Description

• A comical animation depicting the antics of two laurel and hardy minded mannequin puppets.
  The animation had to be made in 1 week so that the author could put it on a portfolio he was sending out.
  Andrew is a freelance 3D artist/animator, living in London and currently doing an M.A in Digital moving image.
  
  

Comments

• Hey Andrew, it's P.
  Good old times, eh!
  If you catch this let me know
  pavpav.com
• Hey Andrew, it's P.
  Good old times, eh!
  If you catch this let me know.
  pavpav.com
• Plagiarism or not, the clip is not really very funny. The animation is clean, simple and well animated. The characters are well placed for what they are and they have a certain charm. It's worth the download, only because it is not that big.However, do not expect any fantastic effects or cutting edge techniques. (**---)
• Andrew,
  
  I'm surprised you find me funny. I don't consider plagiarism funny. Even if the sequence is not the most original comedy premise in the world, the similarities in the two works are not just similar, but amazingly close. From the first character’s stretching and back scratching, to the second character’s gesturing and posturing, they look the same. Even the timing is nearly the same. You yourself label them "Practically identical."
  
  Maybe I have jumped the gun, but I don't think so. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply the title to the “Laurel & Hardy” short that you cite as source material. If you are working towards an M.A. you must be aware of the need to correctly cite your sources. This generally helps to avoid accusations of plagiarism. What would your professors have to say about this? I bet they’d like to see the unnamed “Laurel & Hardy” short.
  
  I see two scenarios here:
  
  1. Both animations are NEARLY EXACT replicas of the original live action sequence in the unnamed “Laurel & Hardy” short. This is the only thing that could explain "practically identical" works. (Unless you believe a room full of monkeys chained to typewriters could result in a copy of this week’s best selling novel.)
  
  2. You rip off "Abs of Steel" and after being exposed as a plagiarist cite some unnamed “Laurel and Hardy” short as your inspiration. (This is the direction I’m leaning towards, at least until I see the alleged “Laurel & Hardy” short.)
  
  
  Once again, I invite everyone to judge for themselves:
  
  http://www.spiral9.net/movies/absofsteel.mpg
  
  
  Should I see the unnamed “Laurel & Hardy” short and it becomes obvious that both animations were sourced from it, I will quickly admit my error and apologize. I invite you to prove me wrong.
  
  
• My animation is based on a scene of a ‘Laurel and Hardy’ short.
  
  I’ve just watched "Abs of Steel" by James Kinnings, and I assume he also did so, as there are far too many similarities. Practically identical even.
  
  It has been widely mimicked in past and contemporary comedy sketches, hence it’s not the most original of comical chronicles. (I’m not a comedian but I find you funny).
  
  I think you should learn to NOT take the approach of ‘shoot first ask questions later’.
• As I watched this animation I couldn't help but think that I had seen it before. It turns out I was right. Take a look and compare this animation to "Abs of Steel" by James Kinnings, located at:
  
  http://www.spiral9.net/movies/absofsteel.mpg
  
  Coincidence? Maybe, but I really, really doubt it. No wonder Mr. Andrew Mwebe was able to turn this mediocre work out in a week. I find it hilarious that the animation shows what appear to be storyboards lying around. Perhaps he placed them there to convince himself it was an original idea.
  
  Plagiarism is pathetic. What do you have to say for yourself Mr. Mwebe?