Search
Tags
Statistics
Options
Related Posts



Edit | Respond

NAveryW
over 7 years ago
Anihunter said:
Which episode?
"Take Elmyra, Please". It's an absorbed pilot for a show that never got picked up so it's TMS AF.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
This looks much better then I expected. I expected this to have all the extremes have the same timing and to not have any breakdowns like in almost all other scenes from this show as well as many other shows from this decade.
lighthalzen
over 7 years ago
Yeah but I don't like how it's morphing a lot while moving. Also typical of those kind of cartoon I think.

That was TMS on this? Surprising.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
lighthalzen said:
Yeah but I don't like how it's morphing a lot while moving. Also typical of those kind of cartoon I think.

That was TMS on this? Surprising.
Yeah, TMS did a fair bit of cartoon work back in the day (see also the Feat of Clay clips on this site)
Ron
over 7 years ago
lighthalzen said:
Yeah but I don't like how it's morphing a lot while moving. Also typical of those kind of cartoon I think.

That was TMS on this? Surprising.
Yeah, TMS and Telecom did a lot of cartoons on late 80s-90s.

Btw, Toshihiko Masuda sakkan'd this.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
lighthalzen said:
Yeah but I don't like how it's morphing a lot while moving. Also typical of those kind of cartoon I think.
I think what you're referring to is squash and stretch, which is one of the core principles of animation, so complaining about it seems pretty ignorant. Maybe that's not what you meant, but i have no way of knowing.
lighthalzen
over 7 years ago
It might be a result of the animator having squash and stretch as a goal but it seems to me that more recent examples (even in anime) succeed well at doing squash and stretch without parts of the figure sliding to place they shouldn't, making look the entire figure like a chewy blob rather than a human with a skull inside. His hair and forehead for example. It's "morphing", or off-model if you prefer.

Even older examples, I've seen Looney Tunes not looking too weird even when squashing and stretching.

I don't know if that's a matter of era or "animation school" you might say (even if that's TMS here) but that's one of the problems I had as a kid with western cartoons, and I always preferred the more controlled movements and forms of anime.

That's one of the thing that make Disney's animation for example look... less perfect than the most perfect anime to me, despite having more drawings and skilled animators, and more money and more time and more everything. I've noted some people here and there saying "Disney animation is kinda overrated at times" and I agree, but I don't know at all if that's for the same reason. Am I the only guy that dislikes the overdone squash and stretch that make the figure looks like a chewing gum? I think what's reproached is that their animation is too formulaic, and I think the above animation also suffer from an expected formula.

I think it's a problem that arise from it being animated on 2s, since there is more drawings and lines to control. That's an argument for limited animation: if the result should look smooth enough on 3s, don't do it on 2s just for the numbers, if only for the added lines that might not be superposed correctly and flicker a bit, distracting the viewer and killing the end result. Between other problems like "it's useless anyway and you could fuck up the timing by spacing too much when the space is almost 0", "it's hard to keep the forms right and it could result like pic-related", etc.

But it might be a matter of taste, I never got the "illusion of life" thing that American animation prone, anime looks even more alive.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
lighthalzen said:
It might be a result of the animator having squash and stretch as a goal but it seems to me that more recent examples (even in anime) succeed well at doing squash and stretch without parts of the figure sliding to place they shouldn't, making look the entire figure like a chewy blob rather than a human with a skull inside. His hair and forehead for example. It's "morphing", or off-model if you prefer.

Even older examples, I've seen Looney Tunes not looking too weird even when squashing and stretching.

I don't know if that's a matter of era or "animation school" you might say (even if that's TMS here) but that's one of the problems I had as a kid with western cartoons, and I always preferred the more controlled movements and forms of anime.

That's one of the thing that make Disney's animation for example look... less perfect than the most perfect anime to me, despite having more drawings and skilled animators, and more money and more time and more everything. I've noted some people here and there saying "Disney animation is kinda overrated at times" and I agree, but I don't know at all if that's for the same reason. Am I the only guy that dislikes the overdone squash and stretch that make the figure looks like a chewing gum? I think what's reproached is that their animation is too formulaic, and I think the above animation also suffer from an expected formula.

I think it's a problem that arise from it being animated on 2s, since there is more drawings and lines to control. That's an argument for limited animation: if the result should look smooth enough on 3s, don't do it on 2s just for the numbers, if only for the added lines that might not be superposed correctly and flicker a bit, distracting the viewer and killing the end result. Between other problems like "it's useless anyway and you could fuck up the timing by spacing too much when the space is almost 0", "it's hard to keep the forms right and it could result like pic-related", etc.

But it might be a matter of taste, I never got the "illusion of life" thing that American animation prone, anime looks even more alive.
I think we'll agree to disagree on this, but I kinda like the idea of Stretch and Squash. It helps for more realism, or to amp up comedic moments. The problem is that it needs to be used correctly.

Honestly though, I have little problem with either American or Japanese animation, so long as they don't look ugly as sin or look like it came from a cheap Korean studio. I can think of many examples on both ends of the coin (I won't simply because I'd be here all day). But the fact is, at the end of the day, both cartoons and Anime are similar in many aspects, and use many of the same techniques.

Looking at this though, I'm not going to lie, I probably would have liked it better if it were more snappy with some fluidity, instead of just outright fluid. It just looks wrong not just in context of this being a Loony Tunes-type series (a franchise known for snappy animation), but from an animation standpoint as a whole. The poses just feel like they're oozing in together, and not in a good way like in the finale to Feat of Clay. It's almost like someone from Kennedy Cartoons ghost animated this scene for TMS.
lighthalzen
over 7 years ago
Yeah I like the S&S concept too. I like that Doga Kobo seem to make a specialty out of this too (does the smears count as s&s?).

I don't really know how I would have liked this cut to be corrected but more snappiness might be good yes.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
lighthalzen said:
Yeah I like the S&S concept too. I like that Doga Kobo seem to make a specialty out of this too (does the smears count as s&s?).

I don't really know how I would have liked this cut to be corrected but more snappiness might be good yes.
To an extent, I mean it was meant as a quicker version of the S&S concept.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
to lighthalzen, you would probably hate ren and stimpy. Also, this cut is animated entirely on 1s.
Cartoon central
over 7 years ago
If I had to make a guess I'd say this is Yoshinobu Michihata's work based on what I know and heard about his style.
Casshan
over 7 years ago
TMS animated most of these show and their episodes were also the best. Today's cartoons will kill to have animation as bad as this XD.

There's some kind of dogmatic BS with Disney style and the 12 principles.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
Casshan said:
TMS animated most of these show and their episodes were also the best. Today's cartoons will kill to have animation as bad as this XD.

There's some kind of dogmatic BS with Disney style and the 12 principles.
Really? I don't see it in today's cartoons, just a bunch of CGI and Flash animation. And if not that, then cheaply-subcontracted animation (like anything Cartoon Network's produced within the past couple of years).

Besides, wouldn't TMS have followed most of the 12 rules to begin with?
ihhh
over 7 years ago
Casshan, almost none of the scenes in tiny toons looked like this, many animators ignore some of the 12 principles, and I'm not sure you even know what they are?

Anihunter, Most animated tv series are traditionally animated, and outsourcing to foreign studios has been very common since the 70s, and let's also not forget that japan outsources to korea all the time. As for the 12 principles, they are not "rules" as they do not dictate how animation should be done, they are things such as timing and straight ahead vs poe to pose, things which can be applied to any animation whether the animator understands them or not.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
ihhh said:
Casshan, almost none of the scenes in tiny toons looked like this, many animators ignore some of the 12 principles, and I'm not sure you even know what they are?

Anihunter, Most animated tv series are traditionally animated, and outsourcing to foreign studios has been very common since the 70s, and let's also not forget that japan outsources to korea all the time. As for the 12 principles, they are not "rules" as they do not dictate how animation should be done, they are things such as timing and straight ahead vs poe to pose, things which can be applied to any animation whether the animator understands them or not.
Really, last I checked they were rules. Mostly simple rules, but rules regardless.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
Anihunter said:
Really, last I checked they were rules. Mostly simple rules, but rules regardless.
Then what are they?
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
ihhh said:
Then what are they?
You tell me, considering you're the one instigating this after all.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
Anihunter said:
You tell me, considering you're the one instigating this after all.
If you don't know what they are, then how can you say they're rules? By the way, they are, in no particular order, Squash and Stretch, Anticipation, Staging, Straight Ahead Action and Pose to Pose, Follow Through and Overlapping Action, Slow In and Slow Out, Arc, Secondary Action, Timing, Exaggeration, Solid drawing, and Appeal. Those are not rules, they're concepts.
Casshan
over 7 years ago
ihhh said:
Casshan, almost none of the scenes in tiny toons looked like this, many animators ignore some of the 12 principles, and I'm not sure you even know what they are?

Anihunter, Most animated tv series are traditionally animated, and outsourcing to foreign studios has been very common since the 70s, and let's also not forget that japan outsources to korea all the time. As for the 12 principles, they are not "rules" as they do not dictate how animation should be done, they are things such as timing and straight ahead vs poe to pose, things which can be applied to any animation whether the animator understands them or not.
Those are tha backbone of Disney's style and a lot of it is hippie talking just like the Illusion Of Life.

TMS did most of the episodes and were the ones with the best quality, that's a fact. S&S doesn't work well in solid objects or where the animation goal is to be realistic because it makes them look too silly.

CalArts are full of disney fanatics that see them as bible. The Ren & Stimpy guy has a great article in his blog about those principles. It doesn't feel expontaneus.

You can see it in American animated movies today where the animation is plagued with those CalArts dogmas.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
Casshan said:
Those are tha backbone of Disney's style and a lot of it is hippie talking just like the Illusion Of Life.

TMS did most of the episodes and were the ones with the best quality, that's a fact. S&S doesn't work well in solid objects or where the animation goal is to be realistic because it makes them look too silly.

CalArts are full of disney fanatics that see them as bible. The Ren & Stimpy guy has a great article in his blog about those principles. It doesn't feel expontaneus.

You can see it in American animated movies today where the animation is plagued with those CalArts dogmas.
You were stating that those were definitive rules, and I was merely listing them to show how they were merely concepts. There's no rule that states that you have to time your keys a certain way, it just says that timing exists. As for squash and stretch, What do you mean by "solid"? Do you mean "rigid"? In that case, there is no statement that you have to squash and stretch in a certain way, just that some things will squash and stretch. Any "Dogma" you see in those movies are not the use of the principles themselves, as all animation uses them, intentionally or not, it's more a case of people using those principles in a similar manner to achieve a similar style. Nothing in the 12 principles dictates how they are used.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
ihhh said:
If you don't know what they are, then how can you say they're rules? By the way, they are, in no particular order, Squash and Stretch, Anticipation, Staging, Straight Ahead Action and Pose to Pose, Follow Through and Overlapping Action, Slow In and Slow Out, Arc, Secondary Action, Timing, Exaggeration, Solid drawing, and Appeal. Those are not rules, they're concepts.
How do you know they're concepts? Who's saying they aren't even those? Last I checked, they were treated like rules. Granted, not all are followed, but still. Also, you just proved my point.

Also you double posted your recent comment.
ihhh
over 7 years ago
I already explained, timing, for example, is not a rule, and there are no rules for how to time keys.
Anihunter
over 7 years ago
ihhh said:
I already explained, timing, for example, is not a rule, and there are no rules for how to time keys.
Well, if you think that, then what rule would you say is there in animation? Or are rules pointless? I would love to know, seeing as you're apparently so knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
Hitorio
over 7 years ago
Anihunter said:
Well, if you think that, then what rule would you say is there in animation? Or are rules pointless? [...]
There are no rules in art at all, objectively speaking.

Techniques and principles like the 12 that ihhh listed for you - they are methods that technically-explorative artists use to guide their vision in an effort to create a sequence of motion containing patterns that pleasure the brains of viewers. They are tools that focus artistic technique into a specific spectrum of enjoyment. They are not a representative of what makes for an objectively "better" animation, which is why they are not rules.

To take that information and plug it into the answer for your second question, what you just called "rules," which are just "techniques," are not pointless. :) Calling them "rules," though, is a misunderstanding of what type of value they have.
Read a lot of old artbooks by some vintage animation pros, like The Animator's Survival Kit. The mistake of saying that there's a "right" and "wrong" way to do art was a much more prevalent mentality back then. In professional artistry, those 12 principles = better selling product because people enjoyed those techniques consistently; they're great techniques. It's easy to take a formula that makes you money and hail it as something it's not, like an objective "rule."
Disgaeamad
over 7 years ago
If you guys want to keep this discussion up, then I suggest you move it over to the forum instead. The comments section isn't really fit for it since everything else gets lost in the walls of text.