Cartoon characters designs

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Jester

I've been watching a lot of Dragon Ball lately. I'll say one thing it's consistent, though you can see the style change slightly between the 3 series.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of how they made all the characters look "shiny" as they went further and further along. The original DragonBall art style is my favorite visual look, even if the main characters tend to look a little too scrawny. The Saiyen, Android, and Perfect Cell Sagas are my favorite arcs of the DBZ era. The rest of the series is more or less filler... and perfect for parody!

[Jester]

Not sure I like Vegeta's GT model. There is such thing as too many muskles.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Jester

Not sure I like Vegeta's GT model. There is such thing as too many muskles.

Lol, as oppossed to the DBZ model? In any DB show they're way to muscled

[Jester]

Originally Posted by TMNT_Canadian

Lol, as opposed to the DBZ model? In any DB show they're way to muscled

It may just be that DBGT is where I am now, and I've already forgot his design in later arcs in DBZ.... either way his neck makes me chuckle sometimes.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Jester

It may just be that DBGT is where I am now, and I've already forgot his design in later arcs in DBZ.... either way his neck makes me chuckle sometimes.

Yeah, nothing tops the original DBZ Vegeta design: semi-midget with noticeably red hair, scrawny neck, nerdy scouter, and tail wrapped around his waist like a belt.

The coolness scale on that design was well over 9,000.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Jester

It may just be that DBGT is where I am now, and I've already forgot his design in later arcs in DBZ.... either way his neck makes me chuckle sometimes.

Lol. I gotta see some DBGT then.

[ThePickleweed]

Originally Posted by KROW

So you grew up with Jem, Real Ghostbusters, G.I. Joe, Superfriends, and Thundarr? If not, did you watch them? If not, you have no argument. If so, why call them, "sh*t"? X-Men alone does not count to debate animation quality compared to the style of programs that surfaced after 2001.

look, i grew up with all of that, hold it dear to my heart still, and can assuredly say most of it was - garbage. some hold up well, but honestly not many.

as a whole, 80's cartoons are more vinegar than wine. if youve watched any of it within the last 10 years (save ghostbusters, voltron, and occasionally robotech) there is no way that you could argue that its ANIMATED better than anything the 90's offered. batman, x-men, animaniacs, tiny toons, any of the disney shows ALL destroyed them on an animation level, and IMO an asthetic level as well. i can still enjoy ducktales, i tried to enjoy transformers again and couldnt.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by ThePickleweed

look, i grew up with all of that, hold it dear to my heart still, and can assuredly say most of it was - garbage. some hold up well, but honestly not many.

as a whole, 80's cartoons are more vinegar than wine. if youve watched any of it within the last 10 years (save ghostbusters, voltron, and occasionally robotech) there is no way that you could argue that its ANIMATED better than anything the 90's offered. batman, x-men, animaniacs, tiny toons, any of the disney shows ALL destroyed them on an animation level, and IMO an asthetic level as well. i can still enjoy ducktales, i tried to enjoy transformers again and couldnt.

See I loved all that also

[KROW]

Originally Posted by ThePickleweed

look, i grew up with all of that, hold it dear to my heart still, and can assuredly say most of it was - garbage. some hold up well, but honestly not many.

as a whole, 80's cartoons are more vinegar than wine. if youve watched any of it within the last 10 years (save ghostbusters, voltron, and occasionally robotech) there is no way that you could argue that its ANIMATED better than anything the 90's offered. batman, x-men, animaniacs, tiny toons, any of the disney shows ALL destroyed them on an animation level, and IMO an asthetic level as well. i can still enjoy ducktales, i tried to enjoy transformers again and couldnt.

Though I disagree that most of it was garbage, I do agree that as the years went by, the process of animation got better. The use of advanced computers made it much easier for animators to meet deadlines, which in turn allowed them more time to do touch-ups on anything that was missed.

Watching Generation 1 Transformers, and other shows that dominated television like G.I. Joe and Centurions, I can appreciate the grittiness and the effort put into them, even with the occasional mistakes.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by KROW

I can appreciate the grittiness and the effort put into them, even with the occasional mistakes.

I can understand that, but really "occasional mistakes"? The FW TMNT had at least 1 per episode.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Jester

I can understand that, but really "occasional mistakes"? The FW TMNT had at least 1 per episode.

I'm almost of the opinion that TMNT animators intentionally made mistakes as an inside joke. Some of them are just so bad you have attribute it to a complete lack of supervision or an inside conspiracy.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by KROW

Though I disagree that most of it was garbage, I do agree that as the years went by, the process of animation got better. The use of advanced computers made it much easier for animators to meet deadlines, which in turn allowed them more time to do touch-ups on anything that was missed.

Watching Generation 1 Transformers, and other shows that dominated television like G.I. Joe and Centurions, I can appreciate the grittiness and the effort put into them, even with the occasional mistakes.

Watching the transitions from 80s style to 90s style and into the latest decade has been interesting. Im partial to the old school but I dig the newer styles as well

[KROW]

Originally Posted by Jester

I can understand that, but really "occasional mistakes"? The FW TMNT had at least 1 per episode.

Ugh, I know. But I figure, this being a TMNT forum, it deserves a pass... Maybe?

[ThePickleweed]

Originally Posted by KROW

Though I disagree that most of it was garbage, I do agree that as the years went by, the process of animation got better. The use of advanced computers made it much easier for animators to meet deadlines, which in turn allowed them more time to do touch-ups on anything that was missed.

Watching Generation 1 Transformers, and other shows that dominated television like G.I. Joe and Centurions, I can appreciate the grittiness and the effort put into them, even with the occasional mistakes.

c'mon now, animation had been around since the 30's and the stuff out of warner and disney back in the 50's SMOKED the 80's cartoons in animation quality. it wasnt that they were working out the kinks of a new medium, they were working out the kinks of outsourcing it in a world with no cell phones, internet and instant responses. but it wasnt even issues with the animation that was the worst offender. there was no coherent story, plot, things happened simply to sell toys. there was no production value to it. im not sure what changed in the 90's, maybe guys who grew up watching the crap of the 80's took over, but there assuredly more substance to them.

*special note- ghostbusters is exempt from this because it is STILL unabashedly awesome and well done, even watching it today.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by KROW

Ugh, I know. But I figure, this being a TMNT forum, it deserves a pass... Maybe?

Maybe... Heck I tend to agree with Adam, the fact that there are things like Raph's belt being on backwards in 50 Foot Irma, makes you think, that has to be intentional. Maybe it in itself is an homage to the continuity gaffs in the 50's sci-fi/horror flicks that the FW TMNT parodied.

[ThePickleweed]

Originally Posted by Jester

Maybe... Heck I tend to agree with Adam, the fact that there are things like Raph's belt being on backwards in 50 Foot Irma, makes you think, that has to be intentional. Maybe it in itself is an homage to the continuity gaffs in the 50's sci-fi/horror flicks that the FW TMNT parodied.

more like it was drawn by some korean dude who had no idea what an r was.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by ThePickleweed

Animation had been around since the 30's and the stuff out of Warner and Disney back in the 50's SMOKED the 80's cartoons in animation quality.

True, but the budgets were also bigger, since they were for movies and not TV. Hanna-Barbera could probably be blamed for cheapening animation as an art form to make it work with the limited budget of television...
As for the 80's vs. 90's storytelling, maybe the writers weren't used to the "write to sell toys" in the 80's and by the 90's had figured out how to tell good stories within the glorified toy commercials.

Originally Posted by ThePickleweed

more like it was drawn by some korean dude who had no idea what an r was.

If I could post a screen cap, I would, but I mean the buckle and tie were on the back of his shell...

[KROW]

Originally Posted by ThePickleweed

c'mon now, animation had been around since the 30's and the stuff out of warner and disney back in the 50's SMOKED the 80's cartoons in animation quality. it wasnt that they were working out the kinks of a new medium, they were working out the kinks of outsourcing it in a world with no cell phones, internet and instant responses. but it wasnt even issues with the animation that was the worst offender. there was no coherent story, plot, things happened simply to sell toys. there was no production value to it. im not sure what changed in the 90's, maybe guys who grew up watching the crap of the 80's took over, but there assuredly more substance to them.

*special note- ghostbusters is exempt from this because it is STILL unabashedly awesome and well done, even watching it today.

I don't see how you can compare a cartoon rabbit or mouse with something like Jem or Thundercats. Of course it's going to be easy animating Mickey Mouse strutting down the street then Lion-O clashing against Mumm-Ra and do it more fluidly and crank it out each week. And while watching old Disney and Looney shorts, you can still catch mistakes like blemishes and eraser marks.

As for production value, well, maybe it wasn't the greatest, but really, shows like MOTU and G.I. Joe developed some very good stories. Even though they were made to sell toys, they blossomed into something more. Sure, some episodes were ridiculous (a few Joe eps just had me shaking my head), but overall it wasn't just some claptrap like Captain Planet.

Originally Posted by Jester

As for the 80's vs. 90's storytelling, maybe the writers weren't used to the "write to sell toys" in the 80's and by the 90's had figured out how to tell good stories within the glorified toy commercials.

Or had comic books for inspiration.

[ThePickleweed]

Originally Posted by KROW

I don't see how you can compare a cartoon rabbit or mouse with something like Jem or Thundercats. Of course it's going to be easy animating Mickey Mouse strutting down the street then Lion-O clashing against Mumm-Ra and do it more fluidly and crank it out each week. And while watching old Disney and Looney shorts, you can still catch mistakes like blemishes and eraser marks.

As for production value, well, maybe it wasn't the greatest, but really, shows like MOTU and G.I. Joe developed some very good stories. Even though they were made to sell toys, they blossomed into something more. Sure, some episodes were ridiculous (a few Joe eps just had me shaking my head), but overall it wasn't just some claptrap like Captain Planet.

well, i dont consider ducks and rabbits easier to animate, but i do think they were tailored to the medium. squash and stretch, arcs, ins and outs, are all present and built around the design of looney tunes and the disney stuff.

i can try to paint realistic portraits with oils, or i can draw them with crayon. one is decidedly more difficult than the other, but at the end of the day, youre left with a picture. and you should judge the picture, not the road to get there. i dont appreciate the crayon drawing more because it was harder. they chose a style that was inherently more difficult to accomplish, and you could tell. disney and WB played to the strengths of the medium, and was performed by actual artisans, vs being sent overseas. i think youre seeing a reversal (well, not the overseas part anyways), and thats why you are seeing such simplified designs. something tailored to be animated. and with that, your seeing better results too.

[Peanut]

When did this become a fight between 80's vs 90's cartoons? I thought this was about character design?

It seems like KROW is getting defensive about his childhood based entirely on the content of the shows themselves, which isn't what this was about.

Where I was going with my animation argument is that, most of the time, shows with detailed character designs are also rife with bad animation, ugly deformations of the character model, inconsistencies, errors etc. That's why you can watch, again, 90's X-Men and cry laughing every 2 minutes. On the flip side you can watch a 50's Looney Tunes and the animation is fantastic. It's all in the design of the character. What Pickleweed said applies perfectly to this argument.

It's not like shows with more simple character design are free of problems. Some of the kid sh*t like Dora is absolutely inexcusably bad. However, take a show like Samurai Jack and you see how this argument holds weight.