• WarmSoda
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not really any difference. They did a great job back then.

    • Moonguide@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ywah, if anything, the smoother animation makes it seem more janky. The statue coming off of the platform had no momentum to it, it was all one swift motion, which wasn’t as noticeable with the more obvious stop motion.

      • WarmSoda
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. Same with the Colossus. It’s a skyscraper sized metal giant. It’s not supposed to move “smoothly”.

      • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think that the movie compensated for the low frame rate of animation by reducing the overall speed of (most) of what they animated because they were pushed to the technical limitations of the time.

        As an armchair expert, it seems as though there was a compromise between the frame rate and the overall speed of what was animated in the film; if the animations moved any faster than they currently do then I suspect that it would look really janky in the original and the audience would become aware of how low the framerate was, so when you improve the fluidity of the stop-motion animation it reveals the slow movements of what was animated in the film to be much more obvious.