Book Totally Looks Like Queen Album
Book Totally Looks Like Queen Album
ยป Think you can do better? Make your own!
Pictures by: rockyhorrorsusiekat, rockyhorrorsusiekat Look-Alike by: rockyhorrorsusiekat via Totally Looks Like Builder
Create Your Look-Alikes: Combine two photos (the well-known and the look-alike) on our Look-Alike Builder. You can compare anything, from celebs to animals and objects.
« Previous Kanye Wests’ hair Totally Looks Like A termite colony | Lady Gaga Totally Looks Like Slim Jim Next »
» 71 comments
-
Recent Comments
Lola on Bearded Dave Totally Looks Lik… tyberius on This Kid Totally Looks Like A … Rue on Beefy 5-Layer Burrito Totally … Panda on A cooked chicken Totally Looks… Kitsen on Morticia Addams Totally Looks … Panda on John C. Reilly Totally Looks L… Chris on Russell Howard Totally Looks L… Sheyfell on Abraham Lincoln Totally Looks … Ama on Crazy Knit Mask Girl Totally L… Panda on This Fungus In My Yard Totally… 
Cheezburger Network Blog-
I remember when this album came out. We all recognized the painting. I’m pretty sure that the same artist (Frank Kelly Freas) painted both illustrations.
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.
1. Intentional
2. Wrong order. Queen album totally looks like cover of Astounding Sci-fi and not the other way around (and no, not even Queen is sufficiently awesome to invert time and/or space)
Win.
No. Lose. Because they are intentional copies/tributes
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL! Not even Queen!
I say that if Queen looks like Astounding, then, logically, Astounding looks like Queen. They are both correct, and when they were created does not matter.
if a=b then b=a, right?
exactly
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.
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
“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’
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Put and idea?” Now who is using bad grammar? It doesn’t take a highly educated person to see that th
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.
“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.”
It’s also not called “Totally wastes my time with things I already knew looked alike. Dot com.”
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.
“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”.
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”
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.
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…
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.
WEIRD! I was just thinking about that album this morning!!
Yep, that’s Kelly Freas’s work on the left – the queen album altered it to include different characters (the space human was the original), I assume with Kelly’s permission, but he didn’t do the changes himself (the new people aren’t his style of work).
Fun fact… Kelly Freas is also the guy behind Alfred E. Neuman! (Look it up kids.)
Actually yes, he did repaint it much later for the album cover. It’s his same work but years later. One would hope his style changed in the time between.
This just came up for some reason in the Elfquest forums, it was clarified that yes, he did do the art.
Okay that explains it. I was going to point out that they look kind of different. Not the same robot with the people ’shopped out, but a completely new piece. The ears and hands are especially noticeably different.
OMG!!!! He did Alfred E. Neuman?? That’s whacked!
these look nothing alike
This is racist. Er, roboticist. Er, androidist.
What is that thing anyway?
That is so racist. On behalf of all dead rock opera singers worldwide, I demand a public apology.
STOP!!!!!!!!
Love the bloody fingertip and the “Did I do a thing?” expression.
Who votes for these? This is idiotic. It was obviously meant to be the same. OH MAN, SPACE BALLS TOTALLY LOOKS LIKE STAR WARS!!!!112@!!1!
Especially when the album cover is THE SAME ARTIST riffing his own magazine cover for Christ’s sake.
The similarity is low!
I still have my vinyl copy. On behalf of analog sound reproduction equipment everywhere, I demand an apology.
Homage totally looks like original…
The same illustration appears on the cover of a book titled “Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of the Machine” by J. Storrs Hall, released in 2007.
Queen album cover should be under ‘Nostalgic Win’
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.
I wonder which came out first, i love that album!
Undoubtedly Astounding Science Fiction considering that it was published 1957.
DOY! What a tard… can you say INTENTIONAL reference AND the Queen album was AFTER the book cover… you ‘tard.
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.
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?
It’s not even an homage – it’s the *same artist* riffing his own previous work.
Then go to “Totallynotthesameartist.com” if it bothers you that much.
Sigh…
it doesn’t “coincidentally totally look like” the book. It’s a parody.
Please to look up the word “parody”. You fail.
Double sigh…
it doesn’t say “COINCIDENTALLY totally look like” at the top of the site.
Comprehension FAIL.
Not a parody but a tribute. Parody is deliberately funny; this isn’t really funny.
Oh it has been a while since the last “THIS ARTWORK A BASED ON THAT ARTWORK B TOTALLY LOOKS LIKE ARTWORK B”.
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.
so how do we get the message to the people running this website, that their changes suck?
You forgot about the idiots complaining about the order.
Frank Kelly Freas. did both.his robot appeared when News of the World was released in October 1977.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s funny how no-one mentionned that this cover was used later for Asimov’s “The great book of Robots”.
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.
NURSE FAIL!
oh my god it is the SAME painting repainted by the SAME artist! That does not belong on this site!!!