Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 159
  1. #136
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    The ideal is to have both. But i'll take limited animation and good images over the other alternative.
    When you prioritize a still image over the movement, the end result is bad animation.

  2. #137
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    That destroyed your point; that we hadn't had good superhero animation since the '40s.

    (Admittedly, that is true; we have better.)
    Lol. Ok. Here's a challenge. Try linking some clips instead of stills. All of those shows have substandard animation and a very distinctive, and personally I think very appealing, visual style.

  3. #138
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,749

    Default

    The animation in Rise of the TMNT is very good.

    EDIT:

    All I could find is an AMV but this is still a good demo of the show's animation


  4. #139
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jcogginsa View Post
    When you prioritize a still image over the movement, the end result is bad animation.
    You can say the same about fluidity. If the images are repulsive to ppl the result is bad animation.

  5. #140
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    You can say the same about fluidity. If the images are repulsive to ppl the result is bad animation.
    No, it isn't. Because animation is all about the movement. A still image says nothing about the animation because a still image IS NOT ANIMATION

    If you think something looks ugly, that's the artstyle, and it has nothing to do with the animation at all.

  6. #141
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    I feel like I need to clarify something that I may have expressed poorly. I'm not saying these newer shows are bad or not entertaining.

    Animation is a volume business. Get the most money for the least expense. in animation this is quantified in new art per frame. If you can find a way to copy the same drawing into 30 frames, you've used up 10 seconds of show time with no effort. Do that 30 times in a show, and there's several minutes of an episode. This can be done by reusing the same frame in different scenes (and in different episodes) or it can be done by using the same frame for 1.5 seconds several times, or it can be done by interchanging a handful of of frames repeatedly (arms up, arms down, repeat every .5 seconds for 2 seconds, to show character frustration). Or of course all combinations of these.

    This didn't used to be how animation was done, but it has become more prevalent since The Flintstones, for instance. And artists have ingeniously figured out how to make their work stylistically distinctive so that this is not so apparent. That is to their credit.

    But that distinctiveness will be hit and miss. You'll have Power Puff Girls, Teen Titans Go, Superman TAS, and now Aquaman. What you prefer is what you prefer, but that doesn't make it entertaining or not entertaining. It does make the animation less and less fluid.

  7. #142
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    It's not good animation (not counting cgi stuff here). Doesn't make much of out not entertaining. If defy anyone to identify a drawn superhero show since Fleischer that is as well animated as first generation Tom and Jerry or Loony Tunes.
    Kind of unfair no? You are comparing theatrical shorts to television shows regarding animation. If that's your standard, then no made for tv cartoon has ever been good animation. And I still disagree.

  8. #143
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Kind of unfair no? You are comparing theatrical shorts to television shows regarding animation. If that's your standard, then no made for tv cartoon has ever been good animation. And I still disagree.
    Again, much of Tom And Jerry and especially Looney Tunes was made for TV.

  9. #144
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    Again, much of Tom And Jerry and especially Looney Tunes was made for TV.
    No they weren't. Not the WB or MGM cartoons.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  10. #145
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    Again, much of Tom And Jerry and especially Looney Tunes was made for TV.
    How much? Was there a dip in quality? And if not, how profitable were those after-theatrical shorts?
    Here's the thing, the Looney Tunes for tv were the very, very, very early days of television. There were only a few channels - literally like 3 or 4. And there weren't many shows because tv was new. Less competition, more of the viewership. And to top it off, because TV was new everything was a learning curve, including how much could be spent on aniation for this new medium. There's a reason all tv animation since isn't "as good" - they figured out their budgetary restrictions once things became more settled. Hence why say 70's era Tom and Jerry isn't as good as the classic era. It's all about the budget.

    Your argument is that no animation with non-theatrical budgets are good, which is unfair. If you stop comparing them to theatricals and early tv which still had the oomph of the theatricals behind them, and compare them to all realistically budgeted shows since, you can make a better comparison.

    It's like comparing most classic tv with classic films - the films are better. Does that mean no tv show ever was good?

  11. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    Again, much of Tom And Jerry and especially Looney Tunes was made for TV.

    Kirby101 is correct. All those classic animated shorts from the studios were done for theaters. Cartoons, live action shorts, and newsreels used to be shown before the movie. Cartoons lasted in theaters until the late-1960s/early-1970s.

    The first Tom and Jerry series for TV was 1975's The Tom and Jerry/Grape Ape Show. Every Tom and Jerry short before that was produced for theatrical distribution. Same goes for Looney Tunes. Every LT or MM short from the 1930s to the 1960s was for theaters.

    Anyway, in my OP, I'm really commenting on the horrendous character designs. I say "Bad News! It looks like THIS." Not "animated like THIS."

    No matter how well or poorly it's animated, the art style is still poorly done kiddie crap. The older superhero shows had bad animation in the days before it was farmed out overseas to save costs (which resulted in allowing for better animation), but the character designs were often quite nice.

  12. #147
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jcogginsa View Post
    No, it isn't. Because animation is all about the movement. A still image says nothing about the animation because a still image IS NOT ANIMATION

    If you think something looks ugly, that's the artstyle, and it has nothing to do with the animation at all.
    It really isn't ALL about movement. Art style and movement go hand in hand. A peice of crap can move well that doesn't mean it's good. Animation should have some appeal to the eye if it doesn't it's not good.
    Last edited by CliffHanger2; 02-21-2021 at 08:40 PM.

  13. #148
    Ultimate Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    Lol. Ok. Here's a challenge. Try linking some clips instead of stills. All of those shows have substandard animation and a very distinctive, and personally I think very appealing, visual style.
    So, you like the designs in question, but still think the animation is bad. I don't follow.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  14. #149
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    So, you like the designs in question, but still think the animation is bad. I don't follow.
    Designs and animation aren't the same thing. The old DCAU had simpler styles than the Marvel cartoons of the era - X-Men and Spider-Man The Animated Series. The designs for those shows were very good. But compare their stilted, awkward movement to Batman The Animated Series and the difference is clear.

  15. #150
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by green_garnish View Post
    Again, much of Tom And Jerry and especially Looney Tunes was made for TV.
    TV Animation wasn't a thing yet when those shorts were made
    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    It really isn't ALL about movement. Art style and movement go hand in hand. A peice of crap can move well that doesn't mean it's good. Animation should have some appeal to the eye if it doesn't it's not good.
    Animation is movement. If it's not moving, it's not animated

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    So, you like the designs in question, but still think the animation is bad. I don't follow.
    Designs and animation aren't the same thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •