WB: "Osmosis Jones falied because 2D"

It failed because it was a shit movie.
I still enjoyed it, but I hold no delusions about my own plebbery.

Like most of these films. They all fail because the studios can never bother to market them properly. Iron Giant, Osmosis Jones, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, all victims of poor promotion

Meanwhile in Japan 2D animation made an empire out of Animu and anything with 3D gets bashed into the bargain bin

This movie failed because of the live action parts

There is some truth to this. Hand-drawn animation is stigmatized in the west as being solely made for children, while 3D animation is typically seen as being more "all-ages" and even possibly adult. Never mind the actual content of the films, the medium its made in automatically discredits it. Of course there are exceptions, but usually just in the form of animated sitcoms like Simpsons or Family Guy.

Of course it's not all the fault of audiences - the downward trend in 2D animation is also the fault executives that don't want to support what they see as a dying medium. Films like Batman: Mask of the Phantasm failed not just because audiences were convinced it wasn't worth seeing, but also because the studios behind it didn't bother to support with it's poor marketing and very limited theatrical run; meanwhile, Batman Forever released a couple years later was a big success with all audiences, despite the latter being far more childish and immature. While Disney was recently somewhat kinder to The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh, it never made the same push it did during their "Renaissance" age and instead went right to 3D animation with Tangled, Frozen, Wreck-It-Ralph, and so on.

Mask of the Phantasm wasn't intended as a theatrical film to begin with. It was made as a DTV and somewhere along the line Warners decided to throw it in theatres for a bit, probably just to fill a gap in their schedules or something.

The Iron Giant was just as shit as this movie. Prove me wrong.

Maybe it's because it was a terrible film with shitty celebrities being obnoxious and all those extended gross-out scenes of Bill Murray being absolutely disgusting?

How can you disprove an opinion? Even a shit one?

Its not an opinion. Its a fact.

It's an opinion

That's a fact.

That movie failed because 1. It wasn't that great 2. It couldn't decide to cater to kids or adults 3. Some if the gross humor lacked the humor part of the equation 4. It wasn't marketed properly.

Well, Japan is Japan. Their visual culture, animation industri and audiences are very different.

Some reasons for the differences that people may not have considered
- the anime industry is unified so that shows and movies are all made by the same people, which isn't the case in the US
- anime was created for television and has been dominated by television, which is why even high-end movies use the same animation techniques, and which isn't the case in the US
- 3D animation isn't suitable for TV production, which is one reason why you don't see much of it in anime, and maybe the main reason you don't see much of it on American TV

2D animation in America seems to have been beaten at the box office by 3D animation, there are a lot of practical reasons why 3D is better, and 3D animation may suit American animators better; they were never able to really master 2D animation, and 3D animation has all the fluidness you could want and seems to jive with the Disney way of doing animation.

...

fuck are you talking about? Literally tons of different animation studios. You get shit like Toei and the better studio that does AoT and Soma

Americans set the standard for 2D animation you twat.

also fluid movements have NOTHING to do with 3d or 2d, only the skill of the animator. 3D the advantage is you don't have to draw in inbetween frames since the computer does that for you, however it does not mean its smoother.

...

The same people and the same studios make both television and movie anime.

Over half a century ago. The standards have changed since then.

It's much easier to accomplish with 3D animation.

Fluid animation is more a matter of time than skill.

3D animation tends to be a big trap for TV. All nice until the audience notices you re-use the same assets, locations and characters to death because it's a massive investment of resources to make new assets.

Hollyjood stikes again

Audiences already accept terrible production values, characters always looking the same, and endlessly repeating locations.

With 2d you can get away with that easier with "stylization"

Studio Ghibli- famous for movies

Wit Studio- famous for Attack on Titan

Toei Animation-yet another different studio famous for churning out crap

changing standards and "never really able to master 2D animation" are different things. You're thinking of production values and effects. RENDERING has greatly advanced, the actual standards of 2d animation are the same.

Fluid animation is more a matter of time than skill.

You get fluid animation for the poses, that takes good draftsman ship from a skilled animator. Amateurs make the mistake of thinking merely sticking in more frames makes an animation smoother when in reality its the key poses.

The "fluid" stuff is done in animation korean sweatshops, where the key animators send their key poses in after they're done and they draw it in the inbetweens.

lack of imagination, Wreck it Ralph stylized the crap out of their movie, even having 8bit animation

shame because we actually got decent production values with Legend of Korra

South Park plays it smart actually being made in 3D. easy as fuck to animate/create new crap with the simple style they do.

Ghibli is somewhat unusual in that they've never made TV anime (aside from that one movie), but they have provided production assistance for many TV shows.

They've produced movies.

They've produced movies since the 50s and have produced an enormous amount of anime. Obviously some of it is crap.

Whatever. The point is that they didn't master 2D animation.

I'm thinking about more than those.

2D animation isn't rendered, and the standards certainly aren't the same today as they were in the 50s. Anime didn't even exist then. And what do you mean by "rendering"?

Yes it takes skill too, but it's still more a matter of time.

Disney didn't send anything to Korea as far as I know, and American shows today are animated entirely in Korea, not just in-betweened.

...

Yes, that is what I asked. Well done for quoting me. Do you have an answer to the question or were you just trying out your greentexting skills?

what do you think lens flare, bloom, and lightning effects are?

Digital effects. What about them?

Although many of them can be achieved with analog methods as well.

Ok, I have no idea where you're going with this. They're all different individual studios with very different styles. Its literally not all the same studio that does movies and anime. If you're trying to say studios that makes both TV and Movies then Dreamworks has a whole TV animation line up so I STILL have no idea what you're on about.

What is so confusing about what I said? TV and movie anime aren't segregated, all the same people and studios are involved in making both of them.

Where did I ever say otherwise?

Did you really think I meant that there's one studio that does all anime?

There's very clear segregation between TV and movie animation in America. It's nothing like the anime industry.

Thats literally it, 2D animation is just hand drawn drawings. Not all the other crap put on it. Its the basis of all animation, Pixar animators have great draftsmen skills and can animate in 2d as well, when they did Tangled they had to get 2d animator to draw over the screens so they can get the 3d animation more fluid.

given some of your answers, yes. Honestly you sound like a weeboo who thinks anime is bestu

Are you kidding me? Anime fans throw shitfits over which studio gets to do which anime/movie. I don't understand why you think its so homogenized. They definitely do NOT get movie animators to do TV animation unless its for like some major fight scene, can you imagine the budget if they treated TV and movie the same?

There are many, many ways of making those drawings. There are different levels of detail, there are different styles of animation, there are different kinds of camera work, there are differences in skill.

And it isn't just about the animation drawings, because those don't exist in a vacuum. Animation, background art, music, sound design, digital effects, writing etc. constitute an animated movie or show.

Production values are affected by the animation, and animation is also used to create effects.

Maybe they can, but what about it?

Are you mentally handicapped?

It's by far more advanced than Western animation. Saying so has nothing to do with being a weeaboo.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Because it just is.

They do it all the time. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's all the same people.

Animators are normally paid per drawing. In-demand animators, from what I've heard, can receive higher pay, but that doesn't mean they're some "movie animators" who are too expensive for TV. Most of the animation work in the industry is in TV shows.

South Park revels in its cheapness and takes full advantage of it. Big difference between that and shows whose reach exceeds their grasp.

But later South Park is full of dynamic animation that barely fit the style

Ozzy and Drix the cartoon spinoff was surprisingly good.

I think it's an underutilised idea for educational cartoons; an understanding of how the body works dramatised enough to be fun.

The part that western animators missed was taking advantage of the 2d medium, so I'd believe it. When you go back and read books like the Animators Survival Kit, Drawn to Life, and the Illusion of Life, you begin to find the western approach has always been suited better for 3D animation. The focus is always on capturing the emotion, not the detail. The life, not the fine drawings. In 3D animation you can have the best of both worlds from that approach. You get detailed 3D models that, if well rigged, allow you to work directly with the life, emotion, and action. The problem is that you can go back and watch old animations like the Great Mouse Detective and other Disney greats and you begin to see just how bad they look now. The drawings are flat even though they have form. The designs are toned down and simplistic though you can tell they want more.

I think Japan realized this is the 80's. Their animation principles have a slight difference than ours, but it makes all the difference. Where as western animators are focused on capturing life with drawings, Japanese animators are trying to make drawings move. I believe for a long while they had it, what we needed. Sadly, over time they too let themselves become lazy with technology and greed and eventually produced a bunch of shit that didn't take advantage of the medium they worked with.

The problem is, what we thought was timeless wasn't timeless. It aged.

That all being said, I feel there is more input to be had on this discussion when it comes to French animation, but I've never really studied it even though it is often very impressive. They seem to have their own approach and culture that surrounds animation though I find information on it is very hard to find, though I believe more recently they've taken on something similar to the Japanese approach.

What does this mean?

It means they devolved from intersting drawings and animation to taking the easy way out. Take mecha anime for example. At one point it was a joy just to watch these really complex drawings animated and at times you wondered how they did it. The 2006 Astro Boy got downright incredible at times when it came to animation…. now they use CG for their mechs that looks like something from a late ps2 game. They also like to opt out for fan service/slice of life animes that will sell figures than anything actually decent. With these animes you have very simple but attractive drawings with low frame counts. They don't try to deliver anything particularly special and don't take advantage of the medium aside from the drawings and voice work trying to simply get men addicted to the characters. They often shoot all the actions on 2-3's and I've even seen a few using techniques similar to what you see in YouTube Flash animations.

It was a Christmas release, which was great since my dad took us to see it after all the gift-giving and meals at a city that actually got the movie in one of its theaters.

"Fanservice" and slice of life in anime have existed since the 70s, and your argument here is the usual narcissistic "if I don't like it then it's bad and lazy and stupid and evil and pandering" horseshit that millennials spout every five minutes because they expect everything in the universe to cater to their every whim.

Of course there's also the obligatory delusion that shows like K-On are original shows and made only for the purpose of selling figures, which doesn't even make sense. The only way to move a lot of character merchandise is to make characters people like in a show they like, so basically you need to make a good show which will create demand for merchandise. Just about every anime that sells merchandise (i.e. the vast majority of anime) works like this.

And are you seriously claiming that mecha anime doesn't have selling model kits i.e. figures as one of its major business points?

Another typical delusion among people who have never actually watched any of these shows. "I don't like it (without having seen it), so the animation must be bad!"

sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/22678/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/16157/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/16831/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/4751/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/10445/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/10685/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/23988/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/23982/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/9995/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/16313/
sakuga.yshi.org/post/show/17289/

And of course they must be made by nefarious people who are merely trying to "get men addicted to the characters," because if you don't like something then it can't be sincere because you are the most important person in the universe.

Which is the standard for smooth animation in anime. Animating on ones occurs rarely. So how is this even a complaint?

Cheap animation techniques–whether they're for saving time or for comedy–have been in regular use since the 60s.

You seem to be assuming a lot about me and putting words in my mouth. I just said that recently the quality in most anime has dropped, much like the western cartoon. I actually like a few slice of life and "fan service" animes my self, I really enjoyed Nichijou.

What I'm saying is where as there have always been these sort of animes, now the primary concern seems to be the merchandise, and where I do agree, 1's were rarely used, anime now tends to lean on 3's without delivering the sleek look 80's-early 2000's anime had.

That being said, the worst Japanese animation runs circles around what passes for traditional animation over here now of days. I'd say France has everyone beat for now though… well, at least while France is still around.

I'm not assuming anything.

No you don't. You people always lie in an effort to give your claims more credibility.

How do you propose selling merchandise for a show nobody is interested in?

Please don't tell me you're comparing TV shows to high-end OVAs and movies.

Why should I talk to you when you've already thrown me into a group instead of just talking with me? I'm trying to have a conversation with you about animation and just addressing you, but if you want to treat me as some negative group there's little point for us to continue on.

You also are making assumptions. You're assuming I'm lying when I told you that I have a few animes from those genres I like.

You've thrown yourself into a group. I've seen so many of your kind that I could write these responses in my sleep by now.

And what group would that be? I doubt there are to many people that generally just like to talk about animation and the current state of it in general.

The average anime viewer, or pseudo-viewer.

That's a tad broad. I'm sure I've watched more animes and read more mangas than somebody who just does it passively, hell, I've watched some I didn't even necessarily like just to study their animation or art. At the same time, I'm not deep enough in to go to /a/ and enjoy my time there.

If I were being dead honest, I prefer old Toku to anime though.

Why do you keep lying? Do you really think I'm going to fall for it? Stop wasting your time.

I really hope you are shitposting and don't actually think this way about others.

You've lost the game. There's nothing you can say to dig yourself out of this.