>>400
>Animation=movement Movement. And for movement it always goes like this: The more the better
Nope. This is the same shit CalArts drones keep repeating all the time because they don't know anything else than what they were brainwashed with.
Movement isn't a simple magnitude like "height". There is more to it than the "amount" of movement. This is why a circle moving from left to right done in 128fps will not be better animated than an actual character emoting, and this is why Disney guys 'devised' their 12 principles. In other words, there are different approaches to movement which give rise to different results, and saying one is "better" than others so plainly is offensive to anyone who cares about animation.
>There is not really an animation style, but there are drawing styles
There are animation styles. But more importantly, the drawing styles are a fundamental part of what makes animation different from each other. If we're talking about sequential drawings, you can't just disregard the "drawing" part in favour of the "sequence" part, both are important. It'd be like only caring about the brush-stroke in a painting, or only caring about the rhythm in music.
I myself don't know much about 1s and 2s yet, but I don't see how less frames could be better then more frames. It isn't automatically worse, depending on the cut, but better?
A good instructive to realize how timing can improve animation is Mitsuo Iso. Barely ever animated on 1s, switching between 2s and 3s (even 4s at times) in the same cut. Yet his movement is some of the most weighty and natural I've ever seen. Much more than anything Disney has ever done, for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNqlsKs785U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTxWZmFY4 (He didn't animate the whole thing, but try to spot the differences in style between cuts and you'll see how much more real some of them move. That's Iso).