not logged in
| re: Back Into Hell: Cover Art | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 12:07 am UTC 09/12/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Back Into Hell: Cover Art - Pudding 11:54 pm UTC 09/11/08 |
| I prefer Bat 1 to Bat 2 as there is much more power in the image. The Biker is so small and he is flying down rather than bursting from the ground. Both are good though. > > > > tincrowdor wrote: > > > > > Back Into Hell, ok cover, great production, too much > > > rehashing of old Jim work > > > > I have to disagree with you about the cover of Bat 2. The > > cover is more than "ok". I think the bat perched on top of > > the Chrysler building is fantastic. I guess different > > people have different taste as far as art goes but to me > > the Chrysler building is a wonderful symbol. It makes me > > think of Jim's Obsidian vision. It has a symbolic meaning, > > like the symbolic meaning of the Statue of Liberty in > > Planet Of The Apes. I have always thought that the > > Chrysler building was the most charismatic building in New > > York, so I was very pleased when Jim and his art people > > chose it for the cover of Bat 2. And to have the bat > > perched on top as a motor cycle flies towards it. Wow. To > > me it's even better than the cover of Bat 1. > > I agree, I think Bat 2 cover is fantastic, you get a total > mood and feel for what the album is going to be about. Bat > 1 did that but not as good IMO Dead Ringer was good > artwork, but made no sense with the songs. And Bat3's > artwork was a blatant OTT Bat themed tacky rip-off. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: It sort of does - Pudding 02:23 am UTC 09/12/08 |
| Next: | re: Back Into Hell: Cover Art - Pudding 12:14 am UTC 09/12/08 |
| Thread: |
|