I can almost TASTE the butthurt from this image
A tool that got fired for being a bad grunt animator made this
Probably while screaming BUT I KNOW TOON BOOM
The blue gay is right about the strange action line. The ugly little israelite looks like he's leaning against an nonexistent counter and about to topple over.
lol at the asshurt from whoever made that pic lmao. The cartoon industry is dead because the comic industry is dead. DC and Marvel need to follow the manga route and make a Shonen Jump-esque black and white compilation rag that adds and cuts creator driven series with ruthless abandon until something sticks and not solely try to sell the same capeshit from the 1930s. Only then will there be enough material for western cartoons to do adaptations of known properties that actually sell.
The cartoon industry has never relied upon shitty Western comics. Thank God. You can pitch something original like SpongeBob and it can be it’s own thing.
I don't wanna make a thread for this, but does anyone ever get the feeling showrunners don't give two shits about their board artists and animators?
There's so many bloated casts lately and all I can think is, "Well, I know exactly where you can start cutting costs and it doesn't have to be the fricking animation". I don't balance budget sheets or anything, but surely, smaller casts and less characters to animate means you can put more resources in the animation, right?
Some of these examples are ass, like the Steven Universe, Owl House and Amphibia ones because you included a bunch of background/one off characters who aren't regularly occurring. Arguably same for Star Vs.
But I'm more pointing out how it feels like they CONSTANTLY need crowd shots or a lot of characters in a single episode to push it forward.
Like, an episode of Dexter's Lab might be Dexter, Deedee, and maybe a talking robot for 11 minutes. MAYBE the dad might show up for 30 seconds, but it was often isolated. Whereas for Steven Universe, it's gotta be Steven, all the gems at minimum and then you have Greg and Connie show up, and maybe Jasper or Peridot is there, too. And all of them are "needed" in order to push the 11 minutes forward even though only three characters really do anything for the whole episode.
Well a lot of it has to do where the stories are set. A story set in Dexter's lab isn't going to have a lot of people walking around, but a story set in a normal town or a school is obviously going to have a bunch of background people. Or even the occasional named character who has a line or two for a gag even if they aren't directly connected to the plot. This isn't something only newer shows did.
I will say that at least maybe the trend of a show set mostly in a location which naturally has a small cast, like someone's secret lab, have sort of fallen out of fashion. But they weren't super popular to begin with. Those ones are very much like those live action sitcoms which mostly took place in the same three or so small set pieces filmed before a live studio audience.
>smaller casts and less characters to animate means you can put more resources in the animation
No, it means they can slash the budget a bit and save money that can then go in the execs' pockets
my tinfoil hat theory surrounding these massive casts is that studios are trying to make a "highly marketable character" so throw every god damned design they have in the show with hopes that at least one of them will stick, but since no one in the industry knows what's cute or marketable anymore they're all stinkers.
The general message in this pic is definitely true, but Cinemaphile is the worst place to bring it up because everyone just loves being a contrarian and will just call it "seething" or "butthurt" while making the same complaints themselves later.
Has Cinemaphile just become Twitter's personal dumping ground? I swear to god, there's always at least ONE thread up that's clearly just a reformatted tweet I've seen before.
I once worked on some crappy little YouTube series done by the Sesame Street company and this little sister character got mad at her sibling for messing up her toys or whatever. I drew angry eyebrows and they said no angry faces, she has to express being mad without them.
It was a very weird note that stuck with me. What's wrong with kids SEEING an angry expression when the whole skit was about siblings being upset with each other and learning to respect boundaries?
What's useful about getting notes like that is that if you're aware that angry faces (or anything else) are being withheld from media, you know that anything you make will be automatically more interesting and have an advantage over other current media if you include the stuff they were forbidding.
I can confirm this being exactly what happens, though I've never gotten the "go with another candidate" thing, they just go with the "revised" version.
>you know how we can fix the cartoon industry? >by making it more like the Japanese industry >y'know low budget >creator driven (after the publisher selects the safest pick from a list of identical mangas copying [current trend]) >more lesbians >lots of fanservice >underaged characters >transgenderism >maybe some cuckoldry >and set it in a highschool
im going to be called a moron but, 'I dont see what the red-lines are commentating about? Im looking back at 'his style' and the OG design and seeing 'other than the hands and pose? its the same thing, they just gave him a pose.
>No expressive eyebrows
so they want the already present eyebrows arnt expressive? sure they're small but they're there. Do they just want it looking like that constantly? >hair too bulky
The difference is so fricking slight that I cant even figure out why his take on the hair is a problem. if its 'too many lines to draw' you and I both know no one hand-draws this shit anymore. Especially in korea where they send this shit over to be animated. >teeth
so.. they dont like the one solid tooth look? Im starting to think either the person who made this eather A: Got swindled by a bunch of morons who didnt give him a fricking animation bible for this specific character to go by in order to draw shit by. or B: Shits all made up.
Everything else just dosent make any sense/bullshit/are you even trying?
I like how Dave sent them back their own reference after they complained about everything that makes his art his. I almost wonder if it was a test of temperment.
I can almost TASTE the butthurt from this image
A tool that got fired for being a bad grunt animator made this
Probably while screaming BUT I KNOW TOON BOOM
We had this thread yesterday
This.
The blue gay is right about the strange action line. The ugly little israelite looks like he's leaning against an nonexistent counter and about to topple over.
A Digital Circus thread died for this
Because artists can't handle feedback or rejection? Or because both versions have two ears?
lol at the asshurt from whoever made that pic lmao. The cartoon industry is dead because the comic industry is dead. DC and Marvel need to follow the manga route and make a Shonen Jump-esque black and white compilation rag that adds and cuts creator driven series with ruthless abandon until something sticks and not solely try to sell the same capeshit from the 1930s. Only then will there be enough material for western cartoons to do adaptations of known properties that actually sell.
Even most manga authors would disagree with that.
Cute fat dragon.
I like the Japs' distinct takes on them.
btw I meant to elaborate they would disagree with the "cutthroat" aspect. Other than that they would be chill.
Sex
yup
The cartoon industry has never relied upon shitty Western comics. Thank God. You can pitch something original like SpongeBob and it can be it’s own thing.
I don't wanna make a thread for this, but does anyone ever get the feeling showrunners don't give two shits about their board artists and animators?
There's so many bloated casts lately and all I can think is, "Well, I know exactly where you can start cutting costs and it doesn't have to be the fricking animation". I don't balance budget sheets or anything, but surely, smaller casts and less characters to animate means you can put more resources in the animation, right?
Naw. The only thing more characters means is more voice actors. It doesn't really affect animation budget.
Some of these examples are ass, like the Steven Universe, Owl House and Amphibia ones because you included a bunch of background/one off characters who aren't regularly occurring. Arguably same for Star Vs.
But I'm more pointing out how it feels like they CONSTANTLY need crowd shots or a lot of characters in a single episode to push it forward.
Like, an episode of Dexter's Lab might be Dexter, Deedee, and maybe a talking robot for 11 minutes. MAYBE the dad might show up for 30 seconds, but it was often isolated. Whereas for Steven Universe, it's gotta be Steven, all the gems at minimum and then you have Greg and Connie show up, and maybe Jasper or Peridot is there, too. And all of them are "needed" in order to push the 11 minutes forward even though only three characters really do anything for the whole episode.
Well a lot of it has to do where the stories are set. A story set in Dexter's lab isn't going to have a lot of people walking around, but a story set in a normal town or a school is obviously going to have a bunch of background people. Or even the occasional named character who has a line or two for a gag even if they aren't directly connected to the plot. This isn't something only newer shows did.
I will say that at least maybe the trend of a show set mostly in a location which naturally has a small cast, like someone's secret lab, have sort of fallen out of fashion. But they weren't super popular to begin with. Those ones are very much like those live action sitcoms which mostly took place in the same three or so small set pieces filmed before a live studio audience.
don't care for most of these especially steven shitiverse but star vs having a big cast of wacky and unique characters was super fun and great
There are rarely more than 2-3 characters on screen in any of these.
These group shots do really look fricking absurd when you put them all together.
>smaller casts and less characters to animate means you can put more resources in the animation
No, it means they can slash the budget a bit and save money that can then go in the execs' pockets
my tinfoil hat theory surrounding these massive casts is that studios are trying to make a "highly marketable character" so throw every god damned design they have in the show with hopes that at least one of them will stick, but since no one in the industry knows what's cute or marketable anymore they're all stinkers.
The general message in this pic is definitely true, but Cinemaphile is the worst place to bring it up because everyone just loves being a contrarian and will just call it "seething" or "butthurt" while making the same complaints themselves later.
Cinemaphile and being the reason it's so shitty, name a more iconic duo
It supposedly completely different.
Has Cinemaphile just become Twitter's personal dumping ground? I swear to god, there's always at least ONE thread up that's clearly just a reformatted tweet I've seen before.
It's been that way for the past eight years.
>no love
>notice how the love ended
Jesus christ what a colossal homosexual
>he posted it again
this was made by someone who never worked with any part of the industry
>Dave Alvarez never work in the industry
Based moron
moron
I once worked on some crappy little YouTube series done by the Sesame Street company and this little sister character got mad at her sibling for messing up her toys or whatever. I drew angry eyebrows and they said no angry faces, she has to express being mad without them.
It was a very weird note that stuck with me. What's wrong with kids SEEING an angry expression when the whole skit was about siblings being upset with each other and learning to respect boundaries?
What's useful about getting notes like that is that if you're aware that angry faces (or anything else) are being withheld from media, you know that anything you make will be automatically more interesting and have an advantage over other current media if you include the stuff they were forbidding.
Man, this looks like shit. Whoever made this has no talent.
I can confirm this being exactly what happens, though I've never gotten the "go with another candidate" thing, they just go with the "revised" version.
Well it is the reason so many shows are ugly beanmouth shit.
It's funny because his supposedly superior style is just a different type of shitty beanmouth garbage.
It isn't his style, that's just him memeing on the style he's forced to draw in
Nice reading comprehension, anon.
>his supposedly superior style
Note "his", since that's how any native English speaker would take this sentence how I did
Again, nice reading comprehension.
I get what you're trying to say but I'm telling you why your sentence is poorly formed and no one is taking it like you intended
His superior style is him trying to make the character look a bit more interesting while staying on model, but even that isn't enough
The fact you think your style isn't as bad as the other is just sad.
>you know how we can fix the cartoon industry?
>by making it more like the Japanese industry
>y'know low budget
>creator driven (after the publisher selects the safest pick from a list of identical mangas copying [current trend])
>more lesbians
>lots of fanservice
>underaged characters
>transgenderism
>maybe some cuckoldry
>and set it in a highschool
at the very least we wouldn't get any AI generated garbage nearly as often
Dude, japan loves that ai crap
I have never seen a trans anime. You’re describing High Guardian Spice.
>I have never seen a trans anime
It's all they do
Traps aren't transgender.
If it means more appealing design work, so be it.
>>more lesbians
>>lots of fanservice
characters
Sounds good to me.
Cinemaphile is seething but this is actually true. You try and pitch something to a network.
im going to be called a moron but, 'I dont see what the red-lines are commentating about? Im looking back at 'his style' and the OG design and seeing 'other than the hands and pose? its the same thing, they just gave him a pose.
>No expressive eyebrows
so they want the already present eyebrows arnt expressive? sure they're small but they're there. Do they just want it looking like that constantly?
>hair too bulky
The difference is so fricking slight that I cant even figure out why his take on the hair is a problem. if its 'too many lines to draw' you and I both know no one hand-draws this shit anymore. Especially in korea where they send this shit over to be animated.
>teeth
so.. they dont like the one solid tooth look? Im starting to think either the person who made this eather A: Got swindled by a bunch of morons who didnt give him a fricking animation bible for this specific character to go by in order to draw shit by. or B: Shits all made up.
Everything else just dosent make any sense/bullshit/are you even trying?
I like how Dave sent them back their own reference after they complained about everything that makes his art his. I almost wonder if it was a test of temperment.
this reminds me of Alex Hirsch's back-and-forth emails with the censors at Disney.