Is there some kind of law that demands adult cartoons look like absolute shit...

Is there some kind of law that demands adult cartoons look like absolute shit? There's a difference between simplifying art for a small budget and literally throwing out all knowledge of art and design.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SIF5BLyh3Mk
youtube.com/watch?v=jnYgJ2s7dNg
youtu.be/JhZjQwHJFJY
youtube.com/watch?v=UoDvlU2R4ig&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm sure they've done studies/focus groups and discovered art and animation quality doesn't affect whether adults continue to watch a show past a certain point. It's the only explanation I can think of.

Rick and Morty has good animation tho

> ugly americans
> looks like shit

No, it really doesn't.

animation is fine, they're talking about art style here.

>look like absolute shit
>Family Guy
>Rick and Morty
Nigger what?

Bojack Horseman's art is good.

Also the art is often bad for the following reasons.
1) They're using gross humour to look more adult.
2) They don't want to be mistaken for a children's cartoon so they can't make everything look cute.

I doubt any adult US show would use a Naru Taru type opening.
youtube.com/watch?v=SIF5BLyh3Mk

Ugly Americans was awesome you dumb piece of shit.

>Bojack Horseman's art is good.
It's not. One of the best moments of the new season was when they used a different artstyle. youtube.com/watch?v=jnYgJ2s7dNg

At least Roiland's garbage art is assumed. It's ironic that a show that was supposed to have shitty art is better looking than the other shows in your picture.

Its basically competing with somewhat practical Disney movies, 70s and 80s rotoscoped cheap childrens/adults movies,
So they need to look different, or thats the idea.
The end result is weird shit artzy styles, knock off Simpsons, low effort slapstick comedies, and worse.

Now, thats combined with the horror of flat digital color palette, no priorities, poor art design, and such.
Its not bad, but its fine.

>Is there some kind of law that demands adult cartoons look like absolute shit?
As compared to what?
Have you ever watched Teen Titans GO!, NuPPG, Steven Universe, Adventure Time, Gumball, Regular Show or any of the other countless pieces of shit on CN?
Bad art isn't an adult cartoon thing, it's just a cartoon thing nowadays.

Ever wonder why Venture Bros takes three years to make a season? It has good animation and detailed character designs
youtu.be/JhZjQwHJFJY

A show with simpler designs and animation, like family guy and Rick and Morty, takes less time too produce, which is what the networks prefer

>three years for average animation

Everything but nuPPG and Regular Show actually has pretty good art direction. Gumball is fantastic at combining mediums. Steven Universe uses color and character expressions pretty well, all "height chart" shit aside. TTG has stiff animation sure, but the character designs are still appealing. They aren't Jeff & Some Aliens level of disgusting or awful.

Gravity Falls had good art direction. So does Ducktales. Star Vs. has nice designs and even some good animation here and there to boot. Loud House has very good art and animation direction.

Kids cartoons are way more consistent that when there is something that looks like shit, such as Problem Solverz, it becomes infamous for how shit it looks whereas adult cartoons, that's just the norm. Problem Solverz would've just been another forgotten Allen Gregory if it was an adult show.

Hey, at least Gumball uses different mediums to make it more unique.

Its above average for an adult-aimed animated show, especially since it's made for a network known for shoe-string budgeted shows. I'm pretty sure alot all of those three years aren't spent on the animation, half of the time is possibly spent on the writing, notice how there's never been a legit bad episode of VB?

What is you idea of "good art-style", OP?

Ugly Americans looks good you pleb

No it doesn't, it's filled with that paper-doll style of character animation that just looks awful.

I like Bojack Horseman but the art is often not too great, it's functional but kind of looks like its missing detail in some areas, and it suffers from the same animation problems as Rick and Morty.

>No it doesn't
Yes, it does. No adult cartoon has this leve of animation youtube.com/watch?v=UoDvlU2R4ig&feature=youtu.be

none of those shows except NuPPG look that bad. most of them look good if anything. hell, even Steven universe isn't as bad as most of the shit in the OP

>What is "Drawn Together"?

western cartoon thing.Also, as far as something like old Adult Swim cartoons such as ATHF and 12oz Mouse, the shitty animation adds to the humor, i never understood why animation snobs never got this.

Ugly Americans seems out of place in that image.

>none of those shows except NuPPG look that bad
None of those shows also look better than BoJack Horseman.

I thought it was because it was on Adult Swim.

>Ugly Americans
>shit looking
>any day of the week
>any month
>any timeline
>any universe

>Steven Universe, Adventure Time, Gumball, Regular Show
>not better looking than BoJack

I miss Drawn Together. I don't think I've ever seen another Adult Cartoon with the same level of animation quality. Too bad they couldn't carry it over to the movie.

Rick and Morty

Not a law but they need to make sure little Johnny and Susie don't see a cartoon, think it's for them, see cartoons fucking, and then their parents throw a hissyfit. Making it ugly at least reduces the chance of that.

Rick and Morty has the occasional good looking scene, but most of it is pretty stiff and robotic.

>adult cartoons
Those aren't cartoons, they're animated sitcoms. It's animation standards are completely different.

Family guy isnt bad

This thread is retarded.
None of you will even point out what constitutes a "bad artstyle" or "bad animation".
You're all fucking plebeians anyways. Fuck off OP/

By attacking the premise of the thread, you fail to address it.
Fucking plebian.
Why so filled with envy and hatred?

>Making it ugly at least reduces the chance of that.
Do people seriously believe this?

>little Johnny and Susie
Did you purposely pick Johnny Bravo character names or was that coincidence?

>None of you will even point out what constitutes a "bad artstyle"

Grotesque, flat, dull and unpleasant.

It has some well animated bits, but look at stuff like how Rick walks, you can tell that his character model is just like a stick figure paper doll whos joints are being rotated and it looks really bad.

Bojack's art design is great for animals. For humans it's not too impressive, but still blows the majority of this out of the water

R&M's animation is well beyond the rest of these. You can stroke your hateboner for "m-m-m-m-muh leddit" all you want, but the animation is anything but shit

This might come as news, but Sup Forums never knows what the fuck it's talking about. Whether that be complaints about voice actors, animation, art design, comics, movies, other boards, etc.

>>Is there some kind of law that demands adult cartoons look like absolute shit?

It's the shitty excuse of 'artists' in the US who keep aping eachothers increasingly shitty and simplistic art style.

I remember people complaining about the simplistic Simpsons art when it came, flash forward to this day and it's the best design of what is currently on air, the rest look like art by 8 year olds.

And it's going to get worse, because with each iteration of shitty artists out of CalArts, the bar is lowered...

>defending Steven Universe
The show is pure shit, you sjw cuck

>And it's going to get worse
Impossible. Unless the next shows are just literal scribbles I can't imagine it getting even worse.

>I remember people complaining about the simplistic Simpsons art when it came
But Simpsons actually had a lot of moments of surprisingly good animation and act from guest animators. Even then, the "shitty flat art style" still had some freelancers who gave it their all.

hell yeah it was

>Impossible. Unless the next shows are just literal scribbles

screencapped

> bojack
The art director's style is actually pretty damn nice it just doesn't translate to animation that well

I enjoy the Simpsons myself, but even that's decidedly primitive compared to the very first "adult cartoon" from 30 years earlier.

Watch an early episode of pic related and you'll find...
>acting
>strong poses
>unique expressions (i.e. based on real life and not model sheets)
>style that was merely window dressing for solid construction
>lines of action
>good composition
>fantastic color (despite initially airing mostly in B&W)
...and those first season episodes were animated by one (lone) guy per episode.

There's no real excuse for what we've been fed for the last 50 years.

Might have something to do with them trying to emulate newspaper comics which were a bit more adult targeted. It's important that your comic have a distinct style since you only get 3 or 4 panels to make your joke while making sure the reader knows what comic they are reading.

12 oz. Mouse?

>implying that's not a classic

Super simplistic 'blooby' style art is easier and cheaper to animate in mass. Mostly because so much of it can be done with computers.

Adult targeted cartoons need to be cheap because they don't make money like children targeted toons. No toys to sell, so they basically need to keep production costs to the bare minimum.

Think about the show mentioned by It was excellently animated, but it had to hock cigarettes while it was at it to be a commercial success.

i miss ugly americans...

>It was excellently animated, but it had to hock cigarettes while it was at it to be a commercial success.

No they did not HAVE to advertise cigarettes, it was Hanna Barbera being greedy, after public complaints they dropped the idea and guess what, Flintstones kept on going for ages being a commercial success, with lots of spinoffs as well.

most of the time goes just for the writing deluded faggot.

It wasn't really greed. AFAIK, all prime-time T.V. shows had commercial sponsors in the early 1960s.

by not caring?