I want to both refute and support mars argument, because I dont think this has anything to do with "furries." How anyone around here feels about that particular label, what is means and where it should apply doesn't seem relevant. I think arguing about the semantics about it is stupid, and I think it really muffles points about strong drawing and design. I think that peter would probably explain his characters well, Hes been working with them for a long time. I don't want him to think that drawing critiques are coming from a place where people wish he was drawing something completely different.
Since I don't know the story, I cant say if his concepts are strong, but I know that the foundation for these characters exists. The problem here, in my opinion, is dexterity. Applying concept is different than just thinking about it. I like to point to john k, because while hes an old curmudgeon, he knows the difference between design, structure, and concept. You don't have to agree with every asinine point he has, but you should be able to understand them.
Blacksad, as peter brought up earlier as inspiration, is a lot better of an example than dreamworks, I think. (If anyone doesn't know what black sad is: http://blacksad-gallery.blogspot.com/ ) Blacksad works with those ideas and applies them in different ways than Kungfu panda, more appropriate for the tone of the comic. The reason I bring it up because it has everything that people consider "furry", animal heads on people bodies, sex, creatures in couples that make no biological sense. The way its applied in this comic has a ton of character, which is undeniable if you like furres or not. But the level of drawing skill is pretty much top notch, making it so you can believe that everything about a particular animal leads in to that personality. It really has very little to do with their proportions, its about how amazingly they are drawn.
So peter, You can draw whatever you want, and you should, but you shouldn't be delusional about where your skills are. Further than that, finishing things is super important, but you cant power through weak drawing. At some point you will have to take the time to study for the sake of studying and not assume that the skills will fall into place as you draw. It will be the difference between improving at a snails pace and seeing notable jumps as the years go by. Don't let any part of your defenses blot out the good points that have been put on the table by Night dragon and Bevo, either.
edit: Oh great, this blew up while I was eating and not posting.
If Blacksad had a more cartoony slant to the character designs, it just wouldn't work as well as it does. But as you've already pointed out, the artwork is Top Notch, and that's really what makes it so believable. On top of that, however, are that the stories within are often a direct parable of early American life, such as the elements of the White Power movement featured in the story "Arctic Nation." The use of specific animals in that plot works both for the allegory and for the twist at the end. That, and the fact that Blacksad is a Noir book at heart. All of these elements in tandem is what makes Blacksad work so well.
I'm not saying that Peter can't draw what he wants, or that his drawings should be what I want. I'm just challenging him on his design and thought process. I loves me some John K (Met him briefly last year!), and while I don't entirely agree with everything he says, when it comes to design and communicating character and personality visually, he's pretty spot on with what he has to add.
My argument for Peter is an example of that. Visually, his characters run together and that tends to make them overall bland. Even with Blacksad (which is essentially human bodies, animal heads), there is a lot of variety and personality in the designs. Much of this lends to its Noir roots, where the author is able to blend Sam Spade and a Black Panther together to create something that speaks volumes of both.
I get that you're just asking him to challenge himself, I just want to clarify that I don't think the problem is in the thought process. I think he could better impart the knowledge that he clearly has about his characters if he had better drawing skills. I just want to be firm that this point has nothing to do with the fact that his characters are animals. Peter may know all the differences between his characters and why that applies to the animal they are, this knowledge does not magically impart him with the ability to draw them all differently.
I just want to clarify everything because I remember the whole thing from TSO and think that alot of good points get rolled up in stupid shit. We are in agreement, you just opened a can of words by the way you framed your point. I don't want others to jump in with weak points because of stupid furries, Like saying that tiny toons and animaniacs are good examples. Really? I mean, I loved both series but they are both derivative of far more successful designs of earlier cartoonists, he really shouldn't be aspiring to them. Some studying needs to go on, But thats not pointing in the right direction.
I can only make arguments for myself in this thread, and would hope any rebuttal is based on something I said. Capn'Mango, while a lovely bloke, doesn't speak for me. And I'm not here to debate furries or turn this into the general furry thread.
I will say, however, that I do think that the problem is in the thought process. I'm not here to critique the story or script, but I think not fully utilizing the more animalistic aspects of one's animal character designs is a largely missed opportunity. Especially in regard to a fantasy realm story setting.
I should be able to tell something unique about a character simply be glancing at their design, and my ire with Peter's characters is they all simply seem cut from the same clothe, largely ignoring the individual qualities of each animal he's chosen to make them, essentially losing the character from these characters!
I can only make arguments for myself in this thread, and would hope any rebuttal is based on something I said. Capn'Mango, while a lovely bloke, doesn't speak for me. And I'm not here to debate furries or turn this into the general furry thread.
I will say, however, that I do think that the problem is in the thought process. I'm not here to critique the story or script, but I think not fully utilizing the more animalistic aspects of one's animal character designs is a largely missed opportunity. Especially in regard to a fantasy realm story setting.
I should be able to tell something unique about a character simply be glancing at their design, and my ire with Peter's characters is they all simply seem cut from the same clothe, largely ignoring the individual qualities of each animal he's chosen to make them, essentially losing the character from these characters!
And I certainly wasn't trying to, just offering my individual opinion.
mars, I can see what your saying, it is lost opportunity. My point then, I guess, is that he could be thinking something and hoping that he can work with subtle clues, but that the drawing isn't there for it to come across. Then again, I have little evidence that you aren't right.
I think I have incorrectly interpreted you're "thinking" into "not drawing". To me, it seems like peter does a lot of stewing on his characters, so I was worrying that telling him that he needs to sit down with them and think them out wont cause him to do something new, if that makes sense.
Mango, sorry I guess I merged those post together. But still, I think you're wrong. Micky mouse is derived from black face, his design is completely identical to the first early, racist as hell, talking cartoons with a little black dude sinigng. They literally just added ears and a nose, because as animation slowly grew they wanted to be less racist as hell. If you'd like some examples I can try and dig back into some of my notes on the subject. The excellence of his design has very little to do with his essence of being a mouse. Hes just simplistic and well drawn, and continued to be handled by artist with really good grasps on design and constriction, and appeal. Bugs bunny, and the other looney tunes have more animalness too them, but when you look at toons from the golden age, and you look at the version they are about to roll out, you can tell that what made them believable was more the artists understanding of form and stretching than the design itself.
mars, I can see what your saying, it is lost opportunity. My point then, I guess, is that he could be thinking something and hoping that he can work with subtle clues, but that the drawing isn't there for it to come across. Then again, I have little evidence that you aren't right.
I think I have incorrectly interpreted you're "thinking" into "not drawing". To me, it seems like peter does a lot of stewing on his characters, so I was worrying that telling him that he needs to sit down with them and think them out wont cause him to do something new, if that makes sense.
Aye, it does make sense. I'm not inferring Peter doesn't understand his characters. If anything, he does so to a fault. Where as he can look at Lily and see she is some half-panda, half-rodent girl (with a checkered past and nothing to lose!), it's because he's so close to his characters he takes this info for granted.
I, on the other hand, as an audience member and a fresh set of eyes, receive none of these clues by looking at her design. In fact, I feel like the half panda-rodent ideas aren't communicated at all in her character design, and it is instead just "Sexy Panda." If all he wanted was to draw Sexy Panda, that's fine, but I feel like it's a missed opportunity to really develop a solid visual callback for this, and other characters.
If you put Peter, Seth and Lily all in silhouette next to one another, I'd have a really hard time telling you who was who, who had what character traits and which one was the half panda-rodent. And that's really the main point I'm trying to get at.
Actually my fiance and I had dinner guests over here tonight and I wasn't able to get in here to view the thread til just now. But I think my iPhone kept refreshing the web browser in my pocket, so I guess my username kept getting orange'd each time.
But yeah... honestly I'm not exactly sure what to say at this point, other than the fact that this is all stuff I've definitely heard before (not from you, specifically, Mars -- and I didn't realize you weren't part of that Gangbunch group back in the day or I wouldn't have described it like you already knew what I was talking about). I've had to field the "why not just make them human" question/argument from people in several areas, both online and in person (particularly in a few conceptual classes I had to take at SCAD). The vast majority of these moments are peppered with questions about "furries" and the related accusations about me that you can only assume go with them. After so many times of having to explain my reasoning behind making them animals, it's just gotten to the point where it's like... you hear a question one too many times and you become conditioned to react to it a certain way. So I apologize for my hot-headedness there.
Blacksad is a brilliant series, and is essentially Human-Bodied-Animal-Heads, however, I would argue it's the creators mastery of anatomy that allows him to make that work. But more importantly, when posing the same question to Blacksad, all one needs to do is read Arctic Nation to understand and the choice is clear.
I think this is the most important point here. I cannot explain in-depth my logic or reasoning behind choosing to make them animals simply because I am not about to give away any key moments of storyline or plot in an effort to defend my decisions. All I ask is for the same courtesy here with this; if you really want to know why they're animals, at least give me a chance to tell the story before you start to question it.
And as far as my current skill levels and whatnot... I know, I'm not perfect. Hell, I know I have a crap ton of stuff wrong with my artwork. But I can't sit on my thumbs and force myself to just practice life drawings when it feels like that's all I've been doing for the past 7 years. I really am not pushing aside anyone's comments with this. Oh, and I just want to say:
pete, you'd probably get more helpful feedback if you didn't respond to it with the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA."
If you were at all familiar with how I usually take critiques from people (or even just looked back at page 1 to see how I reacted to what people had said there), you'd know you couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, it's when someone says something negative about my work that I automatically take it to heart and incorporate it into my future work. I can't see all of the flaws in my art with my own eyes; if I could, I wouldn't even bother asking other people for their feedback. Hell, if I could, I'd be some freak with artistic superpowers.
I'm going to take NightDragon's advice and just spend a day or two each week just drawing from references for figure/animal drawings. I'll pick up a new set of graphite pencils and just go to town with it. That being said, I'm going to be working on improving the areas you all discussed WHILE producing Ademar. I just don't have the time to sit on my hands with this project anymore; with the size of the overall story and the length of time I'm estimating it will take me to get it all out the door, I just don't want to risk ending up in a situation like the Wheel of Time series.
I have a lot I need to improve on if this series is going to end up looking on paper the way it does in my head.
It's been a lot to read over and respond to. Sorry 'bout that.
I do need to work on pushing their "animal" abilities further. The past couple years I've been trying to work out ways to do that to really drive the point home with their designs. I'd love for them to look less human, but coming up with a plan of action for it that doesn't make them all look like werewolves can be a bit tricky. I don't want to make them look TOO much like animals, just walking around on their hind legs; but at the same time, people running around wearing animal masks doesn't work either.
With some characters (that I haven't shown in this thread yet), I've managed to get a good look going the way I envision it... but others -- like Lily -- still end up looking more cartoony and less realistic, like Peter and the rest. I kind of like the idea of having a blend of character types (varying levels of "animal-ness" between them), but I also see the risk of having people think it's a cop-out.
I don't know. My head can't think straight at this point. Too many things to say on it.
If the characters on this page are any indication, I'm not really sure there is that big of a problem. They're flexible, simple, ideal for comic storytelling. I don't think I'd confuse any of them if they were put into a lineup. I don't know anything about the story but they definitely seem like a somewhat ragtag group of forest-y types who are prepared to defend something from someone. I can't necessarily tell what they're favourite food is, how they voted on Prop 8, or whether they could apply to Mensa, but then, these are things I expect to learn through the narrative, not the design.
I mean, someone even pointed out that even though Blacksad's designs are pretty much just animal heads on human bodies, it's really a combination of the artist's technique and the way it integrates with the narrative that makes it work. The effectiveness of Blacksad being a black panther with a white snout only becomes apparent during the course of the story being told; I don't agree that I'd completely understand the character just from looking at a static shot of him. So we all agree that animal heads on human bodies isn't necessarily the problem? So is the problem with the technique (structure, anatomy, line quality), the design (human/animal ratio, silhouette, personality recognition) or the story?
Osamu Tezuka and Miyazaki's human character designs are fairly indistinguishable, far more so than Peter's. But their storytelling is top notch. Usagi Yojimbo also comes to mind. I think Peter's designs, technique aside, are totally workable from a comic standpoint. They're animals because nature type stuff is happening, got it. I don't think I'm encouraging him to be lazy and not think about what's been said; I just believe in prioritizing, and I'd much rather see you (Peter) work on your anatomy and fling yourself into this project without worrying about whether the characters are animalistic enough. The designs will evolve as the narrative demands it;I agree that if you spend to much time refining the designs right now, you'll never get around to the story part, which is the KEY to making all of this work. Since I have no opinions on your story, I'd push for technique second, and design third. Not because I don't think you shouldn't work on it. But I think at this point, poor anatomy is far more distracting and detrimental to story than uniform design. Not to mention you need to have a pretty good grip on structure to properly utilize unique design anyway. Cart before the horse, I guess.
Again, Mars, I don't think you're wrong. But I think the amount of attention that is being placed on the designs in this thread is far outweighing its actual importance in the grand scheme of things, not to mention the fact that some of the arguments were quite confusing. You can't argue for better character design and ignore the fact that none of us know everything about the story, then give examples of great character design that rely on story to make them work! If I am to presume nothing, I must limit my critique to the anatomy, and a parting comment to the effect that you should stop reading this thread and go churn out a ton of pages. I'll be far more prepared to give accurate feedback when I know what the hell these animals are supposed to be doing in the context of, you know, events that will determine the cast's personalities through their interactions with various outer and inner forces. In other words... STORY. And then maybe I'll be in a better position to say whether the panda-rodent is too sexy or not sexy enough.
I think that your right to a degree, Automatic jack, but I think that its important that peter understands the fact that "learning anatomy" doesn't just equal tons of life drawing. Drawing from the figure is great, but you still have process that information you are learning in a way that makes sense. For me, the idea of getting peter to study more (and continually repeating John K, John k,) is that stylization isn't just a technique, its a thought process that needs good design to work. And by that I mean you can draw well and cartoon poorly and vise versa. He could grind away at studies but never really understand how to apply them to his characters, and wont see any improvement in his pages.
Even if he settles on keeping the characters more or less the same, I have rarely seen an artist hurt by doing some leg work on learning a new way to approach their work. I dont think he should stop making pages, but I don't think he should just draw a person and a dog from reference and be done with it. I think he should sort out his inspirations Like blacksad any beyond, and really think critically about the differences between one artist and another, how that applies to him, and how to improve both his dexterity, and his eye.
I never really mentioned exactly how I thought he should go about improving himself, whether through life drawing or otherwise. I suppose I'm simply advocating that however he does it, he learns on the fly. That's the nice thing about comics: They evolve over time. We're on the Penny Arcade forums, for one shining example. I think all this advice is mostly stuff artists don't really understand unless they hit critical mass, and I think hitting that point comes from being in the middle of a project, not studying or thinking about the project. There's cycles of input and output people go through, and if someone tends to overthink things, they'll probably benefit from leaving the input cycle for a while and doing some actual output. Good advice will sink in if there's soil and seed to receive it.
In all fairness, you're right jack--my crits sort of got lost in pulling in examples of this-n-that. So in an effort to clear up what I was getting at, I don't care that they are animals, nor do I really care about the history of using anthropomorphic characters, I just feel Peter (John, er, Johnathan, whatever!) isn't really pushing his individual designs far enough.
This has little to do with plot/story and more to do with individual character. Now, I realize the overall story affects the individual character, but from a largely design point of view, I shouldn't need to know about the plot in order to see whether or not a character design is working from the get go.
To put it bluntly, I fear Peter's character designs are just too similar, i.e. bland, therefore too generic and ultimately uninteresting. And I think it's mainly a tonal issue. If he wants to do a more realistic take on the characters/world, then the anatomy needs to have such a mastery behind it that I don't really notice I'm looking at animals anymore, I just sort of accept it as-is (This is what the author of Blacksad can get away with, but his mastery of the craft didn't happen overnight and frankly I wouldn't be as interested in Blacksad if his art wasn't where its at).
At the same time, I know making things overly-cartooning isn't what Peter wants, nor do I really think it's what he should do. But right now there's this nebulous tonal dichotomy between the two, neither cartoony nor realistic. Part of this tonal issue, I feel, is because Peter isn't pushing his character designs far enough. I agree making the characters human isn't the right course of action, so now that we all agree making them animals is fine, it's time to really push those animal designs a lot further than they are.
Don Bluth and Richard Williams are brilliant at doing this, whether it be an animal character like Nicodemus,
Or more "human" characters like, well, just about everyone from the Thief and the Cobbler:
All of these designs shown really push the idea of character first, and a viewer can get that without even knowing the plot. Look at that DVD cover from the Thief and the Cobbler, and try and pick out who the cobbler is and who the thief is, then try and figure out who the villain is etc, etc. Even with the Thief, who really isn't a bad guy, per se, he is designed in such a way that right off the bat the audience can see his dirty, rat-like qualities, but is still able to sympathize with him because after all, he's no villain.
Hell, pretty much everything Ben Caldwell does falls in line with this principle.
So ultimately what I'm trying to do is challenge Peter to think about his characters. When I ask "Why are they animals?", it's not to bring up the furry debate, but rather to ask why he isn't pushing more the fact they are animals, and really bring out the character in his characters.
Wow, I can't believe I've been calling you Peter this whole time, Jon... How embarrassing.
Anyway, I think this has proven to be a vivid discussion that might benefit other people wandering in here, not just the OP. There's really no debate that these are all useful thing to learn, but it is a lot to take in, so I don't have much to add at this point except "go for it!"
Posts
Since I don't know the story, I cant say if his concepts are strong, but I know that the foundation for these characters exists. The problem here, in my opinion, is dexterity. Applying concept is different than just thinking about it. I like to point to john k, because while hes an old curmudgeon, he knows the difference between design, structure, and concept. You don't have to agree with every asinine point he has, but you should be able to understand them.
Blacksad, as peter brought up earlier as inspiration, is a lot better of an example than dreamworks, I think. (If anyone doesn't know what black sad is: http://blacksad-gallery.blogspot.com/ ) Blacksad works with those ideas and applies them in different ways than Kungfu panda, more appropriate for the tone of the comic. The reason I bring it up because it has everything that people consider "furry", animal heads on people bodies, sex, creatures in couples that make no biological sense. The way its applied in this comic has a ton of character, which is undeniable if you like furres or not. But the level of drawing skill is pretty much top notch, making it so you can believe that everything about a particular animal leads in to that personality. It really has very little to do with their proportions, its about how amazingly they are drawn.
So peter, You can draw whatever you want, and you should, but you shouldn't be delusional about where your skills are. Further than that, finishing things is super important, but you cant power through weak drawing. At some point you will have to take the time to study for the sake of studying and not assume that the skills will fall into place as you draw. It will be the difference between improving at a snails pace and seeing notable jumps as the years go by. Don't let any part of your defenses blot out the good points that have been put on the table by Night dragon and Bevo, either.
edit: Oh great, this blew up while I was eating and not posting.
I'm not saying that Peter can't draw what he wants, or that his drawings should be what I want. I'm just challenging him on his design and thought process. I loves me some John K (Met him briefly last year!), and while I don't entirely agree with everything he says, when it comes to design and communicating character and personality visually, he's pretty spot on with what he has to add.
My argument for Peter is an example of that. Visually, his characters run together and that tends to make them overall bland. Even with Blacksad (which is essentially human bodies, animal heads), there is a lot of variety and personality in the designs. Much of this lends to its Noir roots, where the author is able to blend Sam Spade and a Black Panther together to create something that speaks volumes of both.
I just want to clarify everything because I remember the whole thing from TSO and think that alot of good points get rolled up in stupid shit. We are in agreement, you just opened a can of words by the way you framed your point. I don't want others to jump in with weak points because of stupid furries, Like saying that tiny toons and animaniacs are good examples. Really? I mean, I loved both series but they are both derivative of far more successful designs of earlier cartoonists, he really shouldn't be aspiring to them. Some studying needs to go on, But thats not pointing in the right direction.
I will say, however, that I do think that the problem is in the thought process. I'm not here to critique the story or script, but I think not fully utilizing the more animalistic aspects of one's animal character designs is a largely missed opportunity. Especially in regard to a fantasy realm story setting.
I should be able to tell something unique about a character simply be glancing at their design, and my ire with Peter's characters is they all simply seem cut from the same clothe, largely ignoring the individual qualities of each animal he's chosen to make them, essentially losing the character from these characters!
And I didn't mention Animaniacs or Tiny Toons.
I think I have incorrectly interpreted you're "thinking" into "not drawing". To me, it seems like peter does a lot of stewing on his characters, so I was worrying that telling him that he needs to sit down with them and think them out wont cause him to do something new, if that makes sense.
Mango, sorry I guess I merged those post together. But still, I think you're wrong. Micky mouse is derived from black face, his design is completely identical to the first early, racist as hell, talking cartoons with a little black dude sinigng. They literally just added ears and a nose, because as animation slowly grew they wanted to be less racist as hell. If you'd like some examples I can try and dig back into some of my notes on the subject. The excellence of his design has very little to do with his essence of being a mouse. Hes just simplistic and well drawn, and continued to be handled by artist with really good grasps on design and constriction, and appeal. Bugs bunny, and the other looney tunes have more animalness too them, but when you look at toons from the golden age, and you look at the version they are about to roll out, you can tell that what made them believable was more the artists understanding of form and stretching than the design itself.
Aye, it does make sense. I'm not inferring Peter doesn't understand his characters. If anything, he does so to a fault. Where as he can look at Lily and see she is some half-panda, half-rodent girl (with a checkered past and nothing to lose!), it's because he's so close to his characters he takes this info for granted.
I, on the other hand, as an audience member and a fresh set of eyes, receive none of these clues by looking at her design. In fact, I feel like the half panda-rodent ideas aren't communicated at all in her character design, and it is instead just "Sexy Panda." If all he wanted was to draw Sexy Panda, that's fine, but I feel like it's a missed opportunity to really develop a solid visual callback for this, and other characters.
If you put Peter, Seth and Lily all in silhouette next to one another, I'd have a really hard time telling you who was who, who had what character traits and which one was the half panda-rodent. And that's really the main point I'm trying to get at.
But yeah... honestly I'm not exactly sure what to say at this point, other than the fact that this is all stuff I've definitely heard before (not from you, specifically, Mars -- and I didn't realize you weren't part of that Gangbunch group back in the day or I wouldn't have described it like you already knew what I was talking about). I've had to field the "why not just make them human" question/argument from people in several areas, both online and in person (particularly in a few conceptual classes I had to take at SCAD). The vast majority of these moments are peppered with questions about "furries" and the related accusations about me that you can only assume go with them. After so many times of having to explain my reasoning behind making them animals, it's just gotten to the point where it's like... you hear a question one too many times and you become conditioned to react to it a certain way. So I apologize for my hot-headedness there.
I think this is the most important point here. I cannot explain in-depth my logic or reasoning behind choosing to make them animals simply because I am not about to give away any key moments of storyline or plot in an effort to defend my decisions. All I ask is for the same courtesy here with this; if you really want to know why they're animals, at least give me a chance to tell the story before you start to question it.
And as far as my current skill levels and whatnot... I know, I'm not perfect. Hell, I know I have a crap ton of stuff wrong with my artwork. But I can't sit on my thumbs and force myself to just practice life drawings when it feels like that's all I've been doing for the past 7 years. I really am not pushing aside anyone's comments with this. Oh, and I just want to say:
If you were at all familiar with how I usually take critiques from people (or even just looked back at page 1 to see how I reacted to what people had said there), you'd know you couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, it's when someone says something negative about my work that I automatically take it to heart and incorporate it into my future work. I can't see all of the flaws in my art with my own eyes; if I could, I wouldn't even bother asking other people for their feedback. Hell, if I could, I'd be some freak with artistic superpowers.
I'm going to take NightDragon's advice and just spend a day or two each week just drawing from references for figure/animal drawings. I'll pick up a new set of graphite pencils and just go to town with it. That being said, I'm going to be working on improving the areas you all discussed WHILE producing Ademar. I just don't have the time to sit on my hands with this project anymore; with the size of the overall story and the length of time I'm estimating it will take me to get it all out the door, I just don't want to risk ending up in a situation like the Wheel of Time series.
I have a lot I need to improve on if this series is going to end up looking on paper the way it does in my head.
I do need to work on pushing their "animal" abilities further. The past couple years I've been trying to work out ways to do that to really drive the point home with their designs. I'd love for them to look less human, but coming up with a plan of action for it that doesn't make them all look like werewolves can be a bit tricky. I don't want to make them look TOO much like animals, just walking around on their hind legs; but at the same time, people running around wearing animal masks doesn't work either.
With some characters (that I haven't shown in this thread yet), I've managed to get a good look going the way I envision it... but others -- like Lily -- still end up looking more cartoony and less realistic, like Peter and the rest. I kind of like the idea of having a blend of character types (varying levels of "animal-ness" between them), but I also see the risk of having people think it's a cop-out.
I don't know. My head can't think straight at this point. Too many things to say on it.
I mean, someone even pointed out that even though Blacksad's designs are pretty much just animal heads on human bodies, it's really a combination of the artist's technique and the way it integrates with the narrative that makes it work. The effectiveness of Blacksad being a black panther with a white snout only becomes apparent during the course of the story being told; I don't agree that I'd completely understand the character just from looking at a static shot of him. So we all agree that animal heads on human bodies isn't necessarily the problem? So is the problem with the technique (structure, anatomy, line quality), the design (human/animal ratio, silhouette, personality recognition) or the story?
Osamu Tezuka and Miyazaki's human character designs are fairly indistinguishable, far more so than Peter's. But their storytelling is top notch. Usagi Yojimbo also comes to mind. I think Peter's designs, technique aside, are totally workable from a comic standpoint. They're animals because nature type stuff is happening, got it. I don't think I'm encouraging him to be lazy and not think about what's been said; I just believe in prioritizing, and I'd much rather see you (Peter) work on your anatomy and fling yourself into this project without worrying about whether the characters are animalistic enough. The designs will evolve as the narrative demands it;I agree that if you spend to much time refining the designs right now, you'll never get around to the story part, which is the KEY to making all of this work. Since I have no opinions on your story, I'd push for technique second, and design third. Not because I don't think you shouldn't work on it. But I think at this point, poor anatomy is far more distracting and detrimental to story than uniform design. Not to mention you need to have a pretty good grip on structure to properly utilize unique design anyway. Cart before the horse, I guess.
Again, Mars, I don't think you're wrong. But I think the amount of attention that is being placed on the designs in this thread is far outweighing its actual importance in the grand scheme of things, not to mention the fact that some of the arguments were quite confusing. You can't argue for better character design and ignore the fact that none of us know everything about the story, then give examples of great character design that rely on story to make them work! If I am to presume nothing, I must limit my critique to the anatomy, and a parting comment to the effect that you should stop reading this thread and go churn out a ton of pages. I'll be far more prepared to give accurate feedback when I know what the hell these animals are supposed to be doing in the context of, you know, events that will determine the cast's personalities through their interactions with various outer and inner forces. In other words... STORY. And then maybe I'll be in a better position to say whether the panda-rodent is too sexy or not sexy enough.
Even if he settles on keeping the characters more or less the same, I have rarely seen an artist hurt by doing some leg work on learning a new way to approach their work. I dont think he should stop making pages, but I don't think he should just draw a person and a dog from reference and be done with it. I think he should sort out his inspirations Like blacksad any beyond, and really think critically about the differences between one artist and another, how that applies to him, and how to improve both his dexterity, and his eye.
This has little to do with plot/story and more to do with individual character. Now, I realize the overall story affects the individual character, but from a largely design point of view, I shouldn't need to know about the plot in order to see whether or not a character design is working from the get go.
To put it bluntly, I fear Peter's character designs are just too similar, i.e. bland, therefore too generic and ultimately uninteresting. And I think it's mainly a tonal issue. If he wants to do a more realistic take on the characters/world, then the anatomy needs to have such a mastery behind it that I don't really notice I'm looking at animals anymore, I just sort of accept it as-is (This is what the author of Blacksad can get away with, but his mastery of the craft didn't happen overnight and frankly I wouldn't be as interested in Blacksad if his art wasn't where its at).
At the same time, I know making things overly-cartooning isn't what Peter wants, nor do I really think it's what he should do. But right now there's this nebulous tonal dichotomy between the two, neither cartoony nor realistic. Part of this tonal issue, I feel, is because Peter isn't pushing his character designs far enough. I agree making the characters human isn't the right course of action, so now that we all agree making them animals is fine, it's time to really push those animal designs a lot further than they are.
Don Bluth and Richard Williams are brilliant at doing this, whether it be an animal character like Nicodemus,
Or more "human" characters like, well, just about everyone from the Thief and the Cobbler:
All of these designs shown really push the idea of character first, and a viewer can get that without even knowing the plot. Look at that DVD cover from the Thief and the Cobbler, and try and pick out who the cobbler is and who the thief is, then try and figure out who the villain is etc, etc. Even with the Thief, who really isn't a bad guy, per se, he is designed in such a way that right off the bat the audience can see his dirty, rat-like qualities, but is still able to sympathize with him because after all, he's no villain.
Hell, pretty much everything Ben Caldwell does falls in line with this principle.
So ultimately what I'm trying to do is challenge Peter to think about his characters. When I ask "Why are they animals?", it's not to bring up the furry debate, but rather to ask why he isn't pushing more the fact they are animals, and really bring out the character in his characters.
Anyway, I think this has proven to be a vivid discussion that might benefit other people wandering in here, not just the OP. There's really no debate that these are all useful thing to learn, but it is a lot to take in, so I don't have much to add at this point except "go for it!"