Posing: Static VS Dynamic

Here is a scene with characters in dynamic poses. They look alive.

Here are some characters in static poses.

1) evenly spaced apart

2) Standing straight up and down

This is obviously a publicity shot - and those are usually kind of bland and generic for some reason.

Here is another static evenly spaced group of characters from a comic.

Compare to a more lively couple of poses.

Fred and Barney's poses have strong lines of action and they have different degrees of action - they aren't in the same poses. Barnet's pose is stronger-he is leaning back on a diagonal line of action. Fred is on an arc that leans to the right at his head. the space between them is creating a V shape that leans to the right.

Again to drive this home...here is a static line up of characters who have no poses. They are all vertical and evenly spaced.

Here is Wilma in a pose. She isn't standing straight up and down. Her pose tells us her attitude and what's happening in the story.
Here is Ranger Smith in a static pose next to a cook in a subtly dynamic pose. Dynamic poses don't have to be extreme in every case. The pose should be appropriate to the scene, character and story.

Here is a nice frame that shows Yogi in a very subtle pose, his body very slightly leaning back and his head cocked subtly away from the man. The other character has a stronger more definite pose leaning forward; they aren't mirror images of each other.

ACTION AND REACTION:

This is a good technique for scenes when 2 characters are talking to each other. Usually, when one character is doing the talking, his pose is more dynamic that the other's.

But also, the character doing the listening is REACTING to the one talking. Boo Boo's pose is leaning back in a less extreme arc than Yogi is leaning forward. Yogi is the cause, Boo Boo is the effect. Yogi's forward pose is pushing Boo Boo backwards.

Dynamic poses are much more entertaining than static poses and when used in context, they tell the story better. The last thing you want in animation is to have characters just stand there reading dialogue.

Next: more action and reaction.

Ethan Inks One

Ethan did a swell job on Ernie here. I added my little nitpick notes. What Ethan did best was make all the lines come together to make a living character. It all holds together. Sometimes inkers will think of each line in terns of itself and then you end up looking at a collection of lines instead of a living breathing cartoon character. Ethan FEELS the life of Ernie and that's the ultimate goal. He also felt Jim Smith's style and did a good job bringing out Jim's natural feel for solidity and 3 dimensional caricaturing.

Wonderful Cartooniness

I found a treasure trove of Dan Gordon comics at Greatest Ape.
What I like most about Gordon s that although he has an obvious animation background, he resists following exact inbred animation formula in his posing, design and composition.
His scenes exude raw energy and life. It reminds me of storyboards that were drawn for classic cartoons. It has a sort of coarse unfinished look to it - but only unfinished in the sense that it didn't go through 10 stages of toning down the ideas on the animation assembly line.
I can imagine animators wanting to put everything on model, and making the construction perfect, but that would only lesson the liveliness or originality of Gordon's style and storytelling.
Dan's scenes have a sense that all the characters are really there, they aren't mere generic cartoon characters mindlessly following animation principles.
I like his little human touches-like this dog laughing so hard that he's crying-and digging the tear out of his eye. It's not something you would expect to see in an animated cartoon.
His sense of cuteness is quirky too, not the generic 40s "animation-cute". True cuteness has an element of ignorance in it.
I like the combination of Mammy's angry expression with the cartoon symbolism of skulls in her eyes. Double the impact. Dan Gordon's comics are full of visual ideas.
He also has a kind of crude-elegance. His style pretends to be earthy and unpretentious, yet it's very thoughtful and principled at the same time. Check out the hierarchy in his grouping of the dogs. They together create a winding shaped form, rather than a scatter about as a chaotic crowd.


I love when real cartoonists try to draw realistic humans. Their heads are always too big, but I find that funny.
Gordon varies his camera angles of characters' points of view which adds dynamism and continuity to the emotions and stories.

You can't go wrong with Satan. He's a real a child pleaser in cartoons - right up there with Hitler.


I wonder who colored these comics? I think they really take advantage of the medium. I love the somber mood in these panels. Hard to pull off with basically primary and secondary colors.

Even though his characters are sort of awkward and crunchy, they still fit within well thought out compositions.

He's one of the top "happy-cartoonists", up there with Clampett, Gross and Wolverton.
His drawings are just plain fun. Not all cartoonists can achieve this.
Wolves covet pigs' arses. I wonder of that breaks their commandments?
Look how dynamic this simple scene of a bunch of happy ignorant animals simply walking is.

This comic cover is a work of cartoon art. It screams FUN INSIDE!





Here's Dan Gordon drawing in Milt Gross' style. Neat combination.
Here's a beautiful and dynamic page layout filled with a variety of angles.
Hair tubs are always funny.
You don't see a lot of over the shoulder shots in cartoons; they usually look really awkward. This does too but he pulls it off by making it funny.

Gordon's neighborhood world feels very real, gritty and inviting. It's full of nooks and crannies, sheds, basements, rickety stairs and things of that ilk that are usually disregarded in generic cartoons.
Even though Gordon's comics are mostly about talking animals, they have a lot of humanity to them.
http://greatestape.blogspot.com/search/label/dan%20gordon