CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar 2 - Electric Boogaloo-Fanboys gone WILD-too many hyphens

[JD]

The eighties! Just the eighties??

My friend, compared to the artists who made Marvel in the sixties and seventies - Google the art of Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Steranko, John Buscema, John Romita Sr. and Jr., etc. - the axacomic artists are drawing at the level of preschoolers.

And here's the thing: You know they're doing this digitally and throwing in a bunch of computer shading and filtering and new-fangled nonsense and probably think they're creating masterpieces. The guys and gals who drew comics in the silver age - late fifties to early nineties - drew them with pencils on glorified oaktag and sometimes had to draw several full comics in a single month just so the page rates would allow them to eat regularly and pay their mortgages. Those people drew comics! By comparison the axa-"artists" are doing sketchups in Paint on their tablets while sitting on the john.

That's one reason I'm on their case so hard. I live for the type of comic art in the comics I grew up reading, where you only had your two hands and some office supplies to try and tell dynamic stories on paper. Modern comic artists hardly even try anymore. The think the computer will do all the work. It's wrong -headed and drives me crazy, and in this particular instance seeing axalytes mooning over these static pages that the artists needed months and thousand-dollar illustration programs to draw makes me pray for the state of humanity.

I've been working my way through the original Stan Lee/Steve Ditko comics, and read some of the '80s Batman stuff like Death in the Family, and Year One, so I'm pretty familiar with the earlier predigital comic artwork. The only reason brought up the '80s was because that specific article about the '80s is what brought the comparison to mind.

 

[Admiral2]

To be fair...it's not "preschool" stuff.

Fine. It's not preschool. It's also not dynamic, imaginative or unique, which means it's about as impressive as preschool.

I bet most people in this forum could not draw as well.

Maybe not this forum, but in my time frequenting the Fan Art forum, I've seen plenty of work done better with both computers and tradition tools.

Yes, there's a trend in modern comics and animation towards what I consider ugly character design lacking in draughtsmanship, but c'est la vie.

Sorry, I can't be that blase about it. Comics are my life, and by extension so is animation, and there are few things that do more for my peace of mind than reading an entertaining comic or watching a good cartoon...and if the character design is intentionally ugly and the draughtsmanship is lazy, what's the point?

As an example, one of my favorite cartoons of all time was Hanna-Barbera's original run of Jonny Quest, because it was created by an adventure comic creator (Doug Wildey) and produced by another adventure comic creator (Alex Toth) and the result was a newspaper adventure comic brought to life on television, and not in the cheap, chintzy "just film a panel of a comic" way of the sixties Marvel cartoons or today's "motion comics." That was in 1964, and whenever I see an animated series since, Jonny Quest is the benchmark I compare them to.

So what do we get for animated series today? Steven Universe, Teen Titans Go and that Netflix She-Ra nonsense.

If you can set that aside, good for you. Meanwhile, all I can think of is what Bill Watterson said when he gave up drawing Calvin and Hobbes. "Comics are a moribund art form." At the time I first read that I thought he was being overdramatic. Lately I've been thinking he just predicted comics' demise early, and didn't realize how much some artists would help the art form die by being ugly and lazy with their work.

 

[Maurice]

You sure are quick to assume attitudes based on a few rather broad statements. I'm not "blase" about it, but nor am I the sort to shout into the wind. I've griped many times to friends about the lack of draughtsmanship I see masquerading as style, but tons of people disagree with me. For instance, I personally cannot stand looking at the pinprick-pupiled dead-eyed, expressionless, artlessly designed characters that seem to be everywhere from Family Guy to Bob's Burgers and a hundred other cartoon properties out these. Despite what my own opinions and tastes we're in a period where the trend is ugly design. As Wilde said, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Sadly, in this case it's a lot longer than 6 months.

 

[Admiral2]

You sure are quick to assume attitudes based on a few rather broad statements. I'm not "blase" about it,

Okay, fine, but when you end your statement with the phrase "Such is Life," what else am I supposed to conclude?

but nor am I the sort to shout into the wind.

Well, I'm a shouter. Again, sorry.

I've griped many times to friends about the lack of draughtsmanship I see masquerading as style, but tons of people disagree with me. For instance, I personally cannot stand looking at the pinpick-pupiled dead-eyed, expressionless, artlessly designed characters that seem to be everywhere from Family Guy to Bob's Burgers and a hundred other cartoon properties out these. Despite what my own opinions and tastes we're in a period where the trend is ugly design. As Wilde said, "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Sadly, in this case it's a lot longer than 6 months.

Maybe true, but I'm also a man of little patience, which means I'd rather not wait for the ugly period to fade away naturally, but there's only three options for bringing it to a close early: Get better artists to contribute more to comics, become a better artist and contribute myself, or protest. I'm currently working on option two, but in the meantime options three and one just require my words, which I can deliver plenty of quickly.

 

[fireproof78]

Okay, fine, but when you end your statement with the phrase "Such is Life," what else am I supposed to conclude?

In my experience, that statement doesn't mean "I give up" (as often bandied about) but an acknowledgment of the world as it exists.

Then we figure out what we can change within that world. I work hard to reflect this in life because life has many things that I must accept before I can change.

 

[JD]

I actually enjoy most of the series you guys have been complaining about.
This conversation got me to go and look through some of my other comics, and I can't help but notice is how boring the layouts are in the Axacomic. One kinda of weird thing I noticed there, that I didn't see in any of the pro-comics is that there are a couple panels where the captain, I guess it's supposed to be Garth, is turned away from the readers POV, and I didn't really seem to see that in the any of the stuff I flipped through. We're not looking from behind him or something, we're looking at him sitting in the chair, while his head is turned so we can't see his face.
I don't know if there's necessarily a rule about that, but it definitely stood out to me. For some reason it just seemed like kind of an odd choice on the artist or Lane's part.

 

[Admiral2]

I actually enjoy most of the series you guys have been complaining about.
This conversation got me to go and look through some of my other comics, and I can't help but notice is how boring the layouts are in the Axacomic. One kinda of weird thing I noticed there, that I didn't see in any of the pro-comics is that there are a couple panels where the captain, I guess it's supposed to be Garth, is turned away from the readers POV, and I didn't really seem to see that in the any of the stuff I flipped through. We're not looking from behind him or something, we're looking at him sitting in the chair, while his head is turned so we can't see his face.
I don't know if there's necessarily a rule about that, but it definitely stood out to me. For some reason it just seemed like kind of an odd choice on the artist or Lane's part.

There is no specific rule against that. The goal in a comic is to do on a static page as much as you can approximate from a live action film, including camera angles, and there are plenty of instances in film where the focus of a scene can have his or her back to the camera. Same with comics.

 

[Maurice]

I can't speak too much to comics and comic books because I haven't really followed them since the 80s, but as to trends in style I can speak to cartoon animation.

For instance, look at US TV cartoon animation before and then after Mighty Mouse the New Adventures (1987–89). That show was wildly influential because it really broke the mold in terms of how it was written and drawn, and lots of shows tried to copy its more over-the-top animation style (a trend reinforced by the "toon"iness of Who Framed Roger Rabbit in 1988), e.g. A Pup Named Scooby Doo, and then people from Mighty Mouse went on to do Ren & Stimpy and that really was influential (it had "ugly" character designs but drawn well and with a lot of visual appeal), so much so that to this day some people are still aping the extreme character expressions from it.

On the other hand, The Simpsons went for an "everything painted flat with cel paints aesthetic" that tons of shows now ape, so there's another influence that works well for that show but has been copied too much in shows where it's not necessarily a great fit, but it's cheaper to flood fill flat color than paint something with tones. I suspect this also drives a lot of the aforementioned "dead-eyed" character designs, because a relatively undirected pupil can look like it's making an eyeline even if it's not.

 

[feek61]

I actually enjoy most of the series you guys have been complaining about.
This conversation got me to go and look through some of my other comics, and I can't help but notice is how boring the layouts are in the Axacomic. One kinda of weird thing I noticed there, that I didn't see in any of the pro-comics is that there are a couple panels where the captain, I guess it's supposed to be Garth, is turned away from the readers POV, and I didn't really seem to see that in the any of the stuff I flipped through. We're not looking from behind him or something, we're looking at him sitting in the chair, while his head is turned so we can't see his face.
I don't know if there's necessarily a rule about that, but it definitely stood out to me. For some reason it just seemed like kind of an odd choice on the artist or Lane's part.

Maybe these are really just color story boards for the film!!!

 

[Red Shirt]

I need $5000.00 USD a month to store my bridge model kit fan film set. PM for paypal details.
Unaccomplished losers money is welcome.
​

 

[dmac]

I need $5000.00 USD a month to store my bridge model kit fan film set. PM for paypal details.
Unaccomplished losers money is welcome.
​

You can't make this stuff up!

 

[JD]

There is no specific rule against that. The goal in a comic is to do on a static page as much as you can approximate from a live action film, including camera angles, and there are plenty of instances in film where the focus of a scene can have his or her back to the camera. Same with comics.

Guess it's just me than. The way those panels were set up just felt weird.

 

[Professor Zoom]

See, I have a lot of respect that Randy grinds out stuff. He does actually execute. I've uptheard wagged my finger at people who spend all kinds of time posting about Axanar and never comment on most of the films that get shared here. I mean, we get things like Fallen Star and so on that garner in-total a half dozen commenters, if that. I can see why some fan filmmakers stopped dropping in.

OTOH I myself stopped commenting on Randy's films because he mostly seemed to respond only to those that were praising his group's work, and it seems like he put me on Ignore after a point he never responded to anything I wrote; even questions—likely because I'd admit disappointment that the films seemed stuck in a rut of easily-correctable technical and editorial issues that never get any better production after production.

Spoiler: Said issues

His most recent film (LINK) still suffers from exactly the same framing and continuity issues that every Potemkin film has suffered since the beginning.

I don't think you can expect much of a dialog on a BBS if you only acknowledge approbation. This doesn't appear to be limited to this BBS, either, or to Potemkin; I saw that even mildly critical comments posted to Potemkin Productions videos and other Trek fanfilms on YouTube quickly vanish.

YMMV.

Well, to be honest, I'm more interested in Axanar in terms of copyright, infringement and transformation. Many fan films are too amateurish for me to really want to watch. And since, for the most part, I don't have a lot of positive things to say, I would rather not say it. People making fan films, actually making them, are making them out of love for the show, and I respect that. It doesn't seem like they are making them to become professional filmmakers, so, I just keep my big mouth shut and respect that they made something.

 

[carlosp]

I’d like to see Axamonitor publish an article on whether what’s gone on could qualify as Mail Fraud ?

I’m not suggesting Axamonitor accuse anyone, nor am I in this posting, but an analysis on whether there are laws against what’s gone on, or not, would be an interesting essay.

All that money taken from people for a feature length film that didn’t happen...It just takes the biscuit...sorry, British phrase...

The most important thing about fraud is demonstrating intent. I simply don't think you can do so with regard to Axanar. In all the interviews I've conducted on and off the record with people in the room(s) no one has ever indicated any intent by Alec Peters to defraud donors about producing the movie. There's plenty of evidence of mismanagement, misplaced priorities, incompetence, greed, dissembling, and hiding the truth. But not intent to defraud.

I know it's difficult to resist the urge to demonize Peters but he really has done enough to abuse the trust his donors placed in him. I don't think you have to impute criminal actions to make that point.

 

[Maurice]

[...]Many fan films are too amateurish for me to really want to watch.[...]

Someone could only say this after the fanfilm arms race.

 

[KennyB]

I need $5000.00 USD a month to store my bridge model kit fan film set. PM for paypal details.
Unaccomplished losers money is welcome.
​

Hell man, it’s ENCOURAGED!!!!

 

[Admiral2]

Guess it's just me than. The way those panels were set up just felt weird.

So I took another look at page two. I guess you're talking about the panel where Garth is calling Sickbay? I'll give you weird, as there seems to be no reason for the camera to be looking down on Garth like that. That said, it's not breaking any specific rule and there's actually a scene like that in canon. I think it's in "Court Martial." I seem to recall the footage played at Kirk's trial was recorded at an angle that looks down on Kirk from above, starting on a wide shot of him and ending with a close-up of his finger pressing a chair control.

Of course, there's a reason in that story to look down on Kirk like that. On the axacomic page it looks like the artist just liked that angle from two panels back.

 

[dmac]

Hell man, it’s ENCOURAGED!!!!

Fishing with Kenny isn't going to be cheap! I might have to promise patches to make the triple streach goal.

 

[KennyB]

Fishing with Kenny isn't going to be cheap! I might have to promise patches to make the triple streach goal.

Only the best for you @dmac

 

[dmac]

Only the best for you @dmac

Who knew Fly Fishing was done in an F-22 dropping Aim 120's into the lake?