If I move my head with the viewing angle on my laptop, I can't see the not-quite-black frame. any way you could get rid of that?

Yeah, doesn't display correctly on my monitor. Fix it=insta-5 because this is actually cool.

fixed yo, #070303

+1

Awwwwwwww im #070303 ya'll

+7

you actually fixed it, you're my hero

THIS YTMND IS GENIUS. PURE GENIUS I SAY!

+2

well I started working on this before everyone started asking about making it, but here's my tribute site http://daffyattemptsatytmnd.ytmnd.com/

+1

he is gona get out soon

NEEDS MORE OHMS

+1

This YTMND has as much calcium as milk!

+1

You're a stinker now dog.

You see, this is why I just don't trust ducks.

-1

And for the record.. I saw a group of geese the other day huddled in a circle, with their faces down in the pavement, in the middle of the damn road the other day.. Satan's influence on Earth? Nah f*ck that sh*t, I don't believe in Satan. Or geese for that matter.

-2

noooooo the preloader trapped him

Make the thing he's trying to push back the preloader for great(er) justice

+4

nice

lmao awsome

brilliant

Brilliant, laughing boy---brilliant!!!

Haha! Nostalgia. :) Nifty idea; wish I'd thought of it! Five and fave for you, sir.

Cool.

Wow this is funny stuff. Bravo. As I type this, it's 4.93. Let's take bets on how long it takes for someone to go "This shouldn't be a 5" and gives it a 1.

-1

I say 4.39 by 12

+1

Crusher8576 1ed it as I typed my post. LOL! What c*nts.

+1

it'll recover. I think this site will do very well.

This shouldn't be a 5

-3

5 to the rescue

-1

So if it shouldn't be five, it's automatically a one? Ass.

+2

awsome

very nice

That's awesome!

hi-larious.

Instant 5 for Duck Amuck. Awesome.

Classic.

A thousand times yes.

When cartoons were cartoons

+3

shut up

-4

... and people like BallsDeVito weren't born yet.

+3

RAWR!

superbe

Most excellent.

Isn't this pretty much the same thing that was in the cartoon?

-9 [show comment][hide comment]

It didn't loop, and it didn't use #070303 as the background

+9

Looping animated things is very difficult seeing as it was shot on film and the camera moves and you have to get the actor to face the exact same angle again at the end of the loop. When you see something like this, it'd be nice if people thought, "Wow, I could do something with this!" rather than, "Wow, I can post this!"

-7 [show comment][hide comment]

This is this.

+2

Korf, maybe you should pay a bit more attention to your nuevo slop sh*t art sites and less time trying to convince everyone what YOU think makes for a YTMND.

+3

This site is bargain basement territory. Not a terrible site, but just not deserving the rating it has. It's also great fodder for the masses of unoriginal drones that will eventually take advantage of its simplicity to help them make more of the same. WB was really smart about this more than 20 years ago when they made it for the television.

-9 [show comment][hide comment]

Yeah, unlike all the other media on this site that's made especially for YTMND? Right? All 0.024% of original art on this f*ggot infested site? "Not deserving of the rating it has" reeks of "Im made this simple site is rated as high as the site I took long to make" Maybe that's not what you mean, but it's how you and Korf are coming off. Not every YTMND has to be a Kubrick film you know.

+2

To be fair, Kubrick films are awesome.

+2

Nobody is saying that every site has to be original work. I'm just saying that if it's not original work then it is worthless. You can make all the worthless sites you want, but don't expect me to be excited about it. I'm not petitioning max to delete this site because it is an insult to YTMND kind. It's a sh*tty ytmnd like a hundred thousand other sh*tty ytmnds. All I am doing is calling it sh*tty. Calm down.

-9 [show comment][hide comment]

thanks for 'not a f*ggy short film'. brilliant!

-1

Sorry guys, but I'm agreeing with korf and nutnics. This is just another mediocre site in a sea of mediocre sites. I mean, it's not even clever, and it's almost identical to the cartoon. Sorry, but that doesn't pass in my book.

-6

Sure, and since the simple principle of this site is entertainment, who are you two to decide what should or should not be rated high? I mean, if it wasn't rated in the high 4s (which baffles me also) would you enjoy it more? Sorry, I love the sites both of you guys make. I also know that only a small percentage really grasp them. Everyone else likes things like this, and honestly, there's nothing wrong with that. Why crusade against it if it's done well when there so many more sh*t shows on this site?

-1

I disagree with a number of the things said here. There is a difference between recontextualizing a clip and merely stealing someone else's work. I like this clip especially because it is a post-modern moment in animation recontextualized to a post-modern moment in web design. Sorry to use art speak, but that's what it is.

+8

Granted the original is brilliant and this is merely decent, but taking a clip like this from one medium, placing it within another, and looping it works like sampling does in music. It works like pastiche in video/film/literature/architecture/etc. And it does create something new, albeit conceptual. Whether or not you like it is your business, but don't come round saying it's worthless.

+8

Thank you to those defending this site. Downvoters: you should know my intention in creating this site was simply to entertain people for a few seconds. I wasn't thinking this would be rated highly, or reach the top-viewed (although I am pleasantly surprised it did). I am simply trying to make sites that will entertain other YTMND users. That's the difference between me and users like Korf41, who focus on criticizing instead of focusing on providing to the YTMND community.

+6

I am very aware that this is not totally original. I didn't create Daffy Duck, but I never claimed to. All I take credit for is putting this clip in the context of YTMND. That is where the originality lies. I didn't see you come up with this idea (excepting gr33nscr33n :P). Not to mention I know how to make a nice gif. It was tweaked tremendously after it was gotten from the clip. There were interlaced frames and many things wrong with it. That behind the scenes work is always overlooked by downvoters.

+6

Besides, if you want proof at originality, take a look at some of my other sites. I have the capacity to create original/innovative sites; and I have. On the other hand, most downvoters have not. They just don’t like the success I’ve had with this YTMND. Well they can eat it. Simply put, it's filth like you that degrade this site; you should put more effort into providing to the YTMND community in a proactive way. Then maybe your opinion will consist of more than the feigned authority it currently holds.

+6

(lol i vowed never to get involved in comment battles like this, or go on rants....so much for that)

+5

"That's the difference between me and users like Korf41, who focus on criticizing instead of focusing on providing to the YTMND community." I've never provided anything to the YTMND community. Right. Also, is the problem you have with my the content of my comments or my lack of "provisions"? Why don't you talk down to the people who merely provide empty complements rather than providing to the YTMND community? I'm giving you my honest opinion. Why not call out the liars?

-4

I'm actually disagree, gr33nscr33n. There is very little, if any recontextualization going on here. There is nothing added to show that Daffy is trying to "escape this ytmnd"; no preloader being bent out of shape, no tiling with him contorting into a neighboring frame...it's just the exact clip from the original show. The only thing that makes this about YTMND is that the author suggests it is.

-3

I'm all for using my imagination to enjoy things, but I come to YTMND to enjoy others' imaginations and the creative content they create as a result of using them. I don't find this creative or innovative. This just feels like the same self-referential, opportunistic drivel that always seems to be on top around here. Just my opinion. I know you didn't intend it as such, MikeyComicsInc. Nothing personal.

-3

5 to the rescue

-4

Hey guys. It's a cartoon. On a website. It isn't worth. Twenty paragraphs.

Hey guys. It's a website. On the internet. It isn't worth. Logging into alternate accounts. Just to fav and comment.

+4

Yeah that's queer. I'm not fighting with Nutnics or korf, we're in spirited debate. Favin' with alts = mucho homo. I'm going to have to bring this down a notch....

Kaizen: "YTMND is a site created for the purpose of furthering the creativity of its users." While entertainment may be a byproduct, this is about being not worthless: creating something. This isn't a "Typically shaped rock" collection, it's about MAKING things that HAVEN'T been seen. Finding things that have been seen? Keep it as your pet rock. I don't want to see it. "Why crusade against it"... I'm not crusading against it any more than you're crusading for it. We just shootin the sh*t.

Who the f*ck is korf?

Locked me old account because I was sick o' pink; eat sh*t <3

-1

lol, internet debate in comments

+1

I doubt max tiled a picture of Sean Connery and looped the sound clip of him saying "You're the man now, dog." with grand designs of enlightening the masses and standing the art world on its ear. I really think that over time, the simple yet admirable intent of this website has been corrupted by people with oversized brains and tiny penises. This is all for the lol. By the way, I lol'd. Way to find something that fits so well within the context of ytmnd.

To evilregal, I think you're being too literal: it's Sisyphus here, versus a toss-off site gag (though a great one). To Mikey, it's art, but it ain't great art ;]. To Xalisae, I hope to god you never write for Art Forum, October, etc with thinking like that. If what max did can't be added as a new direction, a new possibility in art, then you deserve the Monet and Rockwell posters hanging in your proverbial dorm room.

Simply more proof that Korf and Nutnics are post menopausal bitches with something to prove.

+1

I understand where you're coming from Mikey, with only the lol in mind, but I'm thinking of a bigger picture. I do respect you for sticking up for yourself with a few paragraphs, so you get a proverbial thumbs up from me.

-1

I completely disagree with you, travbrack. They are really good (dare I say elite) users of this medium and have a stake in seeing how it gets used. I'm not on the same page with them on this one but I'd be careful calling those two out. It's a rare user here who has both skill and concept in order. Like what they do or not, they are both sound additions to this place. Unless yr just heer 4 da lulz, in which case here's a link to collegehumor.com for you.

well i wouldnt go so far as to say they are both elite, nutnics maybe, not korf...no offense korf, i dont consider myself elite or anything either, i just would put nutnics higher up, proof is in the sites...nonetheless, everyone does have the right to their own opinion at least

Rockwell? Yes, and I also adore Mark Twain. *eye roll* As someone who's taken a few art classes because I enjoy drawing, and want to learn to do so better (when I say "better", I mean more realistically, because to me, that's all that matters in art, and the proximity to realism = greater skill level = a better artist), all I can say is, I simply detest most of the other types of people I come upon in that environment. They all have some mystifying motivation behind doing unreasonable things and calling it

"art", and I simply cannot understand why art itself is forced to be anything more than a persuit of beauty. Why does everything have to be so damned profound?

Or in short hand: I don't know much about art but I know I don't like yours.

-1

It's all just a buch of people who think they're smarter than everyone else looking up at the clouds in the sky and arguing with each other over what the "images" they see "mean", and I wouldn't be caught dead wasting my time with such a futile and misguided occupation. P.S. Jackson Pollock was an overrated hack.

-1

No...I know, and have been forced to learn, I just don't care because very little of it holds any meaning for me. P.P.S. If my Art professor, Mrs. Lake could see this, she'd murder me. But, I guess that's part of the reason I never had any desire to get a portfolio together to apply for the San Francisco Art Institute like she urged me to do. I'd never have fit in, and it just would've been an exercise in futility, painful for all involved.

-1

Oh, but that attempt at somewhat of a personal attack on me through insinuating ignorance was cute.

-1

my god stop typing 20 paragraphs when somebody downvotes a site they hate.

+1

" it's filth like you that degrade this site; you should put more effort into providing to the YTMND community in a proactive way" What are you talking about, if it werent for downvoters more sh*t like this would flood the top 15. I think thats providing a lot.

-1

I think what Xalisae is trying to say is that all art is useless except for photography, and the only criterion to judge photography on is the megapixel count. Because nothing can be more realistic than capturing as many of the exact images that exist in a real field of vision as clearly as possible. Nothing could be greater, and nothing more needs to be added but what is realistically there, regardless of what the image is of or about (as if an image can be ABOUT anything, right?)

-1

However this does beg the question: Why did Xalisae vote 4 on this site? Daffy Duck does not look at all like a real duck. The artists who drew him were seriously limited in their photorealistic artistic skills, and those are the only skills that matter in art, so this site should be a 2 at best if he's basing his votes only on the realism of the images. What a hypocrite.

-1

Actually, I think photography should never be equated with anything "art". Pointing a device and hitting a button takes no skill. To be able to capture an image directly using only a pencil, some paper, and your hand is amazing. Trying to make an image "about" something is like trying to use a fax machine to surf the internet. If you want to make a statement about something, do just that. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with an image accompanying a written statement saying exactly what the creator meant, felt, or was trying to convey. However, I don't think that an image which has the capacity to be misconstrued should be allowed to be a stand-alone "messenger". To quote one of my favorite songs, "Why don't they do what they say? Say what they mean? One thing leads to another." (But personally, I'd much rather look at an aethetically pleasing image, take some time to appreciate it, and then when I'm ready to listen to some powerful message, I'll go listen to an ora

orator, or read a book or article or some other detailed work.) As far the trouble you're having trying to reconcile my personal views and the content of this ytmnd, there are a few reasons. Firstly, animation has limitations put on it from the start, considering it's not just one image, but many. That's just naturally going to take away from the realism which will be able to be achieved, and I accept that, and judge accordingly. Secondly, Daffy Duck is hardly a serious artistic persuit. It's entertainment only. (This fact, for all intents and purposes, really does make your entire point moot, but I'll humor you.) Thirdly, this is a perfect example of what I said earlier, i.e., the imagery being supplemental to what is said outrightly. This is a comedic site, complete with all the information the creator has presented. It's comedy, and I laughed. And last, but certainly not least, I'm a woman. Sorry to disappoint you by not being some giggling imbecile. I understand your confusion.

I didn't really include any gender references, but I'm man. As if that changes anything. However, I was simply mocking the whole "photorealism = art", although you'd probably add the clause "as long as it isn't a photo and on the condition that it is only one frame". The ability to create photorealistic images by hand is certainly a skill, but it certainly is not all that is art. That your definitions of art are so compartmentalized is evidence of a misunderstanding of the point of art.

"I strive to create with my hands exactly what my eyes see and nothing more." Find me an artist that says that, and I'll find you a candidate for depression.

"so this site should be a 2 at best if HE'S basing his votes only on the realism of the images." So yes, you did. And, it's not so much that all I strive to do is create with my hands exactly what my eyes see...that would be a sad purpose. To me, the pinnacle of artistic achievement is to envision in my mind a picture so beautiful it could never be seen in the waking world, and then to have my hands portray that splendor in such a manner that I could almost convince myself that that same beauty could

actually exist.

Holy sh*t this went from bad to worse. I made the Monet poster comment as a joke. But you're totally serious! Poor Mrs. Lake.

-1

rofl ^ Mrs. Lake ftw