Animation in the 1950's is a million times better than today

...and more

Attached: Ballmastrz 2.gif (280x158, 780K)

Walt died and the studio started cutting corners with animation.

They returned to their former animation glory during the renaissance but once they left Treasure Planet out to die, it's all been downhill. Look at their CGI same face. Rapunzel looks the same as Elsa who looks the same as Moana who looks the same as...and on and on and on. Look at how they took iconic, near-perfect characters designs like Snow White and Cinderella and distorted them to look like Elsa clones in Destroy-It-Damien Shatters The Information Superhighway.

Shit's fucked, man.

Attached: Walt has had it with your shit.jpg (693x574, 44K)

If not being a luddite means fooling yourself into believing zero-effort tweened animations like that look good, I'd rather be a luddite.

I think you're just proving his point with that clip. I get the impression that he wants high quality hand drawn animation, and no matter how good the motion tweening in your example is, it's still motion tweening.

But then it's just begging the question bruh. It looks good when it looks good. And don't worry, animators still work their ass off, only in less time and number.

Attached: america_ani-20190216-193546-011.gif (550x417, 1.3M)

As we enter the internet era and social media, investing in marketing campaings and focus groups it’s more rewarding than betting on quality to increase profit
Curiously the animation industry has never been interested in producing quality media or art, just in making a profit of it

this
profit is more important than artistic progress

OP, are you 12? Just out of curiosity.
Because that's the kind of opinion you'd expect to hear from a 12 year old.

When certain interest groups took over and prioritized pushing a political agenda over making a quality product that enforced the nation's traditions and values.

Why is it that any decent western artist or animator these days has obvious influence from anime?

the mentality that efforts should be praised no matter the result. All those "talented animators" that spend 8 hours of their days on twitter instead of working are convinced their hate of the art make them really good at it.

Flash animation looks really flat.

Alice in wonderland was garbage. Change my mind

It's one of my Top 5 from Disney, personally. I won't argue it's not episodic, but I prefer the ones that shoot for being entertaining rather than simply being focused on fairy-tale schmalz.
The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, Lilo and Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove being the others.

The saddest part is that you're dead serious. Seek help.

>It looks good when it looks good.
Right, and the crap you posted just doesn't look good. It doesn't look natural or fluid at all, which is exatly why it's so easily recognizable as being made of basic Flash tweens.

Same reason every decent eastern artist has clear influence from western art.

Feature films and shorts tend to have better animation than TV shows.

Attached: afp.gif (500x600, 899K)

your balls will drop eventually just be patient

What kills me is that with modern technology, we in theory should be able to match or surpass this level of skill, and do so more frequently than they did back then. It has never been easier to produce high-quality animation, but today that level of skill is rarely seen outside of short, intentionally better-animated sequences.

Too many artists are focused on muh style instead of following traditional fundamentals. Even worse is shows that have art styles that try to be as hideous as possible.

This was a time in which animation was the reason these movies were funded- they were the selling point, the reason to pour millions of dollars into a facility; high-quality output that carried a film with meticulously trained animators. By this point most of them had over a decade of experience and continued to refine their craft as their motive was that well-rendered animation was the thin line between a good and bad film.

The lure of celebrity voices and characters from the 1960s onward (come see Louis Prima in The Jungle Book!) would ultimately lead to the devaluation of animation in favor of a recognizable line of voices and strong marketing campaings valuing them rather than the beauty of the film. This especially escalated starting with the box-office smash Aladdin in 1992- despite Robin Williams' pleads, the film made over 500 million and certainly a big part of that was his inclusion and over-hyping his role, and every film after that HAD to have a celebrity. See Matthew Broderick play a lion! See Mel Gibson play a cartoon character! Watch Danny Devito be funny! PIXAR was like that from the start, and even if the story was the most highly-valued thing in their films there's no debating that the alluring voice cast battled against the CG animation from the start in its' advertising.

The role of an animator became a joke with the advent of 3D animation- you became expendable, as anyone else with nowhere near the amount of training as 2D could do your job- the models are there, set in stone. The meticulous planning, references and rotoscoping that perspective and animation took had its' brute force replaced by a processor. Long gone are the days of creating a work as valuable as Sleeping Beauty, for the computer (and the tons of people who programmed simulations and the software itself) does all the brute work in animating a figure.

In short, it was celebrity voices and the de-valutation of animation that brought us where we are today.

Not bad. Is this show still running?

>mainstream hand drawn animation is effectively gone
>at best you get noodle cartoons or shitty flash
>online hand drawn animation is also dead
>starbarians 3 released after like 10 years but every other big name animator is retired or missing
>check newgrounds
>videos only get like 2k views

>What went wrong?
The closer we have now to that is 3d animation, and all the faces looks the same, in 2d we have Calarts shit or this

Attached: pixarfaces.png (1280x721, 1.2M)

Nuh uh, you're wrong.

Attached: rapunzel-20190222-194904-000.gif (250x500, 1011K)

That's actually a part of the problem, too. Almost anyone can animate now and there's a lot of competition as a result. And since people today are willing to watch even extremely simplified cartoons there's little incentive to go all out and spend money on highly artistic visuals.

Mrs. Incredible is the only fuckable one in that bunch. I want to bitch slap top right.

Didn't Youtube pretty much kill off their animators by changing their monetary policy about 5 years ago? Now all the people who used to animated just do LPs.

>And since people today are willing to watch even extremely simplified cartoons there's little incentive to go all out and spend money on highly artistic visuals.
This is very true, you even see it here on Yea Forums. People are so desperate for any kind of show that I've seen them championing bottom-of-the-barrel flash shit before. Not online amateur animations, those are obviously different, but shitty cheap flash shows that air on TV. It seems like people just want content period these days, regardless of quality, and while low-quality drivel has always sold, the idea that people would actually desire low-quality drivel and ask for it while being consciously aware of its low quality is new.

I don't know but from searching around, the only traditional animator on YouTube that's actually good is Aaron Blaise. The others just do shitty Flash cartoons.

He has really good tutorials for all kinds of graphic arts stuff on his channel, I've learned quite a bit from him.

Traditional Disney animation was hugely expensive, to the point that the company was on the verge of bankruptcy multiple times despite huge ticket sales. For a long time Disney was kept afloat by their TV side. Walt Disney himself was the one constantly pushing for absurd quality. The man was a capitalist, but not a corner cutting money grubber.

Isn't that an ancient phenomenon though? There was always a small group of connoisseurs who appreciated fine arts and entire crowds of plebeians who sought simple entertainment. Likewise, there were great artists and simple craftsmen who catered to their respective customers.
I have to say that the role of elites in shaping tastes has diminished in recent times. Far less educated and cultured people wish to pursue refinement as well. Perhaps they want to avoid being called snobs.

Every major studio that an animation department started shutting them down, forcing all those animators to work on TV shows with shoestring budgets.

You're a fucking idiot

Celebrity voices goes all the way back to Cliff Edwards in Pinocchio.

b-but without capitalism there would be no budget at all! checkmate, proletariats.

>why is it so bad
The easiest way to put it, is that animation goes through phases. Back then, they went for natural looking animation that looked pleasing to the eye. However, such time and care costs a lot of money. And it's extremeley hard work. So, animators bent into commodity and decided to use computers. The computers were easier to use and made animation fly faster. Big animation studios don't see the point in going back if they aren't gonna get as much profit as they are now. Some smaller studios still animate 2D, and one or two do it by hand. But I'm sorry to say that hand-drawn animation is dying. And we can't really stop it.

Attached: survival kit.gif (638x478, 1.55M)

>The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, Lilo and Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove being the others.
I agree with the majority of that list. But Aladdin? I'd probably switch that with Treasure Island.

Nope, instead you'd have projects funded by entities not concerned with making profits and ample amounts of time to perfect the animation.

It used to be done like that in the past. It was called art patronage.
Nowadays there still are institutions sponsoring artistic works but they tend to have a specific lobby. Artist themselves like to abuse the system and produce crap saying it's avant-garde.

Oh god, it's awful

Quantity has a quality all its own.

>computers means I can't make things look 2D
Why is the west so shitty and inferior?

Attached: dbz.jpg (1920x1080, 406K)

Bruh I like the show too but don't kid yourself thinking the animation is anything special

Attached: frozen pencil test.gif (268x335, 1.66M)

Seriously is Japan can do it why is the west so inferior?

Attached: cg animation.gif (500x281, 1.21M)

Japan is a society of obedience and non-existent labour regulations. Meanwhile in America, most people still believe they can own a house one day.

>most people still believe they can own a house one day
Yeah and shit like that is what brought on the 2008 global crisis, subhumans thinking they could own a house and banks feeding on their retardation. America is evil and a problem for everyone.

Why couldn't we have had the movie like this instead :(

I will never not be mad we were denied this traditional animation for Frozen.

You're the one who's a problem if you seriously think of anyone as "subhuman."

>not fapping to Honey and Gogo
gay

He typed while posting a 3D image that looks 3D.

The goal is the same, but the philosophy about how to achieve that goal has changed. I think most of the Disney heads of the 20th Century all held the same basic way of thinking - that the goal of the company was to make a profit, but that the most reliable way to do so was to create high quality entertainment. Walt understood this, Roy understood this, and say what you will about Michael Eisner, he at least understood that much:
>We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. In order to make money, we must always make entertaining movies, and if we make entertaining movies at times we will reliably make history, art, or a statement, or all three.
>Michael Eisner, 1981

Bob Iger's approach is, unfortunately, that of so many modern studio executives - this idea that entertainment can be boiled down to a an algorithm where all you need to do to make money is tick the right boxes and focus group the shit out of a film and it won't matter how poor the quality is.

Shitty subhumans are the reason why I can't have nice things and they deserve to be genocided.

Looks more 2D than any turd the west churns out today

Yes Youtube's entire system is set up so that in order to make money off it you have to pretty much upload videos every day.

It's impossible to upload animation every day. Heck it's basically impossible to do most creative content daily in order to be big on youtube. Half the reason "life" blogs and video game streaming is so big on youtube is because it's quite easy to just record yourself playing a game every day or just some other random thing.

You know what this motion tweening is okay! BUT I am willing to bet most of her character acting on this is limited to a set of actions similar to the one in this clip. Smooth motion is nice but there's more to the synthesis of the product than just that one element. For my money I prefer limited if it gets the chance to be more expressive

And as an aside, why is everything leveled as an insult on this website? There's not any good reason to turn this into a fight, its just a cartoon

If you slave for wages you don't live in a villa or better, you live in an apartment like all the other subhuman plebs. That's just fucking life, accept it.

Attached: Caesar.jpg (800x599, 336K)

>This especially escalated starting with the box-office smash Aladdin in 1992- despite Robin Williams' pleads

That only proved you can have both brilliant voice acting and magical animation. Nowadays, you have neither.

define better

Attached: A fight in Jojo's Bizzare Adventure.gif (333x263, 2.52M)

Agreed kill the subhuman billionaire parasites that horde billions and grow fat over the working class's labor.

Fuck off, I'd rather have billionaires whipping subhumans to create delicious anime than a bunch of shitty subhumans with shit taste incapable of creating anything good and beautiful like anime and only capable of shitting out shit. Kill poor people, enslave them, burn them all.

Tweened like a fucking rubber squeeze toy.

Animation is acting, and if the animators don't know shit about life drawings and how real people move and act, their animation is gonna look like shit.

Attached: chuckjones3.png (490x530, 42K)

>working class's labor
Beasts of burden are for work. Men are for breeding.

It's weird to me everyone talks like animation is dead or dying forever when all their reasons are economic or related to commercial television productions. Tv animation is cheap and bleeds resources, but that's not a new phenomenon, crappy animation has been around longer than most of anyone posting here. The stuff you remember, you like, that happened within the comically short span of your lifetime, was motivated most importantly by people wanting it make it and people wanting to see it. It's not rocket science.

And like, pull back a little. Cinema is dying an expensive death, it's not just cartoons. The models are changing, nobody's making money, nobody really Knows what to do with this. But that's fine! The system that makes it was never really the reason you liked any of the stuff. There will be new people making new things sometime, as a reaction to now! Impatience, impatience. Read a book in the meantime

Eisner gets a bad rap

Photorealist animation is a logical fallacy.

>Photorealist
Strawman much?
Knowing how real people look and move and make expressions does not mean animating everything to look photorealistic. It means animating things to look believable and expressive. Even though Ren's mouth is unrealistic it's still believable and expressive. That's acting. That's what's missing from those paper-doll/rubber-squeeze-toy tweened animations.

Attached: oh_my_beloved_icecream_bar.webm (576x432, 1.09M)

And even though this animation loop is technically missing an inbetween between the smile and the huge teeth held pose, it's still expressive as fuck and much better than animation that is technically perfect but conveys nothing.

Now you're just shitposting. There's nothing believable or expressive about Ren and Stimpy, it's grotesque and a shitstain on western animation in the same vein as Steven Universe.

This is a japanese computer animation. It looks exactly like anime. Why aren't westerners capable of achieving the same?

Attached: dizzy.gif (400x224, 2.23M)

>There's nothing believable or expressive about Ren and Stimpy
And yet pretty much every review mentions how intense the acting and emotions are. Ren & Stimpy has some serious drama, you really believe the characters are distressed, and because it's so believable the viewer gets distressed, too. When Ren has a breakdown you can really feel it.

It's a shame the Ren & Stimpy legacy is "hurr durr grossout humor" instead of complex and expressive emotions.

Attached: me_online_irl.webm (716x540, 655K)

people with broken eyeballs should occupy themselves with sitcoms, not try to criticize animation

Because Shounen, Seinen and Josei is all age demographics user.
Which means their animated cartoons have a wider demographics despite the target demographics of each animu not being particularly wide.

Meanwhile US stuff is stuck with toylines or childrens cartoons. Or occasionally sitcom cartoons, which doesn't lend itself to animation due limited scope.

They are. Sooner or later this sort of 3D animation is gonna be the nail in the coffin of hand-drawn animation.

Posting more examples.

Attached: i-no.gif (500x281, 994K)

he really wasn't that bad, all things considered

At least when the japanese do it it looks good and it's ACTUALLY no different from 2D. Would you guess this isn't 2D?

Attached: dizzy 3.gif (500x281, 2.96M)

90's DIsney was peak

Attached: g435ywq5.gif (400x300, 498K)

According to a production listing it's still going

He was your typical 80s business guy, but he understood the basic concept of capitalism that if you want your business to be successful you need to offer a competitive product, and for a film studio that means making high quality, entertaining films

bas-
>namefag

Attached: 1538289377954.jpg (529x712, 88K)

yes

I wouldn't say animation nowadays is bad.

It's just more manufactured.
I WILL say that the old stuff definitely does have a lot more care and effort put into it.

it's inspired by caring about things besides reasons to bicker on the internet, while the incredible user race comes up with a reason to complain about the details of forgettable popcorn flicks, mcu movies, for months in advance

Animation peaked with Sleeping Beauty. It's all downhill from there.

Attached: maleficent-and-curse.jpg (1600x627, 187K)

You're lying.

The fact that the story of Sleeping Beauty is so simplistic while the visuals are 11/10 has never failed to piss me off. Visually I agree with you but story-wise it's so predictable it's boring.

>imagine having the time and money to sit around all day and make mistakes.

we dont live in such a time anymore. the wild west of media is over. now look forward to a boring capitalist cyberpunk.

old good
new bad

please circlejerk me with (You)s because I have no life

I wish the new stuff was good but it isn't.

You're deluded.

(you)

Attached: 1541022900942.png (545x561, 567K)

>Bob Iger's approach is, unfortunately, that of so many modern studio executives - this idea that entertainment can be boiled down to a an algorithm where all you need to do to make money is tick the right boxes and focus group the shit out of a film and it won't matter how poor the quality is.

Actually it's the same thing that Roger Smith did with 80s General Motors, which was trying to design and sell cars based on mathematical algorithms, and as a consequence they lost their perch as the world's largest automobile manufacturer.

>I believe in care and quality, not petty bickering and wasting your life
said while posting on 4channel.org

>and say what you will about Michael Eisner, he at least understood that much:
For the most part this was true, although that still doesn't forgive Pocahontas which was the worst example of a tick-the-boxes-focus-group movie there was.

Or before that Robert McNamara at Ford. Unfortunately, he later tried to fight a war based on mathematical algorithms and it didn't work too good.

Nah, you are. And you have shit taste.

>Japan steals Western animation style for anime
>Western animation steals the anime style
I'VE. COME. ROUND. FULL CIRCLE.

>no,u

Back in those days people weren't necissarily better, they just had a certain standard but there werent alot of artist. So no matter how bad someone was that they hired, they always took the time to train them to have that sort of perfected disny/warner style. Well after awhile they hired/trained so many artist that they stoped really needing new ones because all the old guys kept their jobs and all the new blood were talented on their own and didnt require that training. But over time those older artist started dying/retiring. So disney/warner ect started experienting with other animated styles. Well by doing so, now no one was being trained in the classic style. So when the time came that companies like disney wanted to do 2d films again like Princess and the Frog, they had to actually rehire the old artist and bring some out of retirement because they simply just didnt know how to train new employees to draw in their style because enough time had passed where they were the intial trainees being by the OGs themselves but now one was there to really show all the new people the same techniques they used to train eveyone else over 40 years ago.

It's really just a cost vs profit thing at this point. Animation studios literally have to retrain 100s of artist to undo the years of diminishing requirements in animation. Alot of the animation indisutry looks simple now because its all anyone was trained to do. After the sucess of stuff in the 90s studios realized "we dont have to loo pretty" and decided to forgo the expense of high detail animation for the sake of telling deeper stories.

Someone in the industry needs to takes the risk and say "yes we can retrain these artist just like they did in the golden age. Yes we can take that risk because we know people will show up for the craft f we come back with something that reminds them animation has a place." The people are hungry for higher risk projects and artistic freedoms back in their animation.

You are comparing theater quality animation with TV animation which is disingenuous at the least. More likely you're just a shitposter fishing for (you)s. Even a lot of the really good shorts like Bugs Bunny were made to be played before movies and thus had a higher budget than TV animation. Felix the Cat is an example of 50s TV animation and it was nothing to write home about.

youtube.com/watch?v=amGbBFsiuzc

The Simpsons Movie was the textbook example of why focus-testing and writing a movie based on algorithms doesn't work.

The early attempts at TV animation in the 50s were mostly rather atrocious until H-B figured out a way to make stuff that looked reasonably good on a TV budget.

Honestly for 1959 TV animation that's pretty impressive. Not at all good by today's standards, and obviously not approaching anything close to movie quality, but TV animation was SHIT in 1959 and a handful of moments in that episode show at least an attempt at decent animation. I know you were using that as an example of bad animation, but in the context of the era I'm kind of impressed.

>Doesn't know the Plausable Impossible.
>Thinks he has an opinion on animation.
Why are you even Here? You don't belong at the adult's table.

>says the fag

>Tweenshit.

Attached: 1535335643596.png (800x800, 416K)

Now handdrawn this scene and it would look fucking sexy.

It looks good to you because of the animu face, not the actual dynamic frames of animation, which there are none. It's just a 2D puppet with no 3D form or space.

Here you go.

Attached: 1546886651972.jpg (720x960, 32K)

>You are comparing theater quality animation with TV animation which is disingenuous at the least.
Nothing nowadays matches the animation quality of Alice. Sad. Inb4 uninspired Pixar shit.

I wonder if you could do that with Disney tier animation.

>It's just a 2D puppet with no 3D form or space.
I know, right? "Bububu all hand-drawn animation is 2D!" Young niggas don't know about solid drawing so everything has no depth. I hate Flash so much.

This, but completely unironically.

You must be 18 to post on this board, user.

Nice cherry pick of the only game studio to get that to work in game form so far.
Name 10 other studios that can do have that shit without it looking even more simplistic and basic.

Rockstar makes better looking animation for video games and they're not animeshit models either.

Games like this have a budget of dozens of millions.
Now post the average anime, made with shitty budget.

Yes because there are moments I can tell things aren't handdrawn. Models will alwasy have this "static" form going on, whereas handdrawn is never identical when done right and thus, looks organic. See . The realistic man in the middle is the best looking animation in that gif, the 3D man right next to him looks more static and robotic, even with clean animation.

The beautify of handdrawn art is the illusion of 3D. Real 3D makes it more blatant how faked and "uncanny" things get, while 2D art is clearly 2D art, that when looks like it has actual 3D depth it looks more impressive. 3D looking 2D is just a style. 2D looking 3D is a skill.

But can Japan make something look as good as Frozen 2?

I don't see enough of a difference. It looks fluid like anime and it has the exact same look as anime, so it's anime enough for me. That's what I care about; that I get the same satisfactory experience 2D anime gives me, and they achieve perfectly on that. Don't care for animation beyond that.

Now show me 5 animes like that. You're posting cutscenes of a big-budget videogame.

I watched 101 Dalmatians the other day and I was amazed at the care and skill involved.

>I don't see enough of a difference.
And that doesn't change the statemaent I made at all. I've been studing animation for years, and can see the differences. Not many people see what I see, even I adress this with my mother not noticing the stuff I see in old animations like "coloring errors" or any of that stuff, and that's my point I'm getting across. It's not about " you" it's about your question, which I answered based I what I can tell is the difference between handdrawn animation or not. Hell this even goes to anime, as good anime still has unique, non simular looking frames that are a copy+paste of the last frame for movement based actions, unless of course, it's mouthflaps.

Case in point, the part of that gif where the character enter a slow down state, the hand of the big mook guy is clearly the same looking in form to come off looking static and of course, robotic/puppet-ish. Handdrawn per frame cannot reproduce this if you draw like that James Baxter guy.

They aren't. Look at the effort necessary to animate the hair of a single character in a modern CG movie. It blows old cartoons out of the water.

That is entirely computer-made but still nails the anime look and feel perfectly, so
>muh hand-drawn animation good
>muh computers bad
is just BULLSHIT.

>it's not about " you"
Considering I'm the consumer willing to pay for a product that satisfies me, yes it is.

You only care about style, which isn't animation.
I think I know who you are if past animation threads I've seen before, so I think it's best not to continue this discussion since you won't change your stance on the matter.

...Has nothing to do with the discussion, user.

It looks better than any anime ever made desu. But they still are small cutscenes of a big-budget game.

Nah, chunky shit that doesn't look fast and fluid like anime does isn't good either.

Weren't most of these movies done under capitalism, though?

Yes it does, all the bemoaning about muh hand drawn good muh computers bad is only because the West never had a specific look and feel to replicate via computers like anime, so what you get now is obviously cg shit while computer anime is exactly the same as 2D anime only done with a different medium, keeping a continuity the West lacks.

>doesn't look fast and fluid like anime

>muh

Attached: 1505438050181.jpg (810x810, 441K)

Most CG anime is clunky. You are posting a few exceptions.

That's what I said.

You compared a movie production with episodic tv production, which by necessity are different entities all together. Basically its a false equivalence

I mean the big question here is , why isn't animation like the "theatrical" animation now or at least, closer to that on a average basis?

Yeah, I'd believe it when I see it buddy. Only decent example is Evangelion.

Attached: 1542696569484.jpg (500x456, 40K)

Westerners think cartoons are for children so nobody cares about that crap. Anime fans at least are adults that enjoy a specific overall suprastyle (I know anime have different individual substyles but there's a difference between how all anime looks and how western cartoons look, sans those that want to be like anime) and look and feel so anime producers are forced to follow on that or lose their audience, while cartoon producers can just shit out any shit they want kids and their families will eat it up anyway.

And that was the result of massive budget cuts!

>Anime fans at least are adults
No they're not. They're either physically 13-years-old or mentally 13-years-old. Western cartoons normally have in mind of the entire family which means covert mature themes. Anime consists mostly of mature themes done in an immature manner so only teenagers could enjoy them.

Dumb predictable nostalgia retards. Not one original or interesting thought in this thread.

Disney had to be good, Walt was walking a financial tightrope during the early years and if his movies sucked that'd be all she wrote. That pressure isn't on modern producers.

these threads go in the exact direction every single time and i can't express my disdain enough for how much you guys don't know but that's ok. you guys are younger. i do feel a vague kind of apathy and pity for those who decide to have a conversation that people before have basically done to death before with ten times more wit and substance. and this isn't even just relegated to Yea Forums, it's like the whole site.

animation is one of those things that you really need to sit down and either study or do in your spare time to understand why things went the way they did. culture, different mediums, the economy, and a whole bunch of other things. holy shit, why bother

user, I hate to break it to you but "mentally 13-years-old" means you're talking about 30+ years old adults that you're mad they like what you don't like.

You are being a grognard. Hand drawn animation is pretty, but so is Zootopia and other well done computer animation.

Attached: 6253294221_204f337d9b.jpg (325x221, 41K)

>animation is one of those things that you really need to sit down and either study or do in your spare time to understand why things went the way they did. culture, different mediums, the economy, and a whole bunch of other things.
It's something to consider how a guy like John K who knows as much about animation history as he does cannot figure out why you can't do 1940s theatrical animation in this day and age.

Uh, wasn't there some Disney union because he was a fucking asshole?

Alright, you first user

Womens liberation and labor rights.
We always have to take it too far.

Attached: bait.jpg (500x536, 45K)

You'd have to be retarded to not be able to tell this is 3D. Either way I wish they did 3D animation like for their shows like they do for dragon fighterZ and what ever this weeb shit is. Instead we get stuff like Beserk 2016

But anime has VA's that are practically celebs as well, yet the animation doesn't suffer because of it.

3D anime sure is great.

Attached: tumblr_oaeeg2mcnm1rsghfro7_250.gif (250x160, 1.92M)

Reminder there's only ONE show that uses tweening in a way that's not dog shit

Attached: mickey-senpai noticed me today.png (255x241, 123K)

because the Rugrats movie sparked the downfall of 2D

They had 100's of people hand drawing shit at Disney.

What you were seeing was the work of a 100 different people.

Nah, all tweening is dogshit.

>2.5D/tweening
wow

Flash animation looks like shi-

Attached: tumblr_ovtgliptls1s39xfuo1_1280.gif (800x450, 1.08M)

profit usually follows true artistic progress

unless your main audience is dumbass little kids who can't understand or evaluate quality like with cartoons lol fucking shoot me

that's probably a once-a-season level of detail made as part of the studio's sizzle reel

Expect 90% of that show to be static 3/4 poses of characters talking

You've never heard of Titmouse, have you?

Attached: tumblr_ovminyM6K41s39xfuo4_r1_1280.gif (800x450, 762K)

Posting the few good animations of a show doesn't change the fact that the very nature of the software encourages reusing poses and tweening Titmouse also made Big Mouth, which was tweened as fuck.

BASED

That's because they pay the animators themselves the lint from their pockets. Japanese animators are wage slaves.

CAPITALISM HAS MADE IT THIS WAY
OLD-FASHIONED FASCISM WILL TAKE IT AWAY

All of them were. Socialism has produced jack shit as far as art goes.

I would argue Hanna-Barbera introducing sameface limited animation (and reusing a shitton of gags Looney Tunes already did better decades earlier) to meet deadlines lowered people's expectations a fuckton too.

Television legitimately hurt cinema as an art form.

And paper & cels don't?

Attached: ae5d9d10011d8c8af9950b2404aeaaa7.gif (400x301, 692K)

see . More of a budget thing but I don't disagree

I would also argue that something about tweening's algorithmic nature makes it more difficult to overlook, but I could be wrong

limited animation combined with good art is fine for telling a story. 'good' animation is not just painstaking, EXPENSIVE work, but it also requires the brain of someone who is both artistic AND logical.

the sort of gold standard film animation people in these threads praise - this stuff was made by experts at the end of their careers, on the Disney payroll.

for a TV show, why WOULD you put so much effort into animation quality? it's about the story that unfolds over 20 minutes. good animation for the sake of good animation is nothing. does a show like bojack horseman even need better animation than what it has? would that even service it?

When people post how the simpsons devolved in visuals over time, they are not really pointing out the animation and movement, they're pointing out the drawings and poses. that one marge clip is an exception, and it's from the intro.

Nice, you showed the exception, not the rule that should have been used since 2005.

>>for a TV show, why WOULD you put so much effort into animation quality? it's about the story that unfolds over 20 minutes. good animation for the sake of good animation is nothing. does a show like bojack horseman even need better animation than what it has? would that even service it?
Disney did this for a little while from the mid 80s to mid 90s. Their afternoon block was very well done considering it was made for TV.

Attached: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fdisney%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd3%2FCnDRR_title.png%2Frevisio (1440x1080, 1.9M)

sure - but the animation in those shows (outside of intro sequences) never stood up to the cinematic works. there are a lot of posts here comparing TV shows to films, it's insane.

Calarts invasion was a mistake

>The Emperor's New Groove
BASED

Attached: My nigga.gif (440x187, 1.06M)

i dont remember that ren & stimpy episode

Rotoscoping for fun and profit. And Time saving, and because you can't fucking draw 10000 individual images accurately, without fucking up somewhere. So why not trace?

when motion pictures started, you could get people to pay to see a guy sneeze, or a train arriving at a station. it was so new, people jumped out of the way of the train.

when animation first started, all the gags were new too. so animation had everywhere to go.

it's the same cycle as Silicon Valley. Atari was a great company to work for when it was founded, then Time-Warner bought them and treated the engineers and programmers like they were factory workers. So the programmers left and formed Activision where they could treat each other right, and make better games in the process. Fast forward, and now Activision is one of the most abusive employers in the world. You may recognize this pattern in American animation history, with Disney leaving Universal because they demanded to exploit him, and then going on to start his own company, and turn that into a nightmare for workers.

Today's innovating disruptor bringing joy to everyone, is tomorrow's slave-driving conglomerate.

Attached: singing-b.gif (480x360, 760K)

art is not science it doesnt just get better

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The animation is beautiful though.

because they are going for theap but palatable crappy vibe

>it's another thread where Yea Forums compares theatrical animated films to a syndicated TV show
cool.

That's not Wander Over Yonder

I know, I feel like as time goes on /co only devolved into its retardation more and more. They still believe dynamic and limited animation, is worse than simplistic smooth animation...

The death of cel is an obvious answer. Back then, no matter how choppy the animation was, you were always looking at someone's drawings come to life. It inspired the greatest animators in history to show off their talent to the fullest.
Cartoons nowadays lack human touch. Everything is CGI, animators don't do animation anymore - they simply drag and drop shit in Toon Boom or whatever. And that makes almost any cartoon look cheap and soulless when compared to the good old times. And sure, there are some exceptions (and not bringing up Japanese animation would also be wrong), but they are rare.

Attached: _main__16455.1525909380.jpg (800x800, 52K)

why did they give alice such fat legs?

This is a good point! But I'd defenitely argue that the ways animation is limited now SEVERELY limit both the good art and design you're talking about, and don't allow for specific moments in which character acting could potentially shine.

Like, you brought up the simpsons, and I think the early seasons of the show are perhaps the most brilliantly executed limited animations ever made. There's a million tricks, quick pans and reuse of footage, little ways they made crowd shots engaging, but since they're drawing it all their minds are more flexible and active and able to create all the shortcuts, and when they get the chance their skills are still sharp enough for stuff like homer having a crazy heart attack.

One quality of animation that gets overlooked too often is its musicality. A drawing is like a note, movements have a beat. Dancing with paper. No matter how limited the animation is, good poses and timing make it flow in a way flash tools seemingly have no knack for. Drawings are cheaper than people think.

Flavorless! no spice! removed from any useful context! boo and sucks!

Finally someone is asking the important questions

Attached: 1404278443922.png (800x700, 300K)

I don't think anyone asks WHY they're making cartoons any more. The Why used to be apparent, it was cool fun shit. Expression feels limited now to copies of before, an industry running on a ghost of it self, visions strangled into the mold of a TV format with regular characters and situations.

I hope film comes back soon

>luddite means you hate technology just because.

Its amazing how this anti-luddite propaganda was so successful it changed the definition of the word.

Go get crushed by gears and your jobs replaced by robots.

But most of those intro sequences were just clips from the show with maybe 15 seconds of new footage that's only a little better than the show itself.

>tfw you realize long term capitalism kills creativity and risk

remind me again why marx wasn't right about everything?

No, that show took iconic character designs and distorted them into a "Le Wacky Faces XDXDXDXD" style

because america has many guns to protect its billionaires. now go back to the amazon warehouse and piss in a bottle.

you don't like it? just go buy more money. here's a multi-level marketing scheme and a cryptocurrency and a lottery ticket.

also the format you bought all your disney movies on no longer works, which is ok because we're rebooting everything. pay us for blue will smith.

Attached: bitcoinguy.jpg (1200x480, 98K)

What is Spider verse

I just want a DVD or blur Ray of Star wars without all the edits and CGI robots added in n shit.

That one 1950 film had over a ten million dollars poured into it with a constant staff of trained artists who's goal was to make a single product for the animation/art of it.