💼 Careercow Andrew Dobson (aka Tom Preston)

Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
wtf?

- ̗̀Amiibear ̖́- @ADobsonComics Twitter (64).png
 
UglyOldJafar dijo:
The worst thing about all that: When DobNet finally takes on a physical form, it will probably look like David Tennant, as that is Dobson's favorite Doctor.
Presiona para expandir...

Well of course it is!

Still, I suppose our rival AI built by a CattyN 1000 model that's part of a faction of machines that just wants peace and looks like the British female lead singer of a band from the 90's (Louise Wener bot anyone?) can resemble Malcolm Tucker...

Ass Manager 3000 dijo:
wtf?

Ver archivo adjunto 44766
Presiona para expandir...

Good God Dobson, just because we mock your inflation fetish doesn't mean we want to see your other sexual fantasies!
 
TatsunoKuri dijo:
Google provided me with some comic full of sapphic crap and lesbians. Honestly, I don't get the connection either.
Presiona para expandir...

Like CWC, Dobson also indulges in random access humor.

Another tweet
- ̗̀Amiibear ̖́- @ADobsonComics Twitter (67).png


Text from article

IN DEFENSE OF FANTASY
Every few years, comics gets a new set of buzzwords that are meant to sort of self-immolate anything that has the appearance of being silly or childish or even whimsical.

Warren Ellis, who is one of my great writing heroes, is a master at this, he came up with ‘pervert suits’ for superheroes (never mind that there have been hundreds of brilliant superhero stories, many written by Warren himself).

Since graphic novels are SO SO literary in comparison to individual issues (never mind that individual issues often make up some of the best comics ever made), we deride them as floppies.

Other words that started as complimentary because somewhat derogatory in common usage, “iconic,” and “widescreen,” for example.

I understand, there’s a real desire in fandoms to establish status levels, you see it constantly. “Oh, I like comics, but not THOSE comics,” is a pretty common attitude. It’s fine, I get it.

But one I find kind of disheartening is the notion that everything should be ‘realistic’ or ‘practical.’

I think that’s really the death of whimsy. I think it’s trying to put an anchor on flights of fancy.

First, many readers don’t READ genre material for realism or practicality. That’s not why they buy Spider-man, that’s not why they read Lord of the Rings.

Second, who actually wants to BE the realism police? What a dreary, wasted effort. Who defines this? Look at the ridiculous things people have worn (all the way from nothing at all, as some Irish warriors chose, to incredibly elaborate formal armor), and the huge variety of weapons people have designed in our own real history and ‘practical’ is not always a consideration.



When I look at some of the costumes in anime, or in video games, I freaking LOVE that those designers just went wild, they created something beautiful to LOOK at, but impossible to wear. And who is damaged by this, what is lessened? It’s a fantasy.

I get that there are issues of exploitation and racism and sexism and homophobia that have to be considered. That’s just being humane and responsible.

But when I read, say, Green Lantern, I want my mind to be blown, I don’t necessarily need a consistent set of rules to make the book comply with my concepts of reality and decorum.

By the way, I am not speaking of how much flesh is exposed on a costume, entirely, that’s a subject unto itself, on which I am still a bit divided. I think it works for some characters, and is often a bit ridiculous for others. But I feel that’s a separate issue somewhat from ‘practicality.’

Comics need LESS manners and fewer limitations, not more.

When I see a creator really build a world or a character, and they are criticized on the basis of ‘not being realistic,’ I find that a poor excuse for analysis. What if realism was never the goal? Is that really our primary concern?

I can love a costume design because it looks gorgeous, because it’s striking. There are complaints for these designs that do have valid reasoning, but is ‘practicality’ really the horse we want to ride on?

I want creators to create, I want them to unleash the dragons of their imaginations. Some of it might not be to my taste.

But it IS possible to have a fantasy setting, whether its superhero stories, SF, high adventure, whatever, that is perhaps not strictly practical, yet altogether wonderful. Because the reality that is far more important is emotional reality. Does the story tell a human truth?

That’s what matters most.

Also, I’m a complete hypocrite because when I see Black Canary in high heels I just want to scream. :)

And I still think Bayonetta looks cool.
 
Ass Manager 3000 dijo:
Like CWC, Dobson also indulges in random access humor.

Another tweet
Ver archivo adjunto 44770

Text from article

IN DEFENSE OF FANTASY
Every few years, comics gets a new set of buzzwords that are meant to sort of self-immolate anything that has the appearance of being silly or childish or even whimsical.

Warren Ellis, who is one of my great writing heroes, is a master at this, he came up with ‘pervert suits’ for superheroes (never mind that there have been hundreds of brilliant superhero stories, many written by Warren himself).

Since graphic novels are SO SO literary in comparison to individual issues (never mind that individual issues often make up some of the best comics ever made), we deride them as floppies.

Other words that started as complimentary because somewhat derogatory in common usage, “iconic,” and “widescreen,” for example.

I understand, there’s a real desire in fandoms to establish status levels, you see it constantly. “Oh, I like comics, but not THOSE comics,” is a pretty common attitude. It’s fine, I get it.

But one I find kind of disheartening is the notion that everything should be ‘realistic’ or ‘practical.’

I think that’s really the death of whimsy. I think it’s trying to put an anchor on flights of fancy.

First, many readers don’t READ genre material for realism or practicality. That’s not why they buy Spider-man, that’s not why they read Lord of the Rings.

Second, who actually wants to BE the realism police? What a dreary, wasted effort. Who defines this? Look at the ridiculous things people have worn (all the way from nothing at all, as some Irish warriors chose, to incredibly elaborate formal armor), and the huge variety of weapons people have designed in our own real history and ‘practical’ is not always a consideration.



When I look at some of the costumes in anime, or in video games, I freaking LOVE that those designers just went wild, they created something beautiful to LOOK at, but impossible to wear. And who is damaged by this, what is lessened? It’s a fantasy.

I get that there are issues of exploitation and racism and sexism and homophobia that have to be considered. That’s just being humane and responsible.

But when I read, say, Green Lantern, I want my mind to be blown, I don’t necessarily need a consistent set of rules to make the book comply with my concepts of reality and decorum.

By the way, I am not speaking of how much flesh is exposed on a costume, entirely, that’s a subject unto itself, on which I am still a bit divided. I think it works for some characters, and is often a bit ridiculous for others. But I feel that’s a separate issue somewhat from ‘practicality.’

Comics need LESS manners and fewer limitations, not more.

When I see a creator really build a world or a character, and they are criticized on the basis of ‘not being realistic,’ I find that a poor excuse for analysis. What if realism was never the goal? Is that really our primary concern?

I can love a costume design because it looks gorgeous, because it’s striking. There are complaints for these designs that do have valid reasoning, but is ‘practicality’ really the horse we want to ride on?

I want creators to create, I want them to unleash the dragons of their imaginations. Some of it might not be to my taste.

But it IS possible to have a fantasy setting, whether its superhero stories, SF, high adventure, whatever, that is perhaps not strictly practical, yet altogether wonderful. Because the reality that is far more important is emotional reality. Does the story tell a human truth?

That’s what matters most.

Also, I’m a complete hypocrite because when I see Black Canary in high heels I just want to scream. :)

And I still think Bayonetta looks cool.
Presiona para expandir...

The problem with the article in my opinion is the following: I totally support letting go of your imagination in order to tell a good story and stuff doesn't have to be all grimdark or hyperrealistic, but the story still needs e.g. a focus in term of plot and up to a certain degree a bit of realism. By realism I mean instead of characters acting like moronic toons from the early 70s, let them have at least a certain level of common sense to express. You know, villains e.g. who when they have the hero at their mercy won't bind them on a laser but just say "fuck it" and shoot them in the head. In fact, I consider it often times a bigger challenge to work with such "realistic" behavior approaches and yet manage to make it still entertaining and imaginative within a story.

And while Dobson has every right to link the article, he is in my opinion the one who needs to listen to it the most or think of it the hardest, considering his total lack of imagination and focus in whatever he writes.
 
One question: Has either Dobson or any of the SJW crowd of feminist that he retweets have ever said a word regarding the suffering of real life women and girls under the Islamic State? You know, the one instance that can be literally be defined as an evil patriarchy that fully endorses the execution of LBGT and sexual slavery of said underage girls? Or are they just too busy trying to defend the rights of fictional polygon women?
 
Belvedere dijo:
One question: Has either Dobson or any of the SJW crowd of feminist that he retweets have ever said a word regarding the suffering of real life women and girls under the Islamic State? You know, the one instance that can be literally be defined as an evil patriarchy that fully endorses the execution of LBGT and sexual slavery of said underage girls? Or are they just too busy trying to defend the rights of fictional polygon women?
Presiona para expandir...

Are you seriously expecting Andrew Dobson to care for an actual human life that is not his own?
 
Dobson sometimes retweets stuff from a person called "Rebecca Cohen", today, he retweeted something abou a 5 year anniversary of her webcomic, so I made the huge mistake of checking it out.
http://www.gynostar.com/archives/comic/the-first-gyno-star-cartoon-in-years
If the title isn't enough to make you shoot boiling blood from your ears, read the actual comic. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
While it's hard to out-stupid Sonichu both in plot and characters, this certainly comes close to achieving that goal.

Belvedere dijo:
One question: Has either Dobson or any of the SJW crowd of feminist that he retweets have ever said a word regarding the suffering of real life women and girls under the Islamic State? You know, the one instance that can be literally be defined as an evil patriarchy that fully endorses the execution of LBGT and sexual slavery of said underage girls? Or are they just too busy trying to defend the rights of fictional polygon women?
Presiona para expandir...
See, there's a flaw in your logic.
The people you talk about are concerned with one thing and one thing only: The troubles, tribulations and injustices (oftentimes imagined ones at that) suffered by those poor, defenseless white upper-middle-class women in the first world nations (mainly the USA, to be specific).
They simply don't care about the oppression that happens anywhere else. Wanna hear the punchline? If you'd ever bring that up to them, they'll accuse YOU of being an oppressive asshole for not supporting their oh-so-important cause.
 
Von Clausewitz dijo:
I might be able to explain this:

Ver archivo adjunto 44773
Presiona para expandir...

I've read a little of Sunstone, and Dobson doesn't seem to get the point of it.

Sunstone is a webcomic about two characters that engage in lesbian BDSM, but instead of just being a jerk off fantasy, there are a lot of panels where the characters are fleshed out, they discuss how the BDSM aspect is based on mutual consent and understanding, etc.

It's also pretty softcore.

From what I gather Dobson just likes to beat off to women having sex with each other, which, according to his "SJW" stance, is objectification of women and misogynistic.

Not that I expect consistency out of Dobson, but I doubt he actually looked at Sunstone for the plot.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo