Book 3 - Page 47

Book 3 - Page 47
Comic - Book 3 - Page 47
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Mrtyuh wrote:
Personally, I kind of wish visual media had stopped advancing ten or fifteen years ago. I think the current focus on cutting edge graphics in video games is a detriment to other, more important elements. I feel the use of CGI eye candy in movies often distracts from and harms the narrative.

I'd like to point at 2001: A Space Odyssey and the first Star Trek movie, and suggest that maybe what you're seeing isn't a relic of the CGI age, but rather just a condition endemic to motion picture media since its inception.
What drew me into Erfworld was the general impression of the first couple pages of Book 1. I hadn't seen a comic like that before. The visuals and the story worked hand in hand. It looked magical. I respect that there are those of us most interested in the story, but to me it was like a comic art candy store. I could look at a page again and again and still notice new cool things about it. It was mostly about the lighting. And the art told its own substory about characters and places just by subtle shading or blurring or having characters look like papercuts or psychedelic magic swirling around. Not necessarily details, just atmosphere. Although sometimes there were plenty of details if you remember the swarms of bats etc.

Not to take away from the current art, I have mad respect for anyone who can do a fully fleshed out comic page. I was just trying to provide some pointers.
So, we may meet the *real* Charlie if Tramennis took the deal the Archon suggested. Chances are he doesn't do interrogations in person, but just maybe he would like to inspect his new prize.
Mrtyuh wrote:
Corrupt User wrote:
Now I'm just imagining Wanda dressed as Alice in Wandaland.

It's moments like this I wish the forum had a like button.

I think it has.
It's labelled "Tip"
Mrtyuh wrote:
Personally, I kind of wish visual media had stopped advancing ten or fifteen years ago. I think the current focus on cutting edge graphics in video games is a detriment to other, more important elements. I feel the use of CGI eye candy in movies often distracts from and harms the narrative.

I think CGI can be good, but should be used to assist story rather than become the focus of story.

Example: Lord of the Rings... some very impressive CGI, at times an asset, but at same time after spending so many millions on the CGI, the director wants to show it off which hurts film... Hitchcock director or a mad max film could do worlds better with a dark scary battle night with fire and surprises than LOTR... matter of showing too much. Dark is scary because you *can't* see what is coming, fire makes an impact when it is all you can see in the dark. Directors showing off their CGI too much lose the suspense and realism and imagination.

As far as art goes here, yes some of it by current artist "David' does not have as much shading work, I think that is because he is cranking out more art per week than most artists (usually they have a dedicated shader to do same pace), but at same time I still like his work better than book 1... the shading isn't as good but the art is still sharper and more realistic to me.

I personally prefer this level of art and twice the updates compared to more time spent on shading, shadows, etc...
nulloverride wrote:
So, we may meet the *real* Charlie if Tramennis took the deal the Archon suggested. Chances are he doesn't do interrogations in person, but just maybe he would like to inspect his new prize.

It's doubtful. When Parson interviewed the decrypted Archons in between books 1 and 2, they said Cahrlie is only seen by the top level Archons, and those Archons themselves are hardly ever seen.
Lipkin wrote:
nulloverride wrote:
So, we may meet the *real* Charlie if Tramennis took the deal the Archon suggested. Chances are he doesn't do interrogations in person, but just maybe he would like to inspect his new prize.

It's doubtful. When Parson interviewed the decrypted Archons in between books 1 and 2, they said Cahrlie is only seen by the top level Archons, and those Archons themselves are hardly ever seen.


And it's conceivable that even the top level archons don't actually see him. There's a reason that the use of hearsay evidence in courts is so limited.
Arky wrote:
Albeit we do not know if Spacerock is still Stanley's capital or whether he took advantage of the truce with Charlie to safely move the capital back to Gobwin Knob. If he's not there in person then it might be safe.

We haven't been told anything about him changing the capital back, and I kind of doubt he will. While Stanley originally planned on moving the capital back, he doesn't really like Gobwin Knob anymore. It looks strange and lopsided to him. He does seem very impressed with Spacerock, though. It wouldn't surprise me if he decided just to keep the capital there. That being said, I'm merely speculating.

Alpha the White wrote:
I'd like to point at 2001: A Space Odyssey and the first Star Trek movie, and suggest that maybe what you're seeing isn't a relic of the CGI age, but rather just a condition endemic to motion picture media since its inception.

Well, I find it more of a problem with movies that try fit in the 90-120 minute Hollywood mainstream.

In the two examples above, I found the long visual sequences boring and pretentious, but I didn't feel they did so at the expense of other parts of the movie. For example, in the old days, a henchman would see the protagonist. The protagonist would run. The henchman would shoot at the protagonist. The protagonist would run around a corner, and the bullet would hit the wall. Cut to the next scene. You knew the protagonist got away. You didn't need to know all the details of how the protagonist escaped.

Nowadays, there'd be a five or more minute chase sequence with explosions and wire-fu fights. Another fifteen or twenty minutes will be spent on the climatic fight scene. There will be an explosion next to the protagonist that will throw him into a car and he'd get right back up. I'm sitting there thinking, "Even if he could get up with those broken bones from hitting the car, he'd probably be suffering from shock lung and drowning in his own blood from the concussion of the explosion." I'll wonder what happened to that one character that had something important to tell the main character but was never heard from again. I'll wish they'd spent some more time on that subplot they sort of introduced that ended up going nowhere. I'd like a couple more minutes spent on that one scene that seemed rushed and contrived.

As mentioned, the people who make these films are proud of their effects and want to show them off, but they often strike me as filler that eats up precious time that could be better spent on more important narrative elements.

Of course, styles and tastes change with time. I may simply be an old fogey who is viewing the past through nostalgia glasses. Everything probably wasn't done better back then, I just remember it that way. Alternatively, my tastes were shaped by what was done then, and modern style just doesn't fit as well. Old stuff suits my tastes better because they are what shaped those tastes originally.

goldenboy wrote:
What drew me into Erfworld was the general impression of the first couple pages of Book 1. I hadn't seen a comic like that before. The visuals and the story worked hand in hand. It looked magical. I respect that there are those of us most interested in the story, but to me it was like a comic art candy store. I could look at a page again and again and still notice new cool things about it. It was mostly about the lighting. And the art told its own substory about characters and places just by subtle shading or blurring or having characters look like papercuts or psychedelic magic swirling around. Not necessarily details, just atmosphere. Although sometimes there were plenty of details if you remember the swarms of bats etc.

Not to take away from the current art, I have mad respect for anyone who can do a fully fleshed out comic page. I was just trying to provide some pointers.

I respect there are people that view the art as such an important part of the comic. I'll even concede that, in this instance, their opinion is more valid than mine, since mine basically boils down to it doesn't matter too much to me. While we're all fans of the comic, there's different things that appeal to each of us. The only way to get what you want and support what is important to you is make your opinion known. So, I liberally share mine, but I don't want it to seem like I'm discouraging others from doing the same, even if it does differ from mine.

Mirage GSM wrote:
I think it has.
It's labelled "Tip"

Thank you. I will keep that in mind in the future.

multilis wrote:
I think CGI can be good, but should be used to assist story rather than become the focus of story.

Example: Lord of the Rings... some very impressive CGI, at times an asset, but at same time after spending so many millions on the CGI, the director wants to show it off which hurts film... Hitchcock director or a mad max film could do worlds better with a dark scary battle night with fire and surprises than LOTR... matter of showing too much. Dark is scary because you *can't* see what is coming, fire makes an impact when it is all you can see in the dark. Directors showing off their CGI too much lose the suspense and realism and imagination.

I remember a interview with George Lucas after the original Star Wars trilogy came out where he said, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." What happened to you George? As for the Lord of the Rings movies, I hated them. I will give Peter Jackson my respect for undertaking and succeeding in such a huge undertaking. I'm grateful to him for bring the fantasy genre into the mainstream and allowing fantasy movies to be made where the subject matter is treated with respect. That being said, I don't think Jackson had the slightest grasp on the characters, which is painfully obvious in scenes he added, such as Faramir capturing Frodo. Faramir's characterization was way off. I hated the way he handled fights, especially the Dead Men of Dunharrow and Legolas. He actually made me hate Legolas a bit with all his stupid fights. Mostly though, it's just that his vision did not match mine. I read those books for the first time when I was fairly young, and I've read them copious times. I'm biased, and I admit it.

Still, as I said, I do respect him for his accomplishments. I also respect those who did enjoy the movies. If you found them entertaining, please ignore the anonymous curmudgeon behind the curtain.
Zeromedeiros wrote:
Wand was watching...so it was SHE who got that lot of schmuckers out of charlie's hand...and with a pair of eyes going to their capital!


I'm pretty sure Lillith is going to FAQ, not Charlie's capital.

That would get her to a place with a turnamancer that Charlie has linked with previously to do the turning while shielding any operational details of Charlescom from the prisoner's sight.
Turtlewing wrote:
Zeromedeiros wrote:
Wand was watching...so it was SHE who got that lot of schmuckers out of charlie's hand...and with a pair of eyes going to their capital!


I'm pretty sure Lillith is going to FAQ, not Charlie's capital.

That would get her to a place with a turnamancer that Charlie has linked with previously to do the turning while shielding any operational details of Charlescom from the prisoner's sight.

That would also be a good dodge around the "Side A's units within six hexes of any of Side B's cities" clause. (Section 4, Part 1, subsection b, yo)