Rotten comics?

[JexKerome]

Then I suggest you hurry, lest the Auto Prune goblin gobbles up the thread.

I suppose I could go in and review Orbus, but seeing as it is that I did the last two reviews...

[Melody]

I'm still a few months away from 100...

I don't know why people would be afraid of criticism...

[removed] *giggles*

[JPSloan]

I think it would be more enjoyable to have a site which does mock reviews, or parody reviews, of other sites. In other words, intentionally being asinine in a way that is obviously burlesque (comedy of the absurd).

Example: "His use of flat cell shading is utterly preposterous. His lineart is obviously crying out for a charcoal hatching effect. The artist's ignorance of such a plaintive cry from his own hands is indicative of his rural upbringing..." etc...

[JexKerome]

"His use of flat cell shading is utterly preposterous. His lineart is obviously crying out for a charcoal hatching effect. The artist's ignorance of such a plaintive cry from his own hands is indicative of his rural upbringing..."

I see you found my review of Sawdust in Drunk Duck...

[JPSloan]

"His use of flat cell shading is utterly preposterous. His lineart is obviously crying out for a charcoal hatching effect. The artist's ignorance of such a plaintive cry from his own hands is indicative of his rural upbringing..."

I see you found my review of Sawdust in Drunk Duck...

Yep.

Bastard.

[McDuffies]

THE ONLY NEEDS OF A COMIC REVIEW ARE THIS:

1. Introduce a comic to people who may not have known about it otherwise.
2. Explain what may be found in the contents of the comic. Is it a gag strip, or does it require back-track reading to catch on to the story? Does it contain Furry robotic chibi anime elves? Is it stick people?
3. Describe it's merits: Is the artwork subjectively beautiful? Is the wit sharp? Is the story iron-clad? Is it interresting, even if failing these other criteria? This point is to lead people who are looking for a certain "genre" to more of the same, or fetch out the more adventurous reader. The reviewer must read the comic far enough to "see" the point being made. Not everyone likes "White Ninja", but many do. Let's not pan something just because the reviewer doesn't love it personally.
4. Lastly, where do you find it? How often does it update? Is it current, or dead?

5. To point at weak points of one's comic, which he doesn't see himself because everyone's subjective towards his own work.

Or as someone - I think it was Tchaikowsky - said: I can't lay an egg but I can reckognise a rotten one.
That's why there are good critics out there, as well as bad - not all of them are just bad artist who want to diss on people out of anvy. We shouldn't dismiss any rewiev until we've thought about it.
Not caring about your comic being rewieved is like not caring if your comic is good at all. And don't give me the "tastes differ" story because if you don't take any opinions into account, you may as well be the only one who likes your comic.
But, youj wouldn't reject CCa nomination, right? But that's practically the same thing: evaluation of your comic, maybe objective, maybe not, but just because it's hard to say which evaluation is objective and right, doesn't mean those shouldn't exist at all.

That's why I'll take any comment, critique, negative or positive, into account, and be happy.

"Reviews" are not needed so much as "spotlights". An example: Van Douchebag excaimed at length about the merits of the original pencilwork behind a comic. I fucking LOVE "Diesel Sweeties". I also like Van's work. Would I take Van's opinion at face value for comics to read?

Now let's not simplify it. Artist is a man too and has his own opinion. And sure, one has to follow his vision of a comic, and if he thinks that it's the only valid vision, that may actually do good to his comic but that doesn't mean that reader has to share the same vision. In other words, I don't see why you brought up this issue in the first place.

As for critique site, I think there should be one where you can submit your comic. I know most of us would submit it, if nothing, out of curiosity. I'm not sure whether the site should pick his own comics to review, I mean, if someone doesn't wanna be evaluated that maybe one shouldn't waste time of rewiev and possible flamewar that can come out of it - on the other hand, by making your comic public, you subject it to all kinds of opinions, and you can't stop everyone from talking about your comic - simply said, it's a public stuff now. If you don't wanna receive any comments, don't publish them at all - that's my view on subject.

[Mr Ekshin]

I disagree strongly with the idea of publicly pointing out the weaknesses of a comic. In a free medium such as this, is serves no one's purpose but the reviewers. I've not yet been blinded or dazed by stumbling onto a comic I didn't like.

If you wish to offer criticism's of a comic's weak points, I suggest you e-mail such things directly to the artist involved. They might even be happy to get it. Let me know how that goes.

Critiques tend to be offered from the safe soapbox of a review site. This only serves to give the reviewer a support system of friends to provide a back-bone in situations where they would be otherwise lacking.

I believe that it's better to simply point out nifty strips that others might not know about.

People had to get off their butts to go to the opera. These days, we stay planted and entertainment is a mouse click away. It should make the environment less harsh.

Also, I honestly don't know what a CCa nomination is. I'll have to look that up now. Thanks for making me have to work.

[McDuffies]

I disagree strongly with the idea of publicly pointing out the weaknesses of a comic. In a free medium such as this, is serves no one's purpose but the reviewers. I've not yet been blinded or dazed by stumbling onto a comic I didn't like.

I don't think it's good or bad, I think it's natural way of things. If you were a sculptor and made into a gallery, you'd have papers all over criticising your work - I mean in the widest meaning of "criticising", whether it's good or bad. Why should webcomic artists be privileged in that way? Because they do it for free? I don't think it's a good reason, being payed or not is technicality but you can be as proffesional about your webcomic as any payed artist.

If you wish to offer criticism's of a comic's weak points, I suggest you e-mail such things directly to the artist involved. They might even be happy to get it. Let me know how that goes.

Fair enough.

Critiques tend to be offered from the safe soapbox of a review site. This only serves to give the reviewer a support system of friends to provide a back-bone in situations where they would be otherwise lacking.

Depends, from case to case. I believe in healthy competition and that sites like those won't live long and be appreciated, on account of those sides which offer fair rewieves (such sites maybe aren't easy to make, but it's possible). Or at the end, they would be like P*****, popular out of controversy, as soon as controversy is gone, they're gone too.
I admitt, such appearances polute webcomics circles (anyone remembers "webcomic manifesto?") but as I said, no reason to throw the entire bag of apples because there's a few rotten ones.

[Toxic]

There are review sites out there, but there's something MUCH better coming down the pike.

Stay tuned, citizens.

Anticipation. Neat!

[JPSloan]

There are review sites out there, but there's something MUCH better coming down the pike.

Stay tuned, citizens.

Anticipation. Neat!

"Scix? They say he's terrrribly mysterious."

"Yeah, and he can cut guns in half with his mind!"