Wario-related randomness
- Thread starter ShyGuyXXL
- Start date
Yikes Spike
Not related with Wreck it Ralph.
Last edited:
Now on DVD and Blu-ray!
And Betamax!
Yikes Spike
Not related with Wreck it Ralph.
Can you top these stats?
Wario: "IT'S ALL MINE!! MWAHAHA"Can you top these stats?
(0:05), (0:13) Donald Trump: ¨Wah!¨
Yikes Spike
Not related with Wreck it Ralph.
Is Rob Ford the missing link between Chris Farley and Wario?
Yikes Spike
Not related with Wreck it Ralph.
Fact: Wario can get the hummus off his nose by just squeezing it.
Fact: Wario can get the hummus off his nose by just squeezing it.
That picture is the very reason why I don't like those hyper-realistic artworks.
Same here. I never understood this type of 3D artwork.
What's the point of giving cartoon characters that much detail?
The whole idea of a cartoon is something has has been stripped of its details and simplified and abstracted to remove it from reality.
Giving it realistic hair, realistic eyes and especially realistic skin is just.... no! At best it doesn't mesh well and at worst it creates an uncanny valley effect.
That's why the movie the good dinosaur weirds me out so much. EVERYTHING is supposed to look as realistic as possible.... EXCEPT for the character's proportions. The scenery is all photo-realistic. The characters are cartoons.... from afar...
But when you see them up close and they basically look like a taxidermied lizard skin stretched over a life-sized Land before Time Happy Meal toy...
...then my artist heart skips a beat.
I mean just look at the latest Mario render:
You can see every single one of Mario's hair, for Rosalina's sake!
But for some reason his eyebrows and moustache still look more cartoony. His denim looks photo-realistic but his teeth are still basically one big white bar.
It's this mish-mash of realistic details, lack of realistic details, combined with all cartoony proportions that looks high-quality.... but not cohesive.
It's basically one step removed from this:
Does that mean you disagree artistically with certain classic design styles not seen much today? Things that have unusual aesthetics like stop-motion figures, puppets, animatronics, etc. The classic Australian show Rubbery Figures is a perfect example of what you described, and I'd love to think there's still room in the world for this kind of surreal and bizarre design. Not everything has to look clean and pretty.Same here. I never understood this type of 3D artwork.
What's the point of giving cartoon characters that much detail?
The whole idea of a cartoon is something has has been stripped of its details and simplified and abstracted to remove it from reality.
Giving it realistic hair, realistic eyes and especially realistic skin is just.... no! At best it doesn't mesh well and at worst it creates an uncanny valley effect.
That's why the movie the good dinosaur weirds me out so much. EVERYTHING is supposed to look as realistic as possible.... EXCEPT for the character's proportions. The scenery is all photo-realistic. The characters are cartoons.... from afar...
But when you see them up close and they basically look like a taxidermied lizard skin stretched over a life-sized Land before Time Happy Meal toy...
...then my artist heart skips a beat.
I mean just look at the latest Mario render:
You can see every single one of Mario's hair, for Rosalina's sake!
But for some reason his eyebrows and moustache still look more cartoony. His denim looks photo-realistic but his teeth are still basically one big white bar.
It's this mish-mash of realistic details, lack of realistic details, combined with all cartoony proportions that looks high-quality.... but not cohesive.
It's basically one step removed from this:
How is it possible that, even with those ultra-detailed artstyle, we still don't see even the slightest sign of a beard by Mario? No one can be that clean-shaven.
That's not what I was trying to say at all.
Of course there is room for bizarre designs, in fact, I LIKE bizarre designs. 
But the Mario characters aren't supposed to look bizarre, they are supposed to look clean, friendly and appealing. They have very smooth, simplified and symmetrical models, so it makes no sense to add an excessive amount of detail (especially if you do it in some areas and not others).
If bizarreness was what they had been going for in the first place then it wouldn't be too out of place, but no, Mario is the paragon of a happy, friendly 3D cartoon character.
In other cases bizarre designs can totally work.
Just look at Wario Land 4!
Why does this grotesqueness work? Because that's the first impression. It's supposed to be weird and scary, that's the point!
But with Mario & Co your first impression isn't weird or scary. It's friendly and pleasant, so the details (or lack thereof) should reflect that.
If they made a big, HD 3D model of Catbat then such details wouldn't feel out of place.
Now, I haven't watched Rubbery Figures (only a few clips just now, to see what it's about) but from what I've seen it's obvious that they were going for the abstract carricature look. Like a political carricature come to life. Your first impression is gonna be "Look at those weird faces!" so it totally fits.
But besides all that, it also makes a difference whether you have a 3D model or a real life puppet. In real life it's gonna have a different effect. Not sure how to explain it.
You underestimate how clean Mario is. The real question is where Wario's beard went to.
Is it just me or does Mario ALMOST look like Ethan Klein in that second picture?Same here. I never understood this type of 3D artwork.
What's the point of giving cartoon characters that much detail?
The whole idea of a cartoon is something has has been stripped of its details and simplified and abstracted to remove it from reality.
Giving it realistic hair, realistic eyes and especially realistic skin is just.... no! At best it doesn't mesh well and at worst it creates an uncanny valley effect.
That's why the movie the good dinosaur weirds me out so much. EVERYTHING is supposed to look as realistic as possible.... EXCEPT for the character's proportions. The scenery is all photo-realistic. The characters are cartoons.... from afar...
But when you see them up close and they basically look like a taxidermied lizard skin stretched over a life-sized Land before Time Happy Meal toy...
...then my artist heart skips a beat.
I mean just look at the latest Mario render:
You can see every single one of Mario's hair, for Rosalina's sake!
But for some reason his eyebrows and moustache still look more cartoony. His denim looks photo-realistic but his teeth are still basically one big white bar.
It's this mish-mash of realistic details, lack of realistic details, combined with all cartoony proportions that looks high-quality.... but not cohesive.
It's basically one step removed from this:
Maybe he waxes.
Same here. I never understood this type of 3D artwork.
What's the point of giving cartoon characters that much detail?
The whole idea of a cartoon is something has has been stripped of its details and simplified and abstracted to remove it from reality.
Giving it realistic hair, realistic eyes and especially realistic skin is just.... no! At best it doesn't mesh well and at worst it creates an uncanny valley effect.
That's why the movie the good dinosaur weirds me out so much. EVERYTHING is supposed to look as realistic as possible.... EXCEPT for the character's proportions. The scenery is all photo-realistic. The characters are cartoons.... from afar...
But when you see them up close and they basically look like a taxidermied lizard skin stretched over a life-sized Land before Time Happy Meal toy...
...then my artist heart skips a beat.
I mean just look at the latest Mario render:
You can see every single one of Mario's hair, for Rosalina's sake!
But for some reason his eyebrows and moustache still look more cartoony. His denim looks photo-realistic but his teeth are still basically one big white bar.
It's this mish-mash of realistic details, lack of realistic details, combined with all cartoony proportions that looks high-quality.... but not cohesive.
It's basically one step removed from this:
He's actually balding jim
