|
Post by antiqueman98 on Sept 25, 2018 15:22:52 GMT -5
Well that didn’t take long I’m curious where that was? That’s insane but grab bags are cool 💀
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Sept 25, 2018 18:35:15 GMT -5
Well that didn’t take long I’m curious where that was? That’s insane but grab bags are cool 💀 The mall bro. Spencer’s... heard of it?
|
|
|
Post by antiqueman98 on Sept 25, 2018 18:36:14 GMT -5
I’m curious where that was? That’s insane but grab bags are cool 💀 The mall bro. Spencer’s... heard of it? Of course thank you so much I appreciate it!!
|
|
|
Post by LuCypher on Sept 25, 2018 18:52:53 GMT -5
The mall bro. Spencer’s... heard of it? Of course thank you so much I appreciate it!! They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Sept 25, 2018 19:25:37 GMT -5
Of course thank you so much I appreciate it!! They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s They also sell ball caps with pot leaves on them, and t-shirts that say "show me your bossum, madam" or whatever filth the kids are saying these days.
|
|
|
Post by antiqueman98 on Sept 25, 2018 19:38:18 GMT -5
They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s They also sell ball caps with pot leaves on them, and t-shirts that say "show me your bossum, madam" or whatever filth the kids are saying these days. Back when I thought I was a punk goth lol....
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Sept 26, 2018 6:40:38 GMT -5
Without a doubt, HK is better! I have similar feelings about the HK vs. GPK "The Thing" cards: I definitely prefer the HK version - it features the alien, which I think is a great subject for CPK parody. The art itself is great. Add in the fact that the kid actually looks like a CPK, and the HK card is the clear winner. The GPK card has a lot going on - it has a Kurt Russell character, the infected blood is a character, and it has the alien as a side character. It's too busy for my tastes, and the art just isn't as good as Mark's. Though I do stress that the art isn't bad. Plus, why is the GPK card named "Mac Ready"? Why is Kurt Russell the Garbage Pail Kid in this one? I would think the card should be named for the blood character. Especially since this set has *another* Kurt Russell card in it: ***Edited to remove any unintended assertions*** I want to clarify what I was trying to say in my post yesterday, because I want to make it clear that I don't think that the GPK artists are ripping off Mark's concepts or subjects, or that they are competing against him in any way. I also want to expressly state that I think most of the current GPK artists are great at what they do. However, I am frustrated with the latest GPK releases because they do not encapsulate what I consider a true GPK to be. The card stock is too thin. The cards aren't die-cut. There isn't any card back art. This is Topps' fault, not the GPK artists' fault. Also, in my opinion, I don't think the kids look very much like CPKs. And on this point too, I don't hold it against the artists because I know they are working within the confines of the post-settlement world. But then Mark left Topps and came out with his own sets that, for the most part, captured what I was looking for. His latest release has thicker card stock and card back art. His sets are die-cut and in my opinion have more subjects that look like CPKs (or perhaps rather, look more like classic GPKs). Mark, more than anyone else, certainly more than Topps, is giving me what I want to see. And to be clear, I want to see something that reminds me of the magic of GPKs from when I was a kid. But again, that's not the GPK artists' fault. They are working within the limitations that Topps has placed upon them. So when Topps released its latest horror set, I viewed it with two lenses: (1) the lens of "Topps sucks because they have drastically changed (for the worse) their approach to GPKs since the 80s", and (2) the lens of "Mark just released an updated horror set that captures many more of the hallmarks of classic GPKs than any release I've seen in a long time." Almost none of the concepts between Mark's set and the new Topps' set are the same. And though there is a lot of overlap in subject, that is virtually unavoidable given the nature of the sets. When you have two sets parodying classic and popular horror, you are bound to have subjects duplicated. You can't blame Topps or the GPK artists for having Jason Vorhees or Candy Man in a horror set, even if Mark had them in his first. And on that point, the GPK artists didn't know what subjects Mark was working on. They didn't share notes or have advanced notice. These were purely coincidences. But, my post last night made it appear like I was saying that the GPK artists did rip off or copy Mark. It wasn't my intent to do that, but I chose my words poorly and irresponsibly. I was attempting to vent my frustration with Topps, and having just seen Mark's set that covered a similar topic, I thought that voicing my preference for his set was a way to "s**t on Topps". That is all I was trying to do with my post. I wasn't trying to bad-mouth the GPK artists, because I think most of them do great work. I admire David Gross' work, and have bought a final from him. I admire Brent Engstrom's work, and have bought a final from him. Layron has multiple pieces that I think are great (his latest Blob piece and his Cheese Louise piece immediately come to mind). I also really liked Miran Kim's Flo Worm piece from the 80s release. And those are just to name a few. It is hard not to compare Mark's Horrible Kids with Topps' "Oh, The Horror-ible" sets. They cover the same subject matter and were released at roughly the same time. But I wasn't trying to pit Mark against the GPK artists in some kind of Mortal Kombat competition. I don't think they have a rivalry or dislike each other. And I apologize for giving the appearance that I was suggesting that, or that any GPK artist was ripping off Mark's work. That simply is not the case. Mark is a great artist, but he isn't perfect. He's just giving me what I want to see more so than Topps is. And I don't doubt that if the GPK artists had more freedom to produce exactly what they wanted to (which is the freedom that Mark has), they would be delivering just like Mark is. Could you please clarify? Feelings are at stake here, like REAL feelings.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Sept 26, 2018 7:37:21 GMT -5
I want to clarify what I was trying to say in my post yesterday, because I want to make it clear that I don't think that the GPK artists are ripping off Mark's concepts or subjects, or that they are competing against him in any way. I also want to expressly state that I think most of the current GPK artists are great at what they do. However, I am frustrated with the latest GPK releases because they do not encapsulate what I consider a true GPK to be. The card stock is too thin. The cards aren't die-cut. There isn't any card back art. This is Topps' fault, not the GPK artists' fault. Also, in my opinion, I don't think the kids look very much like CPKs. And on this point too, I don't hold it against the artists because I know they are working within the confines of the post-settlement world. But then Mark left Topps and came out with his own sets that, for the most part, captured what I was looking for. His latest release has thicker card stock and card back art. His sets are die-cut and in my opinion have more subjects that look like CPKs (or perhaps rather, look more like classic GPKs). Mark, more than anyone else, certainly more than Topps, is giving me what I want to see. And to be clear, I want to see something that reminds me of the magic of GPKs from when I was a kid. But again, that's not the GPK artists' fault. They are working within the limitations that Topps has placed upon them. So when Topps released its latest horror set, I viewed it with two lenses: (1) the lens of "Topps sucks because they have drastically changed (for the worse) their approach to GPKs since the 80s", and (2) the lens of "Mark just released an updated horror set that captures many more of the hallmarks of classic GPKs than any release I've seen in a long time." Almost none of the concepts between Mark's set and the new Topps' set are the same. And though there is a lot of overlap in subject, that is virtually unavoidable given the nature of the sets. When you have two sets parodying classic and popular horror, you are bound to have subjects duplicated. You can't blame Topps or the GPK artists for having Jason Vorhees or Candy Man in a horror set, even if Mark had them in his first. And on that point, the GPK artists didn't know what subjects Mark was working on. They didn't share notes or have advanced notice. These were purely coincidences. But, my post last night made it appear like I was saying that the GPK artists did rip off or copy Mark. It wasn't my intent to do that, but I chose my words poorly and irresponsibly. I was attempting to vent my frustration with Topps, and having just seen Mark's set that covered a similar topic, I thought that voicing my preference for his set was a way to "s**t on Topps". That is all I was trying to do with my post. I wasn't trying to bad-mouth the GPK artists, because I think most of them do great work. I admire David Gross' work, and have bought a final from him. I admire Brent Engstrom's work, and have bought a final from him. Layron has multiple pieces that I think are great (his latest Blob piece and his Cheese Louise piece immediately come to mind). I also really liked Miran Kim's Flo Worm piece from the 80s release. And those are just to name a few. It is hard not to compare Mark's Horrible Kids with Topps' "Oh, The Horror-ible" sets. They cover the same subject matter and were released at roughly the same time. But I wasn't trying to pit Mark against the GPK artists in some kind of Mortal Kombat competition. I don't think they have a rivalry or dislike each other. And I apologize for giving the appearance that I was suggesting that, or that any GPK artist was ripping off Mark's work. That simply is not the case. Mark is a great artist, but he isn't perfect. He's just giving me what I want to see more so than Topps is. And I don't doubt that if the GPK artists had more freedom to produce exactly what they wanted to (which is the freedom that Mark has), they would be delivering just like Mark is. Could you please clarify? Feelings are at stake here, like REAL feelings. Hey, I said an asshole thing and I needed to make it right. You should see the apologies I send to my wife.
|
|
|
Post by pinkladyslippers on Sept 29, 2018 11:38:36 GMT -5
Not to sound vacuous, but who is HK? I do like his/her version of The Thing much better than what this new series offered. Where was that version found?
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Sept 29, 2018 11:55:53 GMT -5
Not to sound vacuous, but who is HK? I do like his/her version of The Thing much better than what this new series offered. Where was that version found? HK is shorthand for Horrorible Kids, which is a set by the artist Mark Pingitore. You can find his stuff here: magicmarkerart.storenvy.comBut the more I look at the cards in the new GPK set, the more I am appreciating them. I think it is a better set than the 80s set. David and Brent have a lot of good cards, and Layron's Blob card is great as well.
|
|
|
Post by pinkladyslippers on Sept 29, 2018 18:49:41 GMT -5
Not to sound vacuous, but who is HK? I do like his/her version of The Thing much better than what this new series offered. Where was that version found? HK is shorthand for Horrorible Kids, which is a set by the artist Mark Pingitore. You can find his stuff here: magicmarkerart.storenvy.comBut the more I look at the cards in the new GPK set, the more I am appreciating them. I think it is a better set than the 80s set. David and Brent have a lot of good cards, and Layron's Blob card is great as well. Pingatore and Pound were my two favorite artists. I actually am disappointed with this new series. The horror genre poisons the gpk/cpk concept. The vast majority of the offerings looked like mere caricature of monsters with little resemblance to a cpk. Definitely a disappointment for me.
|
|
|
Post by srezvan on Sept 29, 2018 20:12:40 GMT -5
Of course thank you so much I appreciate it!! They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s I went to Spencer's and asked if they had Garbage Pail Kids. She looked at me like I had insulted her mama. I left without Garbage Pail Kids.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Sept 29, 2018 22:44:30 GMT -5
They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s I went to Spencer's and asked if they had Garbage Pail Kids. She looked at me like I had insulted her mama. I left without Garbage Pail Kids. Lousy kids!
|
|
|
Post by LuCypher on Sept 30, 2018 12:25:14 GMT -5
They also sell GPK T-Shirts with the 30th logo on it. Spencer’s bro, Spencer’s I went to Spencer's and asked if they had Garbage Pail Kids. She looked at me like I had insulted her mama. I left without Garbage Pail Kids. The kids that work at Spencer’s have no idea what GPK is. Happy hunting 🕵🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by damien308 on Sept 30, 2018 13:40:36 GMT -5
here are my thoughts on the series, the art is actualy very good overall . but these are not "gpk's" a few quick examples, the bad taste , the nosferatu , the donnie darko rabbit ......... they are simply cartoons of the exact character . I look at the nosferatu gpk and I say ? that is simply just ? nosferatu ........ its a cartoon of nosferatu and they call it a gpk ......... what makes that illustration of nosferatu a gpk ? nothing at all . you guys know what im saying ? overall I only kept 7 cards for my collection .
|
|
|
Post by Mr. 1985 on Sept 30, 2018 17:38:39 GMT -5
here are my thoughts on the series, the art is actualy very good overall . but these are not "gpk's" a few quick examples, the bad taste , the nosferatu , the donnie darko rabbit ......... they are simply cartoons of the exact character . I look at the nosferatu gpk and I say ? that is simply just ? nosferatu ........ its a cartoon of nosferatu and they call it a gpk ......... what makes that illustration of nosferatu a gpk ? nothing at all . you guys know what im saying ? overall I only kept 7 cards for my collection . I agree damien. If this set was an original cartoony spoof of the horror genre I could get on board. Topps could have made a whole new I.P outta this. Instead they slap GPK on it and expect us to go gaga for it.😕
|
|
|
Post by damien308 on Sept 30, 2018 18:50:44 GMT -5
glad someone "get's it " isn't that what gpk was all about ? good art , spoof's and concepts that we "got" right away and could laugh .
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 2, 2018 20:55:01 GMT -5
When I saw this set, I farted. Then rolled out a brand new log into the pond. I felt a lot better, but this set still sucks.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Oct 2, 2018 21:03:16 GMT -5
When I saw this set, I farted. Then rolled out a brand new log into the pond. I felt a lot better, but this set still sucks. Your pond must be nutrient-rich.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 2, 2018 22:11:28 GMT -5
When I saw this set, I farted. Then rolled out a brand new log into the pond. I felt a lot better, but this set still sucks. Your pond must be nutrient-rich. That’s what ‘she’ said.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Oct 3, 2018 12:48:03 GMT -5
I think the problems are (1) the monster features of the characters in the new set are overshadowing their CPK features, and (2) the hair is wrong. When I think of a classic Cabbage Patch Kid, I think of this guy right here (sorry for the nudity): To look like a CPK, a Garbage Pail Kid needs to capture all or most of the following features: -HEAD: Round, with either a full head of thick yarn strands or completely bald -FACE: Cheeks must be fat, child must have a smile sunken into the fat cheeks, rosy cheek glow is optional -BODY: doughy body, belly button either "innie" or "outie" -ARMS/HANDS: Doughy, thick arms, hands as thick as the arms -LEGS/FEET: Doughy, thick legs, feet bulbous & thicker than the legs If you look carefully at the GPKs in the new set, all of them (or most of them) do have a majority of the above features. Look at Chet Hulhu and Jumping Jack: They both have fat cheeks, doughy bodies, and proper hand/feet proportions. But even though the art is great, they don't look like CPKs because (1) they are monsters, and (2) their hair isn't right. To me, the hair and head shape are crucial. If you aren't going to have the characteristic yarn hair, then the rest of the kid ought to look exactly like a CPK (not like a Frankenstein or a Cthulhu). That hair goes a long way. If the kid is bald, at least make his head shaped like a CPK's head (round, not flat like Frankenstein's or covered in tentacles and wearing a hat). A couple of the kids from the new set do look like non-monster CPKs. For instance, look at Great Wyatt and Boogey Manny: That's the classic GPK look right there. These two are on-point. But there are others in the set that have their CPK features shine through even though they are monsters. For instance, check out Living Levi, Stone Frida and Pin Ed: These all look like monsters, but you can still see undeniable CPK features there, such as the hair on Living Levi, the face on Stone Frida, and the shape of the head on Pin Ed. But these are exceptions. For the most part, the new set aren't really GPKs. They are a hybrid offshoot.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Oct 3, 2018 13:03:33 GMT -5
That being said, I do like the new set. There is a lot of good artwork in this set. Here are some favorites of mine: I like the reflection in the engine on Deadly Donnie, and the way the orange/yellow flames work against the purple background. I like the gag on Rita Reptilian, that she is really a human instead of a reptile-person. I love the artwork and colors on This Island Earl. Look at that amazing background art on Chloe Encounters - maybe the best background art in the set. And the artwork on Moth Manuel and Krak-Ken are standout quality. The characters are well-drawn, the colors are vibrant, and the gags are clever. I really do appreciate this set more every time I look at it. It's just as good as Horrible Kids in terms of artwork quality.
|
|
|
Post by rockholt on Oct 3, 2018 16:05:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Oct 3, 2018 22:54:27 GMT -5
I think the problems are (1) the monster features of the characters in the new set are overshadowing their CPK features, and (2) the hair is wrong. When I think of a classic Cabbage Patch Kid, I think of this guy right here (sorry for the nudity): To look like a CPK, a Garbage Pail Kid needs to capture all or most of the following features: -HEAD: Round, with either a full head of thick yarn strands or completely bald -FACE: Cheeks must be fat, child must have a smile sunken into the fat cheeks, rosy cheek glow is optional -BODY: doughy body, belly button either "innie" or "outie" -ARMS/HANDS: Doughy, thick arms, hands as thick as the arms -LEGS/FEET: Doughy, thick legs, feet bulbous & thicker than the legs I'm going to offer a counter-point to my own argument. Does a GPK have to look like a CPK to be a "True Garbage Pail Kid"? Not all of Pound's or Bunk's kids looked like CPKs. Some were just like, pieces of fruit with a face. Even the ones that were kids didn't always look CPK-ish. Look at Furry Fran, Creepy Carol and Frank N. Stein, for instance. Their heads are shaped wrong, or they don't have yarn hair, or their monster features overshadow their CPK-features. Yet, I consider them to be GPKs. So I'm wondering - how much of the reason for my (our?) complaints are because the new GPKs don't look like CPKs, versus that they just aren't drawn the same way Pound or Bunk drew them? How much is just emotional clinging to a particular style because it was what I grew up with? I'm wrestling with this and trying to keep an open mind because there is a lot of negativity toward the new GPK artists, and if I am going to continue to contribute to it, I want to make sure it's for valid reasons.
|
|
|
Post by seymourbarf on Oct 4, 2018 16:28:56 GMT -5
I haven't been chasing the parallel cards from the new set and it is a huge relief. There are a butt load of them on ebay and I don't want any of them. Holy god is it liberating!
|
|
|
Post by Fuzz on Oct 5, 2018 7:32:59 GMT -5
I'm going to offer a counter-point to my own argument. Does a GPK have to look like a CPK to be a "True Garbage Pail Kid"? Not all of Pound's or Bunk's kids looked like CPKs. Some were just like, pieces of fruit with a face. Even the ones that were kids didn't always look CPK-ish. Look at Furry Fran, Creepy Carol and Frank N. Stein, for instance. Their heads are shaped wrong, or they don't have yarn hair, or their monster features overshadow their CPK-features. Yet, I consider them to be GPKs. I think the three you mention here are easy to explain. Furry Fran - her gag is that she is furry, so it makes sense she has furry hair instead of yarn. Creepy Carol - her gag is that her face is messed up and she has Frankenstein'ish appearance. The green hair just adds to her creepiness because it's not normal for a CPK. Frank N. Stein - Frankenstein's monster has always been made up of parts from different people. Maybe he has the scalp of a normal kid sewn on?
|
|
|
Post by jamfish on Oct 5, 2018 8:40:18 GMT -5
Are there any other British collectors on this site who were dissapointed taht there were no Doctor Who creaatures in the set
|
|
|
Post by Fuzz on Oct 5, 2018 11:47:47 GMT -5
Are there any other British collectors on this site who were dissapointed taht there were no Doctor Who creaatures in the set Doctor Who is sci-fi, not horror.
|
|
|
Post by jamfish on Oct 6, 2018 19:15:46 GMT -5
Are there any other British collectors on this site who were dissapointed taht there were no Doctor Who creaatures in the set Doctor Who is sci-fi, not horror. There were Sci fi themed cards in this set
|
|
|
Post by doski79 on Oct 8, 2018 18:19:56 GMT -5
If you need any golds let me know
|
|