THIS WILL NEVER BE OVER. NOT UNTIL 2020 MARKS THE END OF AN

Back in my days...

For all of his faults, I honestly think the John K. is 100% right when it comes to his philosophy.

it's not that bad YET
It would be nice to return to the old style of characters, but maybe digital art has made animators to complacent with noodle arms

>>90447670
Noodle arms aren't the problem. You can do any "style" with classic animation principles. In Golden Age cartoons, the characters are carefully constructed, pliable and solid forms that can move around in three dimensions. There are other additional elements that made these cartoons so good, but solid drawing is the foundation, and the loss of that skill is one of the things that hurts modern animation the most.

>>90447231
>NOT UNTIL 2020

I wouldn't say that.

90's style cartoons didn't necessarily start until the late 80's.

>>90447231
>NOT UNTIL 2020
why that specific year? I'm missing something?

>>90447782
that's kinda what I was going for, but you said it better

>>90447231
more details is not necessarily better... a simpler animation can be good too... chuck jones would wipe the floor with nowadays artists even in a simpler animation style

File: cartoonnetwork-feature.jpg (181KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x720px

>>90447948
Making simple designs look good is what some of CN's biggest shows were practically built on.

>>90447231
I'd hesitate to describe the OP image as cherry picking as one of those cherries isn't even a cherry but a piece of gum shaped into a scarecrow.

There are so many factors involved, beyond just focusing on the change in art style, that it would take too long to explain.

>>90447231
This isn't nearly low res enough for me.

>>90447469
He's a prime example of "Do as I say, not as I do"

>>90447469
You should honestly be executed for having such an opinion. John K is the absolute worst example of overusing squiggly garbage in favor of actual craft.

>2017
Who put Squidward in charge

>>90447782
>solid drawing is the foundation, and the loss of that skill

Which specific modern cartoons do you believe lack that skill, retard?

>>90448825
You honestly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're attempting to mask that with needless bravado.

>>90448845
Just about anything on TV. A cursory glance through our own catalog reveals a lot of flat cartoons trying to mask the lack of solid drawing with nice colors & backgrounds.

>>90448936
Remember when cartoons used to be good?
Fuck this generation of animation; it needs to burn.

>>90448958
To be honest, I think that a lot of the actual cartoonists are quite talented & disciplined.
It's the production system which prevents their work from actually making it to the screen.

>>90449013
Nope, Hirsch, Sugar, Nefcy and their kin are talentless hacks.
They need to get blacklisted from animation.

>>90449056
Sugar is the only one of them I'm really familiar with.

I take personal exception to some elements of her style, but looking at her art, I think she clearly understands drawing fundamentals.

File: these millennials amirite.jpg (1MB, 5608x3379px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5608x3379px

>>90447231
YOU'RE RETARDED.

The difference between animation then and now depended on how it was marketed.

Back in the 40's, TVs weren't widely available to the public, so people had to go to cinematic theaters to see those cartoon shorts. During that time period, cartoons were seen as a new form of art that evolves through-out the years, meaning that the animators had huge amounts of talent and passion behind their work and a lot more people appreciated it since it was a refined form of entertainment. That's why you still witness animation from that period that still holds up and still has better quality than whatever is shown on TV.

As for current television, cartoons became extremely common due to capitalistic ideals of parent companies, constant sponsorship and ads from other companies, and animation studios became abundant. Way too abundant. Due to that very success, the executives of a company no longer care about quality, they want episodic cartoons that are cheap to animate and easy to market for long-term profits. This is why you see Spongebob and Teen Titans Go airing constantly on Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network, respectively.

What makes cartoons cheaper to animate? Rushing the animators by forcing them to adopt basic art-styles and simplistic character design, it's all to make it easier for digital animation programs to reuse cels and backgrounds. It's also why you see a lot of animation errors, the rushed scheduling and urgency to meet deadlines is what forces animators to leave behind these animation errors.

An another point would be outsourcing it to chinks in Korea who draw for cheaper at the trade-off for a slightly-worse animation, but like I said before, executives give zero shits about quality if it still gains ratings.

It's such a sad evolution, it makes me wish there was a cartoon-airing company that doesn't exploit everything just to save a couple of cents.

>>90449143
No she fucking doesn't.
Quit shilling.

>>90449228
Good breakdown.

>>90449240
I dunno m8, I'm not the biggest fan of her style, but a cursory Google search or her work shows a knowledge of drawing fundamentals.

>>90449343
No she doesn't.
I can draw better than her and I have one arm.

>>90448936
Have you seen ANY of his recent work? It's absolute trash and I'm starting to think that a lot his shows success was due to the artists he had working for him at the time.

>>90449447
Still better than Rebecca Jew-gar.

>>90449447
>Have you seen ANY of his recent work? It's absolute trash
I've got mixed feelings about his post-2006 stuff, but I'm still entertained by it. I chalk some of it up to old age.

>a lot his shows success was due to the artists he had working for him at the time
This is true, and one of the reasons I find myself adamantly defending his work time after time on here is because /co/ loves to inadvertently trash Jim Smith, Lynne Naylor, Chris Reccardi, Eddie Fitzgerald, Bob Camp, etc.

Furthermore, I'm defending his philosophy, not necessarily his work. If it troubles you so much, refer to >>90448782

>>90449200
>1942
>final product looks just as good as the concept art
>2017
>final product looks worse than the concept art
okay now go ahead and post some motion tweening from wonder over yonder in a feeble attempt to prove us wrong

>>90449621
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All you modern cartoon fags are cancer!
End yourselves!

File: tumblr_ohb8nasgsP1s3xyeyo2_1280.jpg (217KB, 800x676px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x676px

>>90449240
>>90449386
>>90449497
THE (FAILING) COMICS AND CARTOONS BOARD POSTS FAKE BAIT AGAIN! BOO!

>>90449698
>that awful "art"
Nice try Becky.
You're a failure in our eyes.

File: Prince_12.png (428KB, 688x514px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 688x514px

>>90449621
THE 40'S WERE SHIT.
DISNEY MOVIES DIDN'T EVEN HAVE HUMANS BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY HAD NO IDEA HOW TO ANIMATE PEOPLE. I MEAN LOOK AT THIS FUCKING FAGGOT HE LOOKS LIKE A LIZARD WITH LIPSTICK

File: tumblr_od5df4yGlq1u080e1o1_1280.png (186KB, 655x651px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 655x651px

>>90447231
once a technique has largely been considered perfected, it is no longer considered relevant to uphold for everything. It's a reoccurring theme in art.

>>90449783
Hi Rebecca.

>>90449782
They can animate cartoon people just fine.

It's """""realistic""""" undertures like your pic related that are cancerous and have never looked good.

>>90449897
Those drawings are from bland, late '60s Iwao Takamoto H-B.

If you actually watch the earlier cartoons, Fred & the Ranger look a lot better.

>>90447231
People are always bitching about old cartoons being better in terms of drawing. While that seems to be true, what about the writing? Did old Disney shorts ever touch on some heavy subject in a serious way? Or maybe Hanna-Barbera did? Maybe it wasn't well-drawn monotonous shit happening over and over again? How post-modernistic were they? How much tropes deconstruction did they have?

>>90450010
Nobody cares.
Cartoons are about art, not writing.

>>90448154
Hanabarbra style is awful. It's not stylistic, it's just bad. It was a way to make cheap cartoons quickly.

Just imagine how a great show like Samurai Jack could have been even better with a more serious art style.

>>90450055
Samurai Jack is shit already.
It was basically Frank Miller's Ronin without the interesting stuff.

>>90450049
John K., what are you doing on 4chan?

>>90449228
What you leave out though is that the cinema is still a venue for refined and passionate animation just like it was in the 40s.

>>90450089
nice b8

>>90450089
Ronin was Lone Wolf & Cub without all the good stuff in it.

>>90450049
>Nobody cares.
well, a certain modern Disney show being so successful that it's announced to have 4 seasons planned already seems to disprove your point

>>90448834
I call it Bold and Brash.

>>90449698
>>90449768
>self-insert
won't be surprised if it's actually from sugah

>>90450049
Ugh, it's the 21st century John K.

Don't you know that cartooning is the only art-form that's expected to rely primarily on another art-form to express something these days?

File: tumblr_nza8tpV0RE1r8ohwfo6_1280.png (293KB, 550x778px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 550x778px

>>90449822
It's a well known tendency whether you like it or not. There is no sense in blowing up a silly reoccurring theme just because it's back.

>>90449447
But they are the most animated cartoons you'll ever see.

>>90450457
and that is a good thing why?

>>90448845

Animator here and he's right, there are basically no American cartoons being made now where the artists have any concept of anatomy, physics or three-dimensionality, and more often than not they don't even adhere to the basic principles of animation, like anticipation, follow-through, secondary motion, the line of action etc.

Steven Universe does in the rare cases when Rebecca Sugar herself works on a scene and the quality instantly skyrockets through the roof. She is an old school animation fan and the sole reason to watch the show. 90% of the time the show is drawn by hacks though, but her influence still shines through - the show avoids noodle arms and attempts are even made to actually draw hands and feet properly.

But as usual, if you want actual good animation, your best bet is still anime.

>>90450887
/board

File: its scandalous.jpg (236KB, 1970x866px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1970x866px

UGHHHHHH LITERALLY WHAT WENT WRONG

>>90451090
>dude things literally never get any better or worse lmao
>lost knowledge? like ugh cry moar

>>90451165
literally every such thread ever

File: latest[2].png (75KB, 550x510px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 550x510px

>>90451165
>>90451181
>>90451411
>Three posts and they all have "literally" in it
I guess posting on /co/ became a popular sleepover activity with teenage girls.

>>90451555
this is, uh, like, literally SO weird an assumption to make, like, I don't know, like when Britney asked me if I was into RON just because I asked him if he could, like, help me with homework 'n' stuff? For reals gurl what is like, up with THAT?