With hand-drawn animation, even mediocre or low-budget production can be carried by the animation or a sequence, and the effort and discipline required to create it will breathe some SOVL into it. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5O1z7wfSAQWhereas 3D animation is always soulless. If it's a high-end production relying on visuals, it's just gonna be the same-looking soulless photorealistic slop. And low-budget productions can only rely on degenerative abstract art. Regardless, both age like milk and even the currently visually impressive tech will be antiquated by an even more currently impressive tech in a few years. Hand-drawn animation is eternal and timeless.I regret the torture of the last 15 years after the abandonment of the hand-drawn animation in favor of soulless but profitable 3D.
No, it is not.
I'm watching Duckman on DVD right now.>>222826388>Over animated>No flowDisney has genuinely never made a good 3D animation. And I'm taking about Disney, not Pixar.
>>222826442>no flow
>>222826472That's not flow. Its a static shot with a character being over animated. No momentum, no fluidity. I get that you like her because you want to fuck her and get hair jobs (she jacks you off with her hair) but it doesn't mean it's a well animated movie.
>>222826534Okay, so you're just a troll that will call every clip shit for the sake of it. Bye now.
are you making a big deal about the shadow? That’s a digital effect as well, as evidenced by how whenever the ball’s shadow intersects with the bunny’s, the shadow darkens. So it was achieved by duplicating the bunny/ball animation, reducing it to a silhouette, then shrinking and warping it to match the perspective, then they fucked up by making it a darken mask which causes the ball to block more light as if the bunny is partially transparent as well.
>>222826557What do you think “flow” means?
