brooms: (shirley)
anna ([personal profile] brooms) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2011-11-26 01:22 pm

Axel Alonso spoils Avengers Academy

Axel Alonso’s comment in a recent interview on CBR, talking about diversity in Marvel characters:

Also, Striker just came out of the closet in “Avengers Academy,” and Wiccan and Hulkling continue to play a huge role in “Young Avengers/Avengers: Children’s Crusade.” I feel like I’m just getting started.”

“Just came out?” Or… about to come out? Christos Gage has been tweeting:

“Regarding Striker: Make sure to pick up AVENGERS ACADEMY #23 in a couple weeks. I’ll have a lot more to say when the story’s out!”

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Source is Bleeding Cool.
nezchan: Navis at breakfast (Default)

[personal profile] nezchan 2011-11-26 04:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Relying on dialogue to carry a scene means the art isn't good enough to do its job. It's largely an action scene, the art should have primacy here.

I could see if it were a heart-to-heart talk or something similarly intimate, but that's not what this is.
icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-11-26 04:27 pm (UTC)(link)
But the actions are perfectly clear; she walks away from him, takes off, he zaps her, she flies back and punches him. That's the action.

The WHY and the WHAT are what the writing will cover, and that's perfectly fair.
nezchan: Navis at breakfast (Default)

[personal profile] nezchan 2011-11-26 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)
There's probably less than a second between frames 1 and 2, the same between 2 and 3 the way it's laid out here (a little more between 3 and 4, I'm guessing). Somehow the bug appears out of nowhere (it's not in the medium shot that shows Striker's full surroundings), and then both the bug and the people in panel 1 vanish in a long shot that should have all of them. Where'd they go?

Julie's flight path is radically different in panels 2 and 3, even though they both seem to be for the same action. The lack of her turning to go punch Striker isn't too big a problem, but it makes the action harder to read.

Panel 2 he's leaning back, getting his right ready (this is called an "antic", and is meant to alert the audience something will happen with that hand), then in panel three he's running and firing with the opposite hand. The antic is wasted.

The structure isn't consistent either, the ring is on the wrong side in panel 3. Unless more of the structure popped into being on the far side of the ring that wasn't shown in panel 2, but that would just mean a different mistake.

In short, continuity is a mess, and undercuts the already awkward posing and anatomy, making the page harder to read. Dialogue can't save these things, and an artist shouldn't use it as a crutch in scenes where the art is supposed to be dominant.
Edited (Dang, I can't tell my hands apart) 2011-11-26 21:23 (UTC)
icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-11-26 10:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Panel 2 he's leaning back, getting his right ready (this is called an "antic", and is meant to alert the audience something will happen with that hand), then in panel three he's running and firing with the opposite hand. The antic is wasted.

Except that the "antic" appears to be for the purposes of expression; he's throwing up BOTH his hands in confusion or an "I give up on this" body language, at something that has just gone on between him and Julie, so it's done it's job, it's not wasted.

So there really is no "opposite" hand, both are in use, and in fact it;'s the one closest to Julie which does the zapping, so it makes more sense than crossing his right arm over to fire at something on his left.

Saying the ring is on the wrong side presumes you know the layout of the entire structure, which you don't (nor do we know how much was revealed about it's layout in earlier pages. I am guessing it's a large structure for flight training, so it having many rings to fly through to test accuracy and turning circle makes a whole lot of sense.
nezchan: Navis at breakfast (Default)

[personal profile] nezchan 2011-11-27 01:15 am (UTC)(link)
The one most recognizable part of the structure is the ring, which the artist establishes in panel 2. There's clearly nothing to the left of it, and she's heading to the right of it. There's a straight line between the two characters. In panel 3 there's still a straight line, she hasn't gone very far (although he's had time to go from rearing back to a full run, nice trick) and yet she's now on the opposite side of that very recognizable element. There's still a straight line between the two characters, and he hasn't moved very far, which means the ring must have got up and moved on its own.

That, my friend, is crap continuity, and just plain sloppy. Amateur quality work at best.

Oh, and I know there's very little to the left of the ring. Know why? Because the artist shows us that in panel 2.
icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-11-27 08:26 am (UTC)(link)
The one most recognizable part of the structure is the ring, which the artist establishes in panel 2

Sorry, but there two major assumptions in that one sentence. 1) that we haven't already seen this in a previous page which may establish that it has more than one ring. 2) That the ring is the SAME one in both panels, when there's nothing to suggest that's the case

Because the artist shows us that in panel 2.

Which is not the first page of the issue, nor even the first page of the scene, so the setup need not be as you are assuming it is

You may indeed be correct, but you are making a general complaint based on one out of context page, and that's premature.
nezchan: Navis at breakfast (Default)

[personal profile] nezchan 2011-11-27 04:26 pm (UTC)(link)
My assumption is grounded in the fact that the artist explicitly shows us Julie's flight path.

In panel 2 it goes from the ground towards a structure that is noticeably different from the surroundings, unique in the scene. In panel 3, according to the flight path that the artist has drawn, she hasn't gone very far from where she took off (note on the left of the panel, the path originates on the ground, and she's not that far from Striker - you'd expect her to gain ground quickly if she's flying - she's just passed an identical structure, again the only thing we've seen that looks like that. It's not unreasonable at all to expect them to be the same structure, and if the artist is treating it as if they're two different structures given the context the artist themselves laid down, then I don't consider them a good artist as far as backgrounds are concerned.

As to the first page, etc., the structure is shown coming into view (i.e., the "camera" is panning to it) on this page, so that is the context necessary. The rest of the issue is not necessary to see that continuity on this page is a mess, any more than it's necessary to see that the poses are awkward, or that she has really weird arms in the last panel. Bad comic art speaks for itself.