New Looney Tunes series -

Jewelsmakerguy

Domo Arigato
kiwifarms.net
TVTropes says that Tonic, Snipple, DNA, and Yowza are doing the animation. Surprisingly one of thems actually in the United States...though DNA seems to just be a small studio that works in 3D, so they'll be animating the background Unity assets.

I never did understand why the States can animate 3D or even occasionally stop-motion work, but any 2D work gets sent over seas. I get that some of this is to do with theatrical animation vs TV animation schedules.
Actually that studio you mention as DNA is Tonic, their full name is Tonic DNA. No, the fourth studio is Yearim, who already animated on Wabbit.
 

Kari Kamiya

"I beat her up, so I gave her a cuck-cup."
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I still giggled in some parts, the fast-paced sight-gags I think worked better than the Bugs Bunny amusement park short. But it looks like there might be an average time for these shots at a few minutes compared to the seven-or-so minutes of the original shorts. That might be what's going to make some of these be more hit-or-miss because they're cramming too many gags in so little time. It being a static camera shot might hurt these shorts if that continues in the future, though. They could've played it up a bit by showing at least one close-up shot of the footprint having Daffy's or other celeb's John Hancock in it or an "Eat At Joe's" or something.

Daffy getting his comeuppance at the end--and at the hands of Porky at that--I think is a rare one, though it makes sense here because his cockiness is his downfall. Duck Dodgers did that, of course, but it's more along the lines of the universe snatching him from the jaws of victory than Dodgers fucking it up himself and having that moment of self-reflection because he's too stupid to realize he's mostly at fault.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Pink Panther

Cyril Sneer

The Emperor's New Swood
kiwifarms.net
View attachment 1252027
Cant help but think that Bugs is about to eat his IDriod.
He's just pulling the rabbit version of soyboy-face.

Not all Bugs Bunny cartoons even in the classic era required Bugs to be in a position where he is directly wronged. Only Bugs has to feel he is being wronged or in some sort of danger, not the viewer. There's quite a few cases where Bugs gives it to someone who doesn't really deserve it and the outcome was. There's Buckaroo Bugs, for example, a Clampett short from 1944, where Bugs is a criminal and some dumbass cowboy tries to capture him and the gags were still very funny there even if the poor fuck was getting tortured by Bugs. Bugs feels like he himself is in the right, so he's trying to right the wrong.

I see this cartoon in the same way. Bugs feel as if he's being wronged, so he has to go out there and fuck with the person to get what he wants.
Well, that just makes me think of "To Duck or Not to Duck," where Daffy gets a few of his tail-feathers shot off by Elmer and then suckers the latter into participating in a rigged boxing match, where he (and the referee!) take every opportunity to brutalize the poor sap. Elmer gets his revenge in the end, though.
 

Dark Emporer Dood

I exist
kiwifarms.net
Oof, this has gone down like a lead balloon:


View attachment 1302812
I've seen that channel before, theres...just something a bit "aspie" about having a youtube dedicated to critiquing old cartoons, I'll listen to the podcast anywho, I've got art to make.

Also, apparently sharing someones AMV and crediting them is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS

EDIT: Just finished the podcast,most of it was an actual animator critiquing some of the mistakes made which I found interesting, LTCritic person saying "Its not fair to compare these with the old cartoons because they were dont differently", and a very, VERY salty comment section...oof. The commentary wasnt even all that negative, also note the like/dislike counter.
 
Last edited:

OmnipotentStupidity

Bleeding Money at Breakneck Speeds
kiwifarms.net
I've seen that channel before, theres...just something a bit "aspie" about having a youtube dedicated to critiquing old cartoons, I'll listen to the podcast anywho, I've got art to make.

Also, apparently sharing someones AMV and crediting them is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS

EDIT: Just finished the podcast,most of it was an actual animator critiquing some of the mistakes made which I found interesting, LTCritic person saying "Its not fair to compare these with the old cartoons because they were dont differently", and a very, VERY salty comment section...oof. The commentary wasnt even all that negative, also note the like/dislike counter.
I disagree that the commentary wasn't all that negative; there are points where I can kinda see what some of the comments section is talking about here (Let Me Explain's comment aside because comparing any other animator to John K. is just completely exceptional).

Lemme explain: Greg Duffell actually seems to understand what he's talking about in regards to how characters move in this short and about how motion-tweening can't really capture the fluidity of the old shorts (which he considers bad if it's being advertised as a return to classic Looney Tunes animation) and how when you use motion-tweening it looks "more like it's being done on software, which people are misinterpreting as him saying that software isn't animation. He's not saying that: he's saying that when software is used for animation, you can easily tell when shortcuts are made and it's very blatant to the human eye, especially when in the same short, you can see more fluid animation and expressions being used. That said, he also seems to have more of a sore spot for the Clampett-style in general due to working with Chuck Jones' versions of the characters for so long, so at worst he comes off a bit biased when talking about character motivation and plot, and slightly pompous when discussing how they never used shortcuts back then (which I guess is true, in that they reused frames they already drew, instead of moving a still digital frame up and down, but still...). Overall though: I largely agree with what he's saying. Is he a bit brash and nitpicky? Yeah of course, but not without good reason.

If anything, Looney Tunes Critic (a.k.a. Trevor) is the one who comes off as a pretentious dick who wants absolute perfection out of these shorts, saying how anybody who is doing this is either a student, or cannot draw, which is blatantly untrue (not helping is Greg being fairly passive about him saying these things and blindly agreeing with what LTC is saying without really expounding upon why he's right), or completely contradicting Greg by saying the cartoons must be exactly like Clampett's style and have the motivations of a Jones cartoon, even after Greg said it's like an apples to oranges comparison anyways.
 

Kari Kamiya

"I beat her up, so I gave her a cuck-cup."
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'll have to make myself some food before sitting down to watch and see the critique for myself, it sounds like the guy/channel's well-known for being informative. And if they knew Chuck Jones personally and were taught under him, I'd have to trust that they know what they're talking about--but I never knew of these channels to begin with, so there might be more of a history to them I'm just unaware of. But yeah, maybe Jones' style of animation can't really be properly conveyed toward Clampett's style of animation and that's where the hang-up is, but if the comment section's a dumpster fire for other reasons...

If fingers should be pointed anywhere about animation techniques being bowderlized/lost in modern day, it should be at any shitty animation instructor an animator has taken cues of (whether from CalArts or otherwise, especially thanks to the rise of the Internet and Flash), and at the greedy executives forcing out-sourcing to spend less money on every episode. The latter I think especially is telling because the Asian sweatshops our cartoons get shipped off to learn animation slightly different from us due to the differences in how we convert film for broadcast on our televisions (NTSC for us, PAL for them). As anime became more mainstream, aspiring artists and animators decided to copy Japanese animation, forgetting that there's a reason the Japanese use different frame-rates from us, which is why it tends to look like American cartoons nowadays have odd frame-rates even though they're still using the 24 frames-per-second rule (although I think it's been bumped to 30 for everything now. I noticed this with A:TLA because my brain had "forgotten" '00s Western animation, though shitty DVD conversion might be the culprit) and anime looks smoother/faster. PAL uses less frames (25 compared to NTSC's 30) but have more lines running through the frames due to the electrical wiring in the television sets.

Squash-and-stretch is one of the very first techniques learned when animating, but it feels like a lot of animators seem to "forget" this or think it's just for bouncing balls and the like. Not true. Bodies are flexible and have a lot of squash-and-stretch for the illusion of weight and momentum. This is perfect in cartoons for comedic effect, which is why many characters are rather noodly in how they move about. Because of the out-sourcing and limited animation that got popular from the '60s-onwards, as well as the "expectation" for human characters to move more realistically, characters appear a bit more stiff than they really should, but a lot of shows honestly never call for the noodly-effect of comedic gag cartoons of yesteryear. That's why Warner Bros. returning to animation was a godsend and Klasky-Csupo, weird as they are, kept it alive on Nickelodeon throughout the '90s, but it does feel like even WB forgot their own roots sometime ago, especially when computers came into the picture and it got people lazy and using shortcuts created by an algorithm.

For proper squash-and-stretch, it requires actual frame-by-frame drawings and weight calculation, of which, sadly, not many animators do anymore, and the "masters" of this are now getting too old/dying off to be able to teach up-coming animators. It's not helped most of them never adapted to digital animation to give proper critiques and tweaks to keep the magic alive, so animators have to basically teach themselves their own tricks if they wish to pull this off. But most people just do key frames and some in-betweens and then let the software (especially for motion tweenng) fill in the blanks for a more "seamless" transition between frames, something you could get away with in 3D animation (as long as you have a motion blur effect implemented) but not exactly for 2D.

I know people have complained about the lack of diversity in genres for cartoons in how Western cartoons are too "comedic", but I think that's because the comedy relies too much on sight gags and witty dialogue and very rarely slapstick, which I think is the fault of the FCC because "violence". We're just mainly making sitcom cartoons instead of slapstick cartoons, which is why we've kinda lost sight of what makes cartoons cartoons. We're putting too much realism into cartoons when it's supposed to be loose and goofy and not grounded in reality whatsoever.
 

Kari Kamiya

"I beat her up, so I gave her a cuck-cup."
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I dont think that its even taught anymore, partly because you cant tween it, you actually have to draw a frame or two which likely takes more time in Toon Boom, but I dunno for sure, I've only animated the old school way.
I had taken 3D animation in high school, and we were still taught how to do squash-and-stretch. Every animator's supposed to learn it.
 

Jewelsmakerguy

Domo Arigato
kiwifarms.net
Admittedly I didnt really pay attention to LTCritic, but those are some bold claims from a guy who doesnt animate let alone draw. I did read his comments on a few other videos and he is a bit arrogant, a bit narrow minded like many animation critics. He even yanked a semi rare cartoon because youtube monetization "Gimme money so I can watch cartoons".


I dont think that its even taught anymore, partly because you cant tween it, you actually have to draw a frame or two which likely takes more time in Toon Boom, but I dunno for sure, I've only animated the old school way.
I don't think it should be that hard to draw a frame or two of character deformation. It's a smear, there's literally no rules beyond the timing and weight distribution of the main principles. It's literally one of the only times you can actually break the character model and not have people bitch about it.
 
Last edited:

Trilby

Sorry, but not sorry!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I know people have complained about the lack of diversity in genres for cartoons in how Western cartoons are too "comedic", but I think that's because the comedy relies too much on sight gags and witty dialogue and very rarely slapstick, which I think is the fault of the FCC because "violence". We're just mainly making sitcom cartoons instead of slapstick cartoons, which is why we've kinda lost sight of what makes cartoons cartoons. We're putting too much realism into cartoons when it's supposed to be loose and goofy and not grounded in reality whatsoever.
You hit the nail on the head here! This is really why modern stuff disinterests me.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Yamma Damma

Kari Kamiya

"I beat her up, so I gave her a cuck-cup."
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Ah, lucky! I didnt know that there were any high schools that taught animation!
Tech schools offer them to high school students, but I think the school has to be in the program/association with the tech school for high school students to take them. The tech school I went to offers (offered? Don't know if it's still around) night classes, but I would go during the latter half of the school day in place of electives.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to quote 'cause I remembered something:

You hit the nail on the head here! This is really why modern stuff disinterests me.
I think the last true slapstick animated comedy was Blue Sky's Horton Hears A Who, oddly enough (Captain Underpants did it, too, but the source material's a slapstick to begin with and the movie was more toilet and quirky humor than slapstick, while Horton never was so they made their own original gags even if some people felt that took away from Seuss' vision). That studio literally perfected squash-and-stretch for 3D animation and they would use it to full effect for the slapstick, and I hate that it's not used more by anyone. The potential is right there, we have proof of it, but no one's taking advantage of it.

Really sucks.
 
Last edited:

Siryakko212

kiwifarms.net
Okay I've held my tongue for a while now regarding this new series. It is too early to critique this new series, but from what I had seen so far, I must say it feels lackluster. Admittedly 'Wet Cement' is the better cartoon than 'Pest Coaster' because the ending felt satisfying. Also I am a bit somewhat biased because I love cartoons that are fully silent.

My Problem with 'Pest Coaster' was that it didn't really have an "ending" to speak of nor was there really a gag that tops everything. My impression of 'Pest Coaster' is that the premise does sound promising, but the execution falls flat. I also get the impression that the crew that were working on this cartoon didn't know how to take full advantage of this premise. After the cartoon ended, my thoughts were, "That's it?" "There really wasn't more that you could have done with it?"

'Wet Cement' on the other end seems to be going in the right direction. They not only took advantage of the premise, but they also understood the characters. If the team continues on with this, then in no time we would be seeing really great cartoons. After all, Chuck Jones didn't start out making great cartoons until later on.
 

Trilby

Sorry, but not sorry!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Tech schools offer them to high school students, but I think the school has to be in the program/association with the tech school for high school students to take them. The tech school I went to offers (offered? Don't know if it's still around) night classes, but I would go during the latter half of the school day in place of electives.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to quote 'cause I remembered something:



I think the last true slapstick animated comedy was Blue Sky's Horton Hears A Who, oddly enough (Captain Underpants did it, too, but the source material's a slapstick to begin with and the movie was more toilet and quirky humor than slapstick, while Horton never was so they made their own original gags even if some people felt that took away from Seuss' vision). That studio literally perfected squash-and-stretch for 3D animation and they would use it to full effect for the slapstick, and I hate that it's not used more by anyone. The potential is right there, we have proof of it, but no one's taking advantage of it.

Really sucks.
It really does when nobody cares. It's like a one-off sort of thing now.

I could understand where Greg's coming from on this, I've known him for 20 years and he's obviously gotten direct hands-on training from the Golden Age masters on this. I can understand his frustration with the way motion-tweening has given 2D animation this crutch to lean on in place of actually drawing every single frame of the film as what had been the time-honored tradition of the medium from the start.

Okay I've held my tongue for a while now regarding this new series. It is too early to critique this new series, but from what I had seen so far, I must say it feels lackluster. Admittedly 'Wet Cement' is the better cartoon than 'Pest Coaster' because the ending felt satisfying. Also I am a bit somewhat biased because I love cartoons that are fully silent.

My Problem with 'Pest Coaster' was that it didn't really have an "ending" to speak of nor was there really a gag that tops everything. My impression of 'Pest Coaster' is that the premise does sound promising, but the execution falls flat. I also get the impression that the crew that were working on this cartoon didn't know how to take full advantage of this premise. After the cartoon ended, my thoughts were, "That's it?" "There really wasn't more that you could have done with it?"

'Wet Cement' on the other end seems to be going in the right direction. They not only took advantage of the premise, but they also understood the characters. If the team continues on with this, then in no time we would be seeing really great cartoons. After all, Chuck Jones didn't start out making great cartoons until later on.
Having watched it, I'm in the same camp as you. It's got promise and they are trying.
 

Jewelsmakerguy

Domo Arigato
kiwifarms.net
I think the last true slapstick animated comedy was Blue Sky's Horton Hears A Who, oddly enough (Captain Underpants did it, too, but the source material's a slapstick to begin with and the movie was more toilet and quirky humor than slapstick, while Horton never was so they made their own original gags even if some people felt that took away from Seuss' vision). That studio literally perfected squash-and-stretch for 3D animation and they would use it to full effect for the slapstick, and I hate that it's not used more by anyone. The potential is right there, we have proof of it, but no one's taking advantage of it.

Really sucks.
Well I mean Blue Sky still does it, so it's not completely dead. I was going to mention Illumination as an example, but their attempts are so muddled that it physically hurts to watch most of the time. I know Disny and Pixar do it, but it's less for cartoony effect and more for their semi-realistic style. And the Lego Movies have a version that uses Lego bricks for smears.

As for 2D, it's still there on occasion, but it can be pretty jarring when they try it (like on Duncanville), so they usually just work around it with timing if they want overly slapstick-y gags.

Okay I've held my tongue for a while now regarding this new series. It is too early to critique this new series, but from what I had seen so far, I must say it feels lackluster. Admittedly 'Wet Cement' is the better cartoon than 'Pest Coaster' because the ending felt satisfying. Also I am a bit somewhat biased because I love cartoons that are fully silent.

My Problem with 'Pest Coaster' was that it didn't really have an "ending" to speak of nor was there really a gag that tops everything. My impression of 'Pest Coaster' is that the premise does sound promising, but the execution falls flat. I also get the impression that the crew that were working on this cartoon didn't know how to take full advantage of this premise. After the cartoon ended, my thoughts were, "That's it?" "There really wasn't more that you could have done with it?"

'Wet Cement' on the other end seems to be going in the right direction. They not only took advantage of the premise, but they also understood the characters. If the team continues on with this, then in no time we would be seeing really great cartoons. After all, Chuck Jones didn't start out making great cartoons until later on.
I was going to say, Pest Coaster's been the weaker of the two, amd most of it has to do with the writing more than the animation. That it ends abruptly with no real payoff outside of "Sam gets blown up" really hurts it in my opinion.
 
Tags
None