This is my version millia!

[slideshot]

well here it is! i shrunk the head, made the mouth a bit smaller, and made her hands a bit longer.

so tell me, what do you guys think?

do i need to make more moddifications?

thanx

I'm just making a suggestion here, but for some reason that little crook where her lips come together just doesn't seem to look right to me. I dont know why, but it might look better if it wasnt there.

Just a though.

[Phyrox]

Come on. What about the ass?

How about you leave his drawing alone...

edit - removed the actual images from my post

Edited May 6, 2005 by Phyrox

[Stamen0083]

How about you leave his drawing alone...

That would be too easy.

[Knight26]

It's a nice pic overall I think the biggest problem with the face is that it looks too "disney," and not really anime or Mikimoto.

[Jagull]

unless that's what he's trying to go for

[Ed.Coli]

THERE IS NO SUCH FRIGGIN THING AS "ANIME STYLE!!" AUGH!!

Oh, by the way, nice picture. Your style is a refreshing change of pace from othre, more "traditional" Millia fanart.

[Knight26]

who is Kyla COle?

[JB0]

who is Kyla COle?

A porn star, if Google is any indication.

[isamu5979]

It's a nice pic overall I think the biggest problem with the face is that it looks too "disney," and not really anime or Mikimoto.

really you think its too disney thats like a kick too the groin! ouch! thats something I always tryed to avoid, is that style. I reallly didnt want too re-duplicate Mikimoto style but I tryed too make my version Millia

I dont want to annoy the macross purist theirs is one Mikimoto, and am not him, but a fan of his work.

I would really like too know? what makes my illustration into disney drawing? thanx for the input

Edited May 6, 2005 by isamu5979

[Macross_Fanboy]

who is Kyla COle?

A porn star, if Google is any indication.

Porn star for sure.

[bake_art]

It's a nice pic overall I think the biggest problem with the face is that it looks too "disney," and not really anime or Mikimoto.

I don't know if you can call his drawing disney styled or not, since disney uses so many artists (some who'd probably worked in WB as well). Also, I thought the drawings of some more recent disney movies is drawn in a more WB-ish style anyways.

Who cares what style it is, really? as long as it looks good (which it does.)

Oh, and Ed.Coli, I'd have to disagree with you and say that there is such thing as anime-styled drawings. The styles of western artists and japanese/asian artists are distinctly different

[Wheels]

Who said Disney?!

That's not what pops into my mind as I look at isamu5979 drawing.

Speaking of which, I love your improved work!

Disney indeed, BAH!

[polidread]

before we lose our lunches over a debate over what style he's using... read his posts again.

He said its his style. his version of Millia.

and i think its sweet !

[Mr March]

I like the picture. Nice butt

[Ed.Coli]

Oh, and Ed.Coli, I'd have to disagree with you and say that there is such thing as anime-styled drawings. The styles of western artists and japanese/asian artists are distinctly different

Anime is the French word for "animated." The Japanese also use it to describe animation in general. Thinking you can categorize such a huge genre into a simple "style" definition is preposterous at best; the purpose of an artist is to make art, under his own steam, under his own imagination, which I think Isamu has done well. You are correct in saying the respective styles of western and eastern artists vary, but it is more appropriate to distinguish styles through their respective creators, rather than lumping them into a pretty stereotypical definition.

(I'm very opinionated on this subject. Can you tell? )

[NERV]

Oh, and Ed.Coli, I'd have to disagree with you and say that there is such thing as anime-styled drawings. The styles of western artists and japanese/asian artists are distinctly different 

Anime is the French word for "animated." The Japanese also use it to describe animation in general. Thinking you can categorize such a huge genre into a simple "style" definition is preposterous at best; the purpose of an artist is to make art, under his own steam, under his own imagination, which I think Isamu has done well. You are correct in saying the respective styles of western and eastern artists vary, but it is more appropriate to distinguish styles through their respective creators, rather than lumping them into a pretty stereotypical definition.

(I'm very opinionated on this subject. Can you tell? )

how is it stereotypical? it is the accepted term you goto any store that sells anime and the section will most likely be labeled 'anime' and it will be 99.9% japanese animation and anime is distinctly different from american animation so why say that it's improper useage? might as well stop calling american movies 'hollywood movies' since they arent all filme din hollywood

[Final Vegeta]

Anime is the French word for "animated."

Correction: anime is short for "animation".

FV

[Hurin]

Hehe. This "anime style" debate is reminding me of when some MWer decided to declare that we are all ill-informed and silly because we use the term "die-cast" synonymously with "metal." His point was that plastics can also be "die-cast". . .

Of course, he was correct. . . technically. But nobody cared. . . because "die-cast" means "metal" to 99% of the population. And no amount of self-righteous pontificating is going to change that. Indeed, more "clarification" only serves to destroy the terms of conversation already in use and understood by 99% of us, thus leading to confusion, not clarity.

H

[Metal_Massacre_79]

Sounds a lot like the "is black really a color" debate. Technically, it's the lack of color, but almost everyone will insist that black is actually a color.

[Chas]

Indeed, more "clarification" only serves to destroy the terms of conversation already in use and understood by 99% of us, thus leading to confusion, not clarity.

Spot-on observation there Hurin! The funny thing about language is that it only refers to itself. Thus when one takes any definition and presses it for ever more specificity/clarity there is slipage, and the line of demarcation between one thing and another (usually it's opposite) begins to breakdown and the two things move closer together. Your 'Die-Cast" example shows this perfectly.

Whether or not an "Anime-Style" truly exists is, I think, a moot point. What matters is that we have made that distinction and it has become well known and consistently used. Therfore the distinction in fact, and, in practise does exist regardless of if it makes sense. (just my two sents worth.

(Edit - type-o)

Edited May 9, 2005 by Chas

[NERV]

Sounds a lot like the "is black really a color" debate. Technically, it's the lack of color, but almost everyone will insist that black is actually a color.

or is there any color at all? its just how our eyes interpert the light reflected off different objects, but the object isnt a color, thats why things turn B&W in darker conditions, the only colored thing is the light itself.

[JB0]

Actually, things appear B&W when it's darker because our B/W vision is a lot more sensitive than our color vision.

So you can see in B&W when there isn't enough light for your color vision to work.

[NERV]

still, the object isnt a color, just the light that it reflects is, unless there is some other way to determine color without the presence of light

[JB0]

still, the object isnt a color, just the light that it reflects is, unless there is some other way to determine color without the presence of light

That's sort of like saying everything becomes invisible when the lights go out.

The color of the light an object reflects is the color of an object. It's reflectiveness doesn't change because there's no light.

And in this case, it's still reflecting colored light. Just not enough to activate your eyes' color sensors.

[NERV]

still, the object isnt a color, just the light that it reflects is, unless there is some other way to determine color without the presence of light

That's sort of like saying everything becomes invisible when the lights go out.

The color of the light an object reflects is the color of an object. It's reflectiveness doesn't change because there's no light.

And in this case, it's still reflecting colored light. Just not enough to activate your eyes' color sensors.

they dont become invisible, they all become black when there is no light, when you have a colored light, example, red, all objects will be the same color

[JB0]

still, the object isnt a color, just the light that it reflects is, unless there is some other way to determine color without the presence of light

That's sort of like saying everything becomes invisible when the lights go out.

The color of the light an object reflects is the color of an object. It's reflectiveness doesn't change because there's no light.

And in this case, it's still reflecting colored light. Just not enough to activate your eyes' color sensors.

they dont become invisible, they all become black when there is no light, when you have a colored light, example, red, all objects will be the same color

You cease to be able to see them. Hence, invisible.

I would argue that an object's color and apparent color are diffrent things.

Sure, you can play games with filters and such to make things look diffrent. I'm quite familiar with the concept(amateur photography).

You can make gray skies blue, red apples purple, create rainbows out of nothingness, whatever you want.

That doesn't change what an object's phsyical properties are.

Given a reasonable lightsource, a strawberry will always be red, a carrot will always be orange, a tree always brown.

Random tangent: the human eye is remarkably tolerant of colored lighting. Sure hues vary a little, but for the most part things look the same untill you get the light weighted to such an extreme that there's nothing left BUT a single color of light.

Weighted red, blue, yellow, green, it all looks about the same as long as you don't have them overlapping each other.

[bake_art]

Guys, let's not hijack Isamu's thread here...

[akt_m]

great artwork isamu5979!!. i know you wanted to do it at your own style but at the same time it looks too robotechized for me(no offence), so i still like more the japanese style. (hope you don´t mind that i modified your artwork)

[MAXXxxx]

great artwork isamu5979!!. i know you wanted to do it at your own style but at the same time it looks too robotechized for me(no offence), so i still like more the japanese style. (hope you don´t mind that i modified your artwork)

I like this one better, somehow the other's face was weird

but this is niiiice

[JB0]

New face is a nice style.

But it lacks the smug look that the original has. It seems like more of a surprised look.

[akt_m]

now she doesnt have anymore a surprised look.

[isamu5979]

i've been working on some new stuff! i know you guys love anime! and I knew it was just a matter of time before someone change the face! lol

[JB0]

HOOLAY! MORE SMUG MILLIA!

*saves thread*

[joseph]

now she doesnt have anymore a surprised look.

But she now has a look more bad.

[isamu5979]

something was bothering me about the anime face? and I figured out it has too do with the face vs the body! the face has more of a kid like face and it dosent fit the body. It took me a while just to get the head right, when I worked on it!

I know you you guys (who love the anime art) would rather have anime than my art but im trying to at least break out that mold, and that their are more ways of representing artwork from great artist I'm a fan of mikimoto, I love his style but I chosed to make "my version of Millia" and share it with you guys! im not trying say anime sucks or wester art is better I love anime the same way. I hope you guys can understand, I mean you no disrespect or ignore the anime art!