How come animations today look worse than stuff from +60 years ago?

How come animations today look worse than stuff from +60 years ago?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tMyE4y5pRkM
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLX_gMwKms
blog.sakugabooru.com/2017/06/23/anime-craft-weekly-41-i-cant-believe-its-2017-and-i-have-to-write-that-anime-is-hand-drawn/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

How come Disney animated films have such lazy writing recently? What happened?

because nobody gives a fuck about traditional animation anymore

Even Dutch Nazi animation is better than modern day stuff
youtube.com/watch?v=tMyE4y5pRkM

100% budget. Popeye and other such animations had huge budgets and their cartoons were shown in theaters. Once they started making cartoons for TV, budgets dropped dramatically, and so did animation quality. At least modern animation is much better than 60s/70s TV animation.

Not to underplay technology's part in it, but animation's quality, like most artistic ventures, isn't really determined that much by age. It's mostly sheer skill, time, budget and genuine effort. Got a lot of money? Can you draw? an a shit load of time? Chances are you can make a good piece of animation weather it's 1954 or yesterday morning.

>that spinach flag

Because animation is expensive
That shit was the life's work of a dozen or so animators.
They lived well on that money.
Their kids went to college on that money

Now you need a loan just to work as an animator

Bottom line is, you get what you pay for

>recently
When was Disney writing ever genuinely good?

> (OP) #
>They lived well on that money.
>Their kids went to college on that money
I thought artists were paid like shit back then, they basically worked in sweatshop assembly lines cranking out art as fast as they could.

80 years ago: drawn with respect to 3D form and weight by professional draftsmen who invested work in every frame
today: moved around like paper dolls with no regard to 3D form or weight by hack amateurs who don't give a shit about individual frames.

You really think "more fluid = nicer"?

Modern cartoons do look better than shit like Hannah Barbara cartoons or pre-Ducktales syndicated cartoons. Those early theatrical cartoons just had a lot more money dumped into them because the format made it easier to make the money back.

>tech has gotten better
>NOBODY HAS RESPECT HURR

People like you are why we haven't gotten to mars yet

>How come animations today look worse than stuff from +60 years ago?
Two main reasons. The first is simple and financial - the skilled man-hours involved in older cartoons were absolutely insane. The second is skill. Animators of the time had a rock-solid grounding in artistic principles not generally present today and Disney in particular was obsessed with accuracy.

>I thought artists were paid like shit back then, they basically worked in sweatshop assembly lines cranking out art as fast as they could.
All of them worked hard but how much you were paid depended greatly on how important you were to the animation process; for example, colorists at Disney in the late 30s made less than $20/week while key animators made $200-300/week - and this during the Great Depression.

>cherry picking
>using still images to compare animated production values
Fucking stupid m8

>rock-solid grounding in artistic principles not generally present today
Oh, you mean rotoscoping? Yeah, "huge" loss there. Retard.

Those Popeye TV cartoons sucked ass. At least the Famous Studios ones had good animation.

>more fluid
There's a shitton of stuff going on beside "more fluid", which just sounds like diarrhea.

There's solid forms, weight, preservation of volume, expressive poses, expressive facial expressions, there's meaning to the motion, things that are supposed to be snappy are snappy (Olive flailing her arms), thigs that are supposed to be floaty are floaty (Popeye sailing through the air), characters look each other in the eye and react to each other, feet touch the ground and don't sail across it, and on and on and on.

The feet thing really bothers me in modern cartoons. Way back when, you had to move cels by hand, and it was done by a technician, so of course they didn't give a shit if the walk cycle matched the ground or not. But today, characters are moved across the background by actual animators, not technicians, so there's no reason for having feet floating across the floor.

No, I mean things like fundamental anatomy. You have to know the rules before you can break them with any competency.

Theatrical vs T.v.
Any other answer is memeing you

>NOBODY
Just animators, not "nobody". For example you didn't have lead paint in your toys as a kid, so who do you blame for your retardation and inability to form a thought?

I didn't do either of those things.

Yeah, that is what people used to think, then people made massive money on things where they disregarded everything except simple shapes.

You sound like an art school recruiter who wonders why no one values art school anymore.

You realize that the example you have was a Fleischer 's last ditch plan movie to compete with Disney at the time, right? They had the Paramount budget and Max wanted to beat Walt at his game.

>Takes the time to animate the tree falling into the ravine

Nothing in OP's webm is rotoscoped.

Says the shill who probably is in ever SU threat ;3

Wow, I haven't seen someone deflect that hard in awhile

>Yeah, that is what people used to think, then people made massive money on things where they disregarded everything except simple shapes.
And those are the things people are complain about in these threads. Which was my point.

Why did big studios stop making animated shorts except for the occasional family movie? Most of the shorts we have are indie or foreign.

>Theatrical vs T.v.
How do you explain the hot mess that is recent theatrical hand-drawn releases?
How do you explain the general lack of understanding of acting in giant-budget 3D films?

It's not just budget and TV vs theatrical.

It's the lack of understanding that animators are actors. They're not riggers, they're not layout artists, they're not writers, they're ACTORS. If you want a hand-drawn or computer-animated character to look believable, the person moving it around, making it gesticulate and express itself and pose and do everything else, has to know how to make those drawings or polygons ACT.

>Update
You clearly don't know how rotoscoping works then bud

>deflect
Deflect what? One user said "nobody", and that was never >implied.
Another user said "using still images to compare animation", and THAT was never >implied or done either.

It's just a shitshow, neither of (you) actually say anything.

Your point is that you are one of those literal retards who can't get with the times? Man, maybe all animation should be disregarded in favor of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Fucking moron.

Nothing in OP's webm is rotoscoped.

>still deflecting
ok

Because there's no money in it and nobody willing to fund them out of their own pocket.

Thanks for showing how retarded you are I guess!

Can you put the tendies and Mountain Dew down for a second and think, what it is that's supposedly being deflected? What was said that is being deflected, in what way? Please use your words.

Nothing in OP's webm is rotoscoped.

>trying this hard
Even had the Mt. Dew and Tendies comment. Thanks for showing that you are basically triggered on top of being wrong.

Cell animation is lazy trash though. It ruined animation as a industry and art form.

hurr forced animation

Are you legitimately retarded?

Then define rotoscoping then, please

Use your words to explain what is being deflected.

Cel* lol your dumb

No, just pretending.

inb4 someone posts Richard's complaint about life drawing

Seriously he makes some of the most over-animated lifeless stuff out there and he's praised more than the nine old men.

desu I miss the watercolor backgrounds a lot of anime used to have in the 90s

You're comparing the good stuff from 60 years ago to all the stuff today. There's a reason we still remember Popeye and Felix the cat.

But what if you went and looked at some of the _bad_ stuff? Would you still think the same thing?

Bean heads, simple shapes, primary colors, and noodle arms. Combine all these and you have modern cartoons.

And the main reason studios like WDAS and Pixar still make them is mostly just for experimenting with new techniques or training new directors

They ran out of brothers Grimm fairy tales to rip off.

You have modern PROFITABLE cartoons
Big difference

It's not like people became inherently incapable of making good animation
It's that animating a movie for 5 years just doesn't pay the bills any more.

This is my favorite type of Sup Forums thread, where it derails nearly instantly because two people who don't have reading comprehension skills start slinging feces at each other.

You must be new here
That happens in almost every thread that isn't wholly dedicated to memes

Just two autists dedicated to fighting because neither will admit to misreading something

Maybe they should have sex with each other.

This. Animation hasn't died, the will has died. There's no money in good animation, so there are no good careers in good animation, so there are no good draftsmen graduating good schools, etc. Hence, the epidemic of bad animation.

You want to save animation? Demand equitable distribution of wealth and establish a perfect socialist utopia so there is more money floating about to waste on silly moving pictures.

>You sound like an art school recruiter who wonders why no one values art school anymore.
Nobody values art school BECAUSE It's all a bunch of garbage modern bullshit instead of teaching actual classical skill

>Demand equitable distribution of wealth and establish a perfect socialist utopia
>more money floating about
>socialist utopia

>Cell animation is lazy trash though
>Cell

Did Cell fake a Frieza voice through the door and trick him? How evil.

Fucking do it you coward. Pull the trigger.

>lazy shit artists can't be bothered to draw the whole frame so they cut corners and call it a day
Literally the flash animation of the olden days

>lack of talent
>lack of interest
>cultural malaise

Fuck I hate modern anime's generic designs and art style so fucking bad.
>tfw they even did it to poor Kino
Fuck modern anime.

chuk jones was amazing.

They need to be polished and be as inoffensive as possible:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLX_gMwKms

This is more or less how their movies are written, great ideas dumbed down for kids.

This is the worst post in a very bad thread. I don't understand why people feel the need to form strong opinions on things they know only the first thing about, and then stick to those opinions no matter what. I'm going to bed.

Because you're comparing apples and oranges? Today's animation mainly relies on it's use of things like colours and backgrounds and interesting/memerable character designs to appeal to you. For example most of the main Adventure Time character designs are extremely distinct and easy to tell apart, like Lemon Grab, LSP and PB.

Not to mention a lot of these examples are stuff played at theaters and had different budgets, teams and due dates. We also rely on toys now.

Cal Arts.

digital vs draw
Same reason why anime looks like garbage compared with the old ones.

I recently watched some random special feature on one of my LT dvds where Chuck talked about how he liked to put in a moment where the character stopped and looked directly at the camera for a moment, to let the audience in on the fact that the character gets the joke as well.

I've watched Looney Tunes my entire life an I'd never noticed that he liked to do that so frequently in most of his shorts.

1. that was made for theatrical release and the cost after inflation could be as high as $30 (granted you were allowed to see as many viewings that played that day with that one ticket)
2.It was a pioneer period where no one knew what would and wouldn't fill seats so it demanded to be both experimental and quality
3. For every one +60 year old animation of that time you have 300+ animations made in today's market, the quality is still there and in still about the same volume, it's just we now have hundreds of other animations with it

>they basically worked in sweatshop assembly lines cranking out art as fast as they could.

No, that's Palcomix.

@94990889
Wow user, shitposting has gotten to the point
If you can life draw, you can do any style you want. it's a case where a short person can't say what it's like to be a tall person but a tall person can say what it's like to be a short person since all tall people start short. You are going to have to post proof of a good animator that didn't master volume, perspective, anatomy or the fundamentals.

It wasn't called "The Golden Age of Animation" for nothing.

>T.trigger weeb

>projecting

(You)

I don't like the new look either, but to be fair, that new design is basically how she looked in the book.

Stop excusing lazy practices just because the end product looks better, weeb

Can you explain how you think cel animation works and propose an alternative method?

>The raw spot on the tree bark after Bluto cops the spin punch

Animators are animators. Character acting isn't everything. Incidentally, Japanese animators are actually layout artists too.

It's a meme that modern anime is "generic," and Kino's new design looks much more similar to the official light novel art.

blog.sakugabooru.com/2017/06/23/anime-craft-weekly-41-i-cant-believe-its-2017-and-i-have-to-write-that-anime-is-hand-drawn/

More Money for less effort

Why the fuck are they fighting over Olive Oyl?
I never understood that

It's more than budget.

The time period when companies were competing to make shorts for theatres was when the industry was in it's prime.

Competition is fierce. There's no television and with that no 'easy' time slots. Your audience isn't just kids, who have no standards, but all movie goers You need to consistently produce theatrical level animation in all your works and there's at least 3 major animation studios ready to replace you within a week if you don't. No 'riding out the season', your animation is sold PER episode so the theater studios will drop you the moment you produce a lousy cartoon.

Also there's no digital aid what so ever. You need to know how to do everything by hand. And you can't make mistakes either because cells are fucking expensive to produce.

It produced the most elite artists in the history of animation. Even Disney in it's Renaissance with all it's digital tools and multitudes higher budget could barely go toe to toe with them, and they didn't produce NEARLY as many total minutes of high quality animation. Japan has never gotten close to anything like that short of a few mega-budget movies.

Cost-cutting, abundance of average-skill animators instead of a handful of highly-skilled animators, evolution of technology to make cartoons more consistent and easier to correct errors rather than having its own charm and personality, so on and so forth.

Long story short; capitalism incentivized the animation industry to be geared towards profit than towards appreciation of the art.

>Japan has never gotten close to anything like that short of a few mega-budget movies.
Even the average TV anime pisses all over these shorts from an extreme altitude. Americans have never understood animation because they've always thought it's about either hitting 24 FPS or having very "expressive" character acting (and hitting 24 FPS). And that's all the thought they've ever put into it.

That shit wasn't produced in quantities for a weekly show. I think shows like Behind the Garden Wall still look as good as that.

Did Popeye just kill a trainload of people?

Actually, Potato!Kino is the exception, in that case. Still cuter, though.

oh

OH WOW

I seriously thought our animation started with vulgarity and raw digital animations

Japanese "animation" as much as I fucking love is barely even animation compared to the masters of the old cartoons.

What a Japanese "animation" is, is just having static still images stay on screen and than transitioning to another still pose. Quick cuts, dramatic backgrounds (say speed lines), and lots of zoom in's to talking heads keep it fast paced enough so it doesn't reveal it's static nature. Even very high budget things such as Bebop and the golden age of OVAs do this. It's the style the Japs learned.

Pop-eye is real animation. There's so many little nuiances to the way their limbs move, it's not stuff but fluid like they are made of spaghetti. The characters deform, deflate, and their body parts change size to match their emotions.

Even fucking Disney forget how to do this stuff. Renaissance Era Disney is more isn't rigid like anime but it's still not as fluid as the old masters.

The order of rank goes
Early Disney+Old Shorts>Reinnsance Disney=Ghibli>OVA era anime>90s western cartoons animated by nips (Tiny Toons, batman TAS)>tv anime>modern western cartoons=flash animation

It's the best animation in the world. You just don't understand what animation is.

>What a Japanese "animation" is, is just having static still images stay on screen and than transitioning to another still pose.
This is a myth.

Find me a walk cycle made by the Japanese that is as fluid and intricate as the walking that pop-eye does.

Not a moment where a character dashes really cool for one frame with speed lines. An actual full walk cycle.

I don't think a single example exists in the history of tv anime and I'd the amount in the entire world of their movies and OVAs is probably almost zero.