She destroyed her sensitivity by making mechanical frick machines. It's also the reason why she didn't notice that asiaticu took he
pranties when she kept flashing master roshi.
this animation really isn't that impressive when you realize they could have just drawn one detailed gear then turned it frame by frame over two cel layers
The machine falling apart is amazing. Quite literally kino. My second favorite scene is when Zigzag enters One Eye's tent and you see the whole scene reflected in his eye. Not as impressive, but still great considering it was done by hand.
Yeah that's kinda of the problem with all of these fan made recobbled cuts. They frankenstein every piece of footage available to restore it, but a lot of the available footage is in dogshit quality. They obviously preoritize image over sound but even that is all over the place. You can straight up see how some frames degrade massively in quality and sometimes portions of an individual frame are spliced from two different versions.
It definitely doesn't help that video appears to also be upscaled with ai which is its own can of worms on top of everything. It can be done well (the Moguri mod for FFIX uses ai upscaling with very careful redrawing of backgrounds using concept art as reference for example) but this is not one of those cases. You can see quite a bit of ai induced artifacting on One Eye's concubines.
Yeah that's kinda of the problem with all of these fan made recobbled cuts. They frankenstein every piece of footage available to restore it, but a lot of the available footage is in dogshit quality. They obviously preoritize image over sound but even that is all over the place. You can straight up see how some frames degrade massively in quality and sometimes portions of an individual frame are spliced from two different versions.
It definitely doesn't help that video appears to also be upscaled with ai which is its own can of worms on top of everything. It can be done well (the Moguri mod for FFIX uses ai upscaling with very careful redrawing of backgrounds using concept art as reference for example) but this is not one of those cases. You can see quite a bit of ai induced artifacting on One Eye's concubines.
Garret Gilchrist is a leftist wokoid, nit even joking, he even censored the blackskin servents in his new release.
As gorgeous and intricate as the animation was, the story was a mess and the film was never going to appeal to anyone outside of other animators. They were right to try to salvage it, even though there really was no way to turn it around.
You see the same kind of thing in earlier Disney movies that pushed art over populism, like Sleeping Beauty and the first Fantasia. They're technically brilliant, culturally valuable films, but they didn't do much at the box office and really hurt the studio financially.
Not everyone is cut out to be an auteur; most artists need to be reined in by publishers and editors or they get lost in the sauce.
>You see the same kind of thing in earlier Disney movies that pushed art over populism, like Sleeping Beauty and the first Fantasia
dunno about Sleeping Beauty but Fantasia did become profitable through re releases. That said Richard Williams was never going to finish Thief and the Cobbler in an acceptable way so it's fine we have the recobbled cut.
Movie was taking too long to make and costing too much money in service of self affirming content would ultimately not make a difference to audiences. At some point a studio just has to cut its losses and throw something out.
>Okay let me get this straight >the movie we're marketing for a summer release in 1991 isn't going to be ready until late 1993? >Hasn't he been working on this thing since 1972? >What do you mean half the unfinished scenes are made by insane genius hand animators? >What do you MEAN they all died in the early 80s and nobody knows how to replicate their style? >AND WHY THE FRICK ARE THERE 10 MINUTES OF EXPERIMENTAL PENCIL TESTS IN THE WORKPRINT >dude while our studio was working on this, Disney made The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and made half a billion dollars at the box office
They had been waiting on his ass for 20 years, and even though the animation is astounding the story was nothing special so it’s not like it had anything other than the animation to try and wow people at the cinemas, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a magnum opus but the studio has a right to actually get a movie that they can try to make a profit off of and Williams was looking like he wasn’t going to ever finish the film.
See the issue here, from the studio's perspective is "Look Mr. Williams, you've been on this project for like three decades now, Disney's Aladdin is selling hotcakes, and frankly, we're tired of burning money on this project. So we're just going to make SOMETHING out of what's there and call it a day".
It's scummy, but the scummy that has a point, as oppose to today where they'd can it because they'd be afraid terrorists would come to a studio and shoot it up again (which is again, also somewhat understandable)
I'm pretty sure it's not really meant to be shown as single still frames. It's an animation masterwork, but in the literal sense of the word; something done to show off complete and total mastery of the skill set. As such it's really only something other artisans in the craft can appreciate fully.
Anyone else is probably just gonna want to watch Aladdin instead if given the choice, myself included.
NTA, but it isn't. I saw the restored cut and it was like... overdesigned, I guess? Like yes the amount of work that went into it is absolutely impressive, no doubt, but just because something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it's good. Like just the scene in Zig-Zag's introduction:
>why do the guards look like undulating squares >why do they have brass tubes that entwine their entire bodies >why are their faces red >why do his assistants have weird noses and body shapes >why does the animation of the fan-bearer and carpet guys look recycled and samey per frame >why is the road this disgusting checkerboard pattern >why are the thief and cobbler falling down the stairs in slow motion
And the answer, at least to me seems that: they didn't care about the art quality and direction they just wanted to show the limits of technical animation. Which is cool, but it looks hideous, and so from an entertaining standpoint it looks ugly.
Oh and another scene that fricking bothered me is the one where Zig-Zag enters the camp of the One-Eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8crsKbeaeU.
>why is their mouth a throat lined entirely with teeth >holy shit why is his animation of getting up from the throne look so bad?
NTA, but it isn't. I saw the restored cut and it was like... overdesigned, I guess? Like yes the amount of work that went into it is absolutely impressive, no doubt, but just because something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it's good. Like just the scene in Zig-Zag's introduction:
>why do the guards look like undulating squares >why do they have brass tubes that entwine their entire bodies >why are their faces red >why do his assistants have weird noses and body shapes >why does the animation of the fan-bearer and carpet guys look recycled and samey per frame >why is the road this disgusting checkerboard pattern >why are the thief and cobbler falling down the stairs in slow motion
And the answer, at least to me seems that: they didn't care about the art quality and direction they just wanted to show the limits of technical animation. Which is cool, but it looks hideous, and so from an entertaining standpoint it looks ugly.
Oh and another scene that fricking bothered me is the one where Zig-Zag enters the camp of the One-Eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8crsKbeaeU.
>why is their mouth a throat lined entirely with teeth >holy shit why is his animation of getting up from the throne look so bad?
>And the answer, at least to me seems that: they didn't care about the art quality and direction they just wanted to show the limits of technical animation. Which is cool, but it looks hideous, and so from an entertaining standpoint it looks ugly.
That's kind of my point. It's to show "look what animation can do when taken to the extremes of its ability" and the result is just kind of abstract nonsense that fails to use that ability to communicate an idea. It's self indulgent shit for other animators to nod at appreciatively but the layman isn't going to know how much effort the thing took, they're gonna just read that effort as noise.
The term "masterpiece" wasn't originally one to denote quality, it means "demonstrating mastery of a subject". Usually for admittance or graduating from an artisan guild.
This is like that. It's something made for the eyes and tastes of other masters. Not consumers. And that's the problem; it showcases tons of technical knowledge but it's all esoteric; a complete failure at praxis that can't survive in a consumerist/non-academic landscape.
It's basically how I feel about everything made by John K as well. It doesn't matter how much theory you poor into something if the end result is so off putting or so let down by the other parts of production that people turn it off.
>It's basically how I feel about everything made by John K as well. It doesn't matter how much theory you poor into something if the end result is so off putting or so let down by the other parts of production that people turn it off.
John K was slightly more successful than Richard Williams because he was making short TV cartoons but yeah.
Yep. It's so painfully obvious when they use CGI backgrounds and shit. I was watching Overlord on Netflix (before i realized they only have one season) and the CGI textured landscapes during action scenes were so offputting it really ruined the animation.
To be fair Japanese CGI in anime are on a whole different level of atrocious that anything western. Every time I see a background shot in Overlord, I die a little inside when I witness the skeletons or goblins that look like they came from the Myst era of gaming.
...Almost as though there's a happy medium? I want a movie that's quality and not filled with slop but I also want it to not be up its own ass and be enjoyable to watch. Like the fact that I need to explain this makes me concerned about your IQ.
the point of the movie was to prove that animation on ones without relying on cgi wireframes is the way to go, now pair that with a "good story" and we would have smash hits back to back.
but nooooo the animators have to cut the framerate in half and/or make it inconsistent and use cgi because they can't into perspective.
I thought this movie started production about two decades before CGI started to become a serious idea? Like weren't computers basically just room sized calculators back then?
This. It was started in 70s when traditional animation had barely employed those techniques. Richard just thought animators were lazy during those days and wanted to bump up the quality.
>the point of the movie was to prove that animation on ones without relying on cgi wireframes is the way to go
No? CGI wireframes didn't factor into the choices of the movie, and it wasn't the whole point. The whole appeal of the movie beyond "story" is to apply the logic of slapstick silent cartoons to a OP art style high fantasy world.
Imagine if the recobbled edition was given to him in 1972, just as he began to start. Could he have used the remaining twenty years to refine the story and direciton, or would he have spent another twenty years to keep adding onto it?
vegana.
My KINGDOM will COME to DESTRUCTION and DEATH!!!
am i the only one who finds zigzag oddly attractive?
Am I the only one who finds TACK oddly attractive?
you're not alone
There’s nothing odd about that, even with the peasant clothes on he’s got a cute face and a nice skin color.
I'm afraid it's worse than that
There weren't any balls there to begin with?
How did she sleep through someone slapping her pussy?
She destroyed her sensitivity by making mechanical frick machines. It's also the reason why she didn't notice that asiaticu took he
pranties when she kept flashing master roshi.
You'd be surprised what people will sleep through. It's a whole subgenre of porn.
The balls are in her what?
It's in my other pants' pocket.
The war machine destruction is one of my favorite movie scenes. Also,
>I'm taking my balls and leaving!
the whole thing was done without CGI in 1978.
this animation really isn't that impressive when you realize they could have just drawn one detailed gear then turned it frame by frame over two cel layers
The machine falling apart is amazing. Quite literally kino. My second favorite scene is when Zigzag enters One Eye's tent and you see the whole scene reflected in his eye. Not as impressive, but still great considering it was done by hand.
?t=57
Sound mixing is rubbish.
Yeah that's kinda of the problem with all of these fan made recobbled cuts. They frankenstein every piece of footage available to restore it, but a lot of the available footage is in dogshit quality. They obviously preoritize image over sound but even that is all over the place. You can straight up see how some frames degrade massively in quality and sometimes portions of an individual frame are spliced from two different versions.
It definitely doesn't help that video appears to also be upscaled with ai which is its own can of worms on top of everything. It can be done well (the Moguri mod for FFIX uses ai upscaling with very careful redrawing of backgrounds using concept art as reference for example) but this is not one of those cases. You can see quite a bit of ai induced artifacting on One Eye's concubines.
i'm making a cut that contains literally everything including two songs.
Garret Gilchrist is a leftist wokoid, nit even joking, he even censored the blackskin servents in his new release.
>kick the creator off right before the finish line then turn it into slop
Literally what the frick was their problem?
Didn't want to get shown up by a master (who definitely couldn't make a second one even if the first made a shit-ton of money)
As gorgeous and intricate as the animation was, the story was a mess and the film was never going to appeal to anyone outside of other animators. They were right to try to salvage it, even though there really was no way to turn it around.
You see the same kind of thing in earlier Disney movies that pushed art over populism, like Sleeping Beauty and the first Fantasia. They're technically brilliant, culturally valuable films, but they didn't do much at the box office and really hurt the studio financially.
Not everyone is cut out to be an auteur; most artists need to be reined in by publishers and editors or they get lost in the sauce.
I still don't understand the story.
>You see the same kind of thing in earlier Disney movies that pushed art over populism, like Sleeping Beauty and the first Fantasia
dunno about Sleeping Beauty but Fantasia did become profitable through re releases. That said Richard Williams was never going to finish Thief and the Cobbler in an acceptable way so it's fine we have the recobbled cut.
>Not everyone is cut out to be an auteur;
what would you say makes auteurism more common in Japan, like with Ghibli, Shinkai, Hosoda,
Movie was taking too long to make and costing too much money in service of self affirming content would ultimately not make a difference to audiences. At some point a studio just has to cut its losses and throw something out.
>Okay let me get this straight
>the movie we're marketing for a summer release in 1991 isn't going to be ready until late 1993?
>Hasn't he been working on this thing since 1972?
>What do you mean half the unfinished scenes are made by insane genius hand animators?
>What do you MEAN they all died in the early 80s and nobody knows how to replicate their style?
>AND WHY THE FRICK ARE THERE 10 MINUTES OF EXPERIMENTAL PENCIL TESTS IN THE WORKPRINT
>dude while our studio was working on this, Disney made The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and made half a billion dollars at the box office
They had been waiting on his ass for 20 years, and even though the animation is astounding the story was nothing special so it’s not like it had anything other than the animation to try and wow people at the cinemas, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a magnum opus but the studio has a right to actually get a movie that they can try to make a profit off of and Williams was looking like he wasn’t going to ever finish the film.
>right before the finish line
Nah, Williams would have taken another 20 years if they let him.
See the issue here, from the studio's perspective is "Look Mr. Williams, you've been on this project for like three decades now, Disney's Aladdin is selling hotcakes, and frankly, we're tired of burning money on this project. So we're just going to make SOMETHING out of what's there and call it a day".
It's scummy, but the scummy that has a point, as oppose to today where they'd can it because they'd be afraid terrorists would come to a studio and shoot it up again (which is again, also somewhat understandable)
>Those balls? There mine now.
I hate this fricking movie I think it's an eyesore
>Opinions that have you like this
(Really though holy shit it's an ugly movie)
I'm pretty sure it's not really meant to be shown as single still frames. It's an animation masterwork, but in the literal sense of the word; something done to show off complete and total mastery of the skill set. As such it's really only something other artisans in the craft can appreciate fully.
Anyone else is probably just gonna want to watch Aladdin instead if given the choice, myself included.
NTA, but it isn't. I saw the restored cut and it was like... overdesigned, I guess? Like yes the amount of work that went into it is absolutely impressive, no doubt, but just because something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it's good. Like just the scene in Zig-Zag's introduction:
>why do the guards look like undulating squares
>why do they have brass tubes that entwine their entire bodies
>why are their faces red
>why do his assistants have weird noses and body shapes
>why does the animation of the fan-bearer and carpet guys look recycled and samey per frame
>why is the road this disgusting checkerboard pattern
>why are the thief and cobbler falling down the stairs in slow motion
And the answer, at least to me seems that: they didn't care about the art quality and direction they just wanted to show the limits of technical animation. Which is cool, but it looks hideous, and so from an entertaining standpoint it looks ugly.
Oh and another scene that fricking bothered me is the one where Zig-Zag enters the camp of the One-Eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8crsKbeaeU.
>why is their mouth a throat lined entirely with teeth
>holy shit why is his animation of getting up from the throne look so bad?
>tfw no throne of bbw acrobats
Careful though
>And the answer, at least to me seems that: they didn't care about the art quality and direction they just wanted to show the limits of technical animation. Which is cool, but it looks hideous, and so from an entertaining standpoint it looks ugly.
That's kind of my point. It's to show "look what animation can do when taken to the extremes of its ability" and the result is just kind of abstract nonsense that fails to use that ability to communicate an idea. It's self indulgent shit for other animators to nod at appreciatively but the layman isn't going to know how much effort the thing took, they're gonna just read that effort as noise.
The term "masterpiece" wasn't originally one to denote quality, it means "demonstrating mastery of a subject". Usually for admittance or graduating from an artisan guild.
This is like that. It's something made for the eyes and tastes of other masters. Not consumers. And that's the problem; it showcases tons of technical knowledge but it's all esoteric; a complete failure at praxis that can't survive in a consumerist/non-academic landscape.
It's basically how I feel about everything made by John K as well. It doesn't matter how much theory you poor into something if the end result is so off putting or so let down by the other parts of production that people turn it off.
>It's basically how I feel about everything made by John K as well. It doesn't matter how much theory you poor into something if the end result is so off putting or so let down by the other parts of production that people turn it off.
John K was slightly more successful than Richard Williams because he was making short TV cartoons but yeah.
You’re opinion is dogshit
>its an eyesore
>it's an ugly movie
>exposes themselves as plebs who both lack an eye for true artistic merit
Please go back to discussing your shitty kid cartoons.
>b-b-b-but it took 9 gorillion drawings to make, they killed millions of animators for it!!!
looks ugly
dumb frick
I only remember ever seeing the trailer for this and laughing at "THE BALLS ARE GONE!"
Integrated CGI will never not be garbage.
I love The Thief and the Cobbler.
Yep. It's so painfully obvious when they use CGI backgrounds and shit. I was watching Overlord on Netflix (before i realized they only have one season) and the CGI textured landscapes during action scenes were so offputting it really ruined the animation.
To be fair Japanese CGI in anime are on a whole different level of atrocious that anything western. Every time I see a background shot in Overlord, I die a little inside when I witness the skeletons or goblins that look like they came from the Myst era of gaming.
>Japanese CGI in anime are on a whole different level of atrocious
Were you trying to prove his point?
There are exceptions. That new Sand Land show looks pretty decent.
Will the Overcoat ever be finished?
nope. Yuri's gonna die before it ever gets finished
vintage soijak
>/c/ when discussing modern slop
>OMG these corpo buttholes only care about money and hate art
>Cinemaphile when discussing the most impressive animated feature ever attempted
>OMG they should've focused on making money instead of the art
...Almost as though there's a happy medium? I want a movie that's quality and not filled with slop but I also want it to not be up its own ass and be enjoyable to watch. Like the fact that I need to explain this makes me concerned about your IQ.
>I need to explain this makes me concerned about your IQ.
Your IQ is in the negatives by misunderstanding the point of the movie
the point of the movie was to prove that animation on ones without relying on cgi wireframes is the way to go, now pair that with a "good story" and we would have smash hits back to back.
but nooooo the animators have to cut the framerate in half and/or make it inconsistent and use cgi because they can't into perspective.
I thought this movie started production about two decades before CGI started to become a serious idea? Like weren't computers basically just room sized calculators back then?
This. It was started in 70s when traditional animation had barely employed those techniques. Richard just thought animators were lazy during those days and wanted to bump up the quality.
>the point of the movie was to prove that animation on ones without relying on cgi wireframes is the way to go
No? CGI wireframes didn't factor into the choices of the movie, and it wasn't the whole point. The whole appeal of the movie beyond "story" is to apply the logic of slapstick silent cartoons to a OP art style high fantasy world.
>You have to animate on ones or else it's not art
"No."
Imagine if the recobbled edition was given to him in 1972, just as he began to start. Could he have used the remaining twenty years to refine the story and direciton, or would he have spent another twenty years to keep adding onto it?
>mfw
THE BALLS