Yet another question about the industry...

[CartoonSage]

Here's another question for the animation buffs of this forum.

Now I've actually been pondering this for awhile but it never seems to be on my mind when I'm in this forum (don't ask why) but here goes:

Now, I've been observing cartoons for the past six years and I was wondering, does the quality of the animation itself rely on the budget alone or is it all in the animatrion directing?

[Gokou Ruri]

Both, I'd say. Budget is a key factor in how well it can be animated (as in more frames being used per second), but the way the director wants it to move is a key factor (if he wants to take shortcuts or have the animation be full, for example)

[Jeff Harris]

I've been observing cartoons for the past six years and I was wondering, does the quality of the animation itself rely on the budget alone or is it all in the animation directing?

I'm going the say the directing of the animation determines the quality of the animation. I've seen films that spent millions on production, but the animation was atrocious. I've seen shorts made with very little money that's just breathtaking. You could imput a lot of money into the animation budget, but if the animation's terrible, the budget isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The animation director is the conductor of sorts for any production. And any strengths and weaknesses that could be found in a production is clearly reflected on the director. If a director conducts his animators to create something worth watching, hey, it's all gravy. If he doesn't, well, he won't be likely to do any more directing. Either that, or he'll keep on directing until he gets it right or the studio runs out of patience, whatever comes first.

So, personally, I feel the quality of animation is determined mostly by the director.

[Kaoru]

I've seen frame-rich cartoons where direction sucked but also cheap ones with great directing. It has to do with both. I also count how pretty the drawn art is in the whole package.