💼 Careercow Andrew Dobson (aka Tom Preston)

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
br.png

So given what I mentioned about stylistic differences, decided to do this scribble. While with the body I took a fair load of liberties I was mainly thinking of the face and, well, just one or two lines removed makes a difference, even added the eye-wrinkles so he didn't look younger.

I dunno if I made it any less punchable but if I did, I think that speaks for Dobby's "skills" as a character designer...
 
I was trying to figure out what bugged me so much about the way Dobby draws people. I mean don't get me wrong, there is a lot wrong with how Dobby draws anything. I think i finally figured out that it's just how plain UGLY everyone is that Dobson draws. And I don't mean ugly as in badly drawn, I mean literally face-like-ham ugly. Is he physically incapable of drawing an attractive face for a person? Or is it just that he doesn't want anyone to call him out on literally RAPING them with his UNREALISTIC BEAUTY IDEALS as another one of his 'im such a nice feminist guy ladeez'?

Like people have mentioned before about the way he draws eyes (small beady eyes/pupils should be reserved for villains) I think the same is true for how he just draws faces in general. They are ugly as fuck and generally only characters you want the reader to hate or rally against should be drawn ugly as sin. It just makes every character he draws instantly unlikable, even before their vapid personalities he writes are brought into it.
 
Oh I know full well how lazy he is about this stuff, it's just baffling how he can reuse poses like that so blatantly and think no one will notice. And it wouldn't even matter that much if the comic was at least entertaining or funny, but...
 
I was trying to figure out what bugged me so much about the way Dobby draws people. I mean don't get me wrong, there is a lot wrong with how Dobby draws anything. I think i finally figured out that it's just how plain UGLY everyone is that Dobson draws. And I don't mean ugly as in badly drawn, I mean literally face-like-ham ugly. Is he physically incapable of drawing an attractive face for a person? Or is it just that he doesn't want anyone to call him out on literally RAPING them with his UNREALISTIC BEAUTY IDEALS as another one of his 'im such a nice feminist guy ladeez'?

Like people have mentioned before about the way he draws eyes (small beady eyes/pupils should be reserved for villains) I think the same is true for how he just draws faces in general. They are ugly as fuck and generally only characters you want the reader to hate or rally against should be drawn ugly as sin. It just makes every character he draws instantly unlikable, even before their vapid personalities he writes are brought into it.

I think one problem is that he doesn't know when to just use short and/or thin lines. So instead of a small sign of aging around the eyes or the little cheek lines at the end of cartoon mouths they look like massive wrinkles contorting the entire face. maybe I'll scribble a demonstration later.
 
I just googled 'Tom Preston' and chopped out faces from comics at random. I tried to get the most neutral expressions I could for most of them, just so it wasn't those causing the faces to be ugly.

FXdW2LG.png


Would you ever find any of those characters endearing? I understand that some of these characters are strawmen from Dobson's comics, so it is understandable some of them are purposely drawn ugly, but the rest? It looks like paint-a-potato day at preschool.
 
Ver archivo adjunto 37163
So given what I mentioned about stylistic differences, decided to do this scribble. While with the body I took a fair load of liberties I was mainly thinking of the face and, well, just one or two lines removed makes a difference, even added the eye-wrinkles so he didn't look younger.

I dunno if I made it any less punchable but if I did, I think that speaks for Dobby's "skills" as a character designer...

Its a far more cute design...definitely less punchable
 
Oh what the heck, I decided I'd scribble that thing now. Now I'm far from competent so chances are I haven't gotten the effect I'm aiming for. In fact, on the "Dobson style" example I might not have gone far enough looking above. But hopefully I can illustrate the differences.

faic.png

Kinda went for someone in thirties reacting in horror at something (insert joke about Dobson approaching here) basically an expression that in cartoons, does lead to some wrinklage. The things like eye wrinkle of horrors and the edge of the mouth are a little subtle because the lines were drawn quite thin. Same effect you could get if ALL of the lines were thin. A little detail only needs to be, well, little.

faicd.png


Now (appropriately) tracing the image in an approximate to how Dobson does it and, well, sure I didn't do a good job with the above pic... it's miles better than the one below since, like with Dobson's faces, the details are too many, too long and too thick. Therefore it becomes really noticeable. Rather than a detail hinting at cheeks, his mouth corners look like massive wrinkles you'd see on a character pushing 50-60... except on someone much too young. And as I said, I don't think this image is even that close to how many wrinkles Dobson would put on an expression like that. If anything "moar wrinkles" is pretty much his only means of pushing an expression.

Uh, hopefully that made my point.:P
 
I just googled 'Tom Preston' and chopped out faces from comics at random. I tried to get the most neutral expressions I could for most of them, just so it wasn't those causing the faces to be ugly.

FXdW2LG.png


Would you ever find any of those characters endearing? I understand that some of these characters are strawmen from Dobson's comics, so it is understandable some of them are purposely drawn ugly, but the rest? It looks like paint-a-potato day at preschool.
It's, like, 99% smugface.

Everything Dobson does just makes me want to punch it.
 
Ver archivo adjunto 37163
So given what I mentioned about stylistic differences, decided to do this scribble. While with the body I took a fair load of liberties I was mainly thinking of the face and, well, just one or two lines removed makes a difference, even added the eye-wrinkles so he didn't look younger.

I dunno if I made it any less punchable but if I did, I think that speaks for Dobby's "skills" as a character designer...
You took away the annoying fucking chin, that makes it substantially less punchable already.
 
I just googled 'Tom Preston' and chopped out faces from comics at random. I tried to get the most neutral expressions I could for most of them, just so it wasn't those causing the faces to be ugly.

FXdW2LG.png


Would you ever find any of those characters endearing? I understand that some of these characters are strawmen from Dobson's comics, so it is understandable some of them are purposely drawn ugly, but the rest? It looks like paint-a-potato day at preschool.
Most of them look smug or bored to me.
He was once a part of a small group of like 6 devianttartletts called "fresh epics" and they were supposed to be "the most up and coming group of artists of DA" or something. To give you an example of the kind of quality atistd we are dealing with, as well as dobbles being in it, Humon was there too. She's a werid gay man domination/rape fetishist and it's so thinnly veiled and then she makes a Hetalia ripoff and she was doing a bunch of stuff about different weird little chibi comics where all the characters are essentially the same and every single man is very gay for whatever reason
OT but humon thread when
Both of them are lulzy
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo