Irve Gotti wrote:
You're certainly entitled to YOUR opinion on YOUR site. The critics against your prior title choice were simply noting the overgeneralized feel of your site's headline (Good journalism is supposed to be impartial just as Good editorials are supposed to convey a well thought out opinion) which to them came off as more of an attack/ rant rather than constructive critique.
Irv Gotti wrote:The Same Faces? Does this imply that G1 didn't have them? The G1 faces were Largely the exact face but with different helmets, save for a very scant few. Where Don's faces go wrong here is that there are no distinguishing features between one face or another, again just like G1, save the helmets.
Irv Gotti wrote:Don should take a cue from the IDW TF Continuum cover and the TF movis and use the facial plating to make each face very unique to it's respective 'bot, something the TF movies do very well.
hinomars19 wrote:Irve Gotti wrote:
You're certainly entitled to YOUR opinion on YOUR site. The critics against your prior title choice were simply noting the overgeneralized feel of your site's headline (Good journalism is supposed to be impartial just as Good editorials are supposed to convey a well thought out opinion) which to them came off as more of an attack/ rant rather than constructive critique.
oh my golly. What would you prefer, impartialism (facade) or honesty?
seriously, who would you benefit more from, the guy who says "I constructively and impartialy think your art is intriguing" then walks out the back door and says, "that fool will never cut it in the biz"...
or
the guy who says "Dude, this stuff is pretty bad, you need to step up your game if you wanna reach your potential."
I hate that 'constructive critique' twaddle. It's code for "now I'll feed you a load of bull crap, that will mean absolutely zip to you, and leave no lasting effects on how you are progressing.
Seibertron is neither a university professor or a journolist so steeped in his own thesaurus, he doesn't give a crap about the subject so long as he has the chance to show off his 'creative writing skills'
BTW, I'm not attacking you personaly with that last bit.
Convotron wrote:Irv Gotti wrote:The Same Faces? Does this imply that G1 didn't have them? The G1 faces were Largely the exact face but with different helmets, save for a very scant few. Where Don's faces go wrong here is that there are no distinguishing features between one face or another, again just like G1, save the helmets.
I definitely agree with the similarity issue. G1 character faces are mostly alike. The root of the issue of my criticism of Don's curent approach to Transformers faces is that there is limited emotive quality. Any time characters bare their teeth, be it in a grin, grimace, or simply an open mouth, these expressions seem extremely similar due to the way the faces are designed as mechanical plates/parts. If it wasn't for the word balloons, I wouldn't know the demeanor of the characters.Irv Gotti wrote:Don should take a cue from the IDW TF Continuum cover and the TF movis and use the facial plating to make each face very unique to it's respective 'bot, something the TF movies do very well.
I think this would be a great approach. I'm a fan of the live action movie aesthetics, including how the Transformers characters have unique facial designs. I do think that they're too visually busy to be fully appreciated on film but I think it works well for the comic book format.
However, seeing how much the current "teching up" the G1 designs can make them unappealing to some fans...going even further towards the live action movie aesthetic, especially for the faces, in a comic that is basically set in G1 would cause even more negative reaction.
I don't mean to interrupt the solid discussion in this thread(I think it's solid considering the potential this topic has in a Transformers fan community for disintegration of intelligent discussion) but I couldn't help but think of this picture when I look at how Don draws faces...
Irv Gotti wrote:GOD, I want that image as my sig.
Carcass wrote:I grew up on G1, so that's my favourite facet of the Transformers franchise and it always will be. I've hated the Bay movies and I probably always will. I've hated Animated and I probably always will. The reason that I know I hate them though, is because I gave them a chance. I watched them and because of that, I know I don't like them for any given reason. But hey, that's just me. Anyone else likes that stuff, more power to you. But, I also enjoyed Carrobo when it first came out. I think some of the transformation schemes for some of the new toys over the past few years are really cool even if I don't like the supporting media. I also think Beast Machines was a superbly written series with beautifully engaging character development. So when I say that I do not like Don's new artwork on the ongoing IDW series, please... do not point a finger and scream 'Geewunner' at me.
I've always been a bit leery anytime someone announces their 'bold new direction' with an already established part of the franchise. G1 has always been, for me, over and finished. The original G1 cartoon is over and finished with a beginning and end. The original G1 Marvel comics are over and finished with a beginning and end. Any time someone (Dreamwave, IDW, whoever) has gone out of their way to redo the entire G1 story from scratch and take it in a new direction, it's always left a bittersweet taste in my mouth. I do love those characters and their mythos, so why wouldn't I want to see more of it? The difference is whether or not proper respect is paid to the original and how much crap I'm willing to put up with in order to see the new comic stay on the shelves. Little easter eggs and half-assed homages are not enough for me. On top of that, I'm tired of seeing how many times that goddamned ship is going to crash into a volcano.
I gave Dreamwave a chance and I began to like it for a while, but that's all over and done with. IDW came to the rescue and all of a sudden it's just another reboot of the same characters, the same ideas, but I began to like that too. I gave it a chance and thought as long as they stick with the formula, it should be all good in the hood. Then All Hail Megatron came.
I know a lot of people liked AHM. I'm not saying it's a bad story. The artwork is pretty amazing usually. But it really flew in the face of pre-established plot points and that pissed me off. Coda didn't do much to tie up loose ends or suture glaring problems between writers and Continuum was really insulting to anyone who gave AHM a chance (and was willing enough to look over all the potholes it left in the road).
The fact that the Transformers in IDW's G1 keep changing their forms and modes is probably the most annoying thing about the comic. Don's take on the current ongoing series and all of its supporters doesn't hold up against other established comic franchises. Even when you had so many different artists on the previous G1 comic books, the individual appearance of the characters were essentially the same and recognizable because of the fact that the character models were used and a concerted effort was made to make the enormous cast of characters just that. With IDW, the characters change forms and appearances every few issues depending on the artist (or Hasbro's suggestion maybe) and the result is obnoxious, creating confusing plot holes where there NEEDN'T BE ANY. Don's current take is just one step further by recreating the ENTIRE TRANSFORMERS LOOK and thereby making all of the previous stuff borderline apocrypha. On top of that, I think the explanation we've been given for the alt-mode inconsistencies is that these are 'Transformers' and they like to change their form and appearance whenever they feel like it is bull-puckey; aggravating and irritatingly unbelievable.
Artistic interpretation is fine. I don't think anyone is saying that Don's artwork is BAD in and of itself. It's pretty damn good artwork if you ask me! But it's not something that fits G1. In fact, it flies in the face of it. I know many fans are complaining about the Transformers' faces in the new book, but I still feel that the overall gist of the new designs feels a lot like shellformers, with the interior robot and armor plates that are mounted on the outside of their limbs and bodies, something that I equated a bit with the Bayformers designs from the beginning (although of a much less intricate nature). I keep hearing IDW tell us that Don's new designs are not influenced by the look of the movie designs, but when half of the fandom keeps referring to it as such, then what is that telling us about the final product whether or not that was the initial intent? Sorry, everyone... but these look like Bayformers mixed with some G1 elements to me. I'm not the only one from the sound of things.
Artistic interpretation and authorial intent will always change the face of a comic book run depending on who is working on it, and that's a good thing. It's always necessary to stir the pot a bit, to shake things up just a tad and make them more interesting, otherwise we'd get bored as readers! However the changes made between the IDW's G1 comics are glaringly different and they don't support the theme of the original idea. AHM should have been a different reality or alternate take on Simon's G1 comic. The current ongoing series has even less to do with what IDW started with. And before anyone brings up the fact that even Batman or Spider-Man changes their costumes every once in a while, please remember that it's just one character making a conscious decision (based on artistic interpretation or authorial intent). You're gonna tell me that the entire race of G1 Transformers woke up one day and decided to look like Bayformers?
If Don's sick of drawing blocky G1 Transformers, then he shouldn't be drawing G1. I don't like what he's doing with it and I'm sick of being force-fed G1 stuff that doesn't jibe with G1. Make a new comic with these ideas and designs or just stop dicking around with G1 altogether.
Irv Gotti wrote:hinomars19 wrote:Irve Gotti wrote:
You're certainly entitled to YOUR opinion on YOUR site. The critics against your prior title choice were simply noting the overgeneralized feel of your site's headline (Good journalism is supposed to be impartial just as Good editorials are supposed to convey a well thought out opinion) which to them came off as more of an attack/ rant rather than constructive critique.
oh my golly. What would you prefer, impartialism (facade) or honesty?
seriously, who would you benefit more from, the guy who says "I constructively and impartialy think your art is intriguing" then walks out the back door and says, "that fool will never cut it in the biz"...
or
the guy who says "Dude, this stuff is pretty bad, you need to step up your game if you wanna reach your potential."
I hate that 'constructive critique' twaddle. It's code for "now I'll feed you a load of bull crap, that will mean absolutely zip to you, and leave no lasting effects on how you are progressing.
Seibertron is neither a university professor or a journolist so steeped in his own thesaurus, he doesn't give a crap about the subject so long as he has the chance to show off his 'creative writing skills'
BTW, I'm not attacking you personaly with that last bit.
No offense taken.
But, it does seem that you misunderstand what constructive critique ACTUALLY means. Quoting your comparison statement, constructive critique would sound very much like above. "Dude, this stuff is pretty bad, you need to step up your game if you wanna reach your potential." But then it would be followed by WHY it's bad and what possible changes, if any, can be made. THAT'S constructive critique vs simply saying "This sucks."
Judging by your post, you're also very late in the game. Seibertron's original title for this thread/ article was "Bad Art!" THAT is easily taken as a rant. (It's the reason why he's posted a few times to defend his opinion) His new title, "All the faces look the same" is constructive critique because he makes it VERY clear WHY he doesn't like Don's new take on the TFs, and as I stated before, the faces looking alike IS what's mainly wrong with the character designs (Bumblebee's look suffers the most from this) aside from other details.
And again, Seibertron is Well entitled to his own opinion, especially on his own site.
Aeros wrote:I know I'm going to come off as a huge dick for this but to the person who put the News topic "BAD ARTWORK" on the main page, Do you have any kind of degree in any form of art? You can't call it bad art just because It's different. I'm not a fan of this style myself for this continuity especially when we're so used to the new age G1 style we've seen in previous IDW works
I remember when the movie designs came out everyone was like "What in the name of Primus is that ****" But i think Most ppl are a bit more accepting of that "art" of the movieverse and accept it for what it is.
Different art, yes. Will it take some time(Maybe A LOT)to get accustomed to, Sure. But "Bad Artwork" it is not.
WolfFang wrote:Let me be the first to say, who the f*&$ cares about their damn faces??!! Does it matter? Prime never had a mouth to show emotion. neither did shockwave or countless other bots. do i really need to see them smiling like idiots or grimacing when they take an energon dump? it's a comic, not a toon, so we are only really seeing one photograph for an entire scene, so we shouldn't expect a few range of emotion for one image of an entire scene. it looks fine to me -- i've no complaints nor any big compliments. their bodies look fine and i've never been one to fous on faces. i read an enire comic in 5m, so i see the images and read the text -- i don't sit there focusing on faces. everyone is never happy, but to whine about robot faces is ridiculous. we should be happy to have any tf comics at all. if you want to see really crappy art, check out 30 Days of Night, illustrated by Ben Templesmith, and be glad he's not doing tf!
WolfFang wrote:Let me be the first to say,
WolfFang wrote:who the f*&$ cares about their damn faces??!! Does it matter?
WolfFang wrote:Prime never had a mouth to show emotion. neither did shockwave or countless other bots. do i really need to see them smiling like idiots or grimacing when they take an energon dump?
WolfFang wrote:it's a comic, not a toon, so we are only really seeing one photograph for an entire scene, so we shouldn't expect a few range of emotion for one image of an entire scene.
WolfFang wrote:it looks fine to me -- i've no complaints nor any big compliments. their bodies look fine and i've never been one to fous on faces. i read an enire comic in 5m, so i see the images and read the text -- i don't sit there focusing on faces.
WolfFang wrote:everyone is never happy, but to whine about robot faces is ridiculous.
WolfFang wrote:we should be happy to have any tf comics at all.
WolfFang wrote:if you want to see really crappy art, check out 30 Days of Night, illustrated by Ben Templesmith, and be glad he's not doing tf!
Convotron wrote:WolfFang wrote:Let me be the first to say,
You're also the first to post something in the thread that contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.WolfFang wrote:who the f*&$ cares about their damn faces??!! Does it matter?
It's obvious by the participants of this thread that some people care and that it matters to those who post in this thread.WolfFang wrote:Prime never had a mouth to show emotion. neither did shockwave or countless other bots. do i really need to see them smiling like idiots or grimacing when they take an energon dump?
To be frank, it seems like you're simply responding to the thread without reading a significant portion of the posts involving criticism of Don Figueroa's current art style. Obviously, characters with significant portions of their faces don't apply to this criticism.WolfFang wrote:it's a comic, not a toon, so we are only really seeing one photograph for an entire scene, so we shouldn't expect a few range of emotion for one image of an entire scene.
No one is expecting a range of emotion for a single image. People are expecting to see a range of emotion throughout the comic beyond what Don's artwork has shown so far.WolfFang wrote:it looks fine to me -- i've no complaints nor any big compliments. their bodies look fine and i've never been one to fous on faces. i read an enire comic in 5m, so i see the images and read the text -- i don't sit there focusing on faces.
You get 5 minutes out of a comic and don't focus on faces. By any chance are you a Rob Liefeld fan?WolfFang wrote:everyone is never happy, but to whine about robot faces is ridiculous.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that whining about the ridiculousness of alleged whining about robot faces is far more ridiculous.WolfFang wrote:we should be happy to have any tf comics at all.
I'm as grateful as any other Transformers fan for the existence of Transformers comics but I choose not to possess low expectations and accept anything and everything that is Transformers, comics or otherwise.WolfFang wrote:if you want to see really crappy art, check out 30 Days of Night, illustrated by Ben Templesmith, and be glad he's not doing tf!
Thanks for your thoughts on the artwork on 30 Days of Night. I don't know what else to say about this non sequitur.
Counterpunch wrote:I'll go into the street and slap someone's momma for a Leader-1 repaint.
Seibertron wrote:I'm also not a fan of the bodies. I'm tired of their bodies continuing to change with no reason or explanation. It's sloppy. But that's not the battle I want to take on.
Return to Transformers Cartoons and Comics Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], MSNbot Media, Nemesis Primal, Optimus Eeyore, Sard, triKlops