Comments on: Book Totally Looks Like Queen Album

By: lalagurl

lalagurl — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:50:31 +0000

they did this on purpose

By: TLZ

TLZ — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:29:04 +0000

it’s funny no one seems to realize that a good chunk of the time bands have done similar things with other works of art and that it is usually intentional/ has a purpose behind it.

unfortunately the same comment has been posted before, but due to the lack of spam filters, much of the silly banter above makes it hard to notice that.

By: uni

uni — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:05:03 +0000

oh my god it is the SAME painting repainted by the SAME artist! That does not belong on this site!!!

By: ulysses

ulysses — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:41:47 +0000

It’s also not called “Totally wastes my time with things I already knew looked alike. Dot com.”

By: Nursey

Nursey — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:03:31 +0000

NURSE FAIL!

By: Vic

Vic — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:51:39 +0000

As a matter of fact, Kelly Freas (famous SF illustrator) did the art for both that particular cover of Astounding Science Fiction Magazine AND the Queen Album, as a tribute to the original. He was a very prolific illustrator.

By: LeTapir

LeTapir — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:05 +0000

It’s funny how no-one mentionned that this cover was used later for Asimov’s “The great book of Robots”.

By: Pipe

Pipe — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:53:59 +0000

the Book was the firths, is a robot kid showing is dad a dead human, asking him “Can you fix him” like a human kid could do with an insect, when Queen’s drumer Roger Taylor saw this books he did contact the artist to make the Queen New albums cover with this image, but with the Queen members in the hands of the robot kid.

By: Bear

Bear — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:11:12 +0000

It doesn’t matter which image came first, the idea is to find things that just happen to look alike, not things that ARE the same thing. There are so many pointless images of books and album covers that are simply using the same piece of art, with minor changes made to one or both. That doesn’t count. They are the same thing, so of course they look alike.

By: Neopreacher

Neopreacher — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:25:00 +0000

Yep, same artist. Roger Taylor (Drummer for Queen) had a copy of the October 1953 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine and the band contacted the artist to have them do the cover for news of the world.

By: azaquaz

azaquaz — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:56:16 +0000

STOP!!!!!!!!

By: Ricky Maveety

Ricky Maveety — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:28:40 +0000

I should have written that a bit more carefully …

The definition of “moot is “of no legal significance (as having been previously decided).”

Sounded like I was saying the definition was of no legal significance …. actually, around here, that might be true.

By: Ricky Maveety

Ricky Maveety — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:25:12 +0000

Interesting comments, but a lot of people write or say the word “mute” when what they really mean is “moot.”

The definition of “moot” is of no legal significance (as having been previously decided).

It’s not that the argument should remain silent, it’s that the argument has no point.

That said, feel free to carry on the discussion. Moot or not.

By: Mich

Mich — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:29:59 +0000

First of all it was an opinion and where i come from they use to teach us to express them and respect the other’s. If you cared to read it I clearly said “IMHO” and “In my opinion” AND I used the verb “shall” instead of “must” for a reason; i could have written something alike in the first phrase too, true, but I didn’t realize i didn’t and besides i thought it was already clear by the end of the reply.
Second, IN MY OPINION (trying uppercase so you don’t miss it this time) this websites line’s (Lolcats, Loldogs, Sports ecc. ecc.) main intent is not to be an encyclopedia of all the things that look-alike but more a place where to post amusing, entertaining and/or funny look-alikes. Known homages and art from the same artist, although look-alikes, IN MY OPINION do not fall into any of said categories, hence TO ME they’re nothing more than trivia material and do not belong here.
Also, I think the poster should at least search informations about which came first; if you’re taking the effort to post, at least do it correctly.

By: thescott

thescott — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:53:38 +0000

Ug. I can’t visit this stupid site anymore. It’s 80% these homage “lookalikes” these days. Pictures of the moderators of this site belong on Failblog.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:56:17 +0000

So you are saying that homages and works by the same artist do not look alike? I fail to see the vast differences. When you have your own site called "totallynotmeanttolooklike.com," then, and only then, can you decide what people will see there. This is a site for people to see two things that look like each other, no matter why they look alike, and no matter which came first. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:03:42 +0000

My keyboard must have gone screwy and posted a half finished post. Then it stopped, and let me finish it… Whatever, the argument still stands, just one post down.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:02:09 +0000

“Put and idea?” Now who is using bad grammar? It doesn’t take a highly educated person to see that this site is called “Totallylookslike.com” and not “Totallynotanhomage.com,” “Totallynotthesameartist.com,” or “Whichcamefirst.com.”

By: Meowth

Meowth — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:00:43 +0000

“Put and idea?” Now who is using bad grammar? It doesn’t take a highly educated person to see that th

By: lorrayne

lorrayne — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:41:59 +0000

Frank Kelly Freas. did both.his robot appeared when News of the World was released in October 1977.

By: OrionRed

OrionRed — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:27:07 +0000

I guess I’d point out that only people who cite logic say such silly things. The point stands up to your logic, since the entire idea of creating a statement is to PUT and idea into a common frame of reference. If you think outside the normal, common and accepted frame of mind because you have some special education, then you probably have a perspective problem. So, most people would agree with me, while a highly educated minority would see it your way.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:47:02 +0000

Then go to “Totallynotthesameartist.com” if it bothers you that much.

By: Mich

Mich — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:07:21 +0000

Excuse me but I don’t agree with you; homages and intended lookalike (known ones at least) shouldn’t be posted here, not being amusing at all. You know, when i saw the, say, Victoria Beckam -> Falcor lookalike i was amused and kinda said “Whoa, it’s true”, but how can one be even remotely intrigued or amused by a known homage? Or a clear intended lookalike like this one? I mean it’s like saying that in Andy Warhol’s Marylin prints, the Marylin on the right looks like the Marylin on the left or that in his soup cans prints the xxx can looked like the yyy can.
It won’t go past the “interesting” level and just if I’m a trivia person (not a triviaL person, but a person who like trivias) but IMHO it’s not the site main intent.
In my opinion, the real amusement comes from the comparison between two unrelated things/persons that look indeed alike or even plagiarized things. Hell, who cares if a child looks alike his/her father/mother/grandmother/grandfather/aunt/uncle, or two drawings of the same artist looks the same, they’re meant to be that way from the beginning.

By: forge

forge — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:12:20 +0000

Not a parody but a tribute. Parody is deliberately funny; this isn’t really funny.

By: forge

forge — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:11:08 +0000

It’s not even an homage – it’s the *same artist* riffing his own previous work.

By: forge

forge — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:09:36 +0000

Wasn’t their best album (We Are the Champions, Get Down Make Love, ecch) but it was far from the worst either.

Actually I take that back – “Sleeping on the Sidewalk,” “Who Needs You,” “It’s Late,” “My Melancholy Blues” is probably the greatest Side 2 sequence since Abbey Road. Exemplary Queen.

By: forge

forge — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:01:50 +0000

Especially when the album cover is THE SAME ARTIST riffing his own magazine cover for Christ’s sake.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:59:23 +0000

Okay, then, can you tell me how homages do not totally look like the original? I didn't think so. And the "position," as you call it, means nothing. If A looks like B, B looks like A. This is not whichcamefirst.com, and it is certainly not totallynotanhomage.com. When the site is totallylookslike.com, how can you justify coming here expecting one of those two, and not just two pictures with similarities?

By: Meowth

Meowth — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:54:43 +0000

You forgot about the idiots complaining about the order.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:52:10 +0000

Just because the grammar sucks, it doesn’t make the argument any less relevant. I do agree that it makes me cringe to read it like that, though.

By: the changes suck

the changes suck — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:44:46 +0000

so how do we get the message to the people running this website, that their changes suck?

By: commentfight

commentfight — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:36:09 +0000

“Mute means silent or unable to speak. I suppose those who use mute, may mistakenly think that since the point is settled and probably not worth mentioning, it should remain silent. Unfortunately, with me, it probably should have remained silent, because the instant I hear mute point, that person loses all credibility. His point falls on deaf ears and may as well have been mute. ”

qouted from “Angela” from ‘hardlyawordsmith.blogspot.com’

By: Queen Fan

Queen Fan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:14:38 +0000

Uhm… Let me get this straight for you. Queen drummer Roger Taylor saw that science book and deliberately asked the artist to make another version for the album cover so that the person in the hand of the robot would be a band member. So it was a specific order to make a copy of that book cover.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:22:11 +0000

Thank you, Empath. You and at least half of the others in this thread can actually read and understand the concept of similarities, and that they do not define which came first. I don’t know why people are so confused by that, but too many people are complaining about order on an equality site, when all that matters is that they are equal. When two things are equal, it doesn’t matter which came first. That doesn’t change how equal they are.

By: Meowth

Meowth — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:18:28 +0000

And yet this site isn’t copied.com, is it? They are saying that Object A looks like Object B, not Object A was copied from Object B. Many of them were entirely coincidental, as well, which completely throws your argument out the window. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you would be happier at whichcamefirst.com.

By: empath69

empath69 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:58:15 +0000

Double sigh…

it doesn’t say “COINCIDENTALLY totally look like” at the top of the site.

Comprehension FAIL.

By: empath69

empath69 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:55:40 +0000

Thank you, everyone! I’d been thinking on this whole issue (and fallen prey to the ‘TTL implies order/causation/precedence’ assumption before myself) but strictly speaking the very phrase only states similarity. Someone might *imply* “…and they totally ripped off”, but the problem with implicit implication is the very vagueness of the language and expression of intent.

Just remember folks, the domain name is NOT “totallyrippedoff.com” or “shamelesslycopied.com”. And the admins APPROVE all these (supposedly) obvious copies/tributes/reworkings-by-same-artist…

By: empath69

empath69 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:49:11 +0000

No. Ivan means “feindishrabbit WIN” for pointing out yet another mis-ordered ‘Totally Looks Like’ one can easily see that the *magazine* issue is October 1953, which predates Queen’s News of the World album cover. Whether this implication is valid or not is not the issue with your statement, more that you misunderstand what Ivan said.

The fact that (likely) the same artist did both cover art with intent of similarity is irrelevant; this isn’t “Totally Ripped Off”, but “Totally LOOKS LIKE” – frequently the implication is made of plagarism or similar, but it’s not *essential*.

Just because ‘there’s a reason’ that one thing Totally Looks Like another doesn’t mean it’s invalidated; EVERYTHING ‘has a reason’ even if it’s just “coincidence”. If rip-offs, tributes and same-artist-’reimagining’ings were not placed up here (and CLEARED approval from the site admins, remember) TTL.com would be virtually EMPTY.

By: pbean

pbean — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:56:58 +0000

Oh it has been a while since the last “THIS ARTWORK A BASED ON THAT ARTWORK B TOTALLY LOOKS LIKE ARTWORK B”.

By: MotaPrego

MotaPrego — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:36:07 +0000

Amen, brother!!! I think people should post the TLL in the way they think that will create the funniest impact. There were many TLL that were better than others just because of the order they were presented, even if cronologically they were wrong.

By: varenoea

varenoea — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:56:22 +0000

Sigh…

it doesn’t “coincidentally totally look like” the book. It’s a parody.

Please to look up the word “parody”. You fail.

By: somebody

somebody — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:16:18 +0000

logic would dictate that “totally look like” is used to point out a similarity or parallel, anything more would be to assume too much of the phrase.

therefore, “totally looks like” in it’s truest form becomes “equals”

By: somebody

somebody — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:14:31 +0000

neither is a = b is the same as b = a.

however, if you were to study logic you would find that it is illustrated the same way as the example you think is “getting tiresome”

Where you logic falls flat on it’s face is the individuals frame of reference, what is most important to them. if i said somebody famous looked like me, i would be corrected, saying that i look like somebody famous instead, regardless of age. the idea of a precedent and an antecedent is a mute point as people will interpreted different what KIND of precedents and antecedents there are. and to strip that away leaves us with the cold logic of if a = b, then b = a

By: np

np — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:49:12 +0000

Seriously, just remove TLL from ICHC. Only about 2% of submitters can recognize homages AND put the pics in correct positions. It’s like 90% fail on here.

By: DOY!

DOY! — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:28:32 +0000

DOY! What a tard… can you say INTENTIONAL reference AND the Queen album was AFTER the book cover… you ‘tard.

By: Kanashimi

Kanashimi — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:55:48 +0000

OMG!!!! He did Alfred E. Neuman?? That’s whacked!

By: George Boole

George Boole — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:42:19 +0000

“if a=b then b=a, right?”

Not necessarily; it depends on the set of elements and how equivalence is definited. In addition, no one has defined “totally looks like” as “equal”.

By: fiendishrabbit

fiendishrabbit — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:23:55 +0000

Undoubtedly Astounding Science Fiction considering that it was published 1957.

By: Austin

Austin — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:07:57 +0000

I wonder which came out first, i love that album!

By: OrionRed

OrionRed — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:45:04 +0000

This is getting tiresome.

If I say “This band sounds like the Beatles” or “The Beatles sound like this band”, you really can’t reduce it to math. The connotations are different. The implication is that the first item is copying the second item after the fact. This is language, not geometry.