[006]
Piledriver
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
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 \
to:
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 DiC 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...
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...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
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 \
to:
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 DiC cartoons.
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
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 \
to:
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 Nelvana cartoons.
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I just removed a reference to Warner Brothers cartoons here. Please do not revert it. There is no visual 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 \
to:
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 Nelvana cartoons.
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
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). The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \
to:
I just removed a reference to Warner Brothers cartoons here. Please do not revert it. There is no visual 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 Nelvana cartoons.
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
The choice of references here seems to me deliberate, choosing notoriously \\\"unfunny\\\" sources to reference. 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...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Huh? Is it properly spelled \
to:
Huh? Is it properly spelled \\\"3\\\", or \\\"Three\\\"? Either way, neither page has been cut. Thanks to the new tech Eddie installed, the page at \\\'Three Inches Of Blood\\\' now reads with a 3. It is now 100% identical to this ptitle\\\'d page, save for a single edit I made when copying it.
