|
|
Post by foxley on Jul 31, 2019 3:21:50 GMT -5
About five years ago, I took up archery as hobby. Since then I have become a lot more sensitive to way archery is depicted in media; especially comics.
@mechagodzilla recently posted this cover in the Cover Association Game. While it is a glorious piece of Murphy Anderson art, it could be used as an illustration for 'How Not to Use a Bow':
- Her bow arm is bent. This greatly reduces the force of the shot, makes accuracy impossible, and almost guarantees she will hit her arm with the bowstring.
- She is gripping the bow like a pistol. This absolutely guarantees that will will her arm with the bowstring.
- The bowstring should be drawn back so it touches her face; not the foot or so away from her face she seems to be holding it.
- There is no way to sight along the shaft at the height she is holding it.
- On her draw arm, her elbow is way too far forward. It should be back behind her shoulder.
- She is drawing across her body rather than straight back.
- In that position, she cannot be engaging her shoulder muscles: the most important muscles in archery.
I could go on, but my point here is not to nitpick. Rather, I am curious as to what areas others have some expertise in that causes them to notice errors that others would never even see. Possibly even with a demonstration like this one. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,221 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 31, 2019 9:03:42 GMT -5
I'm a guitarist, so something I tend to notice is that, most of the time, when a guitarist is depicted in a comic book they will just be randomly holding the guitar neck with their fretting hand as they play, with their fingers in no recognisable chord shape. Like this...  Or this...  Or this...  Or this...  It's also very unusual to see real models of guitars depicted in a comic book; they are usually just generic guitars that don't actually exist in the real world. This lack of accuracy doesn't really bother me, but I do notice it. And there are exceptions, of course, but 9 times out of 10 that's the way guitars or guitarists are drawn in comic books. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 9:26:03 GMT -5
For some unknown reason, this ballpark either doesn't have a dirt infield or the gorilla is sliding into first from foul territory and the first base bag is in foul territory. Must have been a coloring error or a choice to go with green instead of tan.  |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 31, 2019 9:43:49 GMT -5
I'm a guitarist, so something I tend to notice is that, most of the time, when a guitarist is depicted in a comic book they will just be randomly holding the guitar neck with their fretting hand as they play, with their fingers in no recognisable chord shape. Like this... Or this... Or this... Or this... It's also very unusual to see real models of guitars depicted in a comic book; they are usually just generic guitars that don't actually exist in the real world. This lack of accuracy doesn't really bother me, but I do notice it. And there are exceptions, of course, but 9 times out of 10 that's the way guitars or guitarists are drawn in comic books. With guitar, or at least rock guitar, there isn't really a "correct" way to play. A lot of the legends had technique that was technically incorrect from, say, a classical perspective, but they made it work for them (e.g., Jimi Hendrix using his thumb to fret bass notes). So I suppose you could sort of apply that logic to the mysterious shapes those hands are in.  I think playing instruments in any kind of classical style is probably much harder to pull off convincingly. I grew up playing the violin, and I used to cringe whenever I saw actors "play" violin on TV or movies. Nine times out of ten just the way they held the instrument was all wrong. As a lifelong martial arts enthusiast and practitioner, martial arts choreography in movies or shows where the actors are not trained fighters is always a mixed bag. With the right use of close-ups and stunt doubles, you might be able to pull it off. The lack of training becomes much more apparent when an actor has to do a scene with a stunt fighter or another actor who clearly does have training. If the untrained actor is supposed to be the hero, it makes for an awkward scene where the villain looks much more capable (unless that's what you're going for). |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 9:44:07 GMT -5
Another baseball cover. Batter's back foot is outside the batter's box. He may be the lead-off hitter; the back line is usually rubbed out soon after. The ump could call him out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 9:46:48 GMT -5
Foul lines located incorrectly. Home plate is upside-down. Otherwise just like any other baseball game.  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2019 10:00:50 GMT -5
Foul lines located incorrectly. (and made out of intestines!)Home plate is upside-down. Otherwise just like any other baseball game. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 31, 2019 10:06:18 GMT -5
I'm a guitarist, so something I tend to notice is that, most of the time, when a guitarist is depicted in a comic book they will just be randomly holding the guitar neck with their fretting hand as they play, with their fingers in no recognisable chord shape. Like this... I notice a lot in posed photos, especially from the 60s, where they have a model pretending to play a guitar who's obviously never held one before.
In comics, artists will also draw guitars utterly unknown to mankind:
This is a gorgeous Toth story, but what's going on with that peghead?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 10:07:46 GMT -5
Last baseball cover. (I think.) I'm quoting myself here from another thread, but this one really bugs me because it would be so easy to ahve done the work correctly. "This is the kind of Grell art that makes Ernie Chan's covers look good. (Sorry, Slam_Bradley) Just try to assume that Benedict Arnold batting stance. You'll wrench your back in two seconds. He wouldn't make a tee-ball team."  |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jul 31, 2019 10:17:51 GMT -5
I'm a guitarist, so something I tend to notice is that, most of the time, when a guitarist is depicted in a comic book they will just be randomly holding the guitar neck with their fretting hand as they play, with their fingers in no recognisable chord shape. Like this... Maybe that's why the JLA look like that. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 31, 2019 10:31:00 GMT -5
For me, it's the military and military weaponry. For the most part, that wasn't an issue until the Bronze Age. Most comic book writers and artists had done a stint in the Army or some other service and knew how to draw the uniforms and weaponry. Sometimes they would be a little anachronistic, like having soldiers in the 1960s using the Thompson submachine gun, which was retired after WW2, in favor of the M-3 "Grease Gun." Some of the better ones knew about the M-16 and drew it, when showing modern troops, though many were still drawing them with M-1 rifles. In the Bronze Age,we got more artists who were too young for Vietnam and only knew what they saw in comics or movies. It got worse as we went into the 80s. They were still drawing soldiers in OD green fatigues, when the US Army and USMC had switched to the Woodland Camouflage Pattern. Sailors were always shown wearing "Dixie Cup" hats on ship, when they had been wearing ballcaps, since Vietnam. Coloring of uniforms would be way off and there would be a weird mix of insignia, with collar devices and shoulderboards depicted on the same uniform (never have the two on the same uniform). It got worse in the 90s when you had artists who only knew from comics and just didn't care. Liefeld was drawing WW2 German soldiers in brown uniforms, with bright red Nazi armbands and silver helmets! Just what I would want to wear in battle, so I could stand out! Lee was just as bad. In the first appearance of Deathblow, he has a character who is supposed to be a Navy SEAL, in uniform. The character is wearing "Choker Whites," with the high collar. The uniform is shown to have both shoulderboards and sleeve braids. Choker Whites had shoulderboard insigiia; only Dress Blues had sleeve insignia. Even worse, the character in question is wearing glasses; SEALS have to have 20/20 vision, to qualify for training.  Also, he doesn't have his warfare badge, above his ribbons (the SEAL Trident)  Don't get me started on weaponry. I have no problem with artists who draw generic revolvers and automatics, if the proportions are correct and the perspective is correct. I do have a problem when they look like someone stuck a bunch of legos together in a vaguely gun shape, like Liefeld and company, in the 90s. Stylized is fine, if it looks functional. Kirby, Wood, Steranko and Gulacy all had stylized weapons; but, they looked like they worked, because the artists knew how the firearms functioned (especially Kirby and Wood, who were both veterans). Perez is pretty bad at it..  I'm not sure what weapon Slade Wilson is carrying; but, it has no hand grip, making it pretty hard to fire! Also, women in the Army did not wear combination caps...  They looked like this....  or wore the beret, which looked more like this....  (That's Air Force, but, Army and Navy had the same style, with the slouching part in the rear, rather than draped to the side, as in current issue). |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 10:53:25 GMT -5
There are certain artists who never looked comfortable -- if you know what I mean -- drawing war comics... or Westerns for that matter. I think of Neal Adams doing a "War That Time Forgot" story late in the SSWS run of that feature, for instance. Here's an absolutely drop-dead beautiful Heath cover:  And here's an example of the Adams art inside:   The whole story is here: fourcolorshadows.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-killing-ground-neal-adams-1967.htmlWhen Adams was inked by Kubert, as in SSWS 144 (or aped him, as he did in B and B 84 and Detective 404) the results were better. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 31, 2019 11:16:49 GMT -5
For some unknown reason, this ballpark either doesn't have a dirt infield or the gorilla is sliding into first from foul territory and the first base bag is in foul territory. Must have been a coloring error or a choice to go with green instead of tan. Maybe it’s third base |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jul 31, 2019 11:36:16 GMT -5
As a lifelong martial arts enthusiast and practitioner, martial arts choreography in movies or shows where the actors are not trained fighters is always a mixed bag. With the right use of close-ups and stunt doubles, you might be able to pull it off. The lack of training becomes much more apparent when an actor has to do a scene with a stunt fighter or another actor who clearly does have training. If the untrained actor is supposed to be the hero, it makes for an awkward scene where the villain looks much more capable (unless that's what you're going for). The best/worst example of this was when Burt Ward faced off against Bruce Lee. I know nothing at all about martial arts, but even I could tell that the former was bumbling along and faking it and the latter was a practiced expert ... and yet they fought to a tie! |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 31, 2019 11:55:26 GMT -5
For some unknown reason, this ballpark either doesn't have a dirt infield or the gorilla is sliding into first from foul territory and the first base bag is in foul territory. Must have been a coloring error or a choice to go with green instead of tan.Maybe it’s third base But it's a grass infield, as I said earlier. |
|
I think playing instruments in any kind of classical style is probably much harder to pull off convincingly. I grew up playing the violin, and I used to cringe whenever I saw actors "play" violin on TV or movies. Nine times out of ten just the way they held the instrument was all wrong.
