I enjoyed the sharp contrast in "Earl Scouts" between the CGI animation at the beginning and the 2D Flash(?) animation for most of the short.
Some of the critiques of "Cloudy 2" (those that are real critiques rather than reviews) have praised its very loose animation style in comparison with the "as realistic as possible" style of Pixar's, Blue Sky's, Animal Logic's, and most other CGI studios' styles of animation. One, I think Amid Amidi again, said that it looked like Sony Pictures Animation is trying to keep the old tradition of humorous 1940s and '50s cartoon shorts and directors like Tex Avery and Bob Clampett alive in CGI, while the other studios are using CGI to make their movies look as close to live-action as they can. I don't agree with that completely -- Universal's Illumination Entertainment's "Despicable Me" is pretty "cartoony" -- but there is a lot of truth in the contrast.
I enjoyed the sharp contrast in "Earl Scouts" between the CGI animation at the beginning and the 2D Flash(?) animation for most of the short.
Some of the critiques of "Cloudy 2" (those that are real critiques rather than reviews) have praised its very loose animation style in comparison with the "as realistic as possible" style of Pixar's, Blue Sky's, Animal Logic's, and most other CGI studios' styles of animation. One, I think Amid Amidi again, said that it looked like Sony Pictures Animation is trying to keep the old tradition of humorous 1940s and '50s cartoon shorts and directors like Tex Avery and Bob Clampett alive in CGI, while the other studios are using CGI to make their movies look as close to live-action as they can. I don't agree with that completely -- Universal's Illumination Entertainment's "Despicable Me" is pretty "cartoony" -- but there is a lot of truth in the contrast.
Fred Patten