About the Marge turn, I had originally done a version where she did a nice head turn but, again, they didn't want it...

Sneed feed and seed

This is one of those Comic Sans scenarios: people criticize something but they don't realize the actual reason why it's worthy of criticism.

It's stiff and dull, and what they used the extra time for is also stiff and dull?

Fuck, it's not even that well done and by this point it actually looks off

It's as well done as a show where the higher-ups forbid common animation techniques like stretch and squash, smears, and multiples because they don't like their characters being off-model for even a frame can possibly get.

i hope bart's VA gets cancer and dies
what the fuck do you need all that money for you stupid selfish cunt

It's hilarious. Groening didn't like the stretches, smears and such but it's what makes animation fun to watch. I worked for a guy who wanted me to animate a character but not use squash and stretch. It looked ok in the end but could have been so much nicer with the same amount(or less) of work. These things bring vitality to a character.

>It looked ok in the end but could have been so much nicer with the same amount(or less) of work.
Yeah, that's the general feeling of it. Highly limited and conventional animation where it never goes off model can look okay in some art styles (Venture Brothers pulls it off well enough), but I would never turn down a moment to see the characters animated with all the principles in hand.

Attached: giphy.gif (500x282, 1.32M)

I unironically agree. Bart's va is also literally a scientologist and used to have his voice used to call people and try to get them to sign up by "bart" calling them, till fox told her to cut that shit out.

Unpopular opinion (but sort of agreeing with ): S&S does look nice but using it shouldn't be a "rule". I think there's certain inherent visual comedy on a controlled and conscious rigidity in the animation, almost like a form of deadpan humor. I think traditional animation has evolved in terms of variety of language and expression beyond (some of) the principles of animation, and using them as a checklist for criticism seems a bit text-bookish and rigid in itself

Looks a little too fast. Would look great if they slowed it down to maybe around 90% of that speed.

It's even sadder when you're fully aware the writers fucking hate your character and mostly use it as the butt of every joke now

Well of course it's to be used where appropriate as with any technique. S&S accentuates things, is all, and it's a lot more present in 'realistic' animation than people realise.

Rigged numbers.

Those threads like adult swim ones are shill threads. Are you really this new?

The use of angles is very basic. The thing that struck me as incredibly impressive when I got back into watching classic Simpsons as an adult (I basically didn't want Simpsons from my mid teens through my early twenties) is the use of expressive viewpoints, capturing upward and downward angles and curved perspectives.

It's possible to overuse such techniques, but neglecting them altogether renders a worse result that one which uses them judiciously. Many of the most iconic Simpsons shots employ such work.

Attached: 1518466352363.jpg (1200x738, 76.95K)

It all comes down to layouts, which are increasingly neglected -along with proper breakdown approach- in modern animation (specially TV animation, and specially adult TV animation). Back then, a big part of the appeal of animation was that you could go nuts with the "cinematography" since in pre-digital times live action TV production had to cut all sort of corners and you would be lucky to get anything more fancy than a multi-camera sitcom setup.

Writers were often animators too, so they could think visually and come up with material that actually utilized the medium to full effect.

Now it's mostly about showing up who's talking to who in a flat shot so they can deliver the lines your former standup comedian writer came up with.

Attached: 612168.jpg (640x480, 33.54K)

>It all comes down to layouts, which are increasingly neglected
It's neglected because it's a non-existent job now. They've funneled that work into the storyboard department ever since all boarding work was switched over to digital.

Attached: Steven Universe Future Animatic.gif (540x304, 2.17M)

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. More things are possible with live action cameras and the use of special effects, so a certain class of writer is more likely to work in a live action medium than before.

That said, there's also been an invasion of mediocrities (aka shit standup comics that couldn't make it as standups) in the broader world of cartooning, both amidst veterans like Simpsons as well as newer shows. It's a different of the issue in video games, where many video game directors are just failed movie and tv directors, and unsurprisingly their "games" lack any meaningful use of interactivity. Just press X to not die or turn the page when we tell you and follow the linear path, watch the setpiece etc. etc.

Attached: 1473502785105.jpg (400x273, 14.41K)

>Clearly animated by furry

The spanish guy who directed Klaus commented it was basically impossible to find feature-level layout people anymore for a serious production.

He settled for training the background designers/painters to make their work more usable in animation, and even then the movie suffers for it, like with that super controversial (in Yas Forums) door scene

What door scene?