-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
drazen
There is no reason that the alternating book theory has to hold. In book two, Xykon was busy researching the other gates. In book four, Redcloak wanted them to study the rift and do more preparation. And it was only the lost phylactery that slowed them down in book five.
Girard's gates defenses were illusions, to which Xykon is immune. So obviously they went there first. It was easier than a tomb of monsters. But Xykon is epic and Redcloak nearly so; a bunch of monsters shouldn't slow them down much, if at all.
Also, Xykon wasn't nearly destroyed by the defenses except at Azure City. In Redmountain Hills, Roy went berserk. The defenses were incidental and it was a freak thing. Lirian didn't kill him, she just neutralized his magic until Redcloak solved the problem. Girard's gate blew up because Roy blew it up. The actual defenses on their own, without outside interference, haven't done jack or squat (except when Soon Kim had them on the ropes, and even then, he stated he couldn't destroy the phylactery without help).
Actually, the defenses at Dorukan's Gate kept the villains from accessing the Gate for months on end.
Lirian's defense was rather awesome. If the Crimson Mantle hadn't given Redcloak immunity to the virus they would have been completely screwed.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
That explains the lack of fish...
It also explains the Snarl's behaviour. He's got a megadeath of a hangover.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
And here we were just starting to get comfortable with the Snarl's apparent absence.
The reflection in Laurin's eyes at the end is by far the most disconcerting part of this.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zimmerwald1915
That explains the lack of fish...
But not the lack of drunken college students. The mystery deepens.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rewinn
Anyone else see this and think, "Snarl's Tentacles of Forced Intrusion"? :smallbiggrin:
I've seen enough anime to know where this is going.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ramien
But not the lack of drunken college students. The mystery deepens.
Nope. The Snarl is that drunk and rowdy college student. The Gates were locking him in God-school.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martianmister
I've seen enough anime to know where this is going.
It already happened to Laurin's mind
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Porthos
Of course that presumes that Hannah doesn't know what her mother gets up to. She might be smart enough to figure it out (or at least guess at the dark of it), but also smart enough to more or less keep her mouth shut about it.
But Lauren is a psion. She could just read Hannah's mind to figure out if she's lying. We haven't seen anything from Lauren that would indicate that she wouldn't be willing to mind-probe (and possibly mind-wipe) her daughter "for her own good."
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
This just occured to me; in classic mythology, the void or chaos (gaping empty) that exist before creation is often seen as an endless empty ocean where there is nothing but water. Is the world within just in a state of pre-creation?
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dalek Zek
This just agured to me; in clasic mythologie, the void or chaos (gaping empty) that exsist before creation is often seen as an endless empty ocean where there is nothing but water. Is the world within just in a state of pre-creation?
Didn't Blackwing see land masses on the planet though through the Azure City rift though?
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Golden-Esque
But Lauren is a psion. She could just read Hannah's mind to figure out if she's lying. We haven't seen anything from Lauren that would indicate that she wouldn't be willing to mind-probe (and possibly mind-wipe) her daughter "for her own good."
Nor do we have any evidence that she's the type of person who would snoop in her daughters mind unbidden. In fact what little evidence there is suggests she might not be the type.
Really the only evidence we have that she is the type is that she is evil. Which, while it isn't nothing, isn't very prescriptive, either.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dalek Zek
This just augured to me; in clasic mythologie, the void or chaos (gaping empty) that exsist before creation is often seen as an endless empty ocean where there is nothing but water. Is the world within just in a state of pre-creation?
You did spell augured correctly. Unfortunately, the word you want is "occurred."
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jere7my
You did spell augured correctly. Unfortunately, the word you want is "occurred."
Thanks, I think I was closer without the spell check then :)
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Awesome comic, Giant. The difference between crayon-Snarl and real-Snarl is quite jarring. He was unambiguously, cartoonish "Grr! I'm a monster!" type before, and now it's an unknowable Lovecraftian horror. Chilling, and an amazing use of the opportunities of your art style. I love how the Scribbler's accounts anthropomorphized and familiarized the Snarl, and what you've shown us now makes it seem more like what we've always known it is: a god-killing abomination.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gift Jeraff
I just checked, and the Snarl also doesn't have claws in the Secret Lore of the Crimson Mantle
Spoiler: SoD
Show
when it's hypothetically killing Xykon/Redcloak and attacking Thor's domain.
I think the claws in the Secret Lore of the Sapphire Guard were purely a design choice. Remember, that was the introduction of the Snarl to the audience; Rich wanted to get the point across that the Snarl is a killer (or at least, that's what we were supposed to think at that time). Or maybe he liked the claws at the time but then changed his mind.
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
Where did I say Soon's definition of what it looks like is unlikely? I'm guessing that maybe Rich decided to change a detail about the Snarl's appearance when drawing the crayon sequence in Start of Darkness. I am not asserting that this is definitely the case.
And seriously? The lack of claws make it "completely different"? I guess the OOTS look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF THEM SHOWN EVER prior to #198.
(Yes, I know you mentioned the Snarl looking "like electricity" or something earlier; my post was only addressing the claws.)
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
Because he decided that he wants it to look different? Besides, whenever it's shown with claws, it's in a crayon drawing (signifying that it's someone's retelling of events rather than the actual events as they actually happened).
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Damn, i'm WAYYYYYYY late. The only thing i can say is, i think the crap has hit the proverbial fan.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
While Soon may have indeed seen the Snarl up close and personal, Shojo has not, and can only describe what he heard, not what he actually saw. His description is also questionable because it has become obvious that his story was missing parts. Finally, as has been pointed out before, at least one other picture (from Start of Darkness, published after the Crayons of Time strips, but before now) has shown the Snarl without claws. Any other difference is a result of transferring mediums.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
I would say 'art upgrade'. Before the Snarl (assuming that is the Snarl) looked pretty cool. Now the Snarl looks pants-wettingly awesome.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mad Humanist
Nope. The Snarl is that drunk and rowdy college student. The Gates were locking him in God-school.
Dean Odin: "Every time a fire alarm is pulled, Snarl House. Every time a pantheon of gods is destroyed, Snarl House. Every time all of reality is torn to shreds..."
Snarl: "Hey, I can explain that..."
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oppyu
I would say 'art upgrade'. Before the Snarl (assuming that is the Snarl) looked pretty cool. Now the Snarl looks pants-wettingly awesome.
thats not an art upgrade, thats a character re-design, the Snarl was made of THIN STRINGS not thick tentacles, the Snarl had claws (especially when it was attacking) the tentacles DO NOT the snarl doesnt have hundreds of arms, yet theres clearly dozens of tentacles
i cant find a single reason to even think for a second that that is the snarl
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
It's not that different from what was seen in SoD. Especially if one accounts for the difference between crayons and not-crayons.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
Soon wasn't telling the story. Shojo was.
He was retelling events that he got third-hand several decades ago. The Snarl's true appearance probably wasn't the most important part of Soon's lore, either. The crayon drawings probably show us how Shojo pictures the events, and we've also seen that the Scribblers don't all remember those events the same way.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
Soon has literally SEEN the Snarl with his own 2 eyes, why is his definition of what it looks like considered unlikely? and why would the author purposely draw the snarl to look completely different from EVERY PICTURE OF IT SHOWN EVER
"Every picture of it shown ever" before this (that I'm aware of) constituted CRAYON DRAWINGS. Why are you having such a hard time with this?
The art in the comic has changed numerous times on the author's whim (or sometimes on his computer's whim). It is not unreasonable to expect changes to the Snarl due to a) the length of time that has passed since the Snarl was last seen and b) the different medium of presentation.
Besides, the fundamentals aren't changing. The Snarl is still a purple tangle of threads that have the power to slaughter anything and everything.
I think you're trying way too hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
thats not an art upgrade, thats a character re-design, the Snarl was made of THIN STRINGS not thick tentacles, the Snarl had claws (especially when it was attacking) the tentacles DO NOT the snarl doesnt have hundreds of arms, yet theres clearly dozens of tentacles
i cant find a single reason to even think for a second that that is the snarl
Artistic license and different mediums account for stings/tentacles. Seriously, you need to get over this fixation on the crayon drawings as set in stone.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sengmeng
Soon wasn't telling the story. Shojo was.
He was retelling events that he got third-hand several decades ago. The Snarl's true appearance probably wasn't the most important part of Soon's lore, either. The crayon drawings probably show us how Shojo pictures the events, and we've also seen that the Scribblers don't all remember those events the same way.
Also:
really really really light SoD spoilers:
Spoiler
Show
The Snarl has no claws when it is shown/depicted in SoD.
Just sayin'.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
thats not an art upgrade, thats a character re-design, the Snarl was made of THIN STRINGS not thick tentacles, the Snarl had claws (especially when it was attacking) the tentacles DO NOT the snarl doesnt have hundreds of arms, yet theres clearly dozens of tentacles
i cant find a single reason to even think for a second that that is the snarl
Take a look at Panel 3 here. Notice that the Snarl has grown compared to Panels 1 and 2, and that the strands are much bigger. It also has many, many strands. As I said before, the Snarl has not always been shown with claws.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
:smallconfused::smallconfused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Porthos
Also:
really really really light SoD spoilers:
Spoiler
Show
The Snarl has no claws when it is shown/depicted in SoD.
Just sayin'.
Why'd you even spoiler that?
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forikroder
thats not an art upgrade, thats a character re-design, the Snarl was made of THIN STRINGS not thick tentacles, the Snarl had claws (especially when it was attacking) the tentacles DO NOT the snarl doesnt have hundreds of arms, yet theres clearly dozens of tentacles
i cant find a single reason to even think for a second that that is the snarl
It came out of the rift explicitly said to be holding the Snarl, it clawed through someone in a fashion similar to previous Snarl soul-rendings, it appears to be ludicrously huge and terrifying, and it looks more like the previous depictions of the Snarl than it does Kraagor. Plus, all the canonical depictions of the Snarl have been in different art styles several years ago. Maybe it's the different art style, maybe the Giant re-designed the character in the last five years or so, or maybe it's not the Snarl. But (in my opinion), it being the Snarl is the best guess available right now.
EDIT: Quintuple-ninja'd.
-
Re: OOTS #945 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Link
:smallconfused::smallconfused:
Why'd you even spoiler that?
I said it was light. :smalltongue:
Also, IIRC Forikroder is a bit touchy about SoD information, so I decided to be nice. :smallsmile: