[positronic1]

Wow, can't believe there are no comments yet. Anybody tried reading it with the red & blue-green anaglyphic glasses? Does the 3-D still work okay as a digital scan? It looks sort of muddy brown to the naked eye, but then again they all look that way to me. I have the 1985 Blackthorne Sheena 3-D comic, which I had always assumed was the same stories, underneath a new Dave Stevens cover, but no! Turns out that those were different stories, newly converted, that Ray Zone did the 3D color separations for. I'll have to find my 3D glasses and download it.

Link to the book: 3-D Sheena, Jungle Queen 1

[paw broon]

The only comment I can make is - unreadable.  I don't see colours very well and 3-D glasses make me queasy.
Actually 2 comments.  I don't enjoy jungle comics - unless it's The Phantom in the jungle  

[positronic1]

There were plenty of 3-D comics made in genres that I have absolutely no interest in either. It's not like all of a sudden you're going to want to read a comic book that you wouldn't have read otherwise, just because it's in 3-D. Alhough, as you quite rightly point out, it's always a distinct possibility that the opposite might apply for any particular individual. My understanding is that the 3-D Sheena one-shot was considered one of the more desirable comics in the small group (not so much as say, Simon & Kirby's CAPTAIN 3-D, Joe Kubert's TOR, 3-D TALES FROM THE CRYPT, or the 3-D BATMAN one-shot, but a lot more than most other 3-D comics) so having what looks like a fairly decent condition copy here should have attracted at least some interest. With some of these original 3-D comics the effect was iffy at best, even for people with good  depth perception and color vision. Then again, it's always a gamble when scanning 3-D comics whether the 3-D effect (if done well in the first place) translates to the digital scan.

[SuperScrounge]

I believe you can find more comments about this issue in the reading group section of the forum.

[The Australian Panther]

I'm afraid I agree with Paw on this. I have a lazy eye, so have never been able to focus on '3d' Art or films anyway. I appreciate work for the quality of the creators (Artists and Storytellers) and so I will look at Jungle comics for that, but I find the genre too silly to take seriously.I binge read when I find an author I appreciate, so I have read all of Burroughs Tarzan books, but that was enough so I have read little else of his. Also read a number of H Rider Haggard's later African tales. Harder to find but well worth it. When they were fresh on the stands I read all of DC's Tarzan's books - for the art - but the stories go nowhere so they don't stay in your imagination. The most recent Tarzan movie tried to modernize the basic story by placing it in the Congo and having Tarzan heroically save the Congo from the bad Europeans. If you know the true horrific history of the Congo, the film was ridiculous and insulting. The Phantom - still going strong - is worth paying attention to. The current newspaper strips are really interesting. Very little jungle at all. The Phantom now interacts with African politicians and fights African terrorists. [ I know they never say Africa, but hello?) The strip is now in an approximation of real time which means paying attention to the Phantoms' children ( one at University, one studying at a monastery in Tibet) and the question of succession.
Cheers.        '

[positronic1]

If I were to limit myself to comics and genres that I could 'take seriously', that would severely curtail my possibilities of enjoying comics across the breadth of the medium. Comics stories are mostly always fantasies of some sort, generally pretty far removed from anything resembling reality. In fact I'd say that's positively the greatest strength of the medium. They are as close as you can get to dreams on paper. It's also why the effect of most comics are not possible to duplicate in film adaptations, no matter how good the CG effects that are available. Lines on paper are best when they're creating their OWN version of reality, according to the creators' vision of things. Jungle comics don't reflect the real world any more than most science fiction comics do. Jungle GIRL comics, even less so, but they have their own peculiar attraction. There's never been a Tarzan movie made that can hold a candle to the best Tarzan comics, and probably never will be, unless a film is entirely animated in an illustrative style (as opposed to Disney's style). Filmation's TV series Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle gave some hint of the possibilities, hampered as it was by limited budget, time constraints, and watered-down (due to Saturday morning BS&P standards) stories. Current social sensibilities would prevent anything like a faithful Tarzan movie ever being made. Tarzan was practically made for the comics medium, and in return had a large influence on making the comic medium what it became.

[paw broon]

You describe comics rather well. In particular, "They are as close as you can get to dreams on paper."
While comics in their many forms and languages are my main hobby, I just don't have the time to read as many as I would like, especially as, for some obscure reason, I keep getting older - 70 approaching at a rate of knots.  And there are all the other things that I enjoy, so I'm probably a bit more limited in my reading time.  This is further complicated as I have the huge wealth of British comics to read, study, research and occasionally write about. And we haven't even gone near all the amazing French, Italian, Dutch and Spanish industries.
As for Tarzan, and I hope this isn't heretical, I just don't get it, or him.  Never liked the character.  Lovely art on a lot of his stuff, but is it worth the time to try and enjoy Kubert art for instance when I am simply bored by the jungle stuff?
Give me a Jesse Marsh Gene Autry anyday. Or a Magnus Kriminal.  Or an issue of Planetary. I suppose it's all down to personal taste.