Disney comic

[longlostblue]

In the summer jumbo pack of Disney magazine, they had a large section devoted to DMC, including an "offical movie comic." It took me absolutely forever to scan it all and upload it, so enjoy it! Feel free to make icons, graphics, whatever. :)

Comments

[veronica_rich]

Damn. So let me get this straight: Jack is an utter asshole who would betray the man who saved his life to Davy Jones, so he can steal his girlfriend? I didn't think he was supposed to be that easy to peg - he's like a soap opera villain, someone the writers turn evil at whim to achieve a creaking 90-degree plot twist that wouldn't turn naturally.

And Elizabeth is in LOVE with this type of behavior? Dear Christ.

[honorat]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the cartoonist didn't even have a copy of the movie to go on because the facts are often wrong. Especially the final scenes. Jack did not meet the Kraken tied to the mast, for one. Jack sent Will to get the key, not to get rid of Will. Jack couldn't get it because he'd have to stay on Jones' ship. Will was an innocent who hadn't sworn an oath to Jones and could therefore leave the Flying Dutchman. Jack tries to swindle Jones into giving Will back. And unlike Bill, he isn't stupid enough to let Jones know the kid can be used as leverage. And then he tries to find the chest so he can bargain with Jones. Jack's only a scoundrel, not a villain. He gets people into fixes and then tries to get them out again, but not at the expense of his own hide, until the end. If he'd wanted Elizabeth that bad the compass would have pointed to her. But he wants other things just as bad. As far as I can tell, the cartoonist only had a copy of the script and none of the actual movie in order to see the nuances of a

[veronica_rich]

I understand that novels of movies are usually written based entirely on the script that the writer has available at that time; I'm not certain if I think the same would apply to a cartoonist, just because so much of their storytelling has to rely upon visuals. For the comic to look anything like the movie, you'd think they would have to see the movie - or at least some of the dailies - to know how a scene might be framed. (Though that would explain all the instances of Jack crushing Elizabeth to him, when he didn't even touch her in the movie except once on the face

[honorat]

Having some experience in how illustration is done, I would imagine this artist might have seen the trailers and the productions stills, but not the movie. The "Persuade me" scene, for instance, happened on deck in daylight, not at night in the cabin. This was definitely done from the script because it also includes lines that did not show up in the movie: e.g. "Nothing I did not deserve". Also the artist had not seen enough of the locations to realize it was a church and not a mill that had the water wheel. It's just a pre-movie guess, like the children's novelization, about what the story would be like.

[veronica_rich]

That's a helpful explanation about the illustration. I know how novelizations are done, but not comics/graphic novels based on movies.

[katiescarlet]

Jack also tells his, er, traveling companion in the coffin, that "Necessity is a mother," a pseudo-profanity that was in the junior novelization (I'm 95% sure) but not in the movie.

I also notice they left out the 100 souls bargaining, which didn't make much sense.

[justawench]

I took that to be a shortening (and somewhat mis-quoting) of the phrase "necessity is *the* mother of invention." But that was only after I thought the same as you did!

[veronica_rich]

That's what I thought, too (mother of invention).

And I howled at your avatar!

[veronica_rich]

I also notice they left out the 100 souls bargaining, which didn't make much sense.

THAT was a big beef of mine. It's the main reason I posted my comment above about Jack being an asshole, because that little bit seems the big dividing line between the scene's concept (hey, I still say someone at Disney had to approve this, so to me that screams CANON whether they want it to or not) and its execution, wherein Jack tries twice to get Will back.

[geekmama]

How unfortunate that they blew the nuances of the plot in this and then published it in a major kids' magazine. Not too bright of them.

[veronica_rich]

Did you notice the "My eyesight is still as good as ever" made it in there, though? I'm not about censorship at all, but that ought to be fun to try to explain to your eight-year-old, LOL.

Seriously, how did this get approved for publication? Even if this is reflected in the script, you're right - the actors' performances, especially Johnny's, made a HUGE difference in how it was portrayed. (A big point is how Jack is made to look like he happily gave Will up to Jones without even a token effort to get him back. WTF, Disney?)

[vejiicakes]

Except that if the direction of the speech bubble is anything to go by (which it ought to be in a comic), that's actually Tia Dalma saying that. Which makes not a lick of sense.

Unless the masturbation implications were lost on the artist entirely, and thought it referred to Tia's ability to see stuff, particularly of the.. visible-to-the-naked-eye variety. And also thought Tia was saying it. Or maybe they just messed up on the inking and didn't bother 'shopping it to the other side of the panel where its placement would have made sense.

[veronica_rich]

One meaning of that "eyesight" comment is that Jack sees how Gibbs, Pintel, and Ragetti are all dancing around as if to ward off evil spirits from Jack's person - sort of a "I can SEE you doing that, you know!" But the comic panel doesn't show him looking at anyone, so that as the more innocuous (and kid-appropriate) joke is sort of lost.

Personally, I'd be happy for none of POTC to be kid-appropriate, but Disney wants to push it at the lower age groups as well; that's why it stood out to me.

[vejiicakes]

But the comic panel doesn't show him looking at anyone, so that as the more innocuous (and kid-appropriate) joke is sort of lost.

I dunno... not only did the comic not show Jack looking at anyone, but it appears (at least to me, and maybe I'm the only one) that Jack isn't even the one saying the line!

[veronica_rich]

I didn't even notice, to be truthful, but you're right. I'm just used to the line from the movie, and was surprised to find it in here, that I overlooked what side the balloon was on.

[vejiicakes]

And now it doesn't make ANY sense! T_T Except for perhaps in context of the scenarios I mentioned earlier, but only half meant...