pferreira1983 wrote:I just feel animation should be entertaining
And as I said before, you don't need highly-detailed character designs for it to be entertaining, having highly-detailed animation is not a guarantee it'll be an entertaining show.
pferreira1983 wrote:there's no excuse for also not adding detail to characters you're drawing. It seems like the lazy thing to do today unfortunately.
I can think of a few:
1) Cartoons for children are often designed with a simplified style to make them more appealing, more eye-catching to young viewers. They may even have designed them to look more simplified in the hope that children may try to draw their favourite characters.
This also has an added bonus, that it can make it easier to produce toys of the characters, less tooling on the figures will result in them being cheaper to mass-produce.
2) The animators will have their own particular preference for the style of their work (as has been touched on in previous posts), in previous decades, animators may've been forced to work to a particular style, but nowadays there's a lot more flexibility and freedom. You may feel this is an expansion of "laziness" (although I'll suggest that argument is just as... uninformed as remarks I've seen about CGI animation and elements being "easy" to produce over older, traditional animated elements, it may seem easier and laziness only because the person making those remarks only has a passing knowledge, or no real knowledge of how that industry works), but if anything it's an expansion of originality and creativity. Sure, not all animation styles are our cup of tea, but it's great that animators can work in a style they're comfortable with rather than a "standard design" that they don't feel comfortable with.
3) Animation that is still predominately hand-drawn has to have a degree of simplification in order for it to be achieved in a timely manner and for it to not cause any long-term health issues with the people drawing it. A television series is going to have different staffing levels to an animated motion picture, that's why you rarely see television series with the quality of classic Disney (even Disney's official television spinoffs of some of their movies...
Aladdin,
Lilo & Stitch,
Hercules look poorer in quality than the films they were based on, the shows likely had smaller budgets and a combination of smaller/cheaper animation teams).
It's likely why the equipment in
The Real Ghostbusters and
Extreme Ghostbusters were reduced to primary blocky shapes, with few wires or hoses hanging off of them: easier to draw, draw and redraw, while maintaining the overall characteristics we're familiar with.
pferreira1983 wrote:Oh yes I do. She changed Belle from being a book fan to being an inventor...
She'll still be a book reader, even if she's got an interest in inventions (I have seen a clip from the new film's Library scene, but yet to see the inventor change). Even so, it doesn't seem an unnatural change to perhaps give her some interested interest from her inventor father.
pferreira1983 wrote:because Watson being the paranoid feminist she is thought that Belle liking books was sexist so she had it changed.
There's only one thing I'm seeing here in this topic that's acting paranoid, and it isn't Emma Watson.
pferreira1983 wrote:We've seen what feminism can do to movies we love
Beyond
Ghostbusters 2016 and
Beauty and the Beast 2017, please do enlighten me. I would also be interested to know your feelings on say, religious pressure on motion pictures.
pferreira1983 wrote:the fact that a lot of feminist ideology is quite frankly either racist or destructive is why some of us on here bring it up.
"Racist", and a catch-all "destructive", convenient argument talking points that ultimately don't really reveal anything.
pferreira1983 wrote:No trust me it really isn't.
It is, you might've been burned by Emma Watson and your own feelings on feminism, but there are plenty of good examples of actors getting to flesh out their characters: William Hartnell as the first Doctor (and presumably most actors who've played the role since then as well), Viggo Mortensen (who decided to carry a whet stone in his gear as Aragorn even though it never appeared on-screen), Indiana Jones shooting the sword guy in
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jones's "I don't care!" in
The Fugitive, Paxton's "Game over man!" in
Aliens (I acknowledge these are more improve than script-work - my Google Fu was proving tricky to find script examples), some of the best stuff we've seen in Hollywood that wasn't originally planned came from the actors' improvements or influence, even Murray, for all his frustrating personality quirks, helped flesh out Venkman beyond the script page. Some are divas when they do it sure, but not all of them, and not every change motivated by a feeling of feminism is immediately a bad one.
pferreira1983 wrote:Here's my question: why fix what ain't broke just to prove you're a feminist?
She may've genuinely felt the character need to be fleshed out a bit more, the current version of Disney may have also agreed with her, seeing as they went with the decision rather than sticking with how the script was originally written.