|
Post by wittgen on Jun 14, 2012 3:27:14 GMT
For Tom's comment I see it as one of these two: One day Zimmy won't have to see such things. OR One day Zimmy will be in BIG TROUBLE Tom's comment almost certainly refers to Zimmy's line from a previous chapter, "One day, I'm gonna die in here." No? Edit: Link. I misremembered the quote, silly me. "I'll die here one day."
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jun 14, 2012 3:28:02 GMT
I don't think it's stupid, just because that's what I thought as well ;D And it makes sense. I don't think time travel is beyond Kat's abilities (right now, I don't think anything is beyond her abilities) and, seeing that the Tic-Tocs have saved Annie before, it makes sense to me that Kat could've created them to do exactly that: protect Annie (or maybe the Court as a whole). As to Tom's comment on the previous page and the content of today's: Zimmy is scary to someone like Renard, who's seen many things and Kat is scary even to Zimmy. Just as Annie saw Coyote as magnificent and scary. I'd guess that Kat is some kind of godlike being - and it would make sense, because I don't think it's beyond her to create life. In fact, that's what I think she'll end up doing soon. IMO, Zimmy has the same ability to peer into the ether that Annie has, but it is somehow colored by their psyches: where Annie's fluid and dreamlike, Zimmy's harsh and nightmare-ish. Now, close the loop - suppose Diego's marvelous designs are based on a tic-toc that he captured, or saw destroyed. But Kat is learning how the robots work from Diego! Take that, causality! You gotta love the bootstrap paradox. Let's take it one step further: What if Kat also created the Seed Bismuth from which the entire Court grew?
|
|
Lizuka
Junior Member
Posts: 52
|
Post by Lizuka on Jun 14, 2012 3:50:55 GMT
Inspired by the headband thing from earlier, threw together this - Took forever to find a decent color for the mouth, and even then it's not the best.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Jun 14, 2012 4:07:54 GMT
Of course, they're stylized, but they look a heck of a lot more like insect wings than they do bird wings. Ignoring the surface, where are the bones if it's birdlike? Why don't they angle up after the first joint? Where are the layers of feathers? IMO they don't look like bird wings because the front 'wings' are entire birds. Turn the image sideways - beak, eye, head, body, and the bird's wing (wing on a wing!) are all there.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzysocks on Jun 14, 2012 5:00:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jun 14, 2012 6:14:53 GMT
But if golems see her like this, they aren't going to explain. Wait. What if Jack can see Kat the same way? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Geekette on Jun 14, 2012 7:51:06 GMT
I'm probably looking for trouble, because the first thing I thought of was "Waaaait, that can't be Kat - it doesn't have a nose."
|
|
|
Post by Rex on Jun 14, 2012 8:37:05 GMT
Wow, that's incredible. Notice how the face seems to be cracked as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jun 14, 2012 11:41:16 GMT
Long answer: I am not an industry expert and am interested in better-informed opinions, but I do think Gunnerkrigg Court merits the best possible shot. A big company has big distribution channels, can do big ad buys, can hire voice talent that can bring its own hype to the party, hopefully to build to critical mass. Yeah, I really don't think that Gunnerkrigg Court fits into any of that. I mean, massively popular authors like Terry Pratchett have vainly fought against windmills to create adaptations of their work that are true to their artistic integrity, and finally retreated in dissapppointment. Pratchett only got his way when he turned to lower budget and a local studio, instead of trying to talk sense to Hollywood bigwigs. Sell the rights to a large company, and they'll do whatever they want with them, and in the end you'll just have some mass market garbage in your hands. Yes, once in a blue moon something good comes out from there, but 99% of the time it's not animation, a medium still stereotyped to belong to young children in the States. And lets not even get to the state of 2D animation, today. And I really don't see why an adaptation of GC would require famous Hollywood actors, or a place in prime time TV. It's not that kind of entertainment. It can stand on its own merits and gain a strong, devoted following, even if it's produced by a smaller, European studio, and the chances of gaining end results that actually have the spirit of the original are so much higher. Bottom line: unless your goal is to butcher the story into a generic battle of good vs. evil, you'll have little luck to ever get a chance with large studios. Not unless you are one of the tiny handful of creators who have repeatedly proven themselves capable of taking simplistic premises handed to them, and made them something great, both artistically and commercially. But those people are extremely rare, and all caught up in their own projects for the foreseaable future, and even they must submit to studio guidelines in far too many things.
|
|
cass
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by cass on Jun 14, 2012 13:18:56 GMT
Whoa.
First impression - I didn't think they were wings at all. Though I can definitely see it. I thought they were extended scapula, and that she was embedded in a giant machine, most of which was off screen.
|
|
flutters
New Member
I was in the darkness, so darkness I became.
Posts: 11
|
Post by flutters on Jun 14, 2012 13:21:06 GMT
I think I speak for us all when I say;
... what.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 14, 2012 13:49:07 GMT
Long answer: I am not an industry expert and am interested in better-informed opinions, but I do think Gunnerkrigg Court merits the best possible shot. A big company has big distribution channels, can do big ad buys, can hire voice talent that can bring its own hype to the party, hopefully to build to critical mass. And I really don't see why an adaptation of GC would require famous Hollywood actors, or a place in prime time TV. It's not that kind of entertainment. It can stand on its own merits and gain a strong, devoted following, even if it's produced by a smaller, European studio, and the chances of gaining end results that actually have the spirit of the original are so much higher. I'm going to have to side with lightice on the size of the studio. The professionals are after the highest level of profit that can be delivered for the longest time and at the lowest initial investment. However, these studios exist in every country, not just in the States. It doesn't really matter where you take it, you just have to find somebody who gives a good god damn about producing a faithful, well-rounded final product. Oh, and a degree of talent is always a plus.
|
|
|
Post by diztrakted on Jun 14, 2012 14:06:29 GMT
Of course, they're stylized, but they look a heck of a lot more like insect wings than they do bird wings. Ignoring the surface, where are the bones if it's birdlike? Why don't they angle up after the first joint? Where are the layers of feathers? IMO they don't look like bird wings because the front 'wings' are entire birds. Turn the image sideways - beak, eye, head, body, and the bird's wing (wing on a wing!) are all there. Hmm... I can't quite see that, but you know what I DO see that looks birdlike: Look at the lowest piece of her breastbone. Doesn't it look like a very slender bird skull?
|
|
|
Post by darlos9d on Jun 14, 2012 14:10:29 GMT
HOLY FUZZING FUPP. I.. was I right or wrong in the last thread? I CAN'T TELL! Did you think we'd get some crazy image of Zimmy's view of Kat on Wednesday like I did? If so, close enough.
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff-Cookie on Jun 14, 2012 14:41:28 GMT
I decided to go contrary to the guesses of a horrifying vision and say the vision would be intimidatingly beautiful to behold. It is indeed very beautiful, and something like that would be very hard to look 'eye to eye' to if you were right there with it.
Though the words I would use now would be "horrifyingly beautiful" instead, I think.
|
|
|
Post by nero on Jun 14, 2012 16:22:51 GMT
For Tom's comment I see it as one of these two: One day Zimmy won't have to see such things. OR One day Zimmy will be in BIG TROUBLE Tom's comment almost certainly refers to Zimmy's line from a previous chapter, "One day, I'm gonna die in here." No? Edit: Link. I misremembered the quote, silly me. "I'll die here one day." That was a great find. I feel bad that Zimmy could really be stuck in that nightmarish world and get hurt by something there.
|
|
|
Post by snuffa on Jun 14, 2012 17:23:11 GMT
The tic toc thing... By the way, that's not a rib. That's a breastbone, or keel. Birds need a huge breastbone to connect their wing muscles to: The holes are not a common feature on keels, hence I think the blades on Katangel are style features, not faux keels. ohhh thanks! I've been searching in my head for an english word for that bone and couldn't remember it. however, while for the tic tock this part is most definitely a keel, on the Katangel they do look more like ribs. what we've been pointing out is just a similarity in design between the two that can hint at the same creator - function of those bones is obviously different. Hmm... I can't quite see that, but you know what I DO see that looks birdlike: Look at the lowest piece of her breastbone. Doesn't it look like a very slender bird skull? yep. I first even thought it's an extremely slender coyote skull (as we already saw this before) but then, it does seem to have a beak
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 14, 2012 19:12:37 GMT
It occured to me that the page would have been even more ominous if it had also had the end-of-chapter symbol. Also, did you noticed her eyes are closed? How can you tell?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 14, 2012 20:46:25 GMT
Yeah, I really don't think that Gunnerkrigg Court fits into any of that. I mean, massively popular authors like Terry Pratchett have vainly fought against windmills to create adaptations of their work that are true to their artistic integrity, and finally retreated in dissapppointment. Pratchett only got his way when he turned to lower budget and a local studio, instead of trying to talk sense to Hollywood bigwigs. Sell the rights to a large company, and they'll do whatever they want with them, and in the end you'll just have some mass market garbage in your hands. Yes, once in a blue moon something good comes out from there, but 99% of the time it's not animation, a medium still stereotyped to belong to young children in the States. And lets not even get to the state of 2D animation, today. And I really don't see why an adaptation of GC would require famous Hollywood actors, or a place in prime time TV. It's not that kind of entertainment. It can stand on its own merits and gain a strong, devoted following, even if it's produced by a smaller, European studio, and the chances of gaining end results that actually have the spirit of the original are so much higher. Bottom line: unless your goal is to butcher the story into a generic battle of good vs. evil, you'll have little luck to ever get a chance with large studios. Not unless you are one of the tiny handful of creators who have repeatedly proven themselves capable of taking simplistic premises handed to them, and made them something great, both artistically and commercially. But those people are extremely rare, and all caught up in their own projects for the foreseaable future, and even they must submit to studio guidelines in far too many things. I look at it this way. Gunnerkrigg Court is this comic. An animated adaption would be a collaboration. This comic is a pure brainchild, but even if it was used for the storyboard there would still have to be a lot of changes/additions to the dialog and the action between panels because it needs to flow naturally on the screen. If an artist goes into a collaboration to create an animated film based on his work with the attitude of, "This is my intellectual property and I will fight any changes for any reason and I am not interested in explanations or compromises," then the executives will (correctly) assume that the creative process required to bring the project to completion will require their artists to be shielded from the original artist. They will probably assign an intermediary to intercept the original artist input and filter it before it gets to the marketing art people, the animators, the writers, etc. In absence of direction the tendency will be to hack results and that makes for a poor collaboration and a watered-down end result. However, if the original artist were to take an attitude of, "Let's work together to make this project as big a success as we can," and met any proposed changes with, "How does this change fit in with the high concept of the story and mood of the scene?" he could make the people suggesting changes explain them. The other rationally self-interested people involved could then then make informed decisions. The original artist might get outvoted sometimes but he would be much more likely to achieve good communication with the other artists, get them on board with the flavor of what the original product was, and make the end product a good collaboration that retains much of the original. Yep, with big players sometimes you will meet a creep who wants an idea of his/her inserted just so he/she can have a creative credit, no matter how stupid it is. Once in a while you will find a dipshit in an executive position who leads from the rear by pushing a series of minimal changes so that he or she can be seen as doing something to earn his/her pay; he/she then can take credit for the success of the project or push the blame of a failure onto those people who did the work not making enough of his/her changes. The former are annoying but can be bought off cheap. Don't worry, nobody takes them seriously except possibly their friends and family members who hunt for their names in the credits. Everyone who matters will still know Tom Siddell is the creative force behind Gunnerkrigg Court. The latter I love. They're potentially dangerous but once you realize they're an empty suit you can play them like fiddles and wind up with more of what you want instead of less. Just let them think that the good ideas were their ideas and don't argue when they brag around the water cooler about how smart they are. Trust me their co-workers already know. I never said that an adaption of Gunnerkrigg Court would require big-name actors but there is a reason why studios pay them a ton of money. The publicity they bring increases returns. And small studios are an option but I am not sure they are the best option. If this were ten years ago I would be confident in saying that if there were a low-budget GC live action or movie that would be forfeiting top-tier success before getting out of the starting gate. Things are changing but it would still suck up a lot of the oxygen even if things went well.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 15, 2012 1:07:37 GMT
Hmm. Maybe I'm just neurotic, but if they changed the story, or made it a collaboration, it just... wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't even be Gunnerkrigg Court (YMMV). I also don't think there is anything about it that a small studio couldn't handle. Maybe back in the fifties when computers took up a whole room, but when they're the size of our palms, you have some latitude on your staffing numbers. If we were talking about a live action film, I would agree with you, every dollar into your acting budget counts, but we're just talking about animating content. It's already been story-boarded and fleshed out in it's entirety, so it would just be a matter of finding the right people to animate it. No need to have a whole division of cooks spoiling your stew. If amateurs can make the first issue of The Walking Dead come to life (no pun intended) and find semi-decent voice actors, imagine what someone with some actual equipment and a crew could do.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 15, 2012 2:02:29 GMT
Hmm. Maybe I'm just neurotic, but if they changed the story, or made it a collaboration, it just... wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't even be Gunnerkrigg Court (YMMV). The only way for it not to be a collaboration would be for Mr. Siddell to do literally everything himself. I also don't think there is anything about it that a small studio couldn't handle. Maybe back in the fifties when computers took up a whole room, but when they're the size of our palms, you have some latitude on your staffing numbers. I never said that a small studio couldn't. I just said I wasn't sure that was the best way to go and that there are gonna be trade-offs whichever way you go. It's already been story-boarded and fleshed out in it's entirety, so it would just be a matter of finding the right people to animate it. No need to have a whole division of cooks spoiling your stew. Is disagree. There are some motions described in the comic but if it was used panel-for-panel for the storyboard then it would be incredibly wooden. There will have to be some angles that shift, scenes that pan, motions not depicted, timing questions, and even if you try to follow the comic hyper-religiously decisions will have to be made about sfx, music, graphics, etc. that do not exist in the comic at all. [edit] How did I forget transitions? [/edit]
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 15, 2012 2:36:44 GMT
The only way for it not to be a collaboration would be for Mr. Siddell to do literally everything himself. The creative direction? Yeah, it would have to be very hands on, a lot of work for Tom, which is why he probably hasn't given much serious thought to the idea. I'm fine with a little loosey goosey, maybe even a few extra chapters, perhaps one for the cursed teapot and one for the paintings that never panned out into a mini-arc, but If you went to a big studio they would want to make BIG changes, paper over whole chapters, maybe even change names around and other nefarious, micro management stuff like that. A small studio has its drawbacks, yeah, but you're working with a lot fewer egos, and ones that are much less inflated by their own stock price at that.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 15, 2012 5:25:56 GMT
Small studio means fewer people and fewer egos, yes, but also those people must work longer hours. I again say I am no expert on this stuff but I think if you want Mr. Siddell to produce, direct, write, be chief of art and contribute concepts then that could mean 140hr+ work weeks for the duration of the project (post casting maybe eight months to a year? more?). And some of those jobs are things that I think he maybe hasn't done before.
Large studio means sane hours and regular salaries. The big change that I am thinking that a large studio might hold out for would be a clear-cut totally evil villain type, and that demand could possibly be managed into something doable, like I said before. Pretty much everything else they like to drop in is already there (or likely to be there).
Some parts might get shortened for pacing or time constraints but of course it depends on how long the comic winds up being and what they're setting as an ending point. They don't want to drop plot because that's the property and even if they did any unused material can be cycled nonlinear into a sequel. If anything I think a number of chapters might need to be padded out. All of ch. 1 might take place before the open credits.
|
|
|
Post by runegrey on Jun 15, 2012 6:25:38 GMT
I think its interesting that for the most part everyone assumes this is Kat. There have been fake out's before, and I think that the caption text we've gotten is more important than where this panel is placed in the comic.
More importantly, I think the crack in the face is even more significant.
After all, Zimmy did just punch someone really, really hard in the face. After all, no one knows where Carver is... or what he looks like right now.
|
|
|
Post by wies on Dec 2, 2020 7:01:47 GMT
Sometimes in a reread of the comic, I wonder how the forum reacted to a particular page. This was a fun thread to reread.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Dec 3, 2020 12:03:55 GMT
Sometimes in a reread of the comic, I wonder how the forum reacted to a particular page. This was a fun thread to reread. I do that too.
|
|