Which art style do you prefer /co/?

>>89268071
Season 1-4 South Park is the golden age. fucking fight me.

>>89268071
First one for sure.
Wouldn't mind something in between.

Right, though I don't like those patches of slightly darker skin. They look weird, and I've never seen them on the real life Bill.

>>89268153
Realism, Bill don't look good these days

File: file.png (571KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 960x540px

>>89268071
Right, but it's funnier when they use photos.

South Park's art has gotten too good for its own good, though I feel like it comes from Matt and Trey's guilt making their really talented artists draw simple silly cartoon characters.

>>89268232
you bet your tight red ass it is

>>89268261
I'm pretty sure they've outright said this before. I believe it was either in the commentary for Go God Go or the Thanksgiving episode

>>89268099
Anon, he's talking about Art Styles, not Seasons

>>89268232
Saddam is long dead so they're never doing that again.

Of course he's probably still in South Park hell but he's not relevant anymore

File: KyleBroflovski.png (111KB, 287x348px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 287x348px

>Everyone is getting more detailed
>Except for the 4th graders

I'd like if they weren't the same design throughout the entire show. Everything else is changing and becoming more detailed while they're the same. It's a bit jarring.

>>89268261
I agree with you but I believe that the whole move to realism was inevitable the moment they started using computers instead of actual cut outs. Even if the majority of the audience didn't realize that the show was being done all digital after a few seasons, they would eventually not care if they didn't abide by the limitations of their stop motion days if the rest of the show remained the same.

Thus, starting after the movie, the duo started breaking more and more of the artificial limitations they placed on their animators untill they basically allowed the animators to bassically do anything with the basic art style that they wanted to.

>>89269565
>Everything else is changing and becoming more detailed while they're the same.
Maybe that's kind of the point.

>>89269565
Even they are not that stupid.

File: main boyssssssssssssssss.jpg (694KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1000x1000px

>>89269565
N O
not unless anime

File: 0801-4ninjas.jpg (118KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x540px

>>89271956

>>89268071
Right looks like ass, but it also looks like Clinton. Left could just as easily be Jay Leno.

>>89271414
>>89269565
It's more their designs are set. Their parents are the same as well. However the new characters are designed differently that's jarring with the old style so the only time they have more detail is when they're dressed in new costumes. It's like the Simpsons. There's no real narrative choice, they're simply more iconic as are.

>>89269565
It's the Simpsons syndrome: celebrity guest stars are drawn with explicitly detailed facial features in order to make it easier to instantly identify who they are in the show's art style, whereas the show's actual characters remain simplistically drawn since there's no issue of having to make them look like actual human beings beyond that.

Left. South Park was at its best before the movie.

>>89268232
Saddam and Hasselhoff Garrison were funny in part because of how it contrasted with the simple art of the show.

>>89272022
still the best episode

>>89272223
heck off

Hey, I'm looking for a South Park episode and I'm hoping someone can help me out. I can't remember any of the plot. Just a scene. I remember there's a newscast with a field reporter. Some guy repeatedly cuts in front of the camera and says something inappropriate. I can't fucking remember the dialogue. The newscast cuts away to the anchorman holding a picture of visual snow and imitating the analog tv noise. Idk.

I want to watch that episode. I haven't seen it in years and I have this weird memory about it. I hope someone can help me find it. Does anyone know what the fuck I am talking about?

To answer OP, I unquestionably prefer the style on the left.

>>89268071

it bothers me that newer designed characters are so complex compared to the old ones. It's jarring when they stand next to each other like in your picture.

Left fits along with the simplistic paper style, right is still good but it seems too detailed compared to the main characters

>>89268071
Old South Park was indeed cartoony.

>>89273418
>The newscast cuts away to the anchorman holding a picture of visual snow and imitating the analog tv noise.
I definitely remember this part, but not the episode either.
sorry m8

>>89268071
2nd looks closer to Bill, first looks like it could be Leno

>>89268071
How is it he aged, but nobody else did?

>>89272022
>The third game will be a fighting game done in this style with Arcsys doing the animation.

>>89273418
I think it's "A Ladder to Heaven"

Is it this scene you're referring to?
https://youtu.be/4CBN898beWM

>>89268099
I think right after the Movie is the golden age, early South Park is too randumb, besides, Matt and Trey have publicly disowned the first 5 seasons.

>>89273418
I miss the funnily named reporters
>A Midget Wearing a Bikini
>A Quadriplegic Tied to a Pony
>A Normal Looking Man With a Funny Name
>A Hispanic Man With a Gravy Stain on his Lapel

>>89268071
The one that isn't trying to be edgy and topical.

People really hate the modern look as opposed to the old? The old style looked like shit even beyond being intentional, and has aged like garbage.

>>89274110

Id say right around where they realized killing kenny was old hat, so from that season where he was dead dead and a little past that

>>89274224
So...you don't like South Park?

>>89268071
Original, definitely. Celebrities just look disgusting on South Park now.

It doesn't help that if you see one of those gross liney faces you're 100% assured an unwatchable episode.

File: IMG_0349.png (84KB, 205x377px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 205x377px

>>89272068
Actualluy, you're wrong suprisingly. Many of the adults have been redesigned in recent seasons in usually subtle ways to make them look closer to characters that have been more recently designed.

For example, this is what Jimbo used to look like.

File: IMG_0350.png (76KB, 198x315px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 198x315px

>>89278318
And this is what he has looked like since Night of the Living Homeless.

File: 753475389.jpg (355KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1280x720px

Can someone invent a tv tropes term for this already like Flanderization? This is true for almost like every single show in existence, where as soon as the quality goes up, the writing goes down. Dont get me wrong, theres tons of artist who kept their shitty quality ten years later, but their show became shittier because everyone thought it was lazy they didn't bother to improve. Its like an unavoidable fact of any media: your show will become shit after its peak.

>>89278330
So they added shadows?

>>89278871
Well, depth really

>>89278380
>quality goes up until peak then goes down
That would be the definition peaking yes.

>>89273997
That is definitely the right episode! Thank you!

It had gotten to the point where I was on the South Park wiki, looking up episodes featuring channel 4 news... that did not narrow down my search. I probably would not have found the episode on my own.

>>89274168
Tom Pusslicker > Tom Thomson

>>89274110
But their favorite episode is from season 5, and the indisputable best episode with kornis season 3

>>89268071
The first one, I don't like how detailed and well-made the second style is

>>89268071
Hardly matters at this point. Bill Clinton AGED. I just wish the other characters aged too.

>>89278330
His jacket looks 3dimensional, what a change.

Now Satan got a redesign