Owlor
Since: Feb, 2010
Aug 21st 2011 at 12:17:45 PM
•••
Reading the article, I wonder about the huge levels of snark in the main article, the concept of the comic actually sounds pretty interesting, (far from unique, yes, but still a premise that has potential), is it really as bad as tv tropes makes it out to be?
I just removed a reference to Warner Brothers cartoons here. Please do not revert it. There is no reference I can find in this series to anything from Warner (or Harvey — yes, there are crows, but that's just an animal species and everything else about the characters is pure Nelvana). In issue #4 a reference in the text to a "Mel Blanc voice" is not a WB reference, as he also contributed to Hanna-Barbera, Ruby-Spears and Di C cartoons.
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing only notoriously "unfunny" sources. Thus we get everything drawn in the gloopy style of (the most notoriously unfunny animation studio) Nelvana, with some characters being reminiscent of characters from the cheapest period of Hanna-Barbera television cartoons.
On a subjective note I think this was the title's biggest mistake, as it makes the work visually drab and unpleasing, thus losing much of the intended contrast between cartoon imagery and disturbing violence or perversion. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to work this observation into the main article or not...
Edited by Piledriver Hide / Show Replies