We will Salute the USS Cerritos as it finishes it1s voyage.
Non-Disney animation thread
-
-
Youtube knows me now:
I watched this like over and over as a kid, I think I recorded it. Such a fun mix of shorts. And I have only now learned there were only FOUR voice actors voicing every speaking character. Gilda Radner (RIP), Billy Crystal, Harry Shearer, and Michael Fremer.
-
That was originally made as two separate half-hour specials that'd air as part of the opening ceremonies for the 1980 Olympics; the US wound up boycotting the Summer Games because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan so the summer portion never aired. So they made some linking segments and turned it into a film; not sure what all they added but I have to think the disco segment was one of them since it featured characters from both parts.
As a side animation footnote, the Soviets wound up counter-boycotting the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles, which worked out really badly for McDonalds since they had a promotion where you got a scratch-off card that revealed an Olympic event. Depending on how the US team finished in that event, you could win a Big Mac, fries, or a drink. The US teams wound up winning over twice as many medals as normal and almost as many gold medals alone as they had received total medals combined in previous years so McDonalds had to give out a huge number of free Big Macs. That's where the Krustyburger Olympic joke came from.
-
@Satsuki said in Non-Disney animation thread:
Youtube knows me now:
This one's blocked in Canada. What is it?
-
Animalympics
If you read the credits you see Brad Bird listed under the animators.
-
@Ubiq said in Non-Disney animation thread:
Season Five is the last for Lower Decks as Paramount+ shifts ever closer to being a vestigial organ.
They DO understand that Star Trek shows are the ONLY reason anyone is paying for the service, right?
They had five different Trek shows a year ago and soon they'll be down to just Strange New Worlds. Which is the first live action trek show to really get it right of the bunch, but no one is going to subscribe to Paramont year round for a 10 episode season when they can just grab one month a year and binge it. Or torrent it if its the ONLY show they care about.
Even STW will be entering its fourth season at that point so it probably doesn't have many years left either. We're no longer in the era of 7 year, 180 episode Trek shows.
-
@Satsuki said in Non-Disney animation thread:
Animalympics
If you read the credits you see Brad Bird listed under the animators.
Ah, I havent seen that one in a long long time. Yeah, makes sense that its one of those "four voice actors do a cast of thousands" deal.
-
That might be the best thing you've ever done, Seth.
-
That is a significant glow up.
Nine animated pics from Max and Dave Fleischer, who created Betty Boop and Koko the Clown, are among the pieces that are being restored.
Also included are two stop-motion animation shorts directed by George Pal, known for his charming “Puppetoons.” The final film on the list is a Terrytoon, produced by Paul Terry
-
Is that Kara?
-
-
I'll always remember the Freddie Prinze Jr. version
But yeah, apparently Andy's fallen on hard times and is supposedly working as an Amazon delivery man.
-
Yeah Cartoon Network is apparently incredibly super bad about taking care of their talent. No one from their early days is doing well.
Generally you make a show there as a proof of concept and then you go somewhere else to make Bob's Burgers or Archer.
-
This ad hits very differently now
-
-
Some of the reactions to this trailer have been hilarious:
-
The character design for Optimus looks like a weird attempt to render the Transformers: Animated version of him into a 3D style that just doesn't quite work for me.
Also I get the idea of why you would use those two for this sort of film, but, man, that sort of characterization feels weird for Megatron.
-
They're probably trying to lure in the next generation of Transformer nerds.
-
Not sure where to post this that's appropriate but...
"The first hand drawn animation from Pakistan".
Looks neat. I wonder what the caveat is that they have to specify hand drawn. Is there something stop motion or CG in Pakistan's history?
-
Animation's a bit stiff, but it looks pretty good. Obviously they're trying to emulate Ghibli.
-
Well if you're going to copy, copy from the best.
And THIS much lower quality looking thing would be why they had to specify hand drawn, this came out five years ago and was apparently successful but looks like it was made 20 years ago. Because CGI be like that. It's either bleeding edge or it just looks bad, and ages like milk.
-
Yes a little stiff, but that's strait Ghibli with a little Disney Renaissance thrown in. Can't quite tell if that's supposed to be in Pakistan or it's own little world.
Reminds me of a fabulous glass art show I saw at the Museum of Fine Art. I can't remember the artists name, sadly, but they at least bought one of his big pieces to keep on hand.
Edit: Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_Green_Icicle_Tower -
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread:
Because CGI be like that. It's either bleeding edge or it just looks bad, and ages like milk.One reason I like hand-drawn better than CGI. CGI can age and lose the magic, hand-drawn never does.
-
Absolutely. Though I think we're finally hit a point in CG where it's not going to age quite so badly... IF they do it stylized. Because they strived and strived and strived to get to photo-realism, hit the wall of uncanny valley and it looking photo-realistic in live action,, and started moving towards more colorful and animated, and I think that'll age better.
Incredibles from 2004 just looks BAD by now... and Ratatouille a few years later is pretty weak on the human characters (but gorgeous backgrounds)... but while Tangled from 2010 is showing it's age a tiny bit, because they went with a more painterly lighting style and very dynamic color pallet it still mostly looks fine. But Frozen which came out three years after that looks super aged. Not bad, but dated. Especially since you can compare it to Frozen 2 where the skin texture and hair tech improved by a decade, but they tried to keep it looking as close as possible.
I think by 2016 when we had Zootopia and Moana the tech reached a point where things just look legitimately good and probably won't age quite as badly... particularly the animal characters but who knows what particle effects and ray tracing and cloth physics will in another 10 years. They've nailed effects like water and fire and such at this point, I don't think background stuff is going to get much better. ANd post Spiderverse more studios are willing to experiment. Puss in Boots looked stunning and won't ever age because it was stylized a lot.
(It's kind of a shame those older movies can't just get like, a HD texture update to make them look better... since the actual character rigs evolved alot with a bazillion more polygons, and they evolved the skin tech to have layers of muscle and bone underneath, there's no easy way to just go " make everyone's skin look less like plastic" or add in better lighting effects... even if they did still have all the raw data and not just the outputted final versions..)
-
Agreed. Forget the live action HTTYD or Toy Story 5. Use that money for a CGI update instead on the original films. Recall people had issues with this being done on old school Disney films, but think enhancing old CG movies would definitely be a profitable endeavor, though as you said, don’t think it’s a simple thing to do. Though maybe the charm might be lost with updated graphics, who knows. Maybe this is a monkey paw wish...
-
Just offer people the option to watch "original or enhanced" and it's not a big deal. It's only when you lock in one version like Star Wars Special Editions that updates get push back. Because SOME of those update changes were great like fixing mat lines or adding skies to Cloud City. It's all the changes that altered the story or pacing that sucked.
Like, adding in Morning report to Lion King, or Human again to Beauty and the Beast SUCK. But putting back in "If I Never Knew You" into Pocahontas elevates the film and its the emotional core of the whole thing that makes it actually work a little bit, and its a great add. But as long as you have a choice in the version you're getting and it's personal preference? It doesn't matter.
It's tough, because if you change any angles, any timing, any facial expression, any emotional beat even a fraction, you risk changing an aspect that was beloved or removing some of the original artistic vision, a nuance that particular animator gave life to. If you update a design or change a problematic element you might rob it of something. Lots of remakes or sequels to animated projects lose some vitality with a style change.
On the other hand is anyone actually going to complain if they fix Andy
-
I don't think I really realized how much the Incredibles had aged until I saw a side by side comparison of the closing scene and the remade version from the sequel.
The humans and Scud from Toy Story always looked bad though. Even back when it first came out, I remember being put off by the stark difference between the humans and toy characters.
-
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread:
On the other hand is anyone actually going to complain if they fix Andy
Yes
-
I'll never understand how in Toy Story, they didn't take one look at how the humans were coming out, and then opt to switch over to a Muppet Babies approach where they just kept the faces off screen as much as possible so that it was mostly feet or something.
Or cheat a little and throw in a live action actor as a baseline and then rotoscope it. I guess the face-dot mapping tech just wasn't really there yet. I'm not saying just put in a whole real person, it was super distracting when Wall-E did it, but... something. They had to look at that and know it looked bad.
The entire choice to make the first movies based on toys, bugs, monsters, fish, etc. and minimize the weak point of humans as much as possible was a good one, but...
-
A bit late, but I finally got around to watching Scott Pilgrim Takes Off. Since I'd heard it deviates from the original story, I wanted to read the actual comic first, which I finally did a few months ago (a bit too surreal at times for my taste, but its unique style and humor is very endearing).
As for the show, yeah, it's pretty solid, though I am very glad I read the comic first. Honestly, I'm not sure how well the uninitiated would be able to follow or appreciate this show. After episode 1, it kinda just throws a lot of the characters at you and it feels like it already expects you to know what their deal is. And then there are a lot of major side characters from the original comic who are essentially relegated to being background characters (poor Stephen and Kim).
It also feels like kind of a bait-and-switch, seeing as it's called Scott Pilgrim Takes Off, but then Scott is barely in it and it mostly follows Ramona and her seven exes. In fact, that might have been a better title for the show, "Ramona and Her Seven Exes" or something like that.
But, as an initiated fan, I quite enjoyed the show and what they tried to do with it. It's really nice that they attempted to expand on the seven exes and humanize them a bit, rather than leaving them as obstacles to be destroyed. The writing didn't always work for me, it felt like some of humor and charm from the comic was lost, but it's still a worthy addition to the franchise.
And the music is fantastic. Loved hearing from old favorites like ZZ Top, Johnny Cash, and Vampire Weekend, and the use of God Only Knows at the very end was inspired.
So yeah, from me it gets a recommendation on the condition that you read the comic (or least watch the movie, I guess) first.
Also, as a general observation, I'd say that Scott Pilgrim best answers the question "What if life were more like a video game?" even better than the Futurama episode that originally proposed it.
-
My Adventures with Superman Season 2 starts May 25 and it will be airing on Toonami. Also the trailer for Season 2 is out.
-
Metv is launching an 24/7 Classic Cartoon channel in June.
-
How long til it turns into modern Nicktoons & Boomerang by airing cartoons that aren’t even at minimum a decade old.
-
-
Puma Pete being there is so damn random.
-
Silverhawks but no Thundercats eh? Gobots but no Transformers? I see how it is.
Freakazoid, Mask, Beetlejuice, and 2 Stupid Dogs feel out of place given they were early-mid 90's and everything else on there is decidedly 80's or earlier. Feels very much like the original Cartoon Network lineup when all they had was stuff in the HB archives they could air for free. Oh I guess Captain Planet was early 90's too but that's been such a staple of "fill a early morning slot to hit educational requirements" for so long I figure it's gotta be like 2 cents to license. Surprised Pirates of Dark Water and REAL Adventures of Jonny Quest aren't on there.. I guess those are a few years later.
I don't see "Wait till your father gets home" anywhere on there!
...wait, is that BABY LOONEY TUNES on there? Okay, THAT'S the odd one out since its from like 2002, way more recent than anything else on there. And way less requested.
-
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread:
I don't see "Wait till your father gets home" anywhere on there!
Thanks for the ear worm.
-
I see a lot of Looney Tunes and that's what's most important.
But where's my Jem and the Holograms, huh?
-
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread
...wait, is that BABY LOONEY TUNES on there? Okay, THAT'S the odd one out since its from like 2002, way more recent than anything else on there. And way less requested.
I remember the show being insanely cloying to the point that I rarely used it even as background noise but didn't it have segments about sharing and so on? It might qualify for required E/I material as a result.
Krypto is the most recent show I've spotted in the announcements but, then again, it always felt like an early '90s show whose masters fell behind a shelf and didn't air until twenty years later as a result so it doesn't feel out of place with these other shows.
-
@Satsuki said in Non-Disney animation thread:
I see a lot of Looney Tunes and that's what's most important.
But where's my Jem and the Holograms, huh?
Jem is a show they'd probably have to pay actual money for. They're doing Silverhawks and Go-Bots instead of Thundercats and Transformers, so that's where their budget/licensing level is at.
If this channel has any success they'll inevitably follow the Nickelodeon/Cartoon Network route and get a handful of 80's cartoons to put in a block and that'll be where the ratings come from and they'll slowly expand to the 90's instead.
THey could probably get something like Mummies Alive or Prince Valiant without too much hassle. Jem and Transformers are big ticket that would be harder to do.
I wonder if anyone would actually hunt down something like Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors or Bravestarr, of if they'd just front the actual money for shows people know.
-
@Time-Control-Magician said in Non-Disney animation thread:
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread:
I don't see "Wait till your father gets home" anywhere on there!
Thanks for the ear worm.
You're welcome.
Even when Cartoon Network was utterly desperate and ONLY ran Hanna Barbera this was still only a filler they'd air at 4AM.
-
@Robby said in Non-Disney animation thread:
THey could probably get something like Mummies Alive or Prince Valiant without too much hassle. Jem and Transformers are big ticket that would be harder to do.
Guess it's too much to hope for She-Ra then, huh?
-
They would certainly go after He-Man first if they had the option. Then She-Ra later if that did well for them. Unless She-Ra is way cheaper to license for some reason? But Netflix might have a lock on them currently anyway.
I dunno, at some point Hasbro probably stops caring about the toons that are 40 years old and figures them airing anywhere is basically free advertising and is better than just trying to sell the dvds to an audience that already has them by now.
Even so stuff like Inhumanoids and Visionaires is probably way cheaper to pick up even so... but they only hit 13 episodes. I dunno. The point is PROBABLY to air content people might conceivably want to see, so just being dirt cheap isn't enough.
-
I remember watching Wait Til Your Father Gets Home back in the 90's when Cartoon Network aired at 9:30 pm on Sunday nights. I remember really liking the show.
-
I wonder how much it would cost them to air Rainbow Brite. Probably don't have nearly enough to show Care Bears or the OG My Little Pony.
-
The real question is will they do nonsense like this.