moped
Contributor
Posts: 115
|
Post by moped on Oct 2, 2005 15:33:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Oct 2, 2005 18:49:33 GMT
Well you can tell Paul isn't Faul! ;D
Btw Moped, everytime I see your avatar I think it's Neil Young!
|
|
|
Post by andrewexelor on Oct 2, 2005 23:27:34 GMT
did they change their characters look as they: grew long hair, grew moustaches, got replaced?
|
|
moped
Contributor
Posts: 115
|
Post by moped on Oct 3, 2005 12:48:08 GMT
Well you can tell Paul isn't Faul! ;D Btw Moped, everytime I see your avatar I think it's Neil Young! I thought it was blatant...the other three are almost perfectly faithful, not an easy task. The Beatles Cartoons look like the work of a pro caricature artist...caricatures aren't the same as cartoons (the Bugs Bunny variety), a good caricature artist captures the characteristics of a person and brings them out with just a few lines. IMO these Beatles drawings are quite good. And yeah, JPM can look Neilish, but Faul can't. It's a temperment, not a pose. NY is one of the all time greatest musical artists in my book...
|
|
moped
Contributor
Posts: 115
|
Post by moped on Oct 3, 2005 12:53:17 GMT
did they change their characters look as they: grew long hair, grew moustaches, got replaced? The MMT cartoons look derived from these, but "Paul" is in transition mode as shown in the booklet. Here are two, I think these were inserted in with the Christmas flexis... 1965 or 1966: 1967:
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Oct 3, 2005 19:17:09 GMT
did they change their characters look as they: grew long hair, grew moustaches, got replaced? The MMT cartoons look derived from these, but "Paul" is in transition mode as shown in the booklet. Here are two, I think these were inserted in with the Christmas flexis... 1965 or 1966: 1967: How? Doctoring Intelligence missed to doctor the cartoons too? What a mistake! ;D EXCELLENT AGAIN, Moped!
|
|
moped
Contributor
Posts: 115
|
Post by moped on Oct 4, 2005 13:43:44 GMT
Thanks BP, yep, the cartoons are original, though in that first example there's an attempt at revisionism. The 67 drawing shows definite signs of "lens distortion", "lighting", "angle", "stretching", etc. ... I really like these.
|
|