Mask Squinting 2: The Legend Continues

[Victor Von Doom]

Can you imagine if we were having this conversation in person....in public....like at a diner....at a con? None of us would ever get laid again. Not even E.....on his birthday.....and he's married.

 

[E]

This is why the last thread died. I am unwilling to accept Bass's premise that the mask is not itself fundamentally altered because he is wrong.

I can't add anything to what I've already said.

But I'm glad the argument got a little bit further than just "OMG SHUT UP I LIKE IT IT LOOKS KEWL" this time.

 

[McCheese]

Can you imagine if we were having this conversation in person....in public....like at a diner....at a con? None of us would ever get laid again. Not even E.....on his birthday.....and he's married.

That's why God gave us the relative anonymity of the internet to ***** about ridiculous nerd crap in secret.

 

[ProjectX2]

Let me see if I understand - E doesn't like mask squinting because it should be physically impossible and Bass is arguing that it is an artistic thing and that only the audience can see it?

Have characters ever referenced the mask squinting? I need to know if other characters can see it before I know which side I'm on.

 

[Jaggyd]

Let me see if I understand - E doesn't like mask squinting because it should be physically impossible and Bass is arguing that it is an artistic thing and that only the audience can see it?

Have characters ever referenced the mask squinting? I need to know if other characters can see it before I know which side I'm on.

As far as I know, outside of Deadpool mentioning it, no one's made mention of it in comics. Granted, I've not ready every comic out there, so I'm not saying I'm right in the least.

 

[Ice]

I've never read a character mention it. Ever.

 

[McCheese]

You know, it amazes me that with all the goofy, unexplainable stuff in comics we're arguing about a damn mask. E's not mad that a radioactive spider bite can imbue superpowers instead of say, poison or radioactive poison or even spider-cancer. No he's mad because the mask moves in a way he doesn't think it should.

Spider-Man is an emotional character. Having a mask that can express his feelings is a great artistic tool that helps to express his emotional state. That's all there is to it.

I remember when the Irredeemable Ant-Man was launching they released promotional art explaining that his antennae moves to show his emotions (straight up when he's surprised, droopy when he's sad, etc) specifically to avoid having an expressive mask. I thought it was a cool idea, but at the same time I didn't understand why they'd have to go out of their way to avoid mask squinting since I thought it was a generally accepted storytelling tool.

NOW I GET IT. YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE.

 

[Jaggyd]

You know, it amazes me that with all the goofy, unexplainable stuff in comics we're arguing about a damn mask. E's not mad that a radioactive spider bite can imbue superpowers instead of say, poison or radioactive poison or even spider-cancer. No he's mad because the mask moves in a way he doesn't think it should.

Spider-Man is an emotional character. Having a mask that can express his feelings is a great artistic tool that helps to express his emotional state. That's all there is to it.

I remember when the Irredeemable Ant-Man was launching they released promotional art explaining that his antennae moves to show his emotions (straight up when he's surprised, droopy when he's sad, etc) specifically to avoid having an expressive mask. I thought it was a cool idea, but at the same time I didn't understand why they'd have to go out of their way to avoid mask squinting since I thought it was a generally accepted storytelling tool.

NOW I GET IT. YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE.

Pretty much.


As much as I try to be all accepting of weird **** in comics, I get hung up on my own personal "Mask Squinting" issues too. My big one is costume/character design continuity, and Wolverine/X-23's claw length.

 

[Gemini]

I loved Irredeemable Ant-Man

such a great book

he's being wasted on Thunderbolts

 

[ultimatedjf]

I loved Irredeemable Ant-Man

such a great book

he's being wasted on Thunderbolts

I disagree that he's being wasted on Thunderbolts.

 

[Bass]

This is why the last thread died. I am unwilling to accept Bass's premise that the mask is not itself fundamentally altered because he is wrong.

It is fundamentally altered and changed and distorted by the artist. The point is that BLURRING alters and distorts it. So does the split-face. So do warped faces for dramatic effect (like the Kid Miracleman). It does alter the mask, but it does so in a fashion that is the same as many other more obtuse and obvious effects that affect entire bodies that you have no problem with. The fundamental distortion of the speed-line manga blur is far greater than the slight squint, yet it alters the costume or character in precisely the same fashion by elongating and shortening their proportions for dramatic effect.

Let me see if I understand - E doesn't like mask squinting because it should be physically impossible and Bass is arguing that it is an artistic thing and that only the audience can see it?

Have characters ever referenced the mask squinting? I need to know if other characters can see it before I know which side I'm on.

As far as I know, outside of Deadpool mentioning it, no one's made mention of it in comics. Granted, I've not ready every comic out there, so I'm not saying I'm right in the least.

I've never read a character mention it. Ever.

Deadpool's a fringe case since he's a 4th-wall breaker. But I honestly can't think of any one every acting like they can see the squint. They react to the emotional state, but that's because we can pick up on tiny inflections unconsciously in body language and would be visible in posture, tone of voice, and any number of other subtle inflections one simply can't recreate as effectively with a static, small, single image.

 

[E]

You know, it amazes me that with all the goofy, unexplainable stuff in comics we're arguing about a damn mask. E's not mad that a radioactive spider bite can imbue superpowers instead of say, poison or radioactive poison or even spider-cancer. No he's mad because the mask moves in a way he doesn't think it should.

I've said this several times but it never quite seems to take so I'll repeat myself yet again: WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STORY, a kid getting spider powers from a spider bite is OK. They explain it and put it in context. It is completely irrelevant that it's scientifically impossible. Those parameters are set and that's fine.

However, those parameters also dictate that he wears a mask made of regular cloth. The material differs depending on the story, but the basis is that it is cloth, which does not have the ability to change shape.

If the story said that he wears a mask that is alive or could somehow explain why the mask changes shape, that would be fine. But they do not.

You guys drive me nuts with this. It's like the 4th or 5th time it has come up.

Proj asks a perfectly valid question - have other characters referenced the mask squinting - in order to determine whether or not the mask is ACTUALLY squinting. But within the parameters of my argument, it is irrelevant. They SHOULD be seeing it. If they aren't, it's another failure of the method.

 

[McCheese]

Ok then, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STORY who gives a flying **** about the shape of his mask.

 

[E]

Ok then, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STORY who gives a flying **** about the shape of his mask.

I don't. But I hate when it changes.

BECAUSE IT IS WRONG.

 

[McCheese]

This is killing me. The first real debate we've had about comics in ages and it's about mask squinting. I...

I need a drink, it's all too depressing.

 

[Bass]

Proj asks a perfectly valid question - have other characters referenced the mask squinting - in order to determine whether or not the mask is ACTUALLY squinting. But within the parameters of my argument, it is irrelevant. They SHOULD be seeing it. If they aren't, it's another failure of the method.

Right, your argument is that if the character's physical appearance is altered, it must have a physical explanation. So, it's okay for Quicksilver to be blurred, because the explanation is, "He's moving really fast." By the same token, it's okay to have Quicksilver double up on a panel because, "He's moving really fast". This makes some sense, however, this is not the case of the Spidey split-face. Spidey's wearing half his mask, yet there is no physical explanation for such a change in his appearance. It is merely representative of an emotional or expositional fact, but not a physical change. Kid Miracleman's eyes are drawn bizarrely to represent his otherworldly evil, but there is no physical reason for this change, only an emotionally resonant one. These physical appearances are allowed to be changed because, as you've agreed, it is representative of an emotion or other storytelling element.

Therefore, a character's physical appearance can be changed for either physical reasons, or for artistic representation. Either is valid.

Mask-squinting is the latter, not the former.

You're being hypocritical in demanding a physical reason for a abstract representation, when you accept that representations are valid. You're proclaiming a physical change in the character MUST be the cause of a physical manifestation in this one case, despite there's no mention of it ever being treated as a physical change.

This is the argument:

E: "The mask cannot change shape because it is his physical appearance. The character's physical appearance can only change with a physical explanation."
Others: "It doesn't physically change shape. It is an artistic abstraction, representing an emotional change, not a physical one."
E: "That is irrelevant. If a character's physical appearance changes, it should be because of a physical reason unless it is emotionally representative."

Here's another way to look at your argument:

"This comic is bad for children because it has swearing and graphic violence. Only children read comics."
"Those comics aren't intended for children. Those comics are specifically for adult audiences."
"That is irrelevant. If a comic is produced, it should be written for children unless its specifically intended for adults."

It is a hypocritical statement, where you allow exceptions to a rule in one case, but not in another, due to a private vendetta.

 

[E]

Right, your argument is that if the character's physical appearance is altered, it must have a physical explanation.

Right.

So, it's okay for Quicksilver to be blurred, because the explanation is, "He's moving really fast."

Sort of. To be more precise - it's OK because his body, within the confines of the story - is not actually changing.

By the same token, it's okay to have Quicksilver double up on a panel because, "He's moving really fast". This makes some sense, however, this is not the case of the Spidey split-face. Spidey's wearing half his mask, yet there is no physical explanation for such a change in his appearance. It is merely representative of an emotional or expositional fact, but not a physical change. Kid Miracleman's eyes are drawn bizarrely to represent his otherworldly evil, but there is no physical reason for this change, only an emotionally resonant one. These physical appearances are allowed to be changed because, as you've agreed, it is representative of an emotion or other storytelling element.

It is ONLY OK if the change is not to the character, or, more specifically, to allow properties of a character or object (in this case, a cloth mask) which does not inherently have the ability to make the physical change that is being displayed.

Therefore, a character's physical appearance can be changed for either physical reasons, or for artistic representation. Either is valid.

I'm arguing the opposite - the physical appearance CANNOT be changed for artistic representation.

Mask-squinting is the latter, not the former.

Vehemently disagreed.

You're being hypocritical in demanding a physical reason for a abstract representation, when you accept that representations are valid.

I'm not accepting that at all.

You're proclaiming a physical change in the character MUST be the cause of a physical manifestation in this one case, despite there's no mention of it ever being treated as a physical change.

You've got it backward and it doesn't mean the same thing. I'm saying there is no mention and no possibility of a physical change, therefore there cannot be a physical change.

This is the argument:

E: "The mask cannot change shape because it is his physical appearance. The character's physical appearance can only change with a physical explanation."
Others: "It doesn't physically change shape. It is an artistic abstraction, representing an emotional change, not a physical one."
E: "That is irrelevant. If a character's physical appearance changes, it should be because of a physical reason unless it is emotionally representative."

Close - it's not so much that it is "irrelevant" it's that the preceding statement is false - it IS physically changing shape.

Here's another way to look at your argument:

That's an unfair generalization. I'm being pretty specific about this. You're making comparisons that can't possibly be related; it's apples and oranges.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

I am not seeing anyone anywhere within the confines of a comic, or even an artist drawing the comic, suggesting that Mask Squinting is representing a real physical change in the costume. I don't ever recall that happening. And I think people would probably start saying things if spider-man's mask could actually shapeshift in the confines of the story.

It's pretty clearly just a technique that more expressive artists use to show what a character is feeling. I think the more obvious comparison is anime, where when angry, or embarrassed, somebody's head will inflate and simplify to chibi form to more readily show what emotion they're expressing. That's pretty much all it is... And just like with Mask Squinting, nobody within the confines of the anime is actually seeing that person's head triple in size, their eyes even moreso and their nose vanish. It is just showing they are mad, or in love, or whatever.

I guess I'm team Bass on this one.

 

[Bass]

Sort of. To be more precise - it's OK because his body, within the confines of the story - is not actually changing.

Spider-Man's mask, within the confines of the story, is not actually changing. This is precisely your criteria, and it meets it. Your response is either to claim it isn't, which is demonstrably inaccurate, or that it "should" which is unreasonable and hypocritical.

It is ONLY OK if the change is not to the character, or, more specifically, to allow properties of a character or object (in this case, a cloth mask) which does not inherently have the ability to make the physical change that is being displayed.

I'm arguing the opposite - the physical appearance CANNOT be changed for artistic representation.

Except it can be and is, all the time, as is the case of the blur and foreshortening. You've just said so yourself. "[changing Quicksilver's physical appearance is] OK because his body, within the confines of the story - is not actually changing".

Vehemently disagreed.

Your argument is continually self-contradictory, allowing for exceptions in one case but not in another. That is hypocritical.

I'm not accepting that at all.

You've got it backward and it doesn't mean the same thing. I'm saying there is no mention and no possibility of a physical change, therefore there cannot be a physical change.

And when people say, "it is not a physical change" you respond with either, "It is" which is inaccurate by your own admission, or, "It should be" which is hypocritical.

Close - it's not so much that it is "irrelevant" it's that the preceding statement is false - it IS physically changing shape.

You are saying that there are two "physical realities": One is the physical reality of the two-dimensional image as drawn by the artist. The other, the physical reality taking place within the story. You've said that abstractions, representations, distortions, and changes are allowed on the former, not the latter. Mask-squinting occurs on the former, not on the latter.

That's an unfair generalization. I'm being pretty specific about this. You're making comparisons that can't possibly be related; it's apples and oranges.

I'm comparing your argumentative technique, not the specificity of the argument. Your technique is to legitimise your contempt for something through a specific criteria designed to condemn it. The counter-point is that your criteria is either misapplied or inherently false due to numerous similar examples which are not condemned by that criteria or any other. Your rebuttal to that is to claim that arguing your criteria is irrelevant (despite it being the basis for your statement), and that it must be applied to the object of contempt, despite other objects that would be condemned by the same criteria are not so condemned.

You say mask-squinting is wrong because it's an unexplained physical change. It is pointed out there are numerous physical changes that are okay because they are artistic abstractions. You refuse to accept that this is an abstraction, and that if it is, it shouldn't be considered one.

You say this comic is bad for children. It is pointed out this comic is not meant for children. You refuse to accept this comic isn't for children, and that if it is, then it should be for children.

This is the same methodology, and it is not a reasonable argument. You only have to look at the myriad of comic techniques available across the world to see that this point of view just does not hold up because you are judging mask-squinting according the wrong criteria. It is not a physical change within the confines of the story. You have said repeatedly, that it is okay for the character to appear distorted or exaggerated or altered if it's not a literal change, yet will not accept mask-squinting as one such technique, instead it must be literal.

What is so bizarre about it is that in the 5 years we've been on this site, you haven't once been this unreasonable (in a literal sense - to be without reason, not in the colloquial "*******" sense) in any argument here. This is the one, and only time this has happened.

So stop, for one second, stop and consider this: As this argument continues, I continually find more evidence to prove the inaccuracy of your position, and continue to do so without getting over-excited and aggravated, while you have to keep repeating and become more agitated each time. Additionally, the situation means that everyone on this board is wrong and no one understands your point, despite lengthy discussion and a general consensus view on this board on a variety of subjects.

Just consider this, because this situation is not only an uncommon for you to be in, but it is an uncommon one for the board to have.

 

[J. Agamemnon]

I think quicksilvers blur argument is moot. It's explicitly stated that he's a super runner. He can break the sonic barriers. To not show just how fast he is in someway is not only a failure on the artists' part but the artist is downplaying just how fast Quicksilver is (at least in this example). In that context, the blur is a completely viable and reasonable means for explaining an already established ability. Not true for mask squinting.