Why are character designs so lazy nowadays

Why are character designs so lazy nowadays

2D animation no longer draws dimes.

American TV animation has abandoned any notion of draftsmanship and intensity, now dealing exclusively in flat, low impact squishy art

I don't know why. Maybe they were too intimidated by CG animation? Or intimidated by anime? Or they're all a bunch of squishy nerdlinger goofs who just want to draw soft smiling things all the time?

Whatever the case, RIP variety in American TV animation except I guess Voltron but that's not exactly on TV is it?

sometimes when I can't sleep I think of Jenny
I miss her
I miss the smell of her hair
I miss the stink of her sweat
I miss the heat of her skin
if I noticed the signs earlier maybe I could've saved her
but I didn't and now shes gone forever
I love you Jenny and I never forgot about you even if the rest of the world did

I like this post

because it's cheap

stop making these fucking threads

it's because IT'S CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>strawman argument

this

Probably because the executives got sick of John K's shit so when they see anyone else like him walk in the door they tell them to fuck off immediately.
That just leaves the talentless squigglers we have today.

and that is good

Let's face it, these days character designs have to be simplistic so they can be easier to animate.

Seriously, what happened?

I don't get it. I'm at a loss

They finally learned to draw shirts this decade.

You sneaky bastard.

How long until we get stickfigure cartoons in black and white to cover the costs when the current designs become to expensive?

We are just going to loop around and enter another Hanna Barbera era when the creators realize that to save money on animation is to not animate at all and give us another Clutch Cargo

I'm sick of people pretending limited animation and simplified character design is a new trend.

Old looney tunes are made for cinema. They have big budgets. Old times
Tv animation is something like HB stuff and it doesn't look great.

Tldr Todays TV & cinema animation looks better than thier old counter parts.

But you basically just posted the reason, user. Hanna Barbera ruined western animation with cheap, cookie-cutter sets and characters that only children could enjoy.

So like Anime

Many of those are more distinct than modern shows, though.

Compare the very simple proportions and shapes in Steven Universe to Star Vs, or even Adventure Time. It's all the same.

Sure, there's a bunch of animals with hats and the same body type. But they had distinct faces, which the above sure as fuck don't.

I've watched both Star vs. and Adventure Time, I'm pretty sure that the animation, shapes and proportions aren't similar.

They had distinct faces, but they also moved and speaked like mannequins.

Compare that with the energy of a Star vs. episode, where people jump around, make stupid expressions and generally follow the majority of the basic principles of animation to a t.

Why do people always deflect to anime? We've been over this. They got different ways in showmaking in general.
We're talking about cartoons right now.

Oh, sunofa-!

How can you say SU is guilty of same face. The character designs in SU are pretty diverse and pretty recognizable even if they don't seem too pretty. That problem only really applies to Star vs.

Also
>comparing a anthromorphic animals cartoon's character diversity with cartoons about humans

>all those fucking neckties

Yeah like most anime sadly.

Speaking personally? A decade of depression.

Because it's relevant to the conversation.

We're talking about how cartoons will evolve to use as little animation as humanly possible to save money.

Anime has long been at that juncture, using 90% of an episode's budget for a 30 second sequence while the remaining 21 1/2 minutes are nothing but characters standing completely still while the camera pans around them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH INTIMIDATED BY CG ANIMATION SERIES HA

>using 90% of an episode's budget for a 30 second sequence while the remaining 21 1/2 minutes are nothing but characters standing completely still while the camera pans around them.
Honestly, this is mostly true for shit studio's like Toei and low budgeted long-running shows. Most have pretty decent animation showing between those payoff scenes, and some studio's shows just look good all the time.
Now let's talk about western animation and how most of it looks like generic flash garbage 100% of the time. Samurai Jack is the only thing that I'm looking forward to that has decent visuals.

Oh mufasa

If you need to call her her number is 8675-309

I don't know what the thing on the right is but it looks like sketches done by a hillbilly couple who claim they totally saw aliens.

What did they do to Bomberman

"I knew I should have taken that left toin at Amigara"

Bomberman was already dead

...

The thing that's sad is that back in the 50s, limited animation was a way to make something with a unique style (and, yes, to save some money). It's too bad it couldn't co-exist with the more fluid animation common in the 40s.

Wish I could TURN BACK TIIIIIME
To the GOOD OLD DAAAAYS

That highly depends on the director and the kind of show, though.

>characters that only children could enjoy
Adults weren't watching cartoons at that time user.

Well, Tron Legacy did had excellent direction, even if the animation itself was choppy.
A great deal of CG shows are kind of good, not all of them are Jimmy Neutron QUALITY tier.

they turned him to a girl

Its easy and simplistic so it costs less. So if the show ends up bombing the company has less to worry about and can suffer less losses

But sometimes simpler designs can be good. Shows with simpler designs can be easier to animate and action shows can have more dynamic fight sceans and shows like SU can have more detailed backgrounds

Will Sirius be a grill too?

This.

It's also important to consider the business model that historical TV animated shows operated on. Today most shows live and die on whatever network they were started on, with the quality expectations only being "good enough" to keep ratings above an arbitrary threshold to hold a time slot on the channel the show airs on. Some go above and beyond these expectations, but many others only skirt past "passable."

Historically, however, most shows were built with the intention of syndication. This meant that the show had to strive for decently high quality (for the time) if it was to essentially be sold off to other networks and compete for the time slots of other non-animated and often network-exclusive shows. Quality had to be high enough and appeal broad enough to be marketable to networks whose specialty may not be in animated shows. That was both a blessing and a curse in many ways though: production quality may have been higher (at least for the time) in many of those cases, but it also meant that there was less that could be done with narrative and character elements; shows had to be built with the intention that most people were going to be watching it as out-of-order reruns.

>Many of those are more distinct than modern shows, though.
> But they had distinct faces

They really don't. And most of the "laws" on how to draw their faces carry over.

So on top of having relatively simple and derivative designs, you have to combine it with HB's other cardinal sin: Reused animations.

They really laid down the groundwork for the copy-paste Flash shit people would cry about decades later. They let everyone in the industry know that it was okay recycle gesture animation, run cycles, walk cycles, and dialog animations. Fuck quality, let's just make 5 more copies of Scooby Doo.

Sup Forumsermins have terribles memes