Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Key differences from other web comics?
Siibillam-Law:
As far as the art goes, I reckon QC gets it right. FreakAngels looks great, but in small squares is that much detail needed? It makes it look cluttered, I reckon. Dr McNinja is my favourite in terms of art, though. That shit's awesome.
At the beginning it was the indie jokes that got people into QC, then the characters developed and people read it now to see what the characters are gonna get up to. Keeps a joke at the end of every panel (unless it's drama) so it never really falls flat if the specific script of the strip isn't very good, at least there's the joke to carry it.
Surgoshan:
Yeah, FreakAngels is clearly drawn by someone who's been a professional artist his whole life, whereas Jeph started as a hobbyist and has only been a professional artist for a few years.
However, those few years have been a huge change for Jeph and I think his work should be compared, often favorably, to the artwork of others. I don't know if QC should be compared to FA in terms of skill; I think a portion of it is a difference in style.
FreakAngels is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. QC is in a mildly alternative modern day setting. FreakAngels is drawn with a gritty realism. QC is more cartoonish, with a greater color palette available. However, Jeph has shown, on multiple occasions, that he has an excellent sense of space and perspective. For example, the odd perspective after Dora smacked Sven hard enough to knock him down. And, on another occasion, a really odd perspective at a flight of stairs. And don't forget the awesome distorted perspectives he did which perfectly reflected Hanners' anxiety.
Of course, he's not perfect. Dora's head looks really weird in panel 2.
All told, if a 'C' represents what the average person can do, then Jeph started out at a C+ and has gradually improved over the years to A/A-. FreakAngels represents sold, A+ work.
Lyrical:
I prefer the artwork in QC to Freak Angels, which has a very angular, slightly distorted look to the people and backgrounds. *shrugs*
Anyway, I enjoy QC's plot and humor! Xkcd can be fun, but there isn't an ongoing story.
zynk:
--- Quote from: AngelofShadows on 01 Mar 2009, 09:24 ---Also, I like Pintsize. QC has Pintsize
--- End quote ---
It's his ability to actually have a great compelling plot and still have random funny parts to it (i.e. almost every strip pintsize is in).
Most comics can do 1 or the other, but rarely can both be accomplished as effectively as QC.
jeph:
--- Quote from: Jeans on 01 Mar 2009, 12:10 ---
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 01 Mar 2009, 09:40 ---Key Difference 1) The art is excellent. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot of art if the humor/story is awesome, but I do like looking at pretty pictures. I'm not willing to sacrifice humor/story for the sake of art. Pretty but boring = dating a hot idiot; fun for a bit but quickly stale.
--- End quote ---
I know I'm venturing into asshole territory here, but I'm going to state that I never understood this point of view.
The QC artwork has never been amazing. Amazing comic artwork is seen in Stuff Sucks or FreakAngels. I mean, as far as personal progress goes Jeph has improved immensely (this should be obvious to anyone who's read the comic), but compared to people who have been drawing for their entire life, like Liz Greenfield, Sam Logan and Paul Duffield, Jeph is still pretty far from being an "amazing" artist.
Jeph, please don't take it as an insult, it ain't meant to be. Like I said, you're a swell guy and I respect you hells of lots.
--- End quote ---
oh I know I am not in the same league as those guys. I will be someday, but by then they'll have all improved too, so it's not like I'm ever gonna catch up. I would currently rate QC's art a "C" at best. At least it's improving.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version