I noticed some cartoons illustrate their characters as existing on top of a stage of sorts The characters don't really exist within their world, which is illustrated as a 3 dimensional spaceInsead they exist on a wide framed stage that they move back n forth on top of. Sometimes cartoons that used to do the former changed and moved onto this 'stage' where they stand atop a wide shot backdrop that doesn't change much and the characters just move around over it and it's weird as hell
All a part of the plan amigo. Don't need to do perspective framing when the environments are borderline static and every character looks level enough.
I'll post more instances of "the stage", post them too if you have them.I don't need to ask why this happens, I know the many reasons resulting from a lack of qualityBut what's odd is that Arthur is a show that is very cheaply animated right now, and it's animated in a stilted, budgeted flash, so it makes sense that they'd construct this "stage" for characters to basically be puppeted overBut this is something many shows do, some of which don't have horribly low budgets, nor are they flash animatedSpongebob greatly suffers from the stage issue, but that show isn't cheap to make nor is it un animated. It just seems to choose to move a lot in very specific moments, whereas the rest of the time it still relegates it's characters to the static, straight-on angle stage dimension more often than not
>>143543295Well, yeah.A lot of these cartoons are animated in software where the characters can be dragged and posed. For most viewers it's good enough if a static, recyclable background is just plopped behind them and the characters acted over it. Why spend more unnecessary cash on drawing the backgrounds more redundantly.Older animation did this too to an extent by splitting up the cells between the backgrounds and actors in a shot.
>>143543345I'd like to correct myself hereSpongebob technically utilizes the program FlashI implied Spongebob isn't "flash animated", but the more correct term I was looking for is "tweened"Anyway back to the topicThis isn't just the case with long running cartoons moving to a different form of animation, either, new cartoons (including reboots) that come out seem to utilize this stage phenomena from the get-go Notice how flat on the ground the feet are and how 2 dimensional the characters are, even compared to the characters in the original cartoon which were quite literally standing on an actual stage
i wish /co/ was more autistic analysis posts like this and less garbage
>>143543363>Older animation did this too to an extent by splitting up the cells between the backgrounds and actors in a shottbf that doesn't explain the stage issue because yeah older cartoons had separate background, but then why were the backgrounds made with the vision of being spaces that the characters exist inside in mind? this isn't unique to the tech, they just thought ahead and drew them that way, it was a conscious decision that took them effort it wasn't something they simply didn't have the choice not to dopeople often say stuff like this that almost suggests "oh old cartoonists would've been lazy if they had the choice but they just couldn't, the technology of the era didn't allow them to be lazy so they had to bother and put in effort and care" it makes it sounds like all artists secretly hated art all along and were just waiting for the day when art would become easy and they no longer have to do it anymore inb4 hurr hurr das tru
OP is right this shit is really noticeable especially when a show normally animates above the waist to avoid having to even think about placing characters on the "stage"
Naughty cartoon characters get punished by being sent to theS T A G ED I M E N S I O N
>>143543295>>143543435>>143543345Dude this has been a thing for decades before you were even born. It's an industry standard.Only shows like South Park which are literally made in 3D software will avoid what you're calling "the stage"
>>143543570Dude reread the thread
>>143543537glad other people are finally noticing thisthis stage seems to be the default and even in unique cases where a character isn't shot from a straight ahead 90 degree angle they still kinda look like they're stood on a stage just with the camera rotated>>143543570OP doesn't say this is a new thing at most it says that it happens more often now enough with this "stop noticing stuff because it's old" retort some guy always inevitably comes up with, the thread doesn't say this never happens decades before now or that it was invented recently
I like it, I find it kitschy.
>>143543570>this has been a thing for decades (...) It's an industry standard.>Only shows (...) which are literally made in 3D software will avoid what you're calling "the stage"Wat? Are you entirely misunderstanding what's being talked about? What do you mean only some shows can avoid it, shows have been avoiding it for ages with hand drawn animation, it used to be an industry standard NOT to utilize a stage for as long as cartoon visuals became crisp enough to illustrate things in 3D spaceDo you believe that 3D space can only be visually illustrated with 3D animation, and never ever in 2D animation? That's not true at all. If anything, South Park, despite being animated in a 3D program uses the stage more than perhaps any cartoon in history.
>>143543537oh wow
>>143543295well yeah, that's the shitty later episodes.
>>143543570>>143543295DRAW THE BACKGROUND FRAME BY FRAME LOL
>>143543570>>143543988kek do these niggas think old cartoons had to draw the background frame by frame to resut in shots like pic rel?
to everyone who still doesn't get what "the stage" islook at vid relthey're both hand animated, and they both use static images as backgroundsbut only one has "the stage" issue
>>143544024People oftentimes greatly misunderstand what goes into cartoon making, just drawing good and animating good isn't enough, and this in my opinion exemplifies the issue, they forget the importance of shot structure.The video on the left looks like whoever did the shots briefly forgot that this is a cartoon and they can play with them, there's so much more motion on screen but it doesn't utilize camera motion almost at all, it's so flat that it really does look like an animated stage performance rather than a world that the characters exist within.
>>143544024When they focus the shot on squidward's face it's usually on an angle? Is that what not having the stage issue is like?
>>143544071no, the stage issue is the fact that the world doesnt warp much around the characters they just look like they move in front of a static flat backdrop that we are sitting directly in front of
>>143544024>YOU DON'T GET IT>posts an example that doesn't illustrate his point at allLearn to articulate your arguments or take your meds. In either case, stop posting.
>>143544122>Telling someone to "take your meds" because you didn't like their postNTA but if it were me I wouldn't argue with you when it's so clear you're a 2020 normie tourist
>>143544122i said that if you don't get it, look at this video and try and discern it, it wasn't meant to be a hardhitting enlightening essay nor a personal insult against you don't feel so threatened just cause you didn't get italso yeah newfagspeak go home
>>143543585>glad other people are finally noticing thisThis has been a thing for DECADES you retarded zoomer and everyone ALREADY knows about it>enough with this "stop noticing stuff because it's old" retort some guy always inevitably comes up withIt's the difference between being a casual and actually knowing about the animation industry.>>143543655Have you even read the Survival Kit? It's THE most basic book given to people studying in the animation industry and it's already 40 years old. The earliest forms of what you're calling "staging" began before there was even computer animation when animation companies got lazy and began to rely on looping walk cycles instead of manually drawing a character walking across a a background. Once walk cycles were a thing you didn't have to put any effort into backgrounds because the footsteps of the characters would effectively no longer match the panning their environments.>If anything, South Park, despite being animated in a 3D program uses the stage more than perhaps any cartoon in history.You're the one who doesn't understand how animation happens. What you're calling "staging" happens because layers are added in programs like ToonBoom (or even Flash when it was still a thing) where animators have to manually adjust things like size to account for placement because of how the "camera" captures the scene. In all 3D animation programs the camera is free roaming and allows you to create scenes with depth so South Park can actually avoid what you're talking about by being able to ACTUALLY physically move something further back in the background as opposed to simply making it APPEAR as if it's further back>>143543988>>143544009You dipshits got that backwards - traditional animation is animating a character frame by frame over a large portrait painting, even if that is step by step.Are either of you 25 or younger by any chance?
>>143544273show me itt where anyone, especially OP, said this is a completely new thing that began just nowbecause i swear you made that up and then got angry about it
>>143544273>This has been a thing for DECADESNobody said it wasn't>[__oomer word]I should end this post right now because you're not even deserving of a response, but dammit call me a fish cause I'll bite, you wretched little gnat>looping walk cycles instead of manually drawing a character walking across a a background.That is NOT what this thread refers to as "staging" and the fact that so many people clearly got it and yet you're the only one pissing on about this makes you a pretty big mucho retardo>What you're calling "staging" happens because layers are added-Again, not understanding the thing being spoken about which is why you're so angry> In all 3D animation programs the camera is free roaming and allows you to create scenes with depth Was early Spongebob animated with a 3D roaming camera? Early Arthur? Animaniacs, maybe? How the hell do you read this entire thread with all it's examples and are still set in your misunderstanding of the topic>You dipshits got that backwardsAlright even an idiot can tell at least one of those posts is being facetious >Are either of you [personal insult]-And with that, I bid you, very much go eat a dick
>>143544273bro how are u this dumb
>>143543537>>143543295is always so distracting when it happens especially if its a long talking scene and the charas dont move while they talk so youre just looking at something that looks like a frame from a goanimate video
>>143544281It's how they gaslight. Of course cartoons have workarounds, but I'd sooner take repeated moving backgrounds and obvious errors over as another anon said, literal GoAnimate as industry norm
>>143544502>It's how they gaslight.huh good point, i also noticed whenever anyone on /co/ says that something that used to happen in the past is done somewhat more commonly now, someone always responds with "so you're saying it never happened in the past!" idk if it's intentional dishonesty or just stupidity and an inability to comprehend what you read or maybe understand the idea of 'more' vs 'at all', but either way it's annoying isn't it
>>143544502>>143544645People on /co/ don't read posts, they skim them at best, they just come in with their own preconceived ideas and enter some kinda parallel dimension where the anon they're responding to said something else entirely, and then communicate as if they're speaking into that alt dimension.
This cartoon seems cheap in the animation department, but I don't think it massively suffers from the stage issue (in that episode), since the characters are shown from a variety of angles, and some are further or closer with distance.https://youtu.be/gH-iJDGv5Kw?feature=shared&t=59Can someone else see a few minutes of it, and judge if this is a "stage" cartoon or not? I'm curious because it might show that even cheap animation don't have to deal with looking like a stage
>>143544765The animation is quite stilted and bad but it doesn't seem to have the stage issue, it's actually trying really hard to have interesting framing for the comparative visual setbackThat aside, what the hell IS this cartoon? And why does the only video you could offer us look like that?
>>143544799It's an obscure Australian-Canadian cartoon called Dex Hamilton Alien Entomologist. There's barely any clips of it online, except for someone who uploaded a few episodes with that teddy bear and stretched out badly.
>>143544910Interesting
It's nice to finally have a name for this situation of characters standing stiff as dicks over a flat backdrop
in fact of course
>>143544765>>143544799If an extremely cheap cartoon with stilted animation can look like that, what's the excuse for why cartoons that most likely have more budget and resources are looking stage-like? People are given a lack of time to polish things up? People in upper management tell the storyboarders/whoever does the shot compositions to keep it toned down and stage-like for easier animation? The other cartoons actually don't have as much budget? What is going on?
>>143545362cartoons aren't just budget, it's also know-how, and you can usually tell when a cheap cartoon is still made by people who, at least in concept, know what they can do to improve their work- vs when it's just bad and the budget is an excuseyes, a budget is very important, but money doesn't buy ideas, technique or skill
This thread is the most autistic shit I've ever read on /co/. For Christ sake, get a life.
>>143545418>soulless individual is upset that people have passions that drive them "autism" is a compliment from you normies
>>143545451hand drawn arthur would have a very small cartoony nub of a dick and a prominent pair of balls yknow kinda like one of those silly stylistic drawingsbut flash animated arthur would have a longer penis with more emphasis on the shaft yet somewhat thin with a prominent head
>>143545432I'm sorry if the first thing you notice when watching cartoons is feet, Quentin.
>>143545560>just randomly brings up a guy and gets mad at himi'll never understand you normalfags
>>143545388>also know-howWouldn't those people have went to school and have a professor grade their work, to make sure their work looks dynamic? Wouldn't they find it boring to finally break it into the industry, and now all they draw is stage-like compositions? The most amateur stuff you can find on Youtube can avoid this stage-problem, so there must be something wrong in the pipeline if professionals are churning out boring work. Or at least I'd like to believe there's something wrong with how the skills are managed, instead of people in the industry just really liking to do boring shot compositionshttps://youtu.be/9aoRElXiAtA?feature=shared&t=647
>>143545628>Wouldn't those people have went to school and have a professor grade their work, to make sure their work looks dynamic? Wouldn't they find it boring to finally break it into the industry, and now all they draw is stage-like compositions?Sure, if they're actual artists with a passion to always do their best and improveBut a grade alone, an artist does not make
>>143545628There's a lot of issues with the industy, a fairly recent one being that nobody can levy criticism anymore and newcomers no longer learn from the mastersMany old time industry pros have come out in recent years and said that people are no longer as incentivised to criticize anyone's work within the industry, colleagues on the same level are discouraged from upsetting their fellow industry folk and if an old pro tells the new guy how to improve it's seen as mean, so they're supposed to just grin and bear with it while people make garbageEven just stating your opinion which is anything short of "THIS IS AMAZING SKSKSKSKSK YASS QUEEN /srs" a bit too much can get you silently excommunicated from the industry
>>143544024this happens because the newbie animators have poor spatial reasoning
>>143545691i noticed this problem in a lot of creative spaces i'm a part of and while there were always sensitive ninnies around, this really does seem to have become cultural relatively recentlyi see the same problem in game development"noooo don't tell that guy that the thing he's charging money for isn't very good he wowked so haawd meanie )':""don't say that those assets you got aren't up to par, someone made those you'll discourage them forever and ever and hurt their feelers"
>>143543295Trying to mentally visualise that room from another angle by taking the perspective and scale of everything into account is throwing me off hard, and it gets worse the longer I look at it. There's so many tiny things designed like an optical illusion/paradox
>>143545733i wonder how that can be tho, because i've even seen little kids make amateurish doodles with better spatial understanding than thismaybe it's a lack of an eye for art? or maybe a lack of visualisation abilities? >>143545752heh, fitting you said that just now as we're discussing something semi related
>>143545769>little kidsEven CHRIS CHAN did better
>>143545388>a budget is very important, but money doesn't buy ideas, technique or skillExactly, budget accounts for things like the time you have, what programs/materials you can buy or what you can pay workers, but it's not a replacement for creativityIf you say "this sucks because of budget" what you're telling us is that even your creativity is purchased, you probably paid someone for the creative input like story or scene layout, and if it's bad, that means you paid for the cheap bunch, end of>>143545807I hope that whenever industry fags get a bit too nasty with their "waah waah it's so hard to use my brain" someone shoves Chris' work in their face and shows them what a literal aut' could come up with, the fact that he couldn't afford more than crayola crayons of printer paper didn't stop him from being able to think up these ideas in his head, that's all him, not store bought
>>1435432952 reasons.One, low and high angle shots are very scene-specific, meaning using those shots will require far more background paintings. It's easier to lock everything down to stage view and ignore all finer points of cinematography and composition.Two, backgrounds with only 3 vanishing points cannot be scrolled through believably. TV animation will often limit itself to moving cameras across a 2-vp or isometric scene, never pivoting the camera. Even theatrical Disney movies usually fake it by using multi-layer backgrounds to create a semi-parallax effect. The only way to do it properly, at least before the age of CGI, was to paint panoramic backgrounds with 4 or more vanishing points.Now, a certain subset of animation does do all of those things. You probably already know the answer, but /co/ will accuse me of derailing the thread if I mention it.
>>143545934>You probably already know the answer, but /co/ will accuse me of derailing the thread if I mention itNow i'm curious
>>143544095>>143544024I think what you mean is the flat projection. The left clip has a 2 point perspective and no distortion on the Z axis, it is a wide and distant shot that gets zoomed in and all the horizontals remain horizontal, meanwhile on the right, the point of view itself reaches in and its at an angle towards the background and Squidward. You can see the lines on the wall depict foreshortening and imply a vanishing point. On the left, specially facing the wall, the view looks almost OrthogonicalThis is obviously because the backgrounds are premade, drawn as panoramics and close up shots of characters are then taken from the wide view then zoomed in instead of drawn anew.
>>143546040That's absolutely part of it, but I don't think that's the only thing the "Stage" refers to which is why I used that more generalized name, it's not just the shot or the backgrounds but also how the characters move on top of itBut yes you got it there, it's a very flat perspective>close up shots of characters are then taken from the wide view then zoomed in instead of drawn anew.Wow, it certainly looks like it, and maybe that is the case at timesI have seen cartoons that do it and it does look very uncannyBut in the instance of that video that was posted, I don't think it's the case, at least not for every part of the scene, if you look closey the background is mildly different in some parts specifically the pots n pans behind the window are redrawn, but maybe that's just another layer they added behind the window? Everything definitely looks samey, but maybe it was just drawn to look that was, nonetheless gives it a very sterile feeling
Bluey is an Australian treasure, but I've got to say, it has a lot of simple and stage-like composition. It doesn't bother me much since I think it works for its style as a simple kindergarten show, but everyone notices the standout moments when it breaks away from that.Most of this video is showing stage-like composition, but from 2:35 onwards, in one of the show's most critically acclaimed episodes, it breaks away from thathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnmjU1cjUKA
>>143546336I agree, I think Bluey utilizes it's style well, the stage like composition is a part of it and I wouldn't complain about it, just like how I wouldn't complain about South Park doing the sameIt feels intentional and done rightAs they say, every rule can be broken if you know how
>>143546336>>143546380its like the difference between using nothing but salt to season a pot roast dinner because you don't know how to cook it properly, vs using nothing but salt to season a hard boiled egg because it just doesn't need anything more
>>143545418Go back to your waifufaggotty or weak /pol/ bait thread.
>>143543559lol
>>143543466in fact of course.
>>143546964
Semi related but it's always weird when a show's backdrops are made without the characters in mind, so you get weird issues like the characters looking their floating, standing on top of cracks/steps/rocks on the ground as if they're on a flat surface because that stuff wasn't accounted for, or when the backdrop IS angled but the character models are still drawn sort of straight-on so they look weirdly ill fitting and out of place
>>143547259Maybe I'm just not autistic enough for this thread but I've been trying really hard to see what you guys are talking about and SOMETIMES I can see it but other times I don't, and even when I see it, it's not really bothering me in the way I think you think it should. Sometimes it's really glaring and I see exactly what you're referring to but other times I'm just like, eh? Not every animated production is gonna be Don Bluth. >inb4 erm but Chris Chan sonicchu
>>143547415It's ok dude, you don't have to, that's the thing about /co/ we all come here to discuss our specific highly autistic peevesBut also it's not like this is a game ender for me, it's not like I see this sorta thing and boil over going "UGH I CAN NEVER LOOK AT THIS SHOW THE SAME WAY AGAIN" it's just a thing that kinda looks bad and it's interesting to notice and point outI don't expect amazing quality, I just point out the poopoo where I see it
>>143547457It is interesting though, I'm currently learning to draw/animate and this is something I hadn't even considered. I avoided reading Loomis because of the fuckin memes and I'm doing alright regardless but maybe I shouldn't avoid the Animators Survival Kit.
>>143547501Oh, as an artist and animator this is absolutely something you need to know! Even if not every cartoon can be a masterpiece, every artist has a duty to themselves to do the best they canI say this as an artist myself, don't underestimate the importance of atmospheric factors like scene structure. I've seen way too many cartoons, comics and art pieces in general that seem like the people making them believe all it takes it knowing how to draw a figure or object, and that's it, end of.
>>143547501>I avoided reading Loomis because of the fuckin memesHuh? What memes?Every piece of media can be learned from if you learn how to learn firstBesides, don't listen to what cunts on /ic/ have to say
>>143547565>what memescunts on /ic/But alsoEvery time I see an artist that learned on Loomis they're 1 of 2 kinds of people, with few exceptions1.) They only draw shit that looks like it belongs in a capeshit comic and that not what I'm into2.) They only draw pose sketches and very rarely if ever actually produce "finished" art
>>143547617Eh, fair enough, but I think that's more of an issue with the people than the books themselvesI suspect the reason is that many people only pick up one or two books, and reference them, and nothing elseListening to only one source will never get you far, in fact in can potentially stunt youIronically reading more is better for you, and once you're advanced enough, reading shitty advice is just as good for learning to develop a good filterI kinda think that was why Rory, you probably heard of them, creator of pic rel, had what happened happen to them, they never looked outside of their inspirations, refused to learn from anywhere other than a group of successful Calarts big shots who all draw the exact same, and look what happened, their work became a mess like an incest baby after fifty generations of creative inbreeding
>>143547691Right now my strategy is to just draw what I feel like drawing, referencing things I like, and learning what makes the drawings work specifically. I've also been learning a lot about anatomy and proportions. Recently I started looking at perspective and how that shit works. I know myself well enough to know that if I start reading books and looking at youtube videos I'm going to self-sabotage with overthinking and overanalyzing everything. Maybe it's a desperate overcorrection in an attempt to not become Rory.
>>143547752UnderstandableThe best reference is always reality, even if you're drawing cartoons, knowing how things work will still help you stylize and subvert themI wish you luck, drawfriend
>>143547790Thank you friend, I will do my best, and I will also do my best to try to not make my characters look like they're on a flat stage.
>>143547808You'll do all of us spergs itt a service in the future, I'm sure
>>143544273Fucking hate the knob openers, my grandpa raised me to use these and it feels way more natural.
>>143547864pic rel comfiest
>>143546040finally someone explaned well the "issue".i think stage isn't really a problem if your animation is cheap or has a similar formula to a sitcom and also that you don't have resources to draw a diferent background to each important shot. but like it helps if background artists learn how to draw a more dynamic backgrounds to be used in many helps, it sure helps.
>>143547913>i think stage isn't really a problem if your animation is cheap or has a similar formula to a sitcomthis is why i dislike it on other cartoons, to be honest... it FEELS sitcom-esque, it makes everything look like a sitcom, and if you give your show that style you're kinda dooming it to sitcom esque writing by extension because of the mindset it puts you in
Pic related, seems like The Simpsons knew what they were doing.
>>143547962>Unless that's what you WANT, don't draw it!This artist gets it! Every visual aspect has intent, everything, even angle, delivers something, and if that intent is what you want to deliver, then you can use it. But if you don't, ask yourself what the choices you don't consider will affect, and how you can improve them.
>>143547962While this structure works well for a family sitcom, I have to point out that even having all your lines at an angle still doesn't absolve you of the problem, especially when you still use flat angles like theseit's still a box, you just rotated it slightlyAnother thing people forget is the the proverbial "camera" bending and foreshortening the environment, which cartoons often utilize to give a shot even more presenceStill I love these old art guides, got any more of them?
ITT zoomers are amazed that stage blocking is used in animation
>>143548275>Don't ever discuss anything or else it might seem like you don't know stuff and it'll make you look badMaybe that's your mindset, buddy, but we're having this convo cause we like toPeople like you are the reason why individuals with IQ under 70 vote
>>143547962holy shit this made the OP make sense
>>143548152>Still I love these old art guides, got any more of them?It's an excerpt from this pdf, it's an in-depth guide about staging so it should be resourceful for anyone that wants to explore more dynamic compositions.https://thinkinganimation.com/Handouts/StagingAndComposition/Composition_Storyboards_Brad_Chris.pdf
>>143547259i think if you can change the background to something like >>143544397 and the characters don't look out of place at all, then it's a "stage"
>>143547944yeah pretty much. a lot of series i like utilize this and are kinda sitcom-ish formula but "with a extension" to build lore that sadly not always gets continuited. Also i think it needs to point out that flat stage backgrounds aren't exclusive to be used on sitcoms (but its used mostly given that is a cheap and easy to use formula) but like rather a cheaper choice to animate in a budged as a whole.
>>143548362hm nicely saidmaybe not a catch all, but definitely an interesting little test
>>143548362lol youre right! you cant even tell the original shot was supposed to be viewed at a top down angle
>>143548414yeah i mean i don't think every shot necessarily needs to look like a perspective shot, but there has to be something that can be done to not make things look so stiff. >>143547259 really looks like two unrelated stickers smacked on some paper next to each other
>>143544024>>143544071both of these utilize stage-theater-style blocking and angles, most notably with SquidwardI think what anon actually has a problem with is the EXCLUSIVE use of stage-theater shots. The example on the right utilizes stage blocking for wider shots but also has POV shots
>>143548518yeah it's definitely excessive on the leftthe right video mainly does stage shots when spongebob is walking in front of squidward, which is fitting because yknow, he's performing an act of sorts, and yet he still looks like he's inside an environment and we're there with himthe left uses these shots way too much and doesn't alternate shots enough, too much motion and not enough shot switches make the whole thing look overly acted
>>143548458Unrelated but man, say what you will about the Owl House which I will: subpar cartoon that wanted to pretend it was a fun fantastical childrens show but couldn't keep the lie going and blew the fact that it was just a drama for adult women masquerading under a fantastical dressing, thanks for listening I'm anon, I have special needs and I'll be here all week but at least Birdhome had decent character designs, a good character style and good adherence to it's lookLook at Steven, he looks like a monkey!
>>143548275And it's a good thing they now know.
4:3 is just inherently superior and easier to avoid this problem or make it less obvious. simple as
>>143550163not even kidding 4:3 is such a good ratio for TV why the hell did we move to wider screens and why do we keep going even wider who's gay fucking ass cunting idea was that
you guys think widescreen was bad? how long till we start seeing carroons in fucking PORTRAIT for perma phone using normie scumthey already make indie cartoons in that format, yknow damn well its only a couple of years till that shit is normalized, like how they normalized watching videos in portrait because they cant into turning their phone sideways
>>143548653SU was the weirdest combo of decent and even highly talented artists in the background so to say, backdrop artists, music composers, a few less popular yet highly skilled storyboarders... All not given much credit or attention but doing the best bulk of the work.And a bunch of completely unskilled and untalented hacks at the forefront having all the big names and taking all the credit.Even Steven Sugar, Rebecca's own brother, the man Steven the mc is based on and the one behind so much of the most beautiful pieces on this show is less known than some mediocre cunt who's biggest contribution is kicking and screeching to make the green goblina a more obnoxious character for some reason.
This thread reminded me of a Foster's document which consists of storyboard revisions. A lot of correcting the staging for easier animation or for evoking a more comedic effect.https://daveknott.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/fosters-sb-rules.pdf
>>143543559DID SOMEBODY SAY “STAGE DIMENSION?!?!?!"
>>143551552this is a thread for good cartoons
>>143543435There the reboot looks so much worse since the artstyles for the characters and the background are so different.The background has texturing and shading while the Warner brothers (That's what they're called right?) Aren't shaded and are untextured.In the original, sometimes they would have basic shading, on par with the background, and the background was just as untextured as the characters
>>143551527wow, this is a really cool thing to see.thank you based autist for the good thread
