Patrick Schoenmaker Indy art

No Ticket

New member
I didn't know where to post this. Feedback maybe? Announcements is for official announcements only so I can't post it in there. But I just wanted to take a moment and say how awesome the artwork is on the new TheRaider.net header image by Patrick Schoenmaker. I e-mailed him a few weeks ago or so and mentioned how much I liked his original image and he said it inspired him to make this new one!!

I think his artwork is incredible and if they ever made an Indiana Jones cartoon series, I think he should be involved somewhat as an animator or art director or something... his style would be amazing in motion.

Anybody else like it?
 

VP

Moderator Emeritus
Too cartooney, I hate it. Especially Short Round. Dennis Budd is way better.
 

No Ticket

New member
Nothing wrong with cartoony IMO. I think it looks very professional. The backgrounds are very detailed as well. Even if you don't like the style, I would think you could appreciate the artistry. I like Dennis Budd too, I don't "hate" either of their work.

I just can't believe so many people here don't like it. Is it because you relate "cartoony" to being "kid-like." Because that's ignorant. I have always liked the cartoon style of artwork... I thought Samurai Jack was a beautifully animated series as was Star Wars Clone Wars. This artwork reminds me slightly of those, although I think it's more in the style of something like the movie "Iron Giant."
 
Nothing wrong with "cartoony" ...just that particular type of cartoony. It screams of that Cartoon Network faux-anime style that's so popular. It's just an ugly, unfortunate style of animation.
 

No Ticket

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Nothing wrong with "cartoony" ...just that particular type of cartoony. It screams of that Cartoon Network faux-anime style that's so popular. It's just an ugly, unfortunate style of animation.

It's not at all that "faux-anime" style that you speak of. Maybe in the hands, but the facial features to me, seem more like that of a recent Disney film. I'm talking The Emperor's New Groove or something of that sort. I've seen plenty of anime (I even collected anime animation cels as well as american animation) and I'd have to say it's more traditional than it is that "faux-anime" style.
 
No Ticket said:
It's not at all that "faux-anime" style that you speak of. Maybe in the hands, but the facial features to me, seem more like that of a recent Disney film. I'm talking The Emperor's New Groove or something of that sort. I've seen plenty of anime (I even collected anime animation cels as well as american animation) and I'd have to say it's more traditional than it is that "faux-anime" style.


Disney's animation hasn't been worth a damn in a loooong time.

It's a shame too, cause works like Alice in Wonderland are phenomenal in every way.

...that recent style you speak of is pretty awful though...
 

No Ticket

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Disney's animation hasn't been worth a damn in a loooong time.

It's a shame too, cause works like Alice in Wonderland are phenomenal in every way.

...that recent style you speak of is pretty awful though...

To each his own, I don't think so. Alice in Wonderland does have good animation, but so did more recent efforts like Aladdin or The Lion King. You can't tell me the animation wasn't good in those movies.
 
No Ticket said:
To each his own, I don't think so. Alice in Wonderland does have good animation, but so did more recent efforts like Aladdin or The Lion King. You can't tell me the animation wasn't good in those movies.

I wasn't referring to those... granted, I don't think much of those films themselves, but it's not because of the animation...

I was more referring to Hercules, Mulan, Pocahontas and other more recent endeavors. So early-to-mid 90s on up has given us some rather awful stuff from Disney.
 

No Ticket

New member
ResidentAlien said:
I wasn't referring to those... granted, I don't think much of those films themselves, but it's not because of the animation...

I was more referring to Hercules, Mulan, Pocahontas and other more recent endeavors. So early-to-mid 90s on up has given us some rather awful stuff from Disney.

I agree that Mulan, Hercules and Pocahontas all were bad Disney films, but not because of the animation. Sadly, it's more due to the fact that Disney had already made films of much of the most classic fairy tales and they were running low... that's my opinion. They gave up the "classic" Disney movie feel with musical numbers and such and went on to make stuff like Atlantis and Emperor's New Groove... only to give up 2D animation all-together after horrible films like, whatever that recent one about a farm was.

They rely heavily on 3D animated films now. But, I believe Pixar no longer is under contract by them so they can't rely on the great efforts of Pixar... who, IMO, have all the right stuff to make great family films. Like Toy Story or The Incredibles... great animation, great storytelling, good humor and heart.
 

Niteshade007

New member
I liked all those movies you mentioned (Hercules, Pocohantas, Mulan). And I thought the Pixar movies were great. I mean, the Toy Story films alone validate that! Add films like Finding Nemo and the Incredible's, and you have a great collection of films. The weakest in the series are Bug's Life and Cars, but both are enjoyable to watch.
 
Attila the Professor said:
Why is that, actually? I don't recall if it came out why you felt that way in the thread about Pixar or not.

I just think they're impressive animation for the sake of impressive animation. Be they children's films or not, they're still incredibly formulaic. They've taken the blockbuster formula... expensive production values, lotsa visual w***ery and positively no substance. If I'm to watch children's films (as I still do... with some frequency in fact) I want something that doesn't patronize the audience. Two personal favorites for instance are Labyrinth and Mirror Mask. Both have great production values, but on top of that they have wonderfully developed characters and thematic material. They transcend merely two dimensional good-vs-bad story arcs. Mirror Mask in particular; there's the wonderfully layered character of the mother (aka the queen) who despite the admiration her daughter feels for her is still depicted as a darker more menacing person. There's duality there--the characters are flawed despite their good intentions which really impresses me in a children's story.

But yeah, Pixar films... none of that. It's just bland and predictable.

Toy Story I don't mind mainly because it was so cutting edge at the time... it's an interesting milestone for digital filmmaking. But the rest of those films do nothing for me.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I feel the need to disagree. Consider the most recent, Ratatouille. Creativity and the creative process are remarkably difficult things to deal with in film, and this one works phenomenally well. As such, I don't feel they do patronize the audience. The emotional high point of the film is a defense of cultural criticism...how likely is that, in any film, animated or otherwise? The Incredibles and Ratatouille together constitute a rather exciting defense of excellence that you will rarely find in film, perhaps the most self-consciously democratic of mediums. There's some real nuance in these films, and they're also genuinely funny through their use of character humor, which isn't the easiest thing to come by. The good vs. bad elements that appear in these films are usually merely background to the characters in them. Yes, there has been a tendency for most of them to be buddy films in one way or another (although I'd argue that in itself is refreshing in opposition to a love narrative or a good vs. bad narrative), but even there, they've been consistently exploring the ways in which the buddy film can work, from the delusion-based antagonism of Toy Story to the Seven Samurai-charged Bug's Life to the third wheel child element of Monsters Inc., and the partnership requisite for our leads in Ratatouille.

And it's not as thought the technique isn't well-used, nor that immersion into a different world isn't something that counts. Leaving aside entirely the advances that were made between Toy Story and the later films, the realms they inhabit are far different. Toy Story and its sequel were basically in a real world, as was A Bug's Life. Finding Nemo was appropriately whimsical and colorful for what was partially a buddy film-twist on the overcoming of anxiety, while The Incredibles fully inhabited the world of James Bond, superheroes, and the mod era.

You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, especially since you are one of the most consistently well-arguing Raveners I've known, but I do feel you've got this one wrong. The Pixar canon thus far has been infused with a genuine sense of the loss and disappoints inherent in human life, even though their characters may be toys, bugs, or a rat with a penchant for fine cuisine, and I'm eager to see what else they produce - especially Brad Bird.
 
Top