Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112
  1. #61
    Senior Tybby's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Tybalt
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Land of Emotions and Photons
    Gender
    Moist
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekai View Post
    I enjoy being serious.
    Your previous posts in this thread imply otherwise

  2. #62
    I love stylized cartoons.

    A few years ago during my most shameful period, I was totally into anime and shunned all things western

    And them it sort of flip-flopped just a little

    Now I LOVE stylization. I love cartoons that people consider 'ugly', especially, because they're usually the most unique in art style and their designs are really really memorable.

  3.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #63
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    There isn't really a cartoon that isn't stylized.
    modern western ones are obvious, but in anime there's huge eyes, tiny noses, the legs tend to be too long to emphasize them, etc etc. Anime is far from anatomically correct.

    So really it just comes down to what you prefer in terms of style. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have to like anime, or regular show. If it isn't what you enjoy then no big deal. The only thing I disagree with is applying your preference to character judgements.
    Like calling someone lazy over a style choice. That's a negative character quality applied to someone because you don't like their style, because honestly to get to the point of airing on television is a lot of hard work.

    In the same vein it's not fair to make judgement calls on those that like to watch certain things. It all comes back to different styles developed to portray different things. MLP with fully realistic horses would look downright stupid. full metal alchemist in powerpuff girls style would look dumb. It would downplay the serious aspects to it, just like MLP would pull away from the episode themes.
    People watch tv for different reasons. I watch a few really simplistic shows, that's how I got into MLP. It doesn't make me stupid, I just like to watch when I want to relax and don't really want to think.

    So yeah. I suppose if you don't like a certain style then you probably don't like the associated cartoon type, and we tend to be far more critical of things we dislike. So suddenly shonen suddenly has all these flaws, and western shows look amazing, or vice versa, when in reality they both take about the same amount of work,effort, and passion from those involved.

    I will say this though. I don't like realistic looking "cartoons." one of the closer ones was stuff in the 80s but those creeped me out. The problem with the animation style then was that animators wouldn't fully articulate body movement, so it was creepy, the head would move, or the arm, but the rest of the body was static. Who knows though, maybe if a studio put in the time to do full body animation I wouldn't be so bothered by it.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    There isn't really a cartoon that isn't stylized.
    modern western ones are obvious, but in anime there's huge eyes, tiny noses, the legs tend to be too long to emphasize them, etc etc. Anime is far from anatomically correct.
    It's probably also worth mentioning that not all anime does that. They have a consistent habit of saving ugly traits for antagonists and making the protagonists look appealing though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    Like calling someone lazy over a style choice. That's a negative character quality applied to someone because you don't like their style, because honestly to get to the point of airing on television is a lot of hard work.
    Aren't we basically taught in our society that cutting corners inherently lowers quality, and that doing something strictly for the sake of cutting corners and not because it adds or enhances anything to a design is not a good reason to do said thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    In the same vein it's not fair to make judgement calls on those that like to watch certain things. It all comes back to different styles developed to portray different things. MLP with fully realistic horses would look downright stupid. full metal alchemist in powerpuff girls style would look dumb. It would downplay the serious aspects to it, just like MLP would pull away from the episode themes.
    People watch tv for different reasons. I watch a few really simplistic shows, that's how I got into MLP. It doesn't make me stupid, I just like to watch when I want to relax and don't really want to think.
    I've never attempted to call you or anyone stupid for what you watch. If it came across that way, I apologize.

    On this subject, I've basically only stated why I do certain things and never specifically intended for those things to seem superior. I feel compelled to do this because there are certain people I come across quite frequently who do not think cartoons should be anything but comedic and most anime should just be live-action, etc etc. That opinion bugs me because I wouldn't like those things if they were live-action, they might even be a lot scarier if they were live-action, and whenever I imagine characters when reading a book or thinking of stories, I think of them in a stylized manner. Obviously you don't have that bias, but I still felt like stating my perspective because of people who do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    I will say this though. I don't like realistic looking "cartoons." one of the closer ones was stuff in the 80s but those creeped me out. The problem with the animation style then was that animators wouldn't fully articulate body movement, so it was creepy, the head would move, or the arm, but the rest of the body was static. Who knows though, maybe if a studio put in the time to do full body animation I wouldn't be so bothered by it.
    You should watch Avatar, if you haven't already. They made a really good effort toward realistic movements.
    If you say "plz" because it's shorter than "please," I'll say "no" because it's shorter than "yes."

  5. #65
    Crabby Admin Term's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Term
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekai View Post
    It's probably also worth mentioning that not all anime does that. They have a consistent habit of saving ugly traits for antagonists and making the protagonists look appealing though.
    Why does that matter? I think Fays referring to a trend in anime styles that varies due to the skewed Asain perception of beauty, ie long legs, small noses, huge eyes (something that's become a bit of a problem in places like Korea where women will get plastic surgery on their eyes to make them look bigger and more "European"). And even then there's just as many consistent examples of appealing art design for antagonists as well. But again that's something left up to the art director.

    Aren't we basically taught in our society that cutting corners inherently lowers quality, and that doing something strictly for the sake of cutting corners and not because it adds or enhances anything to a design is not a good reason to do said thing?
    You're trying really hard to be meta here when it's seriously misplaced. Again you're harping on this lame perception that somehow not having four fingers or being ultra-realistic is somehow lazy. I don't know if you've ever sat in on animators toiling away at trying to make an animated short let alone a movie or tv show. I think if you walked in and said all their hard work and effort suddenly amounts to laziness, you wouldn't get out of there without a nice shiner to go along with it.

    And how do you perceive someone's art direction as "not enhancing the show"? I think we've already established you have what amounts to either a very narrow or shallow sense of what constitutes good and effective art direction while also having this strange, possessive mindset of an entire genre that anything that doesn't conform to whatever tropes you've deemed acceptable is either insulting or laziness.

    Again, I couldn't care less what you like or don't like, but your justifications on why you don't like things and your continual dismissive attitude of calling animators lazy is just absurd.

    To something you mentioned earlier about playing an instrument with four fingers, again I don't know why this seriously matters. That's what I mean when I say that you're taking things a bit too far to an extreme where you're willing to dismiss a show and someone's effort for the sole reason that "well he's missing fingers". It's an odd hang up and considering you like apparently enjoy MLP and Avatar where the former has characters picking up and interacting with objects without any digits and they both have characters with super powers out the ass, you suddenly have a problem with the suspension of disbelief when four-fingered Mickey Mouse starts playing a flute.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    I will say this though. I don't like realistic looking "cartoons." one of the closer ones was stuff in the 80s but those creeped me out. The problem with the animation style then was that animators wouldn't fully articulate body movement, so it was creepy, the head would move, or the arm, but the rest of the body was static. Who knows though, maybe if a studio put in the time to do full body animation I wouldn't be so bothered by it.
    Might that have been related to the use of rotoscoping? Just wondering since I heard for some cartoons and animations, rotoscoping was used for realistic body movement. I think there was an old Betty Boop cartoon where her body dancing animation was rotoscoped, but her head was drawn onto it and she had a bit of a no-neck syndrome.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Term View Post
    Why does that matter? I think Fays referring to a trend in anime styles that varies due to the skewed Asain perception of beauty, ie long legs, small noses, huge eyes (something that's become a bit of a problem in places like Korea where women will get plastic surgery on their eyes to make them look bigger and more "European"). And even then there's just as many consistent examples of appealing art design for antagonists as well. But again that's something left up to the art director.
    I thought it would be fun to mention. Also, isn't saying a culture's view of beauty is "skewed" just as bad as what you think I'm doing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Term View Post
    stuff
    I don't think the entire work of an animator is invalidated because of this, I think that one thing is just absurd to do especially now that everything is digital. It's a pet peeve of mine that I was hoping to point out, since people either don't notice it or accept it as common and the latter really bothers me. People see it in cartoons and then they draw it in their art, sometimes unconsciously. It's like an endless cycle.
    If you say "plz" because it's shorter than "please," I'll say "no" because it's shorter than "yes."

  8. #68
    Retired Staff Frank LeRenard's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MLR
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Land of the Finns
    Posts
    439
    Rotoscoping done poorly can look downright uncanny valley. It was quite popular for a while, though, as a way to make characters appear to move more naturally, but again, it comes down to style whether or not it works. Betty Boop doesn't look like a person; she looks like a lunchbox on top of a clay figurine, more or less. So making Betty Boop move like a real woman could have dangerous results.
    Don Bluth, however, was very good at using rotoscoping. But he was just a fantastic animator all around (despite the strange writing in some of his later movies). I think people use those computerized motion sensors for the same effect now (where the guy puts on a suit with little lights all over it and moves around in front of a camera).

    Anyway, you know there's a certain art involved in cutting corners, too. Mainly it's knowing when to cut the right corners. If you've ever watched Bob Ross, you'd know what I'm talking about (this being the guy who created a perfect looking waterfall in two strokes). So it doesn't automatically imply laziness that you're taking a few creative shortcuts in your work. You could probably argue that it's the shortcuts taken that make the artist's style. Or we could all draw like Renaissance masters and not take any shortcuts at all, in which case it all looks photorealistic. But at that point you might as well make live-action movies instead of cartoons. But the interpretation of the style is pretty subjective, so in the end it's probably up to the viewer whether or not someone's taking a shortcut for the purposes of style or purely for the sake of taking a shortcut. In which case we're back to square one.
    My point is mostly that there are a lot of ways to see this argument.

  9. #69
    Regular oneandonly's Avatar
    Weasyl
    oneandonly
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekai View Post
    I don't think the entire work of an animator is invalidated because of this, I think that one thing is just absurd to do especially now that everything is digital. It's a pet peeve of mine that I was hoping to point out, since people either don't notice it or accept it as common and the latter really bothers me. People see it in cartoons and then they draw it in their art, sometimes unconsciously. It's like an endless cycle.
    So becuase it's digital it isn't allowed to have a style? I've always liked 4 fingers as opposed to 5 because when I try to draw 5 the fingers always come out being too small. It's not because I'm lazy, it just looks better to me. But whatever.

  10. #70
    Senior Damian's Avatar
    Weasyl
    N/A
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    amongst the clouds
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,261
    OP reminds me of my mom a little bit when she found me watching South Park. "Oh my god, it's making fun of people. That's so horrible D:"

    It's a fucking cartoon. It's not supposed to be realistic. As people have mentioned before, the style sets for the content. Take one of your examples, Spiderman. You DO realize that before it was a TV show, it's a comic, right? It was a serious comic that took a serious and more realistic style. That carried into the TV show a bit. People can relate more to realism than to just simple herpy-derpy style and that's how they draw folks in.

    As for Futurama and The Simpsons, it's a NOT-serious cartoon so they made it into a NOT-serious style. It they made it more realistic like Spiderman then...it probably wouldn't have the same effect and would just kinda be awkward. Hell, let's even look back on Looney Tunes. How weird would it be for Wile E. Coyote to look like a semi-real anthro being squished into a pancake by a boulder?

    From what I read, all your rant really comes down to is "These cartoons aren't serious and therefore the animation is bad" when they're not SUPPOSED to be serious. This is just as bad as parents who think "all cartoons are cartoons and for children" so they buy Princess Mononoke for their 6-year old daughter because it's a cartoon and has the word "princess" in the title.
    We all have our demons. If we're not fighting them, then we've befriended them.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •