Camelot 3000

[Enigmatic Undead]

The original maxi-series was way ahead of it's time in many respects. I thought this series was a lot of fun and the Brian Bolland artwork is fantastic. A companion piece/sequel to Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur (as Mike W. Barr stated at the end of the first issue) it combines Arthurian knights and futuristic sci-fi works incredibly well.

[Billy Batson]

I've been meaning to read this.

[foxley]

I really enjoyed it. A solid knowledge of the Arthurian mythos will help you pick up some of the subtleties.

[Enigmatic Undead]

Terry Austin takes over inks with issue #7 and I think he did some really spectacular work.

[FanboyStranger]

I have something of a love/hate relationship with Camelot 3000. The first time I read it, I thought it was spectacular, and Bolland's art truly blew my mind. The second time, I was less than enthralled with a lot of heavy handedness, although I still loved the Bolland art. It's odd that everytime I re-read it, I get something new, but I don't always have a positive reaction to what I find (which maybe says more about me than the work itself). I find it a frustrating work in that regard-- it's certainly quality work and a great example of the changing tone in comics at the time, but it's very much a flawed classic, in my opinion. It's something that everyone should read at some point, but beyond the art, I don't feel it's a great comic-- just a very good one.

[Rheged]

I have something of a love/hate relationship with Camelot 3000. The first time I read it, I thought it was spectacular, and Bolland's art truly blew my mind. The second time, I was less than enthralled with a lot of heavy handedness, although I still loved the Bolland art. It's odd that everytime I re-read it, I get something new, but I don't always have a positive reaction to what I find (which maybe says more about me than the work itself). I find it a frustrating work in that regard-- it's certainly quality work and a great example of the changing tone in comics at the time, but it's very much a flawed classic, in my opinion. It's something that everyone should read at some point, but beyond the art, I don't feel it's a great comic-- just a very good one.

Interesting. I loved it when it came out, also, but I can't remember the last time I re-read it. Can you recall anything specifically that you noticed upon re-reading, that you didn't care for?

[Chazro]

Reading it today for the 1st time, it's understandable that it might be a tad underwhelming. BUT....when it was 1st released it was a very special book. Printed in a 'prestige' format, better paper and color quality, it really popped! To a reader used to today's digital coloring effects and processes I imagine it probably looks quite pedestrian. Todays readers are so used to homosexual relationships in comics that it's no big deal (or at least it shouldn't be). Back than, showing 2 women in a liplock (even if one had the spirit of a man!) was definitely a Holy s**t moment. Bolland's artwork is still extraordinary, his Circe was so beautiful and sexy, when the reveal of her backside was eventually shown, it was truly horrific. I thought the writing was great also, when Lancelot and Guenivere betrayed Arthur I actually felt so bad for him, and I felt his rage. Again, all these bullet points, if being read today for the 1st time probably wouldn't be perceived the same way.

[Sandy Hausler]

I really enjoyed it. A solid knowledge of the Arthurian mythos will help you pick up some of the subtleties.

I loved it as well, but after decades the repeated delays between issues (and REAL LONG delays -- almost a year at one point) still pisses me off. Only Kevin Smith ever came close to that kind of delay (His Daredevil -- Target was never completed to my recollection and his Spider-Man/Black Cat team up was not completed for a REAL LONG time.)

Sandy Hausler

[Nomads1]

I have something of a love/hate relationship with Camelot 3000. The first time I read it, I thought it was spectacular, and Bolland's art truly blew my mind. The second time, I was less than enthralled with a lot of heavy handedness, although I still loved the Bolland art. It's odd that everytime I re-read it, I get something new, but I don't always have a positive reaction to what I find (which maybe says more about me than the work itself). I find it a frustrating work in that regard-- it's certainly quality work and a great example of the changing tone in comics at the time, but it's very much a flawed classic, in my opinion. It's something that everyone should read at some point, but beyond the art, I don't feel it's a great comic-- just a very good one.

Interesting. I loved it when it came out, also, but I can't remember the last time I re-read it. Can you recall anything specifically that you noticed upon re-reading, that you didn't care for?

A few things that really struck me a forced was the easiness and naturality with which Arthur accepts the fact that he is in the year 3000 and all the advanges in humanity, and also how incredibly effective Arthur and his band of merry men (wrong myth, I know) are against the invaders when the whole freaking planet fell so easily to them. Future men must be real wimps. Once I mange to overcome those things, it's a great read, with amazing concepts and twists. And the art, of course, is spectacular. Bottom line, I still LOVE it.

Peace

[hondobrode]

I loved it then, and haven't re-read it in years. Beautiful Bolland art. Decent story. Surprised we've never seen it referenced again.

[Enigmatic Undead]

The ideas in the story are very progressive for the '80s. A man trapped in a woman's body & a girl on girl kissing scene seem way ahead of their time.

[Fan of Bronze]

I loved it as well, but after decades the repeated delays between issues (and REAL LONG delays -- almost a year at one point) still pisses me off. Only Kevin Smith ever came close to that kind of delay (His Daredevil -- Target was never completed to my recollection and his Spider-Man/Black Cat team up was not completed for a REAL LONG time.)

Sandy Hausler

Straczynski had a similar gap in publication of his The Twelve.

[ROM Spaceknight]

Thanks for the reminder about this great series, everyone. I read Camelot 3000 when it was released back in the '80's, and thought it was amazing - superb story & truly stunning artwork by Bolland, made all the more impressive by printing this on the then-new high-quality paper.

I haven't read the series since it was released, and definitely want to buy a collected edition. So, which do you all think is better - the 2013 Trade that came out last summer, or the 2008 HC? I would think the 2013 Trade may have better reproduction only because it's newer, but since I haven't seen any of these collections I have no way to be sure...Thanks in advance for any info. on this.

[Toreador]

I haven't read it in years but I thought the story and art were great. Took me years to find the final issue but I felt it was worth the wait. It was the first time I really understood the phrase "heavy hangs the head that wears the crown".

[FanboyStranger]

Interesting. I loved it when it came out, also, but I can't remember the last time I re-read it. Can you recall anything specifically that you noticed upon re-reading, that you didn't care for?

Mostly that the exposition made every so melodramatic. For example, Tristan's story is a heartbreaking one, but Barr's language makes it so overwrought that it almost enters "a very special episode" territory. The "Grailquest" is loaded with symbolism, but instead of telling the story through Bolland's art and leaving the reader to make inferences, everything is so spelled out. In that sense, I find Camelot 3000 to be a very transitional work-- the themes are very progressive for comics of its time, but the narrative exposition feels so old-fashioned. Despite its intention to be a mature story, it couldn't jump in with both feet, so to speak. It feels more like O'Neil and Adams' GL/GA than a contemporary boundary-pushing comic like American Flagg! or Ronin. Barr felt the need to lead us by the hand.

Now, again, I think it's a very good comic, and I like Barr's work overall. I just feel that Camelot 3000 couldn't make that final leap into truly mature storytelling, which makes it something of a flawed classic, in my opinion. I can't rightfully rank it with things like American Flagg!, V for Vendetta, Elektra: Assassin, Born Again, etc. that were changing the face of comics at the time.