|
Scarlet Witch #1 art by Vanesa Del Rey, colors Jordie Bellaire 
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I really do respect his level of drawing talent, cheesecake or no, but christ that is some 6th grader critical thinking.... which given that he dedicated years of his life to rendering giant tits explains a lot actually. The problem then becomes how much DC powers that be care not at all about putting sixth grader mentalities behind the reigns of Big Blue. *cough*rhymeswithbackfnyder*cough*
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
I went back to the OP of this thread to see if there was anything about webcomics in the rules, and ended up browsing the first few pages again. I gotta comment on this 4 year old post. redbackground posted:I will say that I love 99% of his work (his long run on monthly Batman is amazing), but I still can't figure out the anatomy on the Red Rain cover: Oh thank god that's not just me. I read that when I worked for a public library. Two other comic-lovin' librarians and I scratched our heads for an entire lunch break trying to figure that poo poo out, never did come up with a reasonable answer. Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Knee big.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
He's carrying a boulder with a face under his arm, duh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
BFKnee
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Dustin Nguyen https://www.instagram.com/p/_W__56l6OC/
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Y'all dont post enough.Teenage Fansub posted:Scarlet Witch #1 art by Vanesa Del Rey, colors Jordie Bellaire #2. This time by Marco Rudy   Next issue it's Steve Dillon. I'm not so sure it'll be gracing this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Is that watercolor? It's gorgeous. There are a couple showoffy perspective bends in the first image I don't love, but I don't really care- the whole thing is so drat beautiful.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:
This is also a thread for bad art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:#2. This time by Marco Rudy I guess I'm a stick-in-the-mud here, but I just don't like this. Like, at all. First of all, I have no idea how to read this these pages. It feels more like the artist wants to show off how wild he can get with panels and forgot that there's a narrative he's supposed to be telling. Second, the pages themselves are terribly off-balance. Check out these two pages by Will Eisner:   Look at how controlled this is. Look at how we have no problem following the passage of time and understanding what the emotional state is. The first page is an explosive tragedy. There are no panels at all, just bitter emotions bleeding into one another. The second is almost humorous in how casual everyone is. Wa aren't expecting to see the corpse in the last panel, which are represented by the walls in the house. I have absolutely no idea what emotions are being expressed in Marco Rudy's pages. He seems far more concerned with showing off his coloring and landscaping skills than making us invested in the characters and story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Plethora posted:I guess I'm a stick-in-the-mud here, but I just don't like this. Like, at all. The same as any other comic pages, including the Eisner ones you posted. Start at the top left, read to the right and down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:The same as any other comic pages, including the Eisner ones you posted. Start at the top left, read to the right and down. Yeah, but I think the criticism of the flow of the art being different than the flow of the dialogue is entirely accurate. On that second page, you get to the top right panel, and then you go.... I guess to the left most dialogue below it? But the word bubble pattern + the panel lines suggests that your eye should go to the pink "But it was someone" panel. Also, where does that face to the left of the second row fall in the flow? Is that a leadup to the top row? Is it a reaction to hektate being a nice person? It's also got the equivalent of doing a bunch of weird jump-cuts in the middle of a conversation. There's no visual cue for your mind to track continuation of mood/emotion on faces, because it might be "a shot of the boat from far away" as the next panel, followed by "another close up of the face, but this time the other person's face!". Totally workable and cool when pulled off, but combined with the issues with the dialgoue and flow of the panel lines, it lends itself to more confusion. The art is very pretty, but it is most definitely not assisting the clarity of the dialogue. surc fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Yeah just echoing that the pages are gorgeous but are hard enough to read that they come across more as a vanity exercise than a proper page. I admire that the artist was so willing to try and give the flow more of a breezy, feminine feel almost like J. H Williams III does when depicting mystical characters like Promethea or Sandman but it works against the writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:This is also a thread for bad art. You can find the previews now. I don't think it'll be bad enough either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Paul Pope's power rangers variant art. I could only find it in dumb fake gold foil, so turned it black and white. The artifacting came with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Where do you poop in this house?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
In the poop dungeon down below ground. Why, where do you poop in your house??
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:In the poop dungeon down below ground. Why, where do you poop in your house?? There's pipes going up in the dungeon though. Where do they go???
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Obviously up into the lady's dress, we've all read comics before we should know how this poo poo works 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:In the poop dungeon down below ground. Why, where do you poop in your house?? Do you have a
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Plethora posted:I guess I'm a stick-in-the-mud here, but I just don't like this. Like, at all. See, I look at Marco Rudy's pages and I see beauty and colour flowing from one moment to the next. I look at the stuff you posted, and I can't say I'm inclined to look for more than a second because it's just appears so ugly and boring, particularly the second page which is just flat and average as hell. It comes over like the poo poo your grandad would insist so much better in his day so you check it out and you're just "yiiiiiiiiikes!" until you finally put it back on the shelf and make a mental note to ignore him on the subject in future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Will Eisner is ugly and boring. Are you funnin' me, son?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Regardless of your opinion on Marco Rudy, you don't get to talk poo poo about Eisner. You do realize that the "Comics Oscars" are named after him, with good reason too. Everything you read is built on his work. I feel like comparing those too are some real apples and oranges poo poo. I do agree that a lot of Marco Rudys stuff doesn't really flow or read well, it always feels very showy. I liked his Dr. Strange annual but I find a lot of his stuff dull. I think it might be his commitment to realism takes away alot of the expressionism of comics that you see in Eisner. #pretentiousOpinion
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:See, I look at Marco Rudy's pages and I see beauty and colour flowing from one moment to the next. I look at the stuff you posted, and I can't say I'm inclined to look for more than a second because it's just appears so ugly and boring, particularly the second page which is just flat and average as hell. It comes over like the poo poo your grandad would insist so much better in his day so you check it out and you're just "yiiiiiiiiikes!" until you finally put it back on the shelf and make a mental note to ignore him on the subject in future. It's just you
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:See, I look at Marco Rudy's pages and I see beauty and colour flowing from one moment to the next. I look at the stuff you posted, and I can't say I'm inclined to look for more than a second because it's just appears so ugly and boring, particularly the second page which is just flat and average as hell. It comes over like the poo poo your grandad would insist so much better in his day so you check it out and you're just "yiiiiiiiiikes!" until you finally put it back on the shelf and make a mental note to ignore him on the subject in future. And the 13 year-old representative reaffirms that 13 year-olds are indeed ignorant as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I look at Marco Rudy's pages and I see a guy who read the first trade paperback of Batwoman and thought "poo poo, that doesn't look too hard."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I had this weird thought that a person could appreciate art like Eisner's and Rudy's. I might just be crazy though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
No, you're not crazy. Just straining really really hard to be superior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Since that's his first post in the thread I'm pretty sure you have him hosed up with somebody else "Mental note to ignore that Eisner hack lol"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's the case. I like Mike Delmundo on Weirdworld and Erica Henderson on Jughead/Squirrel Girl. Their styles are nowhere near similar, but that doesn't matter to me. People get weird about artists. Protective and/or hateful. Also: I don't really like JRJR or Mark Bagley. They're too samey on all their characters for me. Same goes for Steve Dillon, but he's a dead horse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
trashbuilder posted:Regardless of your opinion on Marco Rudy, you don't get to talk poo poo about Eisner. You do realize that the "Comics Oscars" are named after him, with good reason too. Everything you read is built on his work. Woah, nelly! That's irrelevant though. This boils down to that other guy trying to make a point by posting pages that are nothing special and do little for me. Sorry, should I just lie to make you feel better and believe Eisner's legacy is respected and noted? I don't believe in automatically giving someone a pass because he was important to old dudes and the only other thing of his I've seen had some hideous racial caricature running around so I never felt the need to explore further. It's 2016, wonderful and amazing art can be found everywhere, much of it far more appealing and relevant to me. If you have some killer pages, put them up, I'll give them a fair shake, maybe those were the 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' of his output and there's a load of 'Tomorrow Never Knows' or whatever I haven't seen. Show me what I'm missing but if those in that other dude's post are as good as it gets, I doubt I'm missing out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:And the 13 year-old representative reaffirms that 13 year-olds are indeed ignorant as gently caress. Is that dude really 13 because I'd believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Woah, nelly! That's irrelevant though. This boils down to that other guy trying to make a point by posting pages that are nothing special and do little for me. Sorry, should I just lie to make you feel better and believe Eisner's legacy is respected and noted? I don't believe in automatically giving someone a pass because he was important to old dudes and the only other thing of his I've seen had some hideous racial caricature running around so I never felt the need to explore further. It's 2016, wonderful and amazing art can be found everywhere, much of it far more appealing and relevant to me. Dude, stop. All you're doing here is showing us how far up your rear end you can cram your head. As someone has already pointed out, we're talking about an artist so influential they named the comic book equivalent of the Oscars after him. There's a reason for that. He's basically the original American comic book artist. If you want to know what the big deal is, do a Google search. Eisner does not need your "fair shake". haitfais fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Woah, nelly! That's irrelevant though. This boils down to that other guy trying to make a point by posting pages that are nothing special and do little for me. Sorry, should I just lie to make you feel better and believe Eisner's legacy is respected and noted? I don't believe in automatically giving someone a pass because he was important to old dudes and the only other thing of his I've seen had some hideous racial caricature running around so I never felt the need to explore further. It's 2016, wonderful and amazing art can be found everywhere, much of it far more appealing and relevant to me. Yeah, bro! Also Orson Welles movies are dumb and old, and there are guys way better at guitar than Jimi Hendrix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I'd say it's a WickedHate rereg but I'm pretty sure even WickedHate was down with Eisner
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Whether you like Eisner's art or not, his legacy is respected and noted. He's kind of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
You guys are easily trolled
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Joe Fisto posted:I'm not sure that's the case. Dillon used to be a hell of a lot better before he began dialling it in some time about a year into Preacher. The stuff he did for 2000AD in his 20s is very nearly Bolland quality, and he could do it fast enough to actually work on serials. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Dillon used to be a hell of a lot better before he began dialling it in some time about a year into Preacher. The stuff he did for 2000AD in his 20s is very nearly Bolland quality, and he could do it fast enough to actually work on serials. Dillon was definitely a top-tier Dredd artist in the early-mid 80s (with a lot of 'gritty' detailing that disappeared as he streamlined his style), and his characters didn't go full Identikit until quite a bit later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 21:01
|
|
