From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animation (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ed, Edd and Eddy was not animated using squigglevision (tm).

It was animated using conventional cel animation, giving it a similiar look, as the animators weren't too keen on frame by frame perfection giving it a look similiar to that of squigglevision.

The text of the original article submitted by User:Snafuu was taken entirely from this page:

Please note that although the current version of the article is free of copyright violations (at the time of this writing), versions dated 3 January 2006 and earlier still contain infringing content. – Ringbang 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Animated series produced in Squigglevision[edit]

I think that this is pretty much the definitive list. This isn't just a list of cartoons that have wiggly animation, but a very specific type of wiggly animation. If it wasn't produced by Tom Snyder or one of his cronies, you can be safely certain that it isn't Squigglevision. - Marvin01 | talk 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhubarb and custard, arsewipe~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice. And what exactly is your point? Roobarb was not animated using Squigglevision. Next time you feel the need to troll, at least spell your reference correctly (even if it's as irrelevant as this one was). (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i saw a music video in 2001 on MTV that was animated with squigglevision i didn't catch the name of the band or the song but if anybody has any ideas who it might have been i would appreciate it

Flic vs. flick[edit]

I believe each image sequence is actually referred to as a "flic", not a "flick". For reference, see the Squigglevision patent and this screenshot from Autodesk Animator, the program originally used to implement Squigglevision (note the "BROWSE FLICS" menu item). Granted, "flic" probably just stands for "flick", but if the article is going to specifically mention the name used for Squigglevision image sequences it might as well be consistent with official sources. (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and made your changes.--Mrcolj (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

No Rugrats ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If it was really that cheap, Home Movies might have continued using it[edit]

This article gives so much emphasis to Squigglevision being inexpensive, yet one of the most prominent examples of Squigglevision, Home Movies, stopped using it (in part?) because they found something cheaper (Macromedia Flash). Assuming the article on Home Movies is correct. Perhaps anything said about it being cheap should be in the past tense. In fact, perhaps everything about squigglevision should be in the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6482:5900:1D8:15A5:C930:4C77 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The article states "Compared with traditional animation, Squigglevision is relatively fast and easy to produce." This is correct, though it's cited to a primary source, and a secondary or tertiary source would be more appropriate. If you can provide a source that gives a historical perspective on Squigglevision and how it became obsolete, that would be great. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)