Re: The Delicious Truth

saved

Re: The Delicious Truth

Okay, I admit I laughed at this.

Re: The Delicious Truth

rruffkess wrote:This shirt has brought me out of lurking. Well played... probably one of my favorite shirts ever.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I like the idea and style. It was a little difficult for me to make out the half-bear. Might be cool to see a little slobber on the chewed/open end. Very clever.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I forgot to mention before I love the color scheme. Very good representation. +1

Re: The Delicious Truth

Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

Re: The Delicious Truth

Love the colors!

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

Actually, the stipulation was no "names"--the term "gummi bears" isn't actually used. In fact, the example in the rules/topic section seemed to make it pretty clear that you could use a real product (Mountain Dew) so long as you didn't use its name.

Fenian wrote:Actually, the stipulation was no "names"--the term "gummi bears" isn't actually used. In fact, the example in the rules/topic section seemed to make it pretty clear that you could use a real product (Mountain Dew) so long as you didn't use its name.

I'm also pretty sure I've seen dozen of different brands selling 'gummi bears'.

Is this a resub, but with text added? I swear I've seen this before.

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

Normally, that'd be true. But you see, the artist submitted this after working hours on a Friday night. By the time the Rejectionator gets back in to work on Monday, this entry will have tons of votes and the Rejectionator will have to consider the "woot profit" factor of the rules, and that one's always worth more than the sum of the other rules.

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

Without spelling out any product on your design. It almost appears that the shirt is promoting an action, being foolish... Not gummies. Love the art but wish it was branded with a generic product name and the slogan your showing..

This doesn't even make sense.

elviswind wrote:Is this a resub, but with text added? I swear I've seen this before.

I too have seen this type of design multiple times over. It is not an original idea.

timelessblur wrote:I too have seen this type of design multiple times over. It is not an original idea.

Maybe that's it . . . otherwise, it's one of the strongest senses of déjà vu I've ever had.

timelessblur wrote:I too have seen this type of design multiple times over. It is not an original idea.

I was thinking the same thing. Groups of critters reacting to one of their own in fear/shock/confusion/whatever is a pretty "popular" idea around here.

I quite like the humour but I think I can see more than 6 colors

Re: The Delicious Truth

Same shirt, different characters. *yawn*

Re: The Delicious Truth

Either the shading on the green one makes an extra color, or the lines are too fine to print.

Johndis5 wrote:Either the shading on the green one makes an extra color, or the lines are too fine to print.

the shading on the green one is the extra color i can see (it is not the same color as the shirt)
+
red
orange
yellow
green
white
black

deadgoat wrote:I was thinking the same thing. Groups of critters reacting to one of their own in fear/shock/confusion/whatever is a pretty "popular" idea around here.

It was only a matter of time before "frightened food" made a comeback. I am not shocked that it's ramy.

Re: The Delicious Truth

Thanks so much to everyone who has enjoyed this design I'm glad you guys like it.

Now to address the concerns that were brought up. I know several people have made arguments in different directions on a couple of these but I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in with my thoughts:

1. The design is definitely only six colors. Both the green and red gummy bears are shaded with halftones using the gummy bear color against the shirt color. The line thickness is significantly larger than the minimum size woot can print, and is the size I use in all my designs with this style of shading and it consistently prints extremely well.

2. The design refers to a generic concept of a specific product, which is gummy bears. There are many brands of them, and no specific names are used in the design. It is sort of the equivalent of doing a "green viscous soda" design, where a type of product is clearly being advertised but no brand names are used and there are many brands that the design could be referring to.

3. I think the product being advertised is extremely clear. I don't think anyone looking at this design doesn't know what the product is. The inclusion of the pronoun (They) in the design with a clear antecedent to the gummy bears makes the connection even more obvious than it would be otherwise. The design features a slogan to a product, just as the rules state. I didn't come up with a fake name for the product because they stated that is not what they wanted in the rules.

ramyb wrote: I didn't come up with a fake name for the product because they stated that is not what they wanted in the rules.

It's all good ramyb. You do have my vote. I just noticed in all the examples gaven they did name the product. Just giving a constructive comment.

I'm a fan. Your shirt is beary nice. Woot On!

Re: The Delicious Truth

Not my cup of tea, but I don't see that it violates any rules.

I think it would be helped if the typing was hand drawn. That really goes for a lot of the entries this week.

deadgoat wrote:I was thinking the same thing. Groups of critters reacting to one of their own in fear/shock/confusion/whatever is a pretty "popular" idea around here.

oh I mean it more than that. I have seen gummi bear picture like that before. Maybe not this exact design but headless gummy bear stood around by his friends in shock.

Looks kinda cheap and the artwork seems to have been put together in a rather sloppy way. When I was reading through the derby description I thought the theme didn't leave much room for cutesy penguins or squirrels... but here they are, colored up as gummy bears.

thank-you ramyb for explaining about the colours
I only joined today so i didnt understand about halftones.
I find it funny. I wish i could vote for it.
maybe it might be my first woot t-shirt

ramyb wrote:
2. The design refers to a generic concept of a specific product, which is gummy bears. There are many brands of them, and no specific names are used in the design. It is sort of the equivalent of doing a "green viscous soda" design, where a type of product is clearly being advertised but no brand names are used and there are many brands that the design could be referring to.

I guess that is my bad then. The derby description make an effort to be silly; it is hard to take it seriously which is why I go by the rules more. And the "Green Vicious Soda" would be a "made-up" product in my book, so it seems like it contradicts the rules a bit in my opinion.... by no means is that your fault though. Just explaining why I didn't consider that part. I get it now; you can use specific, branded products, but not the specific, branded product's name.

Re: The Delicious Truth

Hungry now. :-/

Re: The Delicious Truth

This tastes like a winner. Mass appeal without obscure cultural references. It did take me a few seconds to identify that the red bear was lying down and headless. Maybe if he had been standing up (not going to say erect)

P.S. nobody eats green and yellow anyway.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I haven't bought a shirt in months. This shirt I will most definitely buy. Great job!

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

I'm sure the term GUMMI bears is trademarked. However, GUMMY bears is not.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I like the illustration. The typography use is bland. Still it makes me want to have a gummy bear massacre.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I actually really like this one. I do wish the back ground white fade wasn't so straight across but it's not a deal breaker for me. I like the colors you have on it too.

I imagined that "everyday products" would truly be everyday products - things that are general and common, like candy or screwdrivers or even tampons. Gummy bears are certainly not general. While I know that there is no possibility of this getting rejected, I wish woot had clearer rules. This is neither well done, nor witty, while clearly bending the derby rules.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I might be mistaken but I feel like Gummy Bears is a specific brand

Re: The Delicious Truth

Bravo to you Ramy on another fogged design and your loyal fans who have pushed it to the fog again. They sure love your stuff. My only crit on the art is that they appear to be more gummi hamsters than bears. Would have love more done with the bg but still very colorful and cute which your fans love!

also, how do you market or advertise your designs? would love to know. pm me about it if you don't want to post in this thread.

Only thing im confused about is that if they want us to eat them, why are they frightened..???

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

Gummy bears are not trademarked, and they are generic in that there are many different types of gummy bears available. I think you are misunderstanding the idea of "generic" here.
If he had a bag with "Haribo" on it, then it would be a violation of the rules. This, however, clearly falls into the "viscous green soda" category of acceptable.
It's kind of like if he had used salt water taffy or rock candy. It's a very clear *type* of candy that is not a *brand* of candy.

Unless you want to complain about people making shirts about "tea" or "coffee" rather than "drinks"

rowanmikaio wrote:Gummy bears are not trademarked, and they are generic in that there are many different types of gummy bears available. I think you are misunderstanding the idea of "generic" here.
If he had a bag with "Haribo" on it, then it would be a violation of the rules. This, however, clearly falls into the "viscous green soda" category of acceptable.
It's kind of like if he had used salt water taffy or rock candy. It's a very clear *type* of candy that is not a *brand* of candy.

Unless you want to complain about people making shirts about "tea" or "coffee" rather than "drinks"

Why are you fighting a war that has already ended?

CoryBlink wrote:Only thing im confused about is that if they want us to eat them, why are they frightened..???

The shirt is playing on the idea that even though they look scared, they're faking it and want to be eaten...

microwave_safe wrote:The shirt is playing on the idea that even though they look scared, they're faking it and want to be eaten...

Makes no sense.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I liked this the first time when CrescentDebris did it.

x3xleggedxninja wrote:Makes no sense.

Think about it this way- if you want to eat the gummy bears, you will make yourself believe the slogan despite overwhelming evidence for the contrary. They are so good that you are willing to believe anything because you can't get enough. You tell yourself that they want to be eaten and then feel good about yourself instead of thinking about the horror of biting their heads off.

llandar wrote:I liked this the first time when CrescentDebris did it.

Do you mean
Gummistone Park?

They're shaped exactly like the bunnies he draws, with different ears. The only one resembling a gummy bear is the headless one. Why do the gummy bears have white eyes? Are these tiny hard candies inserted into them? What vague expression these bears are giving doesn't seem to show that they want to be eaten. The shirt would have worked better if they were happy instead of scared.

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

palookaboy wrote:They're shaped exactly like the bunnies he draws, with different ears. The only one resembling a gummy bear is the headless one. Why do the gummy bears have white eyes? Are these tiny hard candies inserted into them? What vague expression these bears are giving doesn't seem to show that they want to be eaten. The shirt would have worked better if they were happy instead of scared.

Scared/Concerned cute things are cuter, and Ramy is concerned only with cute.

I guess

Re: The Delicious Truth

Has anyone noticed that while ramyb does have several shirts in the reckoning they all seem to be oddly close to being reckoned? And yet somehow they manage to save themselves just barely every week. I'm not trying to say ramyb sucks because he doesn't. School and a few others are legitimately great shirts. The problem is he makes the same shirt over and over and over again with a different name. "I'm not contagious I swear" and this shirt are practcally identical. And I can't believe he actually submitted cooler than you right after imposter finally got reckoned. No offense ramyb, it's a good design, but lets try something new, ok?

llandar wrote:I liked this the first time when CrescentDebris did it.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw the shirt.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I didn't realize gummi hamsters are everyday products. I've never seen them before.

sTyLeS wrote:I didn't realize gummi hamsters are everyday products. I've never seen them before.

I thought they were gerbils.

qwasdfz wrote:Has anyone noticed that while ramyb does have several shirts in the reckoning they all seem to be oddly close to being reckoned? And yet somehow they manage to save themselves just barely every week. I'm not trying to say ramyb sucks because he doesn't. School and a few others are legitimately great shirts. The problem is he makes the same shirt over and over and over again with a different name. "I'm not contagious I swear" and this shirt are practcally identical. And I can't believe he actually submitted cooler than you right after imposter finally got reckoned. No offense ramyb, it's a good design, but lets try something new, ok?

You're new here. In a few weeks, assuming you don't have a hard-on for hastily-drawn shirts featuring cutesy animals with dead eyes, your mild annoyance at Ramyb's stagnant 'style' will have blossomed into indignant disgust.

And the thing with his shirts surviving being reckoned, week after week, has been noted by many other before. But woot never does anything about it. In fact, they actively work to silence members who question the legitimacy of his success on the site.

Re: The Delicious Truth

The 'you gotta try this' shirt, with more color. Even I am bored. And I really, really try not to join the RAMYB Hate Squad. And yet, I predict the win.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I've looked at the design, I've read the comments, I've made the connections, but I still don't understand this shirt.

Is it "HA! They DON'T want you to eat them but the shirt is telling me they do!"?

I hope not.

IgnatiusRiley wrote:You're new here. In a few weeks, assuming you don't have a hard-on for hastily-drawn shirts featuring cutesy animals with dead eyes, your mild annoyance at Ramyb's stagnant 'style' will have blossomed into indignant disgust.

And the thing with his shirts surviving being reckoned, week after week, has been noted by many other before. But woot never does anything about it. In fact, they actively work to silence members who question the legitimacy of his success on the site.

Actually I've been with woot for a while I just finally had to say how I feel about ramyb's lack of originality and new design. He basically had one good idea that he uses over and over and over again. Almost as if he's re-inventing sliced bread. I don't care what you call it or make it look like it is still just sliced bread.

llandar wrote:I liked this the first time when CrescentDebris did it.

Ugh! You are obviously one of those snobs that likes jokes to be clever and make sense.

Re: The Delicious Truth

Does this copy THIS artwork?

wootvan wrote:Does this copy THIS artwork?

I think he wants us to focus on the artwork, so he can sneak by with a weak joke. Don't look at the bears! It's a red herring!

I don't want to fan the e-drama flames of ramyb hatred, but really. In addition to it being a thoroughly unoriginal idea (yea, par for the course), these look NOTHING like bears. I can't tell that these are bears if I just look at the picture. Bears have snouts.

chumpmagic wrote:Well, I hate to be a poopoo head, but isn't this in clear violation of the first rule?

"No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic"

Gummy bears are trademarked under different holders, and they are a very specific type of candy. Now, if it were just gummies or candy that would be gerenic enough, but this is capturing a very specific, trademarked product. I will admit, it does lack the words "gummy bears" in this design, but I think it is clear that's what this design is all about.

"gummi bears" are just another type of candy. It is not a trademarked name. It is a if the shirt was referencing "lollipops", being that there is no brand name there shouldn't be a problem..... i think.

deadgoat wrote:I was thinking the same thing. Groups of critters reacting to one of their own in fear/shock/confusion/whatever is a pretty "popular" idea around here.

this is unfortunately true

wootvan wrote:Does this copy THIS artwork?

Without the text, if the image stood alone, I would definitely say yes. With the text, I would say no because the text suggests consumption and not just mutilation. The text provides a slightly different concept.

___


And why are people still quoting my first comment here? That issue was cleared up almost instantly by the artist himself...

chumpmagic wrote:
And why are people still quoting my first comment here? That issue was cleared up almost instantly by the artist himself...

Just like how republican governors caught having illicit extramarital affairs "clear that up themselves"

Always consider the source. I'd never trust BP to tell me the gulf is clean.

slowjam wrote:Bears have snouts.

Even gummy bears have snouts, as proven by this.

Not that I really care about bear snouts, I just came across that article and decided I would link to it.

wootvan wrote:Does this copy THIS artwork?

Or this shirt: http://www.spreadshirt.com/-C3380A4695833

slowjam wrote:I don't want to fan the e-drama flames of ramyb hatred, but really. In addition to it being a thoroughly unoriginal idea (yea, par for the course), these look NOTHING like bears. I can't tell that these are bears if I just look at the picture. Bears have snouts.

I have yet to see a gummy bear that actually looks like a bear, though I guess there is usually a snout-like protrusion. Adding bits of hair stuck to the half-eaten one would have been an interesting take on fur.

I think the shirt is OK, but I would critique the (as usual, vacant) eyes. For this concept, I just wish they would blend in more - gummy bears don't usually don't have anything white for eyes, or any eyes at all except maybe for little bumps. It would be hard to make them "scared" with no eyes, but it seems an interesting problem worth trying harder to solve.

chumpmagic wrote:

And why are people still quoting my first comment here? That issue was cleared up almost instantly by the artist himself...

don't take it personally, most folks jump at any chance to prove they're clever. you've just inspired a few face plants.

AdderXYU wrote:Always consider the source. I'd never trust BP to tell me the gulf is clean.

even if you were swimming in it and actively witnessing its cleanliness? because that is basically the analogy you have drawn here.

llandar wrote:I liked this the first time when CrescentDebris did it.

Hate to say what everyone else has already said, but I liked Crescent's better.

Re: The Delicious Truth

I love the idea of this shirt and hope to buy several. Gummies are my grandkids favorite treat...even over chocolate!

rruffkess wrote:and this is after being a member for almost 4 years

Uh, 2011-2006 = 5.

Re: The Delicious Truth

make this shirt! =]

Re: The Delicious Truth

I really hope this one made the cut...