This is amazing! It looks just like live action! I think although people are saying it's not realistic, I belive the problem is that it looks TOO realistic!
Perhaps similar to the way animation from rotoscoped live action tends to feel weightless? Early Max Fleischer and other animated studios traced over live actors either as a stylistic choice (in the case of Gulliver) and often times for budget: even Disney's Snow White included rotoscoped segments, mostly with the Prince, although much of that was re-animated by hand for the theatrical re-releases in the 1940s since they were unhappy with the results, so good luck finding it. As Brad Bird paraphrased many a great animator, the purpose of animation is not to recreate life, but to distill it, finding only the essence of what gives something life and personality, and discarding the elements that don't tell the story.
Most of the criticisms I'm seeing here (stronger anticipations, arcs, weight, timing, etc.) aren't problematic.... in the world of live action. Live action isn't always clear, and life, unlike fiction, doesn't always have meaning or purpose. One of the 12 principles of animation, appeal, can be applied to the other 11 principles. How does each principle (each pose, each movement, each frame) tell the audience something in a broad, clear manner?
This is kind of vague theoretical stuff, but something I enjoy thinking about, and something that each of us approach differently which is what gives us our own unique voices.
I suppose if I had to pick one thing to focus on, I would say clear, strong anticipation poses, and strong follow through. The action itself can go by in a whiz, because it's what happens before the action and after that really tell us what happened.
Excellent work, keep it up!
Last edited by thistof (March 24, 2017 (01:44am))
Regardless, I've never heard of this other stuff you brought to light. I'll have to check it out. 
