I'm keeping G4 to watch at xmas. It sounds very promising from what the people here who've seen it are saying.
And incidentally Evil was excellent (a few small quibbles with it but that's exactly what they are; small quibbles).
Although I haven't seen The Moonbase animation for a while (so would have to see again to be definitive), I'd say Evil - in animation terms - is about equal in quality to Moonbase ie. Evil has hit the top quality high mark of the missing episodes animation releases.
Moonbase is generally a much simpler story in terms of the look of places/events that need depicting etc (& only 2 episodes needed animating), so it has a simpler look due to its nature as opposed to the epic Evil.
So it may well have been easier to animate than Evil - & I don't mean this in the sense that there was 4 or 5 more episodes of Evil to animate, but in terms of Moonbase having less & usually sparser sets.
The execution of Moonbase as opposed to Evil is slightly different; the former probably a bit more consistent with the sort of camera shots they'd have done in the '60s, but both are exceedingly charming and brilliantly done.
Back to G4:
mattg's comment reporting about Hartnell's look is rather worrying (I hope Hartnell doesn't have a constant smirk! - memories of Troughton in animated Faceless Ones) -
Hartnell looks pretty good on the front cover but I notice in the small picture on the back he doesn't look nearly so good (a bit sort of sheepish & weasely); which presumably relates to what mattg is saying.
They seem to do this quite a bit - put a drawing on the front cover of the Doctor, which in general look is a lot better than when he appears in the actual animation.
Which is disingenuous at best and false advertising/ slightly sharp practice at worst.
And it strongly implies the Blu/DVD producers know that if they were to have a cover drawing as he actually looks on screen (in the cases where he doesn't look reasonably correct) - that this would look quite naff or derisory & might even lead to less sales.
It's clearly not just a random happening in these cases as, put it this way, I don't think I've seen a cover for the animations where the Doctor's drawing on the front cover is significantly worse than as he appears animated on-screen.
I am sure it is deliberate with the better drawn front cover Doctors & surely must mean the sets' producers know, in these cases, that the actual on-screen Doctor image lacks quality ie. is not sufficiently accurate.
Strange as I'd have thought getting the Doctor's face right (& the faces of companions & other central characters)
would be the very first thing those in charge of production would focus on, so as to make sure they get a sufficiently accurate resemblance.
For the faces of animated Doctors to not properly look like the Doctor is obviously a major gaffe, not least because it is perhaps the most obvious pitfall not to fall into.
Be interesting to hear what others who've watched the new G4 animation think of the rendering of the Doctor's face in it (& also his companions).