Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

ZeroWolf wrote:For a moment there I thought you meant people praising the prime Wars cartoon though i suppose statistically, someone has to Like them

I was, Facebook was where the positive feedback for those cartoons came from.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:That sounds more like confirmation bias, than honest feedback.

So you are saying Facebook comments and forum comments here are honest feedback, but twitter feedback is not? cool cool.

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:For a moment there I thought you meant people praising the prime Wars cartoon though i suppose statistically, someone has to Like them

I was, Facebook was where the positive feedback for those cartoons came from.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:That sounds more like confirmation bias, than honest feedback.

So you are saying Facebook comments and forum comments here are honest feedback, but twitter feedback is not? cool cool.

I think I'll have what those people are having if they enjoyed Prime Wars.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:That sounds more like confirmation bias, than honest feedback.

So you are saying Facebook comments and forum comments here are honest feedback, but twitter feedback is not? cool cool.

No, that's a strange conclusion to reach What I did say, by confirmation bias, is that by sticking with the source of perceived overly positive feedback would lead to an askew viewpoint. Honest feedback is the middle ground between positive and negative.

Except I do not, I have read the Facebook and forum comments.

The forums here have approximately 5 active commenters in this thread, so it's pretty easy to get the point here.

On Facebook, once you take away the TRUKK NOT MUNKY-ers, it's a smaller but still balanced bag of positive feedback overweighing the negative feedback.

when you listen to the comic review podcasts, it's nigh universal praise.

When you read the Twitter threads, including reviews shared there, it is similar to the filtered Facebook feed: positive with some negatives, but overall trending a good positive outlook.

What I'm saying is you are far from alone in your thoughts, but you are also not the majority opinion you really think you are here.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote: So what is good about that?

1) Tim Burton-esque legs are new and I like that art style where it appeared previously, so I see no issue with them here. It continues to trend with the way Burcham approaches arachnid legs.

2) Tarantulas has loud ass colors. They can distract from the overall style of whatever design they put on it.

3) The expressiveness of the face, Burcham has always been good with his expressions, and despite the way Tarantulas' mouth exists and having a visor, he still portrays his emotions clearly and in his first panel's case, entertainingly.

4) I love the approach to the claw hands, it's a neat touch to have that "heartbeat on a monitor" styled claw opening

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:Tarantulas colour palette isn't too far removed from Megatron. But in contrast (ignoring the beast mode) the line work of Megs is a lot more competently done.
The thing with a stylised art style is consistency. If you can't apply the same look to everything on your page, then it isn't stylised. It is just bad and/or lazy.

Except, looking at the preview pages, and even looking back at the prior issues, I fail to see how it's stylistically different? I am looking at Dinobot and Tarantulas side by side in the same/neighboring panels, and except for the spider legs (to a small degree, it's hardly a Tramontano facial expression on a Milne drawn bot), i don't see how the 2 could be considered different.

Just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I cannot remotely see any art complaint you have talked about in this entire thread. Story maybe, but for the most part, our opinions are opposite.

D-Maximal_Primal wrote:Just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I cannot remotely see any art complaint you have talked about in this entire thread. Story maybe, but for the most part, our opinions are opposite.

You're not alone

Dead Metal wrote:Wow, the art just keeps getting worse and worse.

Could Livio Ramondelli take over art duties?

I completely agree. The quality of art for most of these current issue's covers and the actual comic's are quite different.

This is definitely the main reason I've not bothered with these BW comics, as the "art" looks bloody awful.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:The rough, jagged edges make Tarantulas look unfinished in comparison to everyone else. Like the line work still needs to be cleaned up before the page can be finalised. Bottom line, it looks rushed and not consciously stylised at all.

Have to disagree a bit here. Tarantulas is pretty cosistent with the rest of the style. Save for the Burton esqu legs, but then again we didn't really see much of his buglegs yet so it's likely just his style.
I think what you're misinterpreting as unfinished lines are actually just Tarantulas's facial expressions.

While I don't like the art style at all, I do think it's consistent and expresses emotions quite well.

primalxconvoy wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:Wow, the art just keeps getting worse and worse.

Could Livio Ramondelli take over art duties?

I completely agree. The quality of art for most of these current issue's covers and the actual comic's are quite different.

This is definitely the main reason I've not bothered with these BW comics, as the "art" looks bloody awful.

I would suggest reading them anyway. They're really not that bad, the writing is good and the writer behind this is freaking amazing. He's responsible for the best goddamn crossover comics ever. Ghostbusters Get Real and Ghostbusters X TMNT. He can not only write compelling stories, but he keeps his characters straight and doesn't pick favourites.
Which is why I'm convinced that the differences in personalities we see here are deliberate on his part.

Seriously, Get Real managed to do something no other comic ever did, the Real Ghostbusters were so well written, I actually heard the cartoon voices.
I just wish his collaborator Dan Schoening would be doing art duties, his style is also stylized in a similar way to this, but better.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:Ultimately if they wanted this to be a stylised Transformers book, that's what Tom Scioli is for. Plus his writing in Go-Bots alone was stellar.

Maybe they wanted it to be a different style there's lots out there after all. Plus the writing of the Ghostbusters stuff has been utterly fantastic. Looking forward to where this goes.

Wishful thinking on my part is that the Golden Disk doesn't lead Megatron to the Ark, but to something else entirely, completely unrelated to the Ark, Nemesis, or anything from 1984 G1.

If it has to be something from G1 that he's after, then let it at least be something obscure or unexpected, like the Zodiac that was hidden on Earth in Zone, or really surprise us by revealing that this weird Earth-like planet isn't Earth after all but some other planet from the mythos.

But of course, Hasbro above will probably want consistency and insist that this stay true to the original.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:But Hasbro really love to play it safe a bit too much.

Evergreen brand consistency.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:Ultimately if they wanted this to be a stylised Transformers book, that's what Tom Scioli is for. Plus his writing in Go-Bots alone was stellar.

No thank you.
This looks far better than Scioli.

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:Ultimately if they wanted this to be a stylised Transformers book, that's what Tom Scioli is for. Plus his writing in Go-Bots alone was stellar.

No thank you.
This looks far better than Scioli.

In terms of colouring, perhaps. But that's about it.

Scioli is a marmite thing, you either get his art or you didn't (just like this book) remember, there was plenty of people complaining about the look of the GI Joe vs Transformers series he did (go bots didn't get it as bad because by that point, everyone had moved on to complain about different things)