HOME | DD
Makyui β Corndog
Published: 2008-10-28 02:16:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 3211; Favourites: 29; Downloads: 31
Redirect to original
Description
Link is very fond of Sheik's corndog. Sheik is more than happy to share.(Yes, I know that corndogs are pretty anachronistic for Hyrule, but it makes more sense than some of my other choices.)
I'm quite full of spite and vinegar lately.
I apologize, once again, for using my camera as a scanner, and a rather shoddy one, at that. It was the only way I could upload it while keeping the colors more or less intact, and without making it grainy as all hell, since my REAL scanner is cheap. When I get a better scanner, I'll re-upload everything properly, I swear.
Colored pencils are a lot harder to "paint" with than I remember, especially on a limited palette. I can't wait 'til I can get watercolors again (which is weird, because up until a few years ago, I used colored pencils exclusively and I HATED watercolor).
Anatomy issues, as usual. Critiques and/or redlines are welcome and encouraged... as usual.
EDIT: At =metal-icarus 's advice, I stuck a cast shadow in there. I really, really hope it looks better, and that I didn't screw it up somehow.
I hated the eye-blinding white void, too, because it made everything look dark by comparison, but I had no idea what to do about it, so I stuck a more neutral background in there. Gawd, I'm so lame.Prismacolor pencils on Bristol board. Link and Sheik are copyright Nintendo.
Related content
Comments: 120
well..... the corndog is symbolic...
eres muy bueno con esos colores prismacolor
como puedo ver,eres muy bueno amigo....bueno me voy ,je,je
π: 0 β©: 1
Very symbolic.
Ajaja gracias. ^^ Los lΓ‘pices de colores son muy difΓciles. D:
π: 0 β©: 1
completely agree with you .. especially to blend two or three colors ... but .. hey you tried using watercolors ... are more subtle .. but the results are amazing ... watch this artist has good examples ....
π: 0 β©: 1
Aaaa watercolor! I've actually been trying to work on it lately. So fun but so tricky. D: They're hard to control, but nothing is as gorgeous as watercolors when done right. It's got such a sparkle and clarity.
Wow, you weren't kidding! There's some really gorgeous work in there. The skin tones are amazing. 
Thanks for sharing!
π: 0 β©: 0
ok wait... shieks a girl so...
think about this
π: 0 β©: 1
she's zelda... dont you know anything about zelda at all?
π: 0 β©: 1
So women can't dress as men?
π: 0 β©: 1
no its illegal an' i'm a cop, i'm a cop, i'm a big ol' cop, i'm a cop, i'm a cop, and ya goin to jail
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, that's what I thought.
π: 0 β©: 1
but no, think about this. she's titilating link with homoeroticism...
its very confozzled
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the point, though. The corndog is symbolic.
π: 0 β©: 1
for...?
shiek is a woman... so...
π: 0 β©: 1
[link]
good job with that. PRINCESS zelda who was given the title based on her lineage to a king who has to know her gender in order to give the title in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not talking about Zelda, I'm talking about Sheik.
[link]
Oops.
π: 0 β©: 1
i think you just realized who shiek is... good work.
π: 0 β©: 1
Lolol how would I have just now known if I'd made a picture of him years ago?
π: 0 β©: 1
her. shiek is princess zelda in disguise. the innuendo makes no sense or zelda loves watching male homoeriticism.
either is dumb
π: 0 β©: 1
Zelda is disguised as a male.
"The mysterious Sheik's motives are unknown, but it seems he wants to help..." --Zelda.com's page on Sheik
It makes perfect sense: they're both gay together.
Lots of women like watching male homoeroticism which is why they're the target demographic of "yaoi", so neither are dumb.
π: 0 β©: 1
thats called disguise. her gender stays the same
also, this is before mass media pushed interest of homoeroticism into the mainstream for women, so zelda wouldn't know about it. its still dumb as it gets.
π: 0 β©: 1
And she is disguised as a man.
Sheik is a man.
Makes perfect sense.
Your argument, however, does not.
π: 0 β©: 1
think about this. when you put on a costume, do you change your genitalia?
π: 0 β©: 1
You're talking about Zelda's gender again instead of Sheik's. You're also assuming gender = sex. Think about who you're talking to and then realize why that question might be inappropriate.
At any rate, it's painfully obvious to anyone who isn't blind that Zelda's body changes when she becomes Sheik. The two have completely different, incompatible physiques.
When I put on a costume of a character whose gender doesn't match mine, my gender has no bearing on that character's gender. Princess Peach does not become a man just because I am one. Princess Peach is still a woman, and all of her actions and behaviors would be from the point of view of a woman.
And if I had the ability to magic myself a new body as Zelda did, then yes, I would change my body to exactly match theirs, including genitalia. It's just the obvious choice.
π: 0 β©: 1
she isn't using magic to shapeshift. she's using it to change into a disguise of a shiekan male. my arguement is simple: if she could shapeshift, why would she use the same form every time she helped link? she would have used a different disguise each time to blend into the environment and probably keep herself out of harms way because she is a royal diplomat. but because of the training with impa, she learned the ways of the shiekan, and thus disguised herself in what she believed the original shiekans to look like. the magic did not change her physical form, but rather the way it appeared.
but even then, if she could change into shiek's visual body, why couldn't she change into anything else? because its simply clothes being warped onto her. that simple.
oh, and gender does equal sex, just not sexual orientation.
PS: zelda remains PRINCESS zelda under the disguise. no matter how much you argue, she is still a woman, no matter what cloak she wears.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not arguing anything about Zelda's gender. You are.
That's meaningless speculation. Sheik is obviously very different in body than Zelda is, beyond simply a clothing change. It's obvious to anyone who isn't blind or deluded.
Please explain how changing the appearance of the body is not shapeshifting or changing the physical form.
Gender and sex are two completely different things. Men who don't have penises are still men and women who don't have uteruses are still women.
π: 0 β©: 1
but zelda was born with female genitalia. she IS a woman by definition, and remains so in costume.
a man without a penis is more asexual if born that way, otherwise he is simply a deformed man. costume has nothing to do with actual physical being.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are the only one arguing Zelda's gender here.
Wrong, there are plenty of men and women who don't have the genitalia that are traditionally associated with them.
Sheik's "physical being" is male and he is a man.
π: 0 β©: 1
ok, prove this theory. use any proof you can find anywhere than shiek is a man, even though it is fact that its princess zelda in disguise.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ocarina of Time, as I've already showed you twice now. Which makes me wonder why you went to such efforts to not see it.
π: 0 β©: 1
OoT? that proves my point... shiek is zelda in that game. quite obviously.
please, give actual evidence to your case.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sheik is also a man in that game, as I have repeatedly demonstrated and for some inexplicable reason you choose to ignore.
Perhaps because you realize it's irrefutable.
π: 0 β©: 1
please give me evidence. i really want to know where you get these crazy ideas of opposite gender.
π: 0 β©: 2
Wow, it's just like arguing with a creationist, how batty.
Since you insist on ignoring the first bit of evidence I've already given you (yes, referring to a person as 'he' and assuming that means he's a man is soooo crazy!), I wonder what point it would be to give you anything further. You'll just pretend that it doesn't exist anyway.
Oh well.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
QED
π: 0 β©: 3
You're only the twelfth person to show me that website, which is full of wrong. Also "epic reverse trap" LOL anti-trans bigotry is so funny.
And good, some random guy at NOA contradicts stuff posted on NOA's website. What a surprise, considering they love erasing Birdo's gender when they're afraid of people getting scared by icky trannies.
Don't care, honestly.
π: 0 β©: 0
think about this sir: would a character refer to someone they think is a man who is actually a woman in disguise a man or a woman? this implies that they do not know who is under the disguise or even if it is a disguise at all.
wwhen you have an answer, consider this: if you put on a Dracula costume, are you actually bela lugosi? or are you wearing a costume?
while you think of the obvious answers, please refer yourself to the actual fact that zelda IS shiek.
π: 0 β©: 1
No shit. That Zelda is Sheik has never ever been called into question, and I don't understand why you keep repeating it as though it actually had some kind of bearing whatsoever on anything at all. Sorry, it doesn't, nor does it refute my claim. Zelda is also a thin, frail, pale-skinned Hylian with blue eyes who was raised as a princess. Is that the same for Sheik? No.
I gave you proof -- in-game proof, at that -- that Sheik is a man, and you continue to dance around it.
If they think the person is a man, they will refer to him as a man, as you fully well know, since you do it yourself every single day -- unless you seriously ask for proof of gender before referring to someone as a man or a woman. They think he is a man because Zelda is disguised as a man. And if the creators of this character refer to him as a man, then he is definitely a man. Sheik, therefore, is a man.
When an all-male cast perform Romeo and Juliet (as was required once upon a time, since women weren't allowed to act), does that make it a gay story, even if Juliet is always referred to as a woman?
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Zelda does more than just wear a mask, as is very obvious to anyone who isn't blind or deluded, so your analogy is not only off, it is also a misrepresentation of my argument, something I predicted in my last comment. Big surprise. It's very obvious that Zelda actually transforms into the physical body of Sheik, so that you would put this forward and then argue as though it not only isn't true but also isn't what I'm arguing is disingenuous.
Also predictable, you rely on Brawl to make your point, which is both silly and dishonest, since Brawl isn't where Sheik originates, it's not based on Ocarina of time, and it's not canon. It's exactly as valid as the licensed-and-endorsed-by-Nintendo manga that states explicitly that Zelda hides her spirit away and is given the body of a boy, which is why I chose not to offer it, even though it agrees with my position. Hilariously, most people who argue that Sheik is female have actually never played Ocarina of Time and only know about Sheik through spin-off crossover fighting games created long after OoT was forgotten, and yet they have the audacity to call into question the knowledge of people who'd been playing Zelda since before said people were born.
And Bela Lugosi is not Dracula but an actor, so asking if dressing as Dracula makes someone Bela Lugosi doesn't make sense. You're asking if dressing as Sheik makes someone actually Zelda, which is not a claim I've ever made and doesn't really support your claim either.
π: 0 β©: 1
its a costume. its been universally proven.
oh, and when you put on a "dracula" costume, you are disguising yourself as the actor's portrayal of the monster, so you would be emulating bela. not dracula.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah because the ONLY Dracula that can ever be is a singular one that Lugosi happened to do, right mm-hmm sure. No you wouldn't, that logic is completely backwards.
It's a costume of a man, as I've proven and you have not. Funny that all you can do at this point is repeat the same point over and over again even though I've debunked it already.
This just shows that much like arguing for creationism, people can't argue for a female Sheik without being willfully ignorant or downright dishonest.
π: 0 β©: 1
haha, lugosi is the dracula nearly every costume was made to imitate. the arguement there is inane.
the idea is that zelda is shiek. she does not change her gender... just her appearance to look like the opposite gender. thats why characters refer to her as male until she is revealed. the character is not supposed to remind the player of zelda, and is written to surprise you in the end.
if i put on a dress, a wig, and make up, and someone immediately confused me with a woman, am i one?
π: 0 β©: 2
Okay, I'm gonna weigh in about the whole gender thing, but first I have a bone to pick about the whole Lugosi/Dracula thing and the nature of costumes in general.
When you put on a Dracula costume, you are by definition dressed as Dracula. Lugosi doesn't enter into it unless you imitate his voice and dress up in a facsimile of the costume he wore when he played the part, in which case it becomes a Bela Lugosi costume, since that's who your aiming for instead of the more general "Dracula"
Incidentally Dracula predates Lugosi, and nor is Lugosi the only man to ever play him, he's simply the most memorable, anyways.
This brings me to my point on costumes in general, in that if the actors doing his job you're supposed to be able to kinda forget that its him or her behind the mask (so to speak), and think solely in terms of the persona they've adopted. This is not always easy, especially with actors who are very distinctive personally, but its what most actors, especially stage actors, are shooting for.
Prime example would be V and Agent Smith from V for Vendetta and The Matrix movies respectively. Same exact actor, though if you'd never been told you'd probably never guess, and not just cuss you cant see V's face. V is so totally different from Smith that it's impossible to mistake one for the other, not to mention that we don't usually hear those movies described in terms of what the actor did, its always in terms of who he appears to be.
Which brings me to the following hypothetical scenario/question: If Smith put on the costume, and did his damnedest to act the part would you EVER guess it was him? If for some reason he never broke character would you ever have cause to doubt that it was V?
Of course this is hypothetical, and the whole exercise is kinda hampered by the knowledge that they are both fictional characters from entirely different stories and settings but the general point still stands. That point being that when you put on a costume, especially one as identity concealing as V's (or for that matter Shiek's), and act out the part associated with the costume people tend to not know who the fuck is underneath and go with appearances.
"Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.
Well I can see that.
Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is."
-- Dialogue from "V for Vendetta" which I feel sums up my point.
π: 0 β©: 1
i didn't read all that, but i will say that the quote from V is interesting, though its misworded.
asking a masked man who he is is not a paradox, but rather a contextual gesture. if you ask who they are portraying vs. who they are, you find the real answer. a man in a mask is a portrayal of another. its their initiative to reveal themselves or not. asking a masked man "who are you" is an implication of revealing their identity. not a question of what.
π: 0 β©: 1
... I must admit to being mildly insulted at this reply, first in that you pulled a too long (mostly) didn't read on me, and then attempt to launch a counter argument without having fully read MY argument. Maybe I was being overly courteous but I took the time to become familiar with the argument you had been having with Makyui before becoming involved, I did not simply jump in blindly. You can perhaps see how it is irritating to come back and find that this effort has not been reciprocated in kind. ANYWAYS.
Oh but it is a paradox, as you have basically asked a man who has deliberately hidden his identity to reveal it to you. If the whole point of the mask is that you cannot know who is underneath, then your request for the mask-wearer to reveal himself is contradictory to their obvious intentions. Thus asking a masked man who who is is in fact a paradox, if one easily solved one way or another. "Form following the function of what" is just V being facetious.
Further, there is a flaw in applying "who they are portraying" to any situation regarding V, or cases similar to V. This is because, strictly speaking he is dressed up as Guy Fawkes, yet if you ask anyone remotely familiar with V and V for Vendetta who that particular costume is supposed to be you're gonna get "It's V" for your answer. This is because V has basically made his mask his face, the costume and its associated mannerisms becoming an identity unto themselves. This last bit is a key plot point in the comic, as after V's death Evey puts on the outfit and stops being Evey, and starts being V. The phrase "becoming the mask" exists for a reason, and it applies in full here.
The knowledge that the person behind the mask has changed belongs to the audience alone and from an in story perspective, that is to say the other characters points of view, its still the same guy.
How does this apply to Shiek? Mostly in the fact that a costume itself can become an actual identity. Put it on and you are that person regardless of who you "really" are... Now that I think about it there are several parts of Majoras Mask that outright run on that line of thinking.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Who is but the form, following the function of what, and what I am is some dude who was interested in having a friendly discussion with you."
I must say that of all the countless people I've taken the time to (try and) have a debate with over the internet you are the first who can't seem to formulate an actual counter-argument to what I've said, and I have argued with some mind bogglingly STUPID people. Not that their counter arguments were necessarily any good, but they at least had wits enough to do more then spring stuff like 'TL
Who I am is irrelevant to the debate, as who I am has no effect on whether or not my point is valid. I'm also pretty sure if someone popped in on your side who they are would be irrelevant to you, after all they'd have been on your side.
Further, as I tell every other person who tries this tactic on me, your having a rather nerdy debate on the internet in a place where literally anyone scrolling through the comments on this picture can see and join in with ease. Any idea that the discussion is private is delusional, especially since your having it with the artist. Furthermore you advertised on your own page that this argument is happening, practically an open invitation for people to come look and possibly join in.
π: 0 β©: 1
seriously, who are you again?
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, you can't formulate a good argument for shit can you?
Seriously? I'm just some dude, one you actually started talking to before starting this who are you stuff.
You on the other hand are the dude who is advertising this whole thread on the front of your page in your own journal. People are gonna jump in, deal with it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree the argument is inane, so I wonder why you're trying to argue it. It's like arguing that dressing as Harry Potter makes someone Daniel Radcliffe, it's nonsense.
You're arguing Zelda's gender again, which I've never questioned.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>