This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is it just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like Kari Byron, from Mythbusters?
> This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is it > just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like Kari > Byron, from Mythbusters?
> "Richard Bos" <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message > news:4ae1dd04.851703@news.xs4all.nl... >> This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is it >> just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like Kari >> Byron, from Mythbusters?
>> Richard
> I agree ;-)
Nah. Far too skinny. Blonde instead of red, and the eyes/nose proportions are wrong. I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of the above stairs serving girls as; Spoiler space 25 . . . . 20 . . . . 15 . . . . 10 . . . . 5 4 3 2 1 Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet attends the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also mentioned that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than she is. (Or something along those lines). I would assume this may be a reference to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover is rather petite in this department.
Anthony
-- I reject your reality and substitute my own! - Adam Savage: Mythbusters
>> "Richard Bos" <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> news:4ae1dd04.851703@news.xs4all.nl... >>> This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is it >>> just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like Kari >>> Byron, from Mythbusters?
>>> Richard
>> I agree ;-)
(edit)
Couldn't say since the US release cover is all cartoon hands...
>> "Richard Bos" <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> news:4ae1dd04.851703@news.xs4all.nl... >>> This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is >>> it just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like >>> Kari Byron, from Mythbusters?
>>> Richard
>> I agree ;-)
> Nah. Far too skinny. Blonde instead of red, and the eyes/nose > proportions are wrong. > I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of > the above stairs serving girls as; > Spoiler space > 25 > . > . > . > . > 20 > . > . > . > . > 15 > . > . > . > . > 10 > . > . > . > . > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet attends > the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also mentioned > that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than she is. (Or > something along those lines). I would assume this may be a reference > to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover is rather > petite in this department.
On the other hand, the cover also shows Lord V. as referee, and that doesn't happen either. The possibly-Glenda seems a bit young to be Mrs Whitlow, especially compared to Kidby's earlier picture of her: http://freespace.virgin.net/ianstewart.joat/SOD1pic.jpg
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
> Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet > attends the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also > mentioned that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than > she is. (Or something along those lines). I would assume this may be > a reference to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover is > rather petite in this department.
As it should be. The breasts mentioned belong to Brenda, and give her a rather motherly look. I think you let your imagination run unchecked :-)
> I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of the > above stairs serving girls as; > Spoiler space > 25 > . > . > . > . > 20 > . > . > . > . > 15 > . > . > . > . > 10 > . > . > . > . > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet attends the > game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also mentioned that Juliet > has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than she is. (Or something along > those lines).
I, on another paw, am sure they are Glenda and Juliet. The cheerleading costume argument won't fly, because Vetinari is shown as a referee, which he never is.
Mrs. Whitlow is older.
And it's _Glenda_ who has big breasts. You may remember that Nutt comments on them favorably.
Another thing that's wrong with Kidby's illustration is that Nutt is the same color as the humans, whereas the book describes him as being grey.
All in all, I'm not sure why this Kidby cover is off-track, but it is. But the Librarian is just wonderful, as always.
Otter t. wrote: > On Nov 1, 1:07 am, "redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of the >> above stairs serving girls as; >> Spoiler space >> 25 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 20 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 15 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 10 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 5 >> 4 >> 3 >> 2 >> 1 >> Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet attends the >> game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also mentioned that Juliet >> has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than she is. (Or something along >> those lines).
> I, on another paw, am sure they are Glenda and Juliet. The > cheerleading > costume argument won't fly, because Vetinari is shown as a referee, > which > he never is.
> Mrs. Whitlow is older.
> And it's _Glenda_ who has big breasts. You may remember that Nutt > comments on them favorably. Agreed
> Another thing that's wrong with Kidby's illustration is that Nutt is > the > same color as the humans, whereas the book describes him as being > grey.
> All in all, I'm not sure why this Kidby cover is off-track, but it > is. But > the Librarian is just wonderful, as always.
The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones and/or blood in them! See http://www.paulkidby.net/March09.html for the original artwork version. Possibly Paul did not have the time to read all of the book this time.
-- Reader in Invisible Writings.. Something to Ponder upon!
> Otter t. wrote: >> On Nov 1, 1:07 am, "redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of >>> the above stairs serving girls as; >>> Spoiler space >>> 25 >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> 20 >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> 15 >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> 10 >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> 5 >>> 4 >>> 3 >>> 2 >>> 1
[snip Glenda and Juliet (which I'm only just reading as of now)]
> The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make > it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always > been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones > and/or blood in them!
See: Twoflower's iconograph imp running out of pink after his and Rincewind's visit to the Whore Pits :-)
steveski wrote: > Reader in Invisible Writings wrote:
>> Otter t. wrote: >>> On Nov 1, 1:07 am, "redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of >>>> the above stairs serving girls as; >>>> Spoiler space >>>> 25 >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> 20 >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> 15 >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> 10 >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> . >>>> 5 >>>> 4 >>>> 3 >>>> 2 >>>> 1
> [snip Glenda and Juliet (which I'm only just reading as of now)] >> The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make >> it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always >> been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones >> and/or blood in them!
> See: Twoflower's iconograph imp running out of pink after his and > Rincewind's visit to the Whore Pits :-)
Persacerly what I was referencing...
-- Reader in Invisible Writings.. Something to Ponder upon!
On 04 Nov 2009, Reader in Invisible Writings <markfowera...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make > it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always > been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones > and/or blood in them!
Just to be pedantic: The Truth mentions that *very* cheap iconographs produce black and white pictures[1], and quotes Otto as saying monochrome is an artform in itself. And the Moving Pictures are b&w to start with, to make it easier for the imps to paint that fast. (Colour clicks happen eventually, when they've bred faster imps.)
[1]It doesn't explain why. Maybe they're cheap because they have limited painting supplies. Or maybe it's cheaper to summon colour blind imps.
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote: > On 04 Nov 2009, Reader in Invisible Writings <markfowera...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>> The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make >> it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always >> been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones >> and/or blood in them!
> Just to be pedantic: The Truth mentions that *very* cheap iconographs > produce black and white pictures[1], and quotes Otto as saying monochrome > is an artform in itself. And the Moving Pictures are b&w to start with, > to make it easier for the imps to paint that fast. (Colour clicks happen > eventually, when they've bred faster imps.)
> [1]It doesn't explain why. Maybe they're cheap because they have limited > painting supplies. Or maybe it's cheaper to summon colour blind imps.
I had forgotten that... I had also forgotten to take into account that Two Flower had brought a bit of 'alien' technology to AM and although (once someone saw how, or even heard about it) it was clear it was done, that does not mean that they could immediately copy it.
This reminds me of a bit in DA's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, when Dirk comments that Newton was a genius because he was the inventor of the Cat Flap. Explanation that Gravity was obvious, "look they even leave it on at the weekend" whereas a door within a door was inspired. Anyone could have invented it... precisely anyone could, but no one did... but once invented it is obvious and easy to copy.
Also, Galileo reportedly heard that some people* down in the docks** had a tube with glass at each end which enabled them to see small things a long way off bigger. Immediately he realised that the glass ends were lenses, experimented with lenses he already had to hand and produced a superior telescope in no time. He could have looked through a pair of lenses and made a telescope at any time, but never did until he heard that it could be done.
*Now reckoned to the the Dutch opticians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope ** Being able to identify ships coming in, and so the cargo/owner was a valuable bit of knowledge.
-- Reader in Invisible Writings.. Something to Ponder upon!
On 5 Nov 2009 13:21:13 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> to write:
>On 04 Nov 2009, Reader in Invisible Writings <markfowera...@hotmail.com> >wrote:
>> The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make >> it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always >> been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones >> and/or blood in them!
>Just to be pedantic: The Truth mentions that *very* cheap iconographs >produce black and white pictures[1], and quotes Otto as saying monochrome >is an artform in itself.
It's been a while since I've read "The Truth", but is the the iconographs themselves, or the newspaper versions of them that are done cheaply in black & white?
(Although the argument that B&W pictures are an artform in themselves is at least as old as the development of color film--I can recall it being discussed in various film classes back when I was in college in the '70s.)
>And the Moving Pictures are b&w to start with, >to make it easier for the imps to paint that fast. (Colour clicks happen >eventually, when they've bred faster imps.)
>[1]It doesn't explain why. Maybe they're cheap because they have limited >painting supplies. Or maybe it's cheaper to summon colour blind imps.
It's cheaper because you only need one color of ink or paint--black--combined with the existing white background, rather than multiple colors. Modern color printing requires four different colors of ink, combined in various ways to get the spectrum.
-Chris Zakes Texas
"We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?" "Why?" "It saves time."
On 06 Nov 2009, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2009 13:21:13 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused > Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> to write: >>Just to be pedantic: The Truth mentions that *very* cheap iconographs >>produce black and white pictures[1], and quotes Otto as saying >>monochrome is an artform in itself.
> It's been a while since I've read "The Truth", but is the the > iconographs themselves, or the newspaper versions of them that are > done cheaply in black & white?
The former (well, both): "Most pictures were painted in colour these days. Only really cheap imps painted in black and white, even though Otto insisted that monochrome 'vas an artform in itself'. But *printing* colour..."
>>[1]It doesn't explain why. Maybe they're cheap because they have >>limited painting supplies. Or maybe it's cheaper to summon colour >>blind imps.
> It's cheaper because you only need one color of ink or > paint--black--combined with the existing white background, rather than > multiple colors. Modern color printing requires four different colors > of ink, combined in various ways to get the spectrum.
Yep, for the printing - but since the imps are *painters*, not printers, you also need white to mix up the greys. And, having just checked the text to quote it above, it specifically refers to the *imps* being cheap, whereas if it was just a question of a limited palette, they could be "upgraded" simply by, well, buying them more paints...
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
>> Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet >> attends the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also >> mentioned that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than >> she is. (Or something along those lines). I would assume this may be >> a reference to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover is >> rather petite in this department.
> As it should be. The breasts mentioned belong to Brenda, and give her a > rather motherly look. I think you let your imagination run unchecked :-)
I spent an hour scanning the book last night and I can't find the page I read this on. Maybe Daibh can perform his magic?
I do not mean that Juliet is meant to be built like an Amazon, she is described as being only slightly taller than Glenda and can be used to model dwarf fashion. More that the stereotypical footballer's wife tends to be a pretty, skinny girl with certain enhancements in the chest region that can seem out of proportion in some cases. (Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
Anthony
-- See a pin and pick it up, and all day long you'll be looking for the hand grenade. ISIHAC
> "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinh...@gmx.de> wrote in message > news:hcooj9$14o$00$1@news.t-online.com... > > As it should be. The breasts mentioned belong to Brenda, and give > > her a rather motherly look. I think you let your imagination run > > unchecked :-)
> I spent an hour scanning the book last night and I can't find the > page I read this on. Maybe Daibh can perform his magic?
In my hardback edition, page 26. That's where Glenda first appears, bringing the food to wizards' meeting.
Brian
-- Day 277 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
>>> Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet >>> attends the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also >>> mentioned that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than >>> she is. (Or something along those lines). I would assume this may be >>> a reference to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover >>> is rather petite in this department.
>> As it should be. The breasts mentioned belong to Brenda, and give her >> a rather motherly look. I think you let your imagination run >> unchecked :-)
> I spent an hour scanning the book last night and I can't find the page > I read this on. Maybe Daibh can perform his magic?
I can't check the book just now, but I'm afraid my recollection coincides with Klaus.
> (Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet > as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
Oh, yes, although I think they're both noticably brighter.
ISTR hearing somewhere that one of Girls Aloud was married to a footballer as well.
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
> On 04 Nov 2009, Reader in Invisible Writings <markfowera...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > The original artwork was much better but the publisher decided to make > > it sepia, like old camera photos. However DW iconographs have always > > been full colour unless you take too many pictures with flesh tones > > and/or blood in them!
> Just to be pedantic: The Truth mentions that *very* cheap iconographs > produce black and white pictures[1], and quotes Otto as saying monochrome > is an artform in itself. And the Moving Pictures are b&w to start with, > to make it easier for the imps to paint that fast. (Colour clicks happen > eventually, when they've bred faster imps.)
> [1]It doesn't explain why. Maybe they're cheap because they have limited > painting supplies. Or maybe it's cheaper to summon colour blind imps.
> -- > Dave > "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." > The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Could very well be colour/color (choose one as appropriate) blindness makes them cheaper. The extremely tiny nano-imp mentioned in TFE, I think it was, commanded a pretty high price tag, a few hundred dollars. So "better" imp features seem to cost extra.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:52:44 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control laser caused "Otter t." <otter...@silverwinggraphics.com> to write:
>On Nov 6, 2:56 pm, "redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>(Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet >> as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
>I didn't, for roughly the same reason Granny Weatherwax could >keep from visualizing a pink rhinoceros. Who are Posh and >Becks?
I think Posh is a singer, married to Becks, a footballer (soccer player for folks on this side of The Water.)
But I could easily be mistaken--I don't pay much attention to either subject; I think recognize the names from headlines on the sidebar in the Daily Mail.
-Chris Zakes Texas
"We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?" "Why?" "It saves time."
On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, "Otter t." <otter...@silverwinggraphics.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:56 pm, "redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >(Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet > > as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
> I didn't, for roughly the same reason Granny Weatherwax could > keep from visualizing a pink rhinoceros. Who are Posh and > Becks?
Posh is (or was) a member of the Spice Girls, using the stage name Posh Spice. She married David Beckham, one of the most successful soccer players in English history. He was the guy the Los Angeles Galaxy signed for $250 Million a few years back
>>> "Richard Bos" <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>> news:4ae1dd04.851703@news.xs4all.nl... >>>> This girl on the cover of UA, on the right - presumably Juliet - is >>>> it just me, or does anyone else think that she looks remarkably like >>>> Kari Byron, from Mythbusters?
>>>> Richard
>>> I agree ;-)
>> Nah. Far too skinny. Blonde instead of red, and the eyes/nose >> proportions are wrong. >> I also believe that the women on the cover are Mrs Whitlow and one of >> the above stairs serving girls as; >> Spoiler space >> 25 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 20 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 15 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 10 >> . >> . >> . >> . >> 5 >> 4 >> 3 >> 2 >> 1 >> Juliet and Glenda never dress in cheerleading costumes. Juliet attends >> the game as Jewels and Glenda is just Glenda. It is also mentioned >> that Juliet has the breasts of someone 2 feet taller than she is. (Or >> something along those lines). I would assume this may be a reference >> to six foot Amazons or the like. The girl on the cover is rather >> petite in this department.
> On the other hand, the cover also shows Lord V. as referee, and that > doesn't happen either.
I was going with the fact that Lord V. was, as usual, controlling everything. A metaphorical referee of the city wide game as it were. However, given that my wossname was totally confused on the Glenda/Juliet description, I will have to say that this is just the artist making full use of his licence and having fun with elements of the story.
Anthony
-- Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.
"redtiger" <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > I do not mean that Juliet is meant to be built like an Amazon, she is > described as being only slightly taller than Glenda and can be used to model > dwarf fashion. More that the stereotypical footballer's wife tends to be a > pretty, skinny girl with certain enhancements in the chest region that can > seem out of proportion in some cases. (Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet > as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
Not really. Of football players and their wags in general, certainly. But Posh and Becks are not much like T&J. In particular, they got together when they were both already well famous.
redtiger <redtigeriiS...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >(Who didn't think of Trev and Juliet > as Posh and Becks at least some time during the reading?)
I didn't. Never occurred to me at all until you mentined it and I still don't think they're much alike.
I don't know much about Posh and Becks (only what I can't avoid knowing from bits on the telly and radio) but I get the strong impression that Posh is the brains of the outfit, while the same can't really be said of Juliet (or Trev either really.)
-- Carol. www.mullimages.com "This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong". It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
|
