Quote from stickmad102

i like realism but its boring if u use it in a fight like "bleeds from 1 punch" in most stickmen fights theres a LOAD of punches! (no blood)

what are you talking about.

Realism isn't necesarry.

Why do you say that?

Realism defines quality to me. But it usually depends on how the actual animation is created cause it could be lacking in realism, but be animated incredible well, meaning the motions and all that are perfect, but the characters are basically poo.

idiots .

Bongo, you would be right if we weren't talking about amateur animation.

u should only use realism if its needed otherwise its....boring!

Quote from Bonk

Bongo, you would be right if we weren't talking about amateur animation.

Well then have fun remaining "amateur".

We do. That's why we're all here. If only those of us who wanted to pursue a career bothered to animate then the pivot section would be completely empty and the flash section would only have one or two.

That aside, most profesionally animated things aren't entirely realistic. Take Shrek for example. Or the Simpsons. They're very entertaining animations without realism. Admitedly, most animations on television are choppy, uneased, stiff, pieces of crap in technical terms, but even if we were to limit our examples to disney films which tended to go in for high quality we would find dragons and talking animals and magic.

Quote from Zed

That aside, most profesionally animated things aren't entirely realistic. Take Shrek for example. Or the Simpsons. They're very entertaining animations without realism.

...

Look at the actual animation of Shrek. They move realistically. Just because the PICTURES are not based on real life events or creatures doesn't mean they can't be ANIMATED realistically or based off real life actions. Same goes for The Simpsons, does Homer walk like a giraffe? No. The actual content and images of an animation are what you play around with. You don't ordinarily play around with the animation unless specifically set out to do so. (e.g, a scene with 0 gravity)

You're a complete moron.

Quote from Bongoe

You don't ordinarily play around with the animation unless specifically set out to do so.

And therein lies my point explaining why realism is example.

Guess Zed's horrible example wasn't all for not.

Quote from Bongoe

Well then have fun remaining "amateur".

Have you ever heard of a "hobby"?

Quote from Bongoe

...

Look at the actual animation of Shrek. They move realistically. Just because the PICTURES are not based on real life events or creatures doesn't mean they can't be ANIMATED realistically or based off real life actions. Same goes for The Simpsons, does Homer walk like a giraffe? No. The actual content and images of an animation are what you play around with. You don't ordinarily play around with the animation unless specifically set out to do so. (e.g, a scene with 0 gravity)

You're a complete moron.

You're completely ignoring my point. I made the thread, I'll decide what I'm questioning thank you very much. Realism doesn't just mean that each individual movement is realistic, it refers to the entire animation, and that includes the pictures.

I would also like to point out that if Homer were to walk like a giraffe I think that would be a quality animation. Making people walk like animals isn't easy - the physiology is different - although in terms of the story it would need to be explained at some point.

Thirdly, I think it is incredibly difficult, nay, impossible to realistically animate something that doesn't exist such as a dragon. It is an inherant contradiction in terms. Who are you to say that realistically a dragon moves just like a large lizard? I believe that dragons moved by laying on their backs and walking on their wings with their legs pawing uslessly at the air in the manner of doggy paddle. Therefore the movements in Shrek are unrealistic.

Quote from Zed

You're completely ignoring my point. I made the thread, I'll decide what I'm questioning thank you very much. Realism doesn't just mean that each individual movement is realistic, it refers to the entire animation, and that includes the pictures.

I would also like to point out that if Homer were to walk like a giraffe I think that would be a quality animation. Making people walk like animals isn't easy - the physiology is different - although in terms of the story it would need to be explained at some point.

Thirdly, I think it is incredibly difficult, nay, impossible to realistically animate something that doesn't exist such as a dragon. It is an inherant contradiction in terms. Who are you to say that realistically a dragon moves just like a large lizard? I believe that dragons moved by laying on their backs and walking on their wings with their legs pawing uslessly at the air in the manner of doggy paddle. Therefore the movements in Shrek are unrealistic.

what .