November 25th, 2012, 9:00 am

Average Rating: 5.00
Author's Comments:

Reply Wolfie_Inu, November 25th, 2012, 9:25 am

Welcome to Art Fail, Population: Wolfie.

Jane se geweer het nie gekrimp nie. Ongelukkig was dit laas week te groot, omdat ek die verhoudings uitgewerk het asof dit in profiel was (pleks van in perspektief). Dis nou reg. Ek leer nog bietjie hoe om die modelle en sketse te kombineer.

Jane's gun did not shrink. Unfortunately it was too large last week, because I worked out the relative sizes as if the gun was in profile (instead of in perspective). It's correct now. I'm still learning how to combine the models and sketches.


Jane: (thinks) The Om-Ankh ship landed over there somewhere ... wait, I think I see it ...

Jane: (thinks) Yes, there it is ... and it's taking off again already, but it's leaving a building of some sort behind ... maybe a temporary base ... / There are a few ... beings ... standing by the door ...

Jane: (thinks) I have to assess their weaponry and readiness ... dangerous, but it won't help to wait ... let's kick the anthill and see what happens ... / But ... wait a bit ... that's -

Reply Advertisement, May 24th, 2019, 9:04 am

User's Comments:

Reply GabrielsThoughts, November 25th, 2012, 10:43 am

Actually, if you wanted to keep the gun the same size you could have used the unusual size and kickback of the gun for some slapstick fun.

She wouldn't have been able to use the scope and her hand would probably be on the magazine. Her trying to figure out how to use it as something other than a club would have added a bit of comedy and error.

I'm not a gun user, but I would assume that being able to sharp shoot a pistol and sniping someone with a rifle are separate skill sets.

Not to mention, since we have no way of knowing how or what type of weapon that is, you could just as easily be setting up Jane to burn her hand on the barrel the way Scarface(a movie/villain) did...

P.S. You might like this, but I have no way of knowing for sure...
...2:10 has some sage advice.

Reply Wolfie_Inu, November 25th, 2012, 1:57 pm

@GabrielsThoughts: ... yeah, but comedy is not what I'm going for ...

Edit: Heh, I like the video. I saw it before (and the one about the lady who cooks, and the Mr Rogers one) though it probably loses something for me because I'm not familiar with the TV personalities involved. As for the advice, do you mean that I can go on and on and on (2:10) or that there are no mistakes, only happy accidents (2:15)? :P

Either way I like the gun the way it is now, I'm just explaining why it was oversized last week. I actually have incorporated a lot of missteps in the comic so far, mostly involving plot, but also in the art. In fact, the gun being the size that it is is a mistake in the first place, because (like the real gun on which it is based) it was supposed to be 84cm long, or about 4" longer than half Jane's height (5'). Right now it's about 150cm long, or as long as Jane is tall, because after mistakenly making it too large, I thought that would be more interesting that way. But making it larger than it is now would cause shenanigans when Jane tries to interact with it, and I want to keep the plot going so I'm just leaving it fixed as it is now.

Thanks for the suggestion though, it's good to think about these things on a more conscious level by explaining them to someone else :)

Reply GabrielsThoughts, November 25th, 2012, 2:56 pm


2:15 in the song is partway between the full statement. I would have said 2:12 but I figured the whole section about making happy accidents out of mistakes was a good one.

I also read the other parts of what you wrote. I found it interesting that the weapons are based on Om-Ankh physiology.

Reply Wolfie_Inu, November 25th, 2012, 2:58 pm

@GabrielsThoughts: Fair enough ;)

Also: wait, weapons based on Om-Ankh physiology? I think they'd be a good fit for any generic humanoid about human size ...

Reply Lavabat (Guest), November 29th, 2012, 1:28 am

@Wolfie_Inu: Here is something I have been wondering for a while - what do the dog-people call themselves collectively?

Reply Wolfie_Inu, November 29th, 2012, 6:42 am

@Lavabat: They're the Khanites, we're the Om-Ankh. In the real world, Afrikaans doesn't have a name for humans beyond "mense" (people), mostly because we haven't encountered any other sapient species. But you also couldn't say that members of other sapient species aren't people. Therefore, referring to your own species to the exclusion of all others isn't really possible in Afrikaans at the moment.

But considering that the Khanites have encountered us and remember doing so, they occasionally refer to themselves by their species name (n. "Khaniet", pl. "Khaniete", adj. "Khaniese") even in normal conversation. Afrikaans-speaking Om-Ankh would do the same (n.+pl. "Om-Ankh", adj. "Om-Ankhse").

Reply Lavabat (Guest), November 30th, 2012, 7:29 pm

@Wolfie_Inu: Thanks for the explanation. :)

Reply Adagio, December 6th, 2012, 3:25 am

DHF Ek't jou raad gevolg en die nuwe DHF CD gekoop. Dit is UITSTEKEND! En dit klink op een of ander manier beter nou dat ek weet ek het dit gekoop en nie van TPB afgelaai het nie...

Reply Wolfie_Inu, December 7th, 2012, 11:29 am

@Adagio: Goeie move, en ja dis nogal so ne? Dis asof die kennis dat jy 'n legitieme kopiƩ het, dit net op 'n manier maak beter klink :)

Reply Lavabat (Guest), December 10th, 2012, 3:12 am

@Wolfie_Inu: I foresee Louwrens being the one Jane has spotted. This will be interesting!

Post A Comment

Verlore Geleentheid