I just don't get why it's impossible to emulate handdrawn

>>70614457
That requires effort, which usually takes passion. Something lacking in modern Simpsons.

>>70614457
Shortcuts, why make something ugly out of a EEnE episode when you can make perfect circles and shit?

Animation costs money, Simpsons has loads of it, they just don't care enough to make it look interesting.

It's possible but it takes work, and the time and money doesn't make sense to spend when 98% of audiences honestly don't see the difference or even think the bottom looks better

>>70614502
Let me guess, you don't watch modern Simpsons?

>>70614457
I have yet to see a Simpsons episode except maybe one where Bart trades his soul for Pogs, but I really like the top image's animation so much more, wow.

>>watching simpsons rerun with my nephew
>>"This episode must be old, the intro looks awful!"
He's dead to me now.

>>70614600
To be fair, I remember thinking the same when I saw the season 1 intro as a kid.

>>70614525
This
>>70614600
He only said that because the HD version looks "cleaner", i mean, just look at the contrast of the older intro

>>70614457
That has nothing to do with being digital vs. traditional. It's just shitty animation vs. good animation.

Daily reminder that the newer version was animated this way due to Groening's specific request to make it "realistic."

>>70614457
What bugs me most are the shadows. Shadows on every goddamn edge. Why? Muh details? It somehow make it look way worse.

>>70614687
Simpsons never had good animation other then that John K couch gag, it did have "livelier" animation in earlier seasons however.

Heres a much better view on it with "GOOD" animation in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKi34AGMVlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMaaIu23crQ

>>70614600
I'm not so sure it was a comment on the quality of the animation. The character designs do look oddly off-model in the older intro, and the footage itself doesn't look as sharp or crisp as the HD one. The new intro is more consistent with the show's current look, even if its animation is so stiff.

>>70614852
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKi34AGMVlI
Those are all pretty average. Yes, even the TMS animation. They're not terrible but they're not very good either. They barely understand what they're animating. Plucky's mouth-agape when he realizes he's been had, Plucky tearing out his feathers, it all looks dead, like the people animating don't understand why the character is doing what it's doing. That "eye looking back, mouth left hanging" is supposed to be EXPRESSIVE, instead it's robotic like that stiff Marge Simpson up there.

It is completely possible.
The industry is the issue here.
Fox adult "cartoons" are some of the worst offenders.

Not sure how simpsons does it.
But if it's like family guy
It's way cheaper and faster to use canned animations posed onto models and work in after effects than to actually go through the effort of frame by framing digital work.

>>70614666
Satan has spoken.

Anyone have gifs or webms of the old version of Some Enchanted Evening?

Don't you faggots remember?

The team working on the intro did it in house and turned in a scene of marge turning very close to the original, but someone at FOX wanted it to be more on-model, so now we have the Marge Stiffson.

the truth of the matter is that the animation industry has figured out that the only people that really care about good animation are other animators so the lot of us are screwed at this point

>>70614551
>Actually defending modern Simpsons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc0gvwSaueY

There is literally zero appreciation for the animation itself among its viewers, it's purely the vehicle for the dialogue and few sight gags. Why would you work hard making something when people are actually gravitational toward the cheaper option?

>>70614457
It's not you fucking idiot.

>>70618267

shit

>>70614457
it's not
animators are just lazy
they always have been

>>70614852
>Startoons has Babs with boobs

File: dontbite.webm (634KB, 1280x720px)

634KB, 1280x720px

You can with a proper amount of focus on animation, a touch of old effects like smear frames, and a willingness to not stick too strongly to models. Animated sitcoms today though realize they don't need animation in the same way a lot of live action sitcoms realize they don't need cinematography or lots of sets or anything. Anyone tuning in is there for a few dumb stand up jokes, half won't even look at the screen while it's in the background. Nothing in the background matters in live action sitcoms the same way nothing they animate in family guy really matters. Simpsons is just cutting corners where it's target audience will never notice.

>>70614457
>The reason why the show has stiffend up is because there was an era when fox would tell directors that we had to draw every pose we drew perfectly on model. No distorting of the forms of any kind. It has slowly been dieing down the past couple seasons but they still insist on making the show more about the writing and less about the looks.

>Every once in a while we'll get let loose and we can do some fun stuff but on the whole don't blame the artists please. Believe me all of us working there would love to express the characters in more ways but there's just so much we can do. I'm just happy to be working, I can't complain anyway I'm on the longest running show ever.

source: http://morpheus306.deviantart.com/journal/Simpsons-now-in-HD-update-233741679

>>70614852
Anyone else think Kennedy Cartoons doesn't look THAT bad? I like the cartoony, bounciness of it.

>>70618486

Remember when Simpsons didn't have a "target audience" and was praised as THE sociocritical cartoon?
At least cartoons like South Park are being straightforward about not giving a crap about animation

>>70618510

>show should focus on the writing
>writing went to shit

File: tumblr_l9e3fy9nDe1qzgf5no1_500.gif (498KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x383px

>>70614852
>Simpsons never had good animation

>>70618601

I wish those "original version" would still roam around somewhere

>>70614457

The variations in shape and line weight of hand drawn frames, when coupled with a high number of drawings, naturally impart a liveliness to the animation. Imperfection and unpredictability is a large part of feeling organic. The lines in digital animation are too constant unless you put some extra effort into making them varied.

The problem of digital perfection isn't limited to the animation aspect. 3D didn't start looking good until algorithms for noise/film grain were developed. Modern 3D rendering has multiple passes of atmospheric effects that dirty up the image. Digital painters use texture layers and chalk-like brushes for the same reason.

>>70619476
>unless you put some extra effort into making them varied
And at that point it feels completely unnatural and forced.

File: 1192692817601.jpg (32KB, 292x302px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 292x302px

>>70614551
>Defending modern Simpsons

Mindless contrarianism has gone too far.

>>70618563
The problem is that they constantly overdid it to the point of sloppiness. In one instance, a Kennedy episode was so rife with errors that it had to be sent to another animation studio for (several) revisions.

>>70619745

It's very hard, to the point that you might as well do it by hand. Which you can do in these digital programs, but it kind of wipes away the justification these studios use them in the first place.

I know this has been said ad nauseum, but Flash was used beautifully in Ping Pong.

>>70615582
>I think Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki trained animators are average.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? They're god tier for a reason.
>>70618079
Simpsons (as well as Family Guy) is still done in Korea.
>>70618450
So does TMS but at least they are shaped like what a 14 year old will have in real life.
>>70618563
They were sloppy, but they're much better then Mir thats for sure
>>70618486
Explain how most of Korra's market is "that market", they care about animation.

Explain why TMS is doing that Zooey Deschanel show announced last year.

tumblr

I can't stand the awful line quality of older Simpsons.

>>70614502
Isn't it cheaper to do hand drawn over CGI though?

Are people just that lazy now?

>>70614600
To be fair, while the animation is better, it was filmed in a full 180p.

>>70622437
It might not even be laziness so much as people simply don't know how to animate well. Traditional animation skills just aren't being taught anymore.

File: 1378647016544.gif (2MB, 170x140px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 170x140px

>>70618222

this one?

File: sanic.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>70621075
>I think Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki trained animators are average

Did you even read his po-oh wait, it's you.

>>70622891
Yes I did, and he has no idea what he is talking about.

>>70614852
I'm sure that TMS is hard at work on that new LilPri, man.

>>70622891
Also are you guys from Cal-Arts who for some reason think Ghibli-tier animation is bad?

If so, then WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?

>>70624129
They're also doing blue jacket Lupin & New DuckTales as well.

>>70622887
I always see this as a good and bad example. You could easily focus on how bart does not move at all

I hate how modern Simpsons look like fucking robots

>>70624409
I hate how modern Simspons feels like it's written by fucking robots.

>>70624431
Still better then Family Guy or anything outside Japan for that matter.

However, I will give points for this, thank you BirdMan and that Flintstones X WWE crossover.
https://youtu.be/gLsHlO8OGTo

Everyonè listen to me.

TMS will propel Teh Sampsangs to its formerest glory with a LilPri crossover due in 2018.

It will only be costing 200 bajillion pesos.

Yu should all be glade and greetful it is not Mecuy Filmworks (Canada) doing the lions share of the gränfañgcional munqunjion or else Estudio Mir (Vietnam) will don the kid gloves and boots like they did with Avatar seasons 2 and 3.

Am I doing it right, guys?

>>70624162
TMS' animation isn't that good.

>>70625694
Stop it, my work buddies don't post here anymore and I only post things with a source.

That part of our lives are over, I'm trying to redeem my name here.
>>70625807
Are you from Cal-Arts?

>>70625807

What animation studio would you say is all that good then?

It's not

The only time modern simpsons has had good animation is when they've used guest animators in couch gags who actually put effort into it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRbTE4x7as

And I think the story behind this one is they actually made it and after that the simpsons decided to use it for the show, it wasn't comissioned

>>70626188
I am not.

>>70626294
To Cal-Arts grads, they will say Rough Draft because they do what they say but their animation is very stiff & stilted, they were ok in the cel era but got worse once digital ink & paint came into being.

The Moi people came from normal art schools which they are trained to build normal human bodies but Moi's animation is very lop sided (say a character's neck is 2 inches away from the center of the body) and is not as good as Rough Draft.

In the end, TMS is TMBest as theirs a reason why Ghibli uses them in almost ever film they ever did.

>>70624162
Nice projecting, but I'm not from Cal Arts nor do I think Ghibli's animation is bad, quite the opposite really. Hell, I even thought comparing Ghibli's animation quality to that of TMS is more of an insult towards the studio than it is a complement to be frank.

>>70614457
They save 40 cents.

>>70626614
Then why the TMS hate? People like Kazuhide Tomonaga, Yoshinobu Michihata & Toshihiko Masuda put their heart & soul into their productions; Why hate on them? They're the Ghibli of TV/OVA animation.

>>70626492
that was cool shit

>>70626744
Here are some links talking about it.
https://archive.moe/a/thread/120500716/#q120500716
https://archive.moe/co/thread/69240517/#q69240517

>>70624280
Why should he move?

>>70626492
>i'm pretty sure it's the same artist that appears in some /f/ flashes because the ending is pretty similar to those, and is frankly the only part that could have been left out.

otherwise it looks really nice.

>>70614457
That has nothing to do with "hand-drawn" vs digital animation. Both are still drawn by hand, but the newer one is simply lousier animation, that's all there is to it.

>>70618486
SU doesn't have the best animation either, but at least it tries.
You can really tell during the action scenes where most everything feels really floaty like they don't actually see how real humans move

>>70614551
...People watch it?

>>70627019
I do.

>>70624280
Remember, its TV animation.
You have to set the bar a bit lower and allow some cheating.
However, he should have blinked or something at least

File: let me tell you why that's bullshit.jpg (58KB, 730x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 730x720px

>>70614502
>>70614511
>>70614525

Nah, it's more that the obvious way to do a ceiling of tiles in digital art is to do it neatly, so to do the effect of the original hand drawn version you'd have to start out by having someone free handing the tiles on the master cels for the inbetweeners to copy using the same digital tools they'd use for the straighter tiles.

But neither's per se "more expensive" than the other, in large part because the original is done "on the cheap" - see how the lines indicating tiling aren't entirely drawn and are a single color with just black lines?

The same goes for the larger amount of body motion marge is doing - in the original there's no shading and fewer frames used, so the bodies have to move more dynamically to convey motion, and again that weird twirl the hair does is just a little bit "easier" in hand drawn stuff, because the bulk of the master cels aren't being C&P'd from frame to frame digitally, you have to draw it all by hand ANYWAY, so you can deviate more easily that way and add weird flourishes... but the pay off is that you have to use fewer cels to finish the product on time, where as the digital animation can massively increase the number of frames the animators can do per day, meaning you can use more frames per millisecond, or free up time for them to animate more of the "new" or "unique" bits of the simpson title sequence.

And thus we get to the real problem here: It's not "handdrawn vs. digital animation" it's "zombie simpsons has gone on so long that instead of using one very well drawn title sequence with 2-3 unique bits per episode, they now have upwards of 5, not counting the couch gag, in part to help pad out the episodes, and thus to meet this increase the overall quality of each bit is less than in the old days, so maggie looking at the monobrow baby is basically 2 frames of jerky animation lasting at most 10 milliseconds that loops for almost a whole second."

>>70627010
Real humans don't move "floaty". Nor do their body proportions change as they move, as in >>70618486

Bee and Puppycat is guilty of the same shit.

File: frustrated balloon.png (400KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 600x600px

>>70627082
>10 milliseconds

>>70614457
It's not impossible, it would just defeat the purpose of digital being quicker to do.

>>70627200
did you not read what I posted?

>>70626744
But people thinking a studio isn't that great doesn't mean they hate them bro.

Also,
>They're the Ghibli of TV/OVA animation.

Yeah, nah. Far from it really.

>>70627624
But most of Ghibli's movies uses them.

http://sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/11966/animated-crowd-kazuhide_tomonaga-running-the_wind_

Are you one of those types of people that only like feature animation?!?

>>70614502

>modern Simpsons

Groening hates animation and cartooniness in general. He's a hack. Even in the old simpsons days, he'd try and make his show as stiff and rigid as possible.

It's not really just The Simpsons, I think it's an issue with all cartoons.

Uncle Grandpa is probably the cartooniest thing I watch on TV right now and even that is rife with bad, stiff animation and drawings.

I think the problem is two fold. It is NOT that the animation is digital, because many shows, including The Simpsons, aren't made in Flash (or with similar techniques of motion tweening symbols around on the screen), they're still drawn frame by frame by actual people with their hands. The problem however does stem from this digital age we've entered, which imbues everyone with a notion of, "there must be a quicker, cheaper and easier way to do this". Back when animation was shot on film, there were no real ways of making shortcuts, it wasn't even an option, everything had to be hands on. Not so much anymore.

Which I think brings us to the second problem, the fact that the creators who are (this is up for debate, but) actually able to draw/animate are so far removed from the final image on the screen. Even the special scenes they do rough animation for still get pushed hard through a Korean filter that removes all the skill and nuance from the drawings. It just deadens everything.

>>70629846

I'm glad the Amazing World of Gumball is made only by Europeans.

>>70614457
Well because to emulate handdrawn you have to draw every frame, and by then you've handdrawn it.

Computers can only guess when it comes to tweening.

>>70627082
Too long, didn't read.

There's no more passion, no soul, no life in the animation as evident with Marge's flourishing momvent in the original intro to her now robotic, lifeless turn.
Cheaper, expensive, whatever. They just don't care anymore and got lazy.

>>70627010
This is what happens when non-animation becomes the norm. People who want to make it proper no longer have the skill or money. And then the audience forgets what that skill even looks like, and so on.

Animation is dying quietly.

>>70614457
Marge becomes a robot.gif

>>70629846
And this too. Outsourcing the animation is almost designed to kill uniqueness. The animators might as well be machines, and I suppose soon enough they will be.

I miss all those imperfections the detail the animation had. But even if they could still have it animated like that it wouldn't save it from how bad the newer episodes are. I mean would we care if the episodes actually had good writing from ages ago, but still adapted to the newer crisp lazy HD animation?

>>70630582
>And then the audience forgets what that skill even looks like, and so on.

This is the saddest thing of all.

File: celebs---penn-jillette-1040cs010512.jpg (109KB, 1040x746px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1040x746px

>cartoon doesn't follow the 12 principles

>>70630765
>I mean would we care if the episodes actually had good writing from ages ago, but still adapted to the newer crisp lazy HD animation?
It would be better, but really good writing would demand that the characters emote. How many classic-style jokes would be ruined by lack of expression?

John K is right, the script-based mentality is dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yGJGTjV2WE

Seriously though, can you name one modern cartoon that does?

Animation like that is dead dead dead. It was dead decades ago. Even Tiny Toons and Animaniacs were cheap imitations.

>>70631412
forgot muh quote >>70631295

File: 1421326740725.jpg (202KB, 850x2012px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 850x2012px

>>70631412
>Seriously though, can you name one modern cartoon that does?

No, I cannot. I am tempted to suggest that maybe one recent anime did, but that might be a stretch even. Where did everything go so fucking wrong?

>>70618486
That animation sucks.

>>70631412
Not when TMS was in charge.

File: hope.jpg (3MB, 4327x3869px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4327x3869px

>>70631780
Well, someone has learned from said pictures, heres another one.

>>70631780
Computers and outsourcing, as has been said.

I think outsourcing isn't the absolute rule in Japan (although they have deals with Korea too) so entirely in-house animation is a thing that still exists.

>>70631788
Doesn't it say something about the state of animation that anyone is impressed with it? Steven Universe at least attempts smears and it's like wow, what are those again?

>>70631879
In Japan they outsource generally just for the in betweening, whereas America Just ships the storyboards to Korea and leaves them to animate everything.

hand drawing is like walking through the mud and digital drawing is like walking on ice. Both are hard but for different reasons.

File: 3680277597_c9f38f1847_b.jpg (643KB, 727x1024px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 727x1024px

>>70630582
>>70631932
>ITT people who doesn't remember the shit Hanna Barbera animation from the 70s

The all got collars so they don't have to do a neck animation!

Indeed if you want to have eye cancer just watch anything from 70s tv animation, is awful. I'm looking at you Filmation Tom and Jerry.

File: akko.webm (1MB, 1280x720px)

1MB, 1280x720px

Little Witch Academia (2013)

File: 1346722924299.gif (3MB, 354x212px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 354x212px

at least there's some studios that at least still try.

File: ruel spade fight.webm (1MB, 1920x1080px)

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>70632185

>>70632016
Games Animation knew how to use production music.

>>70632106
Trigger is the modern day Disney Australia/Startoons, they're good, but not as good as TMS/Disney Japan.

>>70632093
>The all got collars so they don't have to do a neck animation!
That was actually a pretty good workaround the low budget they had at the time.

>>70632016
After seeing this image 10 trillion times I don't think it's so erroneous. I mean it's true, AT is a good example of character design that doesn't allow for the same 3D cartoony expression as a good old Looney Tunes character. It's designed for ease of drawing but is also stylish, and the style is then copied, perpetuating laziness.

That said I love AT to death and I still think it looks beautiful when they really TRY. It's not technically good animation, but at its best it's creative and vibrant and that's what cartoons should be.

Wakfu is very impressive for flash.

File: 1396324813279.gif (3MB, 489x572px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 489x572px

>>70632264

>>70632304
But it still obviously Flash. That slide-y look kinda makes me wanna puke.

File: 1.png (17KB, 467x453px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 467x453px

>>70632303
>it's creative and vibrant and that's what cartoons should be.

plebs get out

>>70632247
>Sven Hoek
>Games Animation

>>70632291
And it look like shit. I remember being a kid and being baffle about always the light colored bush moving, and knowing that the floor was going to break because the different color in the animation.

>>70632374
They scored the episode. Also, they added the sound effects.

>>70631876
>>70631780
>>70614457

Guys, I have a confession to make. Animation isn't a huge deal to me. I recognize that the animation better back when Loony Tunes were a thing, but between about 1970 and 1990 the animation was shit. As for today, I think some flash shows (in particular Steven Universe, Star vs Evil, and Gravity Falls; see >>70618486) have in parts very fluid animation and good palettes. If these are bad, then what makes for good animation?
Can someone explain this to me?

>>70626294
SunWoo Animation has never lost their edge imo

File: NOX.gif (144KB, 300x272px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 300x272px

>>70632308

>>70632400
Oh, well I've learned something today. Thanks, anon!

>>70632393
Were you a kid in the 60s when these shows were new? Cartoons playing on TV was a huge novelty back then.

I dare you to look up Ivor The Engine and Captain Pugwash and see what limited animation in other countries looked like.

>>70632452
>As for today, I think some flash shows (in particular Steven Universe, Star vs Evil, and Gravity Falls
They're not made in Flash

>>70632511
Aren't they? My mistake. Still, what makes for good and bad animation?

File: acc96de66057cee5de69b95a9a49ba9d1425489737_full.png (315KB, 640x578px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 640x578px

>>70632249
No. Trigger are overrated. Little Witch Academia, Kill La Kill and maybe a few old Gainax stuff looked good, but that's it. Just look at their upcoming show. It looks horrible.

>>70632093
HB in the 70's was the cheap schlock pawned off on kids though. Limited animation is now so popular that people have actually lost the ability to appreciate non-limited animation.

>>70632452
>then what makes for good animation?

see
>>70631295

File: 1357935405810.png (58KB, 171x182px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 171x182px

>>70632106
Why is it that I want to fuck every single character in this show. Shiny Chariot first and foremost but the MC, the dozy alcehmist, the nerdy friend, the uptight priss, the priss' possy, I mean good lord there are way to many fuckable underage girls in this show.

Why are witches so hot?

>>70632459
For local work but they even stop doing Family Guy.
>>70632452
1985 is when animation became good again full time and Steven Universe & Gravity Falls are done in Korea.

Watch this.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hygd_tex-avery-who-killed-who-1943_fun

File: dance scene.webm (3MB, 800x450px)

3MB, 800x450px

>>70632452
a lot of modern animation is stiff because someone sold the industry the idea that characters need to look on model 100% of the time. During rapid movements the eye blurs shit together, you can see it in VHS tapes that run at a lower framerate, too.
In animation, you need to mimick that effect or things will look... awkward.
The steven universe animated bit you quoted is an example of fluid animation, because it actually makes use of smears. it isnt bad, but it isnt particularly impressive either. It really *should* be the standard. But it isnt.

Instead the standard is more on the level of budget flash animations. and having used flash personally, the programme is actually pretty good. But it offers a lot of tools animators exploit, use as a cruch, or use to cut corners and keep the budget down. The biggest culprit being tweened animation. You know those shows that look kinda like paper puppets, where they have pictures for the limbs and have those move across the screen? Those are tweens. and theyre always incredibly obvious because human beings dont move like that.
Wakfu tried its best with them but even that looked kinda awkward half the time.

they've recently been doing more and more frame by frame animation, and it always looks better.

>>70630168

Yes, it's zombie simpsons.

Saying "they don't care and got lazy" about it is tl;dr.

tl;dr: Zombie Simpsons, duh.

>>70632590
Cool! Thanks anon

>>70632640

>late wakfu
>not showing the more comparable 1999 webflashcartoon tier "crapimation" from the start of the series

I know it's anime, but Ping Pong was animated via flash and did a pretty good job at being kinetic and lively like the cartoons of yore. They also clearly said 'fuck it' to staying on model too,

An example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcSuAhbtIFg

>>70632452
They aren't bad but the animation isn't technically rigorous. Great animation looks extremely lifelike, even when exaggerated. You can feel motion and momentum and it's very exciting to look at. Looney Tunes is pretty much the gold standard of western animation as far as I'm concerned.

>>70632728
I dont have a lot of examples on my PC, sorry.

>>70629230
>But most of Ghibli's movies uses them.
So? They used a fuck ton of other decent quality studios to help them out on the animation as well; like Oh! Production for example.

Doesn't really transfer much to the quality of their own in-house works though, which like other studios varies a lot more in terms of animation quality.

>Are you one of those types of people that only like feature animation?!?
No, I like TV animation as well and I honest think it has its strengths over feature animation, I just don't think TMS is that great a studio in my opinion. That said, I still enjoyed their work on Bamham though.

File: tumblr_mkt87hHMTA1qao70vo1_500.gif (955KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 500x281px

>>70632608
They seem natural, but not realistic. The east/west fusion is a good style.

>>70614852
>John K
>good
die in a fire

>>70632989
TMS did it better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ji8Oo5q3o
As remember.
Trigger = Startoons.

File: 1427165623039.gif (2MB, 209x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 209x213px

>>70614457
>ctrl+F Akira.
>no posts

where the fuck am I?

File: 1412492243849.jpg (90KB, 412x385px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 412x385px

>>70633038
>Insulting God

>>70633106
/co/ - comics and cartoons. I think you may have been, for some reason, under the impression that you were over in /a/ - anime and manga. It's an easy mistake, we all understand.

>>70633106
Akira was hand drawn.

>>70632947
Meh, it's okay. Not really seeing what they did "better" seeing as it's kinda similar to the animation quality found on anon's gif yet only it's a complete scene but whatever.

>>70633048
Furries are really lucky that so much furbait stuff came out in the 90's. I doubt they would be very prevalent if this was some flash or cgi shit.

>>70633208
meant to reply to >>70633048 ah whatever

>>70633106
That movie is like 30 years old.

>>70633522
The Simpsons is like 30 years old.

>>70632511
the show that shall not be named is Flash. you'll see the difference

>>70633802
There's nothing wrong with Flash.

>>70633892
It's a tool for animating, a very unstable tool.

>>70633959

Used in the right way create wonders.

https://youtu.be/QmXj48dtzxQ

>>70634044
Wrong video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_-SgC_IyCo

>>70634564
Go fuck yourself.

>>70634627
But Homestar Runner is a masterpiece.

>>70632631

That was hilarious. Thank you.

>>70614600
when did they replace the intro?

Because even in season 12 they still used clips from the klasky csupo era and it's jarring as fuck

>>70634994
Your welcome.

> glorious 2fps fist shake

File: mad_kid.gif (10KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 650x450px

>>70630168
One of the animators said they had the hair flip but they took it out because Fox wanted the "joke" with Maggie and Unibrow baby

>>70618222
I never saw that episode. What does the non-old version look like?