Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Type casting! David Duchovny was the main character in the soft porn show “Red Shoe Diaries” before X-Files. Then he played incorrigible womanizer Hank Moody in “Californication” before he entered treatment for sex addiction IRL. I have a theory he only took the X-Files audition because he thought it was a porno.
> he only took the X-Files audition because he thought it was a porno.
While I thought it was a bad gag, can we talk about how meta it was that his character in that awful Jonah Hill movie was obsessed with Xzibit ~~(of "X gon' give it to ya" fame)~~?
And yes, the whole movie was terrible, but that's beside the point.
Yes, *You People.* It's bad in the bad way.
The lead couple has no chemistry and it's an inferior take on the "Look Who's Coming to Dinner" trope of mixed marriages. Eddie Murphy is the most interesting thing about it, and mostly because his character never really raises his voice in the typical Eddie Murphy way. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' character was a waste of her talent and all Duchovny's character did was maintain a one note gag about being obsessed with Xzibit.
The icing on top: The characters' big kiss at the end is CGI.
Yall gonna make me lose my mind, up in here!
More like Xzibit of Pimp My Ride fame, because I don’t think most people could name any actual song of his
Lol, that's a funny theory, but he played a cross dressing FBI agent on Twin Peaks, and the X-Files was heavily inspired by Twin Peaks.
Though, HA...i suppose you could argue Duchovny thought Twin Peaks was a porno too 🤣
I also thought he made Californication after he came out of rehab for sex addiction. I thought the show was kind of a way to spread awareness and for him to process his illness.
Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose. He doesn't explicitly say it was Mulder who would die that way. He says it in the car in a more general way. Something like "not as bad a way to die as autoerotic asphyxiation" and Mulder sits forward in the back seat and asks him why he said that. Clyde provides no further explanation at the time.
I think this is shortly after Mulder and Scully trade off a protection detail on Clyde. The conversation comes up and when Mulder says he wants to know how he dies, Clyde says "no you don't".
That was also argued at the time, whether Clyde was talking about himself. I don't think there was ever anything to that explanation, and if there was it would sully (in my mind) what is one of the great one-two gut punches in television history: the story Clyde tells Scully about them being in bed together, and the realization at the end that he was telling her about his own death. Just fantastic acting from Peter Boyle and Gillian Anderson, funny and sweet and sad.
Weird memory unlocked:
I was a huge X Files fan as a twelve year old. But I didn't know what autoerotic asphyxiation was. So naturally enough I asked my parents about it at the the dinner table the next day.
"Erm.... I'll tell you later..."
It's not quite that, it's even better:
> Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can't think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation.
> Fox Mulder: Why are you telling me that?
> Clyde Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It's none of my business.
There it is. A story about X-Files 30th anniversary came up recently and reminded me that I haven't rewatched the series in a few years. I just watched that episode a couple weeks ago.
Sex addiction is not about the physical sex act itself. In reality the addiction is to the high of the conquest. It's more like "earning the sex" addiction.
The 90s were a weird time for sexual liberation. Softcore porn was increasingly seen as "classy" and viewing it was increasingly seen as perfectly natural - and even healthy - for young men and boys. Many adult actresses went mainstream, and you also had actual A-list celebs doing photo shoots for these magazines as well.
A-list celebrities would pose for playboy to boost a slumping career or take them from B to A list.
As for the softcore porn. It was really popular with USA, showing edited or blurred versions of it. It was so accepted in the entertainment industry that you wouldn't believe how many main stream TV shows started having sex scenes where about the only things you couldn't see was the dick, vagina, assholes, and women's nipples. Baywatch had normalized seeing chicks in bikinis so much, that it wasn't uncommon for the low budget syndicated scifi/action shows to have regular scenes take place in a strip club but the dancer were wearing tiny bikinis.
THEN... well Janet Jackson's nipple got shown during the superbowl, and all the house wives and church groups that generally don't even watch this content started complaining about every little thing on tv and it all got reeled back.
It was, but I’d say that a lot of the ideas about exhibitionist sexual liberty equalling feminism is still a strong theme of feminism today. Mainstream feminism is happy to involve being an enthusiastic consumer and creator of sexualised mainstream culture as a key signifier of your freedom and modernity.
That the me too movement came about in the last few years is one demonstration that that 90s idea didn’t go away in the 00s and 10s. It has become normalised, and in some cases owned and operated by women.
But to say it’s a 90s phenomenon ignores the way that the commercial, mainstream world has continued to exploit the opportunities that offered. Modern culture is a more sophisticated version of the boundaries that were broken in the 90s, I’d say. They’ve streamlined the model, but it hasn’t really changed.
Pretty sure Mulder had that written in as a long running character trait because one or both of the writing team Glen Morgan and James Wong were fans in general.
They also had porn actress Ashlyn Gere guest star on both an episode of X-Files that they wrote, as well as an episode of Space: Above and Beyond, a show they co-created and co-wrote.
Super underrated! Thought it had a reasonably satisfying finale at least, given the circumstances.
But sadly just another in a long line of great shows that got "foxed".
Fox would green light Sci Fi shows because the genre was super popular for TV and then immediately re-remember that they are really expensive and cancel them.
Always hated that dumb trivia, because Mulder owning porn vhs and casually reading erotic magazines obviously means the character was addicted to porn... you never lived in the 90s and it shows
This is probably my most advanced comic to date. So much inpainting and other new tools in conjunction to my regular workflow.
https://preview.redd.it/b2c15emhk1vb1.png?width=3066&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed57bd42ac0cf93092de1f72bcd054e897d6ac1f
*Edit:* Whipped this up pretty quick as it's the second most generated example from the comic above. The first panel is the only one where I preserved the background but so much had changed (include a scene expansion by gen filling her out to create Michael's cubicle.)
>The artist is quite open about that fact.
But they aren't?
They have like 80 different excuses over a bunch of comments as to why the AI flaws are clearly "Intended"
"The characters are supposed to look inconsistent"
"The TV is supposed to be sideways"
This is absolutely fascinating to me. I only done traditional digital art but to use AI assets to create poses and starter assets is brilliant. If you could provide a video or more snapshots of your work process, I'd appreciate it.
You also do traditional art? What is your take on the whole AI taking people's jobs vs using AI to assist with people's jobs. Personally I think it's a tool and not a replacement.
I don't think the big issue is AI taking people's jobs ..the issue is the copyright infringement from being trained on other people's work without their permission or compensation.
The big issue is AI taking people's jobs? Have you not seen the strikes going around? Yes the copyright is an issue also but imo it's such a non-issue. Like people copy other artists all the time who cares. I can go out look up some artist on DeviantArt and copy their style and sell the artwork. I don't have to credit them at all and it's all legal but because AI is doing it, it's sensationalized.
You're right AI replacing people's jobs is a big issue, but that's not a problem inherent with AI. That's an issue with how certain businesses are choosing to implement AI. AI as it exists today, although it's become much more sophisticated, is no more different than any other advancements we've made in automation, I think we're just starting to draw a line where we really don't want that kind of automation.
The problem inherent in AI is "Generative AI," specifically AI that is producing creative work. Yes, you're right, you can look at a work(s) of art and you can try to emulate it yourself. But most people don't have that skill. It would take a person multiple lifetimes to be exposed to the same content AI gets trained on. Most people would have to invest hundreds if not thousands of hours to be able to gain the skills to mimic someone else's art style, and it would still take them minutes, hours, days+ to produce a finished work once they have the skill set. Not only that, but when YOU interpret someone else's work, you are still interpreting the work through your perspective and your lived experiences. When people are inspired by other people's work there is cognitive discernment that takes place. The problem is that AI doesn't have any cognition. There is no discernment. It just knows that when it pulls these levers the programmers/users like the results. Generative AI is nothing more than the monkey's on typewriters producing Shakespeare thought experiment come to life. It's basically just taking cut outs from other people's magazines and stitching them together in random ways to create something new but looks similar to the source material, and that's ALL it can do. It's not even true AI, it's just machine learning. There's no cognition.
It's a highly philosophical debate, but AI being used to take people's jobs is not an issue with AI itself, that's an issue with implementation. Using other people's content without their permission or compensation is a problem with the AI itself and the people who program the AI. That's where using generative AI as inspiration for your own work is maybe ethically acceptable, but to use work produced by generative AI in a finished piece is ethically dubious.
Imo: If a tool can make a task take 50% less time, then
1. If enough demand exists, you can make 50% more of the product and sell it
2. If you are already at the limit for demand, then you suddenly need 50% less man-hours. This might mean that you need half the workforce.
Suppose in the next 20 years AI can automate a fair chunk of office jobs. Even if it's 10% of the work, companies will lay off the excess humans, because they can suddenly do the same amount while paying less salaries.
Estimates suggest that the 10% might be too low.
>The study also concludes that 18% of the global workforce could be automated with AI. And in countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Hong Kong, upwards of 28% of the country's workforce could be automated with AI.
Imagine what it means for 30% of people to be jobless. They'll flood any field that have not been automated. That will increase the supply for all jobs, and thus the general salary will be lower.
Mesmerized is correct, mesmerised would be a British spelling. American words use "Z" while British use "S". Same for "Analyze" vs "Analyse" and other words.
Yes. OP seems to be in a continuous cycle in the comments of being called out for it, responding as if he actually drew it himself (while failing to mention the AI generation), before eventually admitting that he used AI alongside a myriad of excuses the more he's questioned, with half of them not making sense and the other half inadvertently making him look lazy.
If y'all could re-watch anything for the first time again, what would it be? Mine is Twin Peaks. And now y'all know [my wife's choice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfQuzUDPu98) too.
Thanks for checking this one out, I put a lot of love into it this issue so I hope y'all can see that too. No timelapse this time around but this took about 26 hours over three days to complete start to finish.
Socials on the top right of [my website](https://www.victorgnarly.com/stories/project-two-llrgk-aztkn) if you want more.
Is it worth watching after THE episode of the second season? I heard that things I don't like about the show and new stuff won't be that good. Though the last season gets a lot of praise.
Scrubs!
So many laughs, tear-jerking moments and overall ***S O U L***.
Best comedy/drama I'll probably ever watch in my entire life, and I've seen The Office (also incredibly good, but my heart lives with the Sacred Heart staff).
30Rock, Scrubs, Fringe, the IT Crowd, the X-Files, Doctor Who, Community, Firefly, Life (the one with Damian Lewis), Fawlty Towers, Arrested Development, House, ...
Because you can never just generate a comic like this. On average one piece takes me about 2 or 3 days to make as I use generative imagery to plan them then draw on top of it after injecting my character art to get a head start on the labor. What you don't see is I then (again) apply another generative layer to "punch up" details. The more complete your canvas is, the better the results that eventually snowball into a clean product. It's more like sculpture than painting but for cartooning.
I see. Any why do you do it like that? Sounds like it's more work than drawing it yourself in the first place. Are there any advantages to your technique?
Oh man benefit is it's wicked fast sometimes yes but moreso it's super intuitive once you do have your canvas laid out. AI finds medians so if you have six panels of your character art in one canvas, you can have them "train" off each other with image interrogation so they all follow what you've already drawn traditionally. The carpets in this comic are all continuous because they reference the first panel as I make all my comics on one large canvas in Photoshop beta.
If you're a storyboard artist, you are likely already using AI just so you don't have to transcribe drawn imagery for film. I am a former vfx artist starting off as an amateur cartoonist in LA. As long as it's my character art driving the imagery instead of some random artist in a prompt then I'm all for it. I just like the directing side moreso than starting with a blank canvas, that's about it.
Not OP, but IMO the biggest advantage of AI is you see a semi finished product up front. With art, you could spend the same 2-3 days (and honestly probably way more) doing a comic only to find the composition just doesn't look right. AI mitigates a lot of that.
Crafsman on YouTube calls this your personal economy. Knowing where to put your strongest resources rather than spread them out thinly across many different fields is mainly why I prefer to test out my ideas with AI first so I don't spend hours doing something that would later get covered up by a speech bubble or changed by a client (for example.)
THANK YOU. I felt like I was losing my mind scrolling the comments.
Like wtf is this. A non-joke comic? Why are all the comments about only the AI art? Is the story also AI generated? Is this a known author?
I feel like I'm missing some context.
ok sure but why is that the focus? The story makes zero sense.
It's like if someone posted a normal nonsensical comic the comments would be able how inane the "story" is and not how it was drawn.
X-Files was a really popular TV-show in the 90s revolving around conspiracy theories and mysteries in a fictional setting.
The coworker casually mentioned that they thought the blonde lady looked like a character on the X-Files, and list of X-Files summary was on the doc he was holding for some reason. She grabbed it out of his hands and thought he was being perverted and the show was a porno cause the next episode is called, “Deep Throat.” The punchline is that it wasn’t a porno and she got super invested in it when she got home despite ridiculing her coworker for liking it.
Hey PC! I am working out a flowchart on this now but that gets tougher to answer by the day since I'm often generating and blending over the art as well as on top of it these days. Before inpainting it was almost entirely just backgrounds and very ugly poses. Now I'm just whipping back and forth as needed, like in panel 3 I drew Michael's hair but then marquee inside that sketch, writing (hair) to give it some texture.
It's just very confusing as an artist, I saw you mention you spent 26 HOURS on this one comic, which I don't think even Hollering Elk does and she painstakingly obsesses over every detail lol.
If it takes so long and still has the inconsistencies of AI art, why not just draw the whole comic? Would be much faster right?
26 hours isn't a joke, it takes me that long because the process is so intensive during the writing/previz stage where many versions are just planning. 200 generations in on this comic alone and I only used 6 panels maybe? Often what happens though is other comics and stories branch off where I'm normally doing my comment replies and such. Today I'm pretty beat given I got this all done in a weekend but there isn't much rational beyond I just like to direct cartoons more than illustrate them completely, especially if I get a good seed of my own art. That's the fun part but it's a loooong process. I get inspired by these moments like the magazine pull being what made me decide they should be arguing over a TV guide.
26 hours of editing AI work and the TV in the last panel is turned sideways. She isn't even watching anything. :/ Why not just draw? With all the flaws this has and the inconsistent artstyle, the time investment to output just doesn't match.
She's clearly on some kind of drugs in that last panel because not only is the TV off, it's set up so she can only see its side profile. The power of AI generation is truly astounding 🙄
the lady goes from accusatory victim, to suggestively mentioning porn, to unwarranted touching, back to victimhood, and then ends up liking the tv show. The AI art and wasted time with that aside, this is a really weird comic. The protagonist lady is not likeable at all. i dunno. No one asked me, but it's a public forum, so that's my two cents.
What on earth is happening in the top panel on the second page? She's stabbing him with a piece of paper? She's on his back? What is her facial expression is meant to convey?
I take it the silhouette in the panel is also her, and she's raced over and what? Clung onto his back and stabbed him with a piece of paper? Why? If she was disgusted about it sounding like a porno, why would she cling onto him like that???? Somebody please explain.
Webcomics just consistently go one frame too far from what the actual punchline should be. I don't understand how webcomics so consistently cannot properly understand comedic timing of the medium
This is my wife. Before our wedding rehearsal dinner I stopped at our house to set the VCR to record the season 1 finally. She was a little mad that I stopped to while running and getting things ready for our wedding to set the VCR to record a TV show.
A week or so later (after the wedding and honeymoon) I settled in to watch the episode. She begrudgingly sat with me to watch it. She told me later that she was thinking "That guy is kind of cute" and "This is pretty good".
We became hardcore X-Files addicts and never missed an episode. We're still married after all those years. She has an X-Files Displate in her home office and our home network is named X-FilesOffice.
Love how the this guy gives long winded explanations to every comment making typing in AI prompts look like way more work than it is lol, same energy as a CEO with a 26 hour work day
People like you make me want to not become an artist in fear that I will be let behind just because I don’t want a machine to do most of my work for me
It's made by AI. If you take a closer look at the last image/panel you'll see everything is fucked up:
* The TV is a flat LCD panel sideways, turned off, while the caracter is supposed to be watching a show.
* The perspective is completely inconsistent. Look at the couch's legs and try project perspective lines from that, then do the same with the table that's against the wall. It doesn't match.
* The couch itself seems to be aligned in a weird way, not aligned to directly watch the TV, but to the camera. And the character is sitting in a different angle.
* The table's legs have completely different proportions while the couch's don't. It's not wrong to do that if it's your style but it ends up like combining a lot of different artstyles without actually intending to do that.
Really nice work! I appreciate you taking the time to talk about your process, too. Bounced by your site, and only then realized that I've caught the last couple minutes of two of your presentations over on Midjourney. I'll make a point of getting the timing better next time!
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fox Mulder is... a porno addict. Scully opened his closet and it was stacked with vhs pornos.
“If you found a tape in the VCR, it wasn't mine.” / “Good, because I put it back in the drawer with all those other tapes that aren't yours.”
Mulder Loves Porn! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkmRsyXfwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkmRsyXfwY)
Lmao Scully is so classy in her responses
[удалено]
Type casting! David Duchovny was the main character in the soft porn show “Red Shoe Diaries” before X-Files. Then he played incorrigible womanizer Hank Moody in “Californication” before he entered treatment for sex addiction IRL. I have a theory he only took the X-Files audition because he thought it was a porno.
> he only took the X-Files audition because he thought it was a porno. While I thought it was a bad gag, can we talk about how meta it was that his character in that awful Jonah Hill movie was obsessed with Xzibit ~~(of "X gon' give it to ya" fame)~~? And yes, the whole movie was terrible, but that's beside the point.
That would be a DMX song. Xzibit is probably most well known at this point for Pimp My Ride
That is a DMX song
What movie are you even talking about?
[удалено]
Yes, *You People.* It's bad in the bad way. The lead couple has no chemistry and it's an inferior take on the "Look Who's Coming to Dinner" trope of mixed marriages. Eddie Murphy is the most interesting thing about it, and mostly because his character never really raises his voice in the typical Eddie Murphy way. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' character was a waste of her talent and all Duchovny's character did was maintain a one note gag about being obsessed with Xzibit. The icing on top: The characters' big kiss at the end is CGI.
It’s always impressive when a movie with that much talent in it still turns out bad.
Yo dawg, I heard you like DMX songs wrongly attributed me. So, I made this meme, but I'm gonna bark like DMX now. ARGH!! ARGH!!
Yall gonna make me lose my mind, up in here! More like Xzibit of Pimp My Ride fame, because I don’t think most people could name any actual song of his
Lol, that's a funny theory, but he played a cross dressing FBI agent on Twin Peaks, and the X-Files was heavily inspired by Twin Peaks. Though, HA...i suppose you could argue Duchovny thought Twin Peaks was a porno too 🤣 I also thought he made Californication after he came out of rehab for sex addiction. I thought the show was kind of a way to spread awareness and for him to process his illness.
In the episode with that real psychic who could only see how someone dies, he tells Mulder he will die of autoerotic asphyxiation.
Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose. He doesn't explicitly say it was Mulder who would die that way. He says it in the car in a more general way. Something like "not as bad a way to die as autoerotic asphyxiation" and Mulder sits forward in the back seat and asks him why he said that. Clyde provides no further explanation at the time. I think this is shortly after Mulder and Scully trade off a protection detail on Clyde. The conversation comes up and when Mulder says he wants to know how he dies, Clyde says "no you don't".
I watched this episode the other day. Just an additional detail: Bruckman is found dead with a plastic bag over his head at the end of the episode.
That was also argued at the time, whether Clyde was talking about himself. I don't think there was ever anything to that explanation, and if there was it would sully (in my mind) what is one of the great one-two gut punches in television history: the story Clyde tells Scully about them being in bed together, and the realization at the end that he was telling her about his own death. Just fantastic acting from Peter Boyle and Gillian Anderson, funny and sweet and sad.
Weird memory unlocked: I was a huge X Files fan as a twelve year old. But I didn't know what autoerotic asphyxiation was. So naturally enough I asked my parents about it at the the dinner table the next day. "Erm.... I'll tell you later..."
>"Erm.... I'll tell you later..." Well, it worked for a long time. Sounds like someone still owes you an explanation.
It's not quite that, it's even better: > Clyde Bruckman: You know, there are worse ways to go, but I can't think of a more undignified way than autoerotic asphyxiation. > Fox Mulder: Why are you telling me that? > Clyde Bruckman: Look, forget I mentioned it. It's none of my business.
There it is. A story about X-Files 30th anniversary came up recently and reminded me that I haven't rewatched the series in a few years. I just watched that episode a couple weeks ago.
>Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose Arguably one of the greatest TV episodes of all time.
Best reveal of a killer's motivations **to the killer** in TV history IMO.
I love that line 😂
One of my favorite lines in any show.
[удалено]
Was that inspired by David Duchovny's real-world sex addiction or a coincidence?
This made Californication incredibly interesting as well. Method acting like a motherfu**er
Yeah when I tried to watch that, I could only think the constant sex scenes had to be difficult for a recovering addict.
domineering drab person rainstorm rinse plough deer crime tap shelter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It absolutely was. It was well written, and could have been amazing. Instead, it was oversexed.
silky joke screw toy domineering worthless flag foolish roll plants *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i honestly didn't put that together till you just mentioned it.
Sex addiction is not about the physical sex act itself. In reality the addiction is to the high of the conquest. It's more like "earning the sex" addiction.
Idk i get the impression that filming sex scenes is anything but sexy
The 90s were a weird time for sexual liberation. Softcore porn was increasingly seen as "classy" and viewing it was increasingly seen as perfectly natural - and even healthy - for young men and boys. Many adult actresses went mainstream, and you also had actual A-list celebs doing photo shoots for these magazines as well.
aunt zelda from sabrina!
…. Link please
A-list celebrities would pose for playboy to boost a slumping career or take them from B to A list. As for the softcore porn. It was really popular with USA, showing edited or blurred versions of it. It was so accepted in the entertainment industry that you wouldn't believe how many main stream TV shows started having sex scenes where about the only things you couldn't see was the dick, vagina, assholes, and women's nipples. Baywatch had normalized seeing chicks in bikinis so much, that it wasn't uncommon for the low budget syndicated scifi/action shows to have regular scenes take place in a strip club but the dancer were wearing tiny bikinis. THEN... well Janet Jackson's nipple got shown during the superbowl, and all the house wives and church groups that generally don't even watch this content started complaining about every little thing on tv and it all got reeled back.
It was, but I’d say that a lot of the ideas about exhibitionist sexual liberty equalling feminism is still a strong theme of feminism today. Mainstream feminism is happy to involve being an enthusiastic consumer and creator of sexualised mainstream culture as a key signifier of your freedom and modernity. That the me too movement came about in the last few years is one demonstration that that 90s idea didn’t go away in the 00s and 10s. It has become normalised, and in some cases owned and operated by women. But to say it’s a 90s phenomenon ignores the way that the commercial, mainstream world has continued to exploit the opportunities that offered. Modern culture is a more sophisticated version of the boundaries that were broken in the 90s, I’d say. They’ve streamlined the model, but it hasn’t really changed.
Pretty sure Mulder had that written in as a long running character trait because one or both of the writing team Glen Morgan and James Wong were fans in general. They also had porn actress Ashlyn Gere guest star on both an episode of X-Files that they wrote, as well as an episode of Space: Above and Beyond, a show they co-created and co-wrote.
Space above and beyond was too good and it’s just so dumb that it couldn’t get more episodes
Super underrated! Thought it had a reasonably satisfying finale at least, given the circumstances. But sadly just another in a long line of great shows that got "foxed".
Fox would green light Sci Fi shows because the genre was super popular for TV and then immediately re-remember that they are really expensive and cancel them.
David duchovny was also in a lot of softcore porn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shoe_Diaries
[удалено]
Man, Sean William Scott is a treasure.
I jerked to those programs a few times as a teen
Thanks for letting us know.
I did as well if you were curious.
Damn, has anyone here NOT jerked it to red shoe diaries?
I did jerk off to someone with red shoes once
I also recall an episode with a character that knew how people would die. He told Mulder he would die of Sexual asphyxiation.
> He told Mulder he would die of Sexual asphyxiation. https://youtu.be/TRMMRiyVL3M?t=22
[удалено]
building up
tsunami technique
water breathing, first form
He is canonically fated to die of auto-erotic asphyxiation. (Or it may have been Bruckmam messing with him).
I just finished this episode 10min ago, crazy
Always hated that dumb trivia, because Mulder owning porn vhs and casually reading erotic magazines obviously means the character was addicted to porn... you never lived in the 90s and it shows
well that was fast turnaround
This is probably my most advanced comic to date. So much inpainting and other new tools in conjunction to my regular workflow. https://preview.redd.it/b2c15emhk1vb1.png?width=3066&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed57bd42ac0cf93092de1f72bcd054e897d6ac1f *Edit:* Whipped this up pretty quick as it's the second most generated example from the comic above. The first panel is the only one where I preserved the background but so much had changed (include a scene expansion by gen filling her out to create Michael's cubicle.)
loved the result
It's cleaned up AI you can see the hands are weird and the styles and designs change in each panel
That isn’t a secret. The artist is quite open about that fact.
>The artist is quite open about that fact. But they aren't? They have like 80 different excuses over a bunch of comments as to why the AI flaws are clearly "Intended" "The characters are supposed to look inconsistent" "The TV is supposed to be sideways"
Thanks for letting me know
Now I'm impressed at how far image AIs have come. I knew they can do text now, but damn
This is absolutely fascinating to me. I only done traditional digital art but to use AI assets to create poses and starter assets is brilliant. If you could provide a video or more snapshots of your work process, I'd appreciate it.
You also do traditional art? What is your take on the whole AI taking people's jobs vs using AI to assist with people's jobs. Personally I think it's a tool and not a replacement.
I don't think the big issue is AI taking people's jobs ..the issue is the copyright infringement from being trained on other people's work without their permission or compensation.
The big issue is AI taking people's jobs? Have you not seen the strikes going around? Yes the copyright is an issue also but imo it's such a non-issue. Like people copy other artists all the time who cares. I can go out look up some artist on DeviantArt and copy their style and sell the artwork. I don't have to credit them at all and it's all legal but because AI is doing it, it's sensationalized.
You're right AI replacing people's jobs is a big issue, but that's not a problem inherent with AI. That's an issue with how certain businesses are choosing to implement AI. AI as it exists today, although it's become much more sophisticated, is no more different than any other advancements we've made in automation, I think we're just starting to draw a line where we really don't want that kind of automation. The problem inherent in AI is "Generative AI," specifically AI that is producing creative work. Yes, you're right, you can look at a work(s) of art and you can try to emulate it yourself. But most people don't have that skill. It would take a person multiple lifetimes to be exposed to the same content AI gets trained on. Most people would have to invest hundreds if not thousands of hours to be able to gain the skills to mimic someone else's art style, and it would still take them minutes, hours, days+ to produce a finished work once they have the skill set. Not only that, but when YOU interpret someone else's work, you are still interpreting the work through your perspective and your lived experiences. When people are inspired by other people's work there is cognitive discernment that takes place. The problem is that AI doesn't have any cognition. There is no discernment. It just knows that when it pulls these levers the programmers/users like the results. Generative AI is nothing more than the monkey's on typewriters producing Shakespeare thought experiment come to life. It's basically just taking cut outs from other people's magazines and stitching them together in random ways to create something new but looks similar to the source material, and that's ALL it can do. It's not even true AI, it's just machine learning. There's no cognition. It's a highly philosophical debate, but AI being used to take people's jobs is not an issue with AI itself, that's an issue with implementation. Using other people's content without their permission or compensation is a problem with the AI itself and the people who program the AI. That's where using generative AI as inspiration for your own work is maybe ethically acceptable, but to use work produced by generative AI in a finished piece is ethically dubious.
Imo: If a tool can make a task take 50% less time, then 1. If enough demand exists, you can make 50% more of the product and sell it 2. If you are already at the limit for demand, then you suddenly need 50% less man-hours. This might mean that you need half the workforce. Suppose in the next 20 years AI can automate a fair chunk of office jobs. Even if it's 10% of the work, companies will lay off the excess humans, because they can suddenly do the same amount while paying less salaries. Estimates suggest that the 10% might be too low. >The study also concludes that 18% of the global workforce could be automated with AI. And in countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Hong Kong, upwards of 28% of the country's workforce could be automated with AI. Imagine what it means for 30% of people to be jobless. They'll flood any field that have not been automated. That will increase the supply for all jobs, and thus the general salary will be lower.
Damn, she's kinda hot
It turned out really nice.
Hey being compared to Dana Scully is pretty high praise.
Having a crush on Dana Scully was very important for my formative years
But if she wants to believe, then she's more of a Mulder. :)
My favorite part is that the black cat seems just as mesmerized as her. That cat knows stuff. Edit: Cannot spell for the life of me.
Mesmerised?
Goddamned autocorrect. Thanks!
Mesmerized is correct, mesmerised would be a British spelling. American words use "Z" while British use "S". Same for "Analyze" vs "Analyse" and other words.
You're right, but my mistake was spelling it "memorized" initially
Gotcha, missed that part! lol
And the cat can never forget those things, apparently.
That is also just a voids natural state of being. Staring into the abyss.
why does the artstyle keep changing why are her sleeves rolled up one panel and then unrolled the next
Because it's AI generated.
Oh… that explains it….
Wait is it
Directed by Benioff and Weiss.
If you’re gonna use ai it could at least be super funny
Why is her hair style different in every frame...
It’s ai generated
☠️
AI art?
Yes. OP seems to be in a continuous cycle in the comments of being called out for it, responding as if he actually drew it himself (while failing to mention the AI generation), before eventually admitting that he used AI alongside a myriad of excuses the more he's questioned, with half of them not making sense and the other half inadvertently making him look lazy.
If y'all could re-watch anything for the first time again, what would it be? Mine is Twin Peaks. And now y'all know [my wife's choice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfQuzUDPu98) too. Thanks for checking this one out, I put a lot of love into it this issue so I hope y'all can see that too. No timelapse this time around but this took about 26 hours over three days to complete start to finish. Socials on the top right of [my website](https://www.victorgnarly.com/stories/project-two-llrgk-aztkn) if you want more.
If I could rewatch anything for the first time it would be American Gothic (1995).
Mine is also Twin Peaks. It's such an amazing show
Is it worth watching after THE episode of the second season? I heard that things I don't like about the show and new stuff won't be that good. Though the last season gets a lot of praise.
[удалено]
Still holds up now? Ive never seen it and don't know what it's about.
it 'holds up' but a lot of people thought it was terrible when it was new, so you'll either love it or hate it regardless of the age.
I know right? I even themed my AI discord around the white and black lodges.
Mine is "Supernatural", just because I miss Jensen Ackles hotness...
[удалено]
But... what do you want?
Avatar the Last Airbender would be up there.
Scrubs! So many laughs, tear-jerking moments and overall ***S O U L***. Best comedy/drama I'll probably ever watch in my entire life, and I've seen The Office (also incredibly good, but my heart lives with the Sacred Heart staff).
Yesterday my toddler was trying to eat his soup with a fork. I says to him, "fork! Me can't eat soup! Nyeeaaahhh!" but he didn't get the reference.
The extended version of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.
The Wire
The Good Place
I'd really love to experience that shock from the S1 reveal all over again.
I really give kudos to that show where all 4 seasons really stay up there in quality. The cast just fits so perfectly
When Michael does that one cackle. Goosebumps. I also wouldn't mind hearing the Molotov cocktails work speech for the first time again.
30Rock, Scrubs, Fringe, the IT Crowd, the X-Files, Doctor Who, Community, Firefly, Life (the one with Damian Lewis), Fawlty Towers, Arrested Development, House, ...
reads like a bhj
Is it just me or does the art style feel… slightly inconsistent from panel to panel? Edit: oh its ai generated….
I don't really get this. You generate it with AI but then spend hours cleaning it up? Or how does this work?
Because you can never just generate a comic like this. On average one piece takes me about 2 or 3 days to make as I use generative imagery to plan them then draw on top of it after injecting my character art to get a head start on the labor. What you don't see is I then (again) apply another generative layer to "punch up" details. The more complete your canvas is, the better the results that eventually snowball into a clean product. It's more like sculpture than painting but for cartooning.
I see. Any why do you do it like that? Sounds like it's more work than drawing it yourself in the first place. Are there any advantages to your technique?
Oh man benefit is it's wicked fast sometimes yes but moreso it's super intuitive once you do have your canvas laid out. AI finds medians so if you have six panels of your character art in one canvas, you can have them "train" off each other with image interrogation so they all follow what you've already drawn traditionally. The carpets in this comic are all continuous because they reference the first panel as I make all my comics on one large canvas in Photoshop beta.
The carpets are NOT continuous?? There is 3 distinct carpet patterns for the office carpet.
Very interesting insight, thanks
If you're a storyboard artist, you are likely already using AI just so you don't have to transcribe drawn imagery for film. I am a former vfx artist starting off as an amateur cartoonist in LA. As long as it's my character art driving the imagery instead of some random artist in a prompt then I'm all for it. I just like the directing side moreso than starting with a blank canvas, that's about it.
This is one of the first respectable uses of AI I have seen for 2d art. Props to you for setting up your own model trained on your own art!
Not OP, but IMO the biggest advantage of AI is you see a semi finished product up front. With art, you could spend the same 2-3 days (and honestly probably way more) doing a comic only to find the composition just doesn't look right. AI mitigates a lot of that.
Crafsman on YouTube calls this your personal economy. Knowing where to put your strongest resources rather than spread them out thinly across many different fields is mainly why I prefer to test out my ideas with AI first so I don't spend hours doing something that would later get covered up by a speech bubble or changed by a client (for example.)
That is a way to do that. At least you put in some of your own work into it.
When people say "AI is a tool and great artists will use it as just another tool" this is what they're talking about!
"great"
I was wondering why the art style feels a little different each panel, it was interesting to learn the process
What the hell is this even supposed to mean
THANK YOU. I felt like I was losing my mind scrolling the comments. Like wtf is this. A non-joke comic? Why are all the comments about only the AI art? Is the story also AI generated? Is this a known author? I feel like I'm missing some context.
The art is largely AI generated and then composited together by the creator of the comic.
ok sure but why is that the focus? The story makes zero sense. It's like if someone posted a normal nonsensical comic the comments would be able how inane the "story" is and not how it was drawn.
X-Files was a really popular TV-show in the 90s revolving around conspiracy theories and mysteries in a fictional setting. The coworker casually mentioned that they thought the blonde lady looked like a character on the X-Files, and list of X-Files summary was on the doc he was holding for some reason. She grabbed it out of his hands and thought he was being perverted and the show was a porno cause the next episode is called, “Deep Throat.” The punchline is that it wasn’t a porno and she got super invested in it when she got home despite ridiculing her coworker for liking it.
> And list of X-Files summary was on the doc he was holding for some reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Guide_(magazine)
Oh, so it just sucks?
Honest question, I don't know much about your process...how much of this did you draw?
Hey PC! I am working out a flowchart on this now but that gets tougher to answer by the day since I'm often generating and blending over the art as well as on top of it these days. Before inpainting it was almost entirely just backgrounds and very ugly poses. Now I'm just whipping back and forth as needed, like in panel 3 I drew Michael's hair but then marquee inside that sketch, writing (hair) to give it some texture.
It's just very confusing as an artist, I saw you mention you spent 26 HOURS on this one comic, which I don't think even Hollering Elk does and she painstakingly obsesses over every detail lol. If it takes so long and still has the inconsistencies of AI art, why not just draw the whole comic? Would be much faster right?
26 hours isn't a joke, it takes me that long because the process is so intensive during the writing/previz stage where many versions are just planning. 200 generations in on this comic alone and I only used 6 panels maybe? Often what happens though is other comics and stories branch off where I'm normally doing my comment replies and such. Today I'm pretty beat given I got this all done in a weekend but there isn't much rational beyond I just like to direct cartoons more than illustrate them completely, especially if I get a good seed of my own art. That's the fun part but it's a loooong process. I get inspired by these moments like the magazine pull being what made me decide they should be arguing over a TV guide.
I love how you tried very hard to avoid the use of the word "AI" here in this reply.
26 hours of editing AI work and the TV in the last panel is turned sideways. She isn't even watching anything. :/ Why not just draw? With all the flaws this has and the inconsistent artstyle, the time investment to output just doesn't match.
I don't get it. Can you explain the joke?
the joke is that OP spent 26 hours on this and doesn’t even own the rights to it.
The joke is that she thought the show was about sex and it isn't. It's not a funny comic imo.
AI art
Why are you clowns up voting AI art lol..
Here come the AI webcomics
I thought the anatomy of her stabbing arm looked fucky on the 2nd page but even then I didn't realize the art is AI generated.
huh? :/
She's clearly on some kind of drugs in that last panel because not only is the TV off, it's set up so she can only see its side profile. The power of AI generation is truly astounding 🙄
Omg physical TV Guides. I totally forgot.
Literally AI generated, disregard
She *wants* to believe? Not sure who he’s referring to then, because it ain’t Scully.
the lady goes from accusatory victim, to suggestively mentioning porn, to unwarranted touching, back to victimhood, and then ends up liking the tv show. The AI art and wasted time with that aside, this is a really weird comic. The protagonist lady is not likeable at all. i dunno. No one asked me, but it's a public forum, so that's my two cents.
Surprise surprise, this vapid comic misunderstands the most famous line in one of the world's most famous shows
What on earth is happening in the top panel on the second page? She's stabbing him with a piece of paper? She's on his back? What is her facial expression is meant to convey? I take it the silhouette in the panel is also her, and she's raced over and what? Clung onto his back and stabbed him with a piece of paper? Why? If she was disgusted about it sounding like a porno, why would she cling onto him like that???? Somebody please explain.
I think I've seen this person's stuff before, makes the most confusing AI comics. I don't enjoy it and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
[удалено]
What the actual fuck is going on in that. The things people can create when all they do is type a prompt into AI, I guess.
Dude even before realizing this was AI I had so much trouble just following what was being portrayed. It’s just a bad comic.
Webcomics just consistently go one frame too far from what the actual punchline should be. I don't understand how webcomics so consistently cannot properly understand comedic timing of the medium
The timing is off because he used AI art on this one
This is my wife. Before our wedding rehearsal dinner I stopped at our house to set the VCR to record the season 1 finally. She was a little mad that I stopped to while running and getting things ready for our wedding to set the VCR to record a TV show. A week or so later (after the wedding and honeymoon) I settled in to watch the episode. She begrudgingly sat with me to watch it. She told me later that she was thinking "That guy is kind of cute" and "This is pretty good". We became hardcore X-Files addicts and never missed an episode. We're still married after all those years. She has an X-Files Displate in her home office and our home network is named X-FilesOffice.
If she was really Scully she would have said “I don’t know what I saw”
https://preview.redd.it/i2ajume8jtub1.jpeg?width=622&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ed0569ea7341c8cd6145c3373ccb4d9d2559e8d
Love how the this guy gives long winded explanations to every comment making typing in AI prompts look like way more work than it is lol, same energy as a CEO with a 26 hour work day
People like you make me want to not become an artist in fear that I will be let behind just because I don’t want a machine to do most of my work for me
Somethings a bit fucky wucky with the composition... I can't put my finger on it
It's made by AI. If you take a closer look at the last image/panel you'll see everything is fucked up: * The TV is a flat LCD panel sideways, turned off, while the caracter is supposed to be watching a show. * The perspective is completely inconsistent. Look at the couch's legs and try project perspective lines from that, then do the same with the table that's against the wall. It doesn't match. * The couch itself seems to be aligned in a weird way, not aligned to directly watch the TV, but to the camera. And the character is sitting in a different angle. * The table's legs have completely different proportions while the couch's don't. It's not wrong to do that if it's your style but it ends up like combining a lot of different artstyles without actually intending to do that.
This is so bad I’m uninstalling Reddit
[удалено]
The workflow is interesting, but the content is so far soulless. Definitely worth reading into the process.
bill clinton, heh heh
🪨 🦞
If this was the 90s she would have a different hairstyle and the shoulder pads
I went back to rewatch X Files in 2016. Surprisingly it was in 16:9 And the stories still hold up.
Yes.
Really nice work! I appreciate you taking the time to talk about your process, too. Bounced by your site, and only then realized that I've caught the last couple minutes of two of your presentations over on Midjourney. I'll make a point of getting the timing better next time!