>>111374726 As long as the actual animation is decent, I don't really care too much for super smooth animation. I care much more about detailed illustrations, and good shading.
Anime has generally had inferior animation quality to a good deal of western works, yet I can't give a fuck about 90% of western animation, and the ones I do give a fuck about don't have Disney quality animation.
If anything, my interest in animation quality plateaus at a certain point because art style, illustration, plot, and setting are all more important.
I've never dropped for shit animation, but I have dropped for shit illustration. Like Persona 4 the Animation.
>>111377253 I'm sure that has to be some kind of cross over mentality held by newfags playing games all their lives where it is drummed into them that a better system will run games at higher fps and that means the game looks better or something, not realising that doesn't apply in anime at all because the use of frames is often precisely controlled and throttled in high quality anime scenes to change the feeling of the movements being conveyed.
>>111377348 >Not very. Hold on a second. You're implying that your image backs up that statement, but I disagree. Yes, KMB was great, and yes, it looked really cheap and terrible. But I would argue that KMB was so good, not regardless of the shitty animation, but partly because of it. Animation quality does is important, but it's not a simple matter of higher-quality animation being better. The animation style and quality have to fit with the tone of the show and what it's trying to do.
>>111377839 I find it what I imagine to be a very /v/ mentality when people disconnect their assessment of animation from storytelling forgetting that is the entire point of the anime being there. Like people who play games complaining about how the graphics are shit or something.
>>111378327 No, not every element of a production has to be subordinate to storytelling.
Besides that, storytelling =/= story. If your show looks ugly, has no sense of audiovisual communication, and the characters don't emote properly because they're drawn like shit, your storytelling is awful, no matter how cool you thought the story was.
>>111378432 He didn't say that, you little ball of autism.
>Of course it's important. It's a visual medium Subtext: Animation is part of the visual elements of anime. Anime is a visual medium. The visual elements of any given visual medium are important. Therefore, animation is important.
He didn't say that every single visual medium is related to animation, and neither did he imply it with his wording. It's all on you for lacking reading comprehension.
>f your show looks ugly, has no sense of audiovisual communication, and the characters don't emote properly because they're drawn like shit, your storytelling is awful, no matter how cool you thought the story was.
This is exactly what I meant when I said storytelling, you seem to have thought I meant how the plot elements were handled. Everything in the anime comes together for storytelling not just the plot.
>>111378708 >>111378418 Also this is part of why I always say LoGH was a bad anime, it might aswell have been an audio book the visuals were there to literally show you what happened. No ambition or creative direction at all. Its like they were an after thought that had to be put there in order to sell it.
>>111378562 >it's important because it's a visual medium can not, no matter how one bends the words, mean anything other than "animation is important for all visual medium (media?)." I don't even care, it was just a joke to point out that he may want to rephrase since the meanings of what he said and what he meant were completely different. "Animation medium," for example. Oil painting is a visual medium, and another one for which animation is quite secondary.
>>111374726 You're talking about two different things, first you're talking about how good it's animated then you're talking about how it looks. I still can't figure out how people watched and enjoyed something like KLK.
>>111378860 Oh, sorry. My bad. >>111378884 >it's important. It's a visual medium The meaning is the same with or without "because." Why're you so anal about a single misuse of terms? Update your dictionary instead, be happy.
>>111378969 It obviously goes further than that. There isn't even a plot, why, all of that was just masturbatory drawing for drawing's sake. There was no content at all in there, according to anon. Just watch how nicely the pictures move; they have no meaning.
>>111379006 Tsubasa Chronicles. It's not bad animation or art style it's just lack of it, there's lots of stills and things are very half assed. Calling something bad is subjective anyways, only thing we can talk about when it comes to that is how there's lack of budget, you can go with a cheaper art style and it'll still look good (look at Kaiba, for example) but you've to make changes accordingly and make it feel right.
>>111379036 What he meant is that how the characters look, how the world looks, how the characters move, etc, all add to the storytelling, but there has to be a plot there to begin with, a bunch of dots jumping around doesn't have a plot so it can't really be a story.
And, if you are really interested, that clip is from Mclaren's experimental phase where he was doing weird shit like scratching the animation into the film itself. He did the same with the sound. I don't think he intended Dots to be anything other than an amusing experiment where the dots move in funny ways. This doesn't mean it's hollow, bad or not worthy of being watched.
It's still not telling any story.
>>111379280 Yes, it's not a story. It's still animation, it's still art, and it's still pretty good to watch. Hence, you don't need storytelling to make a good work, and in works where a story -does- exist, it doesn't necessarily have to be the single focus of everything that goes into the work.
>>111379415 >Hence, you don't need storytelling to make a good work True, but I think that Anon was talking about how everything adds up to the storytelling, no one said there needs to be a story, you just can't deny that having a fitting art to a certain story doesn't add to it.
>>111379635 The first exchange was because I misunderstood him, but the rest of the argument was about storytelling. I never said storytelling can't be aided by every other element of the production, I simply said it's not the be-all-end-all of a work. It's not the only bar by which to judge whether a work that has a story is good or bad.
Most commercial anime (and film) are indeed focused on storytelling however, I never denied that.
>>111380095 SHAFT is particularly aggravating because their shows have this pretense of being artsy and cool (courtesy of the need to ape Shinbo's style without Shinbo actually storyboarding anything) and they fail, but the uninformed fans -who would normally be completely oblivious to any sort of appreciating for directing, editing or visual creativity- latch on to SHAFT's shows because they're so aggressively 'different' you can't help but notice it. It's generally awful, but the retards want to feel deep by liking it.
>>111374726 Last Fall I learnt I can deal with bad animation but plot/characters I like (KLK, Samumenco) but if the plot is garbage and I can't stand the characters I simply can't go on no matter how pretty the animation is (dropped KnK at the 3rd episode, and had to make a big effort to get that far) So yeah bad animation isn't that much of an issue for me. Sometimes it's even charming. Artstyle is another story though.
>>111380278 To clarify, do you mean animation or art style?
I'm a Yuasa fanboy and I have to admit the animation dropped at certain points (slideshow, noticeably less detail, etc.) though I never had any qualms about the art style (Matsumoto's.) Part of why I like Yuasa though is even with constrained budgets, he makes QUALITY retain an element of playfulness, like the animators were having fun with things being off-model.
>>111380205 If you look at something like this you can really see Shinbo's style was heavily inluenced by Dezaki and evolved out of that. I enjoy when people call Shinbo an Ikuhara rip-off when they are both just influenced heavily by Dezaki and had styles which developed form that in different directions.
>>111380205 >It's generally awful, but the retards want to feel deep by liking it. O-ok, buddy. SHAFT is about the only studio that is willing to take a risk, people respect them for that and they do a good job when they want to.
>>111381039 What do SHAFT take risks with? It sure isn't style or direction shinbo has been doing that the same since the early 2000s. It sure isn't with material or financial risk, almost all of their anime are adaptations they likely stand little to loose in due to the production committee system. SHAFT pretty much just whore shinbos style out to the highest bidder nowadays ain't nothing creative there.
>>111381475 I don't really think the idea is that they are copycats as much as Shinbo is supposed to be like a mentor to them in order to help them gain experience and develop future talent in direction while still maintaining the SHAFT visual identity. If you look at most of these directors they have previously had lower directorial roles like a few episodes in a series. So they seem to be testing them at the helm while still having shinbo holding their hand.
>>111381988 Graphics in a video game is what I care about the most, I don't mind different art styles, as long as they look clean, but graphics can really turn me off from a game entirely, especially since most of the games being released nowadays aren't about a story or anything in particular it's just doing random things.
>How important is animation quality? Very, but not the be all end all
>Have you ever dropped an anime solely because you didn't like how it looked? Not yet as so far, the shows I've watched where the animation quality was poor were either 1: Complete shit in all other categories, so weren't really the ultimate deciding factor or 2: great in the other categories
I got used to Aku no Hana's artstyle, but disliked it for the dumb as shit unlikable characters
Sure it can. Good animation can also not make a show if it's really that bad. There's more than enough examples of well animated shows that are simply terrible.
Good animation can be appreciated even apart from the show's overall quality, though. "Bad" animation can also result in great gag comedy, or can also result in botched serious action scenes that just ruin the intended effect.
>>111383258 >Bad animation alone can't make a show bad, but it doesn't help an otherwise already bad show. Actual bad animation can break a show, cheap animation can't and by cheap I mean having a low budget and knowing how to manage it in a way that you'll barely notice, having characters slide from one side of the screen to the other isn't cheap, it's bad.
It was very poorly lifted from Utena. They didn't do it right. Most likely, just like Adventure Time and series like that, it was only storyboarded by westerners and then shipped off to korean studios who do all the animation for it, so they probably botched the timings for the storyboarding. Because even with all the frames, it still feels too slow and has amateur camerawork. I mean, even some super budget anime has some more competent stuff, even when it's hilariously cheap.
>>111377381 Except for the part where low framerate animations make it look like things are just teleporting from place to place, but I'm sure that's part of the artist's vision and totally necessary for the "showfeel".
>>111383258 I will stick with a bad show sometimes if it has good animation in enough quantity, but I rarely if ever drop a show for bad animation alone usually it would be in combination with something else bad enough to drop for alone almost at least.
>>111383307 I watched it directly after 0079 so Zeta looked positively high quality after that.
>>111383735 It completely depends on context and anyone with a modicum of understanding of animation in a wider context than 'needs to be smooth' can spot the difference between a scene that has been animated poorly and cheaply and one that has been animated well while not breaking the bank. Techniques can be used when you have competent animators and have been developed in anime to maintain and enhance even the ability to convey the right feeling in motion through variable frame rates. You can animate something awfully at 24fps or at 8-12 likewise you can do it well in both niether is superior it all depends on the skill of the animator, the context and the movement that is being illustrated.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.