However, my latent opinion of it is that is probably overall less idiot-aimed than a majority of disney products released in my lifetime, and not in need of being done again, for it certainly was not perfect either. I thought the remake video game was totally unnecessary, and that was only refining something that could be seen as potentially benefitting with a refining, with the original voice cast involved, with appreciation given to the original’s music. So I definintely think a new cartoon with the same premise as an old one with the intent of replacing it is extra, extra unnecessary. I have no interest in any remakes at this point, as I mentioned in a recent previous entry. If they want to do ducktales: 20 years later, or 20 years earlier, or even 20 days later, that would be new. Redoing it to be trendier and more contemporary is not something that I need in my life. I don’t like being reintroduced to old characters as if they are new, and I don’t like being expected to recognize them as if they are old when they are supposed to be new, either. There are so very many things I do not like!
I appreciated the Star Trek remake movie because it was in continuity with the original tv show, in a sense.
Based on what you link here, I appreciate that the art isn’t 3d, although it still has that ugly angular look that I have hated since they made tarzan.
I like that the triplets are distinguishable, but I hate their voices and characterizations; it drips with internet twit appeal. They don’t sound like ducks, they sound like scumbags. So it just seems like Donald talks that way due to a rare disorder. Quite plainly I hate the way “humor” is written for animated cartoons in the latter two thirds of my life and I probably will for quite some time.
This Scrooge McDuck more resembles the original Carl Barks version (or more likely Don Rosa’s idealized imitation), but who really cares? Conspicuously this is aimed at people who remember the 1980s show, they sure won’t. The art looks like a comic book, but not a Carl Barks book.
The character that I presume is Webby is probably meant to seem more empowered-femaley than the original due to being less conspicuously pink (though a skirt has been added) but it is not my place to say if that is good or bad since I already don’t like the way the male counterparts are presented, without any socio political standpoint.
But ULTIMATELY what I think doesn’t matter since I do not have control of a television set and Disney channel advertising would kill me; I am not in the target market for this. Indeed, if I had any suspicion that I would be likely to see the program in full I would not have viewed a trailer for it! Everything looks terrible in trailers.
I could make this a “proper” website post but I want very badly to be less boring!
]]>Randomly, could you make a post about the announcement of the new DuckTales cartoon and what you think of the art / casting / etc? I think you’re generally a fan of duck tales and other duck related items if I recall correctly?
]]>I use references when I draw real things or somebody else’s characters. I needed rather a few to get the wheelchair correct, quite apart from the difficulty of getting it exact, as I forgot my pixel technique demanded, and will be wary of volunteering mechanical objects for inclusion in the future. nemitzes are not real and my fault so I do not need to make references for them. A creature of mine that I have not drawn recently I ought to look back on the last drawing of first since I often forget to include something.
If you asking if I use references of real things to inform my fake things, that would certainly be a good idea but for most of my history I have not and I fear that it shows! I have lately tried to figure out how vertebrate back muscles are laid out, in particular for the creature elpse, but had little success with that.
Miscellaneously, do you “use references” when you draw weird creatures, or no?
]]>