Why do you prefer cartoons to live action /co/?
>>154352554If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>154352554I like live action films but cartoons tend to be more colorful. Also Live action can never really escape realism and while I like realism sometimes exaggeration is better.
>>154352568How soCharacters as actors are more real in live action vs cartoons
>>154352554Cartoons are more aesthetically pleasing than reality and they are capable of more than reality.
Why would anyone like live action over animation?
>>154352554we don't its just nice to have a difference version which sometimes take an alternative path
>>154352554What does live action angel look like
>>154354079Consumer
>>154352554I prefer both equally but that should not be an argument for remaking animated movies into live action or vice versaI think stories are at least in part products of the time they were made and the media they are chosen for. Remakes and reboots and such things are not artistic endeavors but products of a consumer capital society, they have no inherent story to tell.
>>154354165I don't mean to come off like I'm defending these live action remakes either, but what about remakes that elevate the source material? John Carpenter's The Thing is one such example.
Animation can do things Live action simply cannot
>>154354195“Who goes there” the short story, “The Thing From Another World”, and John Carpenter’s “The Thing” are all such substantively different stories it does not warrant comparison. It’s like saying Kane Pixels “elevated” the backrooms creepypasta. Technically he did, but not in a strictly 1:1 way.Unless you’re referring to that horrible 2011 movie as “elevating the work” in which case I suggest you get your head checked.
>>154354195The Secret of NIMH cartoon is better than the book ad I will knife fight anybody who says otherwise
>>154354390This.
>>154352554I prefer live action, except when it comes to live action comics and cartoons. Those shouldn't be made.>>154354390The animation is impressive, but that's some pretty horrible "acting".
>>154354195>>154354415Same situation with Sorcerer too.
>>154352554Because cartoons allow much more expression, exaggeration, style, and focus on the story/characters themselves instead of the actors playing the parts.They are much less constrained on realism or by the constraints of making something fantastic "fit around the actors".So many books and comics deserved a cartoon adaptation and got inferior, messed around with shit live action adaptations.Decent LA adaptions can exist, they are very much the exception to the rule for me.
>>154356841Live action has its strengths. Animation is constrained by budget and a lack of realism, meaning you can achieve an emotionally powerful scene with a small budget in live action that you may not ever be able to achieve with a huge budget in animation.
Why do live-action shows on kids channels last longer than actual cartoons? Mighty B for instance was cancelled because and ICarly.How come this is always the case? Is animation not respected in Hollywood?
>>154357131Yeah okay whatever I'd prefer animation everytime.
>>154352554Live action is fine for some things, but I don't see the point in trying to make EVERY famous cartoon movie into a live action remake.Cartoons are much more expressive and magical, while live action, like >>154352568 said, are much more grounded to reality, no matter how much special effects you throw at it, or how cray the plot is.Live action works for more grounded stuff, but not for cutesy things whose appeal is mainly the expressiveness.All in all, I wholly agree with >>154352993.
>>154352993Cartoons are not very capable of reality, however. That's a big downside.>>154353090More subtle, more powerful because it's more real.>>154357167Those live action shows were a ploy to groom young actors. I guess kids watch them, but they're fucking terrible.Cartoons are expensive and, I imagine, tedious to make.Most adults I know don't really care for animation.
>>154357368>More subtle, more powerful because it's more real.Pfffft imagine believing this
cartoon kids are sexy, child actors all suck.
>>154357368>more powerfulIdk, live action almost always fumbles the book depictions but I have seen actually accurate depictions by illustration
>>154357494You're talking accuracy.
>>154355223this is more of a theatre acting rather than cinema, the exaggerated expressions are not out of place, it is !theatrical!
>>154357368>Cartoons are not very capable of realityThe Stitch and Pleakley in your OP pic are CGI cartoons superimposed over footage of a real environment. Your argument is invalid.
You're not tied down by realism
>>154357464
>>154357989Good point.>>154358052>Your argument is invalid.How so?They look like cartoons. Not very realistic.
>>154358388it is also the reason why "japanese acting" is a memeanime draws its mannerisms from kabuki theatre, which looks out of place in live action adaptations
>>154352554The feet on the cartoon version of Nani look better.
>>154359066Kabuki is more akin to opera and musicals. This is just bad acting.
>>154354390That's very doable in LA.
>>154352554Gee, I don't know...
>>154357167You're comparing one of the most successful kids sitcoms ever to a cartoon that flopped.Fairly OddParents lasted thrice (not twice, THRICE) as long as ICarly did.
>>154352554Live action was infinitely more enjoyable.
>>154357167>is animation not respectedObviously not. Hollywood runs on money and narcissism. Cartoons both have smaller profit margins than live action and they don't allow stars to put their face on the screen. Also you can't have degenerate orgies with a cartoon character.
>>154352622>I'm the main character, so my viewpoints are facts! Take your fucking autism pills
>>154352554you answered your own question
>>154352554Cartoons have more soul. Live action films are soulless
>>154361157It depends, but if you put up the most soulful cartoons with the most soulful live action, the live action is likely to win.
>>154352558This
