PREHISTORIK: it's pretty funny, but now that you mention it, I WAS going to say, 'this kid looks like he's carrying his daddy's sword!" and i thought that was funny, so i didn't say it to prevent misunderstanding. SO I guess that did come across pretty well, which is good. I also forgot to say in my last crit that you could use some sharp contact shadows where the feet hit the bottom, that would cement the figures in. I didn't realize the BG was actually 'there' until I noticed the shadows back there. No contact shadows on the bottom make it look a little 'floaty' (I hear this everyday, believe me). LONE WOLF AND CUB freakin' ROCKS!
No offense taken by the way, I just wanted to point out something that has always been the case in critiques, which is the distinction between personal biases and actual comments on the elements of the composition. If some pros are reading this, what do you think? Do you draw a line? I mean, if a person is all into cutesy care bears and such, perhaps he will vote for something cutesy against something 'serious' and vice versa. But should this matter in a critique? I think DSIllustration's verdict on my piece and tagheuer's gives a really good example on this matter, he said 'It all came down to narrative', and it totally makes sense. He didn't even mention that he thought UFO's were cooler or anything. If for some reason you were to ask for my opinon on the theme, style, etc; then I will do so very gladly, although opinions are usually only things to 'consider', yet not to take to heart or personally. Anyone else on this?
I think everybody has great pieces and even the guys that stood out the most I'm pretty sure they're still thinking how much they could improve and work on their stuff. This is what cool about it!
Question for DOUGBOT: By any means, have you been checkin' out Shaolin Cowboy by Geoff Darrow? Your boy and dog look like they could be just floatin' into the next panel. Which is a really good thing in my standards. I love Geoff Darrow.