That's a rather popular opinion. The arts often criticized. It grew on me but then again I kinda like that manga bullshit stylization.
I find the comic entertaining. Wish it'd get along with the mc finishing any goddamn goal before some new great monstrous plan goals at her. But at this point that's the entertainment for me is how ridiculous everything keeps going against her.
Unpopular opinion, but I think the art is mediocre so I never bothered to check it out.
>That's a rather popular opinion.
Fricking how? Takeda's art is pretty as hell with some pretty top notch aesthetics and designs to boot. Why would anyone criticize the fricking art of all things? The problem is that everything else that's just sort of average.
Idk I've seen it often online. The few times I've seen a thread about monstress plenty will say the art sucks. The overuse of hatching or manga style or furry art in general.
Again personally I like the art style. I think it works for the story especially. But it's definitely been popular to shit on. I recall reading the artist notes that she had difficulty getting published because they didn't like her art style compared to traditional American comics style. I don't think hers is that odd but I can get how she'd get told to just go do manga in Japan.
>The overuse of hatching or manga style or furry art in general.
Actual nonsense.
I can imagine how she might've had trouble if she was trying to get work with the Big 2 though she did end up working with Marvel for a bit so who knows.
Oh for sure. It's got brown lesbians and plenty for pol bait to spam. Mostly female cast but given there's enough fetish fuel and gore and violence it could be the next arcana easy.
Arcane was good though. This would be the next Dragonage. Maybe Castlevania.
That's a rather popular opinion. The arts often criticized. It grew on me but then again I kinda like that manga bullshit stylization.
I find the comic entertaining. Wish it'd get along with the mc finishing any goddamn goal before some new great monstrous plan goals at her. But at this point that's the entertainment for me is how ridiculous everything keeps going against her.
not mid
the dark subject matter is similar to a remender story, the art is fantastic
>mediocre
those are certainly words. you will never be a better artist, you probably couldn't even come half as close even if you spent decades trying to be an artist yourself
>The overuse of hatching or manga style or furry art in general.
Actual nonsense.
I can imagine how she might've had trouble if she was trying to get work with the Big 2 though she did end up working with Marvel for a bit so who knows.
[...]
Arcane was good though. This would be the next Dragonage. Maybe Castlevania.
Firstly, I really don't like digital art.
It has this unfinished look overall. The sketchy digital ink strokes, all those of extra digital effects that muddle the art for whatever reason, and even little things like the transparent outlines on the characters, all of this bothers me. The faces aren't that great. Not very expressive.
The colors, which are kind of drab pseudo-earth tones, also bother me.
I know I'm being a huge snob, but that's how I feel about it.
Aside from the unexpeessive faces I think literally all that stuff is great. I love soft pencil lines with how much things bleed into eachother especially with how many characters have flowing robes and hair. And it compliments the coloring giving it an overall impressionistic vibe and adds energy. I enjoy it on the architecture too, lots of little lines giving the impression of detail that isn't really there. It's doing more with less and it's very good.
The idea that art needs to be hard edges and solid ink is a dogshit take to behonest. And "earthtones bad because ???" is another dogshit take.
>with how much things bleed into eachother especially with how many characters have flowing robes and hair
That's what color and hard lines are for. It's not even a problem where there aren't any.
If it's meant an aura of power, then I get it, but I don't like how it looks.
The architecture, as far as I've seen, is among the most disappointing. The sketchy digital ink strokes, the way Sana Takeda does it, looks like shit. Not sure if it's the perspective that's fricked, or the scale, or both, or some other combination of factors. I've seen sketchy architecture that I love (Nicolas de Crecy is a favorite), but this one's just not good. >lots of little lines giving the impression of detail that isn't really there. It's doing more with less
I don't think so. The little lines work with the blotchy coloring and all the additional effects. There's a lot going on most of the time. Too much. >The idea that art needs to be hard edges and solid ink >And "earthtones bad because ???"
As I outlined at the top of my other post, my problem is the digital. It simply looks bad on this book, again, as far as I've seen. The fake earth tones look ugly and dull instead of modestly evoking nature.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>That's what color and hard lines are for.
I'm saying that I like that the lines are soft and that the colors bleed. It's cool.
And I don't know why you keep saying "digitial" as though that's relevant to the technique in her linework. Yeah its fast and imprecise because that's exactly just how artists work when creating the illusion of detail especially when strapped for time. If you're talking about the particular page you just posted and the city any the distance looks messy. Yeah that's because it's in the fricking distance. What is atmospheric perspective?
And what are "fake" earthtones? It's a simple subdued pallette. Not every place on earth is vibrant and popping. Just ask ohio.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you keep saying "digitial" as though that's relevant to the technique in her linework
It's extremely relevant. Not only how it looks, but also the level of control the artist has.
The time constraints are a given, but it's no excuse, really. Look at the lazily applied mist on this page. >Yeah that's because it's in the fricking distance. What is atmospheric perspective?
That's not the case. It's close enough and it looks off. I'd probably have to start draw lines and rhomboids or something. >It's a simple subdued pallette. Not every place on earth is vibrant and popping. Just ask ohio.
The colors are dull, that's all. Even the Ohio desert on a cloudy day is a beauty to behold.
That I'm going off on it so much already probably means I'll never like it.
the dark subject matter is similar to a remender story, the art is fantastic
>mediocre
those are certainly words. you will never be a better artist, you probably couldn't even come half as close even if you spent decades trying to be an artist yourself
Too bad "dark subject matter" isn't enough to make me feel any sort of emotion. The MC is so fricking boring all she does is cycle between desperate and angry with the plot constantly lurching from one thing to the next. I appreciate a briskly paced adventure but it hardly leaves any time for character building or relationship building with the nobody side characters so every time shit hits the fan I barely give a shit. And characters who hardly ever did anything getting murdered in shocking ways gets old after the 4th or 5th time.
>i don't feel emotions
okay then you will always be unsatisfied with whatever you watch or read or do
>no time for character building
well you aren't reading it then. now that i think of it, there is an emotion you do feel, and it's boredom because you're just posting on this board because you have literally nothing else going on in your life
[...]
[...]
[...]
Firstly, I really don't like digital art.
It has this unfinished look overall. The sketchy digital ink strokes, all those of extra digital effects that muddle the art for whatever reason, and even little things like the transparent outlines on the characters, all of this bothers me. The faces aren't that great. Not very expressive.
The colors, which are kind of drab pseudo-earth tones, also bother me.
I know I'm being a huge snob, but that's how I feel about it.
>unfinished
okay you do more. are you even an artist?
>i'm being a huge snob but that's how i feel
no shit. maybe ask the artist of monstress how long it takes her and see if you can do better in less time, snob
"you do better" is certainly a more thoughtful response than "i don't like it because i'm a snob"
I hope I don't post shit this cringey when I was 14. Your posts feel weirdly nostalgic so I feel like I must've. Goddamn.
>ermagerd cringey
you still sound like a 14 year old, sweetheart
9 months ago
Anonymous
>"you do better" is certainly a more thoughtful response than "i don't like it because i'm a snob"
It really isn't. It's purely knee-jerk and ultimately irrelevant.
The other anon is right, you're being bratty. Are you a teenage girl? This website is not for your eyes.
Oh for sure. It's got brown lesbians and plenty for pol bait to spam. Mostly female cast but given there's enough fetish fuel and gore and violence it could be the next arcana easy.
Unpopular opinion, but I think the art is mediocre so I never bothered to check it out.
That's a rather popular opinion. The arts often criticized. It grew on me but then again I kinda like that manga bullshit stylization.
I find the comic entertaining. Wish it'd get along with the mc finishing any goddamn goal before some new great monstrous plan goals at her. But at this point that's the entertainment for me is how ridiculous everything keeps going against her.
>That's a rather popular opinion.
Fricking how? Takeda's art is pretty as hell with some pretty top notch aesthetics and designs to boot. Why would anyone criticize the fricking art of all things? The problem is that everything else that's just sort of average.
Idk I've seen it often online. The few times I've seen a thread about monstress plenty will say the art sucks. The overuse of hatching or manga style or furry art in general.
Again personally I like the art style. I think it works for the story especially. But it's definitely been popular to shit on. I recall reading the artist notes that she had difficulty getting published because they didn't like her art style compared to traditional American comics style. I don't think hers is that odd but I can get how she'd get told to just go do manga in Japan.
>The overuse of hatching or manga style or furry art in general.
Actual nonsense.
I can imagine how she might've had trouble if she was trying to get work with the Big 2 though she did end up working with Marvel for a bit so who knows.
Arcane was good though. This would be the next Dragonage. Maybe Castlevania.
Firstly, I really don't like digital art.
It has this unfinished look overall. The sketchy digital ink strokes, all those of extra digital effects that muddle the art for whatever reason, and even little things like the transparent outlines on the characters, all of this bothers me. The faces aren't that great. Not very expressive.
The colors, which are kind of drab pseudo-earth tones, also bother me.
I know I'm being a huge snob, but that's how I feel about it.
Aside from the unexpeessive faces I think literally all that stuff is great. I love soft pencil lines with how much things bleed into eachother especially with how many characters have flowing robes and hair. And it compliments the coloring giving it an overall impressionistic vibe and adds energy. I enjoy it on the architecture too, lots of little lines giving the impression of detail that isn't really there. It's doing more with less and it's very good.
The idea that art needs to be hard edges and solid ink is a dogshit take to behonest. And "earthtones bad because ???" is another dogshit take.
>with how much things bleed into eachother especially with how many characters have flowing robes and hair
That's what color and hard lines are for. It's not even a problem where there aren't any.
If it's meant an aura of power, then I get it, but I don't like how it looks.
The architecture, as far as I've seen, is among the most disappointing. The sketchy digital ink strokes, the way Sana Takeda does it, looks like shit. Not sure if it's the perspective that's fricked, or the scale, or both, or some other combination of factors. I've seen sketchy architecture that I love (Nicolas de Crecy is a favorite), but this one's just not good.
>lots of little lines giving the impression of detail that isn't really there. It's doing more with less
I don't think so. The little lines work with the blotchy coloring and all the additional effects. There's a lot going on most of the time. Too much.
>The idea that art needs to be hard edges and solid ink
>And "earthtones bad because ???"
As I outlined at the top of my other post, my problem is the digital. It simply looks bad on this book, again, as far as I've seen. The fake earth tones look ugly and dull instead of modestly evoking nature.
>That's what color and hard lines are for.
I'm saying that I like that the lines are soft and that the colors bleed. It's cool.
And I don't know why you keep saying "digitial" as though that's relevant to the technique in her linework. Yeah its fast and imprecise because that's exactly just how artists work when creating the illusion of detail especially when strapped for time. If you're talking about the particular page you just posted and the city any the distance looks messy. Yeah that's because it's in the fricking distance. What is atmospheric perspective?
And what are "fake" earthtones? It's a simple subdued pallette. Not every place on earth is vibrant and popping. Just ask ohio.
>you keep saying "digitial" as though that's relevant to the technique in her linework
It's extremely relevant. Not only how it looks, but also the level of control the artist has.
The time constraints are a given, but it's no excuse, really. Look at the lazily applied mist on this page.
>Yeah that's because it's in the fricking distance. What is atmospheric perspective?
That's not the case. It's close enough and it looks off. I'd probably have to start draw lines and rhomboids or something.
>It's a simple subdued pallette. Not every place on earth is vibrant and popping. Just ask ohio.
The colors are dull, that's all. Even the Ohio desert on a cloudy day is a beauty to behold.
That I'm going off on it so much already probably means I'll never like it.
not mid
the dark subject matter is similar to a remender story, the art is fantastic
>mediocre
those are certainly words. you will never be a better artist, you probably couldn't even come half as close even if you spent decades trying to be an artist yourself
Too bad "dark subject matter" isn't enough to make me feel any sort of emotion. The MC is so fricking boring all she does is cycle between desperate and angry with the plot constantly lurching from one thing to the next. I appreciate a briskly paced adventure but it hardly leaves any time for character building or relationship building with the nobody side characters so every time shit hits the fan I barely give a shit. And characters who hardly ever did anything getting murdered in shocking ways gets old after the 4th or 5th time.
>i don't feel emotions
okay then you will always be unsatisfied with whatever you watch or read or do
>no time for character building
well you aren't reading it then. now that i think of it, there is an emotion you do feel, and it's boredom because you're just posting on this board because you have literally nothing else going on in your life
>unfinished
okay you do more. are you even an artist?
>i'm being a huge snob but that's how i feel
no shit. maybe ask the artist of monstress how long it takes her and see if you can do better in less time, snob
>you do better
This is never a good argument.
"you do better" is certainly a more thoughtful response than "i don't like it because i'm a snob"
>ermagerd cringey
you still sound like a 14 year old, sweetheart
>"you do better" is certainly a more thoughtful response than "i don't like it because i'm a snob"
It really isn't. It's purely knee-jerk and ultimately irrelevant.
The other anon is right, you're being bratty. Are you a teenage girl? This website is not for your eyes.
I hope I don't post shit this cringey when I was 14. Your posts feel weirdly nostalgic so I feel like I must've. Goddamn.
Sometimes I think if Monstress got turned into an animated series the cartoon side of Cinemaphile would eat it up
Oh for sure. It's got brown lesbians and plenty for pol bait to spam. Mostly female cast but given there's enough fetish fuel and gore and violence it could be the next arcana easy.
nice art