How you manage to spot such minor variations (or great bargains) is beyond my comprehension. The only logical explanation is that… you have the Thunderscope!!! That’s it! You have the Thunderscope! That is how you are able to spot so many treasures. :biggrin
Jokes aside, that’s a real interesting variation. Pretty much everyone is familiar with the major variants (black spots, brown spots Slithe etc.), but you’ve managed to identify many such minor variations, like Mumm-Ra’s feet and his triceps. Well done and keep em’ coming! :thumbsup
Hahaha! Unfortunately not, but I did just add it to my “Searches” on eBay so if it ever pops up, I’ll be sure to get it
I got this script in today. It’s the conformed script for episode #89 ‘Hair of The Dog’ by Chris Trengove. I’m gonna sent it to Chris for him to sign Also; I’ve no idea who Dennis is http://i.imgur.com/NTcFffb.jpg
I never thought of that, but thats very possible! He was a secondary character designer so he was around for the production, before writing “Shadowmaster” and “Well Of Doubt”… I’m gonna see if I can find out for sure.. Thanks, Adssse!
He could be the one. Woodyard designed almost all of the new characters and props in the last couple of seasons. He has uploaded all of those on his blog. I checked it but couldn’t find anything about “Hair of the Dog”.
I contacted Dennis and he said it’s not his handwriting and that it’s probably an office copy that was meant for him.
I got this Lynx-O in today and as you can see its an interesting one. I’m not sure if the missing paint is just a VERY big oversight during production or something else. Cool figure nonetheless. And it has the EL stamp to boot! http://i.imgur.com/PpRSU9D.jpg http://i.imgur.com/kX4zaCm.jpg
I was watching “The Mountain” the other day and I suddenly noticed something I never did before. It appears one of the douga’s I have from this episode is a corrective one. I always thought it was a sketch or something. As you can see in the full drawing (middle) certain details are different from the finished episode (first); 4 teeth instead of 2, lines around the eyes & ears and the shape of the crown. The animator corrected them, as you can see in the partial drawing (right). As I also have the dougas of the laser effects, it’s pretty cool to find out that I have this scene complete. http://i.imgur.com/ClMJ1Yu.jpg
That is generally how animation was done in the 2D days. First the main animator (or key animator) would do the rough drawings of the scene, maybe polish them up a bit. Then these would go to his/her assistant or the clean-up artists who would carefully trace over the image and produce a clean final drawing which would then go on to be Xeroxed onto clear acetate sheet (or cel as we commonly call them) and then colored on the back and finally photographed by the camera to make one frame of the cartoon. Tough work! :00
Sometimes they would do only partial drawings of a character, like their mouth or head only when the character is talking but the rest of his/her body is not moving. No point in re-drawing the entire body when it is static. Wastes time and art supplies! I think that Slithe face drawing might be one of those.
Wow, that’s fascinating stuff Wilycub! I never realized that several artists took part in just producing the line art before coloring. The old 2D animation was the best and truly a work of art!
Glad you are interested in this topic, adssse. I did dabble quite a bit in hand-drawn animation so I know plenty about what goes on behind the scenes.
Making hand-drawn cartoons is a VERY time-consuming and labor intensive job. Just creating a 5 minute scene can take months. That’s why big animation companies like Disney usually had 300-400 artists working for around 2 years just to produce one animated feature film.
After the story is written, it is up to the main/supervising animators (SA) to come up with designs for the characters (each character is usually assigned to a different animator). After the designs are approved, the SA draws the model sheets of the character form different angles, different mouth shapes, different poses etc. Then the SA does the main drawings of the main poses (key poses). Then come the in-betweener, who does the numerous drawings that go between the key poses done by the SA. Then come the clean-up artists who trace all these drawings neatly and clean up rough lines and missing details. Then they are Xeroxed onto cels, but in the old days the inkers would carefully trace the cleaned up drawings onto cels by hand. Then they go go the colorists.
And of course there are the background artists who draw all the background paintings, the special effect artists who do stuff like glows and sprinkles and sparkles, and the storyboard artists who take the entire script and put it into a sort of simple comic form.
A film runs at 24 frames per second and animated cartoons usually use two frames of the same drawing for each exposure so even then they require 12 different drawings for each second of what you see on screen. Now calculate the number of drawings in a 100 min feature film! :00
So studios with small budgets and small workforce utilize “tactics” like re-using animation (“He-Man and the Masters of the Universe”), keeping very little movement (“The Flintstones”), or doing only 6 or less drawings per second (so we get very choppy animation like Gene Deitch’s “Tom & Jerry Cartoons”).
I could go on and on on this topic but I am already feeling bad for hijacking TRG’s thread. Sorry buddy! I’ll shut up now.
Hahahaha! No, please, I’m as interested as adssse! BTW do you know the reason why almost all Hanna Barbera characters, like Yogi Bear and Top Cat, have shirt collars? They did that so that when they would only animate the heads (to save costs) they could hide the “seem” behind the collar.
I actually didn’t know that! Thanks for sharing that bit of trivia. :thumbsup Hanna Barbera really were masters when it came to keeping costs to a minimum. They employed many “Limited Animation” techniques. It’s a good thing ThunderCats wasn’t animated in the U.S.A or its animation might have been drastically different than what it is.