nails it.

I'm curious to see what the varying reactions will be, from both fans of the original and people coming to the story new. I found it very difficult to judge the pacing, because I wasn't waiting to find out what would happen. I was waiting to find out what would happen differently, and so there were sections in the middle where I wanted the story to just unfold already. But it's possible someone who didn't know the original movie wouldn't have felt that way.

Jess, whitefont if you have to, but I'm really curious - how do they justify the title?

Oh, and I'm also curious - did you see/what did you think about Truth About Charlie? I rather liked it myself, and thought the original was far LESS sacrosanct from remake than TMC (although maybe it's the casting of CHARADE that had people resenting the remake).

Jess, do they keep the creepy incest-yay vibe?