>>79290284>I know about his recent stuff and why would you assume I mean John K. at his worst anyway?
if you knew about his recent stuff, why would you use him as an example at all?
anyway, as for what I consider good animation, I see it as three categories
Fluid animation with extra frames
Fluid animation with minimal frames
Tweens with Effort
Extra frame animation is the highest of the high quality, and easy to fuck up, which Die Hard did. This is the equivalent to Disney or Thief and the Cobbler: TONS of frames, yet every one flows into one another properly. The main problem with Die Young is it has tons of frames, with each one being a drastic motion, even if the character isnt doing anything at all. There's no subtlety, so it comes off as choppy and "too fluid", giving the characters the consistency of jello
Minimum frame animation is your standard made for TV cartoon with traditional animation, which obviously can't have frames for days. At the same time, they work with what they got, and make less more. Stuff like the Disney Afternoon cartoons would fit here, not nearly as many frames as their movies, but still good and clean enough to where the movements seemed natural
Tweens with Effort is a combination of a good, usually stylistic art style and the willingness to break or redraw models, instead of having just one singular one. Two good examples would be Wander over Yonder or the first season of Chaotix, where even if the show uses a vast majority of tweens, it actually improves the visuals, acting as support instead of a crutch, like Johnny Test, where every character only has one or two models that never break and never change
really, what it all comes down to is one movement flowing into another without juttering, choppiness, or "jello movement", which Die Young unfortunately has