Author Topic: Speaking of set designs... (Read 8919 times)

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2003, 05:08:18 PM »

[quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 01:58 PM\'] With due respect Chris; perhaps that's why people post these. Speaking personally, I enjoy doing set recreations and coming up with new ideas. I DON'T know thing 1 about scenic design for television, so I would enjoy and appreciate comments or suggestions about why my ideas would or would not work if they're presented respectfully and constructively. The \"yer high\" comments are rude and unnecessary IMO.
[/quote]
I'm sorry; crap is crap is crap. This ain't kindergarten. If you plop something on a screen and show everyone saying //Look what I can do!// people are going to say that what you've done was pure-dee crap.

Now, I don't like all of your creations. I do like a good amount of them, though. I don't call yours crap because it actually *looks* like you put effort into creating them. And they are creative, and not run of the mill. If you drew some dyslexic looking Concentration logo, then I'll let you know it looks horrible.

Brandon Brooks

whampyl03 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2003, 05:32:43 PM »

Let me say a few things here.

1. The host podium and the contestant podium are supposed to be at a 45 degree angle, but I really can't convey that in MS Paint (or at least not very well), so it was left flat.

2. If it's crap, CALL IT CRAP, If you thought I was high while I drew this thing, CALL ME HIGH. I wanted the truth, and if you think that it's the worst set design ever, well tell me that so I'll never make that mistake again.

3. As for the logo, I've already admitted, the logo is just plain bad. It was supposed to be sort-of a remake of the original logo, but somewhere down the line, things went very, very wrong.

SplitSecond · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2003, 06:04:31 PM »

1) Unfortunately, the easiest way to look smart without putting much effort forth is to critique.

2) As our fearless co-leader said elsewhere, critiquing your own work to avoid critique by others is a defense mechanism. It shows us that you're not taking your own work seriously enough and are just looking for a quick stroke of the ego.

3) Despite some people bandying their personal tastes about as irrefutable fact, keep in mind that it is just taste. It's all subjective until you get down to the advertising dollars, and I think that all of you who post your ideas and works for (dis)approval will be the first to admit that you're not quite in the position to have to worry about being financially accountable, yet. So have fun with it in the meantime.

That said, I echo Matt's sentiment (posted elsewhere) that if you yourself think that some or all of your work is \"crap\", perhaps you should refine it before you let everyone else get their licks in.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2003, 06:12:47 PM »

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 05:04 PM\'] 1) Unfortunately, the easiest way to look smart without putting much effort forth is to critique.
[/quote]
Once again:

1) You say \"look at my work, what do you think.\"
2) I develop an opinion of your work.
3) I tell you my opinion.

It ain't about looking smart; at this point in my life I don't need anyone to convince me that I am or am not. I don't speak for everyone, I speak for myself. And if it's crap to me, it's crap to me.

Like Mr. Lemon said, I know I'm not talented in drawing. I can do other things very well, but not that. Therefore, I don't. But I am allowed to say whether I like something or not.

Brandon Brooks

SplitSecond · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2003, 06:41:15 PM »

That's record time for someone to get defensive.

You are certainly allowed to say what you like, and it's far from my place to say what should or should not be said on this board (that privilege belongs to the two people who are actually appointed to be moderators on this board). Likewise, I am merely positing my opinion that \"critiques\" like \"One word for the set: No.\" are neither helpful nor conducive to a constructive discussion.

But then, neither is this, so I apologize.

For what it's worth, I find Mr. Clementson to be skilled at expressing his distaste while also keeping his criticism constructive and helpful and making it a catalyst for mature discussion.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2003, 06:52:13 PM »

Quote

That's record time for someone to get defensive.

Ummm... okay.

Quote

Likewise, I am merely positing my opinion that \"critiques\" like \"One word for the set: No.\" are neither helpful nor conducive to a constructive discussion.

You're right. I probably should've said more. Usually I'm a little more thorough. This time I wasn't, and I apologize.

Brandon Brooks

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2003, 06:58:44 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 02:09 PM\'] Here are some set renderings by a guy who really does know what he is doing, my multi-talented friend Mark Bowerman:

http://www.mindspring.com/~artsite1/Other.html[/quote]
Those renderings of Mark's are terrific! Thanks for linking us to them. Now I know who to call when I sell my first pilot!

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2003, 07:56:39 PM »

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 04:08 PM\'] [quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 01:58 PM\'] With due respect Chris; perhaps that's why people post these. Speaking personally, I enjoy doing set recreations and coming up with new ideas. I DON'T know thing 1 about scenic design for television, so I would enjoy and appreciate comments or suggestions about why my ideas would or would not work if they're presented respectfully and constructively. The "yer high" comments are rude and unnecessary IMO.
[/quote]
I'm sorry; crap is crap is crap. This ain't kindergarten. If you plop something on a screen and show everyone saying /<Stuart from MadTV>/Look what I can do!/</Stuart>/ people are going to say that what you've done was pure-dee crap.

Now, I don't like all of your creations. I do like a good amount of them, though. I don't call yours crap because it actually *looks* like you put effort into creating them. And they are creative, and not run of the mill. If you drew some dyslexic looking Concentration logo, then I'll let you know it looks horrible.

Brandon Brooks [/quote]
Exactly.
The majority of us are adults-we should be able to take some honesty; otherwise, why share?

I write online commentary for auto racing-and I hear it somestimes from people that disagree. Regardless; I really don't care-it's all part of the game..

Clay Zambo · « **Reply #23 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:34:59 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 12 2003, 10:06 AM\'] I've seen enough set ideas from people who need to learn Thing 1 about scenic design for television. [/quote]
Chris--

Seriously: What is Thing 1? What's Thing 2?

I've done a number of these design-drawings in my youth, too, and realized they were 2-d and non-stage- and -camera-worthy. I took some scene design courses in college, but they wouldn't be much help for thinking in camera terms.

So... can you give our budding GS-set design artists an idea of what sorts of things they ought to be thinking of, and how to go about such thinking?

ChuckNet · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2003, 01:02:54 PM »

Quote

Here are some set renderings by a guy who really does know what he is doing, my multi-talented friend Mark Bowerman

Mark's most recent work was on the obscure 98-99 Pearson entry 100%, w/its trippy \"floating clocks\" background screen.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious \"Chuckie Baby\")

Author Topic: Speaking of set designs... (Read 8919 times)

whampyl03

SplitSecond

SplitSecond