The last post I made about Superhero movies, I believe that I expressed little interest in X-men 3, The Last Stand. Well, let me correct myself, and apologize to the fine people who created this movie.
I finally saw X-men 3 last night on DVD, and it was fabulous: just what a superhero movie should be. These people have awesome powers, and in this movie they are unleashed to nearly full effect, without going over the top. Yes, I know... moving the Golden Gate Bridge seems like a big deal, but come on... this IS something that Magneto is capable of. Superman moving planets in the old comic books was going over the top.
I liked a lot of things about this movie. Most of all it was entertaining without preachiness or mindless violence. Also, it was not predictable to any extent, at least not to me, and trust me, most movie plots leave me yawning after 5 minutes. There was an awful lot of violence, but let's use action as a better word. Violence to me is senseless killing and destruction. In this film, there is some of that, but there is good explanation for it all, and it moves the plot forward. This story is an all out war, and as such, there are casualties and property damage, as would be expected with beings of such power.
I was very surprised by the supposedly permanent changes in many of the main characters, which I will not go into for spoiler purposes. Usually, movies have one problem that comics do not face, and that is the real life of actors. When an Actor gets tired of a roll, sometimes they beg to be killed off so that they can go out in style, and never come back again. Of course, in comics, people return from the grave on a regular basis, but unless time travel is used, X-men 4 will be missing quite a few characters who have passed beyond the veil. This movie killed of some big characters, and changed others, in a way that was bold and surprising, and made the movie all the better,which begs me to consider that movies have that advantage over comics... movie storylines end. A comic series simply cannot kill off a major character forever, where, regardless of Star Trek, a movie franchise eventually ends. This allows a closure that we may never see in a long running comic series.
I still believe that movies and comics are, and should be, colleagues. Both have differences which just HAVE to be considered to make either work. This movie does what it should, in the way that it should, and I for one hope the next slew of Superhero movies follows in it's footsteps.
And hopefully inspire some of you movie-goers to go visit your local comic shop :0)
Cheers, JOHN :0)
Monday, November 06, 2006
Monday, October 09, 2006
Cartooning 101: Don't do this!!
All right, I don't like to badmouth other people, but heck, when it comes to Cartooning, that never stopped anybody else. I myself have been recently criticized by someone who thought they had all the answers, and it wasn't fun. I've worked hard to be where I am today, and although I welcome criticism, I certainly don't need anyone pushing their opinions on me.
There are many ways of creating an illustration, and many tools to use. We can certainly argue that using a brush creates a varied line, which reproduces well, and looks great, but many Cartoonists are doing fine right now with the steady line of Art Pens. Some Cartoonists are skipping the inking process altogether, which sometimes looks great if you can reproduce their pencil linework, and other times just looks like they were late for a deadline.
Heck, some Cartoonsits could use crayon on old paper bags, and still look great, so let's agree that much of Cartooning can, and SHOULD, be left to interpretation. However, and I have to emphasize this, HOWEVER, there are some things that you should never do, and I feel the need right now to discuss this before the top of my head blows off.
Today, the use of Adobe Photoshop has changed the landscape of modern comics, and the use of filters and special effects have given comic books some strange looks in the last couple of years. Experimentation is fine, but one thing I see too much of today is cutting and pasting of a single drawing, and using it over and over. Here's an example:
This Image is copyright DC Comics
Now please understand that I don't mean to pick on this artist. I see this happening in a lot of comics today, but these examples are in a best selling book, and frankly are unforgivable for reasons that I will go into.
Please note that the same exact drawing of Green Arrow was used four times in four concurrent panels, and that one drawing of the Flash was used 3 times here. Why is this so awful? First of all, the image of the Flash is a bad expression to begin with... I can't tell if he's constipated, or if he died and was stuffed. The latter seems more likely since words are coming from his mouth, which is NOT open. Damn, I just want to scream looking at this. I understand that Artists have deadlines, and I might have looked the other way except that this is sheer, pure laziness. At the every least, use the same image, but modify it slightly. Zooming doesn't count. Change the mouth, or have the eyes blink or look around. Something! Anything!
Now this isn't new. People have been doing this for decades, except in the old days we used photocopiers or lightboxes to reproduce drawings, in an effort to either save time, or capture a particularly fine drawing that we were afraid we might not be able to reproduce. Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury was famous for this, and I remember reading that a Critic praised him for this innovation. At the time, I thought, "oh wow, that's so clever!" but now that I'm a Cartoonist myself, I know what's going on here.
Why am I so bothered by this? Because there are certain laws of storytelling that you never, ever break, and the most important is NEVER kick the reader out of the story, because he or she may not come back. When a reader is immersed in your world, you have achieved something special. Do anything to interrupt that special bond, such as a bad typo, or a character acting out of character, or some bad artwork, then you have failed.
I do not want to pick on this particular artist, but if I was the writer of this story, and the artist did this to my work, I think I would flip out. I would lose it completely and go postal and probably never forgive them. Here is another example from the same story.
This Image is copyright DC Comics
Again, this angers me because the Artist first of all took a particularly bad facial expression, and multiplied it. I don't want to see this face the first time! And then to have words come out of the characters closed mouth? Once might be an oversight, but here I've posted 2 examples.
As I've mentioned, we have all done this. We've taken images and traced over them, but a decent artist modifies it so that the reader doesn't see that it's the same image. Repetition is a key factor in fine art and even good Cartooning, but placing the exact same image on a page in a comic narrative distracts the reader.
This is something that we just shouldn't do.
Now, having said this, let me now show an example of where I myself have done this. Maybe placing the same image can work, if used correctly? In The Wolfman of Beckenham, Kent, the story is told in narration, while we the reader are seeing through the eyes of somebody nosing around the Wolfman's apartment. In the image below, I want to emphasize the 'hairy feet' by having the viewer zoom in on them. I tried this with the feet in the second panel being in a different position, but found that distracting. I suppose I could add a third panel, crowding things a bit, but go for a 'double-take' effect. Perhaps I will try this later, and post the results.
Anyways, I've broken my own rule, and am leaving it up to you to let me know what you think. Does this distract you, the reader, or does the 'zooming in' serve to emphasize the funny feet? In other words, does this work?
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Cheers, JOHN :0)
There are many ways of creating an illustration, and many tools to use. We can certainly argue that using a brush creates a varied line, which reproduces well, and looks great, but many Cartoonists are doing fine right now with the steady line of Art Pens. Some Cartoonists are skipping the inking process altogether, which sometimes looks great if you can reproduce their pencil linework, and other times just looks like they were late for a deadline.
Heck, some Cartoonsits could use crayon on old paper bags, and still look great, so let's agree that much of Cartooning can, and SHOULD, be left to interpretation. However, and I have to emphasize this, HOWEVER, there are some things that you should never do, and I feel the need right now to discuss this before the top of my head blows off.
Today, the use of Adobe Photoshop has changed the landscape of modern comics, and the use of filters and special effects have given comic books some strange looks in the last couple of years. Experimentation is fine, but one thing I see too much of today is cutting and pasting of a single drawing, and using it over and over. Here's an example:
Now please understand that I don't mean to pick on this artist. I see this happening in a lot of comics today, but these examples are in a best selling book, and frankly are unforgivable for reasons that I will go into.
Please note that the same exact drawing of Green Arrow was used four times in four concurrent panels, and that one drawing of the Flash was used 3 times here. Why is this so awful? First of all, the image of the Flash is a bad expression to begin with... I can't tell if he's constipated, or if he died and was stuffed. The latter seems more likely since words are coming from his mouth, which is NOT open. Damn, I just want to scream looking at this. I understand that Artists have deadlines, and I might have looked the other way except that this is sheer, pure laziness. At the every least, use the same image, but modify it slightly. Zooming doesn't count. Change the mouth, or have the eyes blink or look around. Something! Anything!
Now this isn't new. People have been doing this for decades, except in the old days we used photocopiers or lightboxes to reproduce drawings, in an effort to either save time, or capture a particularly fine drawing that we were afraid we might not be able to reproduce. Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury was famous for this, and I remember reading that a Critic praised him for this innovation. At the time, I thought, "oh wow, that's so clever!" but now that I'm a Cartoonist myself, I know what's going on here.
Why am I so bothered by this? Because there are certain laws of storytelling that you never, ever break, and the most important is NEVER kick the reader out of the story, because he or she may not come back. When a reader is immersed in your world, you have achieved something special. Do anything to interrupt that special bond, such as a bad typo, or a character acting out of character, or some bad artwork, then you have failed.
I do not want to pick on this particular artist, but if I was the writer of this story, and the artist did this to my work, I think I would flip out. I would lose it completely and go postal and probably never forgive them. Here is another example from the same story.
Again, this angers me because the Artist first of all took a particularly bad facial expression, and multiplied it. I don't want to see this face the first time! And then to have words come out of the characters closed mouth? Once might be an oversight, but here I've posted 2 examples.
As I've mentioned, we have all done this. We've taken images and traced over them, but a decent artist modifies it so that the reader doesn't see that it's the same image. Repetition is a key factor in fine art and even good Cartooning, but placing the exact same image on a page in a comic narrative distracts the reader.
This is something that we just shouldn't do.
Now, having said this, let me now show an example of where I myself have done this. Maybe placing the same image can work, if used correctly? In The Wolfman of Beckenham, Kent, the story is told in narration, while we the reader are seeing through the eyes of somebody nosing around the Wolfman's apartment. In the image below, I want to emphasize the 'hairy feet' by having the viewer zoom in on them. I tried this with the feet in the second panel being in a different position, but found that distracting. I suppose I could add a third panel, crowding things a bit, but go for a 'double-take' effect. Perhaps I will try this later, and post the results.
Anyways, I've broken my own rule, and am leaving it up to you to let me know what you think. Does this distract you, the reader, or does the 'zooming in' serve to emphasize the funny feet? In other words, does this work?
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Cheers, JOHN :0)
Monday, September 11, 2006
Press Release: John's Shorts
September 11, 2006 : For Immediate Release
HappyGlyphs Comics is happy to announce an all new series of graphic narratives by Cartoonist John Steventon, aptly titled John's Shorts.
HappyGlyphs Comics is happy to announce an all new series of graphic narratives by Cartoonist John Steventon, aptly titled John's Shorts.
Regardless of the title, this series has little to do with underwear, and a lot to do with a Cartoonist preserving his sanity by pushing his craft in myriad directions, and exploring numerous ideas, characters, and situations.
Lots of fun, and hopefully some delightful stories with a surprise or two. Most of these stories will feature completely new characters, although it is inevitable that characters from Knight and Day and The Inquiring Minds may make appearances.
"I have a new comic strip in development", says John, "and numerous Freelance projects running concurrently, none of which will appear at the HappyGlyphs.com in the near future. This project was created mostly for my regular readers, so that fresh content will be available until these long term projects are completed. Also, I have nearly a dozen scripts plotted out, that have been sitting on my To DO list, just begging to be illustrated. These stories are the best of that To DO list, and are terrific opportunities for me to stretch my creative abilities in new directions."
For more, please click the illustration below. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
