2D animation (especially for the FX) are made with... TVPaint
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Agreed.slowtiger wrote:No, this is worse than nothing.
Sure they can be all that and they can be 3D, but both cases are destructive to the spirit of the Peanuts strips and books. Simple, graphic characters can be vandalized by the overdone, stupid squash & stretch gimmickry at every move. Simple graphics are often best when left to simple, dead pan animation, which was the appropriate approach the Melendez studio took at the time they took it.Simple, graphic characters CAN be animated in full animation , with a lively inked line and full use of all the principles of animation such as anticipation, squash & stretch , and overlapping action, etc.
Yep, Flash... and many little hands hidden in the shadow to close lines, re-do colors several times to have an interesting rendering.slowtiger wrote:But I expect this to change because of Ernest and Celestine, which uses a similar "broken" line approach still on a budget (with Flash!), and the next movie of that kind will be in TVP.
and to be more succinct, enough hard working animators with real drawing skills.but my guess is that they couldn't find enough animators to handle this style well enough,
It has nothing to do with that : I met many talented animators, young and old ones, who are stuck in cut-out and 3D productions.Paul Fierlinger wrote: but my guess is that they couldn't find enough animators to handle this style well enough,
and to be more succinct, enough hard working animators with real drawing skills.
Not only with Flash. Many companies involved in the film (like Digital Graphics in Belgium) have some TVPaint licenses to "save their life on tricky retouch situations", as they told me.But I expect this to change because of Ernest and Celestine, which uses a similar "broken" line approach still on a budget (with Flash!), and the next movie of that kind will be in TVPaint.