Watching the Lion King II, the quailty is much lower and it doesnt “look” like a movie, but rather a long episode of a tv show. Why does the look seem so different?
In: 104
Because a lot of those animated sequels are cranked out faster and more cheaply than the originals, or different animation techniques were used in the production.
Budgets for full theatrical release films are generally much larger, allowing more staff and thus increased quality control. Direct-to-DVD productions get far fewer resources behind them than theatricals.
VHS/DVD sales aren’t even remotely as profitable as a theater run, so the movie budget is adjusted in consequence.
The cynical among us go further and say that direct to video stuff, before disney+ and netflix, were designed as pure garbage disguised as beloved franchises, easy money with little risk. If they really believed in it, they’d have released it in theaters to begin with.
So others have mentioned that it’s because the budget is lower, which is true.
But I’d like to focus on why it looks worse, as in what is different about the animation. Now I haven’t seen The Lion King in well over a decade and I’ve never seen the sequel but when I watch them there is one thing that immediately sounds out to me.
The first movie appears to be, at least for parts (I’m not going to watch the whole thing), animated on 1s or 2s and the sequel is animated on 3s, and maybe even 4s.
Now what does that mean? Basically for a movie or TV show. There are 24 images shown every second. Those are called frames, and you get 24 frames per second. For animation something people do a lot is instead of showing a brand new image every single frame they hold that image there for extra frames
So when I say something is “animated on 1s” that means the image is held for only 1 frame “animated on 2s” means it held for 2 frames and so on.
Holding the exact same image for less time ends up with a much more fluid-looking animation. But as you might guess it’s more expensive because you literally have to draw more pictures. A movie animated on 2s will have twice as many pictures as an equally long movie that’s animated on 4s (all else being equal).
If there is something “cheap” looking about animation you cant quite explain 9 times out of 10 that’s what it is.
There are other techniques like reusing animation, more simplistic character designs that are easier to animate, or fewer heavily animated sequences like fights in the first place. But straight-up drawing fewer pictures and just showing them for longer is definitely a big go-to method for cheaper animation.
They are low effort cash-grabs.
Don’t worry, the straight to dvd sequel is still better than the off-brand knock-off.
Because they *are* lower quality. They don’t have big theatrical releases expected to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, so they spend less on making them.
Some years ago, an animation instructor of mine told our class that those direct to DVD sequels were how they used to train up new animators. He had a lot of stories about working for Disney.
Theatrical releases are treated as animated films. This means that development focuses a lot on cinematography, which includes composition, framing, staging, etc. Having a higher budget for a theatrical release means the artists have more time to perfect the cinematography among other things. Straight to dvd releases are treated more like television releases where there’s a smaller budget and more time constraints, so artists have less time to perfect cinematography. Film typically uses a wider viewing angle as well, which, along with cinematography techniques, gives more depth to a shot. DVD releases will have flatter shots as it’s easier and faster to not have to deal with things in perspective.
The comments about animation frames are correct too.
Your display could be a factor as well. I am visiting my mother and Independence Day was on a steaming channel.
It looked like soap opera!? I am not sure what settings or tech make this happen.
Movies like that aren’t treated as huge releases and are often relegated to smaller satellite studios with lower budgets, so the animation quality, art style/direction, writing all suffers for it. Plus, they get less time to work on things like that.
Latest Answers