Cartoony?

[Deleted User]

What exactly is meant by ‘cartoony’?

I’ve always preferred realistic looking figures, hence my life long addiction to 1/72 plastics.

With the current ECW project, I’ve bought a majority of metals: mostly from Tumbling Dice to supplement my Revell figures.

I like the TD figures: easy to paint, in scale with the plastics & , I’d’ve said, quite realistic. I was a bit surprised by the pronouncement they’re a “bit cartoony”.

What exactly does cartoon-like mean to you?

A sample of TD:

http://dux-homunculorum.blogspot.com/2010/01/

 

donald

 

 

[Brendan Morrissey]

I would describe them as “wooden” or “unimaginative” rather than “cartoony”; the latter, to me, suggests unfeasible anatomy or proportions (which these don’t seem to have) or unrealistic poses (again, which these don’t seem to have).  Several of them seem to have been posed in order to make sculpting and casting easier, rather than to inspire the imagination, but other than the first two pics (of the officer with the incredibly well-trained, mind-reading horse) I can’t really see anything wrong with them.  I suspect that the people calling them “cartoony” have just seen the word used and decided to use it themselves, rather than actually thinking what it “says” about something.  In the same way that people use the phrase “Tory grandees” because they’ve heard it used on the TV, without having any clue about what it actually means.

[Etranger]

They look fine to me. They have somewhat stereotypical poses, as you might see in a drillbook of the time, but isn’t that simply a matter of the sculptor looking at the source information? My 15mm Minifigs & other sculpts from the 70-80’s have similar poses too.

A bit of animation and variation in pose is fine, but sometimes you have to wonder if the sculptor has ever observed human movement and posture. After all there are only so many ways of carrying a lance without doing unintentional harm to oneself or others. (I know a chap who once managed to impale himself on his own javelin, right through the chest, admittedly while riding a bike…)

Cartoony implies disproportionate anatomy, such as huge hands and heads, looking more like a great ape than a human; or weirdly proportioned weapons, for example Battlefront’s infamous ‘Bolter’ Sten guns; or widely exaggerated paint schemes like the ‘kabuki’ style black outlining of uniform details that as so popular a few years ago, and great when done by Kevin Dallimore, not so much when done by Blind Pete McDauber.

for an example of at least two of the three!

[Deleted User]

Etranger wrote:

They look fine to me. They have somewhat stereotypical poses, as you might see in a drillbook of the time, but isn’t that simply a matter of the sculptor looking at the source information?

 

That’s a good point, ET. The 95 postures for Pikemen & the 76 drills for musketeers that you see in the drill books of the time are probably a good place to start designing ECW &TYW figures.

As always, people’s tastes differ. I do draw the line at one brand that looks as if the minis were repeatedly hit by a hammer before release (I won’t name names) but I do like TD.

Probably OOP were Dixon figures that were pretty popular but too “cartoony” for my liking.

 

donald

[Rhoderic]

I have a fairly narrow definition of “cartoonish” in regard to miniatures. A figure is not cartoonish merely for having somewhat stylised proportions – that’s just par for the course – although some figures have even more stylised proportions than the norm, at which point the word may rightly come into play. Figures may also be cartoonish for other reasons, like the way the faces have been sculpted, or an over-extravagant amplitude to clothing and hair, or silly posing (e.g. monstrous, unarmed humanoids doing the classic “jazz hands” pose, which I suppose is easy to cast), or other things I that can’t easily define in words but are to do with the general “flair” of the sculptor. A lot of the old West Wind Productions figures (like the Vampire Wars range) are a bit cartoonish to my eye. The newer figures from the same company, less so. Bob Murch of Pulp Figures and Crucible Crush sculpts in a style I would define as vaguely cartoonish. Mark Copplestone of Copplestone Castings, Mike Owen of Artizan Designs and Mark Sims of Crusader Miniatures are examples of sculptors whose usual styles I would not define as cartoonish, though others might.

I’m not familiar with the “pronouncement” that Tumbling Dice figures are cartoonish, but looking at some of them via Google Images, I can only surmise that it’s in reference to a slight, occasional naiveté of posing. That’s a characteristic I also see a lot of in 1/72 plastics, by the way. I wouldn’t call any such figures cartoonish myself, though I might call them naive or slightly awkward, if the poses warrant it.

[irishserb]

I always thought that “cartoony” refers to a style of sculpting or depiction that exaggerates features such that it magnifies personality, character, or attributes of the figure.  A cartoony figure will often have proportions or features that are  larger or smaller than a scale depiction might offer.

The figures presented in the photos linked above are not cartoony in my opinion.  If I had to describe them, I would say that they feature classic or traditional poses, and that their proportions may be slightly exaggerated in the horizontal.

[Angel Barracks]

hmmmmm a bit like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it.

For me these faces are a bit cartoony:

My 6mm RDF Troopers were deliberately meant to be a bit Comic Booky, rather than  cartoony.
In that they were overly muscled in staged poses and had much bigger weapons than would be feasible.
That however was a deliberate choice.

Interesting that Copplestone is mentioned, I would not class them as cartoony but I certainly would not class them as meant to be as realistic as possible, for me, they are again, Comic Booky.

Also of interest is the black outlining technique, again for me this suggest Comic Booky rather than cartoony.
I think the black outline will instantly dispel any semblance of realism for me, as people just do not have black outlines all over them.
However, when not done by Blind Pete McDauber and instead done well, I like the look.

There is a technique that ends up looking like the miniature has stripes all over it, it is especially unpleasant to my eye when on flesh and horses.
Here is an example of that style done to a medium level of stripery, this to me does not evoke highlighting and shading, but rather looks like he is wearing striped clothes, this however I think is neither cartoony or comic booky, just unrealistic.
Don’t get me wrong, the skill is very good, but the style leaves me cold.

Especially the legs on these chaps:

The dark lines look like stripes, and  just do not scream real to me.

But I am digressing.

I think that there are many ways a miniature can be less ‘realistic’ and the paintjob is of course a big factor.
However I think cartoony, for me at least is a proportion thing, mostly facial.

PS: I don’t think those figures are cartoon like.

[Deleted User]

Part of the alleged “cartoony” appearance of the Renaissance-era TD figures has to be their antique dress.

Anyone in “plus fours” just has to look like Mr Magoo. And the hats the cavaliers wear? My sainted Grannie wore a similar number to the kirk every Sunday.

 

donald

[Rhoderic]

Angel Barracks wrote:

My 6mm RDF Troopers were deliberately meant to be a bit Comic Booky, rather than cartoony. In that they were overly muscled in staged poses and had much bigger weapons than would be feasible. That however was a deliberate choice. Interesting that Copplestone is mentioned, I would not class them as cartoony but I certainly would not class them as meant to be as realistic as possible, for me, they are again, Comic Booky.

I’m inclined to agree. Figures are not cartoonish merely for not being photo-realistic. There is a third category in between. “Comic booky” works well enough as a description of it, I suppose. It implies a certain stylised flair, but a comic book can still be much, much less childish in pure terms of visual style than something which is described as so extreme as to look cartoonish.

I think of almost all my projects as being more about emulating comic books and other similar types of “graphic fiction”, than about emulating reality. The escapism of it appeals to me, but that doesn’t mean I go so far as to want it to be cartoonish (with a few minor exceptions like the 2mm GZG range or some of the new SD-style games that have become popular lately). Even if I was doing historicals, I’d think of it as emulating a graphic novel adventure story set in the period in question.

These categories of visual style (photo-realistic, cartoonish and “comic booky”) all imply to me cases of competent sculptors making stylistic choices (think, for instance, of the Perry brothers whose top-notch sculpts over the years have run the gamut from very cartoonish to very realistic). Standing apart from them are figures that are just plain poorly sculpted. This includes awkward poses, elastic-looking limbs and a generally ham-fisted application of detail.

[MartinR]

To be fair, the look exactly like all the WW1 Tumbling Dice cavalry I’ve got. That is just the sculptors style, and tbh I’d much prefer it if they didn’t all come with separate arms, horses heads etc. Just give me a nice one piece casting please.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Autodidact-O-Saurus]

Oh, puhleese! These are cartoony figures: https://sjemco.blogspot.com/. I seriously love ’em. But own none.

Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

[Deleted User]

MartinR wrote:

if they didn’t all come with separate arms, horses heads etc. .

The figures with the ten separate fingers I find are an issue. Thank goodness most TD minis wear shoes so the separate toes don’t matter.

 

donald

[Author]

Posts