Is Conventional Animation Doomed?

[JDWeil]

Yeah, I know, we've been through this before 2D vs. CGI. But something I've noticed that in TV animation Flash is making some incursions. Thre are currently three shows that Iknow of that use Flash. Mucha Lucha!, Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends, and Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi.(If there are any others, I'd like to know) The reasons seem to be economic. Smaller crews, and the work doesn't have to be outsourced. Between CGI and Flash, conventional 2D animation may not survive. I wonder what the rest of you might think about it.

[Killtacular]

Flash animation creates jobs for animators in the US that is not possible with "conventional" animation. What is the problem here?

[SirLemming]

What do you mean by "conventional"? I think Flash is conventional enough, at least compared to CGI. It's still got that nice stylized quality that CGI will always lack (though it makes up for it when used correctly). If you mean "conventional" in terms of true cel animation, well, computer-assisted 2D animation seems to be the norm now, so cel animation has been dying out for quite a few years now. (At least I think that's how it is; I'm basically thinking of the difference between Batman and Batman Beyond). Flash, when used properly, isn't much less "conventional" then the computer-assisted animation that's been going on for a decade now.

Remember, Flash animation doesn't have to consist of the "puppetry" style you usually see, with characters' heads and arms being moved separately by tweens. Someone could theoretically hand-draw every frame.

[joshualane]

Hand-drawn 2D animation is evolving to a point where things are done entirely on computers. Whether they use flash for the animation, or some other program, it really doesn't matter. So, yes, "conventional" hand-drawn animation is doomed.

[Killtacular]

The point is, drawing on cels is not the smart solution. Eventually your animation will age and rot... Over the weekend I saw that some of the old Johnny Bravos from the first season are now very faded and have tearing. Digital ink and paint is no different a drawing process.. You're still drawing on paper, it's just that it is scanned in, then inked and painted using computer programs. The programs certainly don't do it for the animator. It's no magic money tree, there's hard work involved.

Digital ink and paint ensures preservation that far outreaches cel animation. Obviously overseas studios were quick to jump on this. But some studios had jumped on this very early, such as Carbuncle (Ren & Stimpy animation studio) who switched to digital painting back in 1992.

[Merilee]

Yes, without a doubt, it is on it's last dieing breath...soon you won't have to even BE an artist to be considered for cartoon work.
Oh, wait...Ed,Edd, and Eddy, Hi, Hi, Puffy AmiYumi, Kids Next Door..

IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!

Merilee
:cool:

[Killtacular]

Gee, thanks troll. Your input is appreciated.

[Classic Speedy]

I'd be interested in finding out how many '90s TV shows were digitally ink & painted. I know Ren & Stimpy utilized it (the Season 2+ episodes looked FAR cleaner than the Fil-Cartoons season 1 episodes), and I know Simpsons experimented with it a few times ("138th Episode Spectacular", "Tennis the Menace", "Radioactive Man") before fully switching to digital in 2002. But who else specifically, and at what points in time?

[Prism]

I doubt that cel animation'll ever die out for various reasons. It stands to reason considering how limited Flash animation is and the fact that all forms of 3D animation including claymation,stopmotion,CGI and puppetry alwayd wind up looking dated. Heck, back in the 70's people thought animation was at death's door then it made a comeback in the 80's. Don't write off any form of animation as being doomed because there are always comebacks and this includes all mediums.

[SirLemming]

It stands to reason considering how limited Flash animation is and the fact that all forms of 3D animation including claymation,stopmotion,CGI and puppetry alwayd wind up looking dated.The Nightmare Before Christmas doesn't look dated at all, and I suspect it never will.
Also, I must point out again that Flash animation isn't very limited. It's just that most people who use it don't have big budgets. Granted, I doubt anyone will ever make Hollywood movies with it since there are better ways to go about that, but someone with a mid-ranged budget who could hire a good amount of people for tweening and stuff could make a Flash cartoon that looks about as good as any cartoon on TV. (And no doubt there are some out there, big budget or not.) Flash cartoonists don't have to go for that style where the characters' individual body parts move separately, they just usually do because on their own they can't afford to draw every little frame of motion.

[RayChuang]

Hand-drawn 2D animation is evolving to a point where things are done entirely on computers. Whether they use flash for the animation, or some other program, it really doesn't matter. So, yes, "conventional" hand-drawn animation is doomed.That is correct! :anime: What is happening is that thanks to desktop computers getting more and more powerful and also getting quite a bit cheaper for the type of capability you can do nowadays, many animated shows are being done on computers. For example, both Code: Lyoko and Winx Club heavily use computers to create the show, and the upcoming W.I.T.C.H. animated series will also heavily use computers, too.

Anyway, this trend really accelerated in the late 1990's, thanks to Japanese animation studios being forced to go the computer route due to FujiFilm discontinuing the production of animation cel sheets.

[Hordesman]

It seems to me that coloring errors are less frequent under digital paint, not to mention the tendency low-budget cel animation has of lighter coloring on moving parts.

[I.R Joey]

The Nightmare Before Christmas doesn't look dated at all, and I suspect it never will.
Also, I must point out again that Flash animation isn't very limited. It's just that most people who use it don't have big budgets. Granted, I doubt anyone will ever make Hollywood movies with it since there are better ways to go about that, but someone with a mid-ranged budget who could hire a good amount of people for tweening and stuff could make a Flash cartoon that looks about as good as any cartoon on TV. (And no doubt there are some out there, big budget or not.) Flash cartoonists don't have to go for that style where the characters' individual body parts move separately, they just usually do because on their own they can't afford to draw every little frame of motion.
My experiance has told me that Flash usually works best when it's doing limited animation. In other words stuff similar to the shows Hanna Barbera was doing in the 70's. I find that flash tends to reuse walk cycles, backgrounds etc, then other forms of animation, especially alot of the hand drawn. But it can look very good in the hands of people who know how to use it properly (I think Foster's is a good example of this). Still, it's hard for me to imagine a Flash animated movie with the fluidity and nuance that you'd get in say one of Disney's hand drawn feature films, or in the old Looney Toons. Anyone disagree?

[SirLemming]

My experiance has told me that Flash usually works best when it's doing limited animation. In other words stuff similar to the shows Hanna Barbera was doing in the 70's. I find that flash tends to reuse walk cycles, backgrounds etc, then other forms of animation, especially alot of the hand drawn. But it can look very good in the hands of people who know how to use it properly (I think Foster's is a good example of this). Still, it's hard for me to imagine a Flash animated movie with the fluidity and nuance that you'd get in say one of Disney's hand drawn feature films, or in the old Looney Toons. Anyone disagree?A skilled team of animators could probably do something that looks almost that good, but it's true that it wouldn't be the best way to go about it. If you're that good then you can afford to use/make better software.

[Ickis]

Lets hope the original animation stays,I'm getting a little tired of CGI but am sick of flash.:mad:

[Scythemantis]

Being digitally colored DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with wether or not something is "traditional animation". It's still hand drawn, and it still turns out the same only clearer and more durable. There is no downside.

And hand-drawn animation has never shown and is not showing ANY sign of being "replaced" by Flash. Flash may be cheaper and quicker but that only means we get more cartoons, rather than different-looking cartoons, because it provides an outlet for creative minds that would otherwise go to waste. Get over yourselves, you crusty old traditionalists.


Yes, without a doubt, it is on it's last dieing breath...soon you won't have to even BE an artist to be considered for cartoon work.
Oh, wait...Ed,Edd, and Eddy, Hi, Hi, Puffy AmiYumi, Kids Next Door..

IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!

Merilee
:cool:

Excuse me? Coloring on the computer requires exactly the same artistic talent as coloring on paper. It's not a magic "color and shade this character" button.

And Ed, Edd & Eddy is dripping with artistry. Wether or not you like the actual show, the timing and motion is top-notch.

[Prism]

Actually I have no problem with the various forms of animation including cutout,puppetry,stopmotion,claymation,CGI or rotoscaping and digitally animated toons do look crisper. However there should still be a place for cel-animation. After all Lilo and Stitch would not have been the same without the watercolors that were everywhere. Right now cel is the most versatile of all the animation techniques and digital has a long way to go before it can catch up. And digital doesn't even come close to the range of hues,tints and shades that cel can produce although digital does look crisper and can handle textures better.Anyway what most of us are saying is that cel shouldn't be counted out and it shouldn't die out.

[Merilee]

Get over yourselves, you crusty old traditionalists.


Hey, pal, that's getting personnal!



Excuse me? Coloring on the computer requires exactly the same artistic talent as coloring on paper. It's not a magic "color and shade this character" button.
Really? Then why can't they make their charatcers look a little more lifelike, like they used to do with 'Scooby Doo' and 'Speed Buggy'?
A bit more lifelike and more realistic looking characters, I don't think that's a lot to ask.
Merilee
:cool:

[I.R Joey]

A skilled team of animators could probably do something that looks almost that good, but it's true that it wouldn't be the best way to go about it. If you're that good then you can afford to use/make better software.
I do find that hard to believe. For me one of the things that always seems to be a mark of flash is the kind of "floaty shape" that is the tell tale mark of the "Create motion tween" option. The pencil lines all look unaturally crisp, even the ink option still looks to perfect, and in many cases lacking in the charm that many hand drawn stuff is (not that this is always true, I've said before how much I love Foster's use of the program).


. Really? Then why can't they make their charatcers look a little more lifelike, like they used to do with 'Scooby Doo' and 'Speed Buggy'?
A bit more lifelike and more realistic looking characters, I don't think that's a lot to ask.
I think this is basically due to the fact that many people are begining to subscribe to the idea that the best way to potray people in cartoons is to strive for caricture rather than realistic potrails. Personally, I'm all for it.

[Scythemantis]

Really? Then why can't they make their charatcers look a little more lifelike, like they used to do with 'Scooby Doo' and 'Speed Buggy'?
A bit more lifelike and more realistic looking characters, I don't think that's a lot to ask.
Merilee
:cool:

Are you trying to say that digital art or flash animation has something to do with the more cartoonish, more simplistic characters in today's cartoons? Merilee, artists *choose* to draw their characters that way because it's fun, and more importantly, it makes a show look unique and makes an artist recognizeable by their drawing method alone. It's a positive thing that adds diversity to animation as a whole. The way characters are shaped does not detract from writing quality or entertainment value.

The shows you're talking about were all made by Hanna Barbera. Their realistic style only used to be the norm because they produced the vast majority of television animation. Of course shows by the same people are going to look similar. Now, cartoons are produced by a far wider variety of artists and companies, so there is a far wider variety of visual styles. That is the only reason why you see so many "unrealistic" characters, and they all look that way on purpose. This is supposed to be a good thing. Computers are also a good thing. There's nothing wrong with sticking to tradition sometimes, but there's nothing wrong with change, either, and digital methods have done nothing but improve the quality and longevity of cartoons. And yes, I say this even as someone who resents hollywood's bias towards CG. It's people, not the computers, who are to blame for that problem.

[Hordesman]

I think this is basically due to the fact that many people are begining to subscribe to the idea that the best way to potray people in cartoons is to strive for caricture rather than realistic potrails. Personally, I'm all for it.
Well, the reason for is twofold. First, photoreal CGI or 2D is redundant, difficult and expensive. Second, Valley of the Uncanny. The more realistic a synthetic human image is, the more critical a response it gets from viewers. A cariacture by its very nature gets a better response, perhaps because the design conveys unreality and less expectations.

[Superperson]

There's also the matter of price. Alot of cartoons are simple because there cheap and fairly easy to animate (Dexter, Grim, PPG) some influence is from the artist but I think some is set by the network for a show thats not gonna break there budget.

[Roman Legion]

Really? Then why can't they make their charatcers look a little more lifelike, like they used to do with 'Scooby Doo' and 'Speed Buggy'?
A bit more lifelike and more realistic looking characters, I don't think that's a lot to ask.

Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't. It also depends what you mean by "life-like"; personally, I wouldn't associate the term with either Scooby Doo or Speed Buggy. :p


Well, the reason for is twofold. First, photoreal CGI or 2D is redundant...

Often redundant, but not always.

--Romey

[Merilee]

Are you trying to say that digital art or flash animation has something to do with the more cartoonish, more simplistic characters in today's cartoons?.No, I'm NOT saying that! I'm saying that the way the animators choose to animate their drawings are responsible for this. I'm sure you can do animation using flash or digital art that looks like PEOPLE!

Well, it's not fun for ME, I HATE it! To me it looks like kindergardeners were let loose in the studio and threw a free-for-all! I want my cartoons to look like they were done by people with TALENT!

HAH, I beg to differ! I don't like ANY of these new cartoons, I LOVE the 70's early 80's , good writing, good animation, good overall! THOSE shows I could get into! I don't like the overall plots or the stories of these newer cartoons..instead of helping out people and society, these new cartoons (Kids Next Door, Ed, Edd, and Eddy) look more like war AGAINST society...how can we root for THIS?!

Ah, Hanna Barbera! The Kings of the Cartoon Industry!! Nobody does it better!! Nobody ever will!!!




, but there's nothing wrong with change, either, and digital methods have done nothing but improve the quality and longevity of cartoons. G. It's people, not the computers, who are to blame for that problem.I didn't say there was anything wrong with change, just the WAY they changed, and the way they animate things now makes me miss the realistic, lifelike animation that let you wonder at the talent of these animators. This new animation looks too much like anything goes.
But as for the CGI in Hollywood, on THAT we agree.
Merilee
:cool:

[I.R Joey]

No, I'm NOT saying that! I'm saying that the way the animators choose to animate their drawings are responsible for this. I'm sure you can do animation using flash or digital art that looks like PEOPLE!

Well, it's not fun for ME, I HATE it! To me it looks like kindergardeners were let loose in the studio and threw a free-for-all! I want my cartoons to look like they were done by people with TALENT!

HAH, I beg to differ! I don't like ANY of these new cartoons, I LOVE the 70's early 80's , good writing, good animation, good overall! THOSE shows I could get into! I don't like the overall plots or the stories of these newer cartoons..instead of helping out people and society, these new cartoons (Kids Next Door, Ed, Edd, and Eddy) look more like war AGAINST society...how can we root for THIS?!

Ah, Hanna Barbera! The Kings of the Cartoon Industry!! Nobody does it better!! Nobody ever will!!!



I didn't say there was anything wrong with change, just the WAY they changed, and the way they animate things now makes me miss the realistic, lifelike animation that let you wonder at the talent of these animators. This new animation looks too much like anything goes.
But as for the CGI in Hollywood, on THAT we agree.
Merilee
:cool:
I'm sorry but I must say that the animation used by Hanna Barbera in the 70's and 80's was some of the cheapest stuff in history. Limited animation, excessively reused backgrounds, and repeated animation frames out the wazzooo. That's not to say that they didn't have some merit, but to say that they're somehow more advanced visually than shows like Samurai Jack. or even a show like Foster's is a bit of a stretch.

[SirLemming]

Hanna-Barbera animation is choppy, ugly, and annoying.

[Merilee]

Hanna-Barbera animation is choppy, ugly, and annoying.

Hey, speak for yourself, it's no more ugly than Ed, Edd, and Eddy or Kids Next Door. Like I said , Hanna Barbera animation looks human! How can it be choppy, where on earth was it choppy?!

And it looked cheap cause they had a limited budget!! But what they lacked in budget they made up with with stories! Good stories that drew you in and weren't very violent.

LONG LIVE HANNA BARBARA!!!
Merilee
:cool:

[livingfruitvirus]

Thre are currently three shows that Iknow of that use Flash. Mucha Lucha!, Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends, and Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi.(If there are any others, I'd like to know) If you want cancelled shows, here's more: Home Movies (they were the first), Gary the Rat, This Just In, Yakkety Yak, Atomic Betty, Harvey Birdman, O'Grady, Stroker and Hoop (coming soon), Hey Monie!, Shorties Watching Shorties, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting.


The point is, drawing on cels is not the smart solution. Eventually your animation will age and rot... Over the weekend I saw that some of the old Johnny Bravos from the first season are now very faded and have tearing. That's because Johnny Bravo's tapes have been deteriorating since they popped out of the animation oven in 1996-7. They're not putting the CEL on TV, so you can't blame the individual cels themselves. Whatever's on the film reel is what gets telecined and put on TV, and now quality rests on how good that digibeta tape is being taken care of. After a while it'll need to be digitally restored. Digital animation eliminates the restoration process because they can just go back to the source file and make a new copy, and I'm sure eventually digibeta tapes will be dead.


Hand-drawn 2D animation is evolving to a point where things are done entirely on computers. Whether they use flash for the animation, or some other program, it really doesn't matter. So, yes, "conventional" hand-drawn animation is doomed. Conventional animation's going to stick around until a way to use computer programs like Flash to completely duplicate the look of conventional animation 100% is perfected.


Really? Then why can't they make their charatcers look a little more lifelike, like they used to do with 'Scooby Doo' and 'Speed Buggy'? :cool: Since that dude from Speed Buggy stole Shaggy's character design, there's not exactly much effort from 60s-70s HB, so they shouldn't be getting a lot of credit.


No, I'm NOT saying that! I'm saying that the way the animators choose to animate their drawings are responsible for this. I'm sure you can do animation using flash or digital art that looks like PEOPLE!

Well, it's not fun for ME, I HATE it! To me it looks like kindergardeners were let loose in the studio and threw a free-for-all! I want my cartoons to look like they were done by people with TALENT! :cool: Oh puh-leeze. That's like saying you'd rather vote for a half-eaten banana with wax lips than George W. Bush. Equating the artwork in these shows to that drawn by a kindergartener is an extreme exaggeration. Some of those shows have very good designs, directing and timing that require plenty of talent and studying motion to work with. How much do they have to look like people before you consider them people? With extreme facial details like wrinkles and crows feet and cheekbones? With every hair folicle drawn? And every whisker? That's a good idea if you want to give all your animators carpal tunnel for all that pencil milage.

But since you like Hanna Barbera so much, hey, Harvey Birdman is animated in Flash. How does that look?


Hey, speak for yourself, it's no more ugly than Ed, Edd, and Eddy or Kids Next Door. :cool: Ed Edd n Eddy has 100x more effort and animation timing put into it than any Hanna Barbera show. Kids Next Door is ugly and badly animated though.

[Jave]

Hey, speak for yourself, it's no more ugly than Ed, Edd, and Eddy or Kids Next Door. Like I said , Hanna Barbera animation looks human! How can it be choppy, where on earth was it choppy?!

And it looked cheap cause they had a limited budget!! But what they lacked in budget they made up with with stories! Good stories that drew you in and weren't very violent.

LONG LIVE HANNA BARBARA!!!
Merilee
:cool:I don't know exactly what you mean by "human", but it's kind of ironic you worship HB because of that, considering they used a lot of more animal characters than humans. Look at their original Tom & Jerry theatrical shorts, extremely zany and cartoonish, and some of the best animation in the business.

Yeah, the TV HB cartoons worked on limited budgets, heck, I love The Flintstones, but sometimes the animation was so limited it got annoying. Comparing them to the modern cartoons you mention... well, gee. KND doesn't have exactly kickass animation, but the layouts and colorizations are beautiful and so much better looking than any cartoon HB did for TV. As for EE&D, anyone that says that show has BAD animation doesn't really know what he's talking about. It's the best USA has to offer right now in terms of animation along with Teen Titans (and perhaps Xiaolin Showdown)

[Scythemantis]

Well, it's not fun for ME, I HATE it! To me it looks like kindergardeners were let loose in the studio and threw a free-for-all! I want my cartoons to look like they were done by people with TALENT!

Well, I draw a lot, and I prefer styleized humans over realistic ones myself, so I find that a little insulting. What's to hate about it? It's just artistic style. Just because they're shaped differently doesn't mean styleized humans are less detailed or easier to draw. And seriously, HOW can it bother you so much? They're cartoons. Of course some of them are going to look cartoonish. It isn't like it's really new...plenty of HB classics had goofy-looking or simplified humans, and early black-and-white toons looked even crazier and sillier than ANYTHING on Cartoon Network or Nick. Like I said, styleization allows you to recognize who drew something with just a glance, and it does take creativity to make your humans unique while still being noticeably human. Frankly I think it's really unreasonable for it to bother you so much.

The only design style I find ugly and painful to look at is that of Klasky-Csupo (Rugrats, Rocket Power)...their people look lumpy, greasy and smelly. Yes, they LOOK smelly. I don't know how, they just do.


HAH, I beg to differ! I don't like ANY of these new cartoons, I LOVE the 70's early 80's , good writing, good animation, good overall! THOSE shows I could get into! I don't like the overall plots or the stories of these newer cartoons..instead of helping out people and society, these new cartoons (Kids Next Door, Ed, Edd, and Eddy) look more like war AGAINST society...how can we root for THIS?!

Sorry, but a lot of Hanna-Barbera cartoons were written HORRIBLY, and even some of my own favorites from the 80's have utterly brainless and insipid storylines. I still like them, but they ain't hamlet. Generally, modern animation has far better characterization, storyline and plot development. Those concepts scarcely existed in a lot of 70's/80's toons, esspecially those marketed strictly to children.

I can understand your "war against society" remark when it comes to Kids Next Door...I like the show now and then, but it's hard to like characters who would hate me just for being older than them. They're quite bratty. I don't see how this applies to EE&E or many other shows, though. You seem to act as if animation has somehow gone downhill, when the truth is quite the opposite. Cartoons today are generally done by people who have more passion for animation as an art form, and they are taken FAR more seriously. That includes your favorite classics. What was for the longest time considered brainless kid stuff is now looked upon with the respect it deserves, and we have both new and old cartoons to thank for that progress. Heck, voice acting used to be the end of the line for washed-up actors or people pulled randomly off the street. Now it's a higher-paying, more celebrated job most people are proud to do.

[Frank]

Well KND has average animation and okay backgrounds. As for EEnE, the animation is above average but not as good as a Disney theatrical cartoon. The reason why people think that the animation is bad is because of the squggling (boiling) outlines. While it does bring a cheaper look to the show, it does not mean it's going to have terrible animation (although it could use a few shortcuts).

[Scythemantis]

Also, people need to understand that when we say EE&E has great animation, we're talking about the motion and expression. The characters aren't exactly pretty, but the storyboarding is some of the best on TV.

[Classic Speedy]

The only design style I find ugly and painful to look at is that of Klasky-Csupo (Rugrats, Rocket Power)...their people look lumpy, greasy and smelly. Yes, they LOOK smelly. I don't know how, they just do. Maybe it's the unnecessary amount of detail lines on each character? It's sorta like Ren & Stimpy's Adult Party Cartoon or Ripping Friends, with over-exaggerated amounts of wrinkles and facial imperfections. It just doesn't look right in animation. Characters look best when they're symbolic, representing real humans, not trying to replicate every single real-life characteristic until they look disgusting.
The characters aren't exactly pretty, but the storyboarding is some of the best on TV. Pretty, no. But I think the way the show is drawn is very cool- almost like a kid doodling in his notepad during class. It's this sketchiness that adds some charm to the already superb animation. :)

Look, here's the thing, Merilee. It's obvious you like Hanna Barbera, and I'm not judging you for that. Everyone has their own tastes, whatever. But strictly from an animation standpoint, old school HB is lacking. Good animation should, IMO, make your eyes light up and take notice. What was great about Tom & Jerry, pre-Depatie/Freleng Looney Tunes, and old Disney shorts, was that the animation was both fluid and energetic. HB on TV has neither of that. It's like watching a comic strip.... only it's barely animated just to prove to you that it's animation. Movements are limited and a lot of animation is re-used.

Now I realize that much of that is because of budget control and the decline of toons during that era, but even so, there's no denying that the animation of the last 2 1/2 decades has been better and more thought-out than anything put out by HB in the '60s/'70s.

[Fone Bone]

Hey, speak for yourself, it's no more ugly than Ed, Edd, and Eddy or Kids Next Door. Like I said , Hanna Barbera animation looks human! How can it be choppy, where on earth was it choppy?!

And it looked cheap cause they had a limited budget!! But what they lacked in budget they made up with with stories! Good stories that drew you in and weren't very violent.

LONG LIVE HANNA BARBARA!!!
Merilee
:cool:Good stories? Scooby Doo was basically the exact same story told every week with a laugh track thrown in so you could realize what was supposed to be funny. And yes, I am speaking for myself.

As for cartoons not being violent, that is the exact reason why cartoons from the seventies and eighties were so horrible. The grueling broadcast restrictions and "story editors" made sure every cartoon was bland and cookie cutter with no provocative ideas and written by a commitee of yes-men rather than by people who loved cartoons. And practically ALL of great literature has degree of violence in it. Without it, there is no conflict and no heroes to root for. The Bible would have less impact for me if there wasn't violence in it to show me the difference between right and wrong (to use a religious example, out of respect for your faith.)

[Scythemantis]

Exactly - action cartoons like the herculoids, thundarr, and later like TMNT and he-man would have been violent if it weren't for networks pushing them around. The "wholesomeness" had nothing to do with innocence or restraint. The writers really wished they could've put some bloodshed in. The turtles weren't even allowed to actually hit the villains with their weapons most of the time! They could only be used as tools...or to destroy the villain's weapons and machinery.

[SirLemming]

Merilee, if they invent a chill pill soon, I think you should take one. At the least, use a few less exclamation points. This isn't the end of the world here.

As for EEnE, the animation is above average but not as good as a Disney theatrical cartoon.Well heck. I'm pretty sure the only TV show with animation quality that even comes close to that of a Disney theatrical cartoon is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

Conventional animation's going to stick around until a way to use computer programs like Flash to completely duplicate the look of conventional animation 100% is perfected.For better or for worse, I think you're wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time people have jumped the gun on new technology.

[Killtacular]

As for EEnE, the animation is above average but not as good as a Disney theatrical cartoon.
Nothing Disney has animated has ever been "good", just "competent." Just because Disney films and shorts have a lot of drawings doesn't make the animation "good", just "full". But there is a difference between "full" animation and "good" animation that I think people don't realize sometimes (which is, I guess, why people naively praise Looney Tunes: Back in Action's animation (or just the movie in general) when they really should not).


Well, it's not fun for ME, I HATE it! To me it looks like kindergardeners were let loose in the studio and threw a free-for-all! I want my cartoons to look like they were done by people with TALENT!
Are you even remotely aware of UPA?

[I.R Joey]

Nothing Disney has animated has ever been "good", just "competent." Just because Disney films and shorts have a lot of drawings doesn't make the animation "good", just "full". But there is a difference between "full" animation and "good" animation that I think people don't realize sometimes (which is, I guess, why people naively praise Looney Tunes: Back in Action's animation (or just the movie in general) when they really should not).
I don't see how you can really say that. When you look at charecters like the magic carpet from Aladdin, Dopey from Snow white, and the animals from Pocohontas you seem so very fine "Acting with the pencil." These are charecters that had no voice but had a tremendous amount of charecter. They had alot of expression, and emotion and never said a word. I especially can't see how you'd say that the animation of the carpet wasn't incredible. Here you had a charecter who lacked eyes, a face, and most of the other things that we commonly associate with expressing emotion, and the animators were able to do some incredible things with that charecter, and they made us feel what that carpet felt.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree.


But what they lacked in budget they made up with with stories! Good stories that drew you in and weren't very violent.

LONG LIVE HANNA BARBARA!!!
Merilee
.
Out of curiosity I want to ask how you can say that stuff like Space Ghost, and the Herculoids lacked violence? People got blasted by all kinds of lasers and missles and stuff. And then you look at the old stuff like Tom and Jerry those shows were filled with violence, look at all the horrible things Jerry did to Tom the cat. I think that it might be a greater diservice to show kids that violent actions have no consequences. That we can beat, pound and blow people up all we want, and they'll be fine the next scene. I think things are more interesting now because violence can have consequences. I use the example of anime alot, but it's becoming more true in other American cartoons as well.

[Killtacular]

I don't see how you can really say that. When you look at charecters like the magic carpet from Aladdin, Dopey from Snow white, and the animals from Pocohontas you seem so very fine "Acting with the pencil." These are charecters that had no voice but had a tremendous amount of charecter. They had alot of expression, and emotion and never said a word. I especially can't see how you'd say that the animation of the carpet wasn't incredible. Here you had a charecter who lacked eyes, a face, and most of the other things that we commonly associate with expressing emotion, and the animators were able to do some incredible things with that charecter, and they made us feel what that carpet felt.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree.
I am going to continue to disagree. I do not see much expression or emotion in those drawings at all. There was a whole debate between John K and Mike Barrier over comparing the Pinnochio "donkey" scene with the Ren Needs Help "Ren goes crazy" scene. Well, obviously I did not side with John K, however it did make me realize that not many Disney movies really have much personality in the drawings. There's a lot of facial symmetry, repeated facial expressions that are just generic looking. Yeah, a character looks angry or upset. But it's not a special kind of angry or upset that is unique to that situation, it's just an "stock model sheet angry" pose. It's the same reason why I hate Duck Dodgers (see how many times they repeat the same "Daffy gaping" pose or "Porky square eyes" pose throughout the series). I'm not saying there isn't a lot of craft there. That's why it's COMPETENT. Satisfactory. What I would expect from a theatrical feature. But satisfactory is a level below good and great. It's the worst adjective a show or movie could ever suffer: "average". It takes a great amount of skill to draw characters with that detail or realism, but the poses in, say, The Incredibles, are far better and more humanistic than the poses in, say, Pocahontas.

I would rather watch a Warner or MGM cartoon than a Disney cartoon of any sort, ANY day.

[Samurai]

Well, I draw a lot, and I prefer styleized humans over realistic ones myself, so I find that a little insulting. What's to hate about it? It's just artistic style. Just because they're shaped differently doesn't mean styleized humans are less detailed or easier to draw.Well, to be fair, many cartoons do try to keep their designs more simple and easy to draw. That's only common sense: since many animation studios have a boatload of artists, the art can't be too difficult for all of them to draw.

I mean, look at the early 90's X-Men cartoon... they tried to go for a more detailed and realistic character designs in a nod to the comic books, but the animation just couldn't keep up.

I'm not saying the animators aren't talented, far from it, but since most TV animation has a set budget and time limit, they must complete their work as quickly and efficiently as possible. And the more detail you put into your work, the longer it'll take.

Unless of course you take the "work them to death" approach of most anime studios (maybe it's the Japanese attitude toward work and craft, but most of the animators are insanely overworked).

In fact, that's one reason why American studios like to use Asian countries: since the labor laws aren't as strict, they have a cheaper pool of labor to outsource their inbetween work (hey, capitalism at work)...

[I.R Joey]

I am going to continue to disagree. I do not see much expression or emotion in those drawings at all. There was a whole debate between John K and Mike Barrier over comparing the Pinnochio "donkey" scene with the Ren Needs Help "Ren goes crazy" scene. Well, obviously I did not side with John K, however it did make me realize that not many Disney movies really have much personality in the drawings. There's a lot of facial symmetry, repeated facial expressions that are just generic looking. Yeah, a character looks angry or upset. But it's not a special kind of angry or upset that is unique to that situation, it's just an "stock model sheet angry" pose. It's the same reason why I hate Duck Dodgers (see how many times they repeat the same "Daffy gaping" pose or "Porky square eyes" pose throughout the series). I'm not saying there isn't a lot of craft there. That's why it's COMPETENT. Satisfactory. What I would expect from a theatrical feature. But satisfactory is a level below good and great. It's the worst adjective a show or movie could ever suffer: "average". It takes a great amount of skill to draw characters with that detail or realism, but the poses in, say, The Incredibles, are far better and more humanistic than the poses in, say, Pocahontas.

I would rather watch a Warner or MGM cartoon than a Disney cartoon of any sort, ANY day.
I'll give you the fact that alot of human charecters do tend to use similar body postures and poses. It's possible that this can be attributed to uncreativity (sticking to the model sheets), or the fact that you have to play it safe with human animation because we all know what a human looks like and we thus can critisize it more easily. But alot of the animal charecters, and sidekicks often the most critisized aspect of Disney movies, have wonderful expressions. I can't imagine any other charecter having Stitch's weird expressions (like when he stuck his tounge up his nose) or what about the sleekness of Malificent's movements, I think she seperates herself from all the other Disney witches by the way she looks and moves. I do agree with you that the Incredibles looked very good as far as the charecters, and animation went. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it looked better than alot of other C.G movies because it went for caricture rather than authenticity. But I don't think I can be as hard as you are on Meeko and Flick, and Percy in Pocohontas.

[Fone Bone]

I don't see how you can really say that. When you look at charecters like the magic carpet from Aladdin, Dopey from Snow white, and the animals from Pocohontas you seem so very fine "Acting with the pencil." These are charecters that had no voice but had a tremendous amount of charecter. They had alot of expression, and emotion and never said a word. I especially can't see how you'd say that the animation of the carpet wasn't incredible. Here you had a charecter who lacked eyes, a face, and most of the other things that we commonly associate with expressing emotion, and the animators were able to do some incredible things with that charecter, and they made us feel what that carpet felt.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree.
I have to agree about the carpet from Aladdin. I thought that movie was VERY overrated due to Robin Williams' hamminess but the Carpet's animation was extraordinary.

As for Matt's assertion that there is no good Disney animation, I direct him to the Night On Bald Mountain segment of Fantasia.

[Mr. Insomnia]

Someone said EEE's animation is crude. It's not crude. It's just not so "full" between it's motions. A Disney film has filled animation making every movement cleanly morph into the other. Giving it an almost sickeningly smooth look. They even do this when a character is supposed to be running fast or moving frantically in general. But Disney tries to make every thing flow TOO well making the character look extremely goofy and almost inhuman in their movements. Now EEE is obviously not trying to mimic human movements, but the animation is damn well what every film maker should strive for. Movies like the SpongeBob movie may not have the overly fluid Disney look, but they animate so well that it doesn't matter. EEE in my book IS fluid. At least the newer episodes. And Matt is right, I can't tell you how many times I've seen that angry looking face in Aladdin, Brother Bear, Tarzan, and other Disney films.

[Hyperblade]

I have to agree about the carpet from Aladdin. I thought that movie was VERY overrated due to Robin Williams' hamminess but the Carpet's animation was extraordinary.

As for Matt's assertion that there is no good Disney animation, I direct him to the Night On Bald Mountain segment of Fantasia. Carpet was excellent, that was the perfect example of how to express almost any emotion, without having to talk..... which can be difficult. I like how the subtle characters (like carpet) are so profound. I'm glad you noticed that Fone Bone.

As for good Disney animation, I thought Lilo and Stitch's Hula scenes were great, I believe on the Bonus section it talked about how it was done.No rotoscoping was necessary. Though, I feel alot of Disney's older works had great animations as well, and I have a respect for Mulan. I love how it looks like a painting come to life IMO.

[Scythemantis]

Matt never said that disney characters fail to express themselves or don't move well enough, as some of you seem to be interpreting it. It's that their expressions and motions just don't have a lot of imagination to them.

Some people seem to also be confusing "bad animation" with "bad art". They are totally, totally different things. A bad drawing can be animated well and a good drawing can be animated cheaply.

[Fone Bone]

Matt never said that disney characters fail to express themselves or don't move well enough, as some of you seem to be interpreting it. It's that their expressions and motions just don't have a lot of imagination to them.

Some people seem to also be confusing "bad animation" with "bad art". They are totally, totally different things. A bad drawing can be animated well and a good drawing can be animated cheaply.He DID say that there was no GOOD Disney animation though. The Fantasia-phile in me simply directed him to Night on Bald Mountain.

[G. Wen]

Conventional animation isn't doomed, it's just taking another turn. Really, it's more economical to scan hand drawn images into a computer and color them there. If anyone thinks this is easy, just check out computer art done by professional designers, and then look at ones done by tweens messing around w/ Illustrator. You'll see a difference. Google these things and you'll find them.

Furthermore, animation doesn't have to look realistic to be good. If this was the case, Picasso, Braque, Cezanne, Kindinsky, various traditional Native American, African, Japanese, and Pacific Islander artists would be considered crap artists. There not crap artists, they just have their own style.

However, being an art student, I have noticed that many people draw well, but design ugly. That being said, it's possible for animatiors to know how to draw, but come up w/ horrible character designs. Yeah, Mucha Lucha is ugly.

[DaphFlamm]

Ahem. I notice many flames going on here with my old eyes.

I myself prefer the older styles of animation, especially that of Hanna Barbera - which by the way, won awards for its writing, and not pretty drawings. Obviously, Bill and Joe knew whewre to invest their money.

-DF

[Bunai]

i'd like to get into animation
but it seems its getting harder to be an animator in America, so many of whats done is going overseas.
i'd like to actually animate my own work.
its like if i wrote 2+2=
and then send it too someone else to finish the problem.

i like flash, CGI, hand drawn, Cel etc etc etc
they are just different forms to animate in, and people have their own comfort with each medium. you don't have to like it, but lower the insults. its not like no work went into it.

IMO Disney will always be the masters at CGI...their blending is one of the best. or at least when Eisner didn't lay them all off :sad:

The Beauty and the Beast ballroom dance is a great example...
first time i saw that...it was years later i found out it was Computer...:sweat:

[Atoon]

As for EE&D, anyone that says that show has BAD animation doesn't really know what he's talking about. It's the best USA has to offer right now in terms of animation along with Teen Titans (and perhaps Xiaolin Showdown)
EE&E is canadian.

[mdamman]

...but this thread's been blogged!!!! Coldhardflash (http://www.coldhardflash.com/2004/12/fiery-forum-debates-flash-future.html) wrote up a review of this thread for some reason. They're saying Flash is gonna eat conventional animation. Not so sure...

[Samurai]

i'd like to get into animation
but it seems its getting harder to be an animator in America, so many of whats done is going overseas.
i'd like to actually animate my own work.
its like if i wrote 2+2=
and then send it too someone else to finish the problem.Well, if you're talented and have enough perseverance, you can always go and make your own cartoon. There's plenty of web and underground cartoons made by one artist, and who knows, sometimes they move on to creating their own series for TV.

Plus, for most cartoons, the stories and characters and storyboards are still designed by American animators. It's usually the inbetween work that they send overseas (and for anyone who's done inbetweening, you'd know it's by far the most tedious and time-consuming process, especially if you want quality work).

And it's not like most overseas animators are living in luxury; most work under extremely tight schedules with overbearing work loads that tax even the best animators. Plus, the pay sucks compared to American animators. I mean, in many Asian countries (which is where most of the overseas stuff goes to), they pay you even less than working at McDonald's.

[Classic Speedy]

Nothing Disney has animated has ever been "good", just "competent." Just because Disney films and shorts have a lot of drawings doesn't make the animation "good", just "full". But there is a difference between "full" animation and "good" animation that I think people don't realize sometimes (which is, I guess, why people naively praise Looney Tunes: Back in Action's animation (or just the movie in general) when they really should not). Well this kind of argument is merely semantics. To me, good animation can include BOTH Disney-style, more lifelike movements, and zany, cartoony stuff like Ed, Edd, & Eddy. They're both different types of good. It all depends on what type you prefer. But in no way is Disney's theatrical animation bad just because it doesn't behave exactly like a Warner Bros. cartoon.