Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (3181.1)
    Hey all (and Warren, I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of posting this thread, but I figured it would be prudent, please eradicate if you think it'll be too messy/more bother than use).

    It's been said in an earlier thread that what you're seeing with Freakangels is a sort of "beta" comic. It's made to a professional standard, but on a tight weekly schedule, and whilst there's normally time for some edits after pages are drawn, there's not enough time for the weeks of editing and continuity checking that a full-on trade should normally go through before publication. Warren is but one writer with many other projects to attend to, and I am but one artist with 6 full-colour pages (and often other work) to produce every week. Avatar are also kindly supplying this to you for free.

    Which brings us to your interaction with the comic. It seems that an increasing number of people think it's helpful to point out features of the comic that they think are mistakes. It's important to know/remember this is a full time job for me part of which is the research and referencing of all important features of the visuals, Ariana (who does some of the editing) has a remarkably keen eye, and Warren's a professional with a long history of experience. Chances are, we'll have spotted or thought of the problem you noticed and not had time to correct it, or decided not to correct it (for aesthetic purposes, or because it conforms with the general level of verisimilitude the story works at).

    That being said, there is a chance that you might have a useful comment to make, since further edits will be made before trades hit the shelves and even obvious things can slip by people who stare at the same page all day. So, if you want to be helpful, first think carefully whether you know what you're talking about and if your observation is:

    an instance where aesthetics were chosen over die-hard realism?
    just down to personal taste/opinion?
    only noticeable by a few specialists?
    too pedantic or too general?

    Then if you still think your observation is worthwhile, place it in this thread and do it concisely, constructively and with a specific reference to episode number, page number and panel number, so it can be of real help to us.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFauxhammer
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2008
     (3181.2)
    Thanks, Paul; is it all right if I repost this in a Freakangels thread on another forum? It may be considered...pertinent.
    • CommentAuthorjwdoom
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
     (3181.3)
    Did anyone else notice that the ejection port on the Jack's Glock keeps changing sides? I don't think it's pedantic, and the Glock is an iconic piece so it's likely to get noticed.

    When first shown in Ep 16 pg 4 it's on the right side, as is correct.
    Episode 18 pg 6 it looks like it's on the left side (as Jack's setting it down prior to diving for Caz's rope)
    It's definitely on the wrong side in the Mudlark's hand Ep 20 pg 2 and again on pg 4 when he's dropping after Jack's awesome throat slash.

    I did search to see if anyone else mentioned this, but got no results. Hope it's not a dupe.
  2.  (3181.4)
    @jwdoom:
    I think most people can't tell a glock from a desert eagle and the guns don't seem to have a specific role in the story, unlike a terrorism story were the gun's origin is relevant .. or spy stories, were the technical funcitionality of them is at stake.

    That being said, I don't know the range of corrections they are after and the kind of focus the story will bring later to this side.
    •  
      CommentAuthordiello
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2008
     (3181.5)
    Nobody's mentioned the ambiguous hand position when Arkady introduces us to Caz in Episode 13 (bottom of page 3). It was the talk of the town back then.
  3.  (3181.6)
    Hello Paul,

    Concerning Freakangels Episode 0011:

    There were a lot of people refreshing page 3 but those problems had to do with the nature of webcomics.

    I still think that there may be a slight problem with page 3 in print form (specifically if it will be the second visible page when the book lays open). The fact that Luke and Arkady touch the edge of the page may throw it off from the rest of the book because (to the best of my knowledge) there is no other case in the Freakangels webcomic where the art extends beyond the established white border. This is relative to watching a movie that suddenly changes aspect ratios (though not as drastic). Basically, it may fight the flow. A simple fix might be butting that art against a corner edge line like on page 2-panel 4 (except of course that edge would only touch the art on the bottom right of page 3). You could even fade that line like page 4...but I do think it may be an easy and worthwhile fix. Another fix may be simply spattering white to eliminate the panel line around Arkady's wrist on page 2-panel 4. (For the sake of a proper analysis I saved the pages on my desktop and opened them to the same size juxtaposed and I still feel like the lack of a border may be odd.)

    As for the Glock variations; I own and shoot a Glock and I didn't notice that (although these things are always easier to comprehend in print). That critique may be just short of pedantic (and not worth the time if you are on a tight schedule).

    That ambiguous hand position of Arkady in Episode 0013 (page 3; panel 4) is especially heightened by her expression. I really don't think that's a case of our minds being in the gutter either (and it may even be intentional).

    Otherwise, I have no potentially negative critique of the art in any matter...even when it comes down to personal taste. It's a win!
  4.  (3181.7)
    I very often notice photos of water that have been added in. I know that there’s plenty of other stuff done this way in Freakangels, but there’s something about water that makes it distracting; probably because really realistic waves aren’t something that can be drawn with a pen. Shingles, OTOH, work just fine this way.
  5.  (3181.8)
    Thanks for your feedback people:

    @jwdoom

    That's fair enough I think, although a very very small number of people are going to notice something like that. To be honest I'm glad you recognised it was meant to be a Glock in the first place, since I've never held or fired a gun in my life.

    @diello

    I might well sort that out.

    @Walker James

    I wanted that full-bleed, or else I wouldn't have done it full-bleed. It is in every respect a moment outside the frame, and if you think that's breaking some sort of inviolable rule, try reading some Osamu Tezuka ;)

    @James Puckett

    I think that's just a personal threshold thing. You draw the line there, a few people don't like the use of photo textures at all, yet more people don't even notice. I think there are pages where it works better than on other pages, and I may tweak some of those, but that's my style.
    • CommentAuthorjwdoom
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2008
     (3181.9)
    @Paul

    Good job. It's clearly and obviously a Glock. You even caught a lot of the little details, except how bloody uncomfortable they are to fire. And they're poop for southpaws.

    As far as the proportion of people who'll notice it, gun boards/forums are chock full of uptight pedants. I hope they make a small portion of your readership.
    • CommentAuthorJMichaels
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2008 edited
     (3181.10)
    Sorry, I was too enamored by the story and the beauty of Paul's art to notice the glock exiting hole dancing around.

    In the grand scheme of things, Does it affect the story? No. It's just a gun. As long as it shoots. It does its job.

    Concerning the photo textures. It fits with the "punk" style. They did it/do it in flyers, posters and album covers. Appropriation has been a part of art since there was art.

    I mean seriously, look at the effort and attention to perspective, architecture and detail put into this page.

    Water-shhhmater!

    At least it isn't a lightboxed, poorly traced moneyshot from a porn DVD like some -ahem- artists use these days.

    Besides, I've come to expect it in Freak Angels now and I'd hate to see a sudden jarring switch in the art because of the disappearance of the photo collage elements.

    Is it a style I would use? No. Does that make it wrong somehow? Definitely not. Paul's the artist. Paul likes it. Therefore, that's FreakAngels.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroverand
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009
     (3181.11)
    Episode 64/65 - In the end of 64 and the first panel of 65, the oh-so-friendly lady-with-the-knife is wearing a green patched t-shirt and similarly patched trousers. In the rest of 65, she's moved to a tank top and unpatched trousers.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009
     (3181.12)
    > I've never held or fired a gun in my life

    I was drilled that if you're given a gun, don't believe anyone telling whether it's loaded or not loaded: instead, on receiving it you should immediately check for yourself, by inspection. Therefore, "Eight left in the clip, one up the snout" seemed to me to be telling the audience (because, he ought to be checking for himself). The FA characters presumably haven't been drilled, so I'm not suggesting you change it there (just, possibly, remember in the future if you ever draw professionals).

    More importantly IMO I take it that that's a safety switch which he's making unsafe on panel 3 of episode 61. That switch has disappeared entirely by panel 6. I noticed that on panel 6 because the camera was doing a close-up there for several frames as if we were supposed to see every detail, he is taking up pressure on the trigger, we'd like to know whether he's going to fire and/or what's going to stop him: and so the position (or the very existence) of the safety at that moment is relevent to the plot. It's odd that you should call attention to it in one panel and then have it disappear completely the next.

    That type of safety may be an after-market add-on, so if you happen to be working from several photos, then perhaps some photos have it and some not.
  6.  (3181.13)
    @Fan
    I'd already assumed the FAs weren't formally trained. I may not have handled firearms, but that just meant I did my best to look into them in more detail.

    That safety was a tricky one. I'd given Jack a glock earlier in the story, but without realising Warren had specifically written in the script for Kirk to take the safety off, and given it a whole panel. Since the safety on the glock I'd been using for reference was on the trigger and that made for a confusing panel, I had to do some quick scouting to see if there were a common mod I could use as reference for an extra safety, an actually came across the same information you linked there. However it looks like in my rush to finish the episode I forgot to add it in in those last two panels.

    I'll fix that one since it's a genuine one-moment-it's-there-the-next-it's-not kind of error.

    It saddens me a little how the only type of errors in detail that people mention commonly are weapons-based, as if that's the only kind of detail that matters. It'd be nice to get an architect-geek or a botany-geek or something commenting :(

    @overand

    Thanks for sticking that here :)
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009
     (3181.14)
    > It saddens me a little how the only type of errors in detail that people mention commonly are weapons-based, as if that's the only kind of detail that matters.

    Sorry; I noticed the safety, because it is the safety that's the detail that mattered to me.

    And, maybe people who know guns are trained to get all pedantic around them: a 'pay attention, no mistakes' kind of attitude. When you fire a bullet, you can feel it shoot away with some ungodly number of foot-pounds, and there's never ever any taking it back.

    Anyway, I find guns sad too (though I don't find all 'weapons' sad: for example I see Kait's night-stick as more a shield/defensive tool than an offensive/destructive weapon).

    And in fact the comic is full of details that I like a lot, that are lovely, that matter to me, and that I don't think are in error: and which I therefore won't comment on or criticise. Details like the rainbows, and the feeling that I recognise the architecture from when I've been in London. I wonder if you know how much people like it.

    > It'd be nice to get an architect-geek or a botany-geek or something commenting :(

    On the first panel of episode 64:

    * Why all that superstructure of scaffolding: for the extra height/sunlight, or what? It's only a few extra metres.
    * Three water tanks, at 3 cubic metres each: about 10 tons, when full of water. I hope that scaffolding is solid.
    * The trees are top-heavy. Apart from whether their roots have enough space, they'd blow over in a wind.

    And KK's copter wouldn't fly.

    But those aren't errors, IMO: they're Heath Robinson-esque, visual set design.
    They're also an important metaphor, for the world they live in and what they're doing with it :)
    And lovely.
    • CommentAuthorOld Jorge
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009
     (3181.15)
    Not about guns.

    In Episode 0008, page 2, Kirk is given a loaf of bread by a grocer named Bob. Wheat and other grains take vast tracts of land to grow, and so are not urban crops. Is someone growing potatoes, making potato flour, and baking bread? If so, why aren't they also making vodka?

    To go to the trouble of growing grain, someone would have to be obsessed with tasting beer one last time before they died. And then that would be all they'd use it for.
    • CommentAuthorOld Jorge
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009 edited
     (3181.16)
    @Fan (3181.14)

    KK's copter could easily fly, if all it ran on were water and her energy making it superheated steam. It would not have the weight of fuel and a combustion stage.

    More importantly, these things work because FreakAngels will it to be so.
  7.  (3181.17)
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/urban-wheatfield-london.php

    Let's try using the internet a bit first? Thanks.
    • CommentAuthorSarracenia
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2009
     (3181.18)

    It'd be nice to get an architect-geek or a botany-geek or something commenting :(

    On the first panel of episode 64:

    * Why all that superstructure of scaffolding: for the extra height/sunlight, or what? It's only a few extra metres.
    * Three water tanks, at 3 cubic metres each: about 10 tons, when full of water. I hope that scaffolding is solid.
    * The trees are top-heavy. Apart from whether their roots have enough space, they'd blow over in a wind.


    I'm an Arborist, so trees I can certainly comment on :)

    First up, engineering considerations: given the volume of soil in the bins the trees are planted in it's unlikely they'd fall over - good dirt is really heavy, even more so when you add water to it - and you'd be amazed how small a half-ton root ball is.

    The real problem is root growth. Trees don't have tap roots, they have root plates - envision a wineglass standing on a dinner plate and you've got a pretty good idea of their natural structure. Also, when planted in the ground, roots rarely grow more than 600mm below soil surface. Beneath that depth there is too little oxygen for roots to grow.

    Repurposed wheelie bins don't permit spreading root growth and root volume is intimately linked to shoot volume: you need lots of roots to support a full sized canopy and/or fruit production. A tree of that size and maturity in that shape container just doesn't happen (unless it's a recent transplant and even then the root ball would be too small to support the canopy; imminent decline and death expected). If the tree were grown from sapling in that container I'd expect to see it somewhat stunted, shorter than usual for the species, and unlikely to fruit due to the small root volume and it's limited ability to absorb sufficient nutrients and water from the soil. I hesitate to rule out anything though, because Nature and trees have a way of defying expectations on a daily basis...

    The palm tree though would do just fine :)
  8.  (3181.19)
    It saddens me a little how the only type of errors in detail that people mention commonly are weapons-based, as if that's the only kind of detail that matters. It'd be nice to get an architect-geek or a botany-geek or something commenting :(

    Well it's not exactly architecture, but it is structure related (and really, sadly, detail obsessive :). The arrangement of the watchtower seems to move around a bit from episode to episode. For instance in the first shot of the tower and in this one the helipad is on the north-east corner and the hut on the south-west. Here and here they've reversed.

    Yes, I took the trouble to work that out :)
  9.  (3181.20)
    Lighting-geek?
    Ep 18 Page 2 - The shadow from KK's bike is a reflection, rather than a shadow as it was on the previous page.