Last time through, people had very solid comments on my cover, but I got them too late into the process to take advantage without throwing away a lot of work. I don't want to repeat that mistake, now that I'm doing a better cover for upcoming editions.

So I've got the first sketch draft of the art for the front. I'm hoping to get across some of the way that Capes encourages conflict on a personal level as well as a super-powered level, particularly by having the much less imposing physical specimen clearly be completely dominant in the interpersonal dynamic being shown.

So what do you think? Does that come across? Are the proportions closer to comic-booky than the previous cover? Any glaring errors? Anything you particularly like?

I like the big hulking dude and the poses. I'd have to wait to see the facial expressions to see if the message really comes across, but so far, so good.

I gotta say that their costumes aren't very superhero-y, but I like it.

Hi Tony,

The woman's legs appear to have different sizes. Her right leg (left to us) would be correct, the other leg seems a little short to me.

--Jasper

Haven't done the woman's costume yet... the big guy is going Hulk-Chic, though I may add some chains or something to emphasize the "I'm a raging beast of fury" motif.

Jasper: Good catch on the legs. The left hip is supposed to be raised (since that leg is weight-bearing)... a little fiddle to where the iliac crest merges into the rest of the body should make the difference. Thanks!

This may be too late if you're set on that particular setup, but I look at that and go "I want them to be doing something."

Another thought -- the genders might lead the viewer to read that as the message, rather than the weak/strong split. It's funny, but when I was thinking about what kind of image would convey Capes, I had pictured something much like this. I was seeing more active scolding from the little character, though -- shaking a finger or something.

What's going to be in the background?

Brendan wrote: "I want them to be doing something."

I tried about... err... twenty different takes on the scolding thing. I liked that idea too.

The problem with it is facing, relative to the point of view. You can do scolding real easy in two panels, with different front-facing pictures on each of the people. One panel? Somebody's got their back turned toward the viewer. Yeah, yeah, I know... three-quarter profiles and distorted lenses, and... I couldn't make it work. Some artists, no doubt, can. I couldn't.

How's this for doing something, mostly in the yet-undefined faces? Big bruiser is either rubbing his neck in confusion or slicking his hair in an attempt to be more presentable (the latter if I can convey it... it's just so plaintive). The girl is looking away and egregiously rolling her eyes in amused contempt.

TonyLB wrote: You can do scolding real easy in two panels, with different front-facing pictures on each of the people.

timfire wrote:

TonyLB wrote: You can do scolding real easy in two panels, with different front-facing pictures on each of the people.

What's wrong with splitting the cover into multiple panels? I think it would add to the color.

My gut reaction to this is negative. Which is just by way of informing you guys. I'm not exactly sure why, but I see two possibilities.

First, unlike WGP, Capes is not about the comic book medium. I've stayed away from panels as a metaphor, and I'm pretty happy with that decision.

Second, I actually like the notion that people don't know what's happening in the shot. It gives them some room to project their own thoughts onto the picture. I think some added emotional subtext (on the faces) will help that.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendations! I'll try a panel layout (because I'm trying all sorts of things) and see what I can do with it.

Hulk is really hot for that chick, right? But she doesn't get it? Poor sad bastard. Still, you know, it might work out if... uh, I'm reading too much into this...

Just for fun, picture these gender combinations in your head instead and see what relationships you assume:

Big woman, small man
Big man, small man
Big woman, small woman

Flash of inspiration: this would really work if there was a giant robot or spaceship destroying the city in the background, while the two foreground characters have some sort of argument about their relationship. Just an idea, and definitely accurate to Capes play.

Oh, that's sick. I don't know if I'm good enough to do that and have it read clearly to the eye, but I certainly like the idea.

You could also do one with the big, hulk-type blushing and handing a rose to the female super, while mayhem rages in the background.

In terms of making it easily readable to the eye:

I think if the back ground had some low detail sky scrapers getting blasted to rubble by blaster rays from flying saucers (more the suggestion of than any real detail)...

...while the foreground had hulk-dude like now, scratching his head and his face looking puzzled...

...and the chick actually turned away from him to our right with one arm out in the "talk to the hand" pose

That that would be pretty instantly recognizeable.

Hrm... maybe have the city-destruction in a vertical strip of background (top to bottom, bleeding all the way past the trim-edge of the cover) but have both of the foreground characters actually breaking past that strip into white unbackgrounded space on the left and right.

I think that visually makes them in the scene, but not of it, and also gives the viewing eye instant places to start parsing them as figures.

Hey, I like that. Very stylish. And would allow a greater degree of detail in the city scene without distracting from the forground.

I'm envisioning laying it out like two seperate overlapping pictures. The rear one being the city scene the other one being shifted down and to the right containing the characters, but then have no border where they overlap so they visually run together.

I think that would look slick.

I like the interaction, but would like to see more action with more figures (not talking about the background at all here). I'll try to describe it with words, starting with the hulking brute:

The hulking brute (seen about 3/4 frontal, turned towards the right edge of the panel) is leaning forward, hunched over (trying to talk with the woman eye-to-eye), with a questioning/pleading (not to be interpreted as "begging") look on his face. His elbows are at about waist level, forearms forward and slightly out to each side, palms up, hands tense (possibly clenched).

Another figure is partially behind the brute and to his right (in the panel), attempting unsuccessfully to hold him back. He is straining so hard that his eyes are squeezed shut, but to no avail.

The woman in the foreground (seen about 2/3 frontal, but turned towards the left edge of the panel) is in the classic "talk to the hand" position, with her right arm extended towards the brute. Her face shows her stubborn determination to have her way.

In the back (to the left of the brute in the panel) is a figure seen in profile (pointed inwards), looking back towards whatever is happening in the background and scratching his head in confusion.

The "Talk to the hand pose" always looks fake to me. Do people actually do that?

Maybe the girl should be turned away from him more, in a "I'm ignoring you" sort of way.

--Jasper

This is what I mean: http://home.planet.nl/~loije022/images/temp/girlsketch.jpg

--Jasper

I like the poses depicted in your sketch; they convey a relationship but are ambiguous about it. The talk-to-the-hand pose would be more in your face and definite. It's that subtle ambiguity that lends the positioning it's power.

And the destruction in the background thing? I likey.

Jasper, I love the body turned away, but eyes glaring back thing. It wonderfully conveys "I need to make absolutely sure that you can't miss the fact that I'm ignoring you completely." I'll definitely have to experiment with that: I was thinking a disgusted eye-roll, but that may not convey as well.

The "Talk to the hand pose" always looks fake to me. Do people actually do that?