anyone have that iconic panel of superman sheltering people from rubble. it's kinda like pic related.
Anyone have that iconic panel of superman sheltering people from rubble. it's kinda like pic related
Carson Phillips
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Elijah Edwards
I'll do you one better.
Liam Price
>80 year old cartoon putting today's animated shows to shame
what a thing of beauty. must have taken forever to do.
thanks user! didn't realize the panel was an homage.
Austin Richardson
It's probably not, really. Fleischer Superman was a landmark of animation; it's the birthplace of rotoscoping (Yes, that's rotoscoped! They just did it really well instead of straight tracing the model.) It wormed its way into the public consciousness and changed visual iconography in comics and animation forever. Budget was...I think a million dollars per episode? Which back then was insane.
Unless you mean whatever Superman panel you were talking about, in which case yes, it almost certainly is. The comics borrowed a bunch from those cartoons.
Here's a vaguely related video essay. A bit biased, but it goes over a bit of why animation today isn't like that.
youtube.com
Christopher Morgan
Also, you might be thinking of this.
It's a commonly reused pose referencing Superman #1. He isn't holding anything up on that cover, but he tends to be in homages. Superman lifting things in general is popular because...you know. It's an easy visual way to communicate the idea.
Jonathan Edwards
>This triggers the snyderfag
youtube.com
Charles Peterson
I'll never get why anyone bothers trying to paint Clark as some deeply flawed figure. Flawed, yeah, sure, that works fine. But when he's got no self-control the character is boring as fuck.
John Morris
nope, thinking of a panel that pretty much recreates this moment fromthe mechanical monsters cartoon, except with rubble instead of lava, and two people underneath superman.
rotoscoping makes sense. i was looking at the numbers on those robots and marveling at how well the animators kept the proportions and perspective from frame to frame. doing something like that without any guides would be absolute torture for anyone but the most gifted of draftsmen. still not done with the doc, but it's an eyeopener.
Jaxson Myers
Fleischers Superman is the best thing to come out of that studio
Aaron Russell
>That Lois voice
Chase Wright
It's definitely their best use of rotoscoping. It just feels wrong most of the time in their other shorts. I'm more partial to Koko.
youtube.com
It would be absolutely impossible to turn it around as fast as they did (about a year, I think) if they didn't use references. They clearly aren't just tracing so it's still mindblowing.
Nathaniel Wood
I'm going to get strung up for this but I think a lot of this early stuff is way too floaty.
Leo Williams
A lot of it could use with more weight, but the way Koko expresses himself is wonderful. It's like how in the short where Koko sings "St. James Infirmary," the motion is more fluid once it's rotoscoped but his expressiveness isn't as impactful since they need to alter the character model to fit the pictures.
Jace Myers
I have to say that stuff that takes a million dollars to make is objectively bad art.
Don't get me wrong. It looks beautiful. But I strongly feel art should also be a tool for the common man and not just look good.
Art should be prized for its utility in communicating everyones thoughts and feelings not just for a height of aesthetics which isn't even accessible for most people.
Lucas Morgan
>dat animation
Noah Brown
I would never call it bad. You can just see how they were still figuring out animation as an art.
Still gorgeous though.
Andrew Howard
I know this is bait, but it didn't cost a million to make.
It cost a million to get finished in the period of time it was slotted for. A single person could have done it if they also invented rotoscoping and were fine talent, but it would take them much longer.
Juan Richardson
It’s from the wedding album special, the Curt Swan story.
Jaxson Anderson
Look. How is a poor starving homeless guy supposed to make such a thing? If your definition of good art is unreachable by the masses then it will only serve the interests of the rich.
Justin Ramirez
>Unreachable by the masses
What if the masses made it? Who says it has to be one guy? Why is man tied to only what they can do as a singular individual?
Jacob Hall
The content of that video was good, but the narration could not sound any less interested
Joseph Miller
I think art is more like a form of language then a type of valuable.