EB Forum

Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?

partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?

It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.

those foils are terrible

rubberneck wrote:

partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?

It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.

Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.

jkw3000 wrote:

rubberneck wrote:

partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?

It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.

Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.

Little different how?

Both are homages to the original Mondo SW poster series done by other artists.

Granted one was a commission set so there is a commercial difference, but as a concept and execution they are identical. Should they not be referenced here?

rubberneck wrote:

jkw3000 wrote:

rubberneck wrote:

partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?

It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.

Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.

Little different how?

Both are homages to the original Mondo SW poster series done by other artists.

Granted one was a commission set so there is a commercial difference, but as a concept and execution they are identical. Should they not be referenced here?

The difference I'm highlighting. Suppose if people want to chat about the relevance to the art, sure. Whatevs.

rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Maybe relevant enough to be in the wider Olly Moss thread, but not in a thread dedicated to specific prints. In my opinion, anyway.

Loobaz wrote:

rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.

Maybe relevant enough to be in the wider Olly Moss thread, but not in a thread dedicated to specific prints. In my opinion, anyway.

In the thread related directly to the art being referenced is most the relevant. Until a dedicated thread for Joshua's art exists.

It belongs here more than the "OMG 8k!" Or "I've had this stored in a tube for years but would like to buy a used car, please give me tips to make that happen" or this exact post.

here ya go-

theperfecttree wrote:here ya go-

Phew!

Anyone who sees these, but hasn't seen Moss's, is gonna think these are the most confusing posters of all time.
"lol why do you have a poster of Dot? Dot Sux."
"lol wtf, Schwarz Awakens? Ummm."
"lol the movie was funny, why aren't these? I take back my lol."
And so on..

I wish they were more of a parody. When you look at the Olly Moss Return of the Jedi, I think a lot of people go - hmm... those trees look a little sparse for Endor.... the setting has been coerced into making the visual effect work - it's still brilliant, and I love them, but there's parody mileage there. There's no real attempt (in the Spaceballs versions) to actually 'parody' anything in the originals.

If the figures were doing something to make their 'thing inside a thing' visual trick work - preferably in a contrived and deliberately awkward way.
If the silhouettes were bent and misshapen enough to suggest something other than the character's silhouette to make the visual 'trick' work... it's supposed to be dot, but it also looks like a rooster and balls... lowbrow I know.

In the end they simply come off as prints 'in the style of,' and not parody at all. When Disney's lawyers tried to take down some of underground comix artists for showing Mickey and Minnie having oral sex, they argued that it was a parody, and I guess, got away with it/won the case, because they were suggesting a level of sexual behaviour vastly removed form the sanitised world that the original Mickey and Minnie lived in.

Maybe Spaceballs is less of a parody than I remember. Hard to say whether it really lampoons the sci-fi conventions in the way Airplane! managed to skewer the 'Airport' disaster movies.

is the one on eBay legit?

mattkardish wrote:is the one on eBay legit?

Howzat?