Comments

1. Paul Montgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

   August 29, 2011 at 3:11 pm

   The art was so bad, you didn’t read it. All well and good. Not sure why you decided to review it and then give it a 3 for art. Not a 1?

   Log in to Reply
2. froggulper says:

   August 29, 2011 at 6:55 pm

   He probably did give it a 1, but then the system messaged up and it came out as a 3. This has been happening to a lot of reviewers lately ever since the switch-over to the new site.

   I didn’t mind the art in this issue, though. Not the best. Some panels looked emotionless. But often I found myself admiring the digital art for what it was. Way neater than the digital art in that other wonky issue of Morrison’s saga, Batman #663.

   Log in to Reply
   • Conor Kilpatrick">Conor Kilpatrick (@cskilpatrick) says:

     August 29, 2011 at 8:41 pm

     Did you miss the second sentence in the review?
3. robertcorbet says:

   August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm

   I found the art very off putting.

   Log in to Reply