You know what Rick?

[merkamerka]

I want to see how you would plan around drawing a girl or boy in the comic.


You know, those little things.. half the size of adults... usually ranging at camera point? yeah them. Not that you would ever need to end up drawing one, just more or so me wanting to see... how would you do it? would you see their face? would they be onpanel, or offpanel? how would that fit in?

Sorry to bug you, but I'm just interested in knowing...

[rickgriffin]

You realize this is exactly why I haven't drawn one yet

[merkamerka]

So your saying I just answered my own question. hmf, wasn't expecting that. So the only reason you haven't is due to the fact you don't have an idea for it yet?

[rickgriffin]

Yes basically

[merkamerka]

3 3;

That sounds like a dilemma, easily avoided dilemma but still a dilemma.

[Ebly]

I like this topic.
We need more topics like this.

[merkamerka]

Lol Rick, I knew you could do it x3.

But I didn't mean as part of the background... I sort of meant as what you did with the adults(Main Screen) adults. Color and the whole 9 yards?

[Buckdida]

Lol Rick, I knew you could do it x3.

But I didn't mean as part of the background... I sort of meant as what you did with the adults(Main Screen) adults. Color and the whole 9 yards?

Well, there's a problem with that. Even with the child in the background, he was mostly covered by another cat in the background.

By some simple comparison, pets are about waist height, or 3 ft tall or so. So are children. So there's the problem...

I GOT IT! Make children 4 ft tall, and lower the camera angle. So basically, just lower the frame (we may see the pet's feet and the ground) and you'd still be able to cut off the human's face, while making the human shorter, thus creating a child. Ta-Da! Instant child. Maybe you could try this Rick?

[merkamerka]

Lol Rick, I knew you could do it x3.

But I didn't mean as part of the background... I sort of meant as what you did with the adults(Main Screen) adults. Color and the whole 9 yards?

Well, there's a problem with that. Even with the child in the background, he was mostly covered by another cat in the background.

By some simple comparison, pets are about waist height, or 3 ft tall or so. So are children. So there's the problem...

I GOT IT! Make children 4 ft tall, and lower the camera angle. So basically, just lower the frame (we may see the pet's feet and the ground) and you'd still be able to cut off the human's face, while making the human shorter, thus creating a child. Ta-Da! Instant child. Maybe you could try this Rick?

They're Children, even in the peanuts form they had the kids to the size of the pets and were both ON SCREEN. Not off screen like the adults(Which this only went to the adults)

[Buckdida]

Lol Rick, I knew you could do it x3.

But I didn't mean as part of the background... I sort of meant as what you did with the adults(Main Screen) adults. Color and the whole 9 yards?

Well, there's a problem with that. Even with the child in the background, he was mostly covered by another cat in the background.

By some simple comparison, pets are about waist height, or 3 ft tall or so. So are children. So there's the problem...

I GOT IT! Make children 4 ft tall, and lower the camera angle. So basically, just lower the frame (we may see the pet's feet and the ground) and you'd still be able to cut off the human's face, while making the human shorter, thus creating a child. Ta-Da! Instant child. Maybe you could try this Rick?

They're Children, even in the peanuts form they had the kids to the size of the pets and were both ON SCREEN. Not off screen like the adults(Which this only went to the adults)

I think, the reason he hasn't drawn children is because he couldn't find a way to draw children and cover their face, but in a non-awkward fashion. He probably wants to do it in a way that isn't overly obvious, like covering their faces with word bubbles, because that doesn't look very good. Now, even in the background, the child's face is covered, so he probably wants all human faces covered.

Then again, the only way we know for sure is if Rick says so himself, so I'm just speculating.

[merkamerka]

I think, the reason he hasn't drawn children is because he couldn't find a way to draw children and cover their face, but in a non-awkward fashion. He probably wants to do it in a way that isn't overly obvious, like covering their faces with word bubbles, because that doesn't look very good. Now, even in the background, the child's face is covered, so he probably wants all human faces covered.

Then again, the only way we know for sure is if Rick says so himself, so I'm just speculating.

Well hopefully he responds... If not we'll just do voice overs.

[Dissension]

The pets are the focus of the comic, so humans' faces are never fully shown.

I think it's safe to assume that the speculations here are basically why Rick hasn't included children (unless you count the last comic). I think someone suggested a strategically placed bunch of balloons at some point, but children could also be shown wearing masks or whatever.

Ultimately, I think the reason we haven't seen a lot of kids running around is that they haven't been necessary to the storyline. If a future comic requires the presence of a human child, we can probably rest assured that Rick will find a way to include one. ~_^

[JakJak]

I think one way you could include them is like have them face away from the camera and be working on something or somewhere along those lines.

[rickgriffin]

I could also be incredibly surreal about the whole thing and have one coming with a bunch of children in it, all of which are not facing the camera, down to the child in the middle, who has an apple floating in front of his face

[merkamerka]

That's a little crazy don'tcha think?

[FerretWithASpork]

I like this topic.
We need more topics like this.

Oh my god I know! I love it when titles have absolutely nothing to do with the post, and when the OP sounds vindictive in every reply!

Ehem.. Sarcasm anyone?.... No?.... No??....

P.S. Though the really big image is totally a waste of space, I give you props for the Mabinogi ref.

[merkamerka]

I like this topic.
We need more topics like this.

Oh my god I know! I love it when titles have absolutely nothing to do with the post, and when the OP sounds vindictive in every reply!

Ehem.. Sarcasm anyone?.... No?.... No??....

P.S. Though the really big image is totally a waste of space, I give you props for the Mabinogi ref.

Hey there, I'm not Vindictive, just Persuasive(I guess?). And by "I Like this topic" I'm pretty sure he meant the idea of giving a suggestion in a thread more then the title and buid of the thread.

[Ebly]

Actually.
I love it when OPs ask a question and then answer it themselves. Two-post topics. They really are lovely things.

I especially love it when they then phrase the same question in a different way
To get the same answer.

That's what I love.

[FerretWithASpork]

Merka, I really think you should work on how you tone your words (yes, written words have tone), you sound like you're out to get rick in pretty much every post. When I saw the topic title I thought you were going to either A. be cussing him out because you didn't like the art change, or B. all 'matter-of-fact' like.

You were neither, your topic title had nothing to do with the post... And Ebly has a point, you asked and answered your question, received an answer, and then asked the same question again....

[merkamerka]

Merka, I really think you should work on how you tone your words (yes, written words have tone), you sound like you're out to get rick in pretty much every post. When I saw the topic title I thought you were going to either A. be cussing him out because you didn't like the art change, or B. all 'matter-of-fact' like.

You were neither, your topic title had nothing to do with the post... And Ebly has a point, you asked and answered your question, received an answer, and then asked the same question again....

First, of all Ferret, No, I've seen many thread titles like this and would of doubted to open them with the shock of cussing/etc I sort of expect that it's something a little bit more constructive, especially since this is a quite small forum (1~2 people online every so often). If someone was to flame the new style it would more than likely be in the comic commentary.

Secondly, Yes I answered my own question, but to be honest, not really. You can't know if your answer is true unless you actually ASK it, and better yet, yeah he replied and basically said he had no idea how he was going to do it, so I just replied back more or so not to be disrespectful(I don't know about you, but I find it a little rude to ask something then kill a thread by never replying).

Stop going out on a limb to get me for... whatever? It's somewhat pestering and I would appreciate it if you stopped(Yeah I notice that most places I appear you come in and reply with negative commentary). Sorry if I'm too straight forward with my words, but that's just how I am.

[FerretWithASpork]

Standoffish! That's the word I was looking for, not vindictive. Yes, you're post title, and a lot of times, the way you word your posts comes off as very standoffish. You seem to be a very passive-aggressive.

If someone was to flame the new style it would more than likely be in the comic commentary.

Oh my friend, you highly underestimate the power of the internet!

so I just replied back more or so not to be disrespectful

Yes, I totally understand that, but to reply with the exact same question is just stupid. A simple "Oh I see, thanks!" would have sufficed.

Yeah I notice that most places I appear you come in and reply with negative commentary

Well... If this IS the case, I appologize because it's certainly not on purpose, with the exception of the reply I made about 5 minutes ago, I think I'm in like 2 threads that you're also in? So no, I'm not following you... paranoid much? That comes with being standoffish

[merkamerka]

^Kay, you're completely right, how could I of looked pass your ways and logic, man I am such a dumb person.

Moving on please?