What douse /co/ think of Lumberjanes?

>>93493038
The tall girl is a trap

obviously shit

>>93493038
Tumblr: The Comic

>>93494117

This!

We had a storytime or two.

Two things: The story had ZERO sense of tension. All problems, biggest or smallest were set up and then resolved the next page.

Also, all of it's set pieces were jacked hardcore from other works, mostly mainstream action movies. Jurassic park, goonies, indiana jones, ect.

Neither of those are dealbreakers, but the net effect is bland as fuck. A very different thing than say, offensively bad.

I would consider it a good choice for a 6 year old girl with a weak constitution.

>>93493038
Shit art, shit story, shit characters. It getting not one, but two Eisners has pretty much destroyed any credibility of the award.

>>93493038
It's a fine. A pleasant, if low tempo read that doesn't get the adrenaline going. More of a lazy afternoon read, something for those days when it's a soft, steady rain outside. Not an action comic.

>>93494693
Note that femanon here describes the book more in the sense of the emotional mood of the reader and barely touches the attributes of the work itself. Not that anon is wrong, mind you.

>>93494642
It was definitly a turning point for the eisners. Best New series should always be super competitive, with at least a dozen new good titles a year.

And the creators have responded, by trippling down on the shit they though makes Lumberjanes work. And the voters have rewarded them. Lumberjanes is a boring mediocrity. But it's still miles above Mockingbird. And I think Squirrel Girl is up to 3 nominations now?

It's an inoffensive comic that doesn't do anything remotely interesting but isn't terrible either. As a slice of life it's "okay" but it feels like it wants to be more but then immediately gives up.

>>93494969
>But it's still miles above Mockingbird
How? They're both equally shit IMO, but at least Mockingbird has half-decent art and a few mildly average issues.

>>93494969
>Note that femanon here describes the book more in the sense of the emotional mood of the reader and barely touches the attributes of the work itself.

There's literally nothing wrong with that, not everyone is interested in the mechanical workings of a work nor should they be necessarily.

>>93493038
I read one issue of it when it got storytimed here once, and all I remember is that it kept breaking the 180 degree rule for no reason and that there was lots of annoying Adventure Time non-swearing like "what the junk".
I still can't believe that someone got paid to draw that godawful cover art.

Why the hell do they look like fishes?

>>93495217
then your opinion is worthless.

>>93495405
>you a shit
no you a shit

>>93493038
It's hot garbage, and so is every title under the BOOM! Box imprint...except Giant Days. That's really the only thing of merit.

>>93494117
which is why we must make filthy filthy porn out of it

>>93493091
That's not supposed to look like a male in universe?

>>93496052
Idaknow, I kinda liked Klaus. Grant Morrison on script and Dan Mora on art really create something cool and surreal.
Is Box imprint something different?

>>93494569
>The story had ZERO sense of tension. All problems, biggest or smallest were set up and then resolved the next page.

That doesn't sound good. Any examples?

I read the crossover with Gotham Academy.
The redhead was cute, and the blonde with the raccoon on her head was alright.

I read Gotham Academy.
Is the crossover worth reading and or buying?

File: 331525._SX1280_QL80_TTD_[1].jpg (236KB, 1073x1650px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1073x1650px

>>93497213
>Is Box imprint something different?
Yes. They've got BOOM! Studios, which is their basic line, which is what Klaus was printed under. Then Kaboom! which is mostly their kids licenses line, like Adventure Time and Bee and Puppycat. BOOM! Box has shit like Lumberjanes and pic related.

>>93495217
>There's literally nothing wrong with that, not everyone is interested in the mechanical workings of a work nor should they be necessarily.
How can you not judge a work of art or writing at least partially under mechanical terms?

File: disgust.gif (925KB, 212x176px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 212x176px

>>93498697
>heart pupils
>bean mouth
>messed up teeth
>stocky body type
>ambiguously brown
>shit face shading
>basic geometric shape anatomy
>piercings
>hair dye
>"punk" clothing
Jesus Christ, this one ticks almost all the boxes

File: le adventure time catchphrase.jpg (149KB, 490x830px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 490x830px

>>93498063
late response but it would be lame shit like "the girls go into a tomb, then some statue wakes up and starts chasing them, then one of the girls would challenge it to an armwrestle and win easily", that kind of thing.

It was just not all that interesting, and considering how often people throw around the phrase "it's for kids!" in its defense, somewhat insulting. Kids eat tension and cliffhangers up.

>>93499909
Because that would prevent a large mass of people from putting forth work. In this day and age, with publication technology the way it is, there is no reason to judge things other than how they affect your emotions. In the past, when it was more resource intensive to publish and distribute printed works, you wanted only the *best*, but now we don't have to adhere to arbitrary standards.

>>93500500
That's the complete opposite of how you should respond to the over influx of media being produced. Because there is now so much current stuff being created, in addition to the piles of consumable material already here, then I ain't got no kind of time for mediocrity. I'll be lucky to ingest all the good stuff in my lifetime, so I'm not wasting any of my time on garbage that isn't renowned for one reason or another.

File: you dense motherfucker.gif (1MB, 193x135px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 193x135px

>>93500500
>Because that would prevent a large mass of people from putting forth work.
How? Because they can't bear to see their work judged critically?
>In this day and age, with publication technology the way it is, there is no reason to judge things other than how they affect your emotions.
Judging something purely on your emotions is never a good idea dipshit.
>In the past, when it was more resource intensive to publish and distribute printed works, you wanted only the *best*, but now we don't have to adhere to arbitrary standards.
Yeah, they were called "standards". There's nothing arbitrary about shit anatomy, shit composition, shit coloring, and shittily written dialogue. You're the type of person that made Jackson Pollock's bullshit popular.

File: noelle.png (41KB, 599x773px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 599x773px

>>93493038
the creator is a crazy sjw woman
she once harassed the SU crew about having a male protag instead of a female one

>>93500813
Somebody give this woman some Pamelor.

File: villianous guffawing.gif (795KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 800x450px

>>93496991
Hetero porn!

File: 1487921429309.jpg (102KB, 712x719px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 712x719px

>>93500911
SHAD PORN

>>93500779
Art is supposed to elicit an emotional response; so I don't see why judging art on emotions isn't good. There isn't anything wrong with Jackson Pollock's work. If we kept people from publishing just because their work doesn't meet your 'standards', it keeps you from seeing what it is they have to offer you. Expand your fucking horizons some.

>>93493038
I think it is fine for young kids. It would go nicely alongside Steven Universe on CN.

>>93501163
>Art is supposed to elicit an emotional response
That is just one fucking aspect of art you goddamn plebian. Defining or judging art by only one single metric is fucking stupid, especially considering just how varied the very concept of art can be. As for Pollock, he was a drunk hack that could only manage to do paint splotches because he was so damn wasted all the time and the single reason he became famous was because of a pretentious art community who literally couldn't tell the difference between his "art" and that of a chimpanzee's.

>>93493038
I like it. I concede that some of the various artists aren't very good, but the writing is solid and the characters have been the most enjoyable part of it.

>>93494569
Call it bland all you want, buddy, that's your opinion but claiming they stole all their set pieces from Goonies and JP, and Indiana Jones et. all is righteous bullshit. For one thing, Spielberg got HIS inspiration from Scrooge McDuck comics, and second, what the fuck were they supposed to find out in the woods of a magical forest if not ancient temples and dungeons and giant mythical monsters? Jesus...

File: 1468568261660.jpg (621KB, 750x968px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 750x968px

>>93501163
>the fucking state of modern art

Art historically is about communicating something, typically greater than yourself, to impart knowledge, wisdom, and perspective. Through tradition over hundreds of thousands of years, we've been able to find the most effective ways of doing so with enough room to still improve.

The entire argument of "art should provoke emotion" isn't meant for good feels, it's supposed to describe art that makes you mad or weirded out or alienated but you don't know why, so you analyze it and the topics around it to grow an understanding of the world beyond yourself.

This is precisely why the kind of art that is lumberjacks is mediocre, it only thinks in terms of what makes the individual content and complacent and happy. It adds nothing to your life but noise, it is objective waste of time better suited for more creative pursuits. It's hedonistic and soulless, and I urge you to reconsider your tastes.

File: 1473839206973.jpg (297KB, 634x477px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 634x477px

>>93501389
>cliches are good

Are you even hearing yourself? Why the fuck would a northwestern forest have any of that shit? It's not a jungle.

Twin peaks managed to make a boring ass northwestern small town have interesting shit without rellying on cliches like that.

Seriously, you could have some native American spooks, skinwalkers, those legends about staircases mysteriously standing in the middle of nowhere, Bigfoot and woodland aliens, bring to light some of those conspiracies about people disappearing deep in the woods. Have dudes Inna woods being creepy. None of these are particularly original but they fit the fucking setting, you know?

Now if you actually apply some creativity you could have something original that also takes from these things, or something that abandons it outright for something original, but nigga what the fuck do dungeons and temples have to do with northwestern summer camp forests?

>>93501467
This.

>>93501582
They beat up three-eyed foxes in the first issue in a fist fight and Sasquatches and yetis are regularly appearing cryptids in the comic. Mermaids live in the lake and have rock band battles, and a few giant ass birds once stole the head counselors. A werewolf sailor and some selkies put aside their differences to go sail a boat around the world. Apollo and Artemis appear as antagonists and "Zeus is an asshole" is a legit explanation for some of the things protagonists dealt with. A girl wished for alot of kitties and magical laser flying cats now frequent the camp.

You don't get to say "such and such" doesn't fit the setting like that. The series has a frantic but good humored chaotic nature and it doesn't dip from one single source of mythology or legends; it uses whatever the fucking hell it wants and I don't see what the problem is if the writers wanna play ball that way. They don't HAVE to use only North american mythology/legends/cryptids.

God damn,

>>93493038
Is this by that girl ftom Hark A Vagrant

>>93501467
This is the age of hedonism. Why should I not indulge myself with comforting noise? I indulge in everything else. None of that keeps me from producing creative art and putting it out there for others to consume.

File: 1369502524602.jpg (49KB, 300x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x392px

>>93501467
>he entire argument of "art should provoke emotion" isn't meant for good feels

That so wrong..it really hurts me.... please stop.

Throughout the 18th and 19th century several trends in literature and art, including romanticism focused not on negative emotions, but rather the pursuit and exaltation of beauty. This could be beauty in nature or the human form, but positive emotions like pleasure and awe were essential to this view.

you may prefer art that was created for a different purpose, but your core assumptions are wrong.

>>93501817
No, Noelle Stevenson (did Nimona, if you remember Nimona)

File: 1491334345528.gif (1MB, 480x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x240px

>>93501845
What's pleasurable for you now isn't inherently pleasurable for you later.

When you spend your life partaking in hedonistic self indulgent media with no interest in the profound or transcendent, you become a bendis, or any other of those shitty marvel writers thst can only write through a pop culture lens. That's not the path of an artist, that's the path of a media fanboy. No different than pedophilic otaku.

>>93501779
It does it in such a hackneyed way though that even the incomprehensibility isn't communicated well. It's not an intentional mess, it's just a mess, with no flow, no motiff, no reason to be.

You literally don't gain anything from investing time into it that you couldn't gain from doing something more productive, so why waste time with it? It clearly doesn't respect your time to begin with.

>>93501878
I agree. But this isn't romanticism we're talking about, this isn't something meant to illicit the highest of positive emotions. It's meant to illicit mediocre emotions. It can't use the argument of "its, like, meant to evoke feelings, man" if it does a shitty job of it, and is using the wording for the argument that actually justifies uncomfortable taboo art instead of romanticism art.

It doesn't justify it's own existancd, and you have bad taste because you're trying to justify it existing, rather than discussing any real merits the book has, any glimpses of knowledge or beauty it has provided. Because it doesnt.

It's nosie, white noise meant for children, made by adult women who might as well be Mal adjusted children, which can only be enjoyed by other children and poorly developed man children.

You're a Peter pan and you should be fucking ashamed of your terrible tastes.

>>93493038
The drawing style is "angular adventure time" and that bothers me. From a thumbnail it looks good so the designs could be salvaged at least if it were drawn in a different style.

I don't know anything about it though.

>>93501160
Damn, can you imagine what would happen if someone started shit between Shadman and Tumbler? It'd be the guy who offends everyone to cover for being a bad artist versus the people who get offended by everything to cover for being bad artists.

>>93501467
emotions are a thing that can be communicated.

A piece of music, no lyrics, is there to communicate an emotion. It can be a positive emotion or a negative one. Comics, movies, books etc. are no different.

File: goonies_piano+bones[1].png (314KB, 1000x416px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1000x416px

>>93495217
>There's literally nothing wrong with that, not everyone is interested in the mechanical workings of a work nor should they be necessarily.

People's emotional response is so subjective that being that far removed from the work itself is practically fucking useless to anyone else. It's one step below someone calling Gwenpool Cute or comfy.

>>93501160
He's the villan we need. And possibly the one we deserve.

>>93501163
You're one step beyond post modernisim there. You aren't judging the work at all. You're just vaguely describing your emotional reaction to the work.

>>93501389
>claiming they stole all their set pieces from Goonies and JP, and Indiana Jones et. all is righteous bullshit.

The reason why I mention those movies is that they're lifting shit right down to the frame composition. And that in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And take it as a whole. Combine complete retreads of shit that the pulp age did before, with a complete inability to execute a proper cliffhanger, and you get bland mash.

It's why I think it's better for the very young, as your average 5 year old isn't going to have read the Banks duck stories, or the better works that it draws from