| ||||||||||
| Artists see things differently. Clients consider the work "horrible" when it does not produce "results." The Schwab work ran long enough that we can infer that it produced results. If nothing else, it appears that the look instantly evokes the word "Schwab" in a lot of people. That's kind of the job, by many definitions. Robert W. Walker Los Angeles > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [AE] New to the list - question on rotoscoping > From: Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, October 04, 2012 11:53 am > To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv> > > > Not to beat a dead horse-thread, but I totally agree, those spots were just > horrible. And weird. It felt like they were trying too hard to be 'hip' > while the actual interviews were boring and forgettable, and had nothing to > do with the style that was shoe horned onto them. Not why you want to > remember something. > > On Thursday, October 4, 2012, Jim Curtis wrote: > > > FWIW, those Schwab spots were unsettling to me, and I can't imagine they > > drove one dollar's worth of business. Seemed like a big waste of time and > > money. Not sure why anybody would have thought that treatment would sell > > more than real-life people. The technique distracted from the message. > > And the only reason I found them memorable was because the concept was so > > awful. > > > > IMO, > > Jim C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > +---End of message---+ > > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv<javascript:;> > > > > > > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn |
