You noticed sometimes shows the animated cartoon, which were until the 1950s, probably more life and hyperbole? For example, that sometimes a comparison of the Looney Tunes cartoon from the forties to the sixties comics?
Did you know that before you begin, if you're interested, why Google, sit back, relax and take a look at two of the cartoons and video below. See if you can point out something more about them, of course, you don't have to control it is e. but if you can, for fun, take a peak.
The first video is a cartoon of the Looney Tunes Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd, my work called the duck or duck. A short film was produced by Warner Bros., which was released theatrically in 1943. Yes, thats correct, 1943.
The second Concerto is a cartoon I, without help, which premiered on the ABC television network in 1960. Yes, once again in 1960.
So go ahead, don't be afraid to try it, take a look and I'll come later. Trust me, I'll be right back.
OK, so any differences? Yes? Of course! But for fun, let's assume that you are not.
Even when looking at the two videos it is striking that the Looney Tunes animation seems much more fluent and exciting. Personally, I was drawn by the movement of the animation. Where as, I don't have little or no movement of animation portrayed in everything. In fact, I was very angry and continuous isolation of head bobbing.
He was a constant reminder to go to work, see Bobblehead bobbing up and down in the corner of the eye in the control panel. Honestly, I can't believe that was considered a form of animation. But, Hey, I think it falls under the same idea of Taylor Swift, country artist.
So why go back? Why is more appealing than a comics cartoon 1943 1960? (And even some of the cartoons today).
Simple, ready for this?
Back in the 1940s and even before the 1940s cartoons called "theatrical cartoon shorts". These drawings were originally released to theatres and theatre only. Were considered side shows or previews to debut live-action film. Most cartoon shorts were only about 5-7 minutes long, so why they ' short '.
But the key to why these cartoon shorts were much more attractive than the first TV cartoon has been caused by a couple of things.
For the first time, on average, about theatrical cartoon shorts, 10-13 produced per year, showing the Studio, each caricature is long, just a few minutes. However, the studio produced for cartoon shows, a new show every week, with a total length of approximately 20 minutes.
Of course, effectively making 20 minutes show each week, the quality of the animation had to be often times the animation cells or background would be reused several times in different programs. (I noticed much.)
Animators and animation studio, the process was very entertaining, challenging and exciting. But in terms of networks, not one, if the animation has been good or bad. The only thing that mattered to them.
But wait ... Is more ...
Animation for the TV network received a much smaller budgets. In the early 1950s, the Studio reached approximately $ 2500-$ 3000 to produce a cartoon for 20 minutes. Sounds like a lot? Well, while you compare costs made the worlds first Erotic cartoon Technicolor flowers and trees (1932), which shows 27 Pulled $ 500 with a run time of 8 minutes.
To be honest I can't even imagine, cartoon animation, 20 minutes for only $ 3000 in cutting the fat. However, if being pushed to the brink of the party; There are only two options, or scroll your way down. Fortunately, these animators and animation studies found a way to push his way back to the business of cartoon animation. Otherwise we'd all be stuck here, "desperate Housewives" and Days of Our Lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment