Unexpected Opportunities.

This helps to illustrate the advantage of being able to schedule when your posts are to be published. While Monday's post was going live, I was waking up sick as a dog, and while Wednesday's post was appearing here, I was getting an x-ray of my torso.
Here's your title significance: Me being the kind of person I am, I naturally asked for a copy of the images. To draw from. Of course.
Now of course I don't want anyone out there to have to get an x-ray; I'm just saying that if you happen to be an artist who's about to get intense about anatomical studies, and if such an opportunity pops up for you, don't be afraid to ask. (Worst case scenario, the radiologists will probably assume it's only the lack of eating talking.) They were nice enough to give me a CD and I have already done a really cool quick sketch based on one of the images of my lower torso.
I'm debating whether to upload it to Flickr. I think it's awesome, and it isn't graphic or anything; not everyone might agree. I can also see where it might be a little too personal (after all, it'd literally be my guts up onscreen for all to see.) I probably will end up not posting it anywhere, but until I decide for sure, have some pretty Unicorns (click for big):

Did anyone else catch "Secrets of the Furious Five" last night? I did, thanks to... channel surfing and finding out that it was on. I can now say that there is a direct-to-DVD animated sequel that I actually like better than the original film. (I'm not too proud to say that Tigress' story made my eyes rain.)
Feederwatch Friday
Eh... not much that I was able to notice, I'm afraid. The storm this weekend might bring more customers.

Comparing the AA4A Books 2: Goldfinger

Part One.

When I picked up Eliot Goldfinger's Animal Anatomy For Artists: the Elements of Form from the Library, the first thing I noticed was it's size. It is quite tall and wide, but also much thinner than I expected. When I first saw the book advertised on Amazon, I figured it'd look more like the Gregory S. Paul book above. (To me, the Paul is what a $30-$50.00 book looks like.)
I'll admit I was also initially disappointed in the content of Goldfinger as well. And then I realized two things:
1) This was written and illustrated by a person who is primarily a sculptor and,
2) it's basically a textbook on the skeletal system and musculature of various mammals that just happens to have been written from the point of view of an artist.
Neither of these are bad things to point out, obviously. However, it may change the way you'll want to think of this book. For one thing, it better prepares you for the fact that almost a full half of the book is taken up by pages and pages of of individual muscle studies like this:

Now, as I said before, your needs may be different from mine. Personally, I thought it was a bit much and I felt that it took valuable space away from more full skeletal and muscle studies.

And as you can see, those anatomical studies are gorgeous. They make up most of the book's second half. Each animal gets a side view and a few get a front/back view as well.
But Goldfinger's biggest selling point is the fact that he goes beyond the human/dog/horse trinity. Indeed, you get a very wide variety of mammals in this book. The giraffe muscle study promised on the cover is in there, as are rhinoceri, rabbits, sea lions, kangaroos, hippos, and many more. Several other species are represented by skeletal studies. Tapirs are just as unconventionally cute on the inside.
And this, sadly, leads us into the bad news. Ultimately, Goldfinger's attempt to create an anatomical reference for every kind of modern mammal you could think of off the top of your head works to his disadvantage. For example, you get a skeletal study of a bat and a dolphin, two animals who have diverged very far from the somewhere-between-human-and-dog basic mammal body plan (which, incidentally, is why humans and dogs show up in every one of this kind of book). And that's very cool, but you don't get a muscle study.
Furthermore, Goldfinger tends to have just one detailed skeleton (and sometimes muscle) study for each group of mammal. So, that dolphin? Well, she's representing all cetaceans. Sometimes, Goldfinger will have a series of silhouettes to represent the members of the group after their representative's anatomical study. And this makes sense for the horse. Less sense for the dog. And no damn sense at all for the kangaroo:

...Who is here to represent every marsupial ever. Even though her skeleton is ridiculously specialized. So yeah.
And this brings me to my biggest point of contention. This book is for people who want a reference on many different kinds of mammals. I've chosen my words carefully throughout the review. I've done this so that you will not be as disappointed as I am to learn that, according to this book, there is only one non-mammal in the entire world and this is it:

Funny I should mention Gregory S. Paul again in the beginning, eh?
This is another reason why Goldfinger's scope works to his disadvantage. Then again, he stays short of drawing an iguana, a bullfrog, and a goldfish and calling it a day. (And that's just sticking to the vertebrates...)
All told, this book is not worth it unless you really need studies of each and every muscle and skeletal studies of (not really) every mammal. For the rest of us, Ellenberger and Calderon are a much, much better choice. (Not least because they cost less than half the cost of Goldfinger's book combined.) Reviews of their books are up soon.

Comparing the Animal Anatomy for Artists Books, part 1

This is going to be long, a little overwhelming, and picture-heavy, so I'll cover it in multiple posts. I have to start with a sort of disclaimer. I am reviewing these books based upon how well (or not) they fit my needs. Your mileage may vary. Maybe you like drawing horses, dogs, and humans.
It should also be stated right now, in case you do not have any anatomy for artists books and are reading this to learn more about them before you build a library: humans, horses, and dogs are basically the holy trinity of Animal Anatomy for Artists books. Each and every AA4A book will have detailed skeleton and muscle studies of each. Occasionally you'll find a book with a section on cats, but it's very rare for these books to deviate. And you can pretty much forget about any detailed information on non-domestic animals.
Most importantly, by no means should you use these books by themselves. You should indeed build an art reference library. No one book is going to contain all the information you need. For example, AA4A books are generally very concerned with the internal structure of humans, dogs, and horses -- but they rarely get into how the animals look when moving. (And this, by the way, has always struck me as strange. How many drawings and paintings of figures just standing around have you seen?) Some of them never even show what the animals look like while alive; you only get the internal anatomy!

For motion, I recommend these three books. Hogarth's Dynamic Anatomy is a must-have, as is a book of Muybridge's famous photographs (there are better ones available, but this Dover edition is fine as just a reference). The Preston Blair book seems like an odd choice, however it will give you a huge advantage as an artist to know the basic principals of animation. Best of all, Blair includes diagrams based upon the Muybridge photographs, and he explains in a very friendly fashion the principals of motion and physics behind them.
If you're reading this blog, then you've got access to the Internet, and thus you've got access to loads and loads of reference photographs of living things. Even so, you'll want your own emergency backup collection of references. Animal encyclopedias tend not to be as expensive as you'd expect; just pick your favorite. And get in the habit of scrapbooking photographs from magazines. If you know a kid (or you *were* a kid) with a subscription to Ranger Rick or World, save those back issues!
Next post, I'll share my thoughts on Goldfinger's doorstopper, Animal Anatomy For Artists: the Elements of Form.

----

This appeared at Cartoon Brew the other day, and since it fits a reoccurring theme I've had on the blog so far, I figured it was worth sharing for those who missed it:

It's an introduction to an Italian Disney special, and it appears to have been animated by Romano Scarpa, a Disney comic book artist. That explains some of the stranger characters. The Cartoon Brew comments help identify several of them. Personally, it always bugged me how some Disney birds are flight-capable and others arbitrarily aren't. Also, it amuses me to no end that they keep trying to make Donald into some kind of superhero.
(By the way, three weird Disney things so far and not a single weird Looney Tunes thing. This must be rectified...)

Haven't you had enough Feederwatching for one week?

Of course you haven't!  The thistle sock is off to the right in the Dogwood tree. So far, nobody's gone for it, though it's not for lack of trying on the part of the House Sparrows. And putting the feeder out in the middle of the yard, well away from the hedge, has not discouraged the sparrows one bit. Oh well. I at least got to list a nuthatch.
And then this squirrel showed up.

As soon as I saw him limping around, I knew something was up. It's hard to see in the photo, but it looks like something took a bite out of his shoulder. Otherwise he's fine.
It's Oscar weekend! Yay!

I was following the pack all swallowed in their coats...

Hello, my name is Tricia and I am a recovering AOL user who has spent the past two weeks being blown away by the Awesome that is Firefox. And so...


Why don't I tie up a few loose ends while I'm here:
* - I finished "Justice League Unlimited" and it was unspeakably awesome.
* - I've watched "Escape to Witch Mountain" for the first time since elementary school. Of all the G-rated live-action 70's Disney movies, this is easily the G-rated live-action 70's Disney movie-est. I haven't got the slightest idea why this story warrants revisiting.
* - I watched the first season of "Entourage" and enjoyed it once I realized that we're not necessarily expected to like these characters.
* - I watched "Horton Hears a Who" and it was... decent. The character animation was excellent and it was the only feature-length Dr. Seuss book-based movie that didn't give me a violent reaction.
* - I watched "Hellboy 2" and just basked in the Wayne D. Barlowe-designed awesome. I am very excited to see what DelToro does with The Hobbit. (A Barlowe-Smaug would make me very happy.)
* - After reading about the Pine Siskin invasion during the Great Backyard Bird Count, I got a finch sock (King Gerald's Banquet Hall!) just to see what would show up. I haven't hung it yet but will do so soon after posting this.

I hope to start on reviewing the various Animal Anatomy for Artists (henceforth AA4A) books I've mentioned a while ago. Be prepared for some very, very long posts.
By the way, if I got Fleet Foxes stuck in your head (not that that's a bad thing), this is probably the best way to get them out.

Great Backyard Bird Count 2009 Live Blog!

Why not? This post will update periodically (ie, whenever I remember) throughout Sunday and Monday, the rest of the GBBC weekend. It's not too late to start participating. Head to their website, print out a data sheet, and keep your eyes open throughout the day for our flight-capable theropod overlords friends.

Sunday
8:45 AM - Woke up to the usual 15-or-so House Sparrows in the backyard (I already saw 25-or-so on Friday) and a flock of about seven Crows (the most I've seen so far together is three). A quick glance at the stats for my state suggests that there's only one other person in my city doing this. I wonder how many people I know check their email on Sunday?
Martha's Vineyard!!!🙀

10:27 AM - Still nothing but sparrows and the occasional single gull gliding overhead. I do want to note something cute the sparrows did earlier. Five of them hopped over to the one remaining six-inch-long patch of snow and started pecking at it. I've seen birds "drink" snow before, but it's especially hilarious to me that these sparrows weren't the least bit interested in the snow when it was a foot and a half deep.
Did a little exploring in the GBBC's data. Florida is trippy.

2:08 PM - Just got back from a nice little drive around the city, up and down the shore. I can sum it up in one hastily MS-Painted word:

I saw about 21 Common Eiders rafting off of Nut Island (which is actually a peninsula). There was also a flock of about fifty Starlings, another raft of about fifteen each of Mallards and Black Ducks, flocks of another fifteen each of the three different species of seagull that hang out on Wollaston Beach (Great Blackback, Ringbill, and Herring), seven Pigeons, two Mourning Doves, ten Crows, and a Red-Tailed Hawk.
Uh-oh, why is this song in my head again? I won't become one of them!!!

3:30 PM - Well, it's starting to get dark out. I may fill the feeder and call it a day. The White-Breasted Nuthatch couple visited the suet feeder a few minutes ago. Fine time for my camera to run out of batteries.

----

Monday

11:01 AM - Looks like the GBBC is going to end with a wimper for me: nothing so far this morning but the usual 25-50 House Sparrows.
What gets me is that I haven't seen a Chickadee this weekend. At all.
Now, these are older pictures, but on the fairly reasonable assumption that the rest of the season will probably be something like this weekend, weather-wise, I changed the feeder setup from this:

To this:

(Actual backyard may not currently be as pretty as it is in the above pictures. There's not much I can do about that until spring.)

2:30 PM - Continuing to see nothing but sparrows. Huh.

5:30 PM - Dusk. The female Cardinal visited and a family of Crows flew overhead but I'd already seen them earlier, so all I can do is add individuals. So all in all, the last day of the GBBC for me was a bit of a wash.
Overall, however, the weekend was wonderful. Here's my final tally:

25 Brants
11 Black Ducks
11 Mallards
21 Common Eiders
6 Buffleheads
2 Hooded Mergansers
1 Red-Tailed Hawk
15 Ring-Billed Gulls
29 Herring Gulls
9 Greater Black-Backed Gulls
7 Pigeons
2 Mourning Doves
1 Downy Woodpecker
1 Blue Jay
7 Crows
2 White-Breasted Nuthatches
1 Robin
1 Mockingbird
25 Starlings
2 Song Sparrows
2 Cardinals
50-something House Sparrows

You can see the total stats for Massachusetts birds here.
Thanks to all who participated. I leave you with this gallery of incredibly strange stuff Michael Jackson is auctioning off. I would bother getting my driver's license if somebody bought me item 6/7.

Merry Single People Awareness Day!

Ha ha ha.

Seriously, though. This gives me an opportunity to confess my love for one of those random weird things I like: Hilariously Inappropriate Valentine's Day Cards.

This year I found some discount Valentines in a crazy bargain store known as Mardens. (Here comes one of my legendary tangents. Ah, Mardens. Expect to hear about them a lot. Unfortunately, nobody can be told what Mardens is like; you have to see it for yourself.) These "Pagemaster" Valentines aren't particularly inappropriate aside from reminding us all of the worst catchphrase ever foisted upon a character ("This is NOT good! Definately NOT good!"). Also, Why does Macauley Culkin have gigantic Bratz doll lips?

But then I found Valentines based upon that celebrated romance classic... "Street Fighter 2".

What's great about these "Street Fighter 2" Valentines is that, like so many inappropriate Valentines before them, they inadvertently act like Anti-Valentine's Day cards. You have to love the Chun-Li card. There's off-model, and then there's this:

Yargh!?
Now, these are hilarious but the most legendary Inappropriate Valentine's Day Card I have ever seen, I found within this somewhat innocuous-looking package:

Granted, every popular movie is going to have some tie-ins that are... misaimed, shall we say. Thus, the most Inappropriate Valentine's Day Card Ever is this little brain tulip, which I will post without comment:

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the legendary gallery of terrible Valentine's Day cards at Captain Wacky's Boatload of Fun. Not to mention this lovely Onion editorial. Enjoy, and turn this track up as you do.
P.S. - Craw.

"What Measure is a Non-Mammal?"

Art first. Click for big:

Some time ago, I brought up the Onion AV Club's interview with David Petersen (Mouse Guard, which I am currently reading and is terrific). In it, he explains that he had written a sweet short story for his wife for their first Valentine's Day together. (This is where you either go "Aww" or "Barf". Or both.) The publishing company decided it would make a terrific children's picture book. All Petersen would have to do is change the whole damn thing.

Executive Meddling, and the various tales of woe associated with such, is a ripe subject for at least a month's worth of blog entries. But what stuck in my craw was the following, almost throw-away line:

"We eventually determined that they'd (the couple in the story) both be rabbits. I was originally going to do both as cardinals, but they said no, we really need something cute and fuzzy. Children don't relate to birds as well." (Emphasis mine.)

Well, readers (both of you), it's Survey Time! How many of you had any problems whatsoever relating to non-mammal animal characters?

Because, and this is just off the top of my head, the publishing company's line of thinking completely discounts things like "The Land Before Time", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (they had a Token Human Friend, but still), "Finding Nemo", "A Bug's Life", "Happy Feet" (love it or leave it), Donald Duck, Daffy Duck, Tweety, Woody Woodpecker, Heckle and Jeckle, ad infinitum.

I wonder if these are the same people who decided we wouldn't enjoy Disney's "Dinosaur" unless it had some primates for us to relate to...

Feederwatch Wednesday!!!

I'm doing this early to remind everyone that this upcoming weekend is the Great Backyard Bird Count. Participation is considerably easier than Project Feederwatch. This is the first time I'll be participating after forgetting to do so for so long. Good luck, everyone!

Nerd Rage and Further Worst Cartoon Thoughts

I saw the following in Friday's paper and... I HAVE to share because... it's pretty astonishing:
Thank you, Gatehouse News Service Guy! Thank you for sharing your condescending thoughts on an art form you clearly have not bothered to learn anything new about since you were scarfing Frosted Flakes in front of "Maia the Bee".

So anyway, as of right now, both "Worst Cartoon" polls have been tallied and winners have been chosen. "Worst Cartoons Ever" has picked "Rubik the Amazing Cube". "Rubik" is notorious online because it is the best artifact of a time period in the late-70's/early-80's when you could make a cartoon about anything. It looked like this:


Meanwhile, the unfortunately-named Topless Robot blog's winner for worst cartoon episode ever is a particularly angsty episode of "The Littles": Now, really, I shouldn't worry too much about these choices because they're each all part of a silly contest and it was all really just a few people's opinions right? Yet, it sticks in my craw because, honestly, get past the nature of the title character and "Rubik" isn't all that different from every damn "The Adventures Of Some Kids and their Pet Walking Talking Deus ex Machina" cartoon of the era. And the worst I can say about "the Littles" ("Here Come the Littles"is available on DVD so I just added it to the top of my Netflix queue to check and see if my nostalgia filter is strong with this film) is that the first ten seconds of the main titles are what the Uncanny Valley looks like. Anyway, being an animation fan means that I have seen worse. Far, far worse. (And hell, those are just from within my lifetime.) Just off the top of my head: The 60's Looney Tunes, like this not-Chuck-Jones-involving Wile E. Coyote short. Any and all of the various "This is where 'The Simpsons' ended for me" episodes. (For the record, mine is "Lisa the Skeptic". Great idea for "The X-Files" but damned bizarre for "The Simpsons".) The various prime-time series that sprang up in the wake of "The Simpsons", of which "Capitol Critters" is probably the most astonishing. A whooooole lot of series from Hannah-Barbera (how many times can you recycle the basic idea behind "Scooby Doo" anyway?), Filmation, and Ruby-Spears. More than a few cartoons based upon real people, such as "Pro Stars". "Fraidy Cat", "Caillou", "Dino Squad", "Father of the Pride", "The Mighty Ducks", "Free Willy", "Mega Babies", "Loonatics". All the DTV rip-offs of other movies. And a lot that I have nicely repressed. The only real problem is trying to decide what the biggest waste of celluloid I've ever seen is. Let us wash off the nerd rage and awful cartoons with this little slice of happy:

Drawing must also be Serious Business -and- Jumping on the "Worst Cartoons Ever" bandwagon

Drawing must also be Serious Business!

Therefore, I have invested some Christmas money in the two anatomy books at right and borrowed the third from the library. Reviews will be forthcoming (though I can tell you already just by thumbing through the three that the Goldfinger is a bit of a disappointment given the $30-$50.00 [!!!] asking price.)

Inspired by Worst Cartoons Ever (natch) and Topless Robot, I've decided to bring up the following Great Moments in Animated Adaptations. I have a bit more to say about the results of their "Worst Cartoon / Cartoon Episode Ever" surveys but it can wait. For now, we have Serious Business to attend to.

It is time. Dear reader, you must decide which of the following two series (which, thankfully, never got off the ground) is the more boneheaded adaptation of a popular Anime for the American market.

You probably have already heard of the Saban (but not really Saban's fault apparently) Nightmare, a proposed adaptation of "Sailor Moon". If you haven't, it would have looked like this:

At least now we know what "Blossom" would have been like if it had been about a superhero. And you have to appreciate how they take the show's title very literally.

This is "Doozy Bots", a proposed adaptation of "Gundam SD". It is not as well-known, but is, in my humble opinion, worse:


Feederwatch Friday!!! It snowed! That was kind of interesting, but other than that, nothing much happened. The male and female Cardinals visited together for the first time this year. Awwww... Though mention of Cardinals (still talking about the birds here) puts me in mind of this Onion AV Club interview. There is a line in it that brings up another subject I'd like to cover next post.

Let's Read _Fairy Dust and the Quest For the Egg_!

Before we get into this, here's some art:

I am trying to develop a better work ethic, therefore I am attempting to finish a new painting at least every Tuesday and Thursday.
----

Let's be honest. The "Tinkerbell" movie (I'll eventually get to it) isn't half as interesting as all the "Tinkerbell" movie hoopla. Disney has been planning this Tinker-assault for years now.

One of the first Tinker-thingies to arrive in this world was a book entitled Fairy Dust and the Quest for the Egg, written by Gail Carson Levine. In it, we are introduced to Tinkerbell and her little Fairy friends who are (so I've heard) replaced by an entirely different set of Fairy friends in the movie. Huh.

Anyway, I am now going to read this book. Do read along with me, won't you? When you're done, please answer these semi-rhetorical

Discussion Questions!

1) In "Peter Pan" (not just Disney's film but the original James M. Barrie play), Tinkerbell was a mischievous, mood-swing prone, clingy, jealous girl who deeply resented the new arrivals in Neverland -- especially Wendy. Here, she's suddenly transformed into a sweet, friendly, one-Fairy welcoming committee who greets new Neverland arrivals, flits around the magical tree with the other Fairies, fixes broken cookware, and gets downright Emo rather than resentful when the subject of Wendy comes up. What does this imply about both Disney and society as a whole?

2) One of the new characters is a Fairy named Vidia. Now, Tinkerbell is of course a pretty blond, her BFF Rani is a pretty blond, and the heroine, Prilla, is a cute light-brunette. They all wear the stereotyped little foo-foo frilly Fairy dresses and smile all the time. Vidia, in marked contrast, is a sort of Goth-chick Fairy with very dark hair, and she is -come to think of it- as mischievous and feisty as Tinkerbell used to be. In this book, she is one of the heroes of the story, which would be a welcome change. But she is also the only really mean character; even Captain Hook isn't so nasty. I have heard that she later on turns out to be a villain, and in any case she is largely absent from more recent promotional materials. What does this indicate about Disney's legendary inability to deal with characters with anything more interesting than a "Lawful Good" (boyscout-like, to you non-geeks) alignment?

3)Every Never Land Fairy has a special power or "talent". They range from music to water-bending manipulation to keyhole design. There are also talents, like baking and animal, that have specialized subtalents as well, like cookie cutting and caterpillar herding. Now, aside from the exception that forms the plot of this book, every single Fairy knows what their talent is from the moment they arrive in Never Land. So what happens if a born Water Fairy decides he'd rather bake cookies?

4) Speaking of male Fairies. Here, they are called Sparrow-Men instead. Now, there isn't any way to word this question without it sounding very bad, but you KNOW Disney was desperate to avert this: doesn't the phrase "Sparrow Man" actually sound more gay than "Male Fairy"?

5) Early on, we are told that Never Land is an island that "moves". Later, we learn that Prilla mentally "jumps" from Never Land to different places (and times?) on the mainland. So, who is Prilla's Constant?

6) Rani is a Water Fairy who desperately longs to swim. Never Fairies can't swim because their wings get in the way. Eventually, Rani has her wings cut off so she can swim. Now, this is admittedly more of a heroic sacrifice than anything (she needed to ask the Mermaids for help), but is "you may have to mutilate yourself to do what you want" really a message little girls need to hear?

7) Why in the world is the Light Fairy named Fira on the cover illustration (upper right) if she isn't even mentioned once in the text?

----

This is totally unrelated but I had to share it. Because - and this is damn scary - I really can't tell if it's a parody or for real. The caustic attitudes of the three adult campers seems to indicate a parody, but everything else, including the kids' dialogue, is absolutely authentic to the time period. I'm not kidding.

Remember that in the early 90's, people on television actually dressed like this. This is what high-paid television writers actually thought rap songs sounded like:

NOTE: Compare "Creating REM Lazar" and "Teen Witch".

Superbowl Commercials = Serious Business

Therefore, I shall now give my opinions of the various ads that entertained me (or not) during the game (which, being a chick, I wasn't all that emotionally invested in):

"G.I. Joe" trailer - Eh. Actually, I think I'll see if I can rent the "G.I. Joe" animated movie. I have a feeling it'll be better than this big live-action Hollywood version. Now, why would I think that?

"Transformers: Revenge of the Sith Fallen" trailer - Oh yeah.

Pepsi - You are not Bob Dylan, Will I. Am! Shrek is not Gumby! There is nothing about this ad that does not make me angry!

Budweiser - The horses in love one was very nice. The "fetch" game, not so much.

"Land of the Lost" trailer - It doesn't look that funny, but it's bound to be better than the 1991 revival. (I can't be the only one who remembers if. Observe.)

"Star Trek" trailer - It's enough to say that I'm getting excited about an odd-numbered "Star Trek" movie. And did Kirk just run into a smaller Clover?

"Up" trailer - It's Pixar and it involves a cranky old guy and the plateaus of South America. I am sold. But by the way, not one single Annie Award for "Wall-E"? Seriously?
Teleflora - Um... This flower delivery company knows that flowers are the reproductive parts of a plant, right? Because I do, and with that in mind, this commercial just looks wrong.

Cheetos - When did Chester Cheetah turn into a jerk-ass?

ZOMG 3-D COMMERCIALS WTF LOLERCOPTER!!!
OK, I was lacking in the 3-D glasses department so I have no idea if they were better with them, but the "Monsters V. Aliens" trailer didn't look terrible without them. The movie itself just doesn't look all that interesting to me though. And the So-Be ad after it started out cute, got confusing in the middle, and ended with some premium nightmare fuel.

"Heroes" - It's always fun to be reminded that the stars of "Heroes" are fans themselves, so I liked the playful football ad.

Nerf Swords - Every year, there is one commercial that stands out because it looks so out of place. I'm sure all the LARPers out there are excited about this. I do not doubt that there are LARPers who watch the Superbowl (most LARPers are male) it still seems odd.

"Some-Other-Verb-Besides-Escape To Witch Mountain" trailer - Yes, Disney is revisiting the Witch Mountain series for no good gorram reason. With the Rock. Yeah. (Writes a note to add the original "G.I. Joe" and "Escape to Witch Mountain" movies to her Netflix queue...) Oh, hey, remember how in the original, we didn't learn that the two kids were aliens until the very end? Yeah.

Coke - I loved the Coke bugs! Obviously, somebody liked their "Minuscule", but it was still so cute. Best of all, the insects were allowed to be cute on their own terms; they weren't humanized too much. (See the aforementioned SoBe commercial to see how even slight anthropomorphism of otherwise realistic CGI animals can go horribly, horribly wrong.)

Coke Zero - On the other hand, this "LOL, we'll pretend we're angry at ourselves for stealing our own recipe" ad campaign was not, is not, and never will be funny.

Hulu - It's nice that they're hosting all these ads but... WTF Alec Baldwin? Also, the mammalian brain is already of a fairly squishy consistency. I will invite the reader to accept, without questioning, why I know this.
(OK, think high school, anatomy class, and a dozen female students in their early teens being traumatized when the trailer for "Babe" began running the same week we started...)

Legal Seafood - At this point, we're getting into the local ads at the end of the game. Anyway, this ad features the sounds of Presidents slurping clam chowder. This is what the word "squick" means.

Stop N Shop - Nothing much to say here but, "Yay! They are using animated ads again!" (They had a cute and memorable one around 1989-ish. Sadly, YouTube has failed me.)

And those are about the only ads that made an impression on me. How about some cel-shading (click for big as usual):