What is a Cartoon?

Just post Navi porn and make yourself useful faggot

>>87696528
Well, they're making Avatar comics at some point, so expect the "fanbase" (pfft) to start demanding generals and shit for every Avatar-related retardation out there, like the Godzilla and Power Rangers autists.

>>87696547
You can do better, my man.

>>87696559
I'm not asking about what should be allowed on /co/. I'm asking what is a cartoon, and what is not a cartoon, and why?

I'd say that if it's trying to look like it's real, then it's not a cartoon. If the look of the characters and their movement is exaggerated or simplified to be something you won't find in reality, then it's a cartoon.
Loads of CGI isn't enough to make something a cartoon if the CGI is meant to take the place of real life props, sets or makeup. The aliens of Avatar are supposed to be just as real as the humans, but the cartoons in Roger Rabbit are obviously cartoons.

>>87696806
What about that Beowulf movie?

>>87696806
>Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
>Beowulf
>A Scanner Darkly

>>87696846
Yeah, I dunno. That ones tricky. I'd say it leans more towards cartoon than not, because there's absolutely nothing real alongside the CGI. With Transformers or Planet of The Apes, it makes some sort of intuitive sense to think of them as live-action, because there are real actors and props alongside the CGI that attempts to look real, but in Beowulf, absolutely everything is fake.

I think that when actual real people and props are on screen, it sort of grounds you as the viewer as subconsciously thinking "this is real", but when everything on screen is fake, there's a sort of disconnect in your brain. Or maybe that's just me.

>>87696846
The Beowulf movie is a fully 3D animated movie so it's an animated cartoon just not drawn in the traditional sense. It shouldn't be discounted because it doesn't look "cartoony" like other 3D animated films.

Stop-motion movies and shows are a form of puppetry which is not a cartoon but it is still animation.

>>87696528
it's pretty simple to me
if your goal is to depict realism or something that's stylized in a way that's cool (bringing out the best, most exciting parts of realism, or evoking them while surpassing them) then that's not a cartoon.
a cartoon gleefully ignores realism, coolness, naturalism, in favor of being wacky, strange, clownish, generally 'soft' in its feel.

if we're talking CG or puppets, same deal. if you're meant to look at this creation and say "this really exists, it's flesh and blood and could be real" that's special effects, but if it's meant to make you think it's made of pixels or foam or ink or hoses, it's a cartoon.

Roger rabbit doesn't count solely as a cartoon so your whole theory is bullshit.

>>87698156
>a cartoon gleefully ignores realism, coolness, naturalism, in favor of being wacky, strange, clownish, generally 'soft' in its feel.


What is the DCAU?
What is Avengers EMH?
What is Aeon Flux?
What is Daria?
What is The Maxx?

>>87696559
>Godzilla and Power Rangers autists.
Say what?
Although I do want non-comic Godzilla threads on /co/, that can't really happen.

>>87698156
I agree with you that the distinction is in whether realism is considered a goal or not.

However:
>a cartoon gleefully ignores realism, coolness, naturalism, in favor of being wacky, strange, clownish, generally 'soft' in its feel.
doesn't sound right.

>>87700276
But this excludes Beowulf and Spirits Within.

>>87696528

Aesthetics and style, perhaps?

"Cartoon" denotes an easily recognisable western-influenced art style that is as far from realism as possible.

From your examples, Roger Rabbit is 50% cartoon, and goes with Dinosaur and Coraline given the definitive style that is mixed with the live action, while Avatar's and The Spirits Within's animated effects are meant to convey a sense of realism in a different world.

>>87702965
Avatar is anime.

>>87696528
bruh, if it's intention is to look as realistic as possible it's not a cartoon. it's that simple.