Here's a great example of funny opposing poses from Roger Ramjet:
Here's what I mean by opposing poses:
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/11/composition-7-compose-your-poses.html
The animator added a lot to the already funny dialogue track by drawing funny poses of the characters.
The poses aren't funny arbitrarily either. They are in context of the scene.
Roger Ramjet proves that having a severely low budget doesn't mean you have to have boring unfunny drawings. It just means you can't afford inbetweens. Many producers today believe that whoever can afford the most inbetweens has the best cartoon. So they'll have a lot of boring bland drawings moving smoothly into the next boring bland drawings. When I watch a cartoon, or even an animated feature, instead of marveling at how smooth some animation is, I ask whether the actual expressions and poses are actually original or entertaining. (I actually don't ask anything...I just twitch around in my seat when I see the same old expressions and unnatural "animation gestures" for the thousandth time)If the acting is entertaining and smooth as in an old Warner's cartoon, then that's the best of both worlds! But we can't always afford that. I'd settle at least for some funny expressive drawings in TV cartoons. That would be a start!
Smoothness costs money. Talent is rarer but cheaper if you allow the talent to do what they are capable of.
If you had to choose between smooth motion of stiff drawings
and funny drawings with character, which would you choose? I'm sure some will choose fully animated in any case, right?I love animation, but I want drawings that would be worth the trouble of moving them.