Cels vs. Digital Animation

[JulieYBM]

I love older animation, but one of the problems with it is (as far as I have seen) is that it's easier with cell animation to be "off model". It happened numerous times on Batman: The animated series. There would also be a weird rubbery quality to some things that should be solid. For instance, I remember at least one time where the batmobile turns a corner and bends when the car should stay straight and solid.

This has nothing to do with cel animation. The drawings are only corrected by the animation supervisors/directors, there is no changes made by working on cels or digital. The instance you are referring to is simply a key animator drawing off model.

Maybe you are correct, but I don't recall seeing DCAU characters horrendously off model or the Batmobile bending when the switch was made to digital.

Timm and the others began outsourcing to Korean studios that were getting better and better at doing what they wanted: being drones that did exactly as told. It took a while, but they managed to refine the process of being 'consistently mediocre' rather than 'inconsistently good', as they were with the occasional TMS episode led by Tanaka Atsuko or Aoyama Hiroyuki. Almost all of the later DCAU stuff were stone by the same two or three Korean studios, devoid of the animator's soul.

[ABED]

I completely disagree, the later stuff looks great as well. What do you even mean "take out the soul"?

[JulieYBM]

I completely disagree, the later stuff looks great as well. What do you even mean "take out the soul"?

The later stuff is the work of drones. You can't see the personality of the animators behind movements. The storyboard artists and producers in the US say "do this and only this" and the sub-contracting studios comply. They don't add their own ideas or collaborate with the US-based staff to produce something special. The animation is on-model and follows the layouts. That's all they do. There's no sense of any animators going off on their own and saying "fuck this, I can do better", like with Feat of Clay, Part II or just about any non-Miyazaki Hayao or Yamamuro Tadayoshi cartoon:

FEAT OF CLAY (PART 2) ***** 9/9/92 (#21)
Story by Marv Wolfman and Michael Reaves. Teleplay by Michael Reaves. Directed by Kevin Altieri.
Animation by TMS.

After Matt Hagen discovers he has been turned into Clayface, he goes after Daggett's men. He runs afoul of Batman who stops him from carrying out his vengeance. Then he decides to go after Daggett himself, when the corporate bad guy is doing a talk show. TMS did the best animation of the series for this episode. The second part had maybe six retakes on the whole show, which is incredible," said producer Bruce Timm. "The first time we saw it in the editing room, we couldn't believe how beautiful it was. It has all those transformation effects that only TMS could do. It was after these two episodes that we decided that any two-parters we did would have to be done at the same studio." Timm had a theory why TMS did such a good job, which he felt resulted from Warner Bros' demand that they redo the opening sequence for the series.

Noted Timm, "I think when we shipped them 'Clayface,' they said to themselves: They think they know everything, but we'll show them how do do this show. We'll change Batman's colors. We'll do special color key treatments on the villains when they're walking over the green vat. We'll blow them away.' If that's their revenge, thank you for proving us wrong. I was so happy with that episode." "The sequence where Daggett and Germs are walking over that green vat, those characters look like they're three-dimensional. They look like they're rotoscoped. When Daggett slowly turns toward the camera, the shadows really wrap around his face. It's as if they're real! They did all those colors themselves. We couldn't even ask for those colors if we wanted to. They aren't even in our palette. They had to specially mix those colors." Shirley Walker, supervising music composer for the series, found the task of scoring this episode quite a challenge. "It was demanding story-wise," said Walker. "There was so much going on. I was so proud of it that I submitted it for Emmy consideration, and that's the one that I got a nomination for."

Compare with the comments for the second Two-Face episode:

The show's animation by Dong Yang isn't up to the standards of TMS on Part 1, but director Kevin Altieri defended the studio. "It looks just like the layouts," said Altieri. "In part one; really great animators took some liberties from the layouts we provided."

That reads pretty damning.

Reflect, when was the last time a US cartoon or live action television series was not a writer-driven series? A show were the only creative additions were in the writer's room and everything else had to perfectly match that, rather than adapt it or present its own ideas? The scripts for, say, Justice League Season One and Season Two were neat, if dry in a Star Trek: The Next Generation manner, but the actual adaption of those scripts through every level of the filmmaking process is hideously tactless.

Dragon Ball? What's that?

[LSSJGODSSJ4Gogeta]

I hate to be that guy, but this isn't a thread for you guys to argue. I honestly don't care who's right or who's wrong, but that'd be cool if we could keep to the topic this thread is about.

Hey man it's your topic you have all the right to be angry. I most likely won't post here again unless a certain someone makes a really dumb post.

It's all good, I appreciate your coolness about it!

Fair point. I can't control people replying to what I already posted, but I won't respond to em, not even the troll baiting he just did. Sad really.
It needs to be on topic posts. So did this change your mind at all? I'm firmly preferring cels myself even though most companies will probably never do it again.

They each have their pros and cons. As I said before, digital animation is more convinent and if used properly has a lot of possibilities. I grew up on the cels, but I can't deny that the digital animation is more pleasant to the eyes (specifically in BoG). If I didn't have to choose one I'd say I like them both equally because while digital is better on the eyes, the colors in cels were much more stylistic (like the backgrounds in Dragon Ball). But for sake of an answer I have to choose digital still. I am glad I started this topic though because a lot of people have different opinions on the matter and it's nice to see them!

I get that. If you think it looks better why wouldn't you. Perfect reasoning. I don't care for BOG personally. This may sounds silly but it's too clean. It looks like everything is shiny and polished.

Think of it like star wars OT. George lucas made everything look dirty and crisper so it had a used feeling. So it looked like it's real and has been there. Like it's a lived in universe. But in the PT he made it bright because it contrasted with OT. One's a utopia the other is a civil war suffering galaxy. But he made sure the prop people and CGI people still made the world looked lived in and crisp even though it was brighter.

BOG is too bright and clean looking, and the colors in the animation makes goku look like he's always slimmy and sweating 24/7. Ridiculous.

That's one thing I like more in cel animation, you don't see that very often in digital animation. Plus as it was a layer over the background it stood out more while digital looks more flat to me.

Something else I don't like, an this isn't a digital animation problem but it's a problem with Toei's is they seam to be horny for using white triangles and such on everyone's skins. I hate it, it's why they look sweaty. They were dumb enough to do it with cels as well, but not as much and it looks worse in digital. Digital is much faster and cheaper though, that's factual. To me I say you can tell the different quality from the different time and budget put into it. It makes sense it'd be inferior, but so some it's superior. Although to me it just seams like the mentality of "it's brighter so it's better and HD!". That's my perspective on why people prefer it. it's not a personal experience thing, it's just what I see it as. Plus the movement doesn't seam as good or real to me. Just seams really off in certain scenes. Family guy is VERY guilty of this for the last two seasons.

[ABED]

"The later stuff is the work of drones."
It looks great, gets the story across, and doesn't look rubbery or offmodel. I don't care if you can't see the personality of the animators. It's about the story and the characters, not the animators. I've never cared where the ideas come from as long as the end product is great. They did produce something special. The animation always stood out from the pack. Look at the other shows on the air. The DCAU always had a level of quality with their stories. I care about the end product way more than . It's similar to how I feel about Marvel vs. DC films. I'll take the supposedly cookie cutter approach of Marvel over getting another Batman Returns. Returns is clearly a Tim Burton movie, but not for the better. The end product of Ant Man was far more fun and watchable than Returns was despite Burton having more free reign.

The heart and the soul of the episodes comes to the writing and the performances of the actors. The animators have a part to play, but I don't think they make or break a show like the writing or acting does. I love a well animated episode but if the writing or performances aren't there, it's meaningless.

When was the last time a US series wasn't writer driven? Don't know, don't really care. At least it's driven by . The story is what matters. If you are going to point to some of the best shows as indicative of what you want, you also need to understand that comes with some baggage. Yes, there are great episodes like Feat of Clay, but there are also badly animated episodes like The Cat and The Claw.

[JulieYBM]

"The later stuff is the work of drones."
It looks great, gets the story across, and doesn't look rubbery or offmodel.

Being rubbery and off-model are not bad things.

I don't care if you can't see the personality of the animators. It's about the story and the characters, not the animators. I've never cared where the ideas come from as long as the end product is great.

It's entirely about the staff. Art is only as interesting as those who make it, when you remove that from the equation what you have is merely fictional events being consumed in a literal fashion through a tube. Film and television are visual mediums. If 'the story'--I take it you merely mean the script--was all that mattered then we would all be off reading scripts instead of wanting them adapted further through not merely literary artists but visual artists. Justice League Unlimited, the flawed, trite trash it was, at least had the crooked politics of its writers and producers coming into play through its scripts in the Cadmus arc or any script that had to do with taking sport in combat.

They did produce something special. The animation always stood out from the pack. Look at the other shows on the air. The DCAU always had a level of quality with their stories. I care about the end product way more than . It's similar to how I feel about Marvel vs. DC films. I'll take the supposedly cookie cutter approach of Marvel over getting another Batman Returns. Returns is clearly a Tim Burton movie, but not for the better. The end product of Ant Man was far more fun and watchable than Returns was despite Burton having more free reign.

The DCAU is nothing special because filmmakers across the world have been doing more matured, provocative animation for decades before it.

Burton's Batman films have their flaws, but the sheer, unbridled camp and dark humor to them are certainly not one of them. That Marvel's films merely exist in some ether, rather than represent the personalities, interests and insecurities of those who make them is their greatest overall flaw. They are the shining-star of corporate committee filmmaking: in-offensive and acceptable by the lowest common denominator.

(Michael Pena's small bits are the only remotely lively parts of Ant-Man. Everything else is shamefully completely lacking in nuance).

The heart and the soul of the episodes comes to the writing and the performances of the actors. The animators have a part to play, but I don't think they make or break a show like the writing or acting does. I love a well animated episode but if the writing or performances aren't there, it's meaningless.

The storyboard, layouts and animation of animated works communicate feelings and ideas no different than a script or actor.

[Metalwario64]

Whenever anyone complains about animation being "off model" and "bending", I always think of this comparison of the new Simpsons intro with the original one:

Spoiler:

Sure, the new opening is more "on model", but it is also incredibly stiff and lifeless, and in this case has far fewer frames.

[LSSJGODSSJ4Gogeta]

Whenever anyone complains about animation being "off model" and "bending", I always think of this comparison of the new Simpsons intro with the original one:

Spoiler:

Sure, the new opening is more "on model", but it is also incredibly stiff and lifeless, and in this case has far fewer frames.

Toon boom simpsons is way to stiff, but the old episode by the makers of rugrats (yes that's true) made it a little too rubbery at times. Still had better color. It comes down to what's worse? Stiff animation or being a bit too rubbery. Then again rick and morty uses toon boom and it's not so stiff. Even in inferior animation processes it comes down to how you use it, and the simpsons and family guy use it poorly.

[ABED]

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 entirely about the staff. Art is only as interesting as those who make it, when you remove that from the equation what you have is merely fictional events being consumed in a literal fashion through a tube. Film and television are visual mediums. If 'the story'--I take it you merely mean the script--was all that mattered then we would all be off reading scripts instead of wanting them adapted further through not merely literary artists but visual artists. Justice League Unlimited, the flawed, trite trash it was, at least had the crooked politics of its writers and producers coming into play through its scripts in the Cadmus arc or any script that had to do with taking sport in combat.

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.

The DCAU is nothing special because filmmakers across the world have been doing more matured, provocative animation for decades before it.

Burton's Batman films have their flaws, but the sheer, unbridled camp and dark humor to them are certainly not one of them. That Marvel's films merely exist in some ether, rather than represent the personalities, interests and insecurities of those who make them is their greatest overall flaw. They are the shining-star of corporate committee filmmaking: in-offensive and acceptable by the lowest common denominator.

(Michael Pena's small bits are the only remotely lively parts of Ant-Man. Everything else is shamefully completely lacking in nuance).

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 storyboard, layouts and animation of animated works communicate feelings and ideas no different than a script or actor.

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).

[rereboy]

I agree with ABED.

The animation and such are the means to an end.

If they were the end on itself, the story would have been irrelevant or secondary and we would be paying much more attention to the animation and such than the story.

While some might do this, I don't do this. The main point of focus is the story, what happens. The animation and such are there to transmit the story and complement it.

Therefore, what I want is good animation and such to make the story look good. That's what's essential.

If the animation and such have "personality" and more depth than usual, while still looking good to me, all the better. But if that comes in exchange for looking worse to me or in detriment of the story, then that's not good at all.

A good example is the Pain versus Naruto fight in the anime of Naruto. While the animation and art style used might have had more more personality and depth than usual, it simply ended up looking worse (to me at least), which makes it less appealing, and makes it worse.

[MindForgedManacle]

I don't think I've a preference for either, particularly. Heck, I still enjoy anime which only or predominantly use CGI (thinking Knights of Sidonia, Aldnoah Zero, Arpegiio of Blue Steel, etc.), as long as it's done well (what else should matter?).
However, one thing that can really annoy me is when the 2 are mixed in a way that's clear to the viewer.
I'm thinking of Battle of Gods (and to a lesser extent, Resurrection of F), such as this part:

Spoiler:

Animators just... don't do it like that... please

[HourglassIndigo]

Whenever anyone complains about animation being "off model" and "bending", I always think of this comparison of the new Simpsons intro with the original one:

Spoiler:

Sure, the new opening is more "on model", but it is also incredibly stiff and lifeless, and in this case has far fewer frames.

But that was the Simpson's animation style at the time. I personally prefer the original opening, but marge is still staying on model, it's just exaggerated movement. Animators do this to make movements bigger and noticeable.
The only thing is, that isn't how toei wants to animate super. They don't want it to be super cartoony, they want to animate it like z probably. I don't mind characters going off model if it's unnoticable, like in the Simpsons. In super it is much more noticeable.

[Wezenheim]

I don't think I've a preference for either, particularly. Heck, I still enjoy anime which only or predominantly use CGI (thinking Knights of Sidonia, Aldnoah Zero, Arpegiio of Blue Steel, etc.), as long as it's done well (what else should matter?).
However, one thing that can really annoy me is when the 2 are mixed in a way that's clear to the viewer.
I'm thinking of Battle of Gods (and to a lesser extent, Resurrection of F), such as this part:

Spoiler:

Animators just... don't do it like that... please

Berserk's new anime is also going to mix with CGI, as the movies did. I... still don't know how to feel about it. CGI can be alright, but when it's mixed in, as you said, it can be a little jarring sometimes. Arpegiio seems to do a pretty good job of not making it as noticeable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIA9xg2oIew

[rereboy]

Its a bad choice for Berserk because it makes it look video-gamey. If it was REALLY good CGI that wouldn't be noticeable but it won't be.

[Wezenheim]

Its a bad choice for Berserk because it makes it look video-gamey. If it was REALLY good CGI that wouldn't be noticeable but it won't be.

I agree. It's quite a shame really. It was fairly distracting, even in the movies, so I don't know how it will turn out in a series. The 2D artwork that was used in the movies was really good though, I wish they could've stuck with that more. I understand the CGI for some of the huge monsters and whatnot, but it's weird seeing CGI Guts walk toward the camera.

[ParkerAL]

The animation and such are the means to an end.

In an animated work, the animation is the story, not a mere tool for telling it. Film-making is a visual medium. Words in a script are only a small part of what makes a film compelling. The genius of Stanely Kubrick comes through in his powerful camerawork. The same goes for the best animators. The framing, movement, and expressions of characters don't just tell the story. They are a vital component of the story, just as important as the voice acting and writing.

I love the entire span of the DCAU, but the earlier parts are far more visually -- and as an extension, narrative-ly -- compelling than the later ones. Part of that is because the cel animation complements their retro, film noir style, but it definitely feels like the passion and talent the people working on them shine through more than with the workmanlike Justice League series. When it comes to art, I'll take diverse (within reason) visual variation over factory-made consistency any day. Unfortunately, Dragon Ball Super takes that to its extreme, and comes across as visually confused as a result.

[rereboy]

In an animated work, the animation is the story, not a mere tool for telling it. Film-making is a visual medium. Words in a script are only a small part of what makes a film compelling. The genius of Stanely Kubrick comes through in his powerful camerawork. The same goes for the best animators. The framing, movement, and expressions of characters don't just tell the story. They are a vital component of the story, just as important as the voice acting and writing.

The same exact story can be told through a book or through an animated movie. A book or an animated movie are just the formats in which the story is told, or in other words, the way the story is told.

And the way the story is told, or the format in which is the story is told, can enhance the story and complement the story nicely. Every story that the movies of Stanley Kubrick told, for example, could have been told in a book, but Stanley Kubrick just used his skills to tell those stories in the movie format, using said film-making skills to enhance the story. The movies just enhance the stories, they don't make it impossible for the stories to be told any other way or in any other format.

So, in short, no, the story is obviously something different from just the animated movie itself and from animation. Nothing you said actually contradicts that.

[ABED]

Film is also an audible medium. I know Joss often uses the term "radio with faces" as a pejorative, but I have little problem with over over two shot and actors performing. I don't need great camera work, I need interesting characters and stories. Visuals can help a story but they aren't the story, they are a way to help tell the story.

When it comes to art, I'll take diverse (within reason) visual variation over factory-made consistency any day.

All other things held constant, fine, but they aren't all the same. Just having great animation without the great story behind it doesn't make up for a weak story or characters. Justice League is just as good, or damn close to as good as BTAS. The problem with later DB is that the stories just haven't been up to snuff.

The same goes for the best animators. The framing, movement, and expressions of characters don't just tell the story. They are a vital component of the story, just as important as the voice acting and writing.

I think you are confused on what we are getting at. I'm all for visual storytelling. If they can tell the story in the visuals without dialog, great, but there still has to be a good story being told. A great looking visual is empty unless it's helping tell the story, it's not the story itself.

Now I don't think the choice is either or, but gun to my head if I had to choose between hitting a few home runs but also more strikeouts vs. getting only doubles and triples, I'll take the consistently good over inconsistently great.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

I am not a animation genious but there's something that has been bothering me for a while, I have seen (it's possible that I may not have looked hard enough and may completely be off) that animation enthusiast and Sakuga fans (is that the correct term?) don't seen to very fond of 24/7 on model animation (like Hayao Miyazaki's works for example) or """consistent""" animation. Why is that ? (Aside from "The animators dont express themselves and it's soulless") Is there some kind of Universal Animation 101 Bible that states "100% on model is bad" ? Like isnt being 100% on model a valid creative choice as much as choosing between different art styles is. ?

[HourglassIndigo]

I am not a animation genious but there's something that has been bothering me for a while, I have seen (it's possible that I may not have looked hard enough and may completely be off) that animation enthusiast and Sakuga fans (is that the correct term?) don't seen to very fond of 24/7 on model animation (like Hayao Miyazaki's works for example) or """consistent""" animation. Why is that ? (Aside from "The animators dont express themselves and it's soulless") Is there some kind of Universal Animation 101 Bible that states "100% on model is bad" ? Like isnt being 100% on model a valid directional choice as much as choosing between different art styles is. ?

I've seen good animation where the characters are 100% on model (DCAU series) and good ones where they aren't completley consistent (steven universe has minor differences in character models based on the storyboard artist). There is nothing wrong with staying on model, in fact, I kind of prefer it (as long as the animation itself is fluid like in the older simpsons episodes). 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.