Isis spreads terror with a "bow"

These pictures are from a trailer of an online videogame called Smite. I don't really care about games in which you just fight against other nerds with candy graphic characters in a low polygon environment. Complete waste of time, as well as boring game design.

The trailer showed this obviously (clichéd) Egyptian goddess, who cannot be anyone else than Isis, since Isis is the only human faced Egyptian goddess the general public knows about (how about Maat anyone?)

Like all this game's female characters, our friend Isis here is dressed in a very revealing attire, which in this case is blatantly copied from Anaksunamun's similarly skimpy and also golden outfit from the film Mummy (1999) (the yellow lipstick is also same). They thought I didn't remember, didn't they? Anyway, the dress has to be either glued on her fake breasts, or then it's just bodypaint, which seems quite likely here. Animation of this trailer is especially bad, since it has no feel of gravity or realism in any sense of the word. The characters are just massless CGI-lumps flying everywhere at the same time. How about motion capture the next time guys?

But now to the mistakes, regarding the thing they call archery in this video:

1. This "bow" has three strings. THREE (3) STRINGS!!! What in the actual afterlife is this? Bows have one bowstring for a reason. And we will come to that later. Three strings in this "bow" makes this one of the (if not THE) worst depiction of a bow in the history of the Universe.
2. What are these three spikes in each end of the bow? They severely disturb the bowstring(s). They can even brake it/them (if it/they would not be made out of "magical glowing substance").
3. Reverse grip in the string hand. Later she uses this hand the other side up, so this is just a mistake.
4. What is this Kheperi-shaped golden shield with a large saphire doing in this "bow"? This is the size of the steel bucklers some archers used in later medieval times, but it was never attached to the bow itself of course, and never used at the same time with the bow. It only disturbs shooting more. The bow is not meant for blocking anything, it will brake.
5. Fire arrows, too much fire arrows! Why won't regular arrows do? Do they think people die more if they are penetrated with an arrow which is also on fire? Because real fire arrows were constructed differently than normal arrows, they were slower and penetrated less, so they'd be actually less dangerous against other people. Thus they were never used against humans, only (VERY RARELY!) against some objects which had to be set on fire.
6. This (left) is the side of the bow the arrows should (usually, and in this case) go, not the right side.
7. What are these blades doing in this monstrosity? Bows are not meant for hitting, but shooting! It won't last long as a mêlée weapon. Also these metal blades make the "bow" weight a ton. In this picture we can see that it more resembles an ancient harp than a bow. Maybe it's for playing music, and not fighting at all? Would make more sense.
8. Were are her arrows? There is no quiver to be seen or any spare arrows anywhere. That is a bad fighting plan.
9. Three arrows at once. While it is possible to shoot three arrows at once (I've done it) it's it not good to do so. The aim is terrible and they also have less power than one arrow would have. At least two arrows are also wasted if shooting at the same target. The arrows are also impossible to hold here, that's why I drew this circle.
10. WHAT, she releases one string at a time!!! And that actually works?!? The makers of this video has no knowledge of archery at all it seems now. The bow arc is the one which flexes and gives the power to the arrows, the string does not stretch! If a bow would have three strings it would do nothing, since it would be (theoretically) possible to shoot the three arrows at the same time, not one after another without flexing the bow again. This is just pure nonsense and a crappy idea from start to finish! Shame on you game maker dudes!
11. This bow is also about 10 times too thick. It wouldn't bend at all, but it seems like a minor mistake compared to the last one, even though this'd be a major mistake in a piece which would be otherwise decently designed. This is not.
12. Why is she having this "glove"? Is it supposed to be archers glove? Since this does only cover the area which does not touch anything while shooting, so it's completely useless. Archers glove should cover the first three fingers, not just knuckles! Also the larger bracer is in the right hand, when it would be better on the left, but they are here to bring the "Egyptian" feel anyway, even though Egyptians didn't use these kind of bracers.

Good, hahaha, are you kidding me?!?
Our Isis (not to be confused with the infamous terrorist organization, which boasts with a name of a false god (in their belief system)) does not have a bow here. This is not a bow, this terror is something else, straight from Ammit's rectum.

P.S.
Oh, now I noticed that the arrows don't have fletching at all, but whatever, this disaster couldn't be any worse.

There's something odd about the new Hunger Games poster

This ad catched my 26-year old (young?) eyes in a newspaper recently, and I just had to make a post about it.

What is so irritating about it?
Is it the fact that this mediocre youngsters book series is turned into a hugely popular money-making movie machine?
Is it that they just had to turn a trilogy into a tetralogy (more correct term than quadrilogy, based on Greek rather than Latin in this case), that the last book just had to be made into two separate movies, like they did with other (much better, in my opinion) youngsters book series turned into a film series (including wizards if you didn't guess already)?
Is it the amount of liquify they used to make Jennifer Lawrences waist a tiny bit thinner and her legs more than a tiny bit longer?
Is it the cheapest of cheap looking graphical device of flames surrounding everything?
Is it the very much overused font choice of Bank Gothic, the "standard movie font when you have no imagination at all"?

It isn't even all those things together. But it's the archery, or the lack of it for that matter. Let me delve with you deeper into the more or less mystical aspects of bowmanship (or bowwomanship?), with my usual list of...

Mistakes:

1. The biggest mistake here is that there wasn't actually a bow present in the shooting of this photograph! From the very first look at this poster the whole thing seemed more than a bit off. It was unnerving to me and when I looked closer I realised that the odd feeling came from the fact that the bow in this photo is computer generated. How do I know this? From several reasons: the arms of Ms. Lawrence look very relaxed, the muscles are not stretched and the fingers don't seem to hold anything with a firm grasp. She might have had something in her left hand though, but nothing in her right, it seems. Why would they do that? Because they are idiots who think that nothing is perfect enough if it's not made with computer (ahem... late career Peter Jackson complex). But it's just horrible, and doesn't look real at all.
2. The second mistake is also the mistake of the guy who generated the computer bow for this. When we draw a rectangle around the bow (any type of bow) the ears of the bent bow should reach the middle point of the rectangle. One half for bow, the other half for string. Then the bow is properly made (or drawn, with a pen that is, or computer). This bow has too short string, or then it bends too much. In either case the bow ears bend over the middle of the box I've drawn around it. The little white arrows show the places where the bows each end should reach while it is fully drawn.
3. Another mistake by the CGI guy, who apparently didn't look very closely to a real bow while attempting to create one. The bowstring is not attached to the nocks of the bow! This looks ridiculous and is bad since you wouldn't be able to shoot with it, and even if you would, it would make the shot less powerful, since now not all the power of the bow is harnessed by the string. The little green arrow shows the point of the nock on the bow, where the string should be attached.
4. Beginners mistake (still Jennifer, still this one after several archery movies you've been in?) of keeping forefinger above the arrow. It should hold there with gravity and your fist below it. If not, something else is wrong with the position of your hand, but putting a finger around it won't help that, it just makes it painful to shoot since the fletching of the arrow will hit your fingers. It can also affect the flight of the missile, and damage the fletching.
5. She has three fingered archery gloves designed for Mediterranean grip, which is the standard in Europe (and western world) anyway, but she is only using two fingers to draw the bowstring. Why is that? Just another CGI mistake perhaps?
6. The hand (and string and arrow) is not quite high enough, it should be closer to her mouth. But the photography director has obviously commanded her to keep it lower in order for all the people to see her lips. Womans luscious red lips have to be seen always, that's the Rule I-don't-know-which-number in the books of movie makers.
7. Where are her arrows? Of course she didn't have a quiver, if she didn't even have bow the day they photoshooted, but should the CGI-guy have put it on her later? Can't shoot much without arrows you know.
8. This stance. It's not a stance. It's a jump. You can't shoot properly while jumping if you're not Lars-Andersen-level-archer. Which Katniss is not. Aim would be terrible.

Good:
Her arms form a nice parallel line with the arrow, which is always good. But that should also always be expected of every archer on the planet.

Halfling with a human bow, or a human with giant bow?

I don't try by trying to find mistakes in these pictures, they are usually just so blatant that they jump to my eyes, irritate me and force me to make a blog post about them. My sincere hope is that I educate people, little by little, to notice these mistakes, correct them and avoid all kinds of errors relating to archery.

So this picture looked good at first, but I just looked it a little longer and noticed a lot of odd things, which can also be called mistakes:

1. The bow is huge! It's just way too big. Biggest longbows were as tall as the archers themselves, but they were longbows. This is a recurve bow, and recurve bows usually were composite bows, which means that they were made of multiple layers of wood and sinew. In contrast self-bows (like longbow) are made of a single piece of wood, and they have less proportionally power in the same bow length. That's why a longbow which is much longer than a composite bow can be as strong as the other. The recurve bow in this picture is longer than a longbow, and it's a recurve bow. Recurve bows were never that long. It's unnecessarily long, it will need more power to draw it to full length than this woman has, and thus she couldn't harness the full potential of this bow, so the extra length is useless. In fact it only hinders the user. This bow is made for a giant. The proper length for this kind of bow is drawn in white for comparison.
2. The handle is thrice as long as it needs to be. All the extra length in the handle part make the bow less bendable, and thus decreases its power. Not good.
3. The fistmele is too big too. In longbows the fistmele should be the height of a closed fist plus an upright thumb. In recurve bow though it should be shorter, since the handle goes back at the string.
4. There are some hand length of useless space in both sides of the nocks of the bow. It has no use if its behind the bowstring.
5. Maker of this picture has drawn some leather bracers on this womans arms, but they are not meant for archery, they are just the clichéd fantasy leather bracers every fantasy (and "historical") character must have, no matter the profession and task at hand. A proper archer's wrist bracer should be the other way around, so that the attaching "mechanism" doesn't interfere with the bowstring.
6. The quiver is not only at back (where it shouldn't be), but its also behind the wrong shoulder. How is she going to get the arrows from there with her right hand?

Good:
Hmm... not much archery related, but at least she's not overly sexualised fantasy character. A pretty clichéd brown leather and green hooded cape "wood elf" fantasy attire though. And the bow of course, female characters only use bows.

Terrible Hobbit dwarf cosplayers

Two more Kili's this time!
Both are cosplayers who try to be the archer dwarf from The Hobbit movie trilogy, both are obviously girls, and neither of them can shoot with a bow and arrow.

First I'd like to address something relating to cosplay. Why is it so that all the Kili cosplayers I've seen on the Internet have been female, trying to be the male dwarf, glueing or painting some stubble on their chins? That does not look remotely real or believable. Everyone notices right away that they are not men. Male and female physique is quite different and the smaller jaw usually exposes the female gender easily, if nothing else (like the obviously female haircut in the B picture, or the makeup). And if the human inside the character speaks, the play is over.

Cosplay is one of my hobbies too, as well as costume and prop making. I just can't understand why it's premarily a female hobby, at least in Finland where I live. Most of the people in conventions who have dressed in costumes are women. Men tend to be more interested in gaming (traditional and video). Another question is, even though there wouldn't be enough men willing to cosplay some male characters, do women really have to cosplay them? There are plenty of female characters out there to cosplay, even if we rule out all the sexist and stupid 80 percent of them!
And then there's genderbending, even though I'm not the greatest fan of it, but if you really must play as a character of the opposite gender, can't you adjust the costume to your own? Just with a little bit of imagination you can make the role yours. Women can make female versions of male characters, be just as happy cosplaying them (if not happier, since it requires less tied breasts and glued stubble on face), and look cool and inspiring instead of obviously fake and ridiculous.


But now to the mistakes in these girls' archery, if it could even be called that.

A

1. Sideways shooting. One of the worst mistakes you can make. Enough said of it already in the previous posts.
2. What is this bow supposed to be made of? Looks like plastic and cardboard to me, but it might imitate wood and bronze. Anyway, if it would be bronze, it would be too heavy, cumbersome and unbendable to actualy work well.
3. The arrow is on the wrong side of the bow. This is the most common mistake seen in this blog's examples of crap archery. How she think the arrow keeps there? She has to literally hold it between her fingers, unless it would drop to the ground! Did the thought not cross her mind to maybe put the arrow on the other side of the bow? No? Okay, terrible. You just failed your basic archery course.
4. Four finger grip around the string. Not necessary and quite amateurish.
5. These little arrows and the dashed line show the two points where the bowstring bends. Because she's shooting stupidly sideways, the position of the drawing hand is unnatural and results in the bending of the string. It is true that you can bend the string sideways like this to give the arrow and extra spin in direction or another, but that is super high skill level precision archery stuff, not for the novices in these pictures.
6. The larger opaque white arrows show the direction of her arms. And they are not anywhere near where they should be. The biggest problem is again the sideways shooting, which results in a very poor shooting form, and the arms are just all around the place.
7. This arrowhead is not sharp. What are you trying to do, knock someone out? Or hunt squirrels without damaging their fur? I doubt that. It's also too big and heavy for this arrow (if the tip would be made of metal. I bet this foam tipped "arrow" flies as good as a foam tipped "arrow" can, which is probably below ten meters).
8. This mock of an arrow doesn't have proper fletching, what a surprise! Two feathers in terrible condition instead of three good ones. Nice job there.

B

1.  I just ended up lining this whole figure, since everything about this form and holding of the bow tells me that this person has never hold a proper bow in her life, let alone shoot with it. It's like she's holding a delicate crystal goblet full of red wine, in a pure white silk dress, walking on killer high heels on a slippery wet marble floor. That's not the way to hold a bow and arrow. That should be like a lumberjack and his trustworthy double-bitted felling axe, not just with brute force, but with firm hand and expert's preciseness, every hit of the axe splitting a log in two perfectly balanced halves, never hitting a rock or his own leg.
2. Maybe she wasn't holding the bow properly because it's not a proper bow! Or then not. Anyway, the bow is a toy. With a bow this thin you can create enough energy to maybe get an arrow stuck in a dartboard, if the arrow is sharp enough. With a real war bow you (well, not you, but a professional ancient or medieval archer) would hit right through the wall behind the dartboard and nail a guy hiding behind it.
3. Arrow. On. The. Wrong. Side. Of. The. Bow. Again, she has to use her thumb to keep it there.
4. These transparent big white arrows show the position of her arms. They are again a mess (and covered in obvious plastic foam!), and even though she hasn't made the full draw yet, I bet my head that her arms aren't aligned when she does that. A novice just don't get it right without proper instructor.
5. The cock feather (red one in here) should point towards the face of the archer, not outwards. That's because the two other fletches (which are opposite to each other) then pass the arc of the bow without touching it and thus damaging the fletches.

That's for today. I have nothing good to say about these "archery" pictures.

Kili the Dwarf from The Hobbit

A dwarf archer for the first time in this blog. They are quite a rarity. J.R.R. Tolkien, who is siglehandedly responsible for creating the modern concept of fantasy dwarves, elves, orcs etc. also wrote about dwarves using bows in his book The Hobbit. Peter Jackson's film adaptations have quite a many archer characters; Legolas and Tauriel, who were not in the book, Bard the Bowman of course, and also the dwarves Kili and Thorin. Although Thorin's archery stuff was cut out of the theatrical release. Maybe it's in the extended edition (of the already extended-to-three-movies adaptation of one book merely 300 pages long), we'll see...

Someone in internet confessed that he/she (probably earlier) hated that the dwarves used bows, and the bows should belong to elves, and elves only. Well, this is both stupid and ridiculous. And also moronic, did I forgot to mention. Why couldn't the dwarves use the bow? They use bows in the Hobbit book for Iluvatar's sake!!! Professor Tolkien invented modern concept of dwarves and he made them use bows in the first book they appear in! Yes, elves use also heavily bows, but also many other kinds of weapons, such as swords, knives and spears.

It is a ridiculously stupid and clichéd view that dwarves should only use axes or giant warhammers as their weapons (as in the eponymous tabletob miniature wargame), not swords, spears and especially bows. Many games have give them gunpowder instead! Dwarves are based on Viking mythology, where they first appear and where Tolkien omitted them, so they "should" only use Viking weaponry. That includes swords, spears, axes and bows for example. Especially not firearms!

Elves are also based on Nordic legends, so their weaponry "should" be the same as the dwarves'. But it is fantasy and they can use more diverse weponry if an author wants. As long as it's believable. I think gunpowder weapons are more than a bit off the Viking style of dwarves, but hey, that's just me!

Also the elves shouldn't only use bows, since that's stupid. No army ever used only bows. In every land and time period throughout history all armies had a large footman force in their core, using spears and/or swords. Bowmen were often important, but without anything else, they wouldn't win anything.


But about the dwarf Kili, and his archery. First mistakes:

1. Two finger grip. He only has two fingers covered in leather glove, archers glove, so it's natural that the actor doesn't want to use the third finger to draw the string, since it can hurt. they should've given him a third leather finger in his glove at the costume department.
2. Keeping bow and arrows in a same (separate) quiver is nothing unusual, for example ancient Persians, Scythians and other eastern/steppe people's did that. But their bow quivers were always at waist level, fastened to a belt. Not in the back, which is not the place for arrows either. They are harder to get there, and why you would make things harder, when you can make them easier? Especially if it may mean if you live or die!
3. These flat headed arrow tips are not unknown either, they were used occasionally, but they are kind of speciality arrows. These would probably be used in hunting small animals, such as squirrels, or some other rare purpose, but not against armored opponents for example. These are not good for war. And the arrow tip is also too large, it would be too heavy for that arrow. I get it that they tried to make the arrow look bulky (and succeeded) so it would seem more "dwarven", but why the dwarves have to make everything so impractically thick, heavy, angular and bulky? It's not very useful you know.

Then the good parts, and there are surprisingly many:

1. I didn't expect to see good archery in The Hobbit films at all, but Aidan Turner (Kili's actor) has really listened their archery instructor. Better than anyone else on the set. His archery form is nearly perfect. In this second picture his grip is more of a three finger Mediterranean one, and the bowstring is really drawn near his mouth, where it should be. This give much better aim.
2. The lines from the arrow and both arms are parallel, which is great. This is how it's done.
3. The arrow goes on the left side of the bow, which is right. Too many beginners put it on the right side and then drop the arrow wondering why it happened. He also doesn't seem to shoot sideways, like all other archer characters in The Hobbit have done. Shame on them, good for Kili. Although Kili's bow is so short than it wouldn't lose much power when drawn sideways. Although aim would be poor of course.

Strange:
I already talked about the arrow tip, but I need to say something about the bow too. It cannot be clearly seen in these photos and screencaptures, but Kili's bow is a very short composite recurve bow. It's length is about the same as his arm from shoulder to fingertips. This short composite recurve bows were in fact used in history, by the Huns for example, but they were always used on horseback. That's why they were so short, so they didn't interfere with the horse. Or the other way around. Anyway, the dwarves are all foot soldiers, so why not a longer bow? Are longbows too elven or something? Although Tauriel was given a recurve bow too, since it seems to be in fashion now. It has become hard to even find longbow using characters these days.

All about Amazons!

The day before yesterday I played a game called Smallworld with my girlfriend and a good friend of mine who brought the game. It was a great experience, Games Magazine 2010 game of the year winner. The version we played was on Ipad (I don't like Apple's products), and my friend said it was even better in board game version, which it originally was designed to be.

Anyway, the game has several different "races" (more like species, like they should always be called in fantasy and science fiction settings, since the "races" are so different they cannot be of the same species), and one of them is Amazons.

This (A) is the Amazon picture from the game. B is a figure made of the character, which can be purchased on the game's official website.

I don't have much good to say about this character. And not even talking about archery yet! The baby-faced sex-Amazon has the kind of Poison Ivy-esque "clothing" that only holds on her body with the Holy Spirit, which may explain the visual connection with Eve of Paradise. No, boots and one bracer are not clothes. And neither are some strategically placed tree leaves. She has some kind of "tribal" tattoos or warpaint on her body, but also heavy mascara, pink eyeshadow and red lipstick. Of course Amazons didn't really exist outside ancient mythology, but this is not the style any woman has ever dressed herself. Especially for battle!

How far have we come from the original source of Amazons from Greek mythology?
This is a real image of an Amazon (as "real" as it can be of a mythical character):

Herakles (Hercules in Latin) here is fighting with an Amazon queen Adromakhe (NOT the wife of Hektor of Ilion (Troy)). The Amazon is clad in elaborately embroidered khiton (a Greek tunic), bears a helmet, greaves (shin armour), shield, spear and sword. Most of the pictures of Amazons show them fully dressed in robes, tunics and trousers. In fact after this early period of vase painting which this image represents, Greeks tended to portray Amazons in Persian garb. That's because Persia was their mortal enemy, and represents barbarism in Greek minds (which it really was not, but that's propaganda). Amazons also represents barbarism and the whole idea of women fighting against men was a blasphemy to the Greeks, a nation of great inventors and military geniuses, but also of probably the biggest gynophobia (fear of women, chauvinism) of any advanced civilization. Thus, Amazons were dressed in Persian style headdresses, long sleeved tunics and even trousers, such barbarian clothes Greeks would have never used. And trousers were seen as feminine! How have times changed.

A few millenniae later some sweaty nerd boys in their basements read about Amazons as well as other mythological stuff, and incorporate them in their role-playing games. They probably didn't have pictures of Greek vase paintings, since internet was not in use yet, and with their longing of women, they created the modern charcter of Amazons, exotic ultra-sexual nation of fighting females. They were not man-haters and hated by men anymore, now they become just targets of lust. How many times have male game designers / moviemakers / comic draughtsmen justified their Amazons (used here as a synonym for all female fighters) as being strong and dangerous opponents to any man, while at the same time their costume choices tell a wholly different approach of just trying to please teenage male audience.

The introduction text for the Amazon figure in the Smallworld game official webstore tells a lot:

“Strong and fearless... beautiful and exotic... the Amazon is deadly accurate with her favorite weapon, the bow and arrow. Definitely not a foe to encounter in the dark! Winner of the 2009 popularity context as the most beloved Small World character, this Amazon will be a natural fit at the top of your game shelf!
The Amazon figure is 21 cm tall.
Note that the Amazon figure is mildly NSFW. If you, or your family, are offended by partial nudity, you should not view or purchase the Amazon.”

And why is that every Amazon/female warrior uses bows nowadays? Archery is not easier than sword fighting for instance. It does require a great amount of strength and skills. Not to say that women couldn't be strong and skilled warriors, just trying to defend archery, since it seems to be so misunderstood these days.

And now we finally get to the archery mistakes:

A. Game picture:

1. This bow doesn't get thinner at all towards the ends of it. How is it supposed to bend? Completely ridiculous bow which doesn't work. Great.
2. This is like reverse sideways shooting. Maybe the maker of this picture had a hard time (pun intended) fitting the bow into the small square tile which shows in the game. Anyway, the bow is way too tilted. The fistmele is also too big.
3. What is this position of arrow?!? It's not even on the bow grabbing fist! It looks nothing else than dropping. It should be on the other side of the bow, so this wouldn't happen.
4. Maybe the arrow is dropping because it has a way too large arrowtip. That wouldn't fly very far. Stop drawing spear heads on arrows, please. An arrowtip should not be much bigger than the last bone of your thumb.
5. The arrow doesn't have fletching at all. At least none can be seen here. If there is something, it's too small and too close to the nock of the arrow.
6. Another mistake inside the same circle, what is this style of drawing the string with two fingers, and even keeping the pinky straight? We're not in Versailles you know? Grab it with three fingers in Mediterranean style. That grip is more powerful, and power you will need to bend that inlexible bow.
7. The arrow should be drawn about here. It's not anywhere near the correct place in this picture. The makers of these kinds of pictures always want to show the face of the woman so badly taht they just can't draw the arrow near the mouth of the archer where it should be. This Amazon has a very very poor aim.
8. Where are all the other arrows? Don't tell me she only has one.

B. Figure:

1.  The figure is somewhat better in the manner of archery form than the original drawing, but this has got a series of new mistakes. The arrow is again on the wrong side of the bow.
2. The arrowtip is still too large and heavy.
3. No quiver to be found here either.
4. This white arrow shows the correct nocking point for the arrow on the bowstring. Now it's nocked too high. At the last picture is was nocked too low.
5. The last picture shows quite clearly how the bowstring touches the forehead and left breast of the Amazon, and bends. It's not good. The original myth of Amazons is that they supposedly burnt the mammary glands of the left breast of their prepubescent daughters before their breast started to grow, so that the left breast wouldn't infere with a bowstring. They even got their national name from this, "a" = without, "mazon" = breast (in Greek). This is of course not true. Not only because Amazons as a nation didn't exist (there were some women warriors in ancient times, mainly in steppe peoples, like Scythians), but because no women archer would have to do that. The breasts have to be exceptionally large in order to disturb archery, and for them to be that large a woman has to be very fat, which women were not back at the ancient times. This Amazon figure although draws too much, which results in the bowstring to touch her forehead and breast. They have enlargened her bust from the original picture though.
6. She doesn't even hold the bowstring! The bowstring is not even at the nock of the arrow! This is impossible. The string is only back of the fletching, which is made of feathers, which would of course not hold the string back there.
7. Again the two finger grip, but what is she even gripping, since the string isn't in her hand?
8. The fletching is big enough, but it's too far back and has only two plumes instead of three. An arrow will fly even without fletching at all, but the purpose of those feathers is to give the arrow a spin (life rifling gives to a bullet) so that the arrow will fly more accurately. Three feathers are needed for that.
9. What is this bulge in the arrow? They may have thought to give the arrow some more charcter, but this ball really just hinder the arrows flight by hitting the bow's arc while it flies besides it.

Good:
Hmm... nothing except at the figure, the position of arms and bow is correct, and she has got a bracer in left arm only.
The game Smallworld is great though, buy it, play it, enjoy it! I command you.

Turok, worst of archers

Turok, son of stone is a native American comic/animation/videogame character who uses his bow to battle dinosaurs. Sounds awesome right? This panel from a comic (or a frame from animation?) tells another story. Turok must be both mentally and physically handicapped, since he cannot even hold a bow right. Everything is so wrong in this picture I don't know where to start!

But let's begin, with the mistakes:

1. He's depicted left handed here, when he's really not. A common mistake.
2. The lines from both hands and from the arrow should be parallel. Now they are not anywhere near where they should be. This form wastes the drawing energy of the arm and makes the shot less powerful. It's also more tiring for the archer.
3. The bowstring should, shall and will never ever go OVER the bow arm!!! How is this so hard to get right?!? Stop drawing it like this, it's completely impossible to shoot like that! And don't you see how ridiculously stupid it looks.
4. The former mistake would not happen ever if people would also stop drawing people shooting sideways. It's not cool! It's stupid, it makes the shot less powerful since the archer cannot draw the bow with full force, because the bowstring contacts with the archers body. Nobody shot like that ever.
5. The arrow should be placed as near the middle of the bowstring as possible. It's not anywhere near the middle in this picture. The white arrow shows the correct place.
6. How much this arrow head would weight? It would not fly anywhere with that stone on it's head. Better use that as a mace or something. Arrowheads were small, like the size of the tip of your finger, not your whole fist.
7. That bow does not bend! Bows do bend! They are made of wood! Even when they are made of metal (very very rarely) they bend. If they don't bend and only the bowstring stretches, that's not a bow, it's a slingshot. And not nearly as powerful than a bow. For Manitou's sake, how is this so hard to understand?!?
8. This hand is not holding the arrow or the bowstring. Given the line of the string, the hand is in completely wrong position. It just wouldn't work.
9. The arrow should be positioned near the hand holding the bow, not far away. That makes aiming more difficult in this picture.
10. Arrows weren't held in a back quiver since they are hard and slow to get from there. Quivers were worn hanging from a waist belt.
11. Turok here not only has a back quiver, but it's on the wrong shoulder if he's shooting left handed, which he is now. How he's supposed to get the arrows from behind his head?

Good? Hahahahaha, not!
If the word "comic" is meant to mean laughably bad, then the maker of this picture has succeeded, otherwise he should change his career. I heard that the streets could use some more people to wipe them clean.