This is the greatest day of my life.

The animation is still dogshit.

Is CokeLogic circa 2003 really worth 60k?

IDK, I didn't donate like a sucker, so I am not invested in the issue.

Tsst, it's cold out here, or sumpthin.

If there are 30,000 cartoons

STINKS WTF ARE YOU DOING TO MY HEAD?!

WE CAN'T POSSIBLY GET FIRED OPIE AND THE $60,000 FUGITIVE CONCEPT TEST IN THE SAME DAY.

Hooray! We will have to celebrate in the LES one day next week.

fucking Norton held on to it until this day and opened it like it was champagne

I don't know what world this is anymore

Jim "I'm not happy that this happened to the person who allowed me to sit here today" Norton is being a passive aggresive cunt.

Was Jimmy waiting for Opie to get fired before releasing the animation? Is this Jimmy doubling down joy on this sub? Will Chip address Tits firing on the next podacast? Stay tuned for all this and more sock cuckas.

He knows how we work. No matter what he releases he's going to catch shit for it from the "$60,000 fugitive" crowd, but if he releases it now any criticism isn't going to dominate the sub and gain enough traction to matter.

I don't give a shit about the chip cartoon either way but this is a slick move.

Oooooohhhhh, that Lil' Jimmy Norden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiHu_wmZT-o

Looks like poop. Anthony and a joke that Jimmy started back on 2004?

It actually looks like the poop I just took.

Oh hey I got a fan

Cool, 3 minutes of cartoon and a credits list longer than Avatar's.

Way better than the first effort.

Jim really needs to abandon the Chip cartoon already, the idea is fucking DOA. Nobody would go out of their way to watch this. It just barely appeals to O&A fans, it has negative mass appeal. To say nothing of Jim's complete lack of respect for animation in general.

the chippa works in mysterious ways my muddah always told me

I really think the energy should be in the podacast. It's fucking funny.

Most things based off the original concept suck ass. Chip on the radio is funny. We don't need a fucking cartoon or movie. It's like how they took SNL skits and made hour and a half movies out of them. Doesn't work.

If Jim really wanted to do something a little different with it, he should of just kept doing the Comicon interviews. Maybe interview celebrities.

Oof

Ok: THIS is better than the Chip show.

Animating the Podacast stuff is better: Chip was created on the fringes of off-the-cuff. It works better when you animate the spontaneous conversations.

I don't mind the animation being too static, because after all it's based around CONVERSATION anyway, which is inherently static-y and anti-movement (like everything Brendan Small has done). Even the switching of styles in-and-out works to a certain degree. Plus the limited movement of the character cycles can enhance the dialogue. The only thing I'd change is the program: Don't use Flash, use Toon Boom, and DONT USE "TWEENS"

just like the Ricky Gervais show

You round-headed little twat!

Home Movies is the best thing Small's ever done.

I played around with different visual styles but I didn't want to just use Photoshopped images or squigglevision, but I did throw it in at the start of this one because I loved Dr. Katz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQSyD7OZEOY

Everything was done in Toon Boom Harmony and 3Ds Max with a toon shader for backgrounds (because I found it easier/faster to test different angles and lenses without having to re-draw stuff). This was done many months ago and we did not have a visual or animation style nailed down. Jim was trying to test different things and see what the fans would like, but this time with fans creating the content.

I personally enjoy the static look except for the faces (South Park, Family Guy, Simpsons, Futurama) and key poses, but this was the first style where things were always moving (using tweening).

In the Chip Pranks one (based on my original Chip Pranks video, I stuck to mostly frame-by-frame animation combined with poorly drawn sections for flash-backs (it makes more sense in another project I was working on) with smoother facial animation which I think is less distracting and allows the focus to be on the scenes themselves and the audio since you don't have characters constantly moving. That allowed me to have way more scenes and locations rather than spending most of the time on drawing hands and animating limbs which don't necessarily add to the funny.

Lmao that Chip parent joke was gold.

Request with the current video: Ant looks like a normal person worthy of breeding in the animation. He needs to look more like a pock marked Tunisian with a drinking problem and a taste for 16yr old white trash.

I try making everything positive for the show so I didn't make anyone look bad.

Gay

Super gay

Hey dude, this video was good. How much did he give you for animating this video?

Not sure how much info should be getting out there, but suffice to say it was very affordable.

AKA highway robbery. Drawing some 5th grade doodles and getting PAID.

You can check out my channel for traditional drawings, 3D models, photography and video as well. Those would not work for this type of video, nor would it be worth it spending years on a 2 minute animation that a few thousand people would see. How would more background detail make it funnier?

There is no American cartoon series at the moment or any popular Youtube series at this time with complex visuals (only Anime has that or one-time high budget films). Things like Family Guy, The Simpsons, Bojack, etc. looks almost identical to cartoons from 20 years ago, and they use armies to make them.

The reasons for that are that more detail in no way helps with the humor. Most popular funny animations are stickman or slideshow level. It takes exponentially more time so releasing them at a constant rate would be impossible, and it's not financially sound as spending hundreds of hours for a 60 second spot to get 5 cents in ad revenue would not be worth anyone's time. At the end of the day, you have to know your audience and max 2 people would compliment anything good looking here but then shit on the budget, that the animation wasn't long enough, that there was only one location and no creativity involved, that it's just a remake of the actual studio, etc.

You're saying more detail wouldn't help with the humor. Why does whatever this is help with the humor then? What's the point of making an animation in the first place if you're not trying to have a good visual representation of whatever the audio is? You mention all those TV shows and obviously I wouldn't expect anybody to compete with that level of production, but if you're getting paid I do expect some sort of resemblance to a professional creation. Unless you were paid REALLY poorly then I guess I can't blame you...

It's possible Jim made a mistake in divvying up the cash into multiple projects when really he should have invested it in a single but more polished project. Because even you're saying here how you expect this to only get a couple thousand views. And I'm sure that when Jimmy first came up with this idea(with stars in his eyes) he was hoping for the viewer payoff to be a little bigger.

I gave an example of why things can't be on a certain level, not that it's impossible. My videos and photographs which are on par with any pro or 3D graphics which are arguably good would get no views, so it's not realistic to expect a funny web animation to use visuals that take 8+ hours per frame when historically, they add nothing to the amount of views or like it gets. To give you a more relatable example, Chip Dog took a few hours due to complex camera tracking but while I could have spent over 100+ hours on that to make sure the head tracking and masking are perfect, I instead made it "good enough" that everyone gets the idea and focuses on the audio I put together to match what's happening. It did well, almost 0 people complained that the head masking and tracking are not perfect in any shot!

However, Men on the moon took noticeably more time to make. I used fairly high quality pictures and Photochopped everything much nicer, I used a lot more layers, etc. and it did not help. It's less popular by several orders of magnitude and spending hundreds more hours on the visuals would not have changed that.

Imagine you have to work on something, someone is paying you, and you know that between "decent" visuals and "omg" visuals means 10 to 100x the man hours but you'll get the same likes/views/complaints regardless. Why would you as the artist or person paying for it want to spend 6-12 months of time and money on it? You would have no time or budget for anything else. Or, you can make a bunch of funny videos or content for people to enjoy. That's why 100% of big youtube channels use extremely plain graphics and I would never want Jim or anyone else to put all their eggs in one basket only to have all of us bitch about it for a year.

Have a look at the 3 animations so far or any show/movie, compare the content or jokes vs time/budget and you'll notice that regardless of art style or detail, things tend to get more static as the visuals get better because the more detail you have, the longer it takes to animate, do turn-arounds, facial expressions, shading, etc. and there is no ceiling to the amount of time or money it takes, but there is a cost/benefit ratio which is good to keep in mind and the fact that 99% of comments will be negative even when most people enjoy something.

Chip Dog is really good stuff. But it's not comparable because you are using an already existing commercial-ready template and just adding in a face on the toy as opposed to starting out on a fresh canvas which is what the chip cartoons are. And on many occasions time invested in a project doesn't necessarily mean it was used efficiently. I am sure there are talented people out there who could make something more visually appealing than the Men On The Moon stuff you did within the same time frame, same resources. Not to diss you, in that particular case you were probably just fucking around too.

When it comes to getting views it's never cut and dry. Usually it depends on many variables as something has to click with the audience for them to spread it. I do believe however that a higher quality product on an aesthetic level has a better chance of achieving that result. But the youtubers that get a lot views usually do so because of their consistent uploads and a built up subscriber base. Like you linked a Rooster Teeth video and they have a huge fanbase that derives from various other avenues(I think it was them who did the whole Halo - Red vs. Blue thing? That was some quality stuff).

I rather Jim put his eggs in one basket and make one good thing than 5 mediocre ones. Yes there is a chance people would shit on it anyway, but does that mean he should never take chances now and settle with mediocrity? I think Jim knows that we are brutal but we also give credit where its due and if something is truly great his fans WILL recognize that and praise it.

I think that could definitely happen, but from a technical standpoint, you will see that frame-by-frame at a high detail level or with complex shading is extremely expensive and time-consuming. Maybe the perspective isn't there, by expensive and time-consuming I mean half a million dollars or more (for a "from scratch" job, not like another episode of the Simpsons where you have thousands of graphics already) for a quick episode and dozens of employees. That is not within Jim's original budget and especially not within his current one. Outside of that, many people could definitely make nice static images, hand drawn, 2d or 3d (example), including myself )example) but to animate those, meaning to draw them or parts of them hundreds of times in various poses or angles, would take years for a single person, so even getting paid minimum wage, it would go way over budget and just not be practical, that's why no one does it.

I personally think art style/drawing styles make sense (see Cokelogic's style) and makes a big difference, but I love stuff like Attack on Titan. That thing has a big budget and still has half the episodes as last season while being mostly a slideshow! There are reasons for that, and it's not because the artists can't do better, it would just take too much time/money to make it worth it.

Anyway, stick around, it sounds like others may try their hand at this and we'll see what works best with Chip animations.

$60,000 Smackarooos Fawk Yeah

$60,000 Fawkin Smackarooos

$594 a second.

$594 a second.

I wish!

animation wasnt good

This animation is worse than stinksskc and his Steve Perry haircut.

But it's still nowhere near as bad as his shitty band

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKpQljw6dd0 Please I made this account after the chocolates episode because as I lingered I noticed an unacknowledged part of the show. They knocked the chocolates out of carls hand because not 8 minutes beforehand carl explained how he was blackballed from his local masonic lodge. They knocked the chocolates out of his hand because he was going to get himself killed for making jokes. Notice he war a shirt that says pepe on it on the dumpster fire episode,

Jim norton is advocating violence and masonic terrorism via guillotine forshadowing. he has mentioned beheading like how opie says "pew pew" they are all masons sirius is the blazing star sirius is a masonic word.

Jim can not be known as an upfront guy he wants deanonymization and most likely is a masonic blackmail pedophile.

Just think what is the humor iin mentioning decapitation repeatedly for years?

Sir, I want you to bite onto this leather belt. You're having an autistic fit.

try to not believe it. jim is such a wormy guy you will start to understand. i literally explains everything wrong with jim he is a mason and wants to be known as an edgy guy he is stuck trying to be accepted by the masses while pandering to the elite

Other videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.

Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox

Chips expressions look suspiciously like Master Shake's. Parallel animating, I guess.

First he rips off the fans - now he rips off Ricky Gervais. Who's he gonna rip off next...?

Tss yeah maybe he'll rip his pants or somethin'

Somewhere CokeLogic is sitting in a dark room with a gun in his mouth.

Can you read? Cokelogic didn't do this shitty new animation. He did the other shitty new animation.

If he's going to do something like this, then do Edgar and Uncle Paul.

Anthony Cumia does not look like that, sir

Totally worth $60,000 LOL

still unfunny and terrible animation

you will one day realise that jim norton deserves the same fate as tits and count cumia

yes people are praising this

now go plunge an entire bundle

get on subs already

Yeah its better than story driven chip cartoon, but what doesn't make sense about it is that the "characters" in this are also laughing/in on the bit so to speak since its taken from real podcast audio. So it kinda eliminates any realism at all. I think thats why on the gervais thing theyd always cut back to the guys around the radio table talking on mic. That just makes more sense.

I did like the name if every trucker from here 2 timbuktu listed at the end tho

You get better animation with GoAnimate!

I hate to shit on anyone's hard work but that was really bad. I mean, I guess it would be impressive if your friend showed you and said they made it. A lot of money went into this, and it's not apparent.

Is this great art? Or this or This or This or This ?

No, it's not great art. However, it's actually animated in full. You're arguing the opposite of what I said. The drawing itself is perfectly fine, it's when Anthony's mouth randomly moves because the guy was too anxious to stop and match his lips.

The comparison to Home Movies doesn't make sense because shows like that are actually hyper animated, the edges are moving the entire time because they re-draw it for every frame. This Chip cartoon is just layers of a decent drawing but not moving.

yes people are praising this

now go plunge an entire bundle