Adjusted for inflation, did cartoons in the 80s and 90s have higher budgets than cartoons nowadays...

More anime-esque, I think.

I listed one 3D film.

More tweened flash puppets...

Hopefully they'll be as good as Hilda and GT

The future of western animation will be outsourced to poos.
It'll only get worse until the poos get better.

>60s
Precedent was the golden age of animation, where expressiveness and creativity were the norm, so despite limitations of a new format (TV and cheap budgets) it still tries to be visually iconic
>70s and 80s
Animation begins to homogenize, growing stagnant and complacent
>90s
A pushback out of spite for what became the norm, attempts to make expressiveness and creativity the standard again
>2000s
Precedent was the 90s renaissance, so despite limitations of a new format (a young form of computer animation) it still tries to be visually iconic by running off of the creative fumes the 90s kickstarted
>2010s
Animation begins to homogenize, growing stagnant and complacent

I'm not liking this pattern.

Though the lowest 'flash puppets' can't be any worse than Kennedy Studios/AKOM-tier stuff of yesteryear.

>Classic Hannah Barbara
>Scooby Doo knock off HB era
>GI Joe toyetic era
> klaskycsupo
>TDI
>’CalArts’
Fair assessment I suppose.

Can we stop talking about the fucking picture and answer the damn question?

YOU FOOL

Attached: 82376592836.jpg (392x330, 24.39K)

would answer it if i knew, but i dont so i comment on something else.

You tell me how AKOM/Kennedy look worse than this
youtu.be/KVbua7FpOUY

>80s above anything

so far we have The Owl House and Kipo which ain't a bad start in terms of artstyle

No.
90's>80's>70's>60's>00's>10's

As homogenized as the 2010s can get, it was a million times more expressive than 70s and 80s where it was reused footage over and over

>characters from cancelled Hartman-verse cartoons in the closet
Why is FOP trying to become TTGO?

am I the only one with a correct opinion?
For this picture
90s > powergap > 60s > 10s > 00s >70s > 80s
In general
90s > 10s > 00 >60s > 70s > 80s

True, user. Let's hope that means the "cycle" is getting weaker/breaking and that we'll get a proper age of great cartoons for decades to come, soon

>2010s over 2000s
>correct
I love cartoons from both ages user, but lol.

That's not a flash episode, this is.
wco.tv/the-fairly-oddparent-season-10-episode-20-space-ca-dad-summer-bummer

Good lord
How did the writing get WORSE?

I think its the style bias really.

>Animation renaissance is coincidentally when artist was twelve

>90s were the "renaissance," period
>80s were the "dark age,"
>Not the flash period.
So this is the power of an art school degree...

Attached: zhugw9pbacp21.jpg (1412x1003, 124.1K)

If OP or whoever is responsible for this trainwreck, did their homework, he/she'd know 80s was thee golden age for western animation industry, no contest. Disney almost went bankrupt after fucking beauty and the beast. The 90s was the worst tome for animation globally.

Attached: D3gD3kMV4AA_bsA.jpg (680x408, 44.39K)

Dude, 80s animation was fucking abysmal outside of movies.

Youre not gonna make it in this business pal. Old fashioned 2d animation became the niche, 3d is where its at.

Attached: DnLdWHiV4AAeNbJ.jpg_large.jpg (1920x1080, 265.86K)

avatar and zim are superior to 00s cartoons but the volume of good cartoons in the 10s is objectively superior to the previous decade
also I hated that flat flash-animated look

The 2000s had some very good standout cartoons, but it was overall a very messy transitional period. The rise of anime in the west caused a massive budget decrease for TV animation, Flash was muscling out traditional animation due to its low cost, and networks were beginning to phase out animation completely for fear that there was no way for it to remain profitable with competition from the internet. Then again, I think the 2010s are also going to be remembered as an awkward bridge between television animation and online streaming animation.

the reason why "hurr muh computer flash animation," is "ruining cartoons," is because most animation artists dont want to go through the tedious process of the traditional craft. Good riddance, paper animation died a long time ago, only a massive nerd loser would care about producing "quality animation,"

Attached: Bill-0.png (340x453, 33.2K)

*stem

TV cartoons=/=western paper animation.
This applies to anime and Japanese animated films.

Oh yes, the amazing '00s animated films where nobody but Pixar had any bloody idea how to use the technology well, but everyone wanted to.

Kipo looks fucking terrible

you must have a brain tumor and no eyes

>Blaming animation artists
>Not cheap-ass producers and executives.

Attached: Executives.jpg (500x272, 60.05K)

What kind of art style do you like then?

80s looks weird, 70's is fine, 00's is a mixed bag but I like it sometimes, 90's are also fine but gets overhyped by nerds, 60s has its charm, and 2010s can really kill some shows with the overt softness

But people pay to see them. The film industry is a business, not an art competition.

Attached: 2537611_0.jpg (630x630, 52.45K)

Do you really know how to make a "good animation," buddy???

Something like gumball.

Yes, 90s peaked the budget with beauty and the beast. That was probably the most expensive 2d disney movie.

>60s
>golden age

60s, 70s, and a bit afterward:
-All Hanna Barbera shows reuse the same character designs over and over again, limited to "the mom, the dad, teen boy, teen girl, kids, and the dog", and every male character over 30 has the same exact stubble and face. Best example, that spinoff show where Pebbles and Bam Bam were, uh, mystery solvers or something and their character designs looked exactly like all the other teens in literally every other HB show ever made, clashing comically with the adults' character designs.
-Looping backgrounds when running, cycled many times, even reused for later episodes.
-Poor quality control, if any.
-Too many HB shows in general, most were flops anyway.
-Too many "teen group solves mysteries with their quirky pet" shows
-Reused cels and backgrounds constantly, even with some shows reusing monsters' cels by painting over it a bit and adding wings or something.
-Highly derivative character design; something gets popular, so literally every other show makes their own knockoff version of that thing, usually much lower quality.
-95% of shows out back then were objectively garbage, usually some terrible excuse to sell toys or to cash in on some fad.

It works like the music industry, you look back and only remember the best of the best, so you assume everything was that good.

Sony pictures animation probably figured out the balance between commercial film success and creative polish.

Attached: 13074764ba68a25c551862336deb2c8c.jpg (960x960, 83.22K)

Two major problem doing direct budget comparisons. First, we don't know how that budget is allocated. Even as budgets rose, a lot of that money went to inflated producer and voice actors salaries.
Second, even from the 60s, TV animation was already being outsourced, and US dollars went a long way overseas at certain points in time. During the 90s, when Disney, Amblin/Universal, and WB were getting really top notch work out of Japanese studios, 1 dollar bought two to three times the yen it buys today, and that doesn't even account for the value of yen within Japan.

You're arguing with the wrong guy. I'm one of the few in favor of traditional animation being phased out. The technology just wasn't there in the 00s though, no matter how much they wanted it to be. It makes a lot of animated films from that era look REALLY bad by modern standards.

doenst matter, people paid to see it, they broke even and shook hands.

Attached: 321f4ec065290f1e7331ba42c436c854.png (640x1136, 153.82K)

It takes time. Which given how these stupid producers and executives expect that because computer software exists, you can make "good animation" on shorter deadlines than before, when that is bullshit.

That's why the highest grossing animated films of the 2010s pulled in significantly higher profits than the animated films of the 2000s, right? (barring a handful of significant exceptions like Shrek 2)

>it takes time
Im afraid, that's entry level knowledge on the craft pal. Its not the producers fault for making a movie happen, if you've never worked in film dont demean the roles. Flash and other software just expedited the process of cartoon animation, the work also essentially reflects the artists technical skill.

Which is in 3D clearly.

Yeah because it's cheaper. Maybe at some point we can make an ai to assist making 2d animation enough to make it commercially competitive.

I said the precedent to the 60s was the golden age, IE the period that ended in the 50s. The decade right before the 60s.

Ok, frame to frame animation isnt dying, studios and companies are using 3d and technology for the commercial aspect to it because its good for business.
youtu.be/TZJLtujW6FY

I like how the 80s one completely fails at looking like a toy despite the artist clearly trying.

>good for business
Uh yeah that's what I said? It's cheaper to make especially with mocap and whatnot.

the artist also fails to capture the experienced linework of that era.

Attached: MV5BNGIxYjc1MmEtZTBiNS00OGY2LWFiOTUtY2VmOTE3OWM5NmYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDUyOTUyNQ@@._V1_UY1200_CR81,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg (630x1200, 198K)

AIs aren't necessary for good animation but you nerds would try it out anyway.

Did I say that you can't do great things in Flash? All I'm saying is that you shouldn't push your artists into a hole of tight quotas and poor management where they can't expect to produce anything but trash.

Attached: 1517590584518.gif (800x450, 761.85K)