greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info
greydelisle: Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle Whoever made this…THANKS!!!! The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…
Zoom Info

greydelisle:

Voice Actress - Grey DeLisle

Whoever made this…THANKS!!!!

The picture of Frankie comes from a porn animation…in which they took samples of the characters voice in the show and made it sound like she was having sex…

(via hesawitonthetelevision)

Source: bigpapayogi

thereblogged:

So the news is out… the show I’ve been Art Directing at GURU is finally online!  Enjoy!

OK I really have no desire to get into the dolls of this franchise cause they don’t interest me the same way Monster High does….BUT this cartoon made me laugh a few times.

There is something remarkably 80’s about it in that Mattel just told these guys to make a cartoon about these girls to sell toys, and look at the universe around them they made. It’s stunning. The troll under the bridge, the three little pigs, there is just a lot to enjoy in the potential of what they’re building here.  And it really doesn’t come off TOO juvenile the same way you feel when watching a lot of modern movies (like Epic or The Croods).

I get a very different vibe with cartoons then I feel like when I watch horrible shows from the 80’s. It really feels like they’re allowed to have fun with it, despite how ‘limited’ the animation is (limited here meaning that they’re using very stiff models for the humans).  In the end if the staff who’s working on the show enjoys what they’re doing, it’ll always reflect that energy in the cartoon, and if they’re happy animators who’s to say that ‘non creator based cartoons’ are a bad thing?

My Little Pony was a good show until Hasbro started to take away creative control from the cartoonists, and force in their weird ideas.

Anyway good job, Mattel animators. You make gold with what you’re given.

(via pelicaneggs)

Source: thereblogged

nikoanesti:

michaeljruocco:

cailencrow:

titodelcuba:

whethervane:

ask-ktb-and-the-twins:

candycaneforest-lurker:

HEAVY BREATHING

((I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO RIGHT NOW I’M LOSING IT))

HOLY SHIT

WHEEZES

King Candy is my favorite Disney

Neat stuff!

Incredible! King Candy had the best personality and voice to go with it, but man does it look awesome with 2D animation. Wreck-It Ralph is one of the few films where I think, “Okay, I can see why they would choose 3D over 2D for this,” but man, I still wish the whole thing had been 2D instead.
And then Disney gutted the 2D department…

And then Disney gutted the 2D department…

(via fungasm)

Source: candycaneforest-lurker

I think i just noticed something about this gif set. 1st off, I thought it was so weird for her to say ‘Okey Dokey’, but then I accepted that that’s what makes it funny… Then I looked again. Her lip animation movements are the same for ‘Yes we Do’ as for ‘Okey Dokey’. So someone over there said, rather then pay for new animation just we’ll say something that fits the animation we already have. Saves money and that’s what makes it funny.
Zoom Info
I think i just noticed something about this gif set. 1st off, I thought it was so weird for her to say ‘Okey Dokey’, but then I accepted that that’s what makes it funny… Then I looked again. Her lip animation movements are the same for ‘Yes we Do’ as for ‘Okey Dokey’. So someone over there said, rather then pay for new animation just we’ll say something that fits the animation we already have. Saves money and that’s what makes it funny.
Zoom Info
I think i just noticed something about this gif set. 1st off, I thought it was so weird for her to say ‘Okey Dokey’, but then I accepted that that’s what makes it funny… Then I looked again. Her lip animation movements are the same for ‘Yes we Do’ as for ‘Okey Dokey’. So someone over there said, rather then pay for new animation just we’ll say something that fits the animation we already have. Saves money and that’s what makes it funny.
Zoom Info
I think i just noticed something about this gif set. 1st off, I thought it was so weird for her to say ‘Okey Dokey’, but then I accepted that that’s what makes it funny… Then I looked again. Her lip animation movements are the same for ‘Yes we Do’ as for ‘Okey Dokey’. So someone over there said, rather then pay for new animation just we’ll say something that fits the animation we already have. Saves money and that’s what makes it funny.
Zoom Info

I think i just noticed something about this gif set. 1st off, I thought it was so weird for her to say ‘Okey Dokey’, but then I accepted that that’s what makes it funny… Then I looked again. Her lip animation movements are the same for ‘Yes we Do’ as for ‘Okey Dokey’. So someone over there said, rather then pay for new animation just we’ll say something that fits the animation we already have. Saves money and that’s what makes it funny.

(via astropolice)

Source: bramzambies

localshoppe: anniemae04: doodlecrackstar: Again, hands, mouth, teeth. *turns into a puddle* I have to wonder if some of the people who work on CGI films thing that doing some of these expressions would be funner and easier to do by hand? I guess techology has allowed less glitches in CGI models so they CAN squash and stretch like this. But I’m looking at it like…it just seems easier to draw some of this stuff. i think that’s the first time i’ve ever heard anyone post that it would be easier to draw in flat animation than make a particular thing in cg. most people think that making a cg film is some kind of shortcut for lazy studios to churn out films. both processes are incredibly challenging and lazily produced films exist in both 2D and 3D, but wreck it ralph.. a TON of work went into it, and making king candy move like this was not easy, and thats all the more impressive. Well I say that cause there is this feeling that some people prefer animating with computers is fixing so many problems that traditional animation had. Things like 360 camera movements, long drawn back cameras, oddly placed lighting. These are all things that FILM Makers use all the time, and so when these directors come into making animation, they’re given a paper, pencils and ink, they don’t know what to do. So to them makeing a film with CGI just seems much easier, they can make a film look like their live action films. But it’s the animators them selves who have to learn how to get the ‘puppets’ to move the way they did when they were hand drawn. “Oh Look I drew this great expression on paper…I’d love for the character to have the same face…now how long is my computer going to process before that face looks like how I’ve drawn it.” Terry Gilliam was an animator who moved to Live Action films and he did his best to frame his films like how he would’ve drawn them.  This is by no means dissing Wreck-it-Ralph for being a CGI film, in a way it works better then it could’ve been if NOT cgi. It just seems like they might’ve either been working harder or doing things unnecessarily harder (ala Paperman too). How ever this film was done ahead of schedule I heard, so the people working on it enjoyed themselves a lot and their hard work and attention to details came out so wonderfully. Even if you don’t love the movie’s plot and how they handled the story, it’s the attention to detail that makes it so much more enjoyable.
Zoom Info
localshoppe: anniemae04: doodlecrackstar: Again, hands, mouth, teeth. *turns into a puddle* I have to wonder if some of the people who work on CGI films thing that doing some of these expressions would be funner and easier to do by hand? I guess techology has allowed less glitches in CGI models so they CAN squash and stretch like this. But I’m looking at it like…it just seems easier to draw some of this stuff. i think that’s the first time i’ve ever heard anyone post that it would be easier to draw in flat animation than make a particular thing in cg. most people think that making a cg film is some kind of shortcut for lazy studios to churn out films. both processes are incredibly challenging and lazily produced films exist in both 2D and 3D, but wreck it ralph.. a TON of work went into it, and making king candy move like this was not easy, and thats all the more impressive. Well I say that cause there is this feeling that some people prefer animating with computers is fixing so many problems that traditional animation had. Things like 360 camera movements, long drawn back cameras, oddly placed lighting. These are all things that FILM Makers use all the time, and so when these directors come into making animation, they’re given a paper, pencils and ink, they don’t know what to do. So to them makeing a film with CGI just seems much easier, they can make a film look like their live action films. But it’s the animators them selves who have to learn how to get the ‘puppets’ to move the way they did when they were hand drawn. “Oh Look I drew this great expression on paper…I’d love for the character to have the same face…now how long is my computer going to process before that face looks like how I’ve drawn it.” Terry Gilliam was an animator who moved to Live Action films and he did his best to frame his films like how he would’ve drawn them.  This is by no means dissing Wreck-it-Ralph for being a CGI film, in a way it works better then it could’ve been if NOT cgi. It just seems like they might’ve either been working harder or doing things unnecessarily harder (ala Paperman too). How ever this film was done ahead of schedule I heard, so the people working on it enjoyed themselves a lot and their hard work and attention to details came out so wonderfully. Even if you don’t love the movie’s plot and how they handled the story, it’s the attention to detail that makes it so much more enjoyable.
Zoom Info
localshoppe: anniemae04: doodlecrackstar: Again, hands, mouth, teeth. *turns into a puddle* I have to wonder if some of the people who work on CGI films thing that doing some of these expressions would be funner and easier to do by hand? I guess techology has allowed less glitches in CGI models so they CAN squash and stretch like this. But I’m looking at it like…it just seems easier to draw some of this stuff. i think that’s the first time i’ve ever heard anyone post that it would be easier to draw in flat animation than make a particular thing in cg. most people think that making a cg film is some kind of shortcut for lazy studios to churn out films. both processes are incredibly challenging and lazily produced films exist in both 2D and 3D, but wreck it ralph.. a TON of work went into it, and making king candy move like this was not easy, and thats all the more impressive. Well I say that cause there is this feeling that some people prefer animating with computers is fixing so many problems that traditional animation had. Things like 360 camera movements, long drawn back cameras, oddly placed lighting. These are all things that FILM Makers use all the time, and so when these directors come into making animation, they’re given a paper, pencils and ink, they don’t know what to do. So to them makeing a film with CGI just seems much easier, they can make a film look like their live action films. But it’s the animators them selves who have to learn how to get the ‘puppets’ to move the way they did when they were hand drawn. “Oh Look I drew this great expression on paper…I’d love for the character to have the same face…now how long is my computer going to process before that face looks like how I’ve drawn it.” Terry Gilliam was an animator who moved to Live Action films and he did his best to frame his films like how he would’ve drawn them.  This is by no means dissing Wreck-it-Ralph for being a CGI film, in a way it works better then it could’ve been if NOT cgi. It just seems like they might’ve either been working harder or doing things unnecessarily harder (ala Paperman too). How ever this film was done ahead of schedule I heard, so the people working on it enjoyed themselves a lot and their hard work and attention to details came out so wonderfully. Even if you don’t love the movie’s plot and how they handled the story, it’s the attention to detail that makes it so much more enjoyable.
Zoom Info

localshoppe:

anniemae04:

doodlecrackstar:

Again, hands, mouth, teeth. *turns into a puddle*

I have to wonder if some of the people who work on CGI films thing that doing some of these expressions would be funner and easier to do by hand? I guess techology has allowed less glitches in CGI models so they CAN squash and stretch like this. But I’m looking at it like…it just seems easier to draw some of this stuff.

i think that’s the first time i’ve ever heard anyone post that it would be easier to draw in flat animation than make a particular thing in cg. most people think that making a cg film is some kind of shortcut for lazy studios to churn out films. both processes are incredibly challenging and lazily produced films exist in both 2D and 3D, but wreck it ralph.. a TON of work went into it, and making king candy move like this was not easy, and thats all the more impressive.

Well I say that cause there is this feeling that some people prefer animating with computers is fixing so many problems that traditional animation had. Things like 360 camera movements, long drawn back cameras, oddly placed lighting. These are all things that FILM Makers use all the time, and so when these directors come into making animation, they’re given a paper, pencils and ink, they don’t know what to do. So to them makeing a film with CGI just seems much easier, they can make a film look like their live action films.

But it’s the animators them selves who have to learn how to get the ‘puppets’ to move the way they did when they were hand drawn. “Oh Look I drew this great expression on paper…I’d love for the character to have the same face…now how long is my computer going to process before that face looks like how I’ve drawn it.” Terry Gilliam was an animator who moved to Live Action films and he did his best to frame his films like how he would’ve drawn them. 

This is by no means dissing Wreck-it-Ralph for being a CGI film, in a way it works better then it could’ve been if NOT cgi. It just seems like they might’ve either been working harder or doing things unnecessarily harder (ala Paperman too).

How ever this film was done ahead of schedule I heard, so the people working on it enjoyed themselves a lot and their hard work and attention to details came out so wonderfully. Even if you don’t love the movie’s plot and how they handled the story, it’s the attention to detail that makes it so much more enjoyable.

(via local-shop)

Source: candy-coated-heart