the "sludgy" animation style from Heavy Metal
| "'''""""'"' | 06/07/25 | | ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,. | 06/07/25 | | "'''""""'"' | 06/07/25 | | .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,.. | 06/07/25 | | .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,.. | 06/07/25 | | .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,.. | 06/07/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 7th, 2025 4:41 AM Author: "'''""""'"'
slow and fluidic, color-rich and deeply shaded object outlines
impressions of bleary-eyed late night television viewing. still very entertaining to watch today
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5734512&forum_id=2#48994101) |
 |
Date: June 7th, 2025 5:27 AM
Author: ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,.
there is something about pre-digital cartoons which is almost more 'real' in presentation than post-digital ones, since hand-drawn cartoons almost always had static matte-style backgrounds or 'skyboxes.' they looked surreal or fake, but this meant that the presentation as a whole was more coherent, since we knew it was a cartoon with a particular look.
CGI allows for failed attempts at creating 'immersive' and 'living' backgrounds, which have not yet succeeded, and which - in their falsity - actually seem odder and faker than cartoons with obvious interruptions of reality like a static background. that's because a static background is single element, while a dynamic background keeps accumulating small failures all the time, which is more jarring.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5734512&forum_id=2#48994109) |
 |
Date: June 7th, 2025 5:46 AM Author: .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,..
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5734512&forum_id=2#48994120) |
 |
Date: June 7th, 2025 5:46 AM Author: .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,..
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5734512&forum_id=2#48994119) |
Date: June 7th, 2025 5:46 AM Author: .,,.,.,,.,..,.,.,..
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5734512&forum_id=2#48994121) |
|
|