|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 11, 2015 5:02:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gizmo2015 on Oct 12, 2015 14:02:56 GMT -6
that is awwesome
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 12, 2015 14:08:52 GMT -6
that is awwesome Indeed I've been always catching up with some videos about other cartoons facts but there wasn't any about the Gadget series. Take god someone decided to do it, even some of the points are already know and they're only 18 facts instead of 107. XD
|
|
|
Post by gizmo2015 on Oct 12, 2015 15:44:59 GMT -6
They need to do a 107 for sure
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 12, 2015 16:41:06 GMT -6
They need to do a 107 for sure DO IT
|
|
|
Post by gizmo2015 on Oct 12, 2015 17:08:33 GMT -6
lets send a note to one of the youtube channels
|
|
|
Post by Systemcat on Oct 12, 2015 19:42:25 GMT -6
I've seen that page before, and considered it on the whole as I started working FOH. So many neat details on that site about the classic series. I really wish I could have found a way to use more of that tid-bit rare trivia info when I was working on the last of my pose based stories for IG.
What's a little disappointing about the page is I had to talk to another person on DA to discovery on the who's who for the MAD grunts. Since the names aren't connected with any descriptions.
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 13, 2015 9:55:58 GMT -6
I've seen that page before, and considered it on the whole as I started working FOH. So many neat details on that site about the classic series. I really wish I could have found a way to use more of that tid-bit rare trivia info when I was working on the last of my pose based stories for IG. What's a little disappointing about the page is I had to talk to another person on DA to discovery on the who's who for the MAD grunts. Since the names aren't connected with any descriptions. For what I understand of your concern at your end of the message there's an website of the designs of all MAD agents and each of them has their original name. www.brianlemay.com/Pages/madagentsindex.html
|
|
|
Post by gizmo2015 on Oct 13, 2015 10:18:01 GMT -6
too cool
|
|
|
Post by Systemcat on Oct 13, 2015 17:25:52 GMT -6
I've seen that page before, and considered it on the whole as I started working FOH. So many neat details on that site about the classic series. I really wish I could have found a way to use more of that tid-bit rare trivia info when I was working on the last of my pose based stories for IG. What's a little disappointing about the page is I had to talk to another person on DA to discovery on the who's who for the MAD grunts. Since the names aren't connected with any descriptions. For what I understand of your concern at your end of the message there's an website of the designs of all MAD agents and each of them has their original name. www.brianlemay.com/Pages/madagentsindex.htmlAh, now I feel a little embarrassed about making a mistake on IDing who was who. On DA I posted a piece showing the most of canon characters along side their non-canon take ones I write. Who I thought was Lenny I just learned was Fred.
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 14, 2015 4:18:56 GMT -6
Ah, now I feel a little embarrassed about making a mistake on IDing who was who. On DA I posted a piece showing the most of canon characters along side their non-canon take ones I write. Who I thought was Lenny I just learned was Fred. You don't need to feel embarrassed ^^; You didn't know who was who and that's not your fault.
|
|
|
Post by lunsei on Oct 15, 2015 14:27:56 GMT -6
After reading this interesting article, I'd like to share my two cents.... First off, boy am I glad they were forced to remove the moustache. Even though his physical appearance is clearly inspired by Peter Sellers as inspector Clouseau, Gadget just doesn't look good with 'staches. Second thing... why are some people believing the crazy theory that Claw is actually the real Gadget, and Gadget is a robot copy? I'm pretty sure anyone who followed the cartoon knows that theory is absolutely impossible. I think it shows wether you're a big nerd of the series or not: if you are, you know that theory makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 15, 2015 14:49:57 GMT -6
After reading this interesting article, I'd like to share my two cents.... First off, boy am I glad they were forced to remove the moustache. Even though his physical appearance is clearly inspired by Peter Sellers as inspector Clouseau, Gadget just doesn't look good with 'staches. Second thing... why are some people believing the crazy theory that Claw is actually the real Gadget, and Gadget is a robot copy? I'm pretty sure anyone who followed the cartoon knows that theory is absolutely impossible. I think it shows wether you're a big nerd of the series or not: if you are, you know that theory makes no sense. I agree. Gadget looks way better without the moustache. It just didn't fit for his age About for the theory I actually thought the same thing at first but then I got with my question thoughts about it. When I was drawing Claw's original face I felt for some reason that his hair looked similar to Gadget's hair.
|
|
|
Post by lunsei on Oct 16, 2015 2:20:54 GMT -6
About for the theory I actually thought the same thing at first but then I got with my question thoughts about it. When I was drawing Claw's original face I felt for some reason that his hair looked similar to Gadget's hair. Oh no, absolutely no. You can clearly see that Claw doesn't give a darn about Penny, whom he calls a "nozy little brat" and actively tries to murder. You can also see that Gadget is a cyborg, not an android. He eats and sleeps, plus, in the original series, whenever an actual robot showed up they were never alive like Gadget. I hate that some guy who clearly hasn't followed the series came up with such a ridiculous premise... and a lot of people believed it. It's exactly as dumb as the theory that chief Quimby is Claw: another thing that anyone who followed the series knows to be impossible (Claw even kidnapped Quimby). That action figure of Claw might look dumb as heck, but at least it proves his identity even to people who don't remember the cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by PolarStar on Oct 16, 2015 4:09:14 GMT -6
About for the theory I actually thought the same thing at first but then I got with my question thoughts about it. When I was drawing Claw's original face I felt for some reason that his hair looked similar to Gadget's hair. Oh no, absolutely no. You can clearly see that Claw doesn't give a darn about Penny, whom he calls a "nozy little brat" and actively tries to murder. You can also see that Gadget is a cyborg, not an android. He eats and sleeps, plus, in the original series, whenever an actual robot showed up they were never alive like Gadget. I hate that some guy who clearly hasn't followed the series came up with such a ridiculous premise... and a lot of people believed it. It's exactly as dumb as the theory that chief Quimby is Claw: another thing that anyone who followed the series knows to be impossible (Claw even kidnapped Quimby). That action figure of Claw might look dumb as heck, but at least it proves his identity even to people who don't remember the cartoon. You got a point in there actually Yeah, I also never believed that Quimby was Claw, but the reason some people do is because of the credits, when Claw says "I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time" and it fits actually with Quimby's mouth from an episode scene.
|
|