Star Wars Set 10 Moss
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
- rubberneck
- Art God
- Posts: 26101
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:19 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?
Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.
- ErocAfellar
- Art Expert
- Posts: 4537
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:25 pm
those foils are terrible
HappaHaoli wrote:That is freaking Eroctic!
Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?
Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.
35mmpaul wrote:We are addicted to things that hurt our butts.
- rubberneck
- Art God
- Posts: 26101
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:19 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Little different how?jkw3000 wrote:Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?
Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.
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:Little different how?jkw3000 wrote:Eh, a little different, but at this point it's just splitting hairs because this is ALWAYS a productive line of discussion.rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.partpat wrote:Did no one else notice that these suck ? And WTF is it doing clogging up this thread?
Those Family Guy Stouts were all over the Stout threads, this is no different.
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?
35mmpaul wrote:We are addicted to things that hurt our butts.
Maybe relevant enough to be in the wider Olly Moss thread, but not in a thread dedicated to specific prints. In my opinion, anyway.rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.
- rubberneck
- Art God
- Posts: 26101
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:19 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
In the thread related directly to the art being referenced is most the relevant. Until a dedicated thread for Joshua's art exists.Loobaz wrote:Maybe relevant enough to be in the wider Olly Moss thread, but not in a thread dedicated to specific prints. In my opinion, anyway.rubberneck wrote:It's a homage to the set PP, so it references this art and is relevant enuff to be here imo.
- theperfecttree
- EB Team
- Posts: 11789
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:04 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- rubberneck
- Art God
- Posts: 26101
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:19 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
-
- Art Expert
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:54 am
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..
"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.
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.
- mattkardish
- Art Expert
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:28 pm
- Location: Paddy's Pub
is the one on eBay legit?
- rubberneck
- Art God
- Posts: 26101
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:19 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Howzat?mattkardish wrote:is the one on eBay legit?