Classical drawing education

>All molestation aside

Attached: dOVnAxzaHyWnPng-800x450-noPad.jpg (425x450, 23K)

That sounds like an issue with the crews on these shows and not the method itself. Why didn't early 20th Century cartoons suffer from this?

>That sounds like an issue with the crews on these shows and not the method itself.
No, it's the fact that you need WRITERS to do the WRITING. Very simple even for you user

>Why didn't early 20th Century cartoons suffer from this?
Because they were essentially shitty proofs-of-concept at a time when the animation industry barely existed. Now that they're old and thus "classics" aired on retro TV (until recently) everyone sees them through nostalgia filters

To quote Hayao Miyazaki.

>"Illustration from the late 1800s up through the middle of the 20th century was absolutely amazing. In general, American culture was at its highest skill wise in every aspect of human life in the 1940s. It’s all been downhill since then. You just open an old magazine from the 1930s and ’40s and look at the illustrations in it. There’s nobody alive that could touch the way they could draw back then. In old movies, the cinematography is a thousand times better than anything today. Writing, a thousand times better. You buy any book on color theory today and it’s just complete poppycock. Everybody comes out of school painting pink, purple, and green. The whole damn cartoon industry has pink, purple, and green on their mind."

>"Those are the colors of Cutie Honey. Most cartoons are those colors. They have been for many years. Until Cagliostro made that change. Cagliostro changed it, Toshihiko Masuda perfected it. And then there’s been some shows that have followed Masuda’s lead, like Tiny Toon Adventures which has absolutely beautiful color."

>"If you’re a kid wanting to be a cartoonist today, and you’re looking at The Legend of Korra, you don’t have to aim very high. You can draw Korra when you’re 10 years old. You don’t have to get any better than that to become a professional cartoonist. The standards are extremely low. Same as in illustration. Not very many people can draw who are illustrators today, compared to the early 20th century."

Attached: 156932_v9_ba.jpg (1080x1440, 251K)

You're correct, but K was pretty good at breaking down classical animation techniques in a way that a lot of people don't. His blogs were probably the best thing he's ever done.

>No, it's the fact that you need WRITERS to do the WRITING. Very simple even for you user
You keep saying this, yet you haven't offered any evidence to support it.
>Because they were essentially shitty proofs-of-concept at a time when the animation industry barely existed.
What did you mean by this?
>Now that they're old and thus "classics" aired on retro TV (until recently) everyone sees them through nostalgia filters
With even a semblance of art education you can see that this is objectively untrue. Modern cartoons are horrifically amateurish by comparison.
Hasn't he said elsewhere that a large problem with contemporary animation is that cartoonists draw too much inspiration from existing cartoons and not from real life, like the early animators had to? That's more or less my philosophy.

ekhm...

Attached: john k animaniacs.png (510x549, 240K)

because people back then weren't degenerates

Quite based and, dare I say, redpilled as well.

>Hasn't he said elsewhere that a large problem with contemporary animation is that cartoonists draw too much inspiration from existing cartoons and not from real life
It's a major issue when you're drawing women, real women don't have hips that big and that they have breasts.

Attached: 560.jpg (736x1920, 428K)

Turns out that.
>I tend to be more demanding of comedies since a lot of them have similar elements which gets tiring after a while. Plus, I don't find Japanese humor very amusing so I end up not watching a lot anyway which gives me a notion that there are a tiny number of really good ones, and that most of them suck.

Attached: john k animaniacs (2).png (511x519, 173K)

>Hasn't he said elsewhere that a large problem with contemporary animation is that cartoonists draw too much inspiration from existing cartoons and not from real life, like the early animators had to? That's more or less my philosophy.
iirc this was more a criticism of modern characters - that they don't draw on observation of real humans and real relationships, but are instead inspired by other animations they creators liked.

Again... Read Animaniacs is much more of a real cartoon then Ren & Stimpy ever will be.

Even if he did not intend this, I think that the same criticism could be applied to the "acting" in cartoons (not that there is much anymore). All generic "cartoon" expressions, or people trying to do "le wacky Ren and Stimpy" faces without understanding them.
Animaniacs was terrible.

I mean, he's not wrong about animation just being done in Korea, it's still true today, most of the good animated shows rely on very meticulous storyboarding and nailing the music and voicework (like steven universe) or just completely focus on the script and are more dialogue driven (like Bojack Horseman, barring a once a season flavor episode)

Or, you know, you're family guy, where the visual gags are shit and the writing is bad.

Animaniacs was not just done in Korea (Akom, Dong Yang, Mizo Planning and Seoul Movie), it also was done in Chicago (StarToons), Taiwan (Wang Film, Far Eastern), New Zealand (Freelance Animators), Hungary, (Varga Studio) and most importantly of all Japan (Telecom, Tokyo Movie, KyoAni, Ajia-Do, Magic Bus, Tokyo Kids and Tatsunoko (proto-Actas)).

Oh, I just mean "Korea" as shorthand for "outsourced", I realize now that it was an indelicate way to make my point, I wasn't even really talking about Animaniacs, just modern shows that still rely on outsourced animation exclusively

>[citation needed]
Just about every series in pic related is script-first.

Attached: The Greatest Cartoons.png (1920x1920, 3.26M)

The only one of those that isn't so utterly amateurish as to bore me is Samurai Jack, and even that is largely carried by the good elements in spite of its flaws. I don't think a single one of those shows can properly construct an object and move it in three-dimensional space, let alone a full-fledged character who needs to act on top of that. Bland and stiff, like Filmation with higher budgets.

and they were all garbage

It might be because lot of creators nowadays grew up spending more time watching cartoons than actually going out and having relationships and real interactions.
They don't have much to draw on in that regard.
All they -can- do is draw from other cartoons.

Precisely.

What you gotta know about John K is that the stuff he praises is actually worth looking into (Preston Blair, looking at works by Harvey Kurtzman, Jack Kirby, Gene Colan, Frank Frazetta, etc) but take anything he says negatively about with a grain of salt. For instance I think you should also look into the Richard Williams' The Animator's Survival Kit and Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston's The Illusion of Life, to get additional perspectives.

As for Pre-WWII resources, animationresources.org/ might have some stuff, even if it's run by a guy who is/was one of John K's enablers.

You also have to look at stuff that animators might have been looking at, like illustration art of the time and read biographies of artists from back then to see what they learned from.

Then there's the Famous Artists Course:
randomnerds.com/learn-to-draw-cartoons-with-the-now-public-domain-famous-artist-cartoon-course-textbook/

The program was made after WWII, but consisted of people who would've grown up in the early 20th century.

Thank you. I've actually got a fairly good collection of vintage animation resources, but...
>You also have to look at stuff that animators might have been looking at, like illustration art of the time and read biographies of artists from back then to see what they learned from.
...is more in line for what I'm looking for. In fact, after this thread devolved, I was considering asking /his/ for recommendations on classical art instruction.

In this day of age you need to be politically correct.
>I forgot about Anime Spot, Spectrum Animation & Nakamura Pro in the Japan part of that list,
Those are not the greatest cartoons, these are.

Attached: The Best TV Cartoons Ever Made.jpg (4328x2126, 2.85M)

One of the hard parts is that a lot of the artists of the 1930's would've been getting lessons from artists in-person, so there's also the possibility that the lessons didn't get made into a book.

nrm.org/about/about-2/about-norman-rockwell/

Says that Norman Rockwell studied with Thomas Fogarty and George Bridgman. Searching for Thomas Fogarty turns up illustrationhistory.org/artists/thomas-fogarty

turns up

>Fogarty was a practical-minded teacher, giving his students' assignments akin to those they would receive from magazines.[2] He gave his students a story to read, and required them to develop an accompanying composition using authentic costumes and props. According to Norman Rockwell, Fogarty was particular about authenticity, urging his students to, “Step over the frame and live in the picture.” As Rockwell states, “If the author [of a story] sat a character in a Windsor chair, the chair in the illustration had to be just that, even if it meant we all had to go up to the Metropolitan Museum to find out what a Windsor chair looked like.”[3]

>Likewise, Fogarty urged his students to imagine each figure as a real person with a backstory, not just a stereotype. Rockwell recalled Fogarty's style as such: “Painting a picture’s like throwing a ball against a wall. Throw it hard, ball comes back hard. Feel a picture hard, public feels it the same way.”[4]

But not anything else on what else he taught.

>Are you folks aware of any good pre-WWII educational resources that you would recommend for this purpose?
You could download the Famous Artist Course and the Andrew Loomis books off of /ic/.

George Bridgman on the other hand, you have a lot of books from:

Bridgman's Complete Guide to Drawing From Life
Constructive Anatomy
The Human Machine
Bridgman's Life Drawing
Heads, Features and Faces
The Book of a Hundred Hands

So I assume there's stuff in there that he also taught Norman Rockwell, Will Eisner, and others.

youtube.com/watch?v=PtMU8nvZzOs

Animaniacs was on the same league as Laupta & Totoro, in other words it was a masterpiece.

Why is everything he actually draws so ugly though?

To back stab the Japanese motto of "make everything as kawaii possible"/do the opposite of what Japan does.

>mediocre french-canadian cartoons
>cartoons that were canceled in less than three years
>"the best"

It's not.

>but take anything he says negatively about with a grain of salt
He's absolutely right about modern animation being shitty.

John was capable of appealing drawings as late as the Yogi shorts or thereabouts. Much of the following was nuked from his blog after they fell out way back when, but his hideous modern style began when he tried aping Katie Rice's work in the mid-2000s (don't get me wrong, she's a good artist and I like her style, it just looks grotesque when it's being copied by a filthy old man).

please read this

Attached: 61VZQNl+ztL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (328x499, 53K)

>>cartoons that were canceled in less than three years
>popularity equals quality
Fucking brainlet NPCs

John K, molestation aside, is a rank hypocrite who loves huffing his own farts.

He complains cartoons are too stiff, except for the Hanna Barbera garbage that HE grew up with. Art and culture ended when he grew up, aside from stuff HE draws.

If you really wanna see what following John K gets you, look no further than the abortions that are his Simpsons intro and Cans Without Labels.

Attached: 1564722264208.png (877x470, 57K)

He doesn't praise the animation of early H-B cartoons, he praises the early seasons of Yogi and the Flintstones for their colors, drawings (particularly Ed Benedict's character design) and storytelling. It's not like he's just saying these things, you can see what he's talking about with your own two eyes.

In the general sense. But he doesn't recommend Animator's Survival Kit nor Illusion of Life and I think it's best if you read the stuff John K recommends, and also read those two books because you'd get further perspective.

I'm genuinely not a fan of Richard Williams and I don't think his book offers anything more than Preston Blair's.

HB's early stuff (the stuff he was raised with by the way) was excellent by the way.

Also if you really wanna see what following John K gets you, look no further than Mononoke Hime and Spirited Fucking Away, thats what you get for following John K's advice, not Simpsons intros and Cans Without Labels.

>>mediocre french-canadian cartoons
There's only one French-Canadian cartoon on there, and it's actually shockingly good. Probably because it's from Quebec, not cultureless Anglos.

People who don't actually read the blog seem to think he's praising shit like Scooby-Doo or Wacky Races. Go watch a first season episode of the Flintstones and you see...
>stylish character designs
>solid drawing fundamentals
>lavish backgrounds
>acting with unique expressions
...all done on shoestring budgets with "limited animation" (Ren & Stimpy was also "limited animation" by the way)

Every single thing in that image is for children

The Flintstones is a fun time-waster, but it doesn't hold up seriously in any way today.
(And guess what? That's because of the writing first and foremost)

Also fuck you the Wacky Races comparison, I'd unironically rather watch that.

>Following John K gives you the stuff he actively hates as opposed to the stuff he actually made

Attached: D-KO_lAVUAALKRK.png (500x499, 273K)

I think it holds up as the epitome of how to make the most out of very limited animation.

>Every single thing in that image is for children
Sure is. Which says a lot about the industry, not to mention you for making it out to be a bad thing.
Actually Fred's Head is for teens but whatever

>not to mention you for making it out to be a bad thing.

Yeah, it says a lot about me. It says that I'm not a child and I'm at least 26 years to old to be watching any of that crap. Come on, now.

Some of these were actually kinda cute.
youtube.com/watch?v=37c9w20DbSI
Too bad everything he makes now looks melty and awful.
The red head girl's eyes freak me out.

May I ask which of them you've watched in their entirety user?

Just curious.

Wacky Races was one of the better post-63 HB show while Scooby Doo is a acquired taste at best it's their 70s and 80s (pre-85) thats mostly shit.

Also about Fintstones...
>stylish character designs
True.
>solid drawing fundamentals
No, the drawings are flat but most studios were emulating UPA at that time so it makes sense at the time.
>lavish backgrounds
No, the backgrounds are very simple, if you want lavish backgrounds go watch Totoro or Porco Rosso.
>acting with unique expressions
True for the first two seasons.

>Scooby Doo is a acquired taste at best it's their 70s and 80s (pre-85) thats mostly shit.
13 Ghosts >>> all pre-Mystery Inc. Scooby Doo
And I'm pretty sure that came out in 1985 user

None of them. I don't watch cartoons obviously made and marketed for children. Because I am not a child. Would you seriously recommend any of that toy-driven filth to a non-autistic adult? Because I wouldn't.

user... those are all 2000s cartoons, with quality writing. Not 80s toy commercials.

None of those shows are toy-driven - I can't stand those either. Fuck, like half that list never had any toys made period.

Because you can't spell Yea Forums without contrarian, amirite guys?

>Wacky Races was one of the better post-63 HB show while Scooby Doo is a acquired taste at best
I actually get some entertainment out of these shows for camp/nostalgia reasons, but I find them vastly inferior to H-B's early work.
>No, the drawings are flat but most studios were emulating UPA at that time so it makes sense at the time.
That's a deliberate stylistic choice and you can still see the solid fundamentals underneath. Compare it with something like Dexter's Laboratory which attempts something similar but comes from a less disciplined background (though it does have a lot of other things going for it visually)
>No, the backgrounds are very simple, if you want lavish backgrounds go watch Totoro or Porco Rosso.
Again, that's a stylistic choice and the simplicity is deceptive. They still utilize good composition, solid color theory and even experiment with textures.
>True for the first two seasons.
Correct, the Flintstones declined over its run, even Kricfalusi has said as much.

That's fine. For myself, there is way too much quality television out there aimed at a higher audience to waste time watching low-budget cartoons for the sub-14 crowd. That's fine if you enjoy it, but I would certainly not recommend any of that to somebody over the age of say, 17. Unless you happen to have a large appetite for cartoons, regardless of their quality. Personally, I don't.

I'm talking about John K's Jetsons reboot in 1985.
Avatar was made to cash in on the anime boom, it was also being funded by Mattel as well.

Actually you can, it doesn't have slashes. You can't spell Yea Forumsntrarian though

Why are you on Yea Forums, then? If you want somewthing without cartoons, go to Yea Forums instead. Unless you're so much of an insecure manlet that you cringe at the sight of seeing something you don't like.
(Also, adult cartoons like Home Movies and Venture Bros exist, but I bet you think that they're for children, too.)

Avatar costs $1 million a episode but most of that was just plane trips to China and Mako's/Mark Hamill's pay check.
Korra on the other hand was only $200,000-$300,000 per episode for books 1 through 3 when Studio Mir did the episodes, book 4's episodes however are only $90,000 each.

>I only watch mature cartoons made for responsible adults such as myself

>there is way too much quality television
Completely untrue, especially nowadays.
>Unless you happen to have a large appetite for cartoons
I do. In no small part because actors age, but cartoons are timeless.
One would hope that most participants on this board share that view.
>regardless of their quality
I have very high standards for cartoons though, especially writing-wise. So high that I feel it's limiting me from enjoying more of them

Also, I'll just add that "adult cartoons" are absolute garbage and unwatchable for anyone with a modicum of intelligence, of any age. So if you're into Western animation there isn't much choice (anime is a different story ofc)

I was mostly responding to the slight at the classic Warner Brothers shorts, which I definitely DO still enjoy very much, even into my 40s. I found it amusing that someone would post an image of cartoons they have a lot of nostalgia for as an example of quality anything. Hey, I love the crappy cartoons I watched as a 10-year old, too. Transformers and G.I. Joe are absolute guilty pleasures of mine. But they're garbage, through and through. I would never tell somebody they have good writing, and I certainly would not compare them to the classic cartoons that were made with such a higher standard of quality that they're not even remotely comparable.

>but cartoons are timeless.

They really aren't. Outside of a very small handful.

>classical art instruction
you can find a bunch of old books through the /ic/ sticky

Does not make them bad however.
vimeo.com/152131584

Hate to break it to you user, but most of the shows on that list I discovered as an adult. I had no idea they even existed back in the day.
Now on the other hand I watched so much Looney Tunes and like half the H-B library as a kid, so you'd think I'd be nostalgic for that... but nope.

So your nostalgia argument is invalid on both counts

>I only watch content aimed at people in my general age group, or older.

Yeah.

So you're watching cartoons obviously aimed at children as an adult without a hint of nostalgia attached?

That is so much worse.

It's called judging things by their merit, not the labels that someone else attached.

Usually that kind of wisdom appears with... age

some adults have children of their own

OK, I'm assuming you're what...mid-20s? That seems to be the median age around these parts. That would put you around possibly College age, and I know a lot of kids enjoy watching the stuff on Cartoon Network late at night while high. That's a totally different thing, though.

What I'm talking about is completely sober adult individuals watching low-budget trash cartoons for kids. How do you focus your mind on watching a cartoon featuring child characters in childish situations all while having very low production values and amateurish acting? I can understand somebody of a very young age not knowing any better enjoying it, but I can't for the life of me understand how people into their 20s (and 30s in some cases!) can bring themselves to enjoy it.

I can watch a Disney film featuring child-like characters because the storytelling and animation are superbly done. Even if the whimsy fantasy is obviously aimed towards the young, there's enough skill and craft being put on screen that people of an older age can still appreciate it? But the stuff you're talking about? I can't even fathom it.

The benefit of animation is that you can do things that you can't do in real life. In some ways, animation is an exaggeration of reality and expression. It's better than reality in some ways. But when it's so low budget and lacking any kind of merit, artistically, you might as well just listen to audio books from actual good writers. And when it's aimed at children, there isn't even any kind of themes that an adult can relate to. You'd have to suffer from Peter Pan-syndrome to enjoy it, honestly.

You say all this, and yet you forget that even cartoons aimed for adults can also be low budget, like South Park.

Attached: Mindy.png (250x204, 77K)

Most cartoons for adults are low budget. I wouldn't watch those either, but at least they're aimed at adults, I guess.

>How do you focus your mind on watching a cartoon featuring child characters in childish situations all while having very low production values and amateurish acting?
Because the shows I watch have neither childish situations, nor low production values, nor amateurish acting?
You'd know that if you actually watched them.

>I can watch a Disney film featuring child-like characters because the storytelling and animation are superbly done.
*I* can't understand how adults watch Disney movies. Fuck, I can't even understand how kids watch them really. They are so obviously mass-produced it almost makes me sick

It seems your tastes, user, are much less about watching "adult" stuff and much more about watching what's "acceptable" for adults according to mainstream society. And that's fucking terrible.

>Because the shows I watch have neither childish situations, nor low production values, nor amateurish acting?

If these are the shows you're referring to

then your standards are a wholeeeeee lot lower than mine. That's all I can say, lol

Simpsons is millions to make while Family Guy is $1-2 million due to licencing royalties such as whenever they use Bugs Bunny, Fred Flintstone or Superman.

Not him, but out of those shows Samurai Jack had maybe three childish episodes, an extremely high production cost, and used classical film techniques in terms of both acting and shot composition. The fact that you're handwaving it makes me think that you've never even given it a shot.

$300,000 is not a high production cost mind you.

>laughing tumblr calarts

id say Avatar and Samurai jack have mostly well executed adult themes and are of a high standard. if Batman the animated series was up there too, its on the level.

bar kim possible (its a good *kids* show, anons just find Kim and Shego hot so it clouds judgment), and that racers show (i havent seen it), the rest of the shows listed have an adult theme/tone maybe 10% of the time. it makes it the higher tier of made for kids shows and they arent awful. I believe enjoying them and getting attached to the characters are by no means low standard.

Art is subjective user. Im sorry you're too autistic to understand that. maybe you need some electric convulsive therapy or to go back in time to stop your mummy from giving you vaxxines.

>autistic

I'd say you'd probably need to suffer from it in order to watch any of those childish shows as an adult, yeah.

Tiny Toons & Animaniacs did those adult themes much better and Avatar was extremely juvenile in how it set up everything.

, yeah

hey at least I can look hot women in the eye when I talk to them.

how about you? 40 year old lurker boomer on Yea Forums

Attached: how lame anon.jpg (634x650, 45K)

I'm married and have a nearly adult son. Even he's too old to watch the crap you watch.

can you explain in more detail, please.

I felt season 1 of avatar was quite juvenile and korra of course had bad set up.

That's the most normalfag opinion I've ever heard.
In fact, why are you even on Yea Forums in the first place if they discuss what you call childish.

So, it's confirmed. You're a normalfag. Plus, if you've had sex, why would you go on Yea Forums, of all places?

Avatar was supposed to take everything seriously but instead everyone acted like a jackaninny when they were supposed to take it seriously.

>Yea Forums

Gentle reminder that "normalfag" is just slang for "person who does not suffer from autism or other forms of mental disorder."

...I didnt understand it.

ahh, so i was wrong about you.

...you're just an old boomer fart.

the delivery of your opinions still give me aspie vibes. its very Dwight Schrutish of you.

either that or your the most normal fag that you lack any personality or understanding of tastes that differ. such a bore...

Attached: boomer.jpg (675x601, 106K)

sorry to ask again,

can you give an example or scene or character that comes to mind?

and can you give an example/episode of how tiny toons/animaniacs did it better?

can you give an example of an 'appropriate' show (animated) that you or your son should watch??

>ahh, so i was wrong about you.

At least you understand that there is an age limit to the types of show you watch. Yes, you are much, much younger than me. You are still far too old to be watching cartoons for children. Sorry.

So, everyone on Yea Forums is autistic, right? Because we, by any chance, are not normal.
Unless you only heard of this site through mainstream reports.

what are the distinctions that makes a cartoon for a child vs for an adult?
i would like clear examples as well, if you have any.

Nah, he's probably that kind of guy who thinks animation for the small screen are for children.
Besides, he'll only ever watch the mainstream stuff, anyway.

This sounds like another made up quote.

>Hasn't he said elsewhere that a large problem with contemporary animation is that cartoonists draw too much inspiration from existing cartoons and not from real life, like the early animators had to?
Yes, but he's completely wrong about that.

There is anime that is realistic and anime that is less realistic, and the fact that something is unrealistic does not mean that it was a result of the authors failing to achieve realism. Is Kill la Kill the way it is because Trigger didn't understand how to make a realistic anime?

Otaku, which is what he was talking about, are not anti-social. That is just a myth. Making anime also requires a lot of cooperation between people, and a lot of anime is directly based on the real world.

These figures are extremely unrealistic given that an average half hour show in America costs around half a million.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maltese

Story man =/= script writer. I already pointed out that there were gag men and outlines back then.

He's credited as writer, and it shows they still had someone dedicated to writing. It wasn't Chuck Jones who wrote What's Opera Doc.

Again, it's been established that "writing" does not entail a script. The vast majority of cartoons are "written" in some sense.

I'm not sure why you're making the assumption that there was no script. I'm not even sure what arbitrary definition for "script" you have in mind.

The point is there was a writer. I'm not the person you have been arguing with earlier in the thread, and I don't care what your opinions on writing are. I'm plainly pointing out there was a writer involved with these "greatest cartoons of all time." He was involved consistently. He wrote. No amount of mental gymnastics or autistic pedantry can change this.

I feel like we're confusing "scripts" and "long running narratives"
Every episode of every show listed in that picture isn't a post recorded animated adaptation of comedian voice actors ad-libing and fucking around in a sound booth, so they all had scripts and script writers.

Are you genuinely unaware of what a “script” is?

I'm sure you'll enlighten us with your convoluted, pedantic definition of script that is so arbitrary as to preclude everything Maltese did as "script writing," even though he's credited as a screen writer.

What’s your definition? I’ll tell you if what you describe was utilized on the WB cartoons.

This is pathetic.

No no, you go ahead. You made the claim that cartoons don't need a script and used an image from Rabbit Hood as an example, even though it has a credited story writer. You tell me why you think it has no script, contravening credits and reality.

I don't care whether you think writing is unimportant. Everyone on Yea Forums is entitled to their garbage opinions. But don't try to bend reality. You were wrong, just admit it instead of trying to turn this into a desperate game of semantics.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFovU64o0w4

Warner Bros. cartoons were not scripted, at least not prior to the 1960s. You will not find a “script” for any of Chuck’s WB cartoons. Creative input from non-artist “writers” in the Golden Age of animation was limited mostly to very broad outlines from story men, and some jokes from gag men. The vast majority of the “writing” was done by artists at the storyboard stage and refined/expanded by animators during the layout, since they were essentially the “actors”.

“ ”

>inb4 that's not scripting, that's just pre-visualization word-smithing(tm)!

Attached: wbtoon1.jpg (770x1079, 238K)

>story man
That’s literally an outline.

Cow and Chicken was terrible. I am Weasel managed to be by the same people with shared characters and was actually funny. I don't know how it happened.

>This sounds like another made up quote.
It's not.
>These figures are extremely unrealistic given that an average half hour show in America costs around half a million.
Not since the 90s because in those days we were outsourcing to places like Japan, Chicago, New Zealand and Australia, Korea really drops the budget down alot.
Cow and Chicken was excellent, so was Johnny Bravo.

Ok, is there a legit source for the quote?

>Not since the 90s because in those days we were outsourcing to places like Japan, Chicago, New Zealand and Australia, Korea really drops the budget down alot.
I am talking about the present day.

Uhhh....

Attached: 1498073184102.jpg (1050x1018, 771K)

>this image again
These figures are not correct and won't become correct no matter how many times this image is posted.

Something being "For children" doesn't immediately reduce its quality.
Wtf are you on about?

Yes they are, AT does not cost $350,000 per 11 as if it did it will not be animated in Korea.

American shows have episode budgets in the hundreds of thousands, and that is with Korean outsourcing. Not even anime budgets (for normal shows) go below 100K.

The illusion of life is just Disney Studios wankery and there's nothing super important in there for animators.

And IIRC John K said the Suvival Kit is fine for advanced techniques but recommends Preston Blair for beginners since the animation princles are very obvious and simplified in his book.

Voltron:LD will like to have a word with you as that show was only $90,000 a episode thanks to Korea, plus kids anime is half that of otaku anime per episode as the extra cost is nothing but bloated checks for the voice actors.

>that show was only $90,000 a episode
No it wasn't. Stop making these posts.

>plus kids anime is half that of otaku anime per episode as the extra cost is nothing but bloated checks for the voice actors.
Japanese voice actors are paid very little per anime episode.

You're asking about improving your drawing and most everyone is talking scripts and bad writing.

To go beyond Preston Blair, get books by Andrew Loomis and Burne Hogarth. They wrote the best "how to draw" books ever and they're all on-line now as PDFs if you'll just to a little hunting.
I'd also recommend Jack Hamm.

>No it wasn't. Stop making these posts.
Yes it was, it it wasn't it would of been done in the States by Titmouse and be 100% animated on 1s with no CG in sight if it costed $4 million per episode.
>Japanese voice actors are paid very little per anime episode.
Hence why they do otaku shows, they pay more.

Is the guy on the right a Homestuck troll

You are delusional and a pathological liar.

>Hence why they do otaku shows, they pay more.
Their pay is based on their rank, not on how "otaku" the show they're working on is.

No I'm not, you are.

Also it also depend on the studio as well but kids anime is half the cost of otaku anime.

You are just making shit up out of thin air.

No I'm not, you are.

You are without question one of the most useless and infuriating users on the site.

No you are.
We're getting off topic.

John K and Hayao have very similar writing styles...

But Hayao is the better man, he does not have sex with kids.

I always knew he was the real auteur behind Spirited Away.