Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:22 pm
by Caigan
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:24 pm
by Like_D00D
Ozy and Millie have no mouth in the 3rd panel. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='
http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:28 pm
by NHJ BV
They both never have one if their mouths are closed. I agree that it looks somewhat weird, but I'm not sure if drawing a closed mouth would look right.
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:42 pm
by Tom Flapwell
That weirdness goes back at least as far as "Peanuts," in which closed mouths are invisible from the side unless smiling or frowning. It's actually very common in modern cartoons, even disregarding characters who (almost) never have mouths like Dilbert, and I would not be surprised to learn it was well-established before Charles Schulz was even born.<br><br>Man. That's the first sentimental moment I've seen to include a rubber chicken.
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:47 pm
by TyVulpine
(actually, virtually all cartoonists nowadays copy in some way Charles Schulz....yes he was that much of an influence)
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:53 pm
by Muninn
Despite using a camera the quality isn't that bad.<br><br>And I agree with Tailsthefox. Directly or indirectly, all newspaper comics nowadays owe something to Peanuts.
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:50 pm
by TyVulpine
--------><a href='
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/st ... name=Mutts' target='_blank'>Mutts</a>....check out today's Mutts for an example!
