Disney's movie based cartoons were not trying "too hard". But that isn't saying that they weren't trying "at all" either. While it's true that TV cartoons are made under a smaller budget (which is why I don't demand that they should look absolutely the same as their theatrical quality animation to be good), it is never a bad thing for cartoons to strive for looking the very best that they can under that budget. Just look at Gargoyles and you'll see my point. Also, I can't help but take offense of the term "cheapquels" now for Disney's direct-to-video work. I won't get into how good or bad people think the stories were, but it irritates me to always see fans accuse the sequels of having "bad animation", when in hindsight I don't think they ever really did in light of all the Flash styled TV cartoons you see today. From my perspective, all of Disney's direct-to-video sequels had better animation than these new Mickey shorts, even Return of Jafar. Heck, Return of Jafar as a whole had better animation than that one parody on Family Guy where Seth was trying to mock Disney for making sequels with "Aladdin 4: Jafar May Need Glasses" (not to mention that Jafar was actually Jafar and not voiced by some emotionless guy who's not even trying to get in character).disneyphilip wrote:Plus, even though some of the Disney animated shows of the 90's and early 2000's (particularly movie-based ones like Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules, Timon & Pumbaa, Lilo & Stitch, House of Mouse, etc.; plus the direct-to-video cheapquels), regardless of how good or bad they were, tried a little too hard to mimic the Disney animated feature style on smaller budgets (TV shows and direct-to-video productions are usually given small budgets to work with, compared to theatrical features and shorts). The characters would often look off-model, the colorings of the characters would often be inaccurate, etc.
So, things like the new Mickey Mouse do a better job on the smaller budgets. And the new Mickey shorts ARE well-drawn and their character designs ARE NOT crude in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
I'm sorry to disagree, but Mickey's new design is crude and not well-drawn. Forcing characters to look on-model should not mean that you should strip their designs down and cheapen them to such an extent that they can't even look as good as how they've always looked in animation before. All the old Warner Bros. animators had different drawing styles for Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, but the one thing they had in common was that they all drew the characters better than The Looney Tunes Show does. And when Tiny Toon Adventures made their own characters, they tried to be as good as that. My point is, if you're going to do Classic Mickey, he should look as good as this:
...any any artist should want him to.
But I don't know why I'm still sticking my nose into what you have to say about it when I'm supposed to be ignoring you and you could be doing the same. Please, just don't get on my case about it.
