| re: The Three Bats Out Of Hell | |
|
Posted by: |
RSG 06:34 am UTC 10/15/10 |
| In reply to: | re: The Three Bats Out Of Hell - Vin 01:27 am UTC 10/15/10 |
| I'm divided between the first 2. TMIL's can goto some place where I don't have a memory. I would rather look at the Dark Side Of The Moon cover. Or the Midnight At The Lost And Found cover. or the Stranger In Town cover. But I'll probably just wind up looking through the artwork by Paul Grey who famously collaborated with band 'Tool' > Call me crazy, but.... I've always assumed the Bat I > bat is just a statue in the graveyard, as opposed to an > actual, live Bat. But now, for the first-time, I'm > looking at it as though its a live, giant Bat sitting on > top of a church. Good God. Which is it??? Have I been > missing the point all these years?? And Bat I IS my fave > Bat cover by far, too! > > > Vin, you may well have a point when you write: "As for the > > monster-bat, that started w/ Bat II, which presumably had > > Jim's approval." However, if you look at just the cover > > artwork, the Bat 3 bat looks much more fierce than the > > first two bats. Which of the three bats do posters prefer? > > I personally like the Bat 2 bat because he is sitting on > > top of the Chrysler Building and the scene around it looks > > like post-apocalyptic New York, which fits in with > > Obsidian in the "Neverland" ("BOOH The Musical) story. It > > really is a huge bat though. Wow. You could call it a > > monster (the King Kong of bats) but the Bat 3 bat is more > > ferocious. > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: The Three Bats Out Of Hell - WarioLoaf 03:27 pm UTC 10/20/10 |
| Next: | re: The Three Bats Out Of Hell - CultOfByron 04:12 pm UTC 10/15/10 |
| Thread: |
|