![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
keaaluThis is not directed at anyone I know. And no, I have nothing against people who draw in a Lion King style - it's popular for a reason, right?
It's mostly just... well, you know people are getting towards the bottom of the geek heirarchy (you know the one - at the bottom is the furry who writes Star Trek porn with all the characters turned into furry characters of some sort) when you find yourself having to defend the position that "lionising" a character is a fairly UNimaginitive exercise.
HEY ALL, here's a novel idea! How about, I don't know, get out of your rut and draw Snape AS Snape? (I hasten to add I have ZERO interest in Hairy Plopper, aside from a vague interest in the films - read: I'll watch them if they're there - but I've seen a whole shiteload of "Snape Lions" recently. Or "Cloud lions". Or "Sephiroth lions". Or Yugioh lions. Or OH GOD HELP ME BEFORE I GO KILL SOMEONE.)
As in, how about NOT draw some bastard mutant hellish lovechild between Snape and Simba, and how about instead GET OUT OF YOUR RUT and draw something that's NOT A LION KING LION? It's NOT EXACTLY IMAGINITIVE - it's like all those other million billion Sonic recolours, just slapping straight hair/mane and a moody face onto a pale coloured lion and going "OMFG SNAPE AS A LION YAY I'M SO IMAGINITIVE NO STEALING MY COPRYRITED IDEA OMFG".
And here's another idea - how about try growing your own style, rather than ape something Disney designed? Disney is formulaic FOR A REASON, because it's fairly EASY FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO REPLICATE. Drawing your favourite character "as a lion" is NOT imaginitive, people.
There, rant over!
Now I'm'a gonna draw all my characters as Disney lions. *skips* I'll call Ivy "Parsley*" instead, whee. *skip*
(I jest, I jest! Heaven forbid. I tried drawing "Disney foxes" once, to see what reaction it got, and egads it was a painful experience.
* - that was a vague exercise in humour, but before anyone complains about not getting it, here.)
It's mostly just... well, you know people are getting towards the bottom of the geek heirarchy (you know the one - at the bottom is the furry who writes Star Trek porn with all the characters turned into furry characters of some sort) when you find yourself having to defend the position that "lionising" a character is a fairly UNimaginitive exercise.
HEY ALL, here's a novel idea! How about, I don't know, get out of your rut and draw Snape AS Snape? (I hasten to add I have ZERO interest in Hairy Plopper, aside from a vague interest in the films - read: I'll watch them if they're there - but I've seen a whole shiteload of "Snape Lions" recently. Or "Cloud lions". Or "Sephiroth lions". Or Yugioh lions. Or OH GOD HELP ME BEFORE I GO KILL SOMEONE.)
As in, how about NOT draw some bastard mutant hellish lovechild between Snape and Simba, and how about instead GET OUT OF YOUR RUT and draw something that's NOT A LION KING LION? It's NOT EXACTLY IMAGINITIVE - it's like all those other million billion Sonic recolours, just slapping straight hair/mane and a moody face onto a pale coloured lion and going "OMFG SNAPE AS A LION YAY I'M SO IMAGINITIVE NO STEALING MY COPRYRITED IDEA OMFG".
And here's another idea - how about try growing your own style, rather than ape something Disney designed? Disney is formulaic FOR A REASON, because it's fairly EASY FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO REPLICATE. Drawing your favourite character "as a lion" is NOT imaginitive, people.
There, rant over!
Now I'm'a gonna draw all my characters as Disney lions. *skips* I'll call Ivy "Parsley*" instead, whee. *skip*
(I jest, I jest! Heaven forbid. I tried drawing "Disney foxes" once, to see what reaction it got, and egads it was a painful experience.
* - that was a vague exercise in humour, but before anyone complains about not getting it, here.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 12 Jul 2007 12:41 am (UTC)Furries were all over them?
Ask any damn furry how they realized they loved animal-head people and they'll say Disney's Robin Hood. D:
There's a strange phenomena when people CLAIM lion versions of characters or furry versions of characters. Like they created them themselves. 9.9 Most people don't even realize you can't COPYRIGHT characters, you have to trademark them. And brother, I'll tell ya, Cloud and Sephiroth and Snape are defiantly trademarked.
That link bizarrely awesome.
(no subject)
Date: 12 Jul 2007 05:47 pm (UTC)Thankfully, no (although I had a few people do the whole "OMG CUUUUTE" thing). It was just the experience as a whole that was painful. (I even had some guy try to critique the anatomy, even after I explained how it was an exercise in stupidity.) *twitch* I must confess that I find Disney foxes pretty ugly, on the whole - more like big ginger pomeranians with bushy tails. Yes, I enjoyed Robin Hood, when I was about 4, but eh, I WAS only four. I enjoyed a LOT of crud, when I was four.
But then, I seem to dislike Disney things on the whole anyway. (Cases in point: the live action 101 Dalmatians (for being "English"), The Fox and the Hound (for being over-sanitised crap that bore no similarity to the book AT ALL) and yes, to my shame I HAVE watched "The Fox and the Hound 2" - and where the hell was the point to putting the fox in it?! Oh, yes, I remember, milk that cash cow for every last drop you can possibly wring from its bleeding udders, that's what. Sorry, getting off the point, here.)
But Parsley the Lion was great. :) Because it was so... weird.
(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 03:30 am (UTC)I enjoyed David the Gnome when I was four. That had a fox, right? 8)
Man, as a fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, I thought I had a penchant for pain, but you watched Fox and the Hound 2? OWWWWWWwwwwwwwww. I've watched two Disney sequels all the way through, and only truly liked one (and no, it wasn't actually the Lion King sequel...>.>)
I say long live Pixar. For the know what a good story is. :b
(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 05:42 am (UTC)Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree on THAT - I've seen plenty of English foxes and they look nothing like the over-fluffed snub-nosed sanitised Disney "cute" fox (which so "cute" it is NOT cute and no longer particularly foxy, except in colour and bushiness of tail, hence the reference to the pomeranian, which I ALSO find teeth-grittingly hideous. ;) ).
David the Gnooome, I remember that. The fox was called "Swift" or something, right?
I must say I've never actually watched any Mystery Science Theatre of any variety or number. :\ S'never on TV, and I don't have the patience to torrent it. But eh, I was morbidly fascinated by how Disney could make a SEQUEL to the story which was SUPPOSED to be about two mortal enemies that are never friends and set on killing each other, in the original. In TFATH2, Tod may as well have actually BEEN a pomeranian, for all the relevance it had - the fact he was a fox and not a dog made absolutely NO impact on the story AT ALL, but surely that should have been one of the main themes of it? Blagh, stupid Disney. I was going to say, it does seem like lately the only good Disney films have had the Pixar label on them, but then I realised that ALL their recent films (discounting all the "straight-to-video" bollocks) were Pixar films they hijacked to slap their own label onto. Hrm.
(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 05:53 am (UTC)Man, it'd probably be heck raising a fox in a house as if they were a dog. And really stupid, too. :b
Pixar is pretty much their own studio, they're even a far PHYSICAL distance away from the Disney studios and they don't interfere with their practices. I figure Pixar is only joint with Disney because they needed the financial backing for the then-experimental form of animation that is CG.
And since I'm too lazy to make a LJ post on my journal, click here. (http://kiwiberry.critter.net/sketches/iios_schmoozy.jpg) God, I'm sorry I ruined your character, but that was my second drawing of that paticular picture and it still looks horrible so I'm giving up.
(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 09:41 pm (UTC)I have heard it said that there is nothing more destructive nor smelly than a fox. It can be done, with a whole lot of patience (and patience with the way the animals chew everything to bits), but most people who want a fox as a pet don't bother about that. It's like owning a tiger, it's 99% for how fashionable it is to have an "exotic pet". :P
I heard that about Pixar, too - that it was tied to Disney for the first x films (I think it was 10, or something?) because they sponsored them at the start, when no-one knew if they'd be a success - and now they ARE a success, they STILL have to have the Disney logo on their stuff, bleeding all their profits away, because they're tied in by contract. But eh, that's all hearsay, so maybe take it with a pinch of salt. ;)
And agh, don't be sorry, it's not ruined, it's wonderful. :D Thank you! :D *love* The expression is great - very "him" - and you noticed his natural habitat as well (somewhere people can stand around and admire...). ;) May I put it here? (http://dauntless.windchaser.co.uk/art/guest.html) *bats eyelashes* (Plus, I don't think anyone else has drawn him except me, so hurrah! :D )
(As a sidenote, if it's any consolation, *I* have to draw most of my Kiravai about 4 or 5 times over before I can get them to look right. They're bastards to draw from any angle except profile, and I STILL haven't mastered face-on yet. *geh*)
(no subject)
Date: 14 Jul 2007 03:26 am (UTC)Sorry, I'm an animation geek, so although I stopped keeping track of a lot of it (it's just waaaaaaaay too depressing these days, most animated movies these days are horrible- no attention paid to story at all, just all "edgy" humour and shiny 3D) I still know a lot.
And yay! Thank you! I was planning on finishing it...sometime but then I realized you've never really pinned down his colour yet so I wouldn't have known what to colour 'em. I didn't really do any hard thinking on the "natural habitat" of an Iios- I just wanted to make sure he had that slouchy "why yes, I AM made of awesome, thanks for noticing!" look.
And of course you can put it on your site. :D
(no subject)
Date: 12 Jul 2007 02:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12 Jul 2007 10:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 06:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 07:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 04:36 pm (UTC)as for harry potter i loathed him from the word go as soon as his veri first miserably dull, little novel of crap came out. harry should be shot dead, followed by his author J.K Rowling who should also be made to spell and then shot dead.
*SNARL*
Sinn
(no subject)
Date: 13 Jul 2007 09:46 pm (UTC)I'll be glad when the last Harry Potter book comes out, because then it'll all be over and all the fans will be in mourning over poor dead Harry* until Rowling's agent finds a new and exciting way to milk the franchise a bit more. :P
(* - disclaimer: No, I have no idea if Harry will die or not. Probably not. But it'd be a fitting end. ;))