The art style for this show has aged very poorly 'and by

>>92881345

It's hardly an art style, it's what they could muster up using 3D. The whole show is really half-assed in design and it makes me wonder what kids are supposed to be enjoying about it. Why does Jimmy have a giant swirl head and hang out at a 1950s diner all the time? How come most of the dialogue is characters bitching at eachother? Why did they make an entire episode about Quentin Tarantino? What's up with this show's sense of humor and direction? Who is this show for?

I found it weird that characters always mugged the camera, looking at you through the tv, it's off putting. But if anything, I think the silly art style compliments the poor CGI. It's CGI, the best CGI is always going to look like shit years later, epically tv CGI

>>92881709
this is why cgi is ultimately inferior to 2d art

>>92881709

The show was always awkwardly aware of the audience and the cameras, as if it was sarcastically putting on a puppet show we all knew wasn't very good.

>>92881345
Couldn't even watch it then

>>92881345
If it had had real art, people would have just called it a Dexter's Lab ripoff.

And, I mean, it was an inferior permutation on the same basic concept.

>>92881720
2D ages to, just not as rapidly as 3D. I hate the way people are obsessed with graphics, language, style and setting becoming dated. Everything becomes dated. What matters is was it good when it came out. Normie friend linked me Honest Trailers for the Xman animated series and they ripped on it for a 2 second scene said to Jubilee, LOOK WHAT YOU DID TO OUR VCR PLAYER
Oh wow, a piece of technology no one used in 20 years. WHAT A SHIT SHOW

>>92881671
>Who is this show for?
people who like to meme the characters who have no impact on the show.

File: 1487722058044.jpg (60KB, 911x848px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 911x848px

>>92881671
You're asking too many questions.

I think it's fine. The 3D holds up.

I never cared for the show. Jimmy seemed like a less likable Dexter and while the CGI didn't look bad in its time, it felt flavorless

honestly i think the animation still holds up. it's actually a lot smoother than modern 3d animated cartoons and the character models are very reminiscent of 2d designs. they didn't try to make them realistic and they look a little wacky, but that's good. i don't see this show as ugly at all

Why do Tumblr kids love to mock this show so much?

Never realized there was such a mixed reaction to this show

I think it holds up

File: 384179_original.jpg (64KB, 653x470px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 653x470px

>>92881345
That 2009 Commercial > The TV Show >>> The First Movie

Seriously if you weren't always such a stick in the mud about "muh grafixs" then you'd at least have to admit that car commercial feature Jimmy Newtron fixes the "cgi quality" of the characters, but otherwise there's literally nothing wrong with them, everyone stands out and are rememberable. Why the fuck does people need answers for why anything in this show happened? It's a fucking cartoon. This shit was far more tamer than the likes of the original PPG and the shit they did in their show.

File: reboot_2-e1383163909741.jpg (55KB, 498x304px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 498x304px

I always found the awkward CGI to be part of the appeal, to be honest. Like, yeah, the show legitimately holds up on its own merits, but it's also sorta nostalgic because of the visuals. You can look at it and instantly know when it was made.

It's sorta like ReBoot or Beast Wars in that way, or maybe those old PS1 games that can match (and exceed) modern games in every metric except graphics.

>>92885587
the body animation is terrible BUT facial animation still holds up. also as weird as the show is the models and designs are good