Opinions need ASAP: 7 1/2 Moons page

[taocomics]

Ok, I added a link to this page in my last thread located in the Artist's section of this forum. I initially labelled this page as a "train wreck"... but is it just me? It's quite possible that this page has already started to grow on me.

Knowing that the page won't get much play in my previous thread, I need some opinions from you sequential junkies. Good, Bad? What kind of fixes would you suggest?

http://www.taocomics.com/page3c.jpg

[cs3ink]

Except for massacreing the 180 rule between p4 & 5, creating some confusion, my opinion is that this is a gorgeous page.

Later,
Chip

[The Art Keeper]

the art looks good.

i think the page might work better if panel four were removed entirely. and maybe some spaces between the panels instead of the solid black panel border. i'm not sure, but it's a little crowded.

just my humble opinion, but try to avoid effects that make it look digital, like the sun flare in panel 2.

hey, but this is a great page, there is an emotion to the art. i really like the last panel. i feel strange critiquing this piece, since you obviously know what you are doing. good luck!

[taocomics]

Chip- I never really followed the 180 rule in any of my work, I feel it insults the intelligence of the reader. Once the placement of the characters is firmly established, I dont see what harm there is in letting the camera roam freely about the scene. But... that's just the way I do things. I'm weird. ;) Thanks for the crit.


The Art Keeper- I see what you mean by the spacing of panels -that has to be the number one crit that I recieve from any page in my library. I really like the close quarters look, personally. I wonder if that has anything to do with me being an introverted person. But, yes, you have a valid point. Perhaps I should lay off a bit with the overlaping and connected look. I should study up a bit and think of when this look works and when it doesn't (i'm guessing it has to do with the pacing).

As for filters... I never use them. I despise them, in fact. The sun was done with a dab of yellow and a dab of white for the center. The sun is used to obscure Macy (in the tophat), hopefully putting him in a position of power... I think I failed at that.... Maybe he needs more of a bloom outlining down his body. It'll take some experimentation.

Thanks for commenting on the emotional aspect of the page... this is something that I feared the page had lacked. I suppose there's still something more I can do to enhance the mood. Thanks.


I've been messing around with this page for the past two hours or so; fixing up the bird, adding darks to folds, etc... I really, really, really, hope the rest of these pages don't prove to be as mind-numbingly miserable to dish out as this one has.

[Sequential76]

I really, really, really, hope the rest of these pages don't prove to be as mind-numbingly miserable to dish out as this one has.

I've heard it said as a comic artist you're only on 10% of the time. 10% of the time you'll be able to throw down a great page with ease. but that other 90% of the time you'll feel like sticking that pencil into your neck. I guess that makes it work! Heh good luck with that. :laugh:

I love the knotty style and coler palette. It's sad and lingering and it's getting dark now.

I would say 3-5 are pretty much the same Idea. You've made panel 5 the most important becuase it's the largest. I think you are trying to draw a more intimate moment between these two guys. The 3 repeating frames are telling me to slow down. It's a style and a tool and I like it when it's done right.
The page seems calm for the most part but the jagged offset panels emote uneasyness between the characters. The only thing that bothers me is the last panel frame sits right to the edge of the page.

I'd like to see more

Your website is really good I plan to run around for awhile int there at some point.

[Baron Spider]

Except for massacreing the 180 rule between p4 & 5, creating some confusion,


dude, that's 90 degrees. we'd be seeing his back if it was 180. and it doesn't confuse me at all

anyways. great page, my friend!!

[bezelleo]

Except for massacreing the 180 rule between p4 & 5, creating some confusion, my opinion is that this is a gorgeous page.

Later,
Chip

Actually, it's 3 and 4. But yeah, this threw me off too.
Also, I would need the dialogue to see why panel 1 and 2 need to be so similar.
And the 180 rule doesn't insult people, and I like to place a wager on it, if you like? Watch a television show... any one of them... and let me know when they break this rule between two characters. I'm pretty sure you won't find one.

There's a reason it exists, and it's not to insult people. And it's been around for many decades in the film and television industry. But hey, continue doing what you do, and when questions like this arise about "why the page bugs you", then be open to the truth of it. It's beautiful art, don't get me wrong, but there's a reason why it feels off. And we've given you that feedback.

[taocomics]

Sequential76- Thanks. You seem to get what's going on. The last panel is meant to add the bird into the conflict as the animal becomes increasingly important throughout the confrontation between the two men. Could you describe what you mean by knotty?

Baron Spider- That's what I was thinking (about seeing the back)... we're in a bit of a different situation than the usual interaction between two people. Thanks for the feedback.

bezelleo- The first panel is to emphasize Macy's realization of Renzo's interest in the bird (I should mention this is page 3), so I felt I needed a small break in the moment. The interaction between the two characters is full of small breaks as they plan their next moves and test for safe grounds without it all ending in death.

No... the rule would have been broken in panel five, if I believed the rule was needed at all. We, as viewers, remain on the same side of the divide until panel five where we jump to the opposite side of the line.

A person cannot say they are confused and then go onto say the rule has been broken, that would simply diffuse the confusion and show understanding. Perhaps the rule doesn't insult the viewer, perhaps it insults those who believe in it so firmly (I should know better than to insult the beliefs of others without anticipating feedback). I don't know if you're being a nice chap and adding support or ripping me a new one for not caring about boundaries (it's the sarcasm about the wager that makes me hint towards the later of the two).
Before my last post I picked up an issue of The Ultimates (the first thing in front of me) to see if I could find an example of this rule not practiced, and the first page I turned to gave me support for my belief. That being said, I feel silly even contributing back to this debate. The rule does work in some cases, but is not needed in all occurrences between two characters. The reason why you see the rule used in television (film uses this rule occasionally) is when a scene is shot on a set or location with restricted movement. If this rule was not practiced on stage, we would really be confused... by who? The grips, the lights, the make-up artist, anybody who deals behind the scenes -off camera. I admit that there's some merit to the 180 rule when there's a lack of landmarks (or background, which has been the case for many older comics) to show placement of characters.
Bottom line. This is comics, baby, the eye is the camera and the pencil is the crew and both are invisible to the eye of the viewer no matter what side of the divide the viewer sees the action. The page does not bug me because of the lack of rule. I'm not in denial... and I'm not in denial about being in denial.... The page bugs me because of the stiff artwork and all the patchwork it has endured in order to reach its current incarnation. After two days of coloring and fix-ups, my eyes are tainted and my opinion clouded. Thanks for the pointers though (and the wager)... but I'm sticking to my guns about the rule.

[bezelleo]

1.) No. It's clearly #4.

2.) It's very apparent that you don't understand what the rule is for.

As for ripping you a new one, it's a bit extreme, but hey, opinions vary. But to say every television or film viewer is insulted on a half hour basis everyday is a bit extreme as well.

Stick to your guns, but in the meantime, why not pursue more information on why it's used to establish characters.

Lastly, I'm just trying to help. I read the title saying, "Opinions needs ASAP", and well... there ya have it. My knowledge. Free. So... whatever man. Whatever.

[taocomics]

I don't know why you're being so persistent with that attitude of yours. Here... http://www.taocomics.com/page3silliness.jpg I did this for you. The red sides show which side of the divide the camera is sitting. Number 5 is the odd duck.

I suppose I could go on and on and never convince you of anything... Hell... I didn't even draw and color this page... the truth is I'm not human either... Oh yeah, I wear high-heels when I work out... yeah... that's right... when I work out on the surface of the sun....

But to say every television or film viewer is insulted on a half hour basis everyday is a bit extreme as well.
You go on about this as if I'm implying that these people are victims of some sort of atrocity... All I meant was people don't always need to have this rule catered to them in order to know who is standing where.

I honestly thank you for replying (not kidding).

[skatay]

you didn't do anything wrong, tao. It's obvious that it isn't 180 degrees, and you follow a good boarding convention by still keeping the character on the same side of the 2-d panel when you rotate your camera, he's always where we expect him to be--

[bezelleo]

Chip- I never really followed the 180 rule in any of my work, I feel it insults the intelligence of the reader. Once the placement of the characters is firmly established, I dont see what harm there is in letting the camera roam freely about the scene. But... that's just the way I do things.

And I was simply saying why it's used, consistently, on a daily basis in the visual mediums of the world today.

You're sensitive in your emotions and exaggerating on your ideas, aren't you? Especially the high heels subject matter, that quite frankly, I found more odd and alarming than sarcastic and humorous. I do find it funny how you label my responses. My attitude? You need to hear my voice to truly label it that way. Persistent? Two replies gives more concern and question to the matter than being persistent in arguing a point. I'm also educated, and I assume you don't give me the benefit of that.

And I stand firm that you still have no clue as to how the rule works. Here's a link to Wikipedia. Read up on it, and see where your pretty red boxes were a little off.
180 Degree Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_degree_rule)

Good luck! Feel free to contact me if you want to talk about your bad day.

[taocomics]

Skatay- Thanks. I checked out your site, great work.

Bezelleo- Are you putting me on, or are you just kidding around and secretly getting a kick out of all of this?

I know you've read all that I've said but you obviously feel the need to take in only what will fuel your fire.... Try reading all of what I've said without any bias.

Here is some of what I said earlier on...
The rule does work in some cases, but is not needed in all occurrences between two characters.
I admit that there's some merit to the 180 rule when there's a lack of landmarks to show placement of characters.

I know what the rule is for... I just choose not to use it when I want a desired effect. I don't work by a checklist I work by my eyes and heart.

You didn't find me funny, then I'm sorry that my style of humor (as exaggerated and emotionally driven as it may be) doesn't sit well with you (or even paints an unwanted picture in your head ;) )...
If I took you wrong in any way, then I'm also sorry for that. But honestly, you do sound full of attitude at times (I'm sure I do as well). I should remind you that you ended you reply with “whatever”, and that is aside from other comments easily mistaken for sass.

From your wikipedia link...
"The rule is not always obeyed; sometimes a filmmaker will purposely break the line of action in order to create disorientation. Stanley Kubrick was known to do this." While I didn't break the rule in hopes of recreating a Benny Hill skit, I did break the rule for the effect that I felt was right for the scene.
From me...
The interaction between the two characters is full of small breaks as they plan their next moves and test for safe grounds without it all ending in death.
Not everything needs to be by the book or critiqued with a checklist etched in stone.

Did you even look at the 'pretty red boxes'? Let me simplify it for you; "L" means left and "R" means right (as in left and right sides of the action). The camera is on the LEFT side of the action in panels ONE through FOUR and on the RIGHT side of the action in panel FIVE. I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I was trying to portray as this example was drafted on borrowed time.

If you’re going to count replies for who thinks what... you should probably also consider the opinions of those who say things look ok... Again, you seem to be only taking in what fuels your fire.

Ok, you’re educated... and how does this help prove your point? Are you implying that I'm not, or perhaps not as educated? The fact that you continuously deny me the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm doing makes me wonder how you view me. If there's anything that I'm not it's not without education. Has this thread switched from a debate of rule over to a judgment of educational status? I think it's great that you're educated (seriously, congratulations). But remember this; an education doesn't exactly fill in all the blanks of life and art...

It's beginning to sound as if you really don’t care about the page itself but the fact that I do what I do with the rule. With that said, I think it's time to lay down our guns because this debate isn't getting us anywhere positive. Let me continue doing what I do, and when I fail at what I love, I'll think of this moment as a fork in the road where I took the wrong turn ultimately leading to my professional demise. ;)
I believe I've explained myself thoroughly enough. I should really focus more time cranking out pages rather than convincing everyone to trust me.