|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 23, 2009 8:00:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by basser on Nov 23, 2009 8:02:21 GMT
Aw, poor fanfarebot! Although I guess he's now just RandomNoiseBot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Yin on Nov 23, 2009 8:07:44 GMT
aww.
|
|
|
|
Post by eightyfour on Nov 23, 2009 8:07:56 GMT
Prediction: For the inbetween-chapters-page after this chapter we will see how Fanfarebot finally learns how to play music!
|
|
Alex
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by Alex on Nov 23, 2009 8:09:47 GMT
"Help us Sweet Angel Kat, you are our only hope" doesn't quite have the right ring to it |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 23, 2009 8:11:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by edzepp on Nov 23, 2009 8:31:36 GMT
Well, it's a good thing we couldn't hear him then. Three cheers for the limitations of the comic medium!  |
|
|
|
Post by spoonvonstup on Nov 23, 2009 9:18:38 GMT
I'm really excited to see what FaceBot has to show us! I've got a wild speculation about what it could be, but I'll keep that in the Wild Speculation thread where I know everyone would (rightly) tell me it belongs.
Also, Antimony has no face at all in today's comic. I really love the contrast in GC between high detail of close-ups/main action/background, and the extremely simple expressions characters have at other times. I'm not really sure what appeals to me about that contrast, though. I'll have to think on it...
Anyone else feel similarly (and do you know why)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Putte on Nov 23, 2009 10:54:43 GMT
I'm not sure if it should be called fanfarebot. It's fanfares are quite terrible, afterall. Perhaps musicboxbot? Orgolebot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Nov 23, 2009 12:00:41 GMT
I am finding that everyone involved in this is far too silly for me to take this chapter seriously.
I don't know what's going on but I'm going to assume the whole thing is going to be like this.
I am quite alright with this outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snes on Nov 23, 2009 14:08:01 GMT
I made the mistake of assuming fanfarebot was playing coherent music. Excuse me from thinking you knew how to draw robots who were actually competent, Tom!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicer Atom on Nov 23, 2009 14:24:42 GMT
We should've known better. If fanfarebot were playing a song, it would be spouting a five-line stave, not just random musical symbols.
|
|
|
|
Post by sudrien on Nov 23, 2009 14:41:38 GMT
And I had hoped it was jazz.
At least the Carriagebots have their act together, even if they're stereotyped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seth Thresher on Nov 23, 2009 14:56:31 GMT
This is just too sweet :}
|
|
mike
Junior Member
"Fighting evil improves the children's moral character."
Posts: 58
|
Post by mike on Nov 23, 2009 15:35:54 GMT
I wonder what the problem is? And what Sky Watcher has to do with it... I think he's got something to do with it, otherwise why wouldn't Robot King have shown up earlier?
Quick! Somebody get fanfarebot some lessons!
And Alex, your avatar makes me hungry.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiparoo on Nov 23, 2009 16:42:54 GMT
Also, Antimony has no face at all in today's comic. I really love the contrast in GC between high detail of close-ups/main action/background, and the extremely simple expressions characters have at other times. I'm not really sure what appeals to me about that contrast, though. I'll have to think on it... Anyone else feel similarly (and do you know why)? This seems like a question for Scott McCloud! This question reminds me of a chapter of Understanding Comics, which discusses character detail. To sum up (and really this is very cool), when you're having a conversation with someone, you see that person's face in complete detail. In contrast, we are aware of our own faces in the smallest of detail. Like, you are aware of your eyes, your lips, perhaps the tip of your nose, but really unless you are looking in a mirror, to we are only aware of our own faces in the simplest of terms. McCloud goes on to explain that this is what makes simplified, 'cartoony' characters so compelling to us. If we are shown a character in a highly-detailed design, we see it as someone else, but if a character is simplified, we see ourselves. So when Tom simplifies his character's faces, it allows us to project ourselves onto them place our own emotions of the situation onto them. Which is a really cool effect, no? In other news, I went to SDCC last year and attended Kazu Kibuishi's awesome panel about Amulet and at one point Kazu mentioned McMcould and gestured towards where I was sitting and lo and behold I discovered I was sitting TWO CHAIRS AWAY from Scott McCloud. I nearly fangirled. That's the end of my story. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 23, 2009 16:53:41 GMT
If we are shown a character in a highly-detailed design, we see it as someone else, but if a character is simplified, we see ourselves. So when Tom simplifies his character's faces, it allows us to project ourselves onto them place our own emotions of the situation onto them. My response is only tangentially related, but, it's interesting that you note this because I had an experience the other day that I couldn't understand, but what you said here might go towards explaining it. First a little background, I don't own a Blu-Ray player but I do own and love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Ok that's it for the background. Well just the other day I was in Best Buy looking at Blu-Ray players and they had POTC1 playing. It was the scene where Barbossa first walks into the moonlight and reveals the curse to Elizabeth. Anyway, I was struck by how amazingly detailed it was, their faces, it was like I was standing next to Kiera Knightley and Geoffrey Rush as they were acting out their scene! It was so sharp, it looked like it was a documentary on the making of the movie or something. ...and therein lay the problem. I felt no connection with the movie, no feeling like I was watching a visceral experience. It literally felt like I was watching two actors doing a scene, instead of feeling like, well, the scene. Is it possible for a screen image to be TOO good? Anyway, I thought that was perhaps slightly related to what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by basser on Nov 23, 2009 17:43:46 GMT
If we are shown a character in a highly-detailed design, we see it as someone else, but if a character is simplified, we see ourselves. So when Tom simplifies his character's faces, it allows us to project ourselves onto them place our own emotions of the situation onto them. My response is only tangentially related, but, it's interesting that you note this because I had an experience the other day that I couldn't understand, but what you said here might go towards explaining it. First a little background, I don't own a Blu-Ray player but I do own and love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Ok that's it for the background. Well just the other day I was in Best Buy looking at Blu-Ray players and they had POTC1 playing. It was the scene where Barbossa first walks into the moonlight and reveals the curse to Elizabeth. Anyway, I was struck by how amazingly detailed it was, their faces, it was like I was standing next to Kiera Knightley and Geoffrey Rush as they were acting out their scene! It was so sharp, it looked like it was a documentary on the making of the movie or something. ...and therein lay the problem. I felt no connection with the movie, no feeling like I was watching a visceral experience. It literally felt like I was watching two actors doing a scene, instead of feeling like, well, the scene. Is it possible for a screen image to be TOO good? Anyway, I thought that was perhaps slightly related to what you said. Actually now that you mention this, I have the same problem with Doctor Who... being a filthy American I must download it to watch the new series, and I always end up with it in HD. Usually I have to look away or focus on something else when the Doctor is talking, cause if I watch his face all I see is David Tennant being weird and I lose the story entirely. D: However this is solved by watching from a slight distance with my glasses off. Psychology is neat! |
|
|
|
Post by Mishmash on Nov 23, 2009 18:00:08 GMT
Poor TrumpetFaceBot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Nov 23, 2009 18:17:42 GMT
Very interesting tangential discussion there. I'll add a bit more, does anyone who draws characters find that looking at them sideways makes them look suddenly better? Any drawing, in fact. This is usually my way of checking whether I like it or not. Looking at it flipped in the mirror causes the same effect, I'm guessing it's a change of perspective. You're used to seeing it a certain way so the flipped perspective makes you look at it as if it were a different painting altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanbcoo on Nov 23, 2009 18:53:01 GMT
...and therein lay the problem. I felt no connection with the movie, no feeling like I was watching a visceral experience. It literally felt like I was watching two actors doing a scene, instead of feeling like, well, the scene. Is it possible for a screen image to be TOO good? Count me in on that argument. I've experienced this exact same thing while watching movies Fry's Electronics and Best Buy. There's something about the realistic quality of the picture that takes me out of the fiction. It just feels false. |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Nov 23, 2009 19:58:39 GMT
I wonder whether people said the same thing when tv replaced radio, when color tv replaced black and white etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 23, 2009 20:14:09 GMT
We're talking about something more than just a Luddite rejection of new technology, nikita.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Nov 23, 2009 20:35:52 GMT
Oh, I'm not saying that the people who had doubts about tv/color tv were luddites.
edit: Think about it. We laugh about people who rejected technology that is now common-place. It's easy to think that such things will not happen to us, but why should that be the case?
Maybe they had good reasons to reject technology too?
|
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 23, 2009 20:37:08 GMT
We're talking about something more than just a Luddite rejection of new technology, nikita. Yeah, it's possible that you could project more onto radio (imagining the scene entirely) than you could to black & white TV, same as you are now discussing with regards to regular vs. high-definition TV. |
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Nov 23, 2009 21:02:10 GMT
We should've known better. If fanfarebot were playing a song, it would be spouting a five-line stave, not just random musical symbols. Curses, I was going to say that (after I'd looked up the right words. I'm not very musical). Yeah, it's possible that you could project more onto radio (imagining the scene entirely) than you could to black & white TV, same as you are now discussing with regards to regular vs. high-definition TV. You won't get me to listen to The Archers no matter how much I can project onto it. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Nov 23, 2009 22:51:44 GMT
It does raise the question what hornbot has been doing with its time. Maybe it's always busy following kingbot around?
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 23, 2009 23:47:53 GMT
The real question is, how does he -know- that what he's playing isn't musical, if he's never learned music or been exposed to it? Maybe he should have been indignant at Annie's question: maybe in the robot world, those notes that sound random to humans are in fact the highest expression of euphony to a robot's ears. Surely it pleases Kingbot, or he wouldn't have him play! In robot world, isn't the tastes of the King the most important thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by chiparoo on Nov 23, 2009 23:48:29 GMT
I have a friend who's flat-screen television makes things look fake.
We aren't sure why, but instead of watching a film with realistic effects, watching the television gives the sensation that you are watching toys, or dolls, or plastic, or SOMETHING unrealistic. If you look at the little details, sure, they are the same or higher quality as other televisions.
But somehow it loses the gestalt. We aren't sure why.
To be more on-topic to GKC- Poor little hornbot, expected to be someone he's not, just because he looks like he should be.
Also, this chapter continues to be wonderfully silly!
|
|
|
|
Post by chiparoo on Nov 23, 2009 23:57:01 GMT
My response is only tangentially related, but, it's interesting that you note this because I had an experience the other day that I couldn't understand, but what you said here might go towards explaining it. First a little background, I don't own a Blu-Ray player but I do own and love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Ok that's it for the background. Well just the other day I was in Best Buy looking at Blu-Ray players and they had POTC1 playing. It was the scene where Barbossa first walks into the moonlight and reveals the curse to Elizabeth. Anyway, I was struck by how amazingly detailed it was, their faces, it was like I was standing next to Kiera Knightley and Geoffrey Rush as they were acting out their scene! It was so sharp, it looked like it was a documentary on the making of the movie or something. ...and therein lay the problem. I felt no connection with the movie, no feeling like I was watching a visceral experience. It literally felt like I was watching two actors doing a scene, instead of feeling like, well, the scene. Is it possible for a screen image to be TOO good? Anyway, I thought that was perhaps slightly related to what you said. I bet it's somewhat related. It could have been a mix of different things! It might also have to do with the context- you came in during this one particular scene, with a mindset on focusing on how this new technology will improve the visuals you see in a movie. So, without having sat through the beginning of the movie (and being caught up in the story), and looking at things from a cinematic standpoint (instead of, well, being involved in the story ;D) you may have had a completely different experience because of your perspective. That's an interesting experience to ponder over! |
|
