Messages

Stop already i wanna go listen some music.  The primitives crash is a song created on 1996 the original by beretta is around 80's.

You forgot:
QUEEN. Bohemian Rhapsody

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_(The_Primitives_song)
Written by the Primitives in 1988.  The 1995 version was a remix, and Ann Baretta (who formed in '96) covered it.

And Bohemian Rhapsody was either five years too early or two years too late to be classed as 80's music.  (Original and first re-release).

To Drew:

Queen did have some rocking 80's songs.  Hammer to Fall, One Vision, I Want It All for example.  One Vision, especially, had some of May's rockest guitar work to date.

That said, Queen were far, far better in the 70's, so I completely understand you not including them.

They might not be "power rock" per se, but these were part of my unfashionably awesome 80's childhood, with links where available:

Billy Idol - Dancing with Myself
Billy Idol - White Wedding
The Primitives - Crash (One of my first "crushes").
The Bangles
The Cure
Eurythmics
Prince - Raspberry Beret
Tone Loc - Funky Cold Medina
ZZ Top - Gimme All Your Lovin'
The Knack - My Sharona (1979, but fantastic).
Aha - Take On Me
Devo - Whip It
Blondie
Various other "New wave" and or "Punk" bands.

What about Russian film scene? Have you done any research in that or based your facts only on history in USA?

I'll say for a third time, it's based on Hollywood.  I'm not familiar enough with "World Cinema", "Foreign Cinema", etc.  Not counting the Far East, I've seen a bunch of non-English language films, and to be honest, I've never been very impressed.  Mostly because I don't relate to the culture, I guess.  This meant that I haven't actively pursued more movies from various countries, and therefore don't know which are good, which are bad, which are famous, etc.

I've seen a few South Korean movies, and have been generally been impressed with them, but I've only seen a few, and I didn't feel comfortable commenting on them.

As for Russian movies? I saw Nightwatch and Daywatch, recently.  Whilst they might not represent the scene well, I thought they were dreadful.  This has put me off watching anymore Russian films for a while.

Regarding Donnie Darko:
It's an independent, so far as I know, and more importantly, it's a bit over-rated.

Lumiéres:
They were projecting stuff 7 years after the first known "movie", so I don't consider them to be as an important landmark.

Hollywood/Foreign Films:
As I said at the start, I kept it Hollywood based, mostly as Foreign Cinema is a different story, that I'm not as familiar with.

I also hoped and expected more folk to give me their "theories" on movies.  I fear I've scared a lot away with the longness of the post.

Also, as my "research" continues, I'm finding myself more and more disenchanted with each film I watch.

[Prehistory-1888: The twinkle in the camera's eye.]

Okay boys and girls, pop the kettle on, take the phone off the hook, pull up a chair, clear your calender and brace yourselves for a rather long post.  Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin..

I've been watching a whole heck of a lot of movies recently, as research of sorts for a project.  I've surely devoted too much time to this, as my brain has started ticking over, and I've been thinking about the evolution of the movie industry over the years.  So, instead of keeping these theories to myself, I thought I'd throw them out into to the world, and get a somewhat fresh perspective on them.  We'll start up with a broad generalisation of the industry of the last century, likening it to the life of some average John Q. Public schmo, such as yourselves.

I've tried to break the lifespan in to various sections, keeping those sections relatively loose.  They may overlap, but nothing in life is all that accurate so it kind of fits.  I'm also basing this on Hollywood, not Foreign Cinema, Independent Films nor Animation.  I've tried to not be genre specific, either.  Anyhow, here goes..

Prehistory-1888: The twinkle in the camera's eye.

Man saw some animals, and decided that he'd decorate his home with them.  The art got better, the tools got more complex until Bam! some guy takes some photos of a horse.  Courtship had begun, but Film's mother was a prude.  Three years later, in 1880, he projects them onto a screen.  Eight years later some other guy experiments with his new-fangled contraption, films "Roundhay Garden Scene", and cinema is born.  Sleepless nights have arrived, and the world will never be the same again.

1888-1927: The formative years, in baby steps.

Film was a bit of a slow starter, and there were fears mummy dearest was sniffing paint thinner whilst she was pregnant.  At the turn of the century, movies were still short.  An epic movie was a couple of minutes long, though I'm sure Peter Jackson could still make it an incredibly boring and drawn out few minutes if he was around at the time.  Thankfully, he wasn't, and films were new and exciting.  The industry realised money was to be made from using projectors in rooms, instead of the old method of sticking your face up against a box and cranking a handle to find out What The Butler Saw.

Techniques were being developed, fantastic advances like "film continuity", "lighting" or the ever popular "slow motion".  After a while, they even decided to hire writers.  Things were looking up, the baby had dribbled on itself, and was giggling like a simpleton, but the cinema going public were captivated.

Eventually, Film got up off it's ass and tooks it's first few steps, and with the likes of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin as stars, spent a good few years falling on it's ass over and over.

1927-1939: First words to bad words.

In The Jazz Singer, the first "Talkie", Al Johnson plays a Jew who pretends to be black, with boot polish on his face and a song in his heart.  Honestly, if this was made today, there'd be uproar from various activists, but at the time, Jewish and Afro-American press praised the movie, and in all the movies that had blackface make up, this was the only one where the make up was central to the plot, and not just an excuse to laugh at the black guy.

In two years, Hollywood Film had a full vocabulary and set out into the big, wide world to win the hearts and minds of the people.  Like the George Bushes and their Road to Baghdad escapades, only with the action scenes being performed by professional stuntmen.  Stars were recognised globally, and they really did have star quality in those days, not just implants or a chiselled jaw and low IQ.  Admittedly, Shirley Temple was one of those stars, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

Dialogue was now important.  More important than funny looking guy who manages to survive the variety of cartoon violence inflicted on him.  The kid would have to entertain people with words from now on, and laughing at the fact that his diaper needs changing just isn't going to cut it anymore.  Sadly, along with his ability to speak, Film found he could also sing, and dance, and prance around like a choreographed oaf.  Clark Gable frankly didn't give a damn.

1940's-1960's: Swinging moods and dropping balls.

Film was undergoing some changes, it was starting to become more confident in what it was doing, but at the same time, it couldn't decide if it wanted these changes or not.  One day, Film looks down, and realises those hairs weren't there before, and those hairs were all the colors of the rainbow.  Oh dear, Puberty in Technicolor.

In amongst the kerfuffle of color, with cinema's "voice" going up and down in pitch, hue and saturation in an unfathomably erratic way, lasting the better part of two decades, there were some real classics of cinema.  The majority of the "Top Movies Ever" are likely to come from this period.  Maybe it was tweenage angst, maybe it was Film rebelling against it's folks, maybe it was just dumb luck, but the movie industry was in it's Golden Age.  Heck, film even managed to take stories from the Bible and make them seem interesting for over three hours at a time.

1960's-1970's: Smells like Screen Spirit.

Todays typical teenage boy likes the simple things in life.  Action, adventure, gadgets, big guns, fast cars and loose women.  Much like Film did in the 60's and 70's.  Explosions? Good.  Death rays? Awesome.  Steve McQueen riding around San Fransisco in a Mustang? Yes, please.  Some punk making Clint Eastwood's day? Go ahead.

The sets were changing, too.  Instead of some studio back lot in LA, now the movies were made all over the place.  Film was out and about, living life to the fullest.  Sure, it wasn't always the best of living, and sure he dabbled in some substances he should've left alone, but the main thing was he was out there, exploring, experiencing, experimenting.

Film also starts to take more of an interest in the opposite sex, and this time it's not as someone who'll be easy to beat at in game of catch.  Films notices the curves, the skimpy outfits, the fishnets, the high heels, the leopard print mini-skirt, the poorly applied cheap make up.  Film's fallen in love, and he's picked a slag.

Now, I'm not going to get into the porn industry thing, as that's a whole different issue that'll take just as long to explore.  For now, lets just assume Porn was a childhood friend of Film, who looked up to him, and wanted to be just like him, only Porn couldn't keep his pants on.  That's not to say Film didn't think along the same lines as Porn, he just had stricter parents.  He did like to try his luck as often as possible, though.

For example, women were far more likely to be covered up until now.  Sexploitation movies were at their most popular.  Unlike the British sex comedies of the day, which weren't sexy, and rarely that funny.  It was usually either the Carry On team making films out of jokes they found on seaside postcards, or it was Robin Asquith, playing a guy with a name like Randy, making an ass of himself with some suburban housewife.  If we were really lucky, he'd be joined by ex-PM Tony Blair's father-in-law, or a woman who made her name selling gravy.  A real turn-on.

But in America? It was usually less about comedy, and more about getting flesh on screen.  Other ~xploitations were popular, too.  Take Pam Grier, dark skin, glossy make-up, big breasts, bigger 'fro and the ability to fire a gun without knocking herself off her disco heels.  Another cult star is born, wearing hotpants and kicking ass.

Which reminds me..  Cult Movies.  There's a whole heck of a lot of movies from this time that are considered "Cult", despite being dreadful.  I've never understood why for most of them.  There's some 50's Sci-Fi I loved, and plenty of 80's trash I adore, but the one's from the 70's?  I guess there's only so much disco I can take.

1980's: The College Years.

Now, I understand some of you feel that college or university is a place of learning, but this is about movies, and in movies the textbooks are used more to even out wobbly tables, stop bullets, weigh down paper, or elevate diminutive leading ladies to eye-level of the hero for the kissing scene.  The colleges in movies are about one last chance to have fun.  Not any kind of fun but the inane, anarchic, power-fighting, machine-raging, trashy, ripped jeans kind of fun.  Like putting the contents of the Dean's office in the parking lot, or sneaking into the girls locker room, or fighting ninja zombies or robot pirates with pithy one-liners.

Most film makers weren't so bothered about making thought-provoking cinema in the 80's.  There were some classics, sure, but even those were usually more about entertainment than anything.  Robocop may be a modern day portrayal of Jesus Christ, but he's also part man, part machine, all awesome.  Take Arnold Schwarzenegger, take Commando.  One man versus an army, using flowers as cover in a gun fight.  It may not bother with boring things like science or even common sense, but hell, it was fantastic.  Oscar winning acting, quality scripting? As long as you throw in some wise cracks, a couple of boobs or Corey Feldman, you're on to a winner.

Maybe it was the attitude and approach to film making back then, maybe it was the popularity of VHS, the new "straight-to-video" genre that caused the movie's moods.  Maybe more amateurish movie makers wanted to get in on the Box Office Blockbusting craze.  Maybe it was a crowd of coked up yuppies greenlighting every project they could find because they were so high they couldn't tell if they were a real person or a character in one of their dumb movies.  Perhaps it's just nostalgia, perhaps it's my unwillingness to grow up, but something changed in with the movies, and the industry was never this enthusiastic or carefree about entertainment again.

1990's: Bigger than Big Business.

Film has moved on, cleaned up his act, bought a fancy suit and got a sensible haircut.  It's time to think about the future, careers and whatnot.  Gone are the good times, now the main thing in life is business.  Movies are made with the aim to make money.  Accountants are more important than artists.

The movies of the 90's are more refined than the previous efforts, but sadly, they're also becoming homogenised, generic and quite often rather boring.  Stars are now picked for bankabilty over actual talent.  Sure, some of those stars have talent, but a lot are just there for the ticket sales.  It doesn't matter if they find some unknown guy to play a character perfectly, when they can invest some funds to get a star attraction to play the role adequately.  Even the writing is becoming rather stale.  Sequels are profitable, despite becoming tired re-treads of the previous movies.

Movies have money thrown at them, but not necessarily in the right way.  The industry thinks that flashy effects will fix a rather dodgy movie and turn a profit.  Waterworld, for example.  Kevin Costner as part man, part fish?  Instead of making a cheap TV movie, like it could've been, they threw a fortune at it.  And who could forget Cutthroat Island?  Well, just about anyone who's actually seen it.  Surprising that a big budget movie about pirates, of all things, could be a box office flop.  It still managed to bankrupt Carolco, though.

Newer effects were also coming into fashion.  If the effects weren't new and exciting, then the profits wouldn't be so fantastic, either.  In the past, effects were done manually.  Models were made, make-up was applied, stuff was blown up.  It was somewhat costly, sure, but it was tried and tested.  Most of all, if they weren't done by imbeciles, they often looked amazing.  Then, someone decides it's a better idea to fire up the PC.  Not to write the script on, though, oh no..

"Remember Tron? I can make the whole film that cool with a few clicks".
"But, can you make it realistic?"
"Not yet, but I'm cheap."
"Welcome aboard."

Soon, everyone was jumping on the CGI bandwagon.  The wagon might be rickety, and pulled by an arthritic donkey, and driven by a guy who refuses to stop and ask for directions, but everyone still wanted on.  If CGI is good, then it looks seamless.  You shouldn't be able to tell what's real, and what's fake.  Sadly, on the majority of occassions, the CGI stood out like a sore thumb, and in case you missed it, it was waving a little flag and yelling at you to get your attention.  Then, at the end of the century, some guys decide slow motion is exciting, and make the Matrix, and moments later the next bandwagon loads up with as many passengers as it can carry, this time pulled by the old donkey's dad.

2000's: The Mid-Life Crisis.

So what do we have these days?  Remakes, sequels, a seemingly endless stream of comic book movies, and what I'm guessing is what some studio executive has pieced together rummaging through the trash at the old offices.  Everytime one of these comic book movies turns up, I watch it.  I don't know why, maybe it's some hope that it won't suck, maybe it's because I convince myself that it'll be good, maybe I just love the idea of superheroes, but almost everytime, it turns up and disappoints.  I liked Batman Begins, I admit, but the rest?  I could spend a lifetime complaining about them.

The Industry is failing, I'm sure of it.  I'm sure it knows it, too.  It's getting grey hairs, it's struggling to get rid of that beer-belly, and it's all downhill from here on out.  So what does it do?  It panics, and pretends to be young and hip again.  New and exciting.  It's palm is blinking, and it wants to renew.

Instead of actresses who can 1. act their out of a paper bag, or 2. hold their liquor and keep their pants on, Film thinks that youth and beauty is the way of the future.  Not natural beauty, but that fake beauty that comes from silicon, collagen and airbrushing.  If they show any signs of intelligence or talent, you'd better recast them quick.  If the industry was married, I'd pity the poor wife.

Aside from the younger mistresses, Film's also buying a flashy sports cars, like the ones in 2 Fast 2 Furious.  It's desperately trying to hold on to youth, and it's quite frankly tiresome.  What's next? A ponytail and an ear piercing?



2007, in my opinion, was awful.  Out of the various Hollywood movies released, I somewhat enjoyed three, maybe four.  It's baffling to me just how bad movies are becoming.  I'm not talking about the independent movies, because they've always been hit and miss, I'm talking about the big movies, that make it to cinemas.  The ones made by so called professionals.

But, are they actually getting worse?  Or is my opinion that jaded, that it's making me think there's something wrong?  If I'm right, then what percentage of the public doesn't notice the movies are bad?  Do they just turn up and watch, without making an opinion?  Do they even know if they like the movie or not?  The industry evolved, but has the audience devolved?

So what's the future of Film?  Will it get worse and worse?  Will it improve for a time, then retire to making endless remakes because it's forgotten that they've been done before?  Will it just give up and spend it's autumn years tending it's azaleas or finishing it's memoirs?



*(Honestly, I expected it to be a briefer history than this.  There are a few ideas I omitted as I felt things were getting far too long as it was.  Apologies for any eyestrain caused, and assuming you didn't just skip to the end, thank you for your time.  I'll get back off the soapbox for now).

Shbaz:

Things are probably quite different for y'all in the US and us in the UK.  Closest thing to a bible belt for us lot is busy keeping some priest's pants up, which is a no doubt a good thing.

As for the meetings being held in churches?  Despite the Jesus factor, they're probably the cheapest option, least busy at the times they hold the meetings, and big enough to hold the group.  What other options are their? I'd like to say "hold it in a pub", but that kind of defeats the point of the meetings.

Put me down as a hopeful.

Assuming I can find some money, a passport and a pack of alkaseltzers.

According to this quiz type thing, from the AA, on whether I should seek their help:
http://www.aa.org/en_is_aa_for_you.cfm?PageID=71
..I scored a 3 out of 12.  4 and I "have a problem".  Considering I know I've got an alcohol problem, the AA fails to inspire me with any confidence.

"3 - Have you ever switched from one kind of drink to another in the hope that this would keep you from getting drunk?"
This one, for example.  I've got a problem if I switch to a weaker drink?  I used to switch to stronger stuff to get wasted quicker, but that apparently means I'm fine.

And these aren't just a few random questions, like some silly online quiz to find out which member of n*sync i'm most like, or how Japanese I am.  This is something these folk claim to have spent time on.

The point I guess I'm heading towards, is that I personally wouldn't want to rely on these guys to help me, when they've got helping themselves to deal with.

Shbaz, taken from the AA site:

There’s a lot of talk about God, though, isn’t there?
The majority of A.A. members believe that we have found the solution to our drinking problem not through individual willpower, but through a power greater than ourselves. However, everyone defines this power as he or she wishes. Many people call it God, others think it is the A.A. group, still others don’t believe in it at all. There is room in A.A. for people of all shades of belief and nonbelief.



Anyhow, in conclusion, AA's not for me.  I know I have a problem, I just don't intend to "fix" it.  I doesn't interfere with social stuff, as I don't socialise anymore.  It was never a problem for work, as I knew "work means money means booze".  I had a hangover most work days, but I carried on regardless.  A few years ago, I quit booze for six months.  I felt a little bit healthier, but I was pretty miserable (this was back when I was socialising, too).  First binge lasted three days, and I felt alive again.  Currently, I'm sober as I'm between jobs (moved to a town with little prospects, not sacked or anything).  It's not fun.  If I had money, I'd be drunk right now.

It's not so much that I'm addicted to alcohol, as it is that I dislike life in general.  If it wasn't alcohol, I'd likely be taking the edge of with something else.  (Which I did for brief periods.  Never "addictions" as they lasted a month every couple of years, a best.  Usually just one-offs.  I'd certainly do them again if the situation felt right).



I'm NOT suggesting people abuse things, though.  I know it's not healthy, I just don't care, for various reasons, that I'd rather not get into here.  The rest of you should seek help if and when you feel you need it, but the main step is actually *wanting* to fix things.

Renal, where do you see Arial? The main text seems to be Tahoma..

Arial or Tahoma, same thing in my rather limited book.  Basically, I hate things like Times New Roman.  For sites, that is, not for everything.  Most of the time, web-wise, I find TNR difficult to read, and often give up quickly.

Layout-wise, I like it.  Simple, functional, understandable.  Most of the "text" bit are Arial, which I like.

As for the design? It's rather dull.  The text is all white.  The buttons don't do anything with rollovers.  The logo is somewhat bland.  The "Home"  "Games" etc is displayed too often.  The "Print this page" bit seems rather pointless for the most part.

Also the mars/venus symbol for the Team section looks like it belongs on a dating site.

But, like I said at the start, I like the layout.  Tweaks are easier than rewrites.

..I find it lot harder then actually drawing and there always seems to be something different from them than from my own drawings on paper..

If you can get your hands on a scanner, then I'd suggest checking this tutorial by MrColossal:
http://kafkaskoffee.tripod.com/tutorials/chartut.htm

If you can't get a scanner, but have a digital camera, then with some fiddling, you can photograph your drawings, then try the tutorial.

Failing that, use something like Flash or whatnot, a vector based thing, to do the "sketches" part, and then pixellate from those images.

You might not like doing it that way, and it's not always the best way, but it doesn't hurt to have the option open.

Hate due to anger?

Hate and Anger two seperate entities, in my book.  Anger's a more situational emotion, heat of the moment kind of thing.  You can easily be angry at someone, but not hate them.  As for hate, though, that's a completely different kettle of fish.

Hate is something far more deeply rooted in people, mostly with various ~isms to describe them.  Racism, Sexism, etc.  These aren't necessarily related to anger.  They can make a person angry, sure, but it's usually the hate that's the start point.

Sometimes that hate's caused by fear, sometimes it's fear mistaken for hate, but mostly, the hate comes from other people's influence.  If your friends and family all hate something, then chances are, you're going to hate it too.  You've been brought up to hate something, even if it's only subconciously.

Babar's also correct on his "tone" statement.  Most of my old friends (London), used the C-word, and the F-word in their everyday speech.  There was no vehement in the way they said it, and as we they all knew it wasn't meant in an insulting way, they didn't get offended by it.  (Personally, I found the C-word to be too ugly a word to use myself).

On the other hand, I could choose my words carefully and express a great deal of hate to someone, conveying fully the emotion, without using any taboo words, just by the tone of how it's said.

Think of it from a foreigner's point of view, or a even dog's view.  They might not know what the words you're saying mean, but they know whether you're being friendly to them or not.

[Sorry, my imagination just ran rampant again and I had to..]

..borrow the concept from another thread?

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=33176.msg430192#msg430192

Life is more like a very restrictive improvisation workshop.  We make things up as we go, but we don't go out of character, or bring in something that's out of place.

I mean, I'd love to throw away the rule books and create my own reality.  I'd weigh a less, have better hair, and be some sort of space traveller hundreds of years in the future.  I'd also have a collection of clothes that would look ridiculous if I wore them today.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how "new and provocative" you mean.  Like some kind of dating sim, with cartoon nudity?  Something that makes you realise how dull and pedestrian people's real lives actually are?  Or some kind of Dadaist experiment into nonsense and bright colors?

Hm, I usually agree with Proggo, but on this occasion, I'm not so sure.

Whilst it is easier, and more accurate to draw a character with limbs, then remove them, the result will be a character with "invisible arms and legs".  That's not something Rayman looked like, and I'd assume from the description, it's not something this guy would have.

As for ProgZ's edits, the second one with limbs looks like he's got an invisible wheel attached to his ass, and is pulling himself along.  (Like moving around on an office chair).  The limbless one looks like he's kicking his feet forward, like some kind of odd folk dance.  If he was a morris dancer, it could work, but here, it looks a bit awkward.

Onto Indie's latest.  I'm liking it.  It's got a sneaking feel to the feet, compared to the more clumsy plod that I drew.  I can also see where Ghost is coming from, with the tipping, but I'd rather not point you in a direction I'm unsure about.

Also, after a re-read of the first post..
..All my characters will have special and "useless" powers..

That's how I've always planned my superheroes.

Not everyone gets that he's not just wearing a weird (and admittedly small) shirt.

I thought it was a bib, but then I don't expect students to be able to manage simple things like putting loud, sweary, gum-flapping mouths without making a considerable mess.

As for the game itself, it does look quite swish, with cute characters.  The interface dealie also sounds interesting.  'Tis one of the rare games I'd actually consider playing.

It probably would make for a good TV show, too.

It's Tuesday.  Outside, it's 56°F.  Your name is Jack, Jack Flint.  You're a freelance mathetician, and you're wearing a cheap suit and even cheaper aftershave, despite not shaving for the last two days.  It's morning and your favorite color is blue.  Except on Thursdays, when it's still blue, but a slightly lighter shade, but today is Tuesday.

You're just starting to wake up, and you can sense you're not in your bed.  Questions are presenting themselves, but you're not even contemplating acknowledging them yet, let alone answering them.  It's 8:14 AM.  Your room-mate in college once lots $400 dollars in a casino run by a guy who was 1/4 Cherokee, and your right shin aches a little.  It's still Tuesday, and you're still a little out of it.  You think you just heard a dog barking, but you could of imagined it.

You're starting to think there's something amiss, and you're wondering if last night's fish supper wasn't just a little bit queer.  You don't like pears, but are quite partial to apples.  The sour kind, green preferably.  The situation starting to seem funkier than the three day old milk in your fridge.  It *is* Tuesday, right?  Isn't it?  The garbage is collected on Wednesdays, and you sure as hell don't want that milk staying another week.  Your father had a moustache, but you've never been able to grow one.

You convince yourself you wake up more.   You like boxers, not briefs.  Your eyes ache, but you're certain you have to open them.  Just where did you sleep last night?  It rained on Friday, and you got wet.  Things are blurry.  Everything is just shapes at the moment.  Now's the time to take action, and set off on your adventure.  Welcome to "Vision Quest: Lessons in Self Discovery". 

A glorious technicolor foray into the depths of your own self concious.  Battle inner demons, and make friends with a your choice from a menagerie of at least 4 different spirit animals.  I'm a panda.  Explore the deepest reaches of your own psychotropic mindscape, and voyage thru your own twisted imagination.  Comes with a free, limited edition, scratch-and-lick hallucinagenic trading card game card.  Collect and abuse them all.

It's Tuesday, and you're aware of your tongue.



That above, er, thing was the result of me thinking of a title for my blindness simulation idea.  Which starts with a narrated, blank screen pixel hunt.  The voiceover describes what you can "feel", and slowly the graphics build from nothing, to obscure shapes, to a full interpreted view of the world.  Is that a ragged teddy bear or a soft towel? Only further interaction will tell.

As for plot, I'm at a loss on this one.  But hell, Tetris didn't have a plot, did it?  Unless it was a furniture removals lorry loading sim, and I skipped the intro.

Let's start with the sketch cycle I'd mentioned before.


Things I've intentionally changed:

I've made the feet and hands bigger, as it's easier to convey depth with a larger start point.  For now, lets assume he walking along with his hands as fists.  If he's a mime, he'll need to real hands with fingers and thumbs, as Jazz Hands and Spirit Fingers are two of the very few moves in their rather limited "vocabulary".  The larger feet is also more of a style choice of mine, but usually find easier to draw for centre of gravity issues.

As he's limbless, I've left the feet on the ground longer in the back step position, as I think it adds a little more character.  As if his legs were like springs, reaching further back, and springing forward for the next step.  In fact, looking at it again, I'd probably leave it on the floor, further back for longer, to exaggerate that more.

Down-Cycle's bounce.  I rarely add a bounce to these, and if I do, it's usually only slight.  I find making the feet move away from the camera is enough to convey movement.  Bouncing, such as the one you have used, I'd save for a camera angle that was at floor level, not at eye level.

Things to note:

The feet in the downcycle.  If i was to make it at a lower res, and more pixel-pushy, I'd use the shading as a reference.  Lighter nearer the viewer, getting darker further away.  It's a cheap way of conveying depth.  Though, maybe not as extreme a tone changed as I've done, it's just to explain a point.  The feet in the side cycle, is similar, in that the near leg is light than the far leg.

The hands.  In your downcycle, they seem to whoosh from one extreme point to the other, with the away from camera ones a long way off into the distance.  As for your side cycle, I've no clue what's happening, they seem to me that they're orbiting him, and using his torso's gravity to slingshot themselves around, as if they want to time-travel.

In my down cycle, I've kept it rather energetic, even so far as to add a torso twist into the mix, yet the positions of the hands throughout remain in "plausible" places.  As you can see in the side cycle, I usually draw hands reaching further forwards than they do behind.  Think of jogging.  Your hands move in front of your chest, but not behind your spine.  Again, I've used shading to show the depth of distance for the hands.

I was tempted to add a wobble to the character, too.  Kind of swaggery, kind of top-heavy, metronome style, but I wasn't sure if it would suit the character, so I refrained.  Like I'd said before, it's not pixelled, it's not the same res, and I'm not about to spend most of the day fiddling with edits (I'm fussy, it would take me ages).  Hopefully, this will give you some ideas/tips/etc to help you to improve the character.  Also, feel free to scale the cycle and use it for paintovers if you approve of it, and think that it will help.

Aside from the cycling, the face also irks me somewhat.  Whilst it's cute, it's also somewhat devoid of life/emotions/etc, though as he's a mime, that maybe be intentional.  In regards to the game idea, it does sound quite interesting.

Come on, everybody knows that the best song EVER is Toxic by Britney Spears.

You take that back, you take that back right now.

It's Saturday Night by Whigfield.

Is anyone as confused as I am?

This smells worse than the time m0ds thought it would be a fun idea to explore a storm water drain. Which turned out to be a sewer.

Is that the same storm drain that I fell into, or a completely seperate one?