Beau Peep Notice Board
Beau Peep Notice Board => Outpourings => Topic started by: Malky McGookin on January 18, 2007, 09:20:50 AM
-
Like the title says, does this work?
I'm happy to say my missus does, but that doesn't mean anything.
(http://www.cartoonaustralia.com/malk/PG%20garcia.gif)
-
Malky, I like this gag a lot but it took me a moment to work out---and there's nothing wrong with that. Because their uniforms are similar, I originally thought they were on the same side. I looked at it again, re-read the caption and it fell into place. Maybe if one of the guys was wearing a Che-type beret and a bandolier?
-
That's good feedback, Roger, thanks.
When I post anything like this it usually means there's something about the cartoon that bugs me but I'm not sure what. I think the uniforms are the problem, they do look alike and it "throws" the thinking of the observer.
I asked my wife (before I typed the punchline) what she thought the two guys were?
She said "Mexican generals", so I knew I was on track there, at least. Che Guevara might be too noble an image, these two are self-aggrandising clowns.
One of them needs one of those ridiculous Goering-style white uniforms, I think.
-
Just to clear up any confusion, the image at the top of the page is the re-draw AFTER Roger's comment.
When I changed the image on my host site, the image above also changed, automatically.
-
I concur with Mr Kettle for what it's worth, but would perhaps add that a slight alteration to one of the protagonist's faces may also help. As it stands, they could be twins.
Excellent gag though.
-
I can't let this pass without mentioning the artwork.....simply superb. I love the slight "downview" and the way you've taken the trouble to draw the glasses behind the counter. Malky, when you come up with a gag idea, does the viewpoint come to you immediately? Do you ever start drawing and then think it would look better from a different angle?
-
Thanks for those kind comments, Roger, I’m certainly enjoying my cartooning more now than ever, still developing my style.
I perhaps spent a little too long in the animation biz, especially after I came to Queensland, which for cartoonists/animators is the equivalent of Siberia.
Once I decided I was just too small a fish to get decent funding for animation projects, I started sending cartoon samples to ad agencies and gag cartoons to mags, and reacquainted myself with actually earning a living.
I’ve sort of been playing catch-up ever since. I’m fifty, but my style is at the stage it should have been when I was thirty-five or forty.
My learning curve is pretty steep, however, and I’m going like the clappers.
To answer your question, the cartoon image you see is almost exactly as I visualized it, though it was one of three or four competing scenarios.
The downshot is a legacy from animation, I do like that angle because it enables one to establish the characters and the whole atmosphere/world they’re in.
I find I can set the scene in my mind from the first moment, almost as soon as the gag occurs to me. I found out after many years of dissatisfaction and frustration that to cut corners or chicken out on that first impression leads to a watered down and second rate version of what I wanted. Even after I’ve sold a cartoon, I feel annoyed that I could have done it better, but that’s life.
I’ll upload a Frankenstein cartoon to illustrate what I mean by “almost as I visualized it”. In my mind, I saw this as gothic in incredible detail, grain in the stonework, cobwebs, thousands of peasants, massive, dark, cold interior, etc, then I realized I was imagining a scene from a film, not a cartoon. I basically kept with the spirit of the original scene, keeping in what was needed for atmosphere, and cartoonified the rest, going for laughs rather than gothic realism.
EDITED BY MINCE: http://www.thewisenheimer.com/wisenheimer/w/im/114796.gif (http://www.thewisenheimer.com/wisenheimer/w/im/114796.gif)
-
Just to say how much I've enjoyed this exchange, having long been in awe of the way you guys can come up with ideas time after time
When I tried to access the second cartoon you mention - only the red cross in its place and so I right-clicked to 'show picture' - all I get is a pop up to connect to www.the wisenheimer.com, requiring a user name and password. Some advice please, Mince!
-
The second cartoon Malc posted is clearly password protected on his site. There is nothing I can do this end.
-
Mea Culpa, I was lazy and decided I would use the code from a cartoon I'd posted on the Wisenheimer rather than go to the trouble of uploading it from my hard drive to my blog, etc, etc..
(http://www.cartoonaustralia.com/malk/PG%20miss%20manners.gif)
-
More terrific artwork, Malky. The blue and grey tones make the whole thing atmospheric. Just to be annoying.....shouldn't ALL the bannister supports be perpendicular to the floor?
-
Just to be annoying.....shouldn't ALL the bannister supports be perpendicular to the floor?
I was going to ask that. But I was scared.
-
Just to be annoying.....shouldn't ALL the bannister supports be perpendicular to the floor?
I was going to ask that. But I was scared.
I didn't want to deliver anything but praise, but I was slightly bothered by the taps being on the wrong side of the sink in cartoon 1. On reflection, however, I don't think I'll mention it.
-
Also, in the second cartoon, why is there a shadow at the bottom of the moon?
-
Also, in the second cartoon, why is there a shadow at the bottom of the moon?
That's a wisp of cloud.
-
I was just about to point that out, Nige, when I noticed you'd answered.
D'you think Malky's going to mad at us when he wakes up in Australia tomorrow or today or whenever it is there?
-
The wisps (notice the spelling) of clouds are light blue-grey, and should be made lighter by the moon, not darker.
-
I was just about to point that out, Nige, when I noticed you'd answered.
D'you think Malky's going to mad at us when he wakes up in Australia tomorrow or today or whenever it is there?
He'll be fast asleep in contented ignorance. I'm sure he'll be OK when he wakes up. It's not as if we're giving him the Jade Goody treatment. (What a repulsive girl she is, by the way).
-
I'll give you the perpendicular bannister Roger. *snirk* Bannister Roger, *snirk*.
The wisp of cloud is silhouetted against the moon, so it's darker, and it's common practice for taps to be nearer the operator in under-counter sinks, for ease of access.
Trouble with you three is you've only been on the drinking side of bars.
Oh, and you missed out on the left hand castle window, which has moonlight shining on the opposite side to where the moonlight is actually coming from, that there's no right hand door, and that whereas Frankenstein has a shadow behind him, neither Morticia nor the table does. That's artistic licence that is.
Bannister Roger...*snirk*
-
Only opaque objects can silhouette. Clouds are not opaque. Besides, if that cloud is silhouetting, why aren't the others? Are there light bulbs inside them?
-
Oh, and you missed out on the left hand castle window, which has moonlight shining on the opposite side to where the moonlight is actually coming from, that there's no right hand door, and that whereas Frankenstein has a shadow behind him, neither Morticia nor the table does.
I was going to mention all that, but I was scared.
-
Clouds are not opaque
*sings* John Kettley is a weather man and so is... Mince.
Opaqueness depends on density, that's all. That cloud is dense, like some people I could mention. Some people being you.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/BritTeacher/Beau%20Peep/moons.jpg)
Gee, I guess I am right. No need to get out my physics degree. :)
-
So posting images of moons entirely bereft of cloud cover proves....?
The piano is 385,000 miles from the moon, and whilst completely opaque, still has a little moonshine over its open lid, however this is glare or lens flare, nothing to do with density or lack thereof.
Here is a moon covered by a cloud which is Mince-like in its lack of a clue. I mean translucence.
(http://static.flickr.com/66/210848663_9900f5be91_m.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/BritTeacher/Beau%20Peep/nomad.jpg)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/BritTeacher/Beau%20Peep/moon2.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/BritTeacher/Beau%20Peep/moon1.jpg)
Okay, time to use your own evidence against you.
In your photo, the wisps of cloud at A are light grey (translucent) and do not silhouette against the moon when they cross it: the moon shines through them. The clouds at B are black (opaque) and silhouette when they cross the moon. The clouds at C are light grey (translucent) and do silhouette then they cross the moon.
In the cartoon, the sky at A is black but does not silhouette because it is not cloud, just dark sky. At B the sky is lighter are therefore cloudy, and these clouds do not silhouette as they cross the moon. At C the clouds are even lighter and yet silhouette against the moon. Why? Or are these special clouds that know where to turn opaque.
I rest my case, numbskull.
-
Now there's a discussion I didn't expect on this site...the density of cloud required to be silhouetted against the moon. The fact that a cloud CAN be silhouetted against the moon is good enough for me. Malky wins.
-
That's only because you can't follow my logic.
-
Now there's a discussion I didn't expect on this site...the density of cloud required to be silhouetted against the moon.
We'll be getting onto colour constancy, diffraction and artistic licence soon.
-
Brian Cosgrove, co-founder of Cosgrove Hall (where we did Dangermouse) once came to the studio to query why a doctor character in one scene in the latest series was interviewing a patient whilst the patients relatives were present?
"Doctors don't do their rounds at visiting times", he said "There's an authenticity problem here".
We gently pointed out that the patient in the bed was a hamster, the relatives consisted of various small mammals and one crow, and the doctor was a pig.
-
It does sound a bit unusual - a crow visiting a hamster.
-
Maybe it was a cuckoo...or a raven lunatic.
-
Yes, tes, yes, this is all very interesting, but can we get back to me being right about the clouds.
-
Yes, tes, yes, this is all very interesting, but can we get back to me being right about the clouds.
I think you answered it yourself when you mentioned artistic license 8)
-
Firstly, "tes" is not a typo but my pet name for Tarquin Thunderthighs lll.
Secondly, McGookin's failure to claim artistic licence right at the beginning forfeits his right to do so thereafter. It's written quite clearly in "Laws governing arguments over cartoons" and "Can clouds silhouette like that?".
British English uses "licence" for the noun and "license" for the verb, so it's artistic license.
EDITED: I meant "so it's artistic licence", and got it wrong.
-
Firstly, "tes" is not a typo but my pet name for Tarquin Thunderthighs lll.
Awww! I'm touched.
-
Oh, and you missed out on the left hand castle window, which has moonlight shining on the opposite side to where the moonlight is actually coming from, that there's no right hand door, and that whereas Frankenstein has a shadow behind him, neither Morticia nor the table does. That's artistic licence that is.
Game, set and match to me, I think. (pulls smug Brittas face, drains pint glass in one and staggers to door.)
-
Oh, and you missed out on the left hand castle window, which has moonlight shining on the opposite side to where the moonlight is actually coming from, that there's no right hand door, and that whereas Frankenstein has a shadow behind him, neither Morticia nor the table does. That's artistic licence that is.
Game, set and match to me, I think. (pulls smug Brittas face, drains pint glass in one and staggers to door.)
Bugger!
Foiled by my own logic!
-
For a couple of years back in the 80s, I drew a comic page featuring a baby character. The scripts were sent to me every week. They were NOT good. I think they were partly responsible for a temporary flirtation with insanity back then that saw me write a long letter to the editor complaining that the latest script opened with the baby being left unattended in his pram outside a supermarket, and I had grave reservations about drawing such an irresponsible scene.
The editor wrote me back a very kind and gentle letter, thanking me for my commendable and responsible attitude. He bemoaned the fact that not enough of his contributors cared about their characters the way that I obviously did, before reminding me that this was a children's comic, and that the baby in question had the strength of ten men, and regularly tackled twice as many as that most weeks, using only his rattle to defend himself with. His name was Prambo, and regrettably my letter had coincided with a very low readers' poll rating, so they wouldn't be requiring any more pages from me.
But he wished me well, and hoped we would work together again soon. We didn't.
But at least I didn't have to draw any more of those flippin' awful scripts. So job done!
Just thought you should know. There were very few silhouettes involved.
Regards,
Tes
-
Prambo. That's funny. There's a whole Viz possibility there.
-
Now I come to think of it, perhaps the shadow on the moon is not a silhouette, but an eclipse of the moon.