I could be the only person who noticed it, or the only person who hasn't noticed it until just now. Has anyone ever noticed in the cartoon Ed Edd and Eddy, that the shadows under all the characters, shows up when they walk around and stuff, but magically vanishes whenever they stop. Is this normal in most cartoons? I've never noticed it until just now when I had the TV muted and I was focused more on the details then what they were saying.
Originally Posted by Tim, the cat. Example please Personally I HATE that show, so I wouldn't of noticed ;_; The funniest thing in it is 'plank' ... and that's ollllld now.
If you re-read what I said, you'll understand it. Seeing as you want me to spell it out though, I guess I will.
Under all the characters, when they move around, there is a shadow underneath them. Okay? We know what a shadow is? The dark spot created when light is obscured by an object and doesn't make it to the surface we're looking at. Okay. Now look at this shadow, and notice that for the most part, it only shows up when characters are moving around. As soon as they stand still, this shadow vanishes.
What I find fascinatingly strange about this, is that it doesn't seem to be a once or twice rare thing. On many occasions, especially on the object I was watching, it was very often and actually happened every single time. The smallest movement, a single step.. and a shadow appeared, and as soon as the step was over, it vanished. A split second shadow was all. Which leaves me to my question. Has anyone else noticed this? And why would they do it. Ironic that it would be done on moving objects and not static. Seeing as moving objects would require shifts in the shadow to keep up, while a static shadow is just there. So the resulting pattern is actually opposite of what you'd expect. Curious.
I think it's pretty easy to see what you meant I just think Tim wanted to see it for himself? It really helps if you post an example to backup your discussion, otherwise people probably won't be that bothered, or bother to go and see it for themselves on youtube
Yeah.. I understood it all perfectly - I just wanted you to include a youtube video because I'm too lazy / proud to search 'ed edd and eddy' in youtube .. lol soz
I'm lazy, so I give you a simple theory.. maybe it's because you can't see them jumping or moving without the shadows? Try and take away the shadows when you look at it.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Lol, mr. pink, I think the entertainment industry cares less about wasting a tiny bit of money than any other industry in the world. Most movies spend a lot of money on tiny bits like making the swords out of steel instead of aluminium or giving actors bodybuilding lessons. All those actors who get paid thousands per episode, something like shadows is nothing.
It's probably skill or speed. I remember how the Powerpuff Girls and Kim Possible had a lot more detail after their movies came out. Before that, Kim Possible was like one of the laziest drawn cartoons ever.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
you need to understand most cartoons have a limited budget. they are no where near other forms of media like network shows and movies. they have more detail after movies cause of all the income from it.
listen to the commentary on the invader zim dvds. they had problems with their budget when they wanted to do CG. they blew a bunch of their seasons CG budget when they did a whole episode almost entirely in CG. they could barely do anything in CG after that because of it.
you also have to realize that the old ed edd n eddy was YEARS ago. there's been a drastic change in animation on that show with the new stuff and in cartoons in general. its much more well done, although the show itself has deteriorated.
Lol, but CG seems to cost a fortune these days. I think some of the most expensive ads and music videos were done almost entirely in CG, costing almost more than the real stuff. I'm kinda regretting I didn't take Multimedia
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
It was certainly a lot more surreal back then. I really like some of the early Disney's from the 50's-60's. The background art in films like Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella and 101 Dalmations I love.
Fuck yes! That's quality. None of these machines taking care of the work. I actually WANT my hands to bleed because I actually WANT to care about my job. This is not sarcasm. I love old animation. Fuck Brother Bear. Gimmie Snow White any day.
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
Actually no, Brother Bear has a brilliant story line, with a great twist, in all fairness. My mother was in tears at the end of that film. Although the human characters look crap, the bear designs are actually pretty well done IMO.
Originally Posted by -Mr. Sneeze- Actually no, Brother Bear has a brilliant story line, with a great twist, in all fairness. My mother was in tears at the end of that film. Although the human characters look crap, the bear designs are actually pretty well done IMO.
I thought it was lame. Too muchothat fancy newish animation.
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
Yeah, the sequels are quite lame and cheaply made, but Brother Bear is no way lame. The quality of animation is easily on a par with that of the Lion King.
I don't half like old animation. Didn't really care for it 'til me and Caroline visited Disney Land. I developed a real appreciation for that style. Ruddy new kids with all their digital colourings. ****s!
Originally Posted by -Mr. Sneeze- Actually no, Brother Bear has a brilliant story line, with a great twist, in all fairness. My mother was in tears at the end of that film. Although the human characters look crap, the bear designs are actually pretty well done IMO.
I thought it was lame. Too muchothat fancy newish animation.
To this day, I will defend to my last breath that Brother Bear is the last good movie Disney ever made. Especially in terms of holding up to what they were initially best known for, beautiful animation. That movie is my favorite non-Pixar movie to date. I refuse to watch the sequel to Brother Bear, because of how disappointed I always am with Disney's sequals. Atlantis, Lion King, Brother Bear, all of these movies are beautiful, but the sequels ruined them.
I agree though, after watching over an hours worth of old Mickey Mouse and Pluto last night, the animation back then felt so much less artificial. Like they truly did put their heart into making it, as opposed to using it as one of many genres to base their pitched idea on.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Is this normal in most cartoons? I've never noticed it until just now when I had the TV muted and I was focused more on the details then what they were saying. 
Personally I HATE that show, so I wouldn't of noticed ;_; The funniest thing in it is 'plank' ... and that's ollllld now.
Edited by the Author.
