The new Captain Underpants movie is sizing up to be pretty good.

>>92893161
Looks like it might be decent kiddie stuff- same as the books. It was never gonna happen but I really wish they had tried to emulate the original art style instead of going for the same slick CGI look every single animated kids movie is using nowadays.

>>92894378
what are you talking about? the movie looks just like the books but with textures. It's nothing like any cgi movie I ever seen except maybe the peanuts movie

>>92893161
NICE
I C
C I
ECIN

>>92893161
Someone needs to make a loss collage of references in popular media.

Oh how I wish that were real

>>92893161
it's an edit but it's a damn good one

>>92894378
I don't remember the books well enough to comment on if they got that style right or not, but it definitely doesn't look likevthe standard CGI artstyle my man. If anything it looks most like Peanuts did.

>>92894962
Which is another movie that shouldn't have been CGI. I don't wanna bitch too much because traditional animation is a pain in the ass and super time-consuming, but I don't think CGI being more convenient should be a reason for using it for stuff traditional animation makes more sense for.

>>92894962
>>92895212
You're right though, it's not that similar to other CGI films, that was a dumb thing to say.

>>92895212
> I don't wanna bitch too much because traditional animation is a pain in the ass and super time-consuming, but I don't think CGI being more convenient should be a reason for using it for stuff traditional animation makes more sense for.
Oh I agree with that. Traditional also just generally looks better.

>>92895651
Both have their merits and flaws

Traditional: you just have to draw what you want and it's there or it happens, but you have to draw EVERYTHING.

CG: Computer can help you with correct lighting, inbetweens, etc. but you have to figure out a way to make something do what you want make EVERYTHING (but only once (possibly)) and check EVERYTHING that the computer does.