>>93424395>Yeah, but it looks less awkward when it's done the old fashioned way. Digital just somehow looks cheaper than traditional ink & paint/paper-drawn animation when it takes such shortcuts.Sorry brah, but you're blinded by nostalgia, or some other mentality that boils down to "new = bad, old = good".
"The old fashioned way"? Please. Computers didn't tell an animation director to cut corners and make cheap animation. An executive from the animation department's budget committee told the animation director, "Make it fast, make it cheap, and make it good." and sent them on their way.
Since you can't have all 3, they get the first 2 and "good" becomes the dump stat that they forgo to meet the time/budget requirements set by the production company.
The only thing preventing industry animators from actually making good animation is budgets and deadlines, not the evil computers.
If you want proof, see this inspiring talk by Glen Keane (one of the greatest traditional animators of all time) using modern technology to further his study of animation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ftHVPJJ26IHe uses flash, tablets, and even consumer VR headsets to make quality animation. So don't try to blame shitty animation on computers; it's just not logical.
