|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 9, 2022 6:56:49 GMT -5
It's not a matter of good likenesses for me, I just don't feel it's like the real show. It's a personal tic. Oh, I know. Good likenesses are icing on the cake, if you will. That A-Team strip worked for me as it felt like the TV writers themselves had done it. The characters acted as they did in the series. Good likenesses do not matter if the stories are no good. So I do understand. TV and movie adaptations do need some resemblance to the source, otherwise, its simply another animal, but how effective it is comes down to the writing, and in the case of TV adaptations, few have captured the essence of the source, but others felt like expanded versions of episodes, as if they were not restricted to a time-slot. |
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Aug 9, 2022 7:31:54 GMT -5
Wind has never translated well to me in comics, even from a kid's POV. While the designs looks neat with the capes "blowing" in the wind, the capes always looked more like sails rather than capes. If these were really billowing out like that, I'm sure the hero would be slightly blown back regardless how strong they are; can't defeat nature.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 9, 2022 7:49:39 GMT -5
I've found more aware artists also added "swirling" lines and debris (leaves, discarded newspapers, dust, etc.), and/or people holding on to hats, caps, or anything that was light enough to blow away, which is what you would see on any windy day in the city.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Aug 9, 2022 15:10:07 GMT -5
Speaking of resembling stuff, when it comes to cartoon adaptations, do you prefer them looking closer to the cartoon or not? For example, one of my favorite cartoons is Regular Show, and when I picked up the comics, I was expecting something that looked closer to the show, but instead there was some really surreal art with lots of "stretchiness" of the characters (the show itself does not have that style of art). Maybe they were trying to do something that couldnt be done in animation (at least, not without costing more money and time), but it was still an odd style choice. Of course, then you had the Ren and Stimpy comic which almost never did the art style from that cartoon, sticking to more simpler to design slapstick stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 9, 2022 16:31:45 GMT -5
Speaking of resembling stuff, when it comes to cartoon adaptations, do you prefer them looking closer to the cartoon or not? For example, one of my favorite cartoons is Regular Show, and when I picked up the comics, I was expecting something that looked closer to the show, but instead there was some really surreal art with lots of "stretchiness" of the characters (the show itself does not have that style of art). Maybe they were trying to do something that couldnt be done in animation (at least, not without costing more money and time), but it was still an odd style choice. Of course, then you had the Ren and Stimpy comic which almost never did the art style from that cartoon, sticking to more simpler to design slapstick stories.
I prefer a comic adaptation of a cartoon to resemble the show, particularly if the cartoon had memorably stylized designs (e.g. Jonny Quest, The Herculoids, Battle of the Planets, Robotech, etc.), rather than trying to force the cartoon to fit whatever comic book style / illustration method was in vogue at the time of their publication.
In the reverse of your question (cartoons based on comic creations), if the cartoon's stories were not based on the comics to any degree, then it rarely mattered to me that the character designs did not closely mirror the comics, since--more often than not--the adaptation was garbage overall, anyway, such as every version of the Super-Friends, Spider-Woman (1979), The New Adventures of Batman (1977), etc.
Then again, a cartoon which (for well-known reasons) tried to mirror comic designs--namely 1978's (The New) Fantastic Four--was a terrible cartoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2022 17:07:35 GMT -5
Speaking of resembling stuff, when it comes to cartoon adaptations, do you prefer them looking closer to the cartoon or not? For example, one of my favorite cartoons is Regular Show, and when I picked up the comics, I was expecting something that looked closer to the show, but instead there was some really surreal art with lots of "stretchiness" of the characters (the show itself does not have that style of art). Maybe they were trying to do something that couldnt be done in animation (at least, not without costing more money and time), but it was still an odd style choice. Of course, then you had the Ren and Stimpy comic which almost never did the art style from that cartoon, sticking to more simpler to design slapstick stories. Well, I’m glad that there’s a G.I. Joe comic based on the cartoon. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,271 
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 9, 2022 17:22:03 GMT -5
So, Confessor, I know you probably are the world’s biggest Roy of the Rovers fan, so does football translate to the printed page?  Football doesn't even translate to real life! It's supposed to be the "beautiful game", but it just looks like a load of twats chasing a ball around a field to me!  |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 9, 2022 17:29:26 GMT -5
I'd argue that comics are limitless in terms of what artists can convey. It's up to the talent and imagination of the artist. However, I don't think music works as well in comics as it does in film and television. I've been introduced to a ton of music through comics, but printed lyrics don't compare to film montages. I'm sure there are other examples of comics not being able to marry mediums the way film and TV do. You can't reproduce that amazing Kate Bush scene from Stranger Things, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 9, 2022 19:48:09 GMT -5
This may have been mentioned but I don’t think any sport translates well
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 10, 2022 17:19:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 11, 2022 8:11:32 GMT -5
I remember drawing something for a school project and the person had black hair, and I colored it blue, and the teacher said "Why is the hair blue?", and I said "BLUE? It's black!". I had no idea why she questioned it. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Aug 11, 2022 8:22:41 GMT -5
Fur? I usually find that very well rendered.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 11, 2022 8:24:58 GMT -5
The ARF ARF for Popeye is actually a pretty good translation of his laugh in the Fleisher and Paramount cartoons, in my opinion. Verbal idiosyncrasies are really hard to convey in print. The reader is just expected to fill it in with the actor's voice. I guess if you were really shooting for accuracy, you would write "Yug ug ug ug"... but that seems like even farther distanced from the laugh that it's supposed to be. It reminds me of the fact that in the Simpson's scripts, whenever Homer says "D'oh!", that's written as "annoyed grunt". Castlleneta just ad-libbed it as D'oh when he first read it, and now it's an inside-joke/tradition to write it that way. |
|
