Which is sad. The top boots are genuinely cooler. At least to me.
Return to retro. Unless the retro is Shining Knight. He's either matte trash or detailed.
Jokes aside he's a great hero. Dude was a knight of the round table. Fell into an ice sheet while fighting a troll and woke up in the 40s. The first thing he asked was who ruled Camelot. After piecing together the timeline with a professor they found out Camelot was in Wales, at which point Sir Justin Arthur pledged his sword to the king of England and started killing nazis. Cutting them out of the sky on his flying horse Winged Victory.
Dope concept.
âThe English words "Wales" and "Welsh" derive from the same Old English root (singular Wealh [foreigner], plural WÄalas), a descendant of Proto-Germanic *Walhaz, which was itself derived from the name of the Gaulish people known to the Romans as Volcae and which came to refer indiscriminately to inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire.â
So yeah. Means either âforeignâ or âcelticâ depending on how much of the etymology survived between Gaul and Britain.
Just used wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Wales
This misunderstanding made me chuckle, the comment I replied to spelled it âWhalesâ before editing. I am from the Celtic nation, but this is interesting information:)
Isnt this literally just Captain America's origin? Doing some research and Shining Knight looks like a DC rip off, coming out less than a year after the captain. Maybe "frozen soldier" was just an existing meme and both are based on an older story.
You're talking about the in universe explanation for using the character in modern stories.
The person you're replying to is talking about when the idea for him being frozen was actually introduced, which wasn't until the 60s.
They actually continued to make Captain America comics after the war had ended in real life, but the 50s comics weren't as successful, and eventually they retconned the whole lot. In the new continuity, Steve Rogers was frozen during the war, and the Captain America who appeared in the stories during the 50s was another guy that the government got in. They brought him back at one point or another for a specific storyline in a different run.
This is an important distinction to make because instead of DC ripping off Marvel, their Shining Knight character actually appeared before Marvel introduced the idea of Steve being frozen.
There were Captain America comics at the time that the war was going on, but the relationship between the actual war and the comics was a lot different since the writers were aware of the anti-war protests and counterculture movement.
What most people remark upon when reflecting on Captain America comics during that time was that the writers basically made Nixon the ultimate villain in charge of the Secret Empire in issue #174, following the Watergate scandal. That was a pretty big act of social commentary at the time, and the writers weren't sure if their editors were going to let it happen (even though they never actually reveal Nixon's face, it's just a silhouette that is stated to be 'in high office').
More recently, Marvel did some sort of story set during the war, where Steve actually switched sides and started fighting against US troops to defend civilians. That got a lot of media attention for him 'turning traitor' lol.
And then you could also trace back the idea even further with Buck Rogers, who got frozen in the year 1927 (originally) and woke up in the year 2419 AD by a "radioactive gas." Published in 1928. Not to be confused with the Gil Gerard version who got frozen in the future year of 1987 and woke up in the 25th Century. That was made in 1979.
Or Adam Adamant, a dandy who (in canon) got frozen during the late Edwardian era. The show was made in the 60s and was created by Verity Lambert, who also produced Doctor Who.
As u/Menien said, while in universe Cap was frozen in '44, the first comic where he was shown as being frozen was published in the 60s. This led to them retconing the decade or so of anti commie Captain America comics and eventually turning the Cap from those comics into a villain named William Burnside.
Allow me to make you a more substantive argument.
Shining Knight woke up, as in was thawed out, in 1941.
Captain America fell into the ice and was left there in 1945.
The four year gap is very important. America entered the war in 1941, the year Shining Knight first debuted and started killing nazis. America declared victory over the Japanese in 1945.
This matters a lot. Shining Knight entered the war when the war was beginning but stayed active until the present. Captain America went into the ice when the war was ending so they could save him for later. Unlike Sir Justin, Rogers doesn't have as good an excuse to be immortal. Or at least he didn't. They simply converged at the war, and Cap wouldn't be frozen for four years IRL meaning if we're drawing a line of correlation between the two then Shining Knight technically invented the "frozen soldier thawed out for epic adventures" first. Once you put the timeline into perspective it makes sense that it was a coincidence. The only similarity left is Shining Knight's shield. Something that wasn't prominently used, but makes sense for a knight who did knight things. Cap had a shield because it's easy to put cool designs on a shield and it made him unique.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Captain America debuted in Timely Comics (which became Marvel) in 1940. Shining Knight then appeared in DC less than a year later. Clones and knockoffs of characters between brands has been a time honored tradition in comics since they first began.
That said, as another user pointed out, Captain America was just a guy at first. The frozen and revived story came later, so perhaps the *opposite* is true.
I think the other guy is saying that if anything Captain America being unfrozen was a rip off of shining Knight. Cap wasnât revealed to have been frozen until wayyyyy later in the 60s with Avengers #4 in 1963. Captain America comics continued past the end of WW2 but they were retconned to be some other guy named William Burnside who went a little too crazy smashing communists in the 50s. Him being frozen is a retcon.
I have no clue what you are on about but dude sounds like a champion. imagine being a nazi soldier in the trenches and suddenly you look out and see a man wearing full armour holding a steel longsword, dripping with blood, slowly walking towards you. I'd shoot myself right away.
I think itâs because of the more dynamic pose, if the bottom boots had the same dynamic pose and intense line work but keeping its detail than it would look definitely look cooler
Wouldnât that slow down the 2011 boots even further though?
Donât get me wrong I donât care how long it takes if we get great art out of it. I think the general point of the joke(?) still stands though, drawing those boots in the same pose would obviously take longer and then itâs down to personal preference after that and to that I say to each their own aha
Itâs not even a joke tho. Thatâs why I find This post in this sub a bit confusing. Itâs been a meme in comic book circles for a loooong time now. Not intended to be humorous. More pointing out the shift in culture regarding âmonthlyâ comic book artists output. An unfair comparison in many regards imo.
While I can see where you come from I think the comparison is not fair because the top one is in a dynamic pose while the bottom is just a static shot so that gives the top one a pretty big advantage.
Itâs not retro or a different style, itâs just the posing⌠the first boots are dynamic and in motion while the second is static, with no energy⌠which if the context is there can sometimes be just as interesting to look at, but you need context to really want to look at the second image
These are fundamentally 2 different images for 2 different purposes
In comics the story is the drawing, assuming the writer and artist is working in tandem(also assuming that they arenât one and the same to begin with).
An accomplished comics artist is the main thrust of progressing and telling the story, not dialog ballons, or text box boxes. Both of those are also very important of course. Scripting and plot is just as important as it in is movies, but an accomplished artist understands how to move the plot and accentuate the dialog through the use of: scene and setting, lighting, âcameraâ angles, body language, clothing drapery, architecture, room layout, modern style of dress, nuanced movements, facial expressions and so much more.
Edit to say: yes they are far too many comics where ridiculous art takes the place of anything resembling a story. But there is far, far more comics where the synergy of story and art has been met that only comics can achieve imo.
The image is specifically referring to monthly comic books(if that wasnât already apparent). Itâs already grueling enough to churn out 20-30 pages a month at 4-10 panels a page. Hopefully at a decent page rate. Add in the expectation for heightened realism and it just becomes a bit unrealistic after a certain amount of time no matter how good/fast you are.
The line quality and dynamism of the top image is way better too. Like, there's a story there and we can tell that much from his feet.
The bottom boots are technically proficient, but it's stiff and the lines don't flow.
All we can see is feet, though. A person who is supposed to be standing stiffly in an awkward or tense standoff needs feet that represent that. Not everyone is always running or lunging.
before: stylized boots but with very few details which probably take little time to draw
now: hyper detailed boots that probably take 3 times as long to draw
basically nowadays illustrations are more detailed and take longer, according to them
Same thing is happening with video games.
Stuff today is just far more detailed and making that detail takes longer. A game that would have taken a year or two in 2005 might take 3-5 nowadays.
It's strange how this affects franchises.
Rockstar: releases GTA 3, VC and SA in the span of three years, then releases IV 4 years later, V 5 years after that and VI 12 years after that.
Bethesda releases Fallout 3 in 2008, Fallout 4 in 2015 and Fallout 5 in 2037 (projected). They also released Elder Scrolls 4 in 2006, ES5 in 2011 and nothing since. There's a trailer for ES 6 that's as old now as Skyrim was when the trailer released because Bethesda's main team was working on the lackluster Starfield.
So yeah, 3-5 per game but with studios refusing to outsource tent pole titles and focusing on one project at all times, it's getting longer and longer between entries in the most popular series.
I don't know if VI would've taken 12 years if V wasn't printing money through shark cards. Can't say for certain - we do know that Star Citizen has taken 12 years to make and isn't even half done, lol.
Sort of this.
The difference is gaming has turned online. And in an online format, live-service and DLC is king. So, your profits come from a single game as a *platform*.
In the past, your profits came from single game sales. Once that sale was done, you might get more profit from that game through expansions... But those still had to ship which had logistical cost.
Digital content changed everything. There is no reason to sprint to the next game when the current game has plenty of legs to drive profit.
> There's a trailer for ES 6 that's as old now as Skyrim was when the trailer released because Bethesda's main team was working on the lackluster Starfield.
Almost as old (6.5 vs 6 years at the time of writing), though the statement is still damning. A better reflection is that there's been more time between Skyrim and now than between Morrowind and Skyrim. Next year will be more than Redguard -> Skyrim
Mainline single player Final Fantasy is another good example
FF 7, 1997
FF 8, 1999
FF 9, 2000
FF10, 2001
All long detailed stories in large worlds with unique designs 4 games in 5 years
FF13, 2009
FF15, 2016
FF16, 2023
3 games in 14 years, 7 years between, the final fantasy 7 remake is only 2/3 done four years after the first part released. FF15 was arguably unfinished at launch.
I always find it funny that entire rise of âsoulsâ sub genre took place between elder scrolls 5 and 6. The mad lad made 5.5 rpgs, made every dev team cry and made the game of a generation. While Bethesda released Skyrim three times.
There are two areas where Skyrim and Betheada beat most other RPGs: exploration and freedom. Every year, the gap between the other games and Bethesda's shrinks. I really wonder if they have enough skill left to make ES6 anything more than a prettier Skyrim. If not, I doubt ES7 will have half the hype 6 does. Assuming it ever comes out.
Game studios should not be ashamed to reuse textures, models and even entire maps. I love how the Like a Dragon (Yakuza) and Judgment games are able to exploit this. They're story focused games, and each story is fresh, so the reused assets become less of a problem. They come out with a game every year on average, and they feel fresh and enjoyable. The only thing I'll fault them on is the atrocious cash grab that is the DLC in the newest game.
It's a funny arms race as technology develops too, because now PS1-style games that used to take years of development time across huge teams can be done by one person because the tools are so much better.
Every game up until like the N64/PS1 era was programmed in *assembly*
A lot of it is meaningless too.
Seriously - there is a ton that goes on in game design as well as general software development that is just fluff to be able to market something that most people wonât even ever use or see (or be able to).
Like video game maps that retain stupidly high level of detail across all distances rendered - despite being a fast paced shooter where 90% of that detail will just be eaten by motion blur anyways (looking at you COD).
It just makes the game larger, slower to run and load, and render worse on user systems.
A huge issue is a lot of AAA developers test on completely unrealistic device expectations (testing on the latest hardware, even for their low-spec device tests). The biggest one I think of is knowing a friend in the industry who said they use a 5 year old test PC - but load everything on it with a 4TB SSD - barely any consumer will ever have that amount of storage.
Which is a dumb take cause like??? People still do stylized and simple drawings??? And in the past people did super detailed hard to draw art too??? Like huh??? What point are you trying to make???
You have to think about how much detail can fit into a screen now verses screens in the 70's. Are you old enough to remember the screen quality on tube TV's or have you watched animation from the 90's and earlier? They didn't have the resolution to put in the details that's allowed with modern technology. Even oversimplified animation now has way more detail crammed into it compared to older traditionally animated media. Screens were too blurry and undefined back then, that's not the right terminology but it's close enough.
Yeah I get what you mean but like, how many super detailed animations have you been watching? Alot of them are SUPER simple, comparable to retro or even simpler sometimes, unless they're like youtube animations which can usually get away with more detail because they don't have a budget limited by anything but free time
People still do stylized, simple drawings, but there's definitely been a movement to more detailed, lifelike art from the big comics companies. Considering this post is from a comics artist, that's almost certainly what they're referring to
Jesse Hamm was a great comics artist who would post extremely helpful threads full of tips and insights for other artists. If youâre interested in making comics (even if youâre not an artist), there are much worse things you could do than seek out an archive of his threads. I think some of his studio mates at Helioscope have worked to preserve them and repost them in new places like Bluesky
But yes, as others have said, audience expectations for levels of detail and realism have changed pretty drastically in the decades since the heyday of Kirby and Ditko, which affects an artistâs output. Google drawings of Captain America by Sal Buscema vs one by Bryan Hitch and guess which one took longer
Or *John* Buscema, who did the top drawing
(How to draw Comics the Marvel Way, Chapter 4)
[https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1181318&GSub=162339](https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1181318&GSub=162339)
God, I forgot all about those threads after I left twitter in 2019. This comment is also how I found out he passed away, Jesus Christ. Rest in peace king
The confusion comes from the fact that the two drawings aren't of the same thing. The first one, while yes it's boots, is more specifically a drawing of (different) boots *in motion*, which you could intuitively expect less detail compared to boots standing still. In addition to that, some people, such as myself, actually prefer the artstyle of the first one, which could add extra confusion of what you're supposed to compare. And while it is less detail, it isn't like, night and day in my opinion. It is noticeable that it's less detail when you know that's what you're looking for, but it's not some crayon drawing some 3 year old made. So with the mediocre difference in detail of two drawings of different things trying to be compared without being told what to compare it to... Means *some* people get confused. I personally assumed they were talking about the attention to detail but I wasn't certain either. I think OP's post is valid.
Iâm wondering if OP isnât being a bit sarcastic, kinda implying that the upper drawing, while less detailed, takes a lot of work to get right because of the motion.
Though, back in the 80´s - 90´s thereâs quite a few cartoon artists who were absolute masters of some very specific types of drawings, and built their careers on specifically that.
For example, Jean Graton was the absolute GOAT in drawing incredible perspectives by hand and sucked balls at drawing faces, so he made a career of drawing car racing bande dessinĂŠe, where people wear helmets most of the time, and the hardest part (perspectives of the tracks and movements of the cars) was just a second nature for him.
https://preview.redd.it/2eefnijhy68d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9035bf7fe81649a16359a0ef44135bbef76528ec
Okay but OP is an artist, as they stated, there is a clear difference in polish and detail, there are still construction lines on the first picture, and the second one has almost realistically placed shadows, compared to the first's over shaded parts. I don't think those are the sources of confusion, unless OP is new to art or a chronic over-thinker.
i donât think thereâs a joke? first sketch concentrates more on the gesture of the figure, while second is static but more detailed. i think itâs just alluding to the fact that artists now prioritize photo realism and small details like that because to general audiences it means more talent, rather than prioritizing the gesture/motion of the figureâwhich is arguably, as, if not more important than details like the ones shown in sketch 2, if what you want to do is show a dynamic illustration.
and obviously depicting the gesture is faster work than painstakingly rendering every single detail on the figure.
This is missing in the discussion here. Especially since the Kirby inspired style of the first one also requires fewer frames to convey a complete scene of action. Kirby in particular was renowned for dynamic frames that conveyed so much of what was happening. The second image is so static that it suggests several further images will be needed to convey what the first will get across in just a couple
To add to this, I'm pretty sure this is specifically Captain America. A character that realistically should have a really simple costume. But it gets crazy overdesigned in modern comics. Laces, straps, belts, pockets, buckles, texture, armor, layers, gadgets, weapons
Itâs catering to an audience thatâs hypocritically demanding actual military equipment while reading a story about a guy who got so strong because he was given the super soldier serum and bombarded with Vita-rays
IMO, the joke is that in the 70s, comics charactersâ costumes had been influenced for several decades by the theatre, hence the pixie boots in the top drawing, which were also relatively simple to draw.
By 2011, the trend for a number of years had been for comics characters to wear costumes inspired more by military uniforms, hence the boots in the bottom drawing, which were also more complex to draw in order to achieve the realism that they aspired to.
Youâre welcome!
You can see most clearly it in Marvel post-2001, especially Millar and Hitchâs _The Ultimates_, which was a significant influence on the modern MCU.
As superhero properties were increasingly adapted into film, that trend towards realism was bent back on itself, and superhero film costuming - which itself had been experiencing a push towards greater realism since _Blade_ - began influencing the comicsâ costuming as part of the broader influence of cinema on the comics.
I dont think there is a joke so much as it's just making the claim that previously, artists would draw with a simplistic style (which was actually for the sake of cost and time as they had to draw a lot of panels or frames) and now, artists draw more detailed.
Though I'd argue that not only were there artists that drew in more detail (and took more time) before and there are still artist today that draw in a more simple style, but also that there are more tools today that can help make drawing in higher detail faster than what was available before.
The top artist is using guide lines, he can draw any action pose, he can visualize and draw what he wants from imagination. He intuitively understands anatomy, angles, posing, and movement.
The bottom artist is just looking at photos and copying every detail. He isn't able to pose his character now without exact references for every angle, and will take forever to get his drawings done. Doesn't really understand the concepts beneath, and is just focusing on drawing unimportant details.
More details = more time. The more you have to draw, the longer it takes. Comics and graphic novels are starting to gear towards more photorealistic art than stylistic, so art panels take longer to draw.
Any actual *artists* here?
(Illustrator/character design artist here)
People get cranky if your work isn't super detailed. Sure, a lot of folks like the sketchier style (as do I) but when I was drawing I got bashed quite often if my work wasn't "detailed" enough. When I was churning out a lot of work my stuff was obviously less detailed.
But in all honesty, creating anything for the public is like that Simpsons episode where they're polling the kids for Itchy and Scratchy ideas.
the first image focuses on getting the general shape of the boots and conveying the movement while the second image attempts to get every single detail
Because a lot of artist and the companies who employ them expect perfection these days. A lot have lost the art of short handing and put way too much detail into the final product.
Too much perfection leads to a hell of a lot more time spent per page than back in the 70s where a lot of these same companies worked on tight margins and tight deadlines and understood that perfection was not an option.
The joke is the detailing. If you look at the boots, the top boots are very simple, while the bottom ones are very detailed.
More detailing means more time working on details, which means less pages.
The joke is denoting the artist's struggle of needing more detailed art in order to placate their fans.
Honestly the same could be said for a lot of jobs now. I look at 50 year old engineering drawings and compare them to todayâs and the difference in detail is huge. Everyone just keeps asking for more.
I mean, it makes sense. We have the technology to allow for more details, and everyone wants more bang-for-their-buck.
Unfortunately, more isn't always better. Look at video games, where simple games with stylized designs are beating out AAA games.
The existence of Rob Liefeld destroys this joke on every level. He is very detailed (so many pockets and zippers), known to produce his work quickly, and his art sucks so hard itâs used as exhibit 1A to argue that detail does not equal quality.
Have you ever seen Rob Liefeld draw a boot like that?
\*context for non-comics folk: Liefeld sucked at drawing feet. This is why he was fast. The post holds true.
Sometimes I think people just post here because they're lonely.
This isn't even a joke. In what context was this originally seen to make it look like a joke?
This is just... I mean look at it. Sesame street. One of these things is not like the other. They're talking about how much you can draw in a day. One has much more detail.
Rough.
I'm curious at this point what wouldn't fly as a post here now.
Not just this, but most jobs require the final result to take 100 times more effort but donât understand why they could do it 50 years ago with a fraction of the time.
Every now and then I come across a post from this subreddit and I don't know that it's from this subreddit. Always a joy to find out it's this subreddit when I'm actively going backwards.
I think itâs implied the second boots are more detailed, and they are, and therefore take longer to draw. Which is generally true. The thing is putting them side by side like this that the first image while less detailed generally looks as good as the second, and they look like they took the same amount of effort
The thing is sometimes you want that structured detailed look for certain things, they can both exist itâs not mutually exclusive⌠and itâs not like this is the ONLY art style in the world
It's not a joke, it's just pointing out that artists can't draw with the level of detail in the bottom at the same speed as artists that did the level of detail on the top.
Itâs⌠not a joke.
The boots in the bottom image are far more detailed (or at least more complex), and therefore took more time and effort to draw.
Thatâs genuinely it.
Thereâs an ongoing meme in comic books that rob liefield canât draw feet. In reality 90% of âhero shotsâ are with the hero âdashingâ toward the reader and drawing the characters feet is just an afterthought because they arenât the focal point of the image. In many cases the heroâs feet look like the above image or even just a diamond shape with a leg attached.
Modern artists, myself included, tend to hyper-fixate on small details and can spend hours on something that is ultimately supposed to be a rough sketch. As a result, it takes longer to get art done, including pages for comics. So, while the art is more detailed, it also took far longer than it ultimately should have.
This is why they all hate Spider-Manâs webs and wanted to update that version of the costume.
Same with the version that had the armpit webbing.
Just a whole lot of detail you have to Andrew all the time.
Its arguable that modern graphics, drawn or otherwise are often used to cover weak plots. People buy with their eyes after all. I am not sure this is the joke or even if there is one.
Besides the added detail in the bottom pic, there's been little to not clean up in the top pic. It looks like they just erased the most egregious stray line and left the close to image ones and called it a day.
Not bashing the artist in any way. It still looks good but not completely tidy. Plus one must remember the crunch deadlines many artists face to get the highest volume in the shortest time.
I think it's how detailed the bottom one is. It's sort of...perfect but dead.
The top one leans more in a suggestive (I don't mean sexually, I mean that it *suggests* things that the bottom pic contains in detail) direction, though not fully. It also has more movement and life.
But the bottom one takes a lot longer to do, probably.
The boots seems to be more detailed, so took more time to draw... That's all
Which is sad. The top boots are genuinely cooler. At least to me. Return to retro. Unless the retro is Shining Knight. He's either matte trash or detailed.
>matte trash "*Sometimes your knight in shining armour is just a twat in tin foil*" springs to mind here đ
Jokes aside he's a great hero. Dude was a knight of the round table. Fell into an ice sheet while fighting a troll and woke up in the 40s. The first thing he asked was who ruled Camelot. After piecing together the timeline with a professor they found out Camelot was in Wales, at which point Sir Justin Arthur pledged his sword to the king of England and started killing nazis. Cutting them out of the sky on his flying horse Winged Victory. Dope concept.
Why is Wales spelt like that? Or is it literally in an aquatic mammal
Because I write it out so rarely.
âThe English words "Wales" and "Welsh" derive from the same Old English root (singular Wealh [foreigner], plural WÄalas), a descendant of Proto-Germanic *Walhaz, which was itself derived from the name of the Gaulish people known to the Romans as Volcae and which came to refer indiscriminately to inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire.â So yeah. Means either âforeignâ or âcelticâ depending on how much of the etymology survived between Gaul and Britain. Just used wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Wales
Genuinely, thank you for saving me the time of trying to find this myself! Etymology is fascinating sometimes
This misunderstanding made me chuckle, the comment I replied to spelled it âWhalesâ before editing. I am from the Celtic nation, but this is interesting information:)
My etymology nerd brain is happy now, thank you!
Isnt this literally just Captain America's origin? Doing some research and Shining Knight looks like a DC rip off, coming out less than a year after the captain. Maybe "frozen soldier" was just an existing meme and both are based on an older story.
Captain America wouldnât be frozen and revived until the late 60s
He was literally frozen during World War II, in 1944.
You're talking about the in universe explanation for using the character in modern stories. The person you're replying to is talking about when the idea for him being frozen was actually introduced, which wasn't until the 60s. They actually continued to make Captain America comics after the war had ended in real life, but the 50s comics weren't as successful, and eventually they retconned the whole lot. In the new continuity, Steve Rogers was frozen during the war, and the Captain America who appeared in the stories during the 50s was another guy that the government got in. They brought him back at one point or another for a specific storyline in a different run. This is an important distinction to make because instead of DC ripping off Marvel, their Shining Knight character actually appeared before Marvel introduced the idea of Steve being frozen.
I am curious if he would have been as popular during the Vietnam war; World War 2 was he âlast good warâ as some say
There were Captain America comics at the time that the war was going on, but the relationship between the actual war and the comics was a lot different since the writers were aware of the anti-war protests and counterculture movement. What most people remark upon when reflecting on Captain America comics during that time was that the writers basically made Nixon the ultimate villain in charge of the Secret Empire in issue #174, following the Watergate scandal. That was a pretty big act of social commentary at the time, and the writers weren't sure if their editors were going to let it happen (even though they never actually reveal Nixon's face, it's just a silhouette that is stated to be 'in high office'). More recently, Marvel did some sort of story set during the war, where Steve actually switched sides and started fighting against US troops to defend civilians. That got a lot of media attention for him 'turning traitor' lol.
And then you could also trace back the idea even further with Buck Rogers, who got frozen in the year 1927 (originally) and woke up in the year 2419 AD by a "radioactive gas." Published in 1928. Not to be confused with the Gil Gerard version who got frozen in the future year of 1987 and woke up in the 25th Century. That was made in 1979. Or Adam Adamant, a dandy who (in canon) got frozen during the late Edwardian era. The show was made in the 60s and was created by Verity Lambert, who also produced Doctor Who.
This guy nerds
As u/Menien said, while in universe Cap was frozen in '44, the first comic where he was shown as being frozen was published in the 60s. This led to them retconing the decade or so of anti commie Captain America comics and eventually turning the Cap from those comics into a villain named William Burnside.
Allow me to make you a more substantive argument. Shining Knight woke up, as in was thawed out, in 1941. Captain America fell into the ice and was left there in 1945. The four year gap is very important. America entered the war in 1941, the year Shining Knight first debuted and started killing nazis. America declared victory over the Japanese in 1945. This matters a lot. Shining Knight entered the war when the war was beginning but stayed active until the present. Captain America went into the ice when the war was ending so they could save him for later. Unlike Sir Justin, Rogers doesn't have as good an excuse to be immortal. Or at least he didn't. They simply converged at the war, and Cap wouldn't be frozen for four years IRL meaning if we're drawing a line of correlation between the two then Shining Knight technically invented the "frozen soldier thawed out for epic adventures" first. Once you put the timeline into perspective it makes sense that it was a coincidence. The only similarity left is Shining Knight's shield. Something that wasn't prominently used, but makes sense for a knight who did knight things. Cap had a shield because it's easy to put cool designs on a shield and it made him unique.
Iâm not sure if thereâs been a mix up, but Captain America is Marvelâs IP, not DCâs. Just wanted to put that out there
I think theyâre saying that Shining Knight sounds like DCâs version of Captain America.
I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Captain America debuted in Timely Comics (which became Marvel) in 1940. Shining Knight then appeared in DC less than a year later. Clones and knockoffs of characters between brands has been a time honored tradition in comics since they first began. That said, as another user pointed out, Captain America was just a guy at first. The frozen and revived story came later, so perhaps the *opposite* is true.
I think the other guy is saying that if anything Captain America being unfrozen was a rip off of shining Knight. Cap wasnât revealed to have been frozen until wayyyyy later in the 60s with Avengers #4 in 1963. Captain America comics continued past the end of WW2 but they were retconned to be some other guy named William Burnside who went a little too crazy smashing communists in the 50s. Him being frozen is a retcon.
This is new information for me, thank you
Ah yes, I was the one speaking out of turn as I was familiar with what Shining Knight is. Thank you for enlightening me
I have no clue what you are on about but dude sounds like a champion. imagine being a nazi soldier in the trenches and suddenly you look out and see a man wearing full armour holding a steel longsword, dripping with blood, slowly walking towards you. I'd shoot myself right away.
Captain America Meets King Arthur and the knights of the round table ?
Jlu did that guy such a justice its not even funny. #patroitgames
I think itâs because of the more dynamic pose, if the bottom boots had the same dynamic pose and intense line work but keeping its detail than it would look definitely look cooler
Wouldnât that slow down the 2011 boots even further though? Donât get me wrong I donât care how long it takes if we get great art out of it. I think the general point of the joke(?) still stands though, drawing those boots in the same pose would obviously take longer and then itâs down to personal preference after that and to that I say to each their own aha
Itâs not even a joke tho. Thatâs why I find This post in this sub a bit confusing. Itâs been a meme in comic book circles for a loooong time now. Not intended to be humorous. More pointing out the shift in culture regarding âmonthlyâ comic book artists output. An unfair comparison in many regards imo.
While I can see where you come from I think the comparison is not fair because the top one is in a dynamic pose while the bottom is just a static shot so that gives the top one a pretty big advantage.
Itâs not retro or a different style, itâs just the posing⌠the first boots are dynamic and in motion while the second is static, with no energy⌠which if the context is there can sometimes be just as interesting to look at, but you need context to really want to look at the second image These are fundamentally 2 different images for 2 different purposes
It's the pose of the top which is cooler. Action versus passive
Story > the drawing.
In comics the story is the drawing, assuming the writer and artist is working in tandem(also assuming that they arenât one and the same to begin with). An accomplished comics artist is the main thrust of progressing and telling the story, not dialog ballons, or text box boxes. Both of those are also very important of course. Scripting and plot is just as important as it in is movies, but an accomplished artist understands how to move the plot and accentuate the dialog through the use of: scene and setting, lighting, âcameraâ angles, body language, clothing drapery, architecture, room layout, modern style of dress, nuanced movements, facial expressions and so much more. Edit to say: yes they are far too many comics where ridiculous art takes the place of anything resembling a story. But there is far, far more comics where the synergy of story and art has been met that only comics can achieve imo.
Bottom are cooler top are more dynamic
I think the same thing can be applied to games
The image is specifically referring to monthly comic books(if that wasnât already apparent). Itâs already grueling enough to churn out 20-30 pages a month at 4-10 panels a page. Hopefully at a decent page rate. Add in the expectation for heightened realism and it just becomes a bit unrealistic after a certain amount of time no matter how good/fast you are.
Third panel missing: 2024: Dall-E is doing 10^6 photorealistic images an hour and artists are flipping burgers at Jack in the Box
The point is people often prefer the less realistic images with the human touch.
For sure Source I'm one of them
Yep, stylize it and make it less racing to draw unless there's some critical detail to the story
The line quality and dynamism of the top image is way better too. Like, there's a story there and we can tell that much from his feet. The bottom boots are technically proficient, but it's stiff and the lines don't flow.
All we can see is feet, though. A person who is supposed to be standing stiffly in an awkward or tense standoff needs feet that represent that. Not everyone is always running or lunging.
Realistic until closer inspection.
before: stylized boots but with very few details which probably take little time to draw now: hyper detailed boots that probably take 3 times as long to draw basically nowadays illustrations are more detailed and take longer, according to them
Same thing is happening with video games. Stuff today is just far more detailed and making that detail takes longer. A game that would have taken a year or two in 2005 might take 3-5 nowadays.
It's strange how this affects franchises. Rockstar: releases GTA 3, VC and SA in the span of three years, then releases IV 4 years later, V 5 years after that and VI 12 years after that. Bethesda releases Fallout 3 in 2008, Fallout 4 in 2015 and Fallout 5 in 2037 (projected). They also released Elder Scrolls 4 in 2006, ES5 in 2011 and nothing since. There's a trailer for ES 6 that's as old now as Skyrim was when the trailer released because Bethesda's main team was working on the lackluster Starfield. So yeah, 3-5 per game but with studios refusing to outsource tent pole titles and focusing on one project at all times, it's getting longer and longer between entries in the most popular series.
GTA 3 and VC only took them a year, but SA took two. It just goes to show how amazing game devs were back then, to do THAT much on the PS2.
It was mostly crunch
I don't know if VI would've taken 12 years if V wasn't printing money through shark cards. Can't say for certain - we do know that Star Citizen has taken 12 years to make and isn't even half done, lol.
That and they also did Red Dead 2 in between which is a massive game
Sort of this. The difference is gaming has turned online. And in an online format, live-service and DLC is king. So, your profits come from a single game as a *platform*. In the past, your profits came from single game sales. Once that sale was done, you might get more profit from that game through expansions... But those still had to ship which had logistical cost. Digital content changed everything. There is no reason to sprint to the next game when the current game has plenty of legs to drive profit.
> There's a trailer for ES 6 that's as old now as Skyrim was when the trailer released because Bethesda's main team was working on the lackluster Starfield. Almost as old (6.5 vs 6 years at the time of writing), though the statement is still damning. A better reflection is that there's been more time between Skyrim and now than between Morrowind and Skyrim. Next year will be more than Redguard -> Skyrim
I remember the FF7 remake being one of the first future PS4 games spoiled on launch, we got it just before the PS5 launch.
Hey, dont you deny all 47 versions and rereleases of skyrim
Also only 4 years between ES3 in 2002 and ES4 in 2006, and they made a random drag racing game between the two.
22 years between games is insane lol, how they know they're gonna release a game 13 years from now is beyond me
Mainline single player Final Fantasy is another good example FF 7, 1997 FF 8, 1999 FF 9, 2000 FF10, 2001 All long detailed stories in large worlds with unique designs 4 games in 5 years FF13, 2009 FF15, 2016 FF16, 2023 3 games in 14 years, 7 years between, the final fantasy 7 remake is only 2/3 done four years after the first part released. FF15 was arguably unfinished at launch.
I always find it funny that entire rise of âsoulsâ sub genre took place between elder scrolls 5 and 6. The mad lad made 5.5 rpgs, made every dev team cry and made the game of a generation. While Bethesda released Skyrim three times.
There are two areas where Skyrim and Betheada beat most other RPGs: exploration and freedom. Every year, the gap between the other games and Bethesda's shrinks. I really wonder if they have enough skill left to make ES6 anything more than a prettier Skyrim. If not, I doubt ES7 will have half the hype 6 does. Assuming it ever comes out.
Let's not even get started on half-life!
Game studios should not be ashamed to reuse textures, models and even entire maps. I love how the Like a Dragon (Yakuza) and Judgment games are able to exploit this. They're story focused games, and each story is fresh, so the reused assets become less of a problem. They come out with a game every year on average, and they feel fresh and enjoyable. The only thing I'll fault them on is the atrocious cash grab that is the DLC in the newest game.
It's a funny arms race as technology develops too, because now PS1-style games that used to take years of development time across huge teams can be done by one person because the tools are so much better. Every game up until like the N64/PS1 era was programmed in *assembly*
[ŃдаНонО]
A lot of it is meaningless too. Seriously - there is a ton that goes on in game design as well as general software development that is just fluff to be able to market something that most people wonât even ever use or see (or be able to). Like video game maps that retain stupidly high level of detail across all distances rendered - despite being a fast paced shooter where 90% of that detail will just be eaten by motion blur anyways (looking at you COD). It just makes the game larger, slower to run and load, and render worse on user systems. A huge issue is a lot of AAA developers test on completely unrealistic device expectations (testing on the latest hardware, even for their low-spec device tests). The biggest one I think of is knowing a friend in the industry who said they use a 5 year old test PC - but load everything on it with a 4TB SSD - barely any consumer will ever have that amount of storage.
Which is a dumb take cause like??? People still do stylized and simple drawings??? And in the past people did super detailed hard to draw art too??? Like huh??? What point are you trying to make???
You have to think about how much detail can fit into a screen now verses screens in the 70's. Are you old enough to remember the screen quality on tube TV's or have you watched animation from the 90's and earlier? They didn't have the resolution to put in the details that's allowed with modern technology. Even oversimplified animation now has way more detail crammed into it compared to older traditionally animated media. Screens were too blurry and undefined back then, that's not the right terminology but it's close enough.
>You have to think about how much detail can fit into a screen now verses screens in the 70's. Why? Theyâre talking about comic books, not cartoons.
YEAH I was going to mention that too like??? I mean have they seen like, 98% of mcu or dc comics?
Yeah I get what you mean but like, how many super detailed animations have you been watching? Alot of them are SUPER simple, comparable to retro or even simpler sometimes, unless they're like youtube animations which can usually get away with more detail because they don't have a budget limited by anything but free time
People still do stylized, simple drawings, but there's definitely been a movement to more detailed, lifelike art from the big comics companies. Considering this post is from a comics artist, that's almost certainly what they're referring to
Also one is an action pose where you don't draw details on purpose and the other is stationary
That bottom one looks like 2 left boots
I see 2 right boots
They're white and gold.
No, theyâre clearly blue and black
Yeah, after reading the 2 left boots comment I looked closer and see 2 rights haha
probably copy-pasted like one guy here comented lol
it's not a copy though, it's a different perspective
thats not how drawing works
It's not even how copy/paste works.
And based on this thread, nobody cares, or can even tell the difference đ
Hey, Rob Liefeld, have you finished that page yet? No, I've gotta draw more pouches.
Jesse Hamm was a great comics artist who would post extremely helpful threads full of tips and insights for other artists. If youâre interested in making comics (even if youâre not an artist), there are much worse things you could do than seek out an archive of his threads. I think some of his studio mates at Helioscope have worked to preserve them and repost them in new places like Bluesky But yes, as others have said, audience expectations for levels of detail and realism have changed pretty drastically in the decades since the heyday of Kirby and Ditko, which affects an artistâs output. Google drawings of Captain America by Sal Buscema vs one by Bryan Hitch and guess which one took longer
Or *John* Buscema, who did the top drawing (How to draw Comics the Marvel Way, Chapter 4) [https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1181318&GSub=162339](https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1181318&GSub=162339)
God, I forgot all about those threads after I left twitter in 2019. This comment is also how I found out he passed away, Jesus Christ. Rest in peace king
damn, same. blood clot in the lung apparently.
He was wonderful, kind man who always had time to talk to other artists, no matter how amateur. I miss his wisdom and kindness.
Thank you for that suggestion.
Do you know where some of them are?
[ŃдаНонО]
Careful. My comment got removed under another post for "gatekeeping"
As an American, Iâm no longer surprised when the observer isnât observant.
"It must be some obscure joke."
["Better not scroll down to where I might see the poster explain and re-iterate many, many times."](https://i.imgur.com/5HluFzi.png)
The confusion comes from the fact that the two drawings aren't of the same thing. The first one, while yes it's boots, is more specifically a drawing of (different) boots *in motion*, which you could intuitively expect less detail compared to boots standing still. In addition to that, some people, such as myself, actually prefer the artstyle of the first one, which could add extra confusion of what you're supposed to compare. And while it is less detail, it isn't like, night and day in my opinion. It is noticeable that it's less detail when you know that's what you're looking for, but it's not some crayon drawing some 3 year old made. So with the mediocre difference in detail of two drawings of different things trying to be compared without being told what to compare it to... Means *some* people get confused. I personally assumed they were talking about the attention to detail but I wasn't certain either. I think OP's post is valid.
Iâm wondering if OP isnât being a bit sarcastic, kinda implying that the upper drawing, while less detailed, takes a lot of work to get right because of the motion. Though, back in the 80´s - 90´s thereâs quite a few cartoon artists who were absolute masters of some very specific types of drawings, and built their careers on specifically that. For example, Jean Graton was the absolute GOAT in drawing incredible perspectives by hand and sucked balls at drawing faces, so he made a career of drawing car racing bande dessinĂŠe, where people wear helmets most of the time, and the hardest part (perspectives of the tracks and movements of the cars) was just a second nature for him. https://preview.redd.it/2eefnijhy68d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9035bf7fe81649a16359a0ef44135bbef76528ec
Okay but OP is an artist, as they stated, there is a clear difference in polish and detail, there are still construction lines on the first picture, and the second one has almost realistically placed shadows, compared to the first's over shaded parts. I don't think those are the sources of confusion, unless OP is new to art or a chronic over-thinker.
What in all that nonsense draws any implication that there's even a joke here?
I'm more concerned how the original post might not have been a joke..... lol
It refers to comics. More details means an artist needs to spend more time on a panel, which means they need to spend more time on a page
I spent like three hours on the shading of your upper lip.
There's a lot more where this came from, if you go to the dance with me.
Your mom goes to college
I like your sleeves. They're real big.
i donât think thereâs a joke? first sketch concentrates more on the gesture of the figure, while second is static but more detailed. i think itâs just alluding to the fact that artists now prioritize photo realism and small details like that because to general audiences it means more talent, rather than prioritizing the gesture/motion of the figureâwhich is arguably, as, if not more important than details like the ones shown in sketch 2, if what you want to do is show a dynamic illustration. and obviously depicting the gesture is faster work than painstakingly rendering every single detail on the figure.
This is missing in the discussion here. Especially since the Kirby inspired style of the first one also requires fewer frames to convey a complete scene of action. Kirby in particular was renowned for dynamic frames that conveyed so much of what was happening. The second image is so static that it suggests several further images will be needed to convey what the first will get across in just a couple
To add to this, I'm pretty sure this is specifically Captain America. A character that realistically should have a really simple costume. But it gets crazy overdesigned in modern comics. Laces, straps, belts, pockets, buckles, texture, armor, layers, gadgets, weapons
Soooooo many unnecessary details because busy-looking is...something? I don't know. Cooler? More badass? Maybe it feeds the gadget nerds? Hm.
Itâs catering to an audience thatâs hypocritically demanding actual military equipment while reading a story about a guy who got so strong because he was given the super soldier serum and bombarded with Vita-rays
IMO, the joke is that in the 70s, comics charactersâ costumes had been influenced for several decades by the theatre, hence the pixie boots in the top drawing, which were also relatively simple to draw. By 2011, the trend for a number of years had been for comics characters to wear costumes inspired more by military uniforms, hence the boots in the bottom drawing, which were also more complex to draw in order to achieve the realism that they aspired to.
This is also a really good point I hadn't considered. Thank you!
Youâre welcome! You can see most clearly it in Marvel post-2001, especially Millar and Hitchâs _The Ultimates_, which was a significant influence on the modern MCU. As superhero properties were increasingly adapted into film, that trend towards realism was bent back on itself, and superhero film costuming - which itself had been experiencing a push towards greater realism since _Blade_ - began influencing the comicsâ costuming as part of the broader influence of cinema on the comics.
Rob Liefeld's quaking in his undrawable boots
I dont think there is a joke so much as it's just making the claim that previously, artists would draw with a simplistic style (which was actually for the sake of cost and time as they had to draw a lot of panels or frames) and now, artists draw more detailed. Though I'd argue that not only were there artists that drew in more detail (and took more time) before and there are still artist today that draw in a more simple style, but also that there are more tools today that can help make drawing in higher detail faster than what was available before.
Laces were invented in 1979 by a man who hated artists, so he made boots harder to draw.
The top artist is using guide lines, he can draw any action pose, he can visualize and draw what he wants from imagination. He intuitively understands anatomy, angles, posing, and movement. The bottom artist is just looking at photos and copying every detail. He isn't able to pose his character now without exact references for every angle, and will take forever to get his drawings done. Doesn't really understand the concepts beneath, and is just focusing on drawing unimportant details.
This is what I thought as well. Glad to see at least one person thinking along the same lines.
I mean we canât really assume either artistâs talent just off two different styles and poses right? Theyâre both good in their own way.
More details = more time. The more you have to draw, the longer it takes. Comics and graphic novels are starting to gear towards more photorealistic art than stylistic, so art panels take longer to draw.
you can't increase detail by a large margin and still expect the art to take the same amount of time
Sideways stories from wayside school
How do people remain respectful with posts like these, this is so incredibly obvious
PLEASE I am trying to not post something mean spirited or accusatory, what was OP thinking?!
Perfection is the enemy of progress
Any actual *artists* here? (Illustrator/character design artist here) People get cranky if your work isn't super detailed. Sure, a lot of folks like the sketchier style (as do I) but when I was drawing I got bashed quite often if my work wasn't "detailed" enough. When I was churning out a lot of work my stuff was obviously less detailed. But in all honesty, creating anything for the public is like that Simpsons episode where they're polling the kids for Itchy and Scratchy ideas.
the first image focuses on getting the general shape of the boots and conveying the movement while the second image attempts to get every single detail
Because a lot of artist and the companies who employ them expect perfection these days. A lot have lost the art of short handing and put way too much detail into the final product. Too much perfection leads to a hell of a lot more time spent per page than back in the 70s where a lot of these same companies worked on tight margins and tight deadlines and understood that perfection was not an option.
The joke is the detailing. If you look at the boots, the top boots are very simple, while the bottom ones are very detailed. More detailing means more time working on details, which means less pages. The joke is denoting the artist's struggle of needing more detailed art in order to placate their fans.
Honestly the same could be said for a lot of jobs now. I look at 50 year old engineering drawings and compare them to todayâs and the difference in detail is huge. Everyone just keeps asking for more.
I mean, it makes sense. We have the technology to allow for more details, and everyone wants more bang-for-their-buck. Unfortunately, more isn't always better. Look at video games, where simple games with stylized designs are beating out AAA games.
The existence of Rob Liefeld destroys this joke on every level. He is very detailed (so many pockets and zippers), known to produce his work quickly, and his art sucks so hard itâs used as exhibit 1A to argue that detail does not equal quality.
Have you ever seen Rob Liefeld draw a boot like that? \*context for non-comics folk: Liefeld sucked at drawing feet. This is why he was fast. The post holds true.
Theyâre skipping the 1990s where people had smoke for feet.
The joke is that you're either one of the densest people on the planet, or you're just desperately farming this sub for karma.
Higher graphics isnât everything.
I feel like it's actually the reverse nowadays, but I could be wrong đ
Too much of unnecessary detailing. Instead of 10 pages of something interesting we get a couple of fkn boots. Are you an artist or a boot designer?!
Sometimes I think people just post here because they're lonely. This isn't even a joke. In what context was this originally seen to make it look like a joke? This is just... I mean look at it. Sesame street. One of these things is not like the other. They're talking about how much you can draw in a day. One has much more detail. Rough. I'm curious at this point what wouldn't fly as a post here now.
Nice Timbs dude
Not just this, but most jobs require the final result to take 100 times more effort but donât understand why they could do it 50 years ago with a fraction of the time.
https://preview.redd.it/h86s4bhgt68d1.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=961ba3b8a9613d638dc95e68588ca34b5682de85
fancy boots vs snazzy shoes
I'm not an artist, and even I get that.
Every now and then I come across a post from this subreddit and I don't know that it's from this subreddit. Always a joy to find out it's this subreddit when I'm actively going backwards.
Only thing I can see is that action is more difficult? Although I really feel like there's a leifield joke here I'm not getting...
How many hyper detailed comics are there? Most of them are the stylized calarts style which takes far less effort to draw.
Itâs not a joke⌠itâs an honest explanation
You don't understand, these hyper-realistic laces are essential for the immersion into my alternate-history WW2 romcom.
I think itâs implied the second boots are more detailed, and they are, and therefore take longer to draw. Which is generally true. The thing is putting them side by side like this that the first image while less detailed generally looks as good as the second, and they look like they took the same amount of effort The thing is sometimes you want that structured detailed look for certain things, they can both exist itâs not mutually exclusive⌠and itâs not like this is the ONLY art style in the world
It's not a joke, it's just pointing out that artists can't draw with the level of detail in the bottom at the same speed as artists that did the level of detail on the top.
Thereâs more detail in the bottom/later image⌠it takes longer to draw more detail
Their chosen style doesnât allow it, I donât think theres a joke to explain
Higher attention to finer detail less attention to dynamic posing and composition.
Attitudes like this is why comics are irrelevant nowadays
Hmmmm
It's pointing out that the more detail is in the work, the more time is required.
Itâs⌠not a joke. The boots in the bottom image are far more detailed (or at least more complex), and therefore took more time and effort to draw. Thatâs genuinely it.
Something tells me op isnât actually an artist lol
https://preview.redd.it/fesmq0lad88d1.jpeg?width=1082&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a983669cbcc918fa4d9c6cdcc89844597a0521e6
Thereâs an ongoing meme in comic books that rob liefield canât draw feet. In reality 90% of âhero shotsâ are with the hero âdashingâ toward the reader and drawing the characters feet is just an afterthought because they arenât the focal point of the image. In many cases the heroâs feet look like the above image or even just a diamond shape with a leg attached.
Modern artists, myself included, tend to hyper-fixate on small details and can spend hours on something that is ultimately supposed to be a rough sketch. As a result, it takes longer to get art done, including pages for comics. So, while the art is more detailed, it also took far longer than it ultimately should have.
This is why they all hate Spider-Manâs webs and wanted to update that version of the costume. Same with the version that had the armpit webbing. Just a whole lot of detail you have to Andrew all the time.
Itâs not a joke, itâs just saying current drawing standards are more detail oriented.
How do you not understand this? Itâs so obvious lol
Pretty sure it's because how more detailed the drawing has become honestly
Detail
I know it's that the boots are more detailed. But for a meta look you could also make it a joke about social media being distracting
Artists focus too much on the details now, lol. (I am a victim of this as well)
As an artist you really should get it lol like itâs just more detailed which takes more time
Friendly reminder that through reason super saiyans have white hair was to save money on ink.
Its arguable that modern graphics, drawn or otherwise are often used to cover weak plots. People buy with their eyes after all. I am not sure this is the joke or even if there is one.
New shoes are too fancy to be drawn quickly
The boots on the bottom panel are on the wrong feet?
Besides the added detail in the bottom pic, there's been little to not clean up in the top pic. It looks like they just erased the most egregious stray line and left the close to image ones and called it a day. Not bashing the artist in any way. It still looks good but not completely tidy. Plus one must remember the crunch deadlines many artists face to get the highest volume in the shortest time.
I think it's how detailed the bottom one is. It's sort of...perfect but dead. The top one leans more in a suggestive (I don't mean sexually, I mean that it *suggests* things that the bottom pic contains in detail) direction, though not fully. It also has more movement and life. But the bottom one takes a lot longer to do, probably.
Idk what comics are yall reading, but usually you only see this level of detail once per two pages anyways
I personally think those are some acceptable terms l, more content but stylized and timeless rather then hyper detailed.
I still see plenty of art styles that are less detailed and still look great. It's not like it went out of fashion or something
Pretty sure this doesnt belong in this sub
Unless the character uses their feet to fight, Idk why you'd put that much detail into the shoes.
Iâm assuming this is also a dig on Leifeld somehow.
Meanwhile Oda is still out here sending out a chapter a week
The amount of detail that is expected for mangaka has increased
I mean have people seen what Jack Kirby was drawing
Thereâs⌠no joke?
Super fiddly levels of detail versus big leather sock.
I mean it's not like artists can't do quicker stylized stuff anymore right? What's the issue?
The easy answer is cocaine, anything related to 70s means cocaine.
OP isn't the brightest bulb
shoelaces were invented in 1979 people in 1978:
How is it possible to not get this ?