Don't deflect. Kimba's animation in the 1960s was very limited and obviously had a low budget. And Japanese animators were still many years away from developing the modern anime techniques to overcome those constraints.
Both myself and the video acknowledged the possibility of a few visuals being shared, though there's no actual evidence of it. However, the notion that it is a rip-off does need to be hammered down because, in the end, it's just an internet myth that doesn't even make sense to anyone who has watched a few episodes of the series.
No deflection. It is simply unnecessary to do an attack on Kimba and call it cheap (and it have connotation of bad not only low budget). As an animator you should have respect for Osamu Tezuka instead of the need to do this type of attack.
Your interpretation of rip-off seem a little narrow. And also it isn't just internet myth, this was covered a lot before internet. The first I heard of this case I think was on magazines on late 90s.
And I woud say that what need to be put down is the idea that they didn't use Kimba at all since they refuse to credit it there is every right to claim they ripped it off.Last edited by DonFerrari - on 28 May 2020
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."