Here is a scene from a Clampett cartoon that has a "realistic" man in it and for some reason I find it hilarious.
Just because it's such a wrong thing to do and Clampett did it anyway and made the animator move the head in every impossible angle.
Human heads just do not look very appealing from every angle, but they sure are funny.
This scene really demonstrates the difference between the Warner Bros. cartoon entertainment philosophy and Disney's.
The characters in Disney cartoons are very idealized- realistic man type characters are either good or evil, "comedy characters" are grumpy or they have drippy noses or they are stylized fruitcakes.
The men in Disney cartoons are not anybody you can relate to and they don't act at all like actual men.
This guy is like an actual guy. He looks like someone you can sit down and have a smoke with, watch Ultimate Fighting and tell dirty jokes.He is a regular guy with sleaze written all over him, like all us guys. It's not hard to imagine a guy like this being a Dad. Foghorn Leghorn would be a good Dad too. He'll slip you a small glass of beer when Mom's not looking.
LOOK AT MAN.
Here's a typical Disney man to compare with.
He's made up of animation principles instead of flesh, blood and guts.
Warner Bros. cartoons are street-wise. They look at life with a realistic point of view. They take the same animation principles and use them to make fun of the real world.
For Disney, it seems just having the principles is enough. The cartoons don't reflect any acute observations of humanity.
Who do you think would be more laughs to hang out with, this guy or the Clampett man?Look at thing.
2 ways to animate acting and lip synch
While you are making comparisons, look at the 2 different approaches to drawing lip-synch. The Disney animation seems to completely ignore the dialogue track and rely on formula squash and stretch.Some cartoon men that probably wouldn't be much fun to hang around with
