|WikiProject Animation||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Squigglevision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
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)
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
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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
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)