/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

If only Jeff Smith didn't write Bone.

>>2143338
Why? What's wrong with Bone?

>>2143344
Nothings wrong with Bone, it's won like 12 eisner awards. Anybody wants to disagree they can fight me irl

>>2143348
>12 eisner awards
>top sales?
>not quality?
> bone was weak towards the end tho
maybe its the sheer quantity, also very kiddie friendly.

>>2143364
Hey look, bate.

>>2143330
Well, the sketches are cartoony and ever so slightly exaggerating his own styles features (making mouths a bit wider than normal, etc)

>>2143330
He learnt a lot from Glen Keane.

>>2143566
Why is this simple model sheet so much more sex than most of the shit in the porn thread?

>>2143330
>>2143566
Am I the only one who hates this kind of facial animation? I get that cartoon art isn't exactly known for its subtle displays of emotion, particularly in animation, but this shit just takes it to a point where it look like a parody.
The extremely overused, generic style also doesn't help.

>>2143610
It's the eyebrows isn't it?

>>2143330

>>2143571
Not sure if that sheet is Glen Keane's work, but in general he understands anatomy and knows how to draw everything in an appealing way. Look at >>2143566
His shapes, proportions, even the god damned line quality, it's all fucking eye candy.

You're also comparing someone who basically set the standard for the modern look of 2D & 3D animation to a bunch of hobbyists in their late teens to early 20s.

>>2143610
All I know is that I'm not into hentai, but something inside me bangs it's fists on the ground in frustration because I can't put my dick in her mouth.

>>2143630
>>2143330
You two really puzzle me. All I see is soulless garbage. I'm not going to deny that there's skill behind those drawings, but goddamn is it boring to look at.
Might be the extreme overexposure to this shit over the past 20 years, combined with the fact that tumblrcunts love to copy these types of expressions, but I really can't fucking stand it.

>>2143634
you have to admit that though it is very simple, the expressions are almost flawless, look at >>2143628 those first 3 panels (IMO) are better than the real life model displaying the expression.
The drawings may be very simple, but they show expression insanely well for how simple they are.

>>2143641
That's a different style. Also, I'm not sure if you're trolling me, but no, those expressions are pretty shitty. The exaggeration makes it look like the guy is making faces, rather than expressing any genuine emotion.

>>2143644
fair enough, not trolling, just my opinion. I do see what you're saying

>>2143652
Hey, don't you go being polite on /ic/. You call me a faggot, or else.

>>2143655
fuck you cunt dont tell me what to do

>>2143634
The moment someone calls something "soulless" you already know they are too uneducated to formulate any real criticism and just want to shitpost.

>>2143685
Yeah, because someone who considers wildly exaggerated cartoon expressions "alive" and "vivid" have a monopoly on criticism.
You must think The Mask with Jim Carrey is the deepest and most expressive movie of all time.

>>2143688
No artist who knows anything whatsoever about good draughtsmanship and stylization would genuinely think that Jin Kim and Glen Keane are not great at drawing "alive" and "vivid" expressions. Literally the only people who have such a stupid opinion are non-artist hipsters from /a/ and /co/ who hate everything Disney.

You basically admitted that when you posted "combined with the fact that tumblrcunts love to copy these types of expressions, but I really can't fucking stand it."
No artist worth a damn would let whatever tumblr does influence his assessment of the art itself.

Even your hero Vilppu would fucking slap your bitch ass face for talking shit about his nigga Glen Keane.

>>2143688
Can you post some better stylized expression sheets for animation? I'm genuinely curious what good expression sheets look like in your opinion if those of Jin Kim and Glen Keane look like soulless garbage.

Also, just for your information because you don't seem to know very much about the process of animation: Most good character designers will exaggerate the expressions for those sheets on purpose because it is always easier for the animators who use these sheets to tone it down later. Once you have the extremes, it becomes much easier to find the in-between and more subtle expressions. Also, many of the extremely exaggerated features are something you will only see for a fraction of a second in the finished product, as the very last frame of the animated expression to give it that little bit of extra punch and liveliness. A very common technique in animation. But someone still has to draw what those extremes look like in still frames.

Your "criticism" seems to be purely based on a lack of knowledge about the medium these were made for.

>>2143691
>>2143701
>mad over an opinion on /ic/
>caring what this troll thinks

>>2143691
>Literally the only people who have such a stupid opinion are non-artist hipsters from /a/ and /co/ who hate everything Disney.
Hipsters fucking love that Disney shit.

>Even your hero Vilppu
Never watched him. You sure do love your strawmen, though.

You seem to be mixing a lot of different concepts here. Keane is good at drawing Disney stuff. You know, feature length animation with simplistic themes and comedy for the whole family. I suppose you could argue that the style is alive and vivid in comparison to the average low-budget shit they show on Nickelodeon, and that it serves its purpose in extremely high-budget animation with lots of frames, but as a style in itself, it's hardly expressive beyond cartoon emotions. And I already pointed out that there's skill behind it, but that's not really the issue here.

As far as comic art is concerned, it's superficial and exaggerated, which is why it's developed for a style of animation that focuses on a mix of action and comedy.

I also haven't said anything about Glen Keane himself. I like some Disney stuff he worked on up until the early 90s, but that doesn't mean the generic Disney style is some untouchable metric as far as expressiveness goes. It kinda works in the superficial action/comedy type movies Disney makes.
That being said, I have more of a problem with Jin Kim's style, which is what most of tumblr seems to emulate. He seems to have taken Keane's style, exaggerated it even more and and churned out that vapid, ugly style that we see in most modern Disney movies.

The funny thing is that Disney used to avoid the shit they do now. They had two types of characters: the humans with realistic emotions and subtlety, and the silly comic relief cartoon characters. In modern animation, they've completely dropped this concept and make every character a silly cartoon.

>>2143722
>>2143701

>>2143701
>Can you post some better stylized expression sheets for animation?
First of all, we're not talking about animation specifically. We're talking about character designs in general.
Second, considering the scarcity of high budget western animation outside of Disney and Pixar, and the extremely uniform styles most high-budget animation use, there's almost nothing to choose from.

>Once you have the extremes, it becomes much easier to find the in-between and more subtle expressions.
Not really. The exaggerated expressions exist as a combination of comic relief and to allow children to understand the emotion being conveyed. This is common knowledge. As I stated, the more down-to-earth designs that Disney used to mix with the the more cartoony characters have been phased out entirely.

>Your "criticism" seems to be purely based on a lack of knowledge about the medium these were made for.
Right back at you. My criticism is actually based on the medium itself, because Disney relies entirely on one genre, which is a combination of action and comedy. It's purposely made to be superficial and exaggerated, which is why the designs don't have much depth to them.

>>2143733
So you can't show a single example of what you consider to be good expressions for animation? Everything is shit and you can't show even one example of what you consider good?

How about this, you go and redraw one or two of the >>2143628 expressions of the actor. Show us how subtle, deep emotions are supposed to be depicted in animation instead of what these hacks at Disney are doing.

>>2143733
>First of all, we're not talking about animation specifically. We're talking about character designs in general.

No we aren't, you fucking moron. Design always needs context in order to be criticized. The context of the designs posted ITT is expressionate animation aimed at children. If you are too stupid to understand this, then there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. You talk and argue like a consumer, not an artist. You seem to be unable to put yourself into the mindset of the designer, you always argue from the mindset of the consumer, who doesn't like Disney movies because they are not pandering to him. No shit, you are not the target audience, neither is Jin Kim.

The reason why Jin Kim is an amazing character designer and you are a hopeless amateur is because he can solve problems based on who the target audience is supposed to be, whereis you can only think as a consumer who believes the target audience being children is something inherently negative and shameful because it isn't pandering to your taste and what you want to see.

>>2143754
So you're going to argue like an angry child? I either have to draw something better than this guy or I should show an example of something better? That has nothing to do with the argument. You're just trying to change the focus, so you can attack my taste, rather than focus on the discussion.
Furthermore, if it wasn't clear already, I generally don't watch cartoons, nor do I follow animators.

Did you also not get the point of what I'm saying, that big budget animation isn't exactly known for art with any kind of subtlety?

Again, the reason I originally commented, was because the OP posted these generic Disney cartoon faces, and started rambling about how vivid and alive they were, when they're really just run-of-the-mill cartoons, which have been developed into a corporate and mainstream standard over the past 40 years.

>>2143767
Are you serious?
First of all, it's hilarious that you need to rely entirely on personal attacks without even talking about the actual subject.
Second, you're full of shit. There's nothing in the OP that talks about animation specifically, and he even mentions Bone. He rants about how vivid and alive those designs are, and I pointed out why I disagree. Given that the styles used in animation have a massive overlap with comics, it would be idiotic to somehow try to pretend this topic should somehow be limited to "expressionate (sic) animation aimed at children".

>>2143774
>M. Schumacher is a not a good F1 driver
>so who's better
>I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO AN ANGRY CHILD SUCH AS YOURSELF

>>2143787
Yes, that's not how you discuss a topic. If you want to discuss why someone is bad at something, you talk about what makes him bad. I mean, if I'm going to criticize Justin Bieber, I criticize his actual flaws. Naming a better singer than him is irrelevant.

Art is also a far more subjective topic than a sport based around direct competition against others, and where you can actually base a person's merits on their actual victories over other drivers, as well as statistics and empirical data.

>>2143754
He's a shit poster. Hes one of those faggots that says "no" all the time, but can't provide any examples himself.

Example:
Anon1: How do I get good at drawing?
Anon2: Draw every day.
Shitposter: Just drawing every day isn't going to help. It's much more complicated than that.
Anon1: What then?
Shitposter: Figure it out.

Anon1: My drawings are flat help
Anon2: Study anatomy and gesture
Shitposter: typical idiots screaming loomis when someone asks for help. Thats not good advice.
Anon2: That is exactly what helped me. What's your advice then?
Shitposter: I'm not here to teach you to not be shitty.

Anon1: Look at these expressions. They are incredible.
Anon2: This artist is pretty good too.
Shitposter: All these suck. Good artists would never draw like that.
Anon1: Examples?
Shitposter: Fucking losers can't see generic bullshit when it's staring them in the face.

>>2143793
If there is not one better singer than Bieber, than he is not a bad singer. "Good" and "bad" are not absolute values, you need something to compare for them to have any meaning.

>art is subjective
Which is precisely the reason you need a point of reference, otherwise you can just claim anything is bad or good. If you can't present a better example and argue why it's better, you're just pulling opinions out of your ass.

Just look at these wildly exaggerated cartoon expressions.
Fucking hell Disney, why did you stop using more subtle expressions?

If only they would use Kristen Stewart as an example for cartoons so that only the plebs could tell what emotion the character is conveying.

>>2143793
>Art is also a far more subjective topic
>If you want to discuss why someone is bad at something, you talk about what makes him bad.
>Art is also a far more subjective topic than a sport
>where you can actually base a person's merits on their actual victories over other drivers, as well as statistics and empirical data.
> subjective topic
>why someone is bad
> subjective topic
>Naming a better singer than him is irrelevant

Nigga u dumb

>>2143786
You are trying to criticize character sheets that were done for animated Disney movies. If you are too dumb to understand the purpose these designs had and the problems the artists had to solve while creating them, based on the audience they were made for, then you can't criticize them without looking like an uneducated fool.

You can't criticize a design without its context, the context of these sheets are animation aimed at a young audience and the artists did an excellent job with that in mind. Deal with it you dumb fuck.

>>2143801
>lots of strawman argumentation
>ignores the walls of text that discuss the actual topic at hand

>>2143808
>>2143818
It's astonishing to me that you think the only way to discuss this topic is by comparing one artist to another artist. Even if this was a valid way of discussing the topic, the fact that you're harping on this over and over, really goes to show that you have no arguments.
And no, a tonedeaf singer would be a bad singer even if he was the last person on earth.

To prove how fucking retarded you people are, imagine the following scenario: If you're going to talk about why you dislike Justin Bieber, Michael Bay or whatever mediocre public person it's common to hate, do you talk about their actual flaws, or do you actually base your entire argument on randomly listing singers and directors who are better than them? I mean, I can say Coppola is a better director than Michael Bay, but that has no fucking bearing on anything, and doesn't tell me why I think Michael Bay is a bad director.

You people are beyond retarded.

>>2143826
No, you fucking moron. I'm criticizing the OP's claim that the characters are alive and vivid. You can't randomly decide to change the scope of the discussion to fit your idiotic interpretation. If the op has said they're alive and vivid within the scope of Disney films, it would be an entirely different discussion. But he specifically talked about the designs on a general basis, and I severely doubt he would make a thread dedicated to praising these designs if he only thought they were good within such a limited context.

>>2143828
>>2143833
Someone's gettin' mad.

>>2143833
Well, OP thinks they are alive and vivid and I agree, they are. You don't think that way, that's fine. But instead of admitting that this is just your opinion, you try to act like this is a fact and you try to prove it by criticizing those drawings using words like "soulless", "generic", "bland" "boring" etc. I merely wanted you to try to criticize them in an intelligent way, without using meaningless buzzwords. I guess it was my fault that I didn't identify you as a shitposting troll right from the start and just ignored you. I will now.

>>2143859
Not him, but I think they are generic and bland due to how many times they use these exact expressions within studio.
Nothing new ever pops up expression wise and it makes the characters feel less and less "alive" for each animation they make.

just my 2 cents I guess

>>2143828
You were also asked to show how YOU would do those expressions yourself. That seems like a fairly reasonable request to me. You claim these designs suck, so it's only natural that people want you to explain and show what exactly you would change in order to make them un-suck. You can't keep throwing adjectives around and think this discussion will go anywhere. It doesn't matter what you feel about these drawings, show us what you would do different to improve them.

Just pick one expression from here >>2143628 and make it not generic and exaggerated like what you think Jin Kim did, but a vibrant, alive, yet subtl expression like what you want to see.

>>2143871
Anon, your smile is pretty fucking bland and generic. It's been used by billions of people for more than thousands of years.
Nothing new ever pops up expression wise and they feel less "alive" for each human that pops up.

>>2143871
>Nothing new ever pops up expression wise

That's probably because humanity doesn't invent new emotions either, so those expressions are based on already existing ones that will always repeat themselves.

That said, what new expressions would you like to see that you feel Disney has been neglecting? Can you list a few?

>>2143828
We are not comparing whos better. We want to know what YOU think is "good." You're spitting all over the place trying to tell us what it isn't, but absolutely refuse to tell us what it -is-

Obviously we don't get where you are coming from, but you are so absorbed in seeing it your way that you're not getting that we don't see what you do.

Once again, it's not people trying to measure dick sizes. It's getting a reference point on the basis of your opinion. You are either talking out your ass, or you are too focused on insulting everyone to know how this works.

>>2143871
Now be even more unlike him and give us an example of a good expression that isn't "overused." You don't have to draw it, just show us an example.

>>2143880
Except those aren't human expressions, dumbfuck. You don't see people actually looking like that in real life, and there are a ton of ways to stylize emotion.
Without bringing quality or personal preferences into this, anime tends to use entirely different ways to express emotion, both when it comes to style and the animation itself, so there are clearly many ways to do it.

>>2143888
>Except those aren't human expressions, dumbfuck. You don't see people actually looking like that in real life

Are you like actually retarded?

People make these expressions all the time, they are just stylized as much as the rest of the character is.
Which is still extremely realistic compared to most anime where I would actually understand your criticism of not even being close to human expressions.
pic very much related

>>2143879
Why are you so angry?
When animations can express billions of expressions that humans cannot,why stick to the same faces you draw for ever single one?

>>2143859
Are you illiterate or something? I provided plenty of reason, with the primary argument being that when you exaggerate an emotion beyond a certain point, it becomes a caricature of the emotion, and it is no longer vivid or alive. It can be funny or well animated, but the more you exaggerate something, the less relatable it becomes. What I consider vivid and relatable are characters that can express emotion without looking like Jim Carrey. If we're talking Disney, I'm a fan of how Maleficent is animated.

But instead of discussing this like a normal person, the idiot became defensive and started talking about how I draw and which artists are better.

> I merely wanted you to try to criticize them in an intelligent way, without using meaningless buzzwords.
I'm guessing you're an idiot if you think those are buzzwords that are never accurate. Generic, bland and boring are perfectly viable terms for a style that's been used to death for 40 years. Fuck, it's more or less the definition. And soulless is perfectly viable for something that's exaggerated so far that it's a caricature.
But hey, it's not like I expect a fanboy to actually focus on the arguments.

>>2143900
>Why are you so angry?
I'm angry because I'm ridiculing your post? I didn't know that this is how being angry works.

>When animations can express billions of expressions that humans cannot
Like for example? I'm sorry but I only know the human expressions. What would be new ones?

>why stick to the same faces you draw for ever single one?
Show us some duplicate Disney expressions.

>>2143902
> Generic, bland and boring are perfectly viable terms for a style that's been used to death for 40 years

No they aren't. They reflect your own personal feelings towards this style, they don't actually criticize anything that is wrong about it, you dumb fuck.

WHAT makes these drawings generic, bland and boring. HOW can that be fixed. SHOW examples of comparable stylized work that does a better job at it, either done by yourself or from other artists. That is how you could have proceeded without looking like an utter moron, but instead you chose to act like a brain damaged hipster.

>>2143899
>Once again, it's not people trying to measure dick sizes. It's getting a reference point on the basis of your opinion.

You know perfectly well that no one gives a shit about that. If you've ever been on 4chan or argued with anyone online, you know people only bring it up to piss on your opinion in order to shift the focus.
And as I've already stated, I generally don't follow animators, so I can't give you any names or examples, as I don't have a large collection of character sheets. You also ignore the point I made about big budget animation being an extremely limited medium as far as stylistic variety goes. For fuck's sake, the two artists mentioned in this thread seem to be responsible for a very large chunk of what Disney had produced over the past 35 years. But feel free to provide me a list of well known animators with an entirely different style.

>>2143899
No, most people do not use those expressions. They seem to be mostly based off of threatre acting, which are exaggerated because stage shows need to be able to convey emotion to people sitting far away, so subtlety goes right out the window.

Good job comparing the most generic anime series you could find to the big budget Disney stuff, though.

>>2143902
Also, they've used the same style for 40 years? Are you retarded? Have you even seen a Disney movie from the 70s? They look nothing like the style they developed for Tangled, which came out 5 years ago.

The only way to gauge how good an artwork is, is by comparing it to exemplary works. There is literally no other metric we can use because judgments of taste are purely subjective. The moment you judge an artwork according to a concept you're no longer judging how good the artwork is itself but how well it fits into some principle that you came up with.
Also, it's funny that you mentioned that even kids are able to pick up on these expressions because that just goes to show how good these drawings are. Children have no concepts of complex behaviors so for them to understand the intentions of the characters and their emotions, it must have hit them entirely on a guttural level. It's like music, no need to explain what it is you're looking at because you can understand it clearly already.

>>2143918
Are you really that retarded? Is your only concept of criticism based on comparison?
Also, how the fuck can you not understand that one of the world's most commonly used styles are generic? Do you not know what the fucking word means?
If so, I suggest looking at a fucking dictionary.

>>2143929
meant to reply to>>2143828

>>2143924
"subtlety" truly is the favorite word of any amateur shitter. Exaggeration is not something inherently bad, you uneducated dimwit. Certainly not in stylized animation.

>>2143931
Disney has a pretty set style. It is not generic. You can't mistake a disney character with a sony or dreamworks one.

>>2143902
>Generic, bland and boring are perfectly viable terms for a style that's been used to death for 40 years

Try 78, Snow White came out in 1937. What's that old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"... just because you personally find Disney's style generic and boring doesn't make it a fact. Mother fucker built his empire from mouse cartoons and fairy tale adaptations, you just find it generic because you've had it in your face for all your life.

I think you don't like Disney's animation because you associate it with "tumblr culture" (whatever the fuck that is) instead of seeing it for what it is; a pioneering force. That company dominates the box office for a reason, like it or not.

>>2143931
>Is your only concept of criticism based on comparison?

You are a very bland, generic and boring person. I also think you are mentally handicapped. This is my criticism towards you, please accept it without any further questions.

>>2143902
How is Maleficent any different than any of the model sheets posted in this thread? Stills from the movie look exactly like still from any other Disney movie.

You realize that these extreme expressions happen in real life, right? Just because there are mosre subtle expressions doesn't mean there are none that are very visible.


>>2143924
> But feel free to provide me a list of well known animators with an entirely different style.
John Kricfalusi, Don Hertzfeldt, Aleksandr Petrov, Mat/Trey Parker, some of Richard Williams' work and Hayao Miyazaki are both well known and have a fairly wide range of styles.
I hope you love being spoonfed


>most people do not use those expressions
pic related
Random people obviously being theatre actors with expressions that are caricatures of real expressions

>Good job comparing the most generic anime series you could find to the big budget Disney stuff
It doesn't matter what anime I would've chosen since most of it uses that time of extremely stylized display of expression.

>>2143924
>they seem to be mostly based off of threatre acting
BECAUSE FUCK THEATRE ACTING!

>>2143926
While 70s Disney doesn't have a lot of animated movies with actual people in them, Glen Keane worked on The Rescuers in 1977, and it's not exactly hard to tell that Penny is drawn in a very similar style to The Little Mermaid, which again is a direct precursor to the style used today. There were a handful of attempts at different styles in the 90s and early 2000s, but these weren't exactly very interesting.
The common theme seems to be pushing the exaggerated expressions further and further. The shows from the 70s and 80s actually seem to have more character to them, as they're not as wildly exaggerated as today's shit.

>>2143929
That is the dumbest shit I've ever read. You think kids being able to pick up on the emotion makes it good? You do realize this is why autists like MLP, right? I'm not even joking. The simplistic themes and overt emotional displays are actually what draws them to MLP.

>>2143940
Again, more strawmen. I actually like the old Disney stuff. It's the recent shit I can't stand.
Furthermore, have you even watched Snow White? There is virtually no similarities to the modern Disney style. It was actually animated during the period when they drew certain human characters in an entirely different way from the comedic characters. I can't remember if they rotoscoped this, or if they drew from observation, but there's literally no comparison.

>>2143959
Maleficent - 1959
Nothing like the "shit" today
Just compare it to >>2143685 or >>2143566
So different that one is so shit you can't stand it and one is pretty cool

>>2143961
Autists like MLP because instead of using facial expressions and body language they use the equivalent of emoticons and people shouting their emotions to get the point across. At least that's what I assume happens on an episode of MLP. Disney is completely different. They take their influences from theater and dance and use the motions of the body to get emotions across.

>>2143964
There's a reason they stopped doing it like in Snow White because they didn't look like real expressions and they were so toned down that it just didn't work for animation.

>>2143812
Exactly. Everyone in this thread is cherry picking.

>>2143951
>How is Maleficent any different than any of the model sheets posted in this thread?
Are you high? I don't even know how I can respond to someone so fucking delusional. Compare her to a more recent villain, like Ursula, and tell me the animation and expressions are anything alike.

>John Kricfalusi, Don Hertzfeldt, Aleksandr Petrov, Mat/Trey Parker
Again, I have no fucking words. There aren't remotely in the same category.

The only one who kinda comes close is Richard Williams, but the vast majority of his stuff is very esoteric and flat.

I specifically didn't mention Miyazaki because he's Japanese, and I figured we were talking about western styles. If we include him, then yes, I would say he makes characters that feel more alive and vivid than modern Disney characters. That being said, I'm not a big fan of the style he uses in some of his work. Chihiro from Spirited Away is flat out one of the ugliest main characters ever animated, and he occasionally seems to underplay the emotional spectrum of his characters. For example, Mononoke Hime had some of the dullest, most emotionless characters ever animated, and his young male characters all look the same.

As far as character animation and expressions go, I like Steamboy by Otomo, even if the movie itself is mediocre and partially ruined by shitty CGI.
If you look at the character sheets from Steamboy, the faces actually retain their shape and don't warp into a rubbery mess. This is actually something Aaron Blaise talks about in one of his videos, where he makes a point out of not warping "hard" parts of the body such as the skull and bones when animating.
The other part is the animation itself, which tries to emulate human movement and subtlety in order to make the characters feel more natural, like Disney did up until the late 50s.

Overall, I'm not a huge fan of Studio Ghibli, while Otomo's works greatly vary in quality, but they do make more life-like characters.

>>2143975
>They take their influences from theater and dance and use the motions of the body to get emotions across.
Heh, you just copied what I said earlier.

>>2143977
And they were right in doing so, as Snow White is fairly dated by any standard. In fact, the entertainment factor was entirely focused around the dwarves. However, before they came up with the shit they do today, they found a happy middle ground.

>>2143974
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

>>2144043
>Again, I have no fucking words.
It's me who is at a loss for words here.
Anyway, there is no point in further discussing anything here since it just boils down to personal preference.

>>2143657
>>2143655
>>2143652
>>2143644

>>2143610
Nope, you're not alone. There was a time and a place when I really loved the progenitors of this style. Say, 5-10 years old and the original 101 Dalmations. Somewhere along the line though, something was lost. Can't really enjoy anything in this style made after The Lion King or so. Shit just got too plastic and soulless. Can't put my finger on exactly why either. Just how it is.

>>2144060
Really? You're the one who has no words? You're bringing up artists who draw fucking stick figures and paper cutouts, as if that has any relevance to the topic. If anything, it shows that you couldn't find better examples.

You're also comparing Maleficent, the most celebrated Disney villain of all time, who relies on relatively subtle body language and expressions for 90% of her screentime to the spastic, comic relief villains of today. I'm not saying the latter has no place in animation, I'm simply pointing out the huge difference in animation style which you seem to be oblivious to.

>>2144070
>somewhere along the line something was lost.
>Can't put my finger on exactly why either.
It was your childhood anon.
The answer is your adult cynicism, that's why you can't enjoy shit.

>>2143924

>>2144070
I'll agree with that timeline. I think the last Disney movie I genuinely enjoyed was the Lion King. Granted, it's been well over a decade since I last watched it, so I don't really know what I would think of it now. I think all the furry shit that's based on the style would make it difficult to enjoy, but that's just a personal hangup.

>>2144080

>>2143888
Because caricatures aren't supposed to exaggerate human features and emotions

>>2144077
I enjoy a lot of shit, and that's probably why this style no longer appeals to me. It's like staring at Piet Mondrian's 'Tableau', it's fucking boring. I'll take a Rubens or even a Klimt over that any day of the week. Just like I'll take an Akira or a Nightmare Before Christmas over a Disney's Pocahontes or Tarzan. It's visual interest for me, not smoothness, streamlining and simplification.

anna and elsa still have the same face as rapunzel, though

>>2143801
Screencapped. Fucking brilliant.

>>2143330
Like other people, I think the exaggerations are taken so far as to seem fake and just plastic. It's a shame Disney and Dreamworks adopted this style because it really kills their films for me.

>>2144625
Fake and plastic? Kindly fuck off. This is literally nothing new. In fact if anything that concept drives their animation the closest to it's rooms than its ever been. How the fuck is a mouse with ears the size of its face and pipe limbs not fake and plastic?

It sounds to me like you and the other whining man children in the thread are nothing but pathetic hipster wannabes.

And worst of all I doubt any of you have even slightest bit of ability to even attempt at making a passable drawing of the type of "edgy" shit that you claim to want.

Another beautiful day on /ic/ I see.

Madoka is better.

>>2144630
I just stated my opinion which is obviously on a different realm to yours. Don't see the need to get all mad. It's not like I'm telling everyone that it's shit and they shouldn't watch it.

>>2143634
You're a contrarian and lack the understanding of art necessary to even conver why you're a contrarian.

>>2143871
You're a retard.
>Duhu why they have the same expreshun?!
Every character sheet must cover every basic expression and that shit isn't limitless or that different from character to character. You're such a noob that you think superficial features are what make an expression when it's actually the underlying muscle structure that does and that shit looks pretty much the same from person to person.

>>2144083
>I think all the furry shit that's based on the style would make it difficult to enjoy,
Are you really this autistic?

>>2143977
It was only when they started 101 Dalmatians that the studio's fantasy, princessy style stopped and became a more simple style to reflect the artwork of the 60's

>>2144104
it's supposed to be a representation of the likeness of that person's personality. Whether or not the artist chooses to exaggerate human features is up to them and if they do it doesn't mean the piece isn't a caricature

>>2144642
they are shit and stiff as fuck. Literally no life or motion whatsoever

>>2143924
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqY052B_m38

>>2143330
Looks like typical ugly disney garbage.
read some french or belgian comics if you really want to see proper comic art

Here's my two cents about why the constant overacting of disney faces is garbage.
If you exaggerate EVERY single facial motion it blends together so much that none of them have any more impact.
Learning subdued facial expressions is an art, making everything just overexaggerated is poor form.

>>2144651
I like how all of you faggots haven't been able to come up with one argument to support your stance, and just repeat your moronic strawmen and personal attacks.

>>2144794
I wonder why women are so obsessed with these styles. I mean, I rarely see guys trying to copy Disney inspired styles, but it seems to be the norm on tumblr.

>>2144794
So you're saying that Disney mastered that art?
Or are you saying that you haven't watched a single Disney movie?

>>2144795
>I like how all of you faggots haven't been able to come up with one argument to support your stance, and just repeat your moronic strawmen and personal attacks.

Right back at you and the hipster posting "hurpa durp looks like typical Disney garbage". There is absolutely no argument to be had with contrarian faggots like that.

You are not artists yourself, you are consumers. You are literally unable to think like a designer and an artist. You have proven that time and again throughout this thread.

>>2144795
>Learning subdued facial expressions is an art, making everything just overexaggerated is poor form.

Can you post an example of subdued facial expressions in stylized animation or can you draw one yourself and post it?

>>2144794
you get we're looking at character sheets right? sheets that are literally designed to show the extremes of expression?

>>2144827
>hipster contrarian consumer faggot i win because i say so
I hope you're not the little cunt who accused others of using buzzwords. Either way, good job acting like the retarded puppet you were accused of being.

>>2144833
No, it's all like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1CIbLepTk

>>2144856
No, it really isn't. >>2143812

Have you even watched the movie or are you basing your entire argument off of 1 minute youtube clips of comic relief scenes?

>>2144847
I'm still waiting for any of you hipsters to some up with one argument to support your stance that isn't based on your feelings.

Alright, so I took it upon me to create the ultimate /ic/-approved expression chart, full of subtle, subdued facial expressions showing the full range of human emotions. Please hacks at Disney, take notes.

>>2144860
>I think a conversation about an inherently subjective topic can actually be discussed objectively.

Wow... you're... smart?

>>2143801
This really sums up these faggots well.

>>2144856
All these exaggerated bland caricatures of real expressions sure are extreme.

If only they would make emotions as toned down and realistic as >>2143951, >>2144069 and >>2144080

Fucking Disney and their parody of expressions.

>>2144869

>>2144894
Nice autism you got there. I mean, Christ.

>>2144909
>makes pants on head retarded claim
>proven wrong by a few cropped screencaps
>y-you're just an autist

kek

>>2144894
Keep arguing guys cuz you make some good expression collages.

>>2144909

>>2144879
Are you actually so ignorant that you think something can't be discussed because there's a subjective element to it? By your reasoning, every discussion worth having would be entirely scientific.
Also, the core of the argument I and others have made isn't hard to understand, yet no one has decided to argue against it, but instead resort to insults and denial.
Seriously, we simply believe that when something is exaggerated beyond a certain point, the characters become less believable and more like caricatures.
The other point I've made, is that the dominance of this style and its offshoots is a detriment to western animation.

The funny thing is that if you make this argument about the majority of anime, it's not a particularly controversial issue, unless you're talking to a hardcore weeaboo. Are you people westaboos?

>>2144911
Yeah, I guess that is what people look like when they shake hands with a horse.

>>2144925
>Seriously, we simply believe that when something is exaggerated beyond a certain point, the characters become less believable and more like caricatures.

And many others have told you that they don't think those Jin Kim drawings are exaggerated beyond a point where they are no longer believable and have asked you time and again to provide examples of stylized work that you think does a better job at showing stylized expressions, so we have a point of reference. Yet for some reason you are unable to post even one example.

>>2144931
>comedy is not allowed in animation

Not him, but are you genuinely mentally challenged?

>>2144858
What astonishes me is that you think that's actually natural. Those scenes are made in the same fashion, with very overt expressions and body language. You might as well draw a sad emoticon.

>>2144931
What the hell is your point?
The whole setting is comedic and unrealistic and you are crying about expressions that fit the scenes?

>>2144931
That's the face people make when they don't trust that horse but are reluctantly made to shake his hoof for a temporary truce.

You called that guy autistic, but it seems to me that you are the one who is having trouble identifying the simplest emotions that any child can easily understand. You sure you aren't the one suffering from autism?

>>2144940
I honestly don't understand how the fuck you would animate a character while completely refusing to use any facial expression and body language. Parents mourning over the loss of their daughter is not a natural fucking scene you retard. What exactly are they supposed to look like if they aren't allowed to look genuinely sad?

>>2144940
Alright it might've taken me way too long but if this isn't pretending to be retarded I don't know what is.

pic related is pretty much just
>O.O

The most pathetic piece of "art" is the Mona Lisa though. That giant ass Joker smile makes it feel like you are watching a Ren and Stimpy cartoon.

>>2144939
Yeah, that was totally the point I was trying to make!

>>2144934
Yes, they talk about their feelings, and haven't made a single point to back it up.
I actually found a pretty good example of what a real life parallell to those types of expressions would be. Look at the cover of any romantic comedy. You know, when they're posing with their fake smile in a comedic situation that overtly displays the relationship between the characters. That's exactly what it looks like.

>>2144953
A U T I S M
please ignore autists /ic/

>>2144947
It's the opposite, dumbfuck. You're taking an exaggerated expression, and pretending it's natural.
Also, you keep changing the focus of the entire argument I originally made, which was that I disagree that the style in question is "alive" and "vivid". It's a comedic style devoid of any real personality, because everything is exaggerated to the point where a young child will understand the emotions being expressed.
It's the equivalent of a Jim Carrey comedy.

>>2144949
Yes. Everything is binary. A painting depicting a shocked father is the exact same thing as a cartoon based around exaggerating every single emotion. You sure made a fool out of me.

>>2144955
>MLP is deeply emotional. I cry every time I see a frowny face emoticon.

>>2144958

>>2144925
You asked for an argument that is NOT based on feelings. How can you have such an argument unless you are talking about an objective topic? I did not say discussions of subjective topics were worthless.

You want a discussion on a subjective topic without feelings? That's impossible, it's exactly what subjectivity is, it's your feelings.

So, you are a retard.

>>2144968
And once again, binary reasoning.
Most discussions aren't entirely subjective or objective, they're usually somewhere inbetween.
People like to claim something is entirely subjective, in order to derail a discussion where they have no arguments.

>>2144958
>Yes. Everything is binary. A painting depicting a shocked father is the exact same thing as a cartoon based around exaggerating every single emotion.

How the fuck is >>2143812 cartoonishly exaggerated but >>2144949 is not?

The former depicts parents who lost their daughter. Are they not allowed to look fucking sad? Just how on earth do you want them to look. What would be the appropriate, non-exaggerated expression for a father and a mother grieving about the loss of their daughter, you insufferable retard?

>>2144958
One of the principles of animation is to make a CLEAR statement with everything you draw. A clear, strong pose, a clear emotion to convey etc. Ambiguous poses and expressions are not a good thing in animation (and neither in movies or comics for that matter). Your problem is that you are no artist yourself and don't actually understand art. As shown by your inability to show examples of how something should look or give examples on how you would fix it.

You can't explain why something is wrong with these expressions, you can't point out how you would instead depict them, all you can do is constantly repeat "hurr they are exaggerated. Hurr Jim Carrey movie." You are an utter fool and you should feel embarassed for yourself.

>>2144794
Stoicism is for faggots.

>>2144974
>somewhere in between
Again you're a retard. Show me an argument that is part subjective part objective with no "feelings". You can't. The only argument you can make without feelings involved is one that is objective.

You don't even understand what you are saying. Hence: retard.

>>2144953
>Yes, they talk about their feelings, and haven't made a single point to back it up.
Because the burden of proof lies on you.
We know Disney is good at character animation, you disagree, it's on you to show what "good character animation" is, from your point of view.

When you don't, you stop being a dissenting POV and start becoming a contrarian faggot with no arguments.

>>2144802
the guys are busy copying MLP and adventure time.

>>2143610
I hate it too.
I didn't even like it that much when I was a kid, not the movie but the faces.
I prefer animu faces like this though

>>2145579
This is prob a better example

>>2145579
>>2145581
>Not appreciating both.

>>2145598
I enjoy the western disney animation mainly for the body animation and their quality in general, but I can't stand the faces they make.
I like them for different reasons with Eastern Animation having a slight edge

>>2143330
I remember seeing a picture of where the animators for disney would make faces at mirrors and draw them. try that.

>>2145579
I prefer something more subtle.

>>2145606
Thats common practice for animators amd cartoonists

>>2145581
No. This is a bad example. Her expression doesn't change at all.

>>2145579
I actually wanted to post something from lwa but I'm on my phone.
Personally I love how anime shows extreme abstract emotions without losing the meaning or look of it.

>>2145638
>extreme abstract emotions
could you post an example of what you mean by that?

Not trying to be a cunt, I just legit don't know what you mean by that

>>2145640
yeah probably fucked that wording some. Would post an image but on phone.

basically I mean it starts to use symbols and extreme exaggerations to portray emotions. For example the >. < face you see in anime periodically or to a lesser extent just the weird looking faces such as the k-on pic posted earlier in this thread.

basically how they convey emotion in a completely unrealistic manner while not drifting too far.

>>2145644

people forget the primary audience of cartoons are children

>>2145675

>>2144075
>Subtle
I'm not that person you were arguing with, you're both much more well-versed in this stuff than I am. However, Maleficent is written to be a relatively calmer, more composed villain than the others. The artwork reflects that.
Also, the guy you were arguing with gave you everything you asked for, which is a helluva lot more than most people would have bothered to do. I think you're just not going to change your mind on this.

>>2145712
He's right you know. That's not to say other people can't find it enjoyable. It's just aimed at children so design choices will reflect such.

>>2145675
>>2145815
You know we've established this many, many posts ago. There's just one retard ITT who unironically insists that we should ignore context when criticizing character design.

>>2145890
>ignoring context when criticizing character design

wow thats really retarded

>>2143330
you sound like a girl

>>2145634
that's what makes it good. no wild movements, no crazy expression changes from second to second. the only things that move a lot are the things that would move in real life, i.e. her hair, clothes and enviroment. just notice her necklace.

it's more subtle.

>>2145579
LWA a shit

>>2145634
It's good though, in that scene, shows her determination quite well.

>>2145581
Apart from the absolutely weightless running and the dodge being way too fast this looks decent.
It's kinda silly to use that as an example of better expression when given the context of the scene, Disney would've dealt with it in a very similar way.
I definitely prefer the classic Disney approach when it comes to overall animation though.

>>2145996
>weightless running
considering what kind of scene this is, there's no point in making it look heavy or grounded. the sfx will do the rest.

>dodge being way too fast
what do you mean? first her eyes shifted, then prepared to avoid the car. it felt natural?

>>2145999
>considering what kind of scene this is, there's no point in making it look heavy or grounded.
I'm not sure what the exact context is but just being determined doesn't make you weightless. It just looks wrong.

>the sfx will do the rest
"Sound will fix it" is a very poor excuse for making the run look unappealing.


>what do you mean? first her eyes shifted, then prepared to avoid the car. it felt natural?
There was not enough build up in her body for movement that fast. It might look somewhat like that in real life but animation is all about looking interesting and since there was no anticipation other than looking in that direction, she just teleported to the side faster than the car coming into frame.

>>2146007
>I'm not sure what the exact context is but just being determined doesn't make you weightless. It just looks wrong.
the context is rushing to the otherside of the street, isn't it? what's the point of making her steps look heavy?

>"Sound will fix it" is a very poor excuse for making the run look unappealing.
but it is plenty appealing, as you said yourself. the whole thing is an illusion. once we add the sfx the illusion will be complete.

>There was not enough build up in her body for movement that fast. It might look somewhat like that in real life but animation is all about looking interesting and since there was no anticipation other than looking in that direction, she just teleported to the side faster than the car coming into frame.
you're just wrong. first her eyes noticed it, then her hand reached out to it. then her hand traveled with the car for a bit before she reacted with her second hand. and she didn't teleport, we can assume that she sidestepped the car.
her eyes, as well as her hand were more than enough anticipation.
if you're going to complain about anything, complain about how quickly the car stopped.

you are looking at this from a more western standpoint, even when you said
> It might look somewhat like that in real life but animation is all about looking interesting
that's very disney-like. personally i think that real life movements are more than interesting enough.

>>2143330
>>2145581
>>2145620

Japanese animation uses way too little character animation whereas disney often uses too much

>>2146025
>the context is rushing to the otherside of the street, isn't it? what's the point of making her steps look heavy?
Appeal? Again, it looks uninteresting and weightless this way,

>but it is plenty appealing, as you said yourself.
I said the exact opposite and no, sound might add to the overall illusion but it doesn't negate bland animation.


>you're just wrong. first her eyes noticed it, then her hand reached out to it. then her hand traveled with the car for a bit before she reacted with her second hand. and she didn't teleport, we can assume that she sidestepped the car.
her eyes, as well as her hand were more than enough anticipation.
if you're going to complain about anything, complain about how quickly the car stopped.

I noticed all that but it wasn't "more than enough anticipation" It was barely anything and way too fast. Like I said, that makes sense in real life but animation shouldn't depict real life. It should show how things feel like, how the seem and not be as close to how they actually are.


>you are looking at this from a more western standpoint
and you are looking at it from an eastern standpoint
This discussion is kind of pointless since we obviously have different ideas on what makes good animation.

>>2146104
>This discussion is kind of pointless since we obviously have different ideas on what makes good animation.
that's what i've been saying. but well, you're the one saying that >>2145581 should take more of an disney/western approach.

i don't dislike disney, but i prefer the realistic approach over their way.
it's like they are saying that reality isn't interesting enough, but again, i feel like realistic movements are more than complex and interesting enough. there is no need for focus everything on gesture like disney does.

>>2146110
>you're the one saying that >>2145581 should take more of an disney/western approach

I said no such thing. I stated what I prefered and you started asking me about it.
I don't mind anime either, expecially action scenes, which strangely enough, is one of the only times they seem to take a very "basic principles of animation" approach with hits/cuts/shots taking an insane amount of time until the opponent's body reacts.

>>2146110
>That gif doe
Bro I know Ive seen that somewhere before but could never find it, was that the one with the shark people too?
Please tell me the source of the gif, for the love of all that is holy please tell me!

blue submarine no 6
it's not that great of a series though. very old, with tons of outdated CG. that scene was probably the best memorable scene in the entire thing kek

>>2146134
My mother watched it when I was a kid. She told me I couldn't see it until I was older. I only saw bits and pieces of it, and was never able to find the anime, because it was such a hard thing to describe. I don't care if it's not that great, I'll still watch it to fulfill my childhood dream.

>>2146098
>rotoscoped

I f**king hate forced animation.

>>2146198
>forced animation
What do you mean by this, anon?

>>2146202
Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YamWNqHQvgQ

>>2146218
Holy fuck does that look retarded.
Is there no director or something to stop this from happening?

>>2146231
Forget that, I didn't read the subs.

>>2146134
wish I could find it again, but one of my favorite anime series (and one of the only ones I would still watch to this day) is "Time of Eve" The animation was fantastic, but there was only like, 6 episodes ever. Granted they took forever to make em :/

>>2146218
lmao thats pretty funny

>>2146101
yet another smug anime girl , bad example

>>2146198
Is she having a stroke?

>>2146293
Are you?

>>2146007
> It might look somewhat like that in real life but animation is all about looking interesting
This is why western animation is shit. They think everything needs to be "interesting" and give tons of attention to every detail, it's like an illustrator overrendering his picture. Nobody except animators will find watching a perfectly animated ball bouncing in an empty room interesting by itself, whereas a "talking head" or even a still frame might help getting the actual interesting narration/dialogue/whatever across. But no, western animators (I mean Disney by the way) have their heads so far up their ass they need to bog down every single scene they touch with forced animation. It certainly didn't help that their stories were also shit until they switched to 3d.

>>2146129
>not reading file name
blue submarine no 6

>>2146604
In his defence "BSno6" could be confused for a randomized filename.

>>2146198
That looks more like a test animation than something for an actual scene

>>2143812

because 3d animation would look too much like real life if they didnt exaggerate the gestures. Disney is and always has been the leading producer of cartoons, why should it look anything but cartoonish?

>>2146233
But your first reaction makes all that hard work so worth it, kek.

There's a huge difference between Disney's more recent over exaggerated, dumbed down and marketed solely to simple kids work, like Tangled or Frozen, and some of the subtler work in classics back when they tried to have more meaning and emotion in the films.

Look at literally anything from Frozen and you can see how much they've simplified and exaggerated things to appeal to audiences expected things like the shit Dreamworks cranks out; all the characters look the same or are clear archetypes, expressions are awful but easier for kids to understand, etc. Then compare that with the scene at the end of Beauty and the Beast, it just doesn't look like it was made by the same studio.

Seriously, look at this shit. https://youtu.be/xOVlVF3RJQc?t=1m5s

Glen Keane was a god, a magnificent god. How he can then turn around and make something like Tangled baffles me.

>>2149361
Tangled was better than most of the Renaissance movies though.
He also didn't animate anything in the finished movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jRkx2PNVr8
Here you can see that stylewise there is no difference in his work whatsoever. There were always scenes that required more exaggeration than others.
Tangled had it's emotional, more subtle moments and Beauty and the Beast had batshit insane expressions.

Take off the nostalgia goggles or whatever you're wearing.