>>115018295There is stuff like tweening, yes, but this idea that computers can do all of the work for us (owning a software like that would also cost a lot of money, so unless you were working with an animation studio, you likely wouldn't even be able to use it) just shows a vast incomprehension of how computers actually work. The real reason for them disliking it has nothing to do with how it's drawn or animated, it's just that it's not what they personally like. If they're bias that way, they can think up of whatever reason they can for disliking it, all while saying basically the exact same sentence verbatim.
(I'm going to use a generalized reference of the word 'you')
>I don't like this because it's not drawn wellNo, you just don't like it because it's digitally drawn.
>I don't like this because it has bad animationThe animation isn't the actual problem, the animation is fine. The fact that it's digital animation doesn't make it bad or lazy, it's just that you prefer traditional. There's nothing wrong with preferring one style of animation over the other, but calling it bad just for being the way you don't like just says that you don't actually understand what you're complaining about, and no matter what was done, it would never appease your specific tastes. It's the exact same as all of those animation critics on Youtube that don't actually study or understand how animation works. It's much easier for them to say that something is poorly animated than it is to genuinely understand the logistics of it and actually pick it apart for what it is.
>>115018892Most old Looney Tunes episode titles aren't exactly what you would call clever either, when almost all of them have 'hare' in the title, or a pun about bunnies and/or rabbits.
