I think the biggest issue with the animation is that it's sluggish. Like if things just moved faster in terms of pacing and movement, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible.
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;52306100]i see he's wearing like a hoodie thing
because, you know
[I]kids[/I][/QUOTE]
Do you live under a rock
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52305444]The fuck is wrong with Marvel's animation department? Why does everything they make look so fucking stupid and bad[/QUOTE]
Edit: Actually, I'll just explain what's wrong with this animation by showing how this show 'throws a punch' versus how it should be 'throwing a punch'.
[url=http://imgur.com/a/nVnZq]This is boring, lazy, and lacks weight.[/url] { No tension is built up before impact and we spend most our time watching Spiderman tumble around weightlessly until he impacts a desk and immediately comes to a full stop. }
[url=http://imgur.com/a/rs0qn]This is exciting and you can feel the momentum.[/url] { Tension is built up the whole time up to impact, then we linger on the impact a moment before getting another, heavier, impact which continues for several seconds before we switch to the next scene }
That's what's wrong with it. One of these was planned out. The other one was slapped together quickly and without much preponderance on shot composition, momentum, and so forth - as a result it looks cheap and lifeless.
Or perhaps more succinctly put:
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38060766/GMS/wiz/p/gif485.gif[/img]
The horrible sound design is what gets me. The sound doesn't give the impact feeling the animation is supposed to show and it sounds awkward.
Sound design is also not great - but it's not being helped by everything being weak and lifeless in impact. Rather than have Spiderman being kind of weightlessly shoved over several seconds into a corner desk, they could've done a big 'WHAAAP!!' and just slammed him in half a second into a desk across the room. Since the actions don't feel like they have much weight it'd feel very wrong for the sound to make them sound like they did have a lot of weight.
It feels like the villain's almost worried he's going to hurt him so he's pulling his punches. The fight looks more like a staged WWE match than a brawl between folks that live beyond 'normal limits'.
His costume reflects the show's budget
yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
Yeah but Batman the animated series was for kids too and that wasn't garbage.
Just because something is designed for kids doesn't mean we can't laugh at how lazy and shitty it is.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
Children may have a harder time telling the difference between quality animation and shitty animation - that's not an excuse to release shitty animation when you're a company with the money to do a decent job. Putting out shitty animation lowers the bar for everybody else, sets a bad standard (and bad example) for students, and generally devalues the medium
And it's often not even a cost cutting thing - an extra 20 mins on storyboarding and with no change in the amount of time put into the animation proper would have fixed the majority of the shots in this clip
this looks like butts
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
Because fuck kids, better feed them garbage, it's not like they will care right?
Hope you never have kids.
It's an especially laughable stance when there are multiple shows airing for kids that adults enjoy for their high quality in both animation and storytelling.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
speak for yourself i was writing feynman diagrams and appreciating the finer points of bach at 2 months old
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
Batman: The Animated Series.
Superman: The Animated Series.
Batman Beyond.
Samurai Jack.
Teen Titans.
Justice League / Justice League Unlimited.
Spectacular Spider-Man.
Avengers: Earths Mightiest Heroes.
Batman: The Brave and The Bold.
Those are all generally for the same demographic and at least have better animation to some degree.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKGoFJba1RE[/media]
I mean...
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
part of the reason we have beautiful retrospectives on shows like, say, spongebob is because despite a show being marketed to kids, it didn't suck the root. why is it excusable to make things that are garbage just because it's for children? these aren't fucking 2 year olds, they have at least some mental concept of quality. when you encourage and abet trash quality animation because "haha it is for kids, stupid angry adults!!" you basically are acting as if it's fine for generations of children to grow up with nothing to fondly look back on at all, nothing to draw much real meaning or substance or inspiration from, nothing they can say they still like as adults. that's garbage.
that argument is trite and dumb and it gives a pass, constantly, to people to not become better artists or studios or even entire franchises. it's lazy and reduces creators, media, and viewers alike.
I mean shit, heres episode 1 of the 90s Spider-Man show.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sHdCTJdKSY[/media]
This is a cartoon somewhat infamous for having rapidly declining animation as the show went on because of what can best be described as a microbudget and horrific censorship policies, but you can tell they [i]tried[/i], even in the later seasons fight scenes where the budget was like a tenth of that and they used stock footage out the ass.
I mean at least there was shading.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
i'm pretty sure even kids didn't like johnny test
which is why it's not shown anymore on cartoon network
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83WxHcDWGSE[/media]
Heres a show from [i][b]1981[/b][/i] that looks better.
Think of it this way. At least it's not tweened flash animation?
[QUOTE=Pw0nageXD;52308567]Think of it this way. At least it's not tweened flash animation?[/QUOTE]
You say this but you can tell at various points there is a lot of tweening going on - part of the reason it looks so cheap and massless is that most of the action is just linear and constant motion (and things being scaled up/down).
I'd bet the storyboarding for this was just tweened and ABAB-animation stuff.
This thing makes Ultimate Spiderman look good.
Seriously what the heck? If they continue like this the next Spiderman cartoon after this will be a powerpoint presentation
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;52306118]and the Venture Bros were able to get better over the course of a decade, moving from flash-level 2D tween frames to dynamic action scenes purely out of their own development and budgetary growth.
this, this doesn't even have an excuse
[editline]2nd June 2017[/editline]
That bit at 0:52 with him getting caught at the turnstile is the most visually unsatisfying thing I think I've ever seen.
He goes from jumping off walls and doing air-tricks as he rushes down the subway stairs to for no fucking reason not being able to vault over a waist-high bar[/QUOTE]
look man if he didn't go through the turnstile like a law abiding citizen he would be no better than the bad guys he fights against
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
The first three seasons of Spongebob show how it's done. You have the humor for kids and social commentary (and sometimes adult jokes) thrown in and it can be enjoyed by both demographics.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52308912]The first three seasons of Spongebob show how it's done. You have the humor for kids and social commentary (and sometimes adult jokes) thrown in and it can be enjoyed by both demographics.[/QUOTE]
my point was this is stuff i usually cared about when i was a child
i mean complaining about it as an adult on a forum is a little strange
this shit is airing on disney XD haha come on guys
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52308941]my point was this is stuff i usually cared about when i was a child
i mean complaining about it as an adult on a forum is a little strange
this shit is airing on disney XD haha come on guys[/QUOTE]
so...? This has been pretty thoroughly explained in this thread I find.
Why does something being a kids product or show justify poor quality? The cartoons I grew up with had high animation quality, yet everything Marvel puts out for animation, whether it be for kids, or not has terrible animation quality.
why is that okay
What bothers me the most is the lack of sound, or impact sound, half the impact noises where either non existent or too quiet to notice
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52308941]my point was this is stuff i usually cared about when i was a child
i mean complaining about it as an adult on a forum is a little strange
this shit is airing on disney XD haha come on guys[/QUOTE]
Why?
What if we're fans of the properties they're based on? What if we want these shows to be like BTAS which was both light enough for kids to watch it but complex enough for adults to enjoy? What if we want to work in these kinds of fields and from that standpoint find it incredibly lackluster and horrifically cheap looking?
Again, compare it to its peers. The DCAU, hell, DC's current and recent cartoons blow it out of the water. Samurai Jack just came back with animation more or less equal to the original show which was meant for kids while the new show was meant for that original audience who are now grown up, and both are excellent in both visuals and sound design.
Why are you being so dismissive of criticism due to its primary demographic being tweens?
Oh this Sonic game is complete shit despite being rated E, which means its designated as appropriate for 6 year olds to play. But its for kids, so fuck it, who cares, right?
[editline]3rd June 2017[/editline]
Plus, Marvel is owned by [i]DISNEY[/i] now, [i]the[/i] American animation company, if anything, that gives them less of an excuse.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52309157]Why are you being so dismissive of criticism due to its primary demographic being tweens?[/QUOTE]
Because he's an adult, damn it. Look at how adult he's being right now. Nobody could associate this man with 'kid's stuff' which makes him very mature.
Also, championing quality for kids is dumb because kids don't know anything - they'll enthusiastically consume anything that's brightly colored, has high sugar content, or wears a backwards hat - you're wasting effort. (Please read the preceding with a heavy air of sarcasm)
It's a common stance; adults aren't "allowed" to enjoy things that are targeted at younger audiences because they're adults and that should be 'beneath them'. If that doesn't work, then you move right on to 'well it's creepy/weird that you could like stuff like that, eww'.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52307665]yall realize this is a cartoon that is not recommended for your age range right?
children usually like things that are not as good[/QUOTE]
are you seriously doing the "it's just for kids" argument? just because it's for kids doesn't mean we can't criticize it. if a show is bad then people have the right to criticize it. kids deserve shows that are both good for them and adults to watch like batman: the brave and the bold, static shock, and many other cartoons, not schlock like teen titans go.
looks like its made in flash with copious over use of the blur tool
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52310216]Because he's an adult, damn it. Look at how adult he's being right now. Nobody could associate this man with 'kid's stuff' which makes him very mature.
Also, championing quality for kids is dumb because kids don't know anything - they'll enthusiastically consume anything that's brightly colored, has high sugar content, or wears a backwards hat - you're wasting effort. (Please read the preceding with a heavy air of sarcasm)
It's a common stance; adults aren't "allowed" to enjoy things that are targeted at younger audiences because they're adults and that should be 'beneath them'. If that doesn't work, then you move right on to 'well it's creepy/weird that you could like stuff like that, eww'.[/QUOTE]
I always think it's more immature when someone refuses to consume certain media just so they can feel like "adults" than if they just enjoyed what they wanted. I see this so much on anything kid-related where adults are consuming it too: "Eww nintendo is for kids, eww cartoons are for children; I'm an adult now, I have to watch mature shows and play mature games only".
It's really stupid. :pudge:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.