No. It's about as innovative as a turd in a punchbowl. Some go for that. Personally, it gets a 'meh', and that's all it'll ever get from me.

I'm sure it will be reviewed here eventually. They all are.

No. It's about as innovative as a turd in a punchbowl. Some go for that. Personally, it gets a 'meh', and that's all it'll ever get from me.

I have to agree, I've read alot of the Jack comic so far and it looses it's appeal quickly. I even stopped checking to see if it was updated. Not that you might not like it.

http://www.choppingblock.org/ is far more entertaining.

It's hard to take the grim reaper seriously when he looks like the mangey uncle of Jazz Jackrabbit (which I believe Hopkins worked on).

Theres a few chapters that I felt were genuinely well written. He just left way too many loose ends for too long so I stopped reading it right around Dec '03... I suppose I should go back and read it up to date one of these days ..

I agree with Paul that it plays out an interesting story without being obnoxious or preachy--or even being filled with false angst. The characters have interesting personalities, and Hopkins ("Jack" author/artist) brings to light interesting issues. This is quite something...especially since we are talking about heaven and hell--where there are more than a few people out there who'd be happy to force their views down their audience's throats. :)

Now, despite being a fan, I also can be somewhat objective, too. There are definitely still some things that need improvement in "Jack"--the most obvious being the art. To be fair, it must be pointed out that Hopkins has improved immensely with his sense of perspective and style over the years.

Also, some character designs are a little contrived. Sometimes the sin characters look way too much like they evolved from Spawn than being original.

Now, despite being a fan, I also can be somewhat objective, too. There are definitely still some things that need improvement in "Jack"--the most obvious being the art. To be fair, it must be pointed out that Hopkins has improved immensely with his sense of perspective and style over the years.

I don't know if I'd say immensely. I can see some improvement, but, overall, the whole thing has remained at a fairly consistent level of sloppiness and a nearly complete lack of draftsmanship. Not that he has to be on par with Masamune Shirow, but.. really.. someone get that boy a copy of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way," or at least a few books by Jack Hamm and Burne Hogarth.

Also, some character designs are a little contrived. Sometimes the sin characters look way too much like they evolved from Spawn than being original.

Drip and Maleblogia..... separated at birth?

Also, some character designs are a little contrived. Sometimes the sin characters look way too much like they evolved from Spawn than being original.

Drip and Maleblogia..... separated at birth?

Heehee... SO TRUE! <...>

The only truly amazing talent Hopkins demonstrates through the run of the comic is the ability to apparently have not improved one bit in the time that he has been drawing.

I can see some improvement, but, overall, the whole thing has remained at a fairly consistent level of sloppiness and a nearly complete lack of draftsmanship.

The theology in Jack doesn't so much follow Christianity/Catholicism as it does borrow from it and then make it into something even more arbitrary and crack-adled. If Hopkin's was running the show upstairs, hell would be on Earth, because real estate would be at a premium in the netherworld. Unless you're an absolute saint, or a friend of the artist, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going to anywhere other than... well... hell with the way this comic sets out the rules of judgement. In a way, what's shown in Jack suggests that the artist really isn't very secure and comfortable with the Christian faith.

Theres a few chapters that I felt were genuinely well written. He just left way too many loose ends for too long so I stopped reading it right around Dec '03... I suppose I should go back and read it up to date one of these days ..

But, it really lost me when I caught up with the storylines since first uncovering it around January of '03. There's a lot of unanswered questions in the comic that just really drag out. There are bits hinted at now and then about the characters' backgrounds and such, but nothing is ever really delivered sufficiently to keep your appetite whetted for more.

Jack certainly isn't the worst of the furry comics lot, but it's far from really even hitting mediocre. You won't see kids humping their sisters or a lot of soapboxing, but you will see a lot of arbitrarily thrown-in blood and guts wrapped up in a thin veil of pseudo-theological storytelling that parades as something deeper than it really is.

The art itself is nothing outstanding. The only truly amazing talent Hopkins demonstrates through the run of the comic is the ability to apparently have not improved one bit in the time that he has been drawing. Pretty much everything in the comic looks like it was created out of crumpled-up paper bags. Hopkins' style is remnicient of the Sonic the Hedgehog style, which makes the whole thing look rather corny. Cute characters with ultra-violence may make for modest comedy in something like Meet the Feebles or Happy Tree Friends, but it's out of place in a story that attempts to be serious and "deep." It's hard to take the grim reaper seriously when he looks like the mangey uncle of Jazz Jackrabbit (which I believe Hopkins worked on). The comic ranges from black and white to color. When it's in black and white, it tends to be pretty heavy on the black. There really isn't a sense of drafting to the layout and non-furry objects. Cars look like something drawn in the margins of a first-grader's notebook. Objects in the background look wobbly and just as crushed paper-baggish as the characters. The whole thing looks rushed and rather unprofessional. Of course, it's not professional, so I can't fault an artist for not putting the kind of spit-and-polish I would expect in a professional work into a comic that's done more for their own enjoyment than anything. Still, for anyone familiar with the artistic process, there's a certain pride in one's work that comes from developing and exercising skill in your endeavors. The lack of any artistic refinement in Jack just makes the whole thing look sloppy and poorly done.

When the comic is in color, you wish it was in black and white. I'm not sure if Hopkins uses poor-quality colored pencils or the BIG box of Crayolas, but the coloring is equally sloppy. The textures and strokes visible in the coloring make it look like he colored each page on a rough antique tabletop. Hopkins' use of his pencils or crayons is almost as heavy-handed as his theology in the comic. There's no subtle buildup of colors or anything.. just the apparent push to get as much color on the paper with the first pass as possible.

At first glance, the comic has shock value in it's depiction of violent acts. The character for which the comic is named after, Jack, is basically a big green rabbity version of the Grim Reaper. In truth, Jack is one of a few characters that embody the seven deadly sins. I can't recall which one Jack is, specifically... wrath/anger, I think. As such, the comic deals largely with the often excessively violent trials and tribulations of mortals who eventually find themselves thrown through a thresher or caught in a crossfire between two atomic bazookas or something equally capable of giving the artist an excuse to draw partially pulped bits of brain and flying eyeballs. Once they've sloughed off their mortal coil, they meet Jack, who takes them to judgement.

Of course, a healthy dose of the comic takes place in hell, so, naturally, very few characters are judged favorably. This is one place where the comic really starts to break down. The theology in Jack doesn't so much follow Christianity/Catholicism as it does borrow from it and then make it into something even more arbitrary and crack-adled. If Hopkin's was running the show upstairs, hell would be on Earth, because real estate would be at a premium in the netherworld. Unless you're an absolute saint, or a friend of the artist, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going to anywhere other than... well... hell with the way this comic sets out the rules of judgement. In a way, what's shown in Jack suggests that the artist really isn't very secure and comfortable with the Christian faith.

The stories that take place in the real world are generally an exercise in going from bad to worse, both in the situations and the storytelling. They plot lines borrow heavily from your typical movie-of-the-week fodder, but then manage to throw in a few frames of someone either in the ravages of disease or running afoul of the business end of a pile driver. It's rather like if the Hallmark Channel was owned and operated by G.W.A.R. or Sepultura.

Due to the heavy-handed theology and blood and guts in the comic, it's often mislabled as "gritty and in-your-face." Really, it's little more than an excuse to draw blood and guts and fuck around with characters. In a way, I'd almost say the fans of the comic build it up to be something more than the artist himself does. But, in furry circles, that's nothing new. As such, passing off Jack as little more than noteworthy quickly earns you the mark of the beast for "just not getting it." But, really, there's nothing to get. It's about as deep as the Friday the 13th movies. Hopkins has some occasional moments where his comic impresses you. I remember a one-page one where a fellow in a paper sack mask talks about how he cheated on his wife and passed it off as "nothing" to her... repeatedly. His punishment in hell was to be "nothing." So, Hopkins has his moments where the comic reaches up from its typical well of bloody mediocrity.

But, overall, the comic is shackled down by its arbitrarly heavy-handedness, pointlessly gratuitous blood and guts, and mindless sappyness when it ventures into an attempt to be "touching." Of course, one might be quick to suggest that my opinions are just from being "put off" by the gore. I'm looking to rent the unrated version of Suicide Club, so... when you're wanting to see 53 schoolgirls throw themselves in front of a subway... you're not exactly one that recoils at the idea of using gore in a work. The case, really, is for the ham-fisted use of it in Jack. Much of the gore in the comic is just thrown in for its own sake, rather than to make a point or push the story along. There's so much gore in the comic that the impact is lost very quickly. Of course, I'm a big fan of implied gore and violence, as you often had in the old movies during the heyday of Hollywood. The most recent example of this I can think of is in The Mummy with Brandon Frasier and Arnod Vosloo. While there's plenty of visual shocks with "gooey" mummies and scarabs burrowing under skin, there are also implied acts. For example, when Imhotep (the mummy) sucks the life from a fellow from whom he's already pilfered a fresh set of eyes and a tongue, we see the victim raised above his head and, in the shadows, see his body become dry and withered... implying what was happening off-camera. Admittedly, I favor this kind of suspenseful implication of events which leave the viewer to fill in the details.

The gore in Jack however, really just comes off as an excuse to try and draw the most fucked-up thing possible. It's not enough to have a Columbine-like disgruntled employee gunning down folks in his workplace....... it apparently lacks a certain panache until the assailant has taken a cowering victim, placed the gun between her legs, and blown away her nether bits in Freudian act that you're not sure reflects solely upon the character, or the artist as well. Fortunately, this is one time Hopkins does imply the events and leave the details to your imagination. Overall, however, the comic differs only from most furry comics in that the reader is not treated to an orgy, but an orgy of blood drawn for little more than its own sake. The impact is lessened when those characters that do deserve their punishment are seen in the midst of it. For example, in an early story, a character ultimately finds himself suspended by a series of chains hooked to his flesh, very much like in The Cell, while demons taunt and assail him. Since this depiction is actually rather tame compared to some of the stuff shown in the comic for no apparent reason, the effect isn't some sort of Twilight Zone-esque bastard-got-what-he-deserved ending, but just a modest blip on the radar.

Overall, Jack is like just about any other furry web comic. Despite the gore, it doesn't really make you want to claw your eyes out, since it's so overused it becomes not only trite, but downright goofy. The stories are tauted by fans of the comic as deep and meaningful, but are really about as deep as your average Hellraiser fanfiction. In all, you could read worse comics.. but you could read better ones too. It's utimately left to the reader to decide what value Jack has for them.

Jack certainly isn't the worst of the furry comics lot, but it's far from really even hitting mediocre. You won't see kids humping their sisters or a lot of soapboxing, but you will see a lot of arbitrarily thrown-in blood and guts wrapped up in a thin veil of pseudo-theological storytelling that parades as something deeper than it really is.

The art itself is nothing outstanding. The only truly amazing talent Hopkins demonstrates through the run of the comic is the ability to apparently have not improved one bit in the time that he has been drawing. Pretty much everything in the comic looks like it was created out of crumpled-up paper bags. Hopkins' style is remnicient of the Sonic the Hedgehog style, which makes the whole thing look rather corny. Cute characters with ultra-violence may make for modest comedy in something like Meet the Feebles or Happy Tree Friends, but it's out of place in a story that attempts to be serious and "deep." It's hard to take the grim reaper seriously when he looks like the mangey uncle of Jazz Jackrabbit (which I believe Hopkins worked on). The comic ranges from black and white to color. When it's in black and white, it tends to be pretty heavy on the black. There really isn't a sense of drafting to the layout and non-furry objects. Cars look like something drawn in the margins of a first-grader's notebook. Objects in the background look wobbly and just as crushed paper-baggish as the characters. The whole thing looks rushed and rather unprofessional. Of course, it's not professional, so I can't fault an artist for not putting the kind of spit-and-polish I would expect in a professional work into a comic that's done more for their own enjoyment than anything. Still, for anyone familiar with the artistic process, there's a certain pride in one's work that comes from developing and exercising skill in your endeavors. The lack of any artistic refinement in Jack just makes the whole thing look sloppy and poorly done.

When the comic is in color, you wish it was in black and white. I'm not sure if Hopkins uses poor-quality colored pencils or the BIG box of Crayolas, but the coloring is equally sloppy. The textures and strokes visible in the coloring make it look like he colored each page on a rough antique tabletop. Hopkins' use of his pencils or crayons is almost as heavy-handed as his theology in the comic. There's no subtle buildup of colors or anything.. just the apparent push to get as much color on the paper with the first pass as possible.

At first glance, the comic has shock value in it's depiction of violent acts. The character for which the comic is named after, Jack, is basically a big green rabbity version of the Grim Reaper. In truth, Jack is one of a few characters that embody the seven deadly sins. I can't recall which one Jack is, specifically... wrath/anger, I think. As such, the comic deals largely with the often excessively violent trials and tribulations of mortals who eventually find themselves thrown through a thresher or caught in a crossfire between two atomic bazookas or something equally capable of giving the artist an excuse to draw partially pulped bits of brain and flying eyeballs. Once they've sloughed off their mortal coil, they meet Jack, who takes them to judgement.

Of course, a healthy dose of the comic takes place in hell, so, naturally, very few characters are judged favorably. This is one place where the comic really starts to break down. The theology in Jack doesn't so much follow Christianity/Catholicism as it does borrow from it and then make it into something even more arbitrary and crack-adled. If Hopkin's was running the show upstairs, hell would be on Earth, because real estate would be at a premium in the netherworld. Unless you're an absolute saint, or a friend of the artist, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going to anywhere other than... well... hell with the way this comic sets out the rules of judgement. In a way, what's shown in Jack suggests that the artist really isn't very secure and comfortable with the Christian faith.

The stories that take place in the real world are generally an exercise in going from bad to worse, both in the situations and the storytelling. They plot lines borrow heavily from your typical movie-of-the-week fodder, but then manage to throw in a few frames of someone either in the ravages of disease or running afoul of the business end of a pile driver. It's rather like if the Hallmark Channel was owned and operated by G.W.A.R. or Sepultura.

Due to the heavy-handed theology and blood and guts in the comic, it's often mislabled as "gritty and in-your-face." Really, it's little more than an excuse to draw blood and guts and fuck around with characters. In a way, I'd almost say the fans of the comic build it up to be something more than the artist himself does. But, in furry circles, that's nothing new. As such, passing off Jack as little more than noteworthy quickly earns you the mark of the beast for "just not getting it." But, really, there's nothing to get. It's about as deep as the Friday the 13th movies. Hopkins has some occasional moments where his comic impresses you. I remember a one-page one where a fellow in a paper sack mask talks about how he cheated on his wife and passed it off as "nothing" to her... repeatedly. His punishment in hell was to be "nothing." So, Hopkins has his moments where the comic reaches up from its typical well of bloody mediocrity.

But, overall, the comic is shackled down by its arbitrarly heavy-handedness, pointlessly gratuitous blood and guts, and mindless sappyness when it ventures into an attempt to be "touching." Of course, one might be quick to suggest that my opinions are just from being "put off" by the gore. I'm looking to rent the unrated version of Suicide Club, so... when you're wanting to see 53 schoolgirls throw themselves in front of a subway... you're not exactly one that recoils at the idea of using gore in a work. The case, really, is for the ham-fisted use of it in Jack. Much of the gore in the comic is just thrown in for its own sake, rather than to make a point or push the story along. There's so much gore in the comic that the impact is lost very quickly. Of course, I'm a big fan of implied gore and violence, as you often had in the old movies during the heyday of Hollywood. The most recent example of this I can think of is in The Mummy with Brandon Frasier and Arnod Vosloo. While there's plenty of visual shocks with "gooey" mummies and scarabs burrowing under skin, there are also implied acts. For example, when Imhotep (the mummy) sucks the life from a fellow from whom he's already pilfered a fresh set of eyes and a tongue, we see the victim raised above his head and, in the shadows, see his body become dry and withered... implying what was happening off-camera. Admittedly, I favor this kind of suspenseful implication of events which leave the viewer to fill in the details.

The gore in Jack however, really just comes off as an excuse to try and draw the most fucked-up thing possible. It's not enough to have a Columbine-like disgruntled employee gunning down folks in his workplace....... it apparently lacks a certain panache until the assailant has taken a cowering victim, placed the gun between her legs, and blown away her nether bits in Freudian act that you're not sure reflects solely upon the character, or the artist as well. Fortunately, this is one time Hopkins does imply the events and leave the details to your imagination. Overall, however, the comic differs only from most furry comics in that the reader is not treated to an orgy, but an orgy of blood drawn for little more than its own sake. The impact is lessened when those characters that do deserve their punishment are seen in the midst of it. For example, in an early story, a character ultimately finds himself suspended by a series of chains hooked to his flesh, very much like in The Cell, while demons taunt and assail him. Since this depiction is actually rather tame compared to some of the stuff shown in the comic for no apparent reason, the effect isn't some sort of Twilight Zone-esque bastard-got-what-he-deserved ending, but just a modest blip on the radar.

Overall, Jack is like just about any other furry web comic. Despite the gore, it doesn't really make you want to claw your eyes out, since it's so overused it becomes not only trite, but downright goofy. The stories are tauted by fans of the comic as deep and meaningful, but are really about as deep as your average Hellraiser fanfiction. In all, you could read worse comics.. but you could read better ones too. It's utimately left to the reader to decide what value Jack has for them.

For the love of God, Zenzhu, will you stop just posting these reviews on the boards? This is really just too damn good to not be an article. Please please please send to Mitch.

Sorry if I'm coming off as extreme. It's not the gore or the comic as a whole that bothers me. It's just certain parts.

Sorry if I'm coming off as extreme. It's not the gore or the comic as a whole that bothers me. It's just certain parts.

But, really, I have misgivings about being secure in the mental stability of anyone that will do stories involving people subjected to a game where they are torn apart if their dick isn't in an opening when the music stops..... the solution to their predicament being to tear a hole in corpse and start fucking it. Sure, life ain't always pretty.. but there's just no need to go there.

However, the question is; if his art isn't that high a priority, why is he doing a comic?! And for as long as he has?!

What gave you the idea that a comic has to be focused on the art? A comic is pictures in deliberate sequence, period. There's no obligation to do "good" art. If the pictures are stick-figures, and the author is happy with that, that's just fine. To some comics authors, the art isn't important at all, getting a story told is important. A matter of preference.

What gave you the idea that a comic has to be focused on the art? A comic is pictures in deliberate sequence, period. There's no obligation to do "good" art. If the pictures are stick-figures, and the author is happy with that, that's just fine. To some comics authors, the art isn't important at all, getting a story told is important. A matter of preference.

I agree just in the sense that a true "cartoon" doesnt have to look like anything at all. Its supposed to be a visual depiction of something. No matter how crude - it just has to have enough to it that people can identify what it is.

You see it all the time especially in political strips... or like the type of comic panel you would see in a corporate publication.

Jack does look sloppy... but its one of those things when I first read it, I was reading the story. The images were just there thats how this comic 'looked'. My gripes with Jack are really pertaining to how hes running the whol thing.

I always mention 3 good examples of cartoons that really werent drawn that well. The simpsons - the first season. Groenig could never really draw. The Simpsons succeeded so well because of how well written it was.

Mike Judge and the guys who do South Park also arnt very talented art-wise.

Yeah, but the primary aim of all the cartoons you mention is humour, not drama. 'Cartoony' humour is unsubtle by its very nature and relies on the talented use of stylized expression, posture and physique to emphasise the power of its simplicity.

The further you go towards the dramatic, the more inappropriate this technique becomes. Jack is supposed to be - as far as I can tell - a comic built around dramatic storylines involving emotions and issues that invoke complex feelings in most people, yet it often relies on highly stylized 'cartoony' expressions (never mind art). This is jarring and negates any drama in the storyline by reducing the drama to a black and white mentality.

In a comic book, art goes hand-in-hand with story. If you can't draw poses, it'll be hard to depict that climactic battle. If you can't draw faces well, it'll be rather difficult to convey an emotion. If you can't draw proportions, the problems will be glaringly obvious, and will pull the reader out of the experience.

The further you go towards the dramatic, the more inappropriate this technique becomes. Jack is supposed to be - as far as I can tell - a comic built around dramatic storylines involving emotions and issues that invoke complex feelings in most people, yet it often relies on highly stylized 'cartoony' expressions (never mind art). This is jarring and negates any drama in the storyline by reducing the drama to a black and white mentality.

This is ridiculous. I don't care about 'Jack' -- One of the best cartoon GN's I've read was Goodbye, Chunky Rice. A mostly sad story that used heavily stylized and simplified characters.

Same goes for JASON's GNs "Ssshhhh!" and "Hey, Wait..." Both of which were done dramatically and mostly pantomime. "Hey, Wait.." is a about a terrible accident in childhood and a ruined life.

Or, Kazaleh's Captain Jack is another comic that used your typical 60's american looking cartoon characters and took a dramatic turn towards the end of the story.

For the most part the art style, IMO is definatly part of the advantage of all these stories.

I often wonder about a possible streak of autism that runs through furrydom and the way in which some furries express emotion through art. But that's not for me to say..

That's true, but it has to be pretty bad before we get to the point of non-readability. Also, generally speaking, the drawing style itself can convey a mood. If you make comic with a "happy" stroy, you can underline it by using a clean & pretty drawing style, if you make an "unhappy" story you can underline it by drawing in an "ugly" style. And vice versa for incongruity effect. (Most people just go by whatever style they've developed, of course.)