Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Film & Animation / Student Member Huy Minh LeMale/Netherlands Recent Activity
Deviant for 8 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 110 Deviations 426 Comments 13,671 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Random Favourites

Activity


Usually when I ask someone what kind of movie they like to see, they always say they prefer comedy, action or drama.
Well they can also say they want action and drama, or comedy and action, or drama and comedy, but my point is that there's a general feeling the viewers want to feel as they watch the movie.

For action you could generalize it as wanting to feel adrenaline or anger.
For comedy it's usually about laughter or having likable characters.
For drama it's all about being fully invested and crying.

Of course, whenever people like something more than the other, many will sadly take sides and start some kind of opinion war out of it.

People who like comedy will talk about how melodramatic the drama movies are, people who like action will hate the slapstick included in their beautifully choreographed fighting, people who like drama will say how the action is mindless.

Obviously that way of thinking is pretty simple-minded, and I think it's pretty obvious that a good movie makes use of all the three emotional responses rather than focus on just one of them.
There can be a preference in your story, of course, but a good story can't stand on it's own with JUST one emotional response.

Like always, comedy seems to be the most under-appreciated out of them, many thinking comedy is about watching people being stupid and all that.
They of course don't realize that without the comedy, people will never truly LIKE your characters.
I mean they can admire their skill in martial arts with the action or sympathize them with the drama, but to actually LIKE them?

Think of it this way, imagine your character is a very pompous and overconfident guy who always succeeds in everything and does everything in the story with ease.
Sounds like a bit of a Mary Sue, doesn't he? You don't appreciate the things he's done because there wasn't really anything that gave you the feeling he COULDN'T do it in the first place.
Now imagine if he's overconfident, but he NEVER succeeded in anything in his life and actually goes through a lot of problems, becoming the butt of the joke all the time until finally he succeeds in the end.
He still as the same personality, but the events have changed. He can be overconfident all he wants, but he's easily put back on his place by falling into a haystack or getting hit in the face with a basketball or whatever.
You end up liking him for having such optimism, even if still a bit narcissistic. And as overconfident as he is, you still really do feel happy the moment he finally succeeded in the end.
That's why people like characters like Johnny Bravo, Sherlock Holmes or Tony Stark. 

On the flip side, though, drama seems to be generalized as what's winning Oscars most of the time.
Pushing aside the fact of whether Oscars are actually credible or not, drama IS what's making people invested in your stories to begin with.
Sure, sometimes all it takes for someone to check out a movie is to read the description and say "Oh, that sounds funny/cool. I'll watch it!".
But a movie with nothing BUT Comedy or nothing BUT Action will end up boring fast.

A Comedy is about timing, but you won't ever GET the opportunity for the next best time for a gag without some drama in between.
Action is all about resolving conflict in a violent manner, but the conflict has to come from SOMEWHERE.

Whenever people think of drama, they usually think of romantic drama where a guy and a girl fight over something and cry cry cry, or some art-house movie where some student goes all emotional over a pen falling on the ground in slow-motion.
...
Okay, maybe the last one's just me, but that just sounds hilarious to me.

But drama is more than that.
Drama is about investment.
Drama is about making people know what the characters are going through, what they feel and what weight their decisions have.
Drama is about making you realize how one character feels about the other, or how a crowd feels about one person.

Drama and Comedy are not exclusive.
Naked Gun is a great example of that.
If it was JUST the slapstick in Naked Gun without any context, it would've been tiring and eventually the joke, no matter how good they are, end up simply becoming annoying.
But as much as people claim Naked Gun is nothing but comedy, it really isn't.
As weird as it is, Naked Gun has characters that people invest in.
The situations are still hilarious, but there's a plot going on that gives the characters different emotions to the situation.
It obviously gets made fun, it being a parody of cop movies after all, but the characters take it completely seriously, and that's the beauty of it.

The late Leslie Nielsen didn't play off his character's romance as "Oh wow, look how wacky we are as a couple". He felt genuine sadness and anger and love. It's done in a hilarious manner, but you're convinced his character does feel those feelings, and that gets you invested in him.

With the action genre, many people seem to love pointing out how mindless they are.
"Oh, it's just to show big burly men punching and kicking each other."

Sure, out of all the three genres listed here, I can actually imagine stories being great without action.
But action has it's time and place too, especially because action is the place where both comedy and drama can come together perfectly.
Just look at fight scenes of Jackie Chan. It's not just about watching how amazing he is as a martial artist, it's also about showing that despite all the impressive stunts he does, he's still human.
He gets punched in the face and is visibly hurt. He intercepts someone's kick with his own and rubs his hurt shin afterwards. He gets stomped on his fingers as he's hanging on the edge and actually whimpers in pain after he lands safely.
The action makes him an awesome martial artist, but the comedy makes him likable.
Of course there has to be a REASON why the fighting was happening in the first place, which is where the drama comes from.
Drama is what gave the story the level of conflict in the first place.

Sometimes it's just a silly "Get him!" moment and Jackie is simply trying to escape.
But there are also times when the one Jackie is fighting is some guy who threatened his family's business, or someone who ruined his career, or someone who's a real threat to humanity.
It makes you invested and makes you root for Jackie in the first place.

Honestly, the worst action movies are where you don't care at all who's going to win because you're not invested in any of them in the first place.
In the end, without investment, all an action sequence is is a bunch of creative ways of hurting one another.
But with the investment and the context, it's suddenly an underdog story, or it's a heartbreaking story of two separated brothers, or it's an epic story involving the fate of the world.

As much of a forgone conclusion it is, a great story makes use of all the emotions that come from all those three genres.
And the funny thing is, many stories generally already HAVE all three of them.
Just because it's a slapstick comedy doesn't mean there's no drama in Tom and Jerry. Just look at the amount of times those two end up very sadly begging against one another or crying as the realize what their fates are about to be.
Just because Avengers is full of action doesn't mean it has no comedy. People don't make posts on tumblr about how likable the characters are because of how they fought the aliens, they make posts about their funny dialogue, how Tony and Steve had a whole pissing contest about Justice vs Pragmatism.
And just because Titanic is all about the relationship between Jack and Rose, doesn't mean there's no place for action. It's the Titanic sinking that made people truly root for Jack and Rose to survive, and it's the fact they've gone so far that it's so sad to see Jack die in the end.
I would say spoilers, but anyone knows about that, so whatever.

The point is, every story in it's most basic form generally has the ability for the viewer/reader to have those feelings.
It's all about utilizing those feelings to the fullest while still holding onto the vision and moral of your story.
  • Listening to: When Can I See You Again (by Owl City)
  • Reading: Those Two Guys Screenplay
  • Watching: The screen of my laptop
  • Playing: Thief
  • Eating: Food
  • Drinking: Drinks
One thing I always had trouble with when designing characters or environments was how symmetric they were.
If I modeled a corridor and one wall had a poster on it, the other wall has another poster.
If I created a 3D Model of a character from one side, all I did was use the symmetry function and it's pretty much done.

I have since found out the inherent problem with that mentality.

Something a lot of starting artists don't seem to realize is that art generally challenges the senses of the viewer.
And with that I mean that when someone looks at your art, they don't just see the whole picture and have it rendered in one go in their mind.
They scan. They see the big focus point of the picture, like a character's face, then they look around the focus point, like the character's whole body, and THEN they look at everything else, like the environment.
Of course, that can go the other way as well. In an establishing shot of an environment, usually you manipulate the viewer to look at the environment first, THEN the characters.
There's lots of composition tricks for that, but that's not what I'm going to talk about right now.

Either way, you're probably wondering what this has to do with asymmetry?
Well, that's the thing. A symmetrical looking environment or character doesn't CHALLENGE the senses of the viewer.
Okay, if the character has enough of a complex look, maybe, but even then it would feel like a bit of a cop-out if such a complex looking character ends up looking very symmetrical.

The point is, symmetry is boring.
And that's because having everything in total balance is boring.
That's the idea you have to have in mind, there's a balance or weight to the design of a character or environment.
Your eyes are generally more interested in something unbalanced than something that is.

Take for example a row of chairs.
If all the chairs are red and just stand there motionlessly, you wouldn't know what to focus on.
I mean, yeah, you could randomly pick chair number 4 as your focal point, but nothing special is happening anyway.
But have one of them be blue and about to fall over, that's what you're going to look at. That is unless you're somehow very fascinated by chair number 4 for some odd reason.

That is not to say everything HAS to be unbalanced.
But there should at the very least be something different.

Having two identical fighters on two sides of the ring is boring.
Having one fighter be a huge muscled figure and the other very skinny and weak is a bit more interesting, but it's very heavily on the muscled guy's side.
Having one fighter be a huge muscled figure and the other be a death robot, now THAT is interesting.

You don't need to design a character that for some odd reason equips everything on his left shoulder, but at the very least have something else on his right side.
If your character has a shoulder pad on his left shoulder, have him have a claw on his right hand.

This is not to say there's no place for characters that look completely symmetrical, but you do need to realize the implications with such a design.
Such a design gives a feeling of uniform, safe, a character that's not really threatening and generally has no personality to them.
That's the reason why Mario is so symmetrical, because in the end Mario games aren't about the character of Mario, but the environments and the great level design.

Having your character be asymmetrical gives more of an adventurous feeling, sometimes even threatening if done right.
And that's why Sonic has that smile on his cheek rather than in the middle.
Hell, that's the reason why Sonic as a character tends to tilt his head to the side, to add more asymmetry to his design.
The spikes on his head are very different from the round shape of the front of his face.

The difference can also be seen in the same franchise.
Take Megaman X and Zero. Megaman X is almost completely symmetrical. Zero on the other hand has that nifty hair of his that usually flows to one side, and as an extra touch from Megaman X3 on he has his Z-Saber stick out to one side. His left shoulder pad also has his symbol on it while the other side doesn't.
Now, guess which one of the two ended up being more popular :P

I rest my case.
  • Listening to: Anyplace, Anywhere, Anytime (by Nena & Kim Wilde)
  • Reading: Those Two Guys Screenplay
  • Watching: The screen of my laptop
  • Playing: Thief
  • Eating: Food
  • Drinking: Drinks
Now, I've been noticing a bit of a prejudice against comic-relief characters, like they're considered an insult.
"Ugh, it's just a stupid comic-relief character" "This comic-relief character is ruining the emotional impact" "It's like turning (insert a supporting character) into a comic-relief character!"

And it's not without good reason, because comic-relief characters generally are VERY difficult to do right.

But the problem isn't so much the comic-relief character themselves, but the fact that the writers seem to have no idea how to use them.

Generally, writers seem to have this idea of a comic-relief character to just be some idiot who does something funny simply because that's what they're made to do.
Other times writers have the idea of a comic-relief character as just a character written specifically so people can say "Oh wow, look how much more badass the protagonist looks with that comic-relief character next to him as a comparison."

But either way, they tend to suffer from the exact same problem; their lack of depth.
They're one-note characters, only doing what they're "supposed" to do, that being to make people laugh.

It seems people have forgotten that the point of a comic-relief character isn't just for them to be funny, but to also be the ones to pick up the audience again after a very heavy plot-arc.
It isn't about JUST being funny, it's also about them being the characters that you can count on to liven things up so people wouldn't be completely depressed.
It's called Comic-RELIEF after all.

With that in mind, you also have to realize that just because they're the characters made to liven up the mood, they shouldn't be excluded from the serious parts either.
Yes, some people might think it's for the better, but that's just hiding the REAL problem of their comic-relief character; the fact that they can't be anything BUT funny.
They tend to write their comic-relief character SO ridiculously that they outright ruin anything serious the moment they're on screen.
This is what I mean with the lack of depth.

The best comic-relief characters can still very easily fit in the dramatic scenes, hell they could be THE characters that end up GETTING the best dramatic scenes.

Here's where I'd point to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead again because anyone who knows me probably realizes that it's my all-time favourite story of all time, where Rosencrantz, the character who for most of the story kept mishearing poor Guildenstern's instructions and initiates all humour, ended up being the one who performed the amazing soliloquies "Life in a Box" and "Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death".

But let's take a more mainstream example: The Genie from Aladdin.
Yes, he's voiced by the late Robin Williams, quite excellently I might add.
Yes, he constantly spouts modern jokes which hilariously make no sense for the move's supposed timeframe.
Yes, he transforms into funny caricatures all the time.
Yes, he's at times more like a magically induced Looney Tunes character than a typical Disney character.
But you know what, he also played a role in the big turning point of the movie that kickstarts the climax, the moment Jafar used him to become the new Sultan.

Oh, what, does he become a hilariously incompetent evil minion?
No, he transforms into a giant dark genie who's enslaved to do Jafar's every bidding.
Oh, then does he suddenly spout black comedy about how much fun killing is?
No, he's filled with guilt and looks very distraught about not being able to do anything about it.

And even outside of that, guess what, the Genie isn't stupid.
He's silly, but never stupid.
Hell at times he's playing the sane man to Aladdin, being the one who's outright telling him to tell Jasmine the truth rather than continuing with the Prince Ali charade.

And none of this is completely jarring, because it was written into his character from the get-go that he CAN have those insights and emotions.
The biggest breakthrough Aladdin had with his relationship with Genie is how he's the first one who actually asked HIM what HE would wish for.
He didn't answer in a "hilarious" manner, he was honestly surprised that Aladdin asked and actually starts giving a heart-filled speech about his one and only wish he'd ever have, which is to be free from the lamp.
And when Aladdin finally said that he needs the third wish as a back-up instead of using it to free the Genie as promised, he truly was heartbroken.
Not in a "haha, look he's mad" kind of heartbroken, truly in a soft-spoken manner where the audience really feels for him.

A good comic-relief character should not be a weaker person than the main character just to lighten up the mood when the story so desires.
In fact, most of the time they should be a STRONGER person than the main character because they should be the ones who HAVE the ability to bring light back to the story after first-hand experiencing the darkness themselves.
They should be the characters who go through the darkest of moments WITH the main character, and be the ones to pick the main character back up and say "Hey, it's okay".
They don't even need to go through character development (though that would be interesting too, but not mandatory), they're there to help the main character get through THEIR character development, even if it's as simple as making them (and the audience) smile again after the the most heartbreaking or most terrifyingly darkest hours of the story.
  • Listening to: Anyplace, Anywhere, Anytime (by Nena & Kim Wilde)
  • Reading: Those Two Guys Screenplay
  • Watching: The screen of my laptop
  • Playing: Thief
  • Eating: Food
  • Drinking: Drinks
After seeing the new Jurassic World Trailer I kinda got hyped into dinosaurs again and rewatched the original Jurassic Park Trilogy.
I have the Ultimate Trilogy DVD Collection :P

And after watching them, I kinda noticed what was missing from the sequels that made the first one so much better.
Is it the amount of moments where you're supposed to go "ahhhh" and "oooh"? Well... yeah...
Is it the magical adventurous feeling throughout the movie? Yeah... that too...
Is it the fact that the first one simply is the most competently made one? Yes, yes, of course, but I'd like to point to a more specific thing about the first one that made it better.

It's the moments where the adventure is compared to every day life.

The other two movies are all "We have to do this and this and this to survive, let's go!" and all the talking, while somewhat emotional at times, are usually there to move the plot along.

Now you might be saying, "Wait, isn't dialogue MEANT to move the plot along?".
Well, it's ONE of the things it's supposed to do, but far from the only one.
The first movie got it right, adding dialogue that don't really add to the event at hand, but add so much to the scope of the movie.

There's a scene where John Hammond, the creator of the Jurassic Park, is simply sitting at a table, telling Doctor Sattler, one of the main characters, about how he once made a flea circus.
He talks about how the flea circus wasn't actually filled with trained fleas, it's just an illusion made with automated machinery that makes the children go all "Look Mommy! Do you see the fleas?".

On one hand, yes, it's simply giving us backstory about John Hammond and why he wanted to make Jurassic Park.
But there's so much more to it. Besides just being a backstory, it's a great comparison of the whole idea of the movie, that the true illusion is thinking humanity has control over nature.
It turns down your scope of expecting dinosaurs and compares them back to the relative sizes of fleas, making the adventure they're in seem that much grander.

The sequels don't have those moments.
Well they do, but they're so barebones in comparison.

The second one has the ending where John Hammond talks about how the Dinosaurs should be left alone rather than have humans helping them out.
Which is fine as a message, but it's told so blatantly. It doesn't make you think about it, you just outright hear him say "These creatures require our absence, not our help".

The third one has Jack Kirby, the father of the kid character in this movie, talk about a fishing trip they had.
This is in relation to the fact that they just escaped from the Spinosaurus, which is a Dinosaur that attacked them in the water.
Now in terms of how they tried to do it, was actually fine. That's a great comparison of something they just witnessed and comparing them to a much more small scale event.
But now it's the message that's kinda odd. What are they trying to say? That the Spinosaurus fight was dangerous?
Well... yeah... but that's not anything to think about, that thing just tried to eat you, it's pretty damn obvious isn't it?
It's just there to emphasize one single event rather than emphasizing the whole message of the story, which when I think about it, I can't even think of what the hell Jurassic Park 3's main message actually IS XD

I think if anyone wants to learn this technique, they should take a look at the ending of the first movie.
It's just a scene of Alan Grant, the main character, letting John Hammond's grandkids sleep beside him in the helicopter as he looks out of the window and sees some birds flying.
No dialogue, just visual story telling.
It shows the end result of a character development in a heartwarming way and the shows the actual descendant of real dinosaurs, evolving thanks to nature rather than genetic experiments.
It shows that life DID find a way for the Dinosaurs to survive, they simply evolved to smaller animals that have an actual place in the world, instead of the genetic monsters that ended up destroying Jurassic Park.
It reinforces the message of the story, that nature shouldn't be controlled, without any pretentious speeches about it.

THAT is how you end a movie.
  • Listening to: Anyplace, Anywhere, Anytime (by Nena & Kim Wilde)
  • Reading: Those Two Guys Screenplay
  • Watching: The screen of my laptop
  • Playing: Thief
  • Eating: Food
  • Drinking: Drinks
Usually when I ask someone what kind of movie they like to see, they always say they prefer comedy, action or drama.
Well they can also say they want action and drama, or comedy and action, or drama and comedy, but my point is that there's a general feeling the viewers want to feel as they watch the movie.

For action you could generalize it as wanting to feel adrenaline or anger.
For comedy it's usually about laughter or having likable characters.
For drama it's all about being fully invested and crying.

Of course, whenever people like something more than the other, many will sadly take sides and start some kind of opinion war out of it.

People who like comedy will talk about how melodramatic the drama movies are, people who like action will hate the slapstick included in their beautifully choreographed fighting, people who like drama will say how the action is mindless.

Obviously that way of thinking is pretty simple-minded, and I think it's pretty obvious that a good movie makes use of all the three emotional responses rather than focus on just one of them.
There can be a preference in your story, of course, but a good story can't stand on it's own with JUST one emotional response.

Like always, comedy seems to be the most under-appreciated out of them, many thinking comedy is about watching people being stupid and all that.
They of course don't realize that without the comedy, people will never truly LIKE your characters.
I mean they can admire their skill in martial arts with the action or sympathize them with the drama, but to actually LIKE them?

Think of it this way, imagine your character is a very pompous and overconfident guy who always succeeds in everything and does everything in the story with ease.
Sounds like a bit of a Mary Sue, doesn't he? You don't appreciate the things he's done because there wasn't really anything that gave you the feeling he COULDN'T do it in the first place.
Now imagine if he's overconfident, but he NEVER succeeded in anything in his life and actually goes through a lot of problems, becoming the butt of the joke all the time until finally he succeeds in the end.
He still as the same personality, but the events have changed. He can be overconfident all he wants, but he's easily put back on his place by falling into a haystack or getting hit in the face with a basketball or whatever.
You end up liking him for having such optimism, even if still a bit narcissistic. And as overconfident as he is, you still really do feel happy the moment he finally succeeded in the end.
That's why people like characters like Johnny Bravo, Sherlock Holmes or Tony Stark. 

On the flip side, though, drama seems to be generalized as what's winning Oscars most of the time.
Pushing aside the fact of whether Oscars are actually credible or not, drama IS what's making people invested in your stories to begin with.
Sure, sometimes all it takes for someone to check out a movie is to read the description and say "Oh, that sounds funny/cool. I'll watch it!".
But a movie with nothing BUT Comedy or nothing BUT Action will end up boring fast.

A Comedy is about timing, but you won't ever GET the opportunity for the next best time for a gag without some drama in between.
Action is all about resolving conflict in a violent manner, but the conflict has to come from SOMEWHERE.

Whenever people think of drama, they usually think of romantic drama where a guy and a girl fight over something and cry cry cry, or some art-house movie where some student goes all emotional over a pen falling on the ground in slow-motion.
...
Okay, maybe the last one's just me, but that just sounds hilarious to me.

But drama is more than that.
Drama is about investment.
Drama is about making people know what the characters are going through, what they feel and what weight their decisions have.
Drama is about making you realize how one character feels about the other, or how a crowd feels about one person.

Drama and Comedy are not exclusive.
Naked Gun is a great example of that.
If it was JUST the slapstick in Naked Gun without any context, it would've been tiring and eventually the joke, no matter how good they are, end up simply becoming annoying.
But as much as people claim Naked Gun is nothing but comedy, it really isn't.
As weird as it is, Naked Gun has characters that people invest in.
The situations are still hilarious, but there's a plot going on that gives the characters different emotions to the situation.
It obviously gets made fun, it being a parody of cop movies after all, but the characters take it completely seriously, and that's the beauty of it.

The late Leslie Nielsen didn't play off his character's romance as "Oh wow, look how wacky we are as a couple". He felt genuine sadness and anger and love. It's done in a hilarious manner, but you're convinced his character does feel those feelings, and that gets you invested in him.

With the action genre, many people seem to love pointing out how mindless they are.
"Oh, it's just to show big burly men punching and kicking each other."

Sure, out of all the three genres listed here, I can actually imagine stories being great without action.
But action has it's time and place too, especially because action is the place where both comedy and drama can come together perfectly.
Just look at fight scenes of Jackie Chan. It's not just about watching how amazing he is as a martial artist, it's also about showing that despite all the impressive stunts he does, he's still human.
He gets punched in the face and is visibly hurt. He intercepts someone's kick with his own and rubs his hurt shin afterwards. He gets stomped on his fingers as he's hanging on the edge and actually whimpers in pain after he lands safely.
The action makes him an awesome martial artist, but the comedy makes him likable.
Of course there has to be a REASON why the fighting was happening in the first place, which is where the drama comes from.
Drama is what gave the story the level of conflict in the first place.

Sometimes it's just a silly "Get him!" moment and Jackie is simply trying to escape.
But there are also times when the one Jackie is fighting is some guy who threatened his family's business, or someone who ruined his career, or someone who's a real threat to humanity.
It makes you invested and makes you root for Jackie in the first place.

Honestly, the worst action movies are where you don't care at all who's going to win because you're not invested in any of them in the first place.
In the end, without investment, all an action sequence is is a bunch of creative ways of hurting one another.
But with the investment and the context, it's suddenly an underdog story, or it's a heartbreaking story of two separated brothers, or it's an epic story involving the fate of the world.

As much of a forgone conclusion it is, a great story makes use of all the emotions that come from all those three genres.
And the funny thing is, many stories generally already HAVE all three of them.
Just because it's a slapstick comedy doesn't mean there's no drama in Tom and Jerry. Just look at the amount of times those two end up very sadly begging against one another or crying as the realize what their fates are about to be.
Just because Avengers is full of action doesn't mean it has no comedy. People don't make posts on tumblr about how likable the characters are because of how they fought the aliens, they make posts about their funny dialogue, how Tony and Steve had a whole pissing contest about Justice vs Pragmatism.
And just because Titanic is all about the relationship between Jack and Rose, doesn't mean there's no place for action. It's the Titanic sinking that made people truly root for Jack and Rose to survive, and it's the fact they've gone so far that it's so sad to see Jack die in the end.
I would say spoilers, but anyone knows about that, so whatever.

The point is, every story in it's most basic form generally has the ability for the viewer/reader to have those feelings.
It's all about utilizing those feelings to the fullest while still holding onto the vision and moral of your story.
  • Listening to: When Can I See You Again (by Owl City)
  • Reading: Those Two Guys Screenplay
  • Watching: The screen of my laptop
  • Playing: Thief
  • Eating: Food
  • Drinking: Drinks

Journal History

deviantID

XNinjaRed
Huy Minh Le
Artist | Student | Film & Animation
Netherlands
:iconapinkishblue::iconxninjared:

Favourite genre of music: Pop/Rock
Favourite photographer: My father?
Favourite style of art: Manga
Operating System: Windows XP
Favourite cartoon character: The Grim Reaper
Personal Quote: "It's not Survival of the Fittests, it's Survival of the ones who dare to cheat."
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Groups

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconcrescotheeko:
CrescoTheEKO Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2014
:w00t: :party: Happy Birthday!! :party: :w00t:
Reply
:iconxninjared:
XNinjaRed Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2014  Student Filmographer
Thanks, buddy :D
Reply
:iconcrescotheeko:
CrescoTheEKO Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2014
You're welcome! ;3
Reply
:icon64supernintendo:
64SuperNintendo Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Happy birthday!
Reply
:iconjannoo:
jannoo Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2012
Hmm, it's a long time ago you uploaded something.... When will you upload something new? =D
Reply
:iconlanprowerkopaka:
LanProwerKopaka Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2011
Hey, I've tagged you!
[link]
Hope that's okay. :D
Reply
:iconsimmszs:
Simmszs Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank u much for the dA watch :dummy:
Reply
:icontsuki-soraruki:
Tsuki-SoraRuki Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
:icongroupjoinplz: :iconcreation-inspiration:
we're so honored you join this group
here are a things you need to know about CI
more information is here
for the rest I wish you a great time at Creation-Inspiration
and feel free to upload your creations anytime ^-^
regards, Crew Of CI
Reply
:iconnekorandomnessqueen:
nekorandomnessqueen Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Happy Birthday! :dummy:
Reply
:iconxninjared:
XNinjaRed Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2011  Student Filmographer
Ah gee thanks, didn't think anyone on Deviant Art would notice.
Reply
Add a Comment: