Cels vs. Digital Animation

[ErikB]

Typically, keeping a character on-model is to keep them believable as the same person from one moment to another. When a character's appearance suddenly changes wildly, it can be hard for the audience to maintain their suspension of disbelief. However, staying rigidly on-model in every frame is problematic because it doesn't create much appeal in motion and doesn't even reflect realistic motion very much.
One of the foremost principles of animation is called "Squash and Stretch", which is the concept of having a mass (a character or a prop) distort in shape to show the influence of the motion it's going through. I've seen this principle quite wrongly defined as "cartoony motion as opposed to realistic" as it is, in fact, based in reality. Seemingly solid and rigid masses do deform, particularly in high motion, in the real world; "squash and stretch" takes that phenomenon and applies it and exaggerates it in animation to achieve believable and appealing motion.
So you can't really apply that and also have a character 100% accurate to what's on their model sheet in every frame.
Aladdin's one of my favourite examples of this. It's one of Disney's most stylistically exaggerated movies so it has tons of really wacky frames like these:
http://imgur.com/GJ4eFst
http://imgur.com/Prfo9Fg

[Lookerman]

Honestly, as an animation fan, the animation itself doesn't bother me if it's not too bottom of the barrel (Something Super, and modern Toei as a whole, seems to have an issue with). I can see where Jacob's coming from to some degree. But some of the examples listed here just aren't good as a whole (Modern day Simpsons for instance, which takes the worst aspects of writing, acting, animation and characterization and mashes it into something passing itself off as The Simpsons). Or were simply the product of different production methods. After all, neither America or Japan expects great things from Koreans.

The fact that there's little individuality canbe, and often is, a problem. But at the same time, too much of it can be an issue too. There's got to be a balance, not just one or the other. You can't just shove down the whole "Animation is more important than the story" belief down people's throats because it's only a half-truth. Yes, it is important, but sometimes mediocre (or downright terrible) animation can be saved by a good story, the other way around, not so much. Hence why there needs to be balance.

I'm not promoting the lazy shit seen in shows like DBS or modern day Simpsons. But there's got to be a fine line. Also Jacob, if you hate the MCU so much, then why did you watch it to begin with?

[JulieYBM]

I do try not to blame anyone for their ignorance and when I do it's only because I'm disappointed in myself for hoping against all the odds that I can actually make the difference others have made in me. Critical analysis of film and television is so uneducated about film or television that it is bound to rub off on those who read it, but when someone comes to the internet because they are so inspired by a TV show or film of all things to want to discuss or learn about it then it's only natural one should be required to actually learn something new.

Scripts and acting are not the only thing that matter in film and television. They are the only thing mainstream critics understand and perceive.

Also Jacob, if you hate the MCU so much, then why did you watch it to begin with?

People tend to understand things after actually having experienced them. I'd say the last four MCU films (everything after Iron Man 3) have taught me a very good lesson about dealing with adaptions, especially when they're worked too heavily to fit within a generalized context. A work friend and I were watching The Avengers on the break lounge TV the other day and we couldn't stop cringing at the cinematography. Oy vey, did it make me nauseous with its terrible angles and poor cutting. That crowd shot of Fury talking with Hill as the SHIELD base was being evacuated was terribly framed and moved for no reason whatsoever. Ugh.

The longer I've sat on these films the more I realize just how little there is to like them. I feel the same way about Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which has become an increasingly sour memory for me. Terrible music, terrible cinematography, poorly placed jokes and characters who aren't likable in the least or feel properly set-up thanks to a need to get to the action faster. That The Force Awakens is a reflection of Abrams (love of the 1977 film) and Kasdan's (what he wanted for the 1983 film) self-masturbation is an interesting reflection upon them but doesn't quite factor back into the film quite as it should.

Humorously enough, I've found the Netflix Marvel series much better than anything Marvel has done for family-friendly viewing. The eye-rolling left-wing one-liners in Daredevil not withstanding, the humor is actually funny thanks in part to its sparseness, the characters engrossing and the acting quite good. The final battle between Daredevil and Fisk was offensively atrocious but the end of Fisk's arc worked quite well. I'm hoping Fisk doesn't return, I think Vanessa would make a much better antagonist.

Jessica Jones was even better. It managed to avoid being overtly preachy, especially with regards to feminism and Kilgrave's warfare was truly devastating. Never quite did Kilgrave feel like he was pulling his punches to keep the story going, but to keep torturing. Kilgrave is the ultimate MCU antagonist, especially after Episode #13. The series even had vaguely likable, if entirely unmemorable, music and camera work. Season Two has a lot to live up to.

Being rubbery and off-model are not bad things.

Yeah it is. If the characters move oddly, it's distracting, and a car shouldn't bend like rubber. It's solid metal.

It's a drawing, not a car. It represents an idea or an emotion, it can do whatever the animator needs it to. The example you're using here may very well simply be a case of the animator not being good at his job. Mind you, I haven't actually seen this particular shot at hand, so for all I know it might not be bad at all.

And those who made it are excellent writers. There isn't just the art and everything else is secondary. And it's not merely a visual medium, it's an audible one as well. Yes, it's fictional events being consumed through a literal fashion. I'm not sure what you're point is or why you think that's a negative. No, I didn't mean the story is the script. The story is the events that happen in each episode. And JLU was as good as anything in Batman or Superman the animated series. I have zero idea what your last sentence means. The heart comes from the story. The animators' jobs are to make the story come to life.

"Passengers board a plane, unaware of the danger that awaits when the crew and some passengers become ill from the on-board meals" is a story and premise. "Ah, yes, I had the lasagna" is a script. A script is adapted from a story, just as the rest of an episode or film is adapted from a script. Scripts are not the finished product and certainly not the only necessary force behind making good film or television. Even a weak script can be turned into a good film or television.

The DCAU is special, the artwork stands out. There's beauty in its simplicity and the stories really delve into the depth of these characters and have a lot of heart. The artwork is a means to an end, you seem to have confused that and taken the artwork to be an end in itself. You talk about "provocative animation" but it's the stories that should be the things that are provocative. And since you don't seem to like the MCU, why did you watch Ant-Man?

The flaw of Batman Returns is that it wasn't good. The story was lacking, Batman isn't particularly compelling, DeVito is too over the top, and surprise, surprise, the bad guy was a businessman. I'll take committee filmmaking with heart over the boring, lifeless but "artistic" mess that was Batman Returns.

I completely disagree about Marvel's films. And why does something have to be "offensive" to be artistic? Ant-Man had a heart to it that a number of films lack. Scott Lang was looking for a chance at redemption and be the man his daughter thought he was. It was funny and sweet, not to mention it was a fun heist movie. And you couldn't be further from the truth that the films don't represent the personalities or interests of those that make them.

To bring this around to DB, it's Toriyama's stories and characters and art that gave DB its charm. All I ask is that they keep everything in line with that. If I get a good story, with good animation, that's all I'm asking for. If the artwork is the work of drones, I don't care as I don't know what the process is and never cared because I'm not a part of it. All I ever care about is the end product. Does it entertain me and do I think it looks good.

The visuals are the end. People do not communicate ideas merely through words, we communicate them visually. The invention of the written word and the place it has come to take in modern society has all but taken to framing any other form of communication as shallow or archaic. Nowhere is this easier to see than in Hollywood, which has downplayed the use of the camera to mere witness of actors than an active participant in conveying the unease of a scene.

But you've pushed the animation seemingly as the end all be all of the entire product. It's one ingredient. I don't think the animation studios that you are referring to were the ones doing the storyboarding, anyway. I can deal with a badly animated episode if the story and performances are good, but not the other way around. Case in point, Harley and Ivy had some poor animation in it, but it's still a good episode (ironically as I don't care for Harley, but that's beside the point).

No, I've said a good script does not make for good television or good film, especially when a 'good script' is the only component your production has over the course of an extended period. Even Dragon Ball Super with it's relatively good scripts has barely managed to survive creatively thanks to a few well directed episodes or the brilliance of Toma Seizou and Iseki Shuu'ichi's work as animation supervisors on Episodes #4 and #16. K-On! is a work that is entirely director and animator-driven, taking an average script and giving interpretation to it through every other aspect of filmmaking that ultimately culminates in television no [body who is] mere[ly a] script writer could conceive.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well made points Jacob. I'm a bit surprised that there has been this reaction to your position. I think that, as you said, the animator's job of bringing the script to life was quite integral to the reception of a series. It's not too hard to understand: There's a kind of entertainment unique to visual mediums.

Upon reflection, probably all of my favorite animated series have an appreciably good quality of animation (amongst other things). Poor animation is hard to look passed, even harder when the fight choreography is poor. That I think has been Super's main problem. If one of these factors made up for for the lackluster performance of the other, we could get over it. But when you have the following, it's a bit... well, judge for yourself:

Spoiler:

Yes I'm aware those are GIF files, so there is some compression going on. However, this quality of animation makes the events of the plot seem silly. The script and plot may dictate that what's onscreen is supposed to be serious, but I can't take it seriously when it's like this. :/

[rereboy]

People do not communicate ideas merely through words, we communicate them visually.

Yes, animation is used to communicate something. That something is not the animation itself, it's the meaning, the ideas or the story behind it that are being transmitted by the animation. The animation is their vehicle, not the ideas or the story themselves.

The visuals are the end.

Saying that animation is the end on itself, is like saying that the words in a certain text are the end on itself. They aren't. The meaning behind the words, the ideas or even the stories behind the words, those are the end. And, just like animation, the words, being the vehicle, can enhance the ideas, the meaning and the stories if they are masterfully used, and thus become art or are artistic. We see this in poetry for example. And it's the same with animation, only it's not with mere words that the ideas, meaning and stories are transmitted, but with moving images.

[Basaku]

The issue is that people want to say that the lazy quality of the character models is the animator's "artistic flair", but it's just bad art. I think that either way is fine as long as it doesn't break the immersion of the series.

Pretty much. Look at episode 16 of DBS by Iseki. Or Studio Cockpit eps in DBZ. They're not perfectly on model, often quite far. Yet it doesn't matter as the quality is very high and the style fits the franchise.

I do try not to blame anyone for their ignorance and when I do it's only because I'm disappointed in myself for hoping against all the odds that I can actually make the difference others have made in me. Critical analysis of film and television is so uneducated about film or television that it is bound to rub off on those who read it, but when someone comes to the internet because they are so inspired by a TV show or film of all things to want to discuss or learn about it then it's only natural one should be required to actually learn something new.

Please re-read this part as if someone else wrote it. Maybe you will learn something new.

[kinisking]

Well made points Jacob. I'm a bit surprised that there has been this reaction to your position. I think that, as you said, the animator's job of bringing the script to life was quite integral to the reception of a series. It's not too hard to understand: There's a kind of entertainment unique to visual mediums.

Upon reflection, probably all of my favorite animated series have an appreciably good quality of animation (amongst other things). Poor animation is hard to look passed, even harder when the fight choreography is poor. That I think has been Super's main problem. If one of these factors made up for for the lackluster performance of the other, we could get over it. But when you have the following, it's a bit... well, judge for yourself:

Spoiler:

Yes I'm aware those are GIF files, so there is some compression going on. However, this quality of animation makes the events of the plot seem silly. The script and plot may dictate that what's onscreen is supposed to be serious, but I can't take it seriously when it's like this. :/

you're really trying to use episode 5 as an example in January? It was the worst animated episode of dragonball super. It won't ever happen again.

[MindForgedManacle]

That was an especially bad example. I only used it because there are plenty of GIFs of it. However, we just had a pretty bad episode a few weeks ago. Even ignoring that, the general animation has been poor and stiff. This is especially evident in fight scenes where characters exchange punches and barrages of Ki blasts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5zWZRcmFiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0EcD1W6w0

So it goes well beyond episode 5, it's been mediocre to pretty bad for most of the series thus far (with a few episodes having better quality admittedly).

[JulieYBM]

Dragon Ball Super Episode #5 is a fluke caused by poor scheduling, much like the series in general. That Shimizu Junji storyboarded, Tate Naoki was animation supervisor and Ootsuka Ken was brought on to provide the Super Saiyan 3 portion of the battle is a clear sign that this was no drop in budget or meant to be a sacrificed episode. Tate was let down by his production supervisor, Suetake Ken and producer, Kido Atsushi.

[Araki]

Yes I'm aware those are GIF files, so there is some compression going on. However, this quality of animation makes the events of the plot seem silly. The script and plot may dictate that what's onscreen is supposed to be serious, but I can't take it seriously when it's like this. :/

All those scenes were redone in the dvd/blu-ray release, so you're a little late on the old "episode #5 rant".

[ABED]

I do try not to blame anyone for their ignorance and when I do it's only because I'm disappointed in myself for hoping against all the odds that I can actually make the difference others have made in me.

Your statement is very condescending.

It's a drawing, not a car

It's a drawing OF A CAR. It doesn't represent anything other than bad animation. Just because a car makes a turn doesn't mean the car bends. This was brought up by the creators of the show, not just by me. The consider it a mistake as well. There's no context neccessary, solid metal objects dont' bend like that.

Nowhere is this easier to see than in Hollywood, which has downplayed the use of the camera to mere witness of actors than an active participant in conveying the unease of a scene.

That may be what you are referring to this whole time, but not what I've been talking about in the least.

"Passengers board a plane, unaware of the danger that awaits when the crew and some passengers become ill from the on-board meals" is a story and premise. "Ah, yes, I had the lasagna" is a script.

I think you are confusing dialog and script.

The visuals are the end. People do not communicate ideas merely through words, we communicate them visually.

We do it through both, and I'm not talking about visuals, I'm talking about the animation, not the same thing. You can communicate story without words. What I'm saying is that even if the animation is absolutely amazing, unless the story and characters aren't there, it doesn't matter how great Clayface's transformations in Feat of Clay are or how great Goku looks, the episode will fall flat.

People tend to understand things after actually having experienced them.

Do you need to understand them that bad if you know you don't like them? What are you getting out of them?

You talk like an expert on movie making, so why are you spending so much time on this forum instead of making your own movies?

[VegettoEX]

You talk like an expert on movie making, so why are you spending so much time on this forum instead of making your own movies?

That's incredibly unfair. It's not like any of the four of the people who run this site actually make Dragon Ball.

[MindForgedManacle]

All those scenes were redone in the dvd/blu-ray release, so you're a little late on the old "episode #5 rant".

This is not an episode 5 rant. That was just an especially bad example in a series that has thus far had subpar animation & fight choreography in most episodes, not just #5. Also, they weren't "redone" in the way you seem to suggest. They were improved from what they were, but that's not saying much given how bad it was. The DVD/Blu-ray release still has terrible choreography, as correcting some bad art/animation can't fix the overall mess that the episode was. But again, this overall bad direction has been present in damn near every episode.

[Metalwario64]

You talk like an expert on movie making, so why are you spending so much time on this forum instead of making your own movies?

That's incredibly unfair. It's not like any of the four of the people who run this site actually make Dragon Ball.

That's always been one of my biggest pet peeves. You don't have to be a chef to say that McDonalds sucks, a movie director to criticize any movies, or a video game designer to say a game is bad.

[ABED]

You talk like an expert on movie making, so why are you spending so much time on this forum instead of making your own movies?

That's incredibly unfair. It's not like any of the four of the people who run this site actually make Dragon Ball.

That's always been one of my biggest pet peeves. You don't have to be a chef to say that McDonalds sucks, a movie director to criticize any movies, or a video game designer to say a game is bad.

Do you think that was my point? Of course you don't have to be a chef to know what you like, but there's a difference between saying the work of a chef isn't good because you don't like the taste of their food vs. armchair quarterbacking (so to speak).

And no, I don't think my point is unfair at all.

[HourglassIndigo]

Being rubbery and off-model are not bad things.

Yeah it is. If the characters move oddly, it's distracting, and a car shouldn't bend like rubber. It's solid metal.

Not really. It's animation, not real life. Rubbery movement adds to fluid moton and displays speed. It's all dependant on the artist themselves. Going off model because of laziness is something different entirely, but rubber-like movement is used to make character movements more dynamic.

[rereboy]

Not really. It's animation, not real life. Rubbery movement adds to fluid moton and displays speed. It's all dependant on the artist themselves. Going off model because of laziness is something different entirely, but rubber-like movement is used to make character movements more dynamic.

It's entirely subjective if something like that looks good, and is appealing, or not.

Just because a certain animation has more work put into it to make it more bendy and such, it doesn't automatically mean that it will look better and be more appealing to everyone as another animation which didn't have that extra work put into it to be bendy.

[Lookerman]

People tend to understand things after actually having experienced them. I'd say the last four MCU films (everything after Iron Man 3) have taught me a very good lesson about dealing with adaptions, especially when they're worked too heavily to fit within a generalized context. A work friend and I were watching The Avengers on the break lounge TV the other day and we couldn't stop cringing at the cinematography. Oy vey, did it make me nauseous with its terrible angles and poor cutting. That crowd shot of Fury talking with Hill as the SHIELD base was being evacuated was terribly framed and moved for no reason whatsoever. Ugh.

This bit makes me wonder (and forgive me if I'm going off topic), but do you feel this way for all major Hollywood films these days? I've noticed a lot of the same flaws you've brought up in many of them. I mean, between the cinematography, editing and characterization and all (though me not having paid much attention to the MCU may have something to do with me asking that question).

That said, back to the animation debate:

@rereboy: That's really a matter of opinion, and it also depends on what the situation calls for. Like if the car's making a dynamic turn, you could theoretically do it without bending the car. But if it needs to be super quick, not bending it would make the animation look choppy or un-dynamic. If it were a slow turn, I can understand. Same with rubbery movement as a whole. It depends on the situation or whether the scene calls for it to express something in as few frames as possible, yet not look like it's robotic.

If it feels like I'm disagreeing with your opinion, I am to a degree. Since it feels like you're too eager to jump to conclusions.

[rereboy]

@rereboy: That's really a matter of opinion, and it also depends on what the situation calls for. Like if the car's making a dynamic turn, you could theoretically do it without bending the car. But if it needs to be super quick, not bending it would make the animation look choppy or un-dynamic. If it were a slow turn, I can understand. Same with rubbery movement as a whole. It depends on the situation or whether the scene calls for it to express something in as few frames as possible, yet not look like it's robotic.

If it feels like I'm disagreeing with your opinion, I am to a degree. Since it feels like you're too eager to jump to conclusions.

The only conclusion that I am making is that how things look is a subjective experience.

You may think that a situation requires the animation to be more bendy to look better and I might think that being more bendy makes it look worse.

Thinking that everyone will agree with the level of "bendiness" that looks better in a situation would be jumping to conclusions.

[ABED]

It's all dependant on the artist themselves. Going off model because of laziness is something different entirely, but rubber-like movement is used to make character movements more dynamic.

Can you think of a good example using a car to prove your point? I'm blanking on how that could actually be true.

It's a car. Cars don't bend like that. It just looks poorly animated. I don't mind if it's more cartoony in an exaggerated moment like when Chichi gets mad and her head suddenly becomes huge as she shouts at Goku for something, but the Batmobile hugging a corner isn't that at all.

I haven't seen anything from DB with digital animation other than the movies. My question is have there been any moments in the show where a the coloring of a character's clothing is wrong or they are wearing a different outfit for a moment? An example of the former would be like when Vegeta's gloves were flesh colored one moment and their proper color when the scene cut back to him. An example of the latter is right before Goku begins fighting Freeza and Kuririn flies into the air, but stops to shout at Gohan to move. He should be wearing the Saiyan armor, instead he's wearing his Turtle Hermit gi.