Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

(Source) I no longer look forward to seeing the familiar PVP characters dressed up for Halloween or roleplaying. Why? Because there's no visual continuity. The real Jade's shoulders are about a third as wide as those of her bardic giantess counterpart. It just doesn't feel like the same person -- because it doesn't look like the same person. I don't see any reason for this to be happening, but it's been the case more often than not over the past two years. And it really shines through in the shoulders and body length. Skull, of course, always looks quite recognizable -- because you can't find Skull in a Google image search of costumes to trace. The real shame is that dressing familiar characters up in new ways is one of my favorite things to see, and can showcase real depth in both the character and the artwork. I don't want to see familiar faces slapped atop completely unfamiliar bodies. It seems... well, it seems like a lot of things. Careless, for one. Maybe thoughtless. It could be better, is what I'm saying. If you keep forcing your characters into unnatural (For them), realistic shapes, perhaps you should decide to change your characters' normal appearances? And if that's not what you want to do, then maybe you can go back to costumes that genuinely clothe the way you normally draw your own characters. The only saving grace is the element of fantasy that's involved here (And in most other cases). Still, the lack of continuity is jarring. In other news, yes: Francis definitely caught the eye disease that Jade used to have. Hell, I think he has it worse! Maybe after multiple years of uncomfortable irritation, he too will regain control over his eyeballs and be applauded for looking nicer. I'm going to continue with a side-note that is comprised of a quote from the Comics Curmudgeon: "Cartoonists: I understand that there are good reasons for drawing your characters with four fingers instead of five, mostly because in the limited space you have available drawing too many fingers risks having none of those fingers be really visible. But if you’re going to go down that road, you absolutely must not depict your four-fingered characters as making distinctive hand gestures that generally rely on the full complement of digits — like, say, the devil horns/rock-n-roll symbol — or else you risk giving the impression that your characters are freakish claw-handed mutants." Of course, Skull isn't a human -- the humans in PVP have the correct amount of digits, these days -- but his hand really does suffer visually in that panel. Okay, side-note over. This strip's biggest disappointment is that it's trying to reinvent the wheel that Skull is based on. Go ahead, think up two words that sum up Skull for you. Are they "Lovable" and "Dumb"? Perhaps "Bumbling" and "Spaz"? It's not impossible that I'm too attached to the Skull of "olden" days, but this new Skull with his "fresh" lyrics and "in your face" attitude is freaking me out in a big way. I'll be honest: I hate it. That isn't who Skull used to be, and I am entrenched in the old ways. I don't like when he's given human eyes instead of beady (Cole-type) eyes. Skull's look and feel was a classic; it's one of the (Perhaps few) things I never felt was worth switching up or letting evolve in PVP. Maybe I've grown up too much, but Skull doesn't seem as big as he used to, or as dumb, or as fun. His character isn't dependable when he keeps doing "funny, cool" things like this. Do I need to move on? Hang on, let me post another picture of Skull... OH MY GOD! Fourteen years ago, The Simpsons tried to warn us with one of their best-remembered episodes, The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. But did we listen? I guess we didn't. There are too many uncomfortable parallels that can be drawn between this PVP strip and that masterful satire. The PVP strip has no point -- it's showcasing "hip Skull", in an interesting, rich role-playing environment where we ought to be getting treated to some sort of fireworks factory finale. There's nothing more I can add. If I can convince you to do anything right now, I would want it to be that you go and re-watch that classic Simpsons episode.

For The Lulls

Join me, please, as we travel back through time. No, wait; sorry! I meant, "as we retread old ground." Or, maybe, "as we see that I apparently thought about updating within the past week, yet didn't." Exciting! Sorry for the long entry, but it's a numbered list -- if that helps. I'm not even going to render more than a single sentence on my thoughts regarding September 3rd's strip. It was abominable, reveals that father and son are both shamelessly self-centered bastards, and finally destroys the last vestiges of any purpose behind their having actually gone to a convention. (Source) The next strip was emotionally-driven (I hope), so the lack of any actual joke is... well, it's something to read if learning more about the characters interests you. However, the dialog is boggling. Cole caves right in to his father's "TV is a time-waster" statement (Which is being used to support the fashion in which Cole dispatched a fan of Mr. Richards, as well as whatever unfathomable motive he had for doing so) with the supporting argument of "I guess it all does seem pointless on the surface." So, Cole's saying... what, exactly? He doesn't want to admit that the show his father was in was a waste of everyone's time, unless he couches it within the fuddy-duddy-honored tradition of declaring television to be devoid of intellectual stimulus? But, wait! He's couched even THAT admission behind an "I guess"! So what does Cole really think of the whole thing, what does he really want to say, and how has he forgotten so quickly that they're really talking about why it was justified for them to both lash out at a fan? We'll never know, so it's time to move on and conceal this part with a throw rug. Next, the humorous reveal: Mr. Richards never misses an episode of Buffy. Wait, what? Present tense? Buffy hasn't been on the air in six years! Maybe we are going back in time? Did Mr. Richards mean that he never misses a repeat? Does he not know he's watching repeats, meaning we now have further evidence for the emotionally-scarring existence of his rapidly-deteriorating mind? Cole doesn't help us out by chasing this appealing rabbit, but he does seem surprised when he clarifies that Mr. Richards is talking about Buffy. We don't KNOW that his surprise isn't because there are no episodes of Buffy that Mr. Richards could "miss". Still (And I'm just joking; clearly Cole is just surprised that his father watches a popular and vapid television program), he leaves well enough alone and drops the subject. And then they laugh. Oh, how they laugh! I've gotta say, the silhouette always proves to be visually appealing at the price of reduced artistic effort. It's a great tool among the arsenal of an artist. I've also gotta say this: This was ABSOLUTELY the wrong panel to choose to silhouette. Of the five panels, only this one would have showcased the biggest possible emotional payoff in Cole and Mr. Richards' expressions. It's the dramatic equivalent of an action scene where two badasses harass each other until the situation escalates into a fight that you KNOW is gonna be sweet -- and then the big double doors slam shut in front of the camera, and you get to stare at a doorknob as you are treated to some interesting sound effects that teabag your ears with all of the glorious visual payoff that you were denied. Frustrating? You betcha. And then, the final line: "We should do this again, sometime." It's baffling. It has nothing to do with their situation, because Mr. Richards can't possibly mean any such thing. Their experience was absolute hell for them both, apparently, right up until the previous ten seconds. Is it a form of the "Sure... I'll, uh, I'll write you" footnote to the typical ends-in-disappointment relationship? On the surface, it seems like a form of hope for their future. But it's impossible that the words genuinely mean, "We should spend time laughing together again, sometime" -- the words can only mean, "Well, enough of that." And Cole's expression, plus Mr. Richards' turned-away face, reinforce the tragic truth of their relationship. This is the worst happy ending ever. Is it supposed to be? I have no way of knowing! The events that just transpired are too subtle and too screwball for me to believe I really know how they were intended. (Source) The next strip is happier, even if you interpret the previous strip as happy. So, take a moment to ponder Cole's eyelids. It's an existential problem, so don't bother taking it too seriously. When we see Cole's eyes from an angle that doesn't place his glasses between them and us, they are (And this is where the problems begin: They are not always) solid black ovals. Near-ovals, anyway; they tend to resemble the top bits of exclamation marks. No whites to them (Except when Cole's eyes are widened -- apparently, "wide, completely black eyes" was much too creepy). The frames of his glasses have traditionally stood in for his sclera, and when they aren't around his real eyes must fend for themselves. But to circle back to the point, what, then, is the meaning of the "eyelids" we see through his glasses? Will they show up without the glasses there? If they are squinched cheeks, why doesn't Cole have cheeks when he's seen from behind (And why do they... run directly into each other)? Your father is wise in the way of the cheeks, Cole. Learn much from him, you can. His glasses are also better. And his collars. Sorry, Cole, your dad is just cooler than you. I've wanted to point out this aspect of Cole's design for a while, now, so here it is: The shots of Cole's collar that make it look like he has a stiff, white rectangle jutting into midair above his shoulder are not good. Sometimes it only barely juts out, in which case I can easily imagine that there's a barely-hidden curve to it that goes behind Cole's neck. Sometimes it's a plank hanging over an abyss that Cole's tie could go take a long walk off of, and it's way too obvious that there is no curve hidden behind its structure. Nothing new, but it helps get the mind off of his tie. Now, Cole is surprised and dismayed to see that Bill Amend (<3) has written "Colt". Oh, Cole, you inattentive gadabout! Plus, I don't think he really looks like a horse. Don't worry, though, Cole! I'll fix that right up for you! Trust me, this is even better than if Amend hadn't misinterpreted your very-normal name as a fairly-unusual name: No, nothing serious here. Just some bad jokes. (Source) On a final note, here's the first of several (?) guest strips. How do you hide a ponytail? It's very interesting to see Brent without one, though (And that it's for a video game! Lots of video game references when the guest artists come out, it seems. Are they trying to send a message?). Also, how is the blind guy (Reggie) going to be the drummer (Ringo) for Rock Band? I think that they're setting themselves up for disappointment, there.

It Tastes Like Burning

(Source) What needs to be said? Today's strip has heavily-traced artwork. All I have are questions: Why does the artist feel that he can't, or didn't need to, draw this character in his own style? Do you, the reader, feel that knowing it was traced somehow cheapens the effect of the strip? Does it lower your opinion of the artwork? Are there any other popular or, in your opinion, good webcomics that do this sort of thing? Should the artist know the difference between photo reference and photo tracing? Is the combination of styles jarring, or does it work? It's not an isolated incident -- it's just a recent one. The joke goes off without a hitch, however. It's a great reference to the prevalence of cigarettes hanging between the monotone lips of yesteryear's iconic characters. Always darkly amusing to see. The cigarettes portrayed here, of course, seem to be strongly targeted at children -- the pack is much too large for Super Space Cadet Man (I don't feel I'm exaggerating when I say it is the size of his head), and seem more to scale with Kid Super Space Cadet Man. Oh, those Chesterstrike cads! (Seriously, though. "Kid Super Space Cadet Man"? I get the weak joke therein, but the title is such a clunker. It would never have gotten past an editor without the "Man" being trimmed. And "The Chesterstrike Super Space Cadet Man Adventure Hour"? It'd give the old-timey announcer conniptions) The only thing left to do is wonder what turned the photograph in Cole's hands completely gray. Did its children run out into traffic? It's easy enough to take the photograph we saw in the previous strip... and then copy it, crop it, rotate it and erase the bits that Cole is covering up. The smudge tool easily fudges out the bit of photograph that was obscured by a speech balloon (And the sharpen tool spruces it back up if you get it too blurry to match the quality of the strip). It's not perfect, but it's quick and painless. That doesn't help the print-quality version of the strip, but the artist could still have done anything other than an all-gray piece of paper... any added detail would perform better than the notable lack of detail on such a large photograph.