(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
One of the most controversial point about the “The Cide” project in these last few months has definitely been the debate concerning the pertinence of the definition “comic 2.0″. Some say, we Videns Pictures Crew as well, that the term is mostly appropriate for two specific reasons: innovation and interactivity. We thought it was nothing to debate about, but we were wrong indeed and criticisms have followed. Fortunately, criticisms have been replaced by a more common attitude of curious expectation, something like ìletís give those guys a chance, then we’ll see. Some traditional literature addictedî harshly criticized our project with hasty and early opinions due to a superficial and incomplete reading. Judging these people is not our primary aim, nor we want to insinuate doubts about their intellectual honesty: this project owes a lot to traditional comics and literature and weíve approached them with respect and admiration. But those who give early opinions are acting like those being skeptical, back in the ë30s, about the ideas of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster who, joining their minds and their hearts, gave life to the adventures of that alien, unintentionally landed on Earth and always upset over the moral implications of his enormous powers, we all know under the name of Superman. Of course weíre not here to make comparisons we couldnít win. All we wanted to do was to show that the opinion about a work, regardless his contents, should always follow a full and honest knowledge of the work itself and that prejudices run the risk of being always wrong. Does it sound like a commonplace? Itís possible, rather probable. But ours is just an opinion.
Cristiano Malacrino
