See also the trend away from “cereal box” photoshop shading.
the new lucky charms…
… hopefully replacing this fucking nightmare:
18 Likes
Yeah, this new “improved” design looks downright amateurish to me as it is. And the sensibilities behind it seem already dated, even more so than the older designs. I’m not just saying this because I got the magazine as a kid, when they were apparently still using the '60s design. Well, maybe I am, but it’s still true.
5 Likes
I would describe it as “Disney-esque”. The facial expression feels so much like Mickey Mouse.
4 Likes
Yeah. “Looking like a low rent Flash cartoon circa 2002” is not exactly “timeless.” The older, more naturalistic painted version of the character seems like it best fits the bill in that respect.
5 Likes
Make him “edgy.” Kids like “edgy,” right?
20 Likes
I love that raccoon!
3 Likes
I used to have the “official” binders to hold them.
My favorite - or at least best-remembered - story involved a family desiring over a baby bird sickened by pesticides and letting their yard grow wild.
Curiously, my old-school Republican parents had 2 acres of South Dakota land they re-planted with prairie grasses, and literal wildflowers sprang up.
6 Likes
It looks like a cheap/low-rent ripoff of Disney, and there’s loads of those floating around everywhere so I’m not particularly into the redesign. I would prefer something closer to the original drawing but a bit simplified, at least the original drawing looks original and I can tell real thought was put into how the character looks rather than creating a generic raccoon
4 Likes
Yes, the original is perfectly great and looks like it has fur and claws, while the latest does look cobbled together, and overall like a cereal box mascot. One could imagine the original saying something interesting, but the new one just looks like a promotional vehicle that would blather slogans.
2 Likes
But does the next door neighbor still think it’s a snake?
I like it. Reminds me a bit of the new Mickey Mouse cartoons, which are jaunty and raffish rather than having the babyish toddler look of recent decades.
I was always bother by the fact that the old Ranger Rick looked like he was wearing Hammer Pants.
7 Likes
Ranger rick
What?
4 Likes
Piacket, a little ‘spectrum’ of being spoken for by previous native tribes’ seishi, the continuing sense that flora and fauna in the wild are not friends, and occasional tensions between the Ranger character class and the alphabet soup roles (I found the geological niche in which stink bugs are the most sensible and appreciable adaptation; and kill orders from APHIS) are indeed longevous character totems.
5 Likes
ITT: A bunch of non-designers offering opinions which prove why we have designers.
2 Likes
I am a designer and illustrator, as I suspect @Wetterschneider and probably others in this thread are, and I can only confirm their criticisms. The new design is generic, the proportions are off. It´s a stiff, generic pose as well. Look at how lifelike the 60s design is, it´s because the artist bothered thinking (and learning) about anatomy and weight. The new designer should have actually tried to understand what makes it a good illustration instead of just writing a bunch of mumbo jumbo about how he “found it and used it as his biggest inspiration”.
Btw, everyone can be a designer, it´s not a protected trade, at least where I come from. Call yourself one and you are one. It´s why we have so much bad, generic design.
1 Like
I’m hearing that “edgy” no longer means what we think it means.
1 Like
cannot unsee. it’s really bothering me now.
2 Likes
