These look more natural than any CG character today.
Where did Big Chief Eric come from, plz? Early Warner Brothers ??
Eddie talked about this some time back, with some veiwmaster images of some Hannah Barbara cartoon. (Sorry, I don't know which one it is.) Which Has the Better Background Styling?
O_o You wouldnt guess that was supposed to be Mickey if it weren't for the round ears.
Whoa! Nice find, John. I couldn't believe that was Mickey for a moment. It looks even stranger and more "off-model" than the UPA styled design in the '55 Nash commercials.
I like the look of the Egyptian guy. These'll be good for studies.Hey, Mr. K, could you take a look at some of the studies on my blog? I just started it tonight. Any help from anybody would be great too. Thanks!
am glad to see people like me who hates CG, i also miss how movie makers used to hire stunts and do special effects in movies
Yeah, as long as Big Chief there stays locked in a static pose with no animation and maintains a rubbery appearance with flat, offset colors, it's acceptable as a 3D Cartoon.No animation. No personality. No slapstick. No gag. Only that's not a cartoon. It's a vintage toy.Why do I get the feeling that if this were faithfully reproduced in CG to look exactly as it does above, you'd hate it as soon as it started moving, even if it were by your own cartoony standards? :)I have to prod, John, I have to.Anyway, how 'bout This CG?Now, if you hate THAT John, I give up. :)
Hypothetically speaking; Isn't CG just a "lazy" way to do stop action. I say "lazy" because CG probably takes a lot of work. Its a different type of "work" that goes into stop action. I say "work" because there's alot of play envolved. All WORK and no PLAY makes Jack a dull boy. And makes dull cartoons.
Hehe... I love Meindbender.
Man, things were better in the womb.
I'd rather stare at any of these for an hour and a half than sit through some of the "masterpieces" Hollywood is churning out lately.
Kurtwil: That's Big Chief Erie, not "Eric". (BTW, that ain't a toupee he's holding in his hand...) Matt: You can stop patting yourself on the back now, genius. I think John is aware that the Indian is a toy, and that there's "no animation" and "no slapstick". I would venture to make a wild, stab-in-the-dark guess and say that John knows the difference.In your effort to be smug, I think you completely missed the point. The toy is volumetric and caricatured. It's 50+ years old, so the human observation may not exactly be fresh anymore. Nonetheless, it still displays many principles of good, solid cartoon construction and appealing design, ideal for character animation. No personality, you say? You mean unlike much of the vague, abstract mess you linked to? I beg to differ.
@Matt - Isn't a lot of the stuff on that Meindbender reel done in clay? Some of it is definitely fun.
woops I didnt look at the indian properly and I assumed he was an egyptian! sorry guys
Post a Comment