LOVIATHAN
by Mike Cavallaro
CHAPTER
- 1
- 2
PAGE
8 comments + 15 replies
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
04:04pm / Sep 10, 2008
04:04pm / Sep 10, 2008
They just appeared there the next day!
So weird!
So weird!
Posted by: Simon Fraser
10:37am / Sep 10, 2008
10:37am / Sep 10, 2008
I probably enjoy your Purple Prose more than it's inspiration, but periodically you commit the same sins as The Man himself. Namely in panel 2 caption 1, describing the panel that we can already see. That's why I usually skip the caption boxes on Thor.
Still a hoot to read though.
Still a hoot to read though.
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
11:38am / Sep 10, 2008
11:38am / Sep 10, 2008
Sure, point taken.
In most of my comics work, I steer clear of caption boxes altogether, choosing to let the pictures tell the story themselves.
In this case, I believe the rhythm and texture of the prose itself contributes to the overall vibe of LOVIATHAN whether or not it's embellishing what you can already see. I can appreciate the rule, but I don't see breaking it as a sin.
A caption box can tell a parallel story line, or reinforce something already presented in the art, depending on what the story calls for.
If you skip the caption boxes in THOR, you're missing most of the fun.
In most of my comics work, I steer clear of caption boxes altogether, choosing to let the pictures tell the story themselves.
In this case, I believe the rhythm and texture of the prose itself contributes to the overall vibe of LOVIATHAN whether or not it's embellishing what you can already see. I can appreciate the rule, but I don't see breaking it as a sin.
A caption box can tell a parallel story line, or reinforce something already presented in the art, depending on what the story calls for.
If you skip the caption boxes in THOR, you're missing most of the fun.
Posted by: Dean Haspiel
11:49am / Sep 10, 2008
11:49am / Sep 10, 2008
Yeah, Si, but then you wouldn't have known that it was HATEFUL HEAT that was HURLED AGAINST ITS PEARLESCENT SURFACE.
Posted by: Simon Fraser
12:01pm / Sep 10, 2008
12:01pm / Sep 10, 2008
It's the Charred Husk in the Ravaged Armour that seemed a bit redundant. The rest was great.
Posted by: Llyn Hunter
01:12pm / Sep 10, 2008
01:12pm / Sep 10, 2008
I always like the words and pictures together. If you have just the words or just the pictures those are two separate experiences. When you combine the two, that's a third; clarification and elaboration with each part of the art working together.
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
04:07pm / Sep 10, 2008
04:07pm / Sep 10, 2008
On it's own, I was afraid the drawing could have been interpreted, by less seasoned readers as "blackened" or "poached", or even just "dried", when obviously "charred" is the only way to go in this case.
Posted by: Stu
12:29pm / Sep 10, 2008
12:29pm / Sep 10, 2008
A lot of burnin going on, very ironic for an underwater-ish sequence.
I am really liking the middle panel, nice contrast and detail in the "dead guy". Giving the panel a "massive" depth of field.
"The Nightmare Trio" I am gonna steal that name for my next band!
I am really liking the middle panel, nice contrast and detail in the "dead guy". Giving the panel a "massive" depth of field.
"The Nightmare Trio" I am gonna steal that name for my next band!
Posted by: Chris Chiang
12:42pm / Sep 10, 2008
12:42pm / Sep 10, 2008
"The nightmare trio press to the great portal..."
If it was really that great of a portal, shouldn't you have capitalized i.e. "The Great Portal".
If it was really that great of a portal, shouldn't you have capitalized i.e. "The Great Portal".
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
04:10pm / Sep 10, 2008
04:10pm / Sep 10, 2008
I suppose I could have. In this case, it's just "A" great portal, not "THE" great portal.
I promise to try and show "THE Great Portal" some other time during another flashback.
You just won't believe your eyes.
I promise to try and show "THE Great Portal" some other time during another flashback.
You just won't believe your eyes.
Posted by: Thomas Baehr
12:58pm / Sep 10, 2008
12:58pm / Sep 10, 2008
I'm just wondering how the people react to the war in Loveathian and to T
Posted by: Thomas Baehr
01:05pm / Sep 10, 2008
01:05pm / Sep 10, 2008
Whatever happened?
Okay, here is the rest of my thought: The reaction of the people to the war and the killing in Loviathan and to The End is Here is astonishing different. Interesting.
But anyway: Great depiction of dead and evil!
Okay, here is the rest of my thought: The reaction of the people to the war and the killing in Loviathan and to The End is Here is astonishing different. Interesting.
But anyway: Great depiction of dead and evil!
Posted by: Simon Fraser
01:15pm / Sep 10, 2008
01:15pm / Sep 10, 2008
Thomas...one idea I'd like to suggest
"War-Penguins"
"War-Penguins"
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
04:19pm / Sep 10, 2008
04:19pm / Sep 10, 2008
I think this proves your point, Thomas.
As you said in a recent interview, you had to cast animals in the starring roles so that people would really feel the true horror of war.
When you have humans (or humanoids) as in Loviathan, it becomes Good Guy / Bad Guy, Cowboys and Indians, heroic adventure. Totally different point of view.
(Disclaimer) The author of this comment would like to point out that in the case of "Good Guy / Bad Guy" or "Cowboys and Indians", no judgement is being made about causes or righteousness of the implied conflicts. In the case of the "Cowboys and Indians", I might just as well side with the so-called Indians, y'know? Not that I have anything against cowboys, either! I have friends that wear chaps and boots and stuff. Personally, that's not my style. But I don't think there's anything *wrong* with that kind of style either, if you know what I mean. I guess I'm saying, "to each his own". Even if that makes you Evil, or a cowboy, who am I to judge? Right? Right???
As you said in a recent interview, you had to cast animals in the starring roles so that people would really feel the true horror of war.
When you have humans (or humanoids) as in Loviathan, it becomes Good Guy / Bad Guy, Cowboys and Indians, heroic adventure. Totally different point of view.
(Disclaimer) The author of this comment would like to point out that in the case of "Good Guy / Bad Guy" or "Cowboys and Indians", no judgement is being made about causes or righteousness of the implied conflicts. In the case of the "Cowboys and Indians", I might just as well side with the so-called Indians, y'know? Not that I have anything against cowboys, either! I have friends that wear chaps and boots and stuff. Personally, that's not my style. But I don't think there's anything *wrong* with that kind of style either, if you know what I mean. I guess I'm saying, "to each his own". Even if that makes you Evil, or a cowboy, who am I to judge? Right? Right???
Posted by: natsch
12:04pm / Sep 17, 2008
12:04pm / Sep 17, 2008
http://420.thrashbarg.net/penguin_army_bear_cavalry.jpg
Posted by: Llyn Hunter
01:17pm / Sep 10, 2008
01:17pm / Sep 10, 2008
Especially like the first panel. Love the read of the fire/lava soldier through the charring bodies of the guards.
Posted by: Mike Cavallaro
04:21pm / Sep 10, 2008
04:21pm / Sep 10, 2008
Thanks Llyn!
"Charring", there's that word again!
So glad you and George picked up on that!
"Charring", there's that word again!
So glad you and George picked up on that!
Posted by: Joe Infurnari
12:28pm / Sep 14, 2008
12:28pm / Sep 14, 2008
Great job as always, Mike. I'm at a loss just what superlative to use here. I'll just have to make up one of my own. Super FANtasterriFIC!
10:14am / Sep 10, 2008