HOME | DD
theintrovert — Learn from my miseries
Published: 2012-10-31 19:30:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 2907; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 13
Redirect to original
Description
A series of horror paintings I produced on the side in light of the holiday season.Happy Halloween.
Related content
Comments: 32
Wow I love this! the colours are really striking!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad to hear it 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Happy (belated) Halloween, Tati
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You've gotten better, and quickly. Ach, the colors are so vibrant! Wonderful use of blacks as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I suppose the improvement can be partially attributed to the graphic novel(which required A LOT of drawings). I really tried to avoid painting with black b/c it's a bit of a cheat(in my opinion), but i couldn't perceive the proper shadow colour that a harvest moon would produce on figures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Black does crazy dramatic stuff. I used to be afraid of using it but I'm trying to get back into it. Doesn't work very well with animation, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, i'm not afraid of using it: i merely regard it as an escape route. Or an easy, uncreative out. I used to use it a lot since I never really tried to produce a specific lighting for any of my paintings. I BEG TO DIFFER! the amazing screw on head looked superb!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hold on to your ass: [link]
b/c this is the greatest animated series that never was!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha it seems like a really fun show...that never was. I love Emperor Zombie...he's my favorite so far. Very imaginative world.
The animation was alarmingly bad, though, and hurt to look at. I'm not so sure I liked all the shadows, or I might have had they moved better. Still, it looks fun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, David Hyde Pierce can do that to a person 
So they didn't have the budget to over-inbetween the thing. It's not as if it was all still images with animated features(mouths and eyes, etc). Take the fight scene with the Demi-God and Screw-on Head's augmented body for instance: pretty standard for an animated television series.
I don't want to bawl all over you(getting defensive about something near and dear to me), but it really wasn't that abysmal. Have you SEEN Blackstar?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it wasn't the in-betweening so much as it was the morphing of the characters. It's a personal preference and I actually found the concept and the wit in the writing to be very attractive; it just personally hurt to look at and I'm still a little against using heavy black in animation; I have yet to see it done really well.
Now, as far as style and good animation goes, sometimes that can be a pain to look at, too. For some reason, the style of animation they do at the Richard Williams studio makes me feel ill. I can't stand to look at Roger Rabbit without feeling a little sick. There's too much movement, and though you cannot doubt that these are incredible artists, their style doesn't use enough holds and it feels like I'm on a boat, and not in a good way like the Lonely Island crew.
I haven't seen Blackstar, and I didn't mean to insult something you hold dear to you. Heh. Though now maybe you feel the burn the way I felt it when you spoke your feelings of Don Giovanni, but I address that in your letter, so I'll not say it here. Anyway, that wasn't done on purpose; we're both just sensitive artists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I've admitted that it isn't spectacular(some might even go so far as to say it's sub-par), but I appreciated that they endeavored to maintain Mike's visual style rather than retooling it so that it would better suit animation(e.g. Atlantis: The Lost Empire, The Hellboy animated films which utilized character designs more suited to animation). The effect is comparable to a living comic book. TMS achieved fluid animation whilst handling heavy blacks in the Batman Animated series(particularly before the "New Look" Batman which streamlined his design, making it easier to animate).
The burn? No, no: Screw-On Head isn't THAT important to me. If you had spoken ill of Miyazaki, then I might find myself emotionally compromised. This time, I was dispassionate, albeit incredulous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know, I've just been studying it so now when I find that I can do better animation than what I'm watching, I selfishly ask myself why I'm wasting my time. I can't read some comic books for the same reason. I need to quit this.
I shan't ever speak ill of Miyazaki, you can count on that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think all artists(particularly inexperienced ones like ourselves) are prone to delusions of grandeur
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? I quite liked the designs for Aladdin. Jafar is one of my favorite Disney villain designs and Aladdin was the most attractive Disney prince to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They were shallow interpretations of the Middle Eastern aesthetic. Feebler still if you would take into account Middle Eastern culture as well as A Thousand and One Nights. Generic, vapid, vulgar.
I haven't a clue why so many people on DA try to emulate the Disney Renaissance style. It's weak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well yes, Disney does not serve as a way to study the Middle East or really any culture in general (being that the terrifying and sad endings given to German fairy tales are made into happy endings by Disney, specifically to appease an American audience). Any audience member who is going to the movies, specifically a cartoon movie, even more specifically a Disney animated cartoon movie, for any hint of realism will be bombarded with whimsy and inaccuracy to the point of frustration and disgust. In that case, it's best to see it and appreciate it for what it is. It's a colorful way of telling a story in a visual medium. Was this done well? Did you feel for these piles of colored pictures flashing on the screen? Did you wonder if the hero was going to make it? Did you forget you were watching a movie for a moment and felt drawn into the story? This is what you should be looking for in a Disney cartoon, not historical or cultural accuracy. I wish it was different, as I value cultural accuracy, but it's not, so you just gotta see it for what it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that goes without saying. But that obviously doesn't excuse their tawdry designs. Nor does it make their 'interpretation' any less shallow. You wouldn't have to dust off a primer of middle-eastern culture to find that the 'Disney' treatment is about as exotic as a Wal*Mart and as faithful as a hedonist. I mean, you don't even have to go into it with preconceived notions about the culture to perceive the film's ugliness. Zounds. Those are the sort of brain-dead questions that focus groups churn out and it failed to achieve a single one. And, as I had stated previously, I wasn't simply decrying it for its portrayal of the middle east.. it's tepid, predictable and ugly. Visuals make the film more immersive. And there are examples of films that have thoroughly engrossing narratives as well as dark, mystical imagery(The Secret of Kells, The Prince of Egypt, Joseph King of Dreams, etc).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that's an aesthetic and an opinion, and you are welcome to have it. I don't particularly find the designs unappealing and, like I said, Jafar is one of my favorite character designs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ya! Just dismiss it all with the whole "everything is subjective" routine. Also..that's redundant: Obviously, you found it attractive. You declared as much from the outset. I am merely endeavoring to stress how deeply it pales in comparison to myth, legend and folklore. That is to say, it's a poor, vulgar interpretation. I'd like to cite "Sharaz-De Tales from the Arabian Nights" as an example of how an artist might channel all of the grotesque, the darkness, the burgeoning peril, and the charming irreverence that is synonymous with ancient stories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Part of the problem with looking for that kind of meaning in Disney is that they have to make sure not to make it too dark because most of their work is, indeed, for kids. I wish they could get a little darker, though. I agree that it's a poor interpretation and lacks much of the magic and definitely has that Disney flavor instead, but you must also understand, going into it, that you're not going to get a proper interpretation of the myth anyway. That's the sad fact. *shrug*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A fallacy and more telling of their own bad taste: Children are receptive to dark aspects and themes in media. It's a frightful pleasure and they'll undoubtedly return to it b/c of that appeal(wherein they'll be surprised to have fashioned a new appreciation for the thing-noticed the adult humor, references, etc). I mean, Danny Elfman(and many other children born in his era) used to watch Hammer Horror films when he was a boy. In fact, a lot of children fancy 'dark,' 'horror' laden stories. 'Disney flavor' hereby having the meaning of 'watered down, infantile and ingratiating'. I'm not expecting/asking for a perfect adaptation, but a better one. Heavens, The Thief and the Cobbler had heaps more atmosphere and character!
Well, hopefully we can change all of that. Depending upon your future inclinations, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ach but my main problem with The Thief and the Cobbler is that I cared for none of the characters because the story was so poorly developed. In Richard Williams' cut of the piece, certain scenes stretch on with no purpose, and that's a cock tease to the audience. A writer has a certain agreement with the audience, and that's to fulfill expectations that the author themselves set up. For an example of how NOT to do this, watch Tommy Wiseau's The Room. XD
Pretty much, if you introduce a gun in the first act, it needs to go off in the third. Now, how it does that may surprise the audience and perhaps it never goes off but instead the gun itself is important in some way, and there are ways you can toy with it, or perhaps your message is that sometimes things don't come into play, like in real life, but if that's the case, you need to make that theme a huge part of your piece to a point where the gun is not the only thing that happens to. I hope that makes sense.
Anyway, I agree with you that children are very susceptible to horror pieces and that it does not particularly warp them. I will also agree that Disney is often watered down and infantile and ingratiating. But I must agree that a good storytelling method, or at least pleasing method, is the one Walt originally set out to do, which was to tell simple stories with complex characters. Whether Disney still follows that mantra today is up to debate, but it was a good practice when Walt was still alive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Notice I was praising its atmosphere and character though. Clearly, it's a flawed movie(in that some sequences feel more than a little masturbatory), but it reproduced the feeling of a 'Thousand and One Nights' tale far better than the Disney version. In such a story, events do not proceed in a linear fashion. Characters slip in and out without much explanation or 'pay off'. In that sense, it's more comparable to a dream or supernatural vision. I don't believe you have to keep throwing that 'theme' in the audience's face in order to use it though(i should say, in order for it to work).
In Richard's defense though, I feel he was more concerned with showcasing his animation than bothering to hammer out a sharp narrative(I mean, it's not incoherent: I could easily follow the plot along).
And incidentally, the characters in 'Aladdin' were just as hollow(if not more so since they talked more often) not to mention irritating and cliche.
Not simply 'horror' though, but anything that adults would consider 'dark'(b/c usually they're mistaken). I believe it's more a matter of adults condescending to children. Assuming that they haven't any taste(when, quite clearly, it's all projection on their part). The only thing that might be true is that children wouldn't know how to adequately explain why they like/dislike something(but they know when something is crap). Of course. They were concise, pleasant films(albeit less than imaginative in some pictures). I'd imagine they might have gradually dispensed with the 'cheese factor' had Fantasia succeeded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WHAT atmosphere? It shifts too often; there are places where the perspective is warped, and then places where it isn't, there are unappealing character designs next to appealing ones, there are characters who don't even look like they belong in the same film, there are too many styles of animation going on, it's viewable as art, and little more, I'm afraid. In that case, don't masquerade it around like a legitimate story.
Williams is an incredible animator. He's an awful storyteller.
I must say I'm very disappointed in Disney, especially with their new "Frozen." Have you seen the concept art they had for the Snow Queen? It was going to be amazing, and then they manufactured the characters to look like barbies so they may sell more toys. Disney has always been a business, but they used to promote quality and their name used to mean something. Can you imagine if the artistic team for Fantasia could see what the Disney company was doing now?
I agree with your statement that children may not adequately be able to express what they're feeling, but they can comprehend the emotion at least. I think it was said that a five year old has all the emotional capacity to play King Lear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The sprawling, medieval-esque background paintings(in which the perspective is purposely thrown off. The Secret of Kells adopted a similar visual, but-much like in Williams' film, it isn't rigidly maintained throughout the course of the movie. They alter it according to the 'mood' they desire to conjure ), silent character sequences, 'action' reminiscent of Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton's most daring stunts, etc: This is film does, indeed, have an 'atmosphere'. You might just find it disagreeable b/c you're more partial to the Disney/Pixar style(and severely linear storytelling, apparently). I will assent to the disjointed character designs(that is to say, the lack of a unified visual style in that dept.). However, given that it took Williams nearly 30 years to complete the project, the incongruous character designs aren't that surprising(perhaps he hadn't the financial leverage to re-take the old footage for updated character designs). What qualifies as a 'legitimate story' then? Has it got to follow a sharp "A happens, followed promptly by B, which is-in turn-explained by C..." structure for it to merit the title? You can still follow the course of events. What about Eraserhead? It's plot unfolds in a less than 'standard' manner. I'd cite more examples of unconventional storytelling, but I reckon that's moot-you just really abhor this film.
And.. well it wasn't exactly captivating to me, but I fancied a lot of the visual aspects(and the buttery smooth animation..and Vincent). As I said, I believe he simply used this film as a vehicle to parade some exquisite animation.
That usually seems to be the case with their 'renaissance' and post 'renaissance' films: The concept art is bold and inventive while the actual film ends up being little more than a passable 'kid's movie'. The same could be said about video game concept art versus the final product until more powerful graphics engines came about(now the actual game is superior to the concept art).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
