HOME | DD

Renegade-Hamster In reply to Algoroth [2011-07-14 04:03:23 +0000 UTC]

If it's your own comic, yes, of course you can.

If you're talking about someone else's comic, no.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to Renegade-Hamster [2011-07-14 13:11:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! But why would I post someone else's art under my name?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to Kazarp [2011-06-07 03:04:53 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, see my comment to ExiledChaos ^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to ExiledChaos [2011-06-06 11:08:48 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I loved the sequence in The Arrival where the migrant is looking at the picture of his family. The first solid idea I had for this page was just starting close to the large cruiser, then drawing back further and further until you see the enemy robot fighters closing in on the cruiser. But after reading The Arrival, and remembering my character also had a family picture that was important to her, I decided to work that sequence into the first panels.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to HonG-t [2011-06-06 03:28:10 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I saw that DD. Thought it was really cool.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Algoroth In reply to Winterboten [2011-07-13 02:32:27 +0000 UTC]

No words always better in a comic? Makes no sense to me. I remember years ago, when John Byrne tried some experiments in Alpha Flight. One had an entire story with no words. Another had almost no pictures, only words. Both seemed to me to be indulgences, especially the no pictures story. Seemed to me he was lazy and tried a cop out for that issue.

Novels and short stories are usually written with just words, no problem. Many a sketch, drawing, painting, sculpture and so on get along without words just fine. Mimes, by the very definition of what they're supposed to be doing, get along without words just fine.

But a comic is narrative art, pics and words, usually in a sequential fashion, though that convention can be mangled quite effectively. Any artist worth his or her salt ought to be able to set out a narrative sequence without words and make it effective, as has been done here. Any decent to great writer ought to be able to write without need of pictures every page, but to say comics are always better without words is to forget what the medium fundamentally is.

If you order a steak dinner at a restaurant and the chef sends you out a plate with no steak, no meat, would you say a steak dinner is better without a steak?
Of course, a vegan would feel that way, but it still would not be a steak dinner.

I can interpret the page above several different ways without the words. I don't see the advantage here of no words, though the artist has done a decent job.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Winterboten In reply to Algoroth [2011-07-13 14:48:16 +0000 UTC]

I understand your argument and I can even agree on some of them. Of course it's a matter of how and when you use these particular techniques. It's also a matter of taste, but since this is subjective, let's oversee this one for now.
A number 1(or at least a very important) rule in drawing comics is: Show, don't tell. But wait- didn't I say that I agree on your argument? Yes, because 'showing' is not only done by drawing pictures. Just like your example of John Byrne, it can be done through the explicit use of words, too. The goal is to set the reader into the story, letting him experience the story with the help of his imagination. Words or pictures are generally just catalysators for this. And a Story is the most important ingredient of narrative art. Of course there are many, many comics out there who has a nonsense-story or not even one, but the term 'story' should not only be understood as a 500pg. book with many follow-ups. Even a simple joke can be understood as a story. These Stories aren't told in the most common way like "He walked down the road and slipped on a banana." Boring. The joke is more fun if it's shown in this case with pictures.

And yes, on this one I agree with you: A comic does not only contain of words or pictures, both medium should be used to get out the maximum effect and thus living up to the term called 'comic'. But on the other hand: If you only use the same method over and over, no scene is actually really standing out. And that's why there are always scenes who just contains pictures OR words, and here we come to my previous subjective comment: They are in my opinion always the most impressive scenes and thus I am always the most fond of comics who contain no words. And yes: The advantage of comics only containing pictures IS that it could be understood in many ways. Its the same like 'normal art' which can also be interpreted in many ways. For example, let's imagine a picture showing a dead man with a headshot lying on the road with a crying kid standing beside it. Is the kid crying because that man is shot or is that man shot because the kid is crying? Like any stories the 'truth' or 'motive' of this particular scene will be eventually shown later or in the artists comment. Or they never tell you what they were thinking, just to let you ponder about the reason why this and that happened.

If my previous statement irritated you, then I apologize. If this current message confused you, then I apologize again. I have only slept 3 hours this week and hope I didn't talked pure bullshit right here. X)"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to Winterboten [2011-07-13 15:28:05 +0000 UTC]

You haven't irritated me at all.

You at least frame your thoughts as being subjective. My thought/opinion is this: a comic, a virtually entire comic without words is a storyboard. A comic with virtually no pics is a story done with panels.

No problem at all with either one. I agree wholeheartedly that repeating he same thing over and over again in a comic is a recipe for bad storytelling. It's why I groaned when Keith Giffen revamped an old DC superhero group title by making every frame the same size on every page.

It put me off KG for a long time...

Take care and...get some SLEEP!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Winterboten In reply to Algoroth [2011-07-13 16:47:30 +0000 UTC]

Well, my thoughts ARE subjective since I cannot rely on facts or such(with the exception of the 'show, dont tell'-rule as its existing in the official way: [link] ) xD I am more like a casual reader of comics who just enjoy silly jokes and such and didn't really spend too much time in researching all theories and such. They are just things how I interpreted these topics.


Anyways! With your thoughts on this one it makes actually much more sense now to me why you don't see them as such!


Thanks and you, too

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to Winterboten [2011-07-13 17:01:46 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the link! Too many times, on some literary sites I joined (long gone from them!), many "reviewers" (read pedantic idiots without a shred of talent for reviewing) always pulled the "rules" out of a hat (read; their asses), and this was one of them.

The article does explain the concept in terms that are clear and understandable.

These reviewers always seemed to me to have had their literary rule books beside them at all times and their reviews were always a pain, even when their reviews skewered somebody else.

What was their writing like? Derivative. One turned out to be a thief in the making. Long story, which I will not repeat here.

You need yer sleep!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Winterboten In reply to Algoroth [2011-07-13 18:07:20 +0000 UTC]

Welcome anytime! I always feel uncomfortable to state things which I cannot back up, so I just don't. (Which is why I always said that it was just a subjective opinion of mine. Since...well it IS.)


Somehow Im not surprised about these so called "reviewers". Reminds me pretty much of those art-critics who also always referred to some obscure rules(which didn't even apply to the picture itself). Oh, and of course the artist wasn't allowed to respond to the critic because he would be branded as -GASP!- someone who can't take critics, while in truth they just want to make things clear.

Its a sad truth. There are just too many people out there referring themselves as 'reviewers' while in truth they just want to feel more powerful than the ones they could never compete with by slapping those so-called rules into their faces. Of course not all reviewers are assholes like that, but because of these bastards, they are pulling the rest down, too. It's sad, man. :c
While professionals are most often resistant to such claims(since they have opposed such guys in the past already), there are also many people out there whose self-confidence are crushed into dust despite the fact that they are actually pretty great and have great potential to be even more awesome. Makes me angry everytime. Dang. >:I


Yes, yes. I need it badly, but there is just too much going on @_@;

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to Winterboten [2011-07-13 18:14:47 +0000 UTC]

Truer words were never spoken! It seems we might have had similar experiences!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Winterboten In reply to Algoroth [2011-07-13 18:57:35 +0000 UTC]

So it seems. So it seems.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to GatoIshwary [2011-06-05 16:21:21 +0000 UTC]

Huh, yeah. It looks kind of like the 1978 version at least.

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GatoIshwary In reply to Renegade-Hamster [2011-06-05 16:24:04 +0000 UTC]

Hella' Yeah!!! (Has much Battlestar Galactica Luv'!!)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to xTY3x [2011-06-05 15:58:27 +0000 UTC]

I haven't seen a lot of Moebius' comic works, (mainly just the films in which he's contributed to the aesthetics like Alien, Les Maitres du Temps), but what I've seen I love.

I can't really say there was any attempt (conscious or otherwise) to imitate or draw from his style, but the story of space girl (which has barely been touched upon so far) is partially inspired by the mood of Les Maitres du Temps (although, that mood may be due more to Rene Laloux's direction than the art), and other similarly emotive/psychological sci-fi works.

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

xTY3x In reply to Renegade-Hamster [2011-06-06 13:19:42 +0000 UTC]

look up for moebius work, i'm sure your drawings will benefit a lot from it. anyway keep it up, i love your fresh style.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to DavidPaul1970 [2011-02-24 03:29:13 +0000 UTC]

It's a silent page. It had dialogue at one stage, but I didn't like what I had written, and I don't think it needs it anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to ooamaimomooo [2010-10-08 07:35:41 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I will! I just uploaded page 4 a short while ago.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ooamaimomooo In reply to Renegade-Hamster [2010-10-08 16:54:51 +0000 UTC]

I know that's how I found it! c:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Renegade-Hamster In reply to K-L-ee [2010-09-14 07:22:50 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! The next page is up. Hopefully I'll feel like spending more of my free time on these and they'll come out sooner.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0