As long as stuff like Parasyte, Bahamut, and HxH keep airing once or twice a season I'm satisfied and don't care about the other 90% going to pandering waifufags (be it harem, romance, SoL, pedos, or whatever else).
>>120416458 I don't think it has anything with the industry be more with my tastes. I grew up and I can't watch high shool anime without getting bored at the second episode. Of course I still watch 2 shows per season but I can't have as much fun as when I was around 20. I still read manga but that's about it.
>>120418007 In a society with limited resources, everything is us vs them, anon. Have you ever followed politics? If someone besides you gets something, that could've gone to you instead, and thus they are an enemy.
I just want less terrible light novels. I like cute girls and stuff. but god damn most light novels are just way to fucking bad. Juuou Mujin no Fafnir and Saenai Heroine no Sodate-kata are some examples, they just look so god damn generic and plain BAD. why can't they adapt stuff like problem children from another world instead of this. also more original anime would be nice
>>120418246 Why would you want less? Even with 5 LN adaptations, there's still a shit-ton of other stuff coming out. Just don't watch it. Also Saenai is far from generic or bad. Did you watch only episode 00?
>>120418232 No, you have completely missed the point. The poster I was responding to is assuming that either you like to watch shows with "cute girls" and must therefore hate shows like parasyte or that you like to watch shows like parasyte and must therefore hate shows with cute girls. This is a false dichotomy you could like both or neither or you might not even primarily judge the value of something based on those two properties.
>>120418378 I am one of those people who watches shows like parasyte and not cute girl shows. Thus every cute girl show that airs could've been a show like parasyte instead. Cute girls are harming me. They must be destroyed.
>>120418472 That is great but has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was calling the mindset displayed juvenile, assuming you must be one or the other when you could easily be both or none, not challenging the (false) idea that one show being made prevents another that you like more being made. There is no quota for anime stating that 45 shows must be made this season so it is not clear your logic applies even slightly. If the groups funding cute girl anime suddenly stopped paying studios to have them made there could just as easily be less anime rather than more of another sort.
>>120418544 People now will not really go out and buy an OAV if they don't know it'll be good. In fact I have no idea how they got people to buy OAVs back in the 80s and 90s. I guess people had more money then and at least some of the OAVs were based on mangas or the like so they had some audience. But now it's like "Well why not just make it a TV series instead of an OAV?"
Were there less slots on TV for anime back then and thats why there were so many OAVs...?
>>120418768 Cute Girls Doing Cute Things and Hot Girls Harem are 2 complete different beasts with 2 different audiences. Also, the fact that the cast is 100% girls, does not mean it's a Cute Girls show. I learned that one week after I started watching anime.
>>120418702 No it is not down to crowding out anon but a pure unwillingness to take the risk on the part of investors. It is the fact that cute girls sell and thus get funded. Making a show like Bahamut or Parasyte is seen as a more risky prospect and thus investors are less willing to come forward to have them made. Especially when shows like these usually require a greater budget to animate whatever action shit they have going on to be a success. In a cute girl anime all you need to do is make sure the art is decent, the animation can be minimal and still be a success. You can rely on 3000 nerds buying your show if their waifu is in it regardless of how shit it is but you can't rely on 3000 nerds buying your show if it is extremely poorly made action manime.
>>120419074 >Wait what? What do you mean "girl focused"? >Do you mean, aimed at girls? Then the chart is wrong. >Do you mean, cast is mostly girls? Then what the fuck is up with Kamisama Hajimemashita?
A show where the primary reason people watch it is for the girls.
> usual prejudice against things you don't know if you'll like.
But I've tried some of them and thus know I don't like them =3
>For starters: What IS that you don't like about the shows with cute girls?
They have no interesting factors besides the cute girls. An anime that has other things going for it but happens to have cute girls in it is fine.
>>120419104 I was watching anime before MAL or leddit existed, anon.
>>120419183 >A show where the primary reason people watch it is for the girls. Kamisama Hashimemashita is shoujo. It's a comedy/romance with one girl and like 5 other men. You don't watch it for the girl. Also, you missed World Break, though you probably missed it because the promo image shows a man in the middle therefore you didn't notice.
>They have no interesting factors besides the cute girls. That's not true for the majority of what you pointed at.
>=3 You made me stay at work replying for half an hour for nothing. I hate you
>>120419249 In some situations CGI is okay--if the scene would not otherwise be able to be done without the CGI because it would be too destructive to the budget then using CGI is okay. The whole show being CGI? No that is not okay.
I like the state the industry is currently in in terms of what is airing. There is a lot of "otaku pandering" but I am enjoying that a lot despite not being what is my understanding of an otaku.
I am more worried about the finances. I am not an expert to what is happening but as far as I hear anime is now carried by a few people spending A LOT of money on fan articles which is not a very solid system.
>>120419298 >Kamisama Hashimemashita is shoujo. It's a comedy/romance with one girl and like 5 other men. You don't watch it for the girl. Also, you missed World Break, though you probably missed it because the promo image shows a man in the middle therefore you didn't notice.
Obviously the reason it is crossed off is because if a man watches it, he's going to watch it for that girl and no other reason.
>Also, you missed World Break, though you probably missed it because the promo image shows a man in the middle therefore you didn't notice.
World Break, from the summary, actually looks like it has some semblance of a plot, but it may be a cute girl show in disguise. I haven't watched it so I can't be sure.
>That's not true for the majority of what you pointed at.
It is for me, anon. I read the summaries and they look like they offer nothing.
>>120419370 >Budgets become tighter every year. Why? Eventually if that continues then not even all CGI will save them. It will go down to stick figure drawings being animated rather than anything of quality.
>>120419440 Do you expect me to watch every single show before I judge whether I want to watch it or not? No one does that. You all use these types of images of anicharts to decide whether to watch a show unless you already know about the manga/light novel
>>120419465 I think he's implying that if Sales are declining and the demographics are getting smaller and the economy is getting worse there's simply no way the budgets are staying the same or growing
>>120419399 I don't even know where to start. >Obviously the reason it is crossed off is because if a man watches it, he's going to watch it for that girl and no other reason.
I'm watching it. I watch it for the comedy and the slight romance.
>World Break, for the summary, actually looks like it has some semblance of a plot That's the same for Absolute Duo, Fafnir, Testament and whatever other magic fantasy harem LN adaptation out there. EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT. You watch it for the fanservice.
>It is for me, anon. That's ignoring the facts. I would say you are trolling, but I actually know poeple like this. Just stop being an ignorant.
I really miss the mindblow effect. Anime today can be well made but they do not challenge my way of thinking anymore. I can still enjoy moe or great animation or a decent plot but it's just a pastime. I guess it's like smoking, I light a cig out of habit, not because i want one.(mango is a tiny bit better)
>>120419415 You missed on a couple of good shows last year then.
>>120419464 Do you expect me to watch every single show before I judge whether I want to watch it or not? No one does that. No, you don't watch all 40 seasonal shows to see if you like them. You go to Anichart and pick the ones that you have ABSOLUTELY -10000 chances to remotely enjoy, and then watch the other 35. You drop then as you see fit. I've discovered some good shit that way.
>>120419572 I know what he is implying it is just firstly that he can't even prove his premises true and secondly that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow at all and of course it goes without saying he can't directly show his claim to be true either.
>>120419696 Say you are a tiny studio. You release your new shiny anime that you put so much effort into it. It's so good, it's wonderful. However, it aired the same season as another incredibly famous franchise. Also, next season there will me an anime just like that. BDs are expensive and Otaku are poor. Guess how well your anime will sell.
>>120419574 >I'm watching it. I watch it for the comedy and the slight romance. Comedy and romance don't count as reasons I'd watch a show though anon, so obviously that means it has nothing for me other than the girl.
>That's the same for Absolute Duo, Fafnir, Testament and whatever other magic fantasy harem LN adaptation out there. EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT. You watch it for the fanservice. There are certain key portions of the summaries that let you in on the fact that their "plots" are just an excuse for the cute girl action. For example, Absolute Duo: "he ends up living with a beautiful silver-haired girl." Or Testament with "didn't you always used to say you wanted a little sister."
World Break lacks such a line so it does not advertise itself well as a cute girl pandering action anime, so I was fooled by it.
>That's ignoring the facts.
Do you mean the apparent fact that the anime acts like it offers more in the way of a plot for example? But again, read the above, there are techniques for discerning that it isn't really about the plot but about the pandering and showing off the girl(s) and that they plot is there as an excuse for the girl(s). It isn't 100% accurate of course as no method is going to be with just a summary and a pic.
>>120419685 >No, you don't watch all 40 seasonal shows to see if you like them. You go to Anichart and pick the ones that you have ABSOLUTELY -10000 chances to remotely enjoy, and then watch the other 35. You drop then as you see fit. I've discovered some good shit that way. That is what I do too anon, although usually it comes down to maybe 2-3 shows a season instead of 35
>>120419904 Then that's a problem of taste. Not in the "shit" or "good" way, but in the variety. You probably just enjoy a couple of genres. In that case, good for you. Still, doing what you do is the best way to see what you may like and don't like.
>>120420055 As long as the line is true to what is in the anime you won't factor out something you'd want to watch by it being there. It's just if the line is absent you might end up having to try something that turns out to be a pandering anime. Then you just drop it
>>120420196 When you say something like >Comedy and romance don't count as reasons I'd watch a show though anon, so obviously that means it has nothing for me other than the girl. You aren't saying >This show isn't for me You are saying >This show has no substance other than the girl Which is objectively wrong, because comedy and romance can be draws for entertainment whether you see it as such or not.
>>120420189 Something only gets to be a wide classification because a lot of people like it though. What about the dissenters? What if in 2099 every anime except 4 per season are cute girl pandering animes and then the few people who don't like it get called out because "discarding something as wide as the cute girl pandering genre is taking it too far!"
I despise it. Most of it is shit made for people who don't know how to real life that only serves to perpetuate stereotypes. Series not pandering to enough people? Add tits. That's the fucking solution, nowadays. Tits. I drop a series mid-episode if it has unnecessary sexual themes.
>>120420353 But that's what would happen, anon. It's like going to a library while disliking books. The fact that you go because they may have coffee doesn't mean you have anything to say about the library.
>>120420476 The rhetorical question is meant to make you say "oh it is unreasonable that someone must like comedy" or "oh it is unreasonable that someone must like cute girl pandering" or "oh it is unreasonable that someone must like action"
>>120420495 You are missing the point here. You are so accustomed to thinking that you only enjoy shows that have substance that you have become confused and switched that around in your mind to "all shows I don't like have no substance" which isn't the case. Substance is not something dependent on your personal opinion. I may hate Shakespeare and find it too dense and difficult to read but it certainly has substance. I may dislike the racism in The Birth of A Nation but it certainly has substance. Substance has no relation to your personal enjoyment. You may happen to enjoy something that has substance but whether or not something has substance is in no way dependent on your enjoyment.
>>120420624 >Except you're making a point of expressing your opinion in an objective way.
That is specifically what you're taught to do in any debate club or persuasive speaking class. It is meant to fool the plebs.
>You are saying, "there isn't any substance in the show BECAUSE I am evaluating it and see none other than girls."
But anon, it's understood that because I am evaluating it by MY standards that means it is lacking in substance FOR ME. Obviously using someone else's standards gets a totally different result which may not be my own.
>>120420800 >That is not what I'm doing >it has substance for other people. Holy fuck are you dim witted. Things having substance is in no way dependent on your opinion. Things do not have substance for some and not for others. They either have substance or they don't.
>>120420868 > any debate club or persuasive speaking class Yes, and we don't want that bullshit here. You say that the only draw is the girls (which you don't like), and then people list other things, and you say that those don't count, so the only draw for you is the girls. That doesn't even make sense - if you don't like the girls, why are they 'substance' but the comedy or whatever isn't? Also, what are you looking for in your shoes?
>>120420868 >That is specifically what you're taught to do in any debate club This isn't debate club.
>it's understood that because I am evaluating it by MY standards that means it is lacking in substance FOR ME. Then you should have said from the get-go that it only applied to you and was subjective.
Concerning substance, that isn't something that is subjective anyway. A show either has a plot or doesn't have a plot. The show has cute girls or doesn't have cute girls.
Your experience of the show may be subjective, but that doesn't matter, by collecting everyone experiences together we can get a rough estimate of the objective truth and take that as truth.
So analyzing substance from a subjective point of view is pointless as it is something objective.
If you say the red bird is not red, you are not opening up a debate for that. Rather, anyone in their right mind will call up the ad hominem ARGUMENT (which can be used to dismiss someone's argument in cases where they are quite clearly inebriated or mentally unsound) and dismiss your claim then and there.
>>120421015 Every straight man likes girls, anon. Thus the girls may be appealing but I don't enjoy a show that has no appeal BUT the girls because it just gets too boring when I have watched shows like that. My view on cute girls is, they're fine when you have pics of them posted on /a/, but they can't stand alone on a whole show and carry it all by themselves, thus pandering shows are out for me to be able to enjoy.
>Also, what are you looking for in your shows?
#1 Villains, extremely interesting and imposing ones. #2 Themes not previously explored with some relation to: religion, the supernatural, or high technology. #3 Tragedy and mindrape.
>>120421253 >Concerning substance, that isn't something that is subjective anyway. A show either has a plot or doesn't have a plot.
Sometimes people will use substance to just colloquially mean their subjective view of it rather than the strict objective definition. I mean, almost every show has some kind of substance but we will write that off if it doesn't appeal to us.
>by collecting everyone experiences together we can get a rough estimate of the objective truth and take that as truth. I don't think objective truth is the sum of subjective truth though anon. And even if it were we cannot "collect" everyone's experiences because we don't have the poll technology for that.
>If you say the red bird is not red, you are not opening up a debate for that.
I don't think substance is the same thing as a color. It's far more subjective. Although I'm not sure how that would work for color blind people. For them the bird might be orange so maybe color isn't so objective either.
>>120420995 This is really besides the point. Things can't have substance for you and not someone else unless. I may not enjoy comedy for example but comedy shows can have substance. I may not like romance but romance shows can have substance. Substance has nothing to do with you or your opinion. I may find a biography of Hitler dull as fuck but it certainly has substance. I may really enjoy seeing anime girls making excuses to show off their tits in novel ways but that doesn't mean the show has substance. You see what I am getting at here? It really isn't a difficult concept. Substance is something that exists in a work independent of whether you appreciate that substance.
>>120421662 Maybe you should define your impression of what substance is because I'm sure someone could come up with a couple examples of shows they consider to have substance that I don't think have any and vice versa.
My views is indifferent to the industry of anime. I am not necessarily concern where the industry venture from here on out because ten years from now I probably will not watch anime, not to type I'll out grow anime and move forward past this hobby yet it is more or less me becoming disinterested, anhedonic.
In my eyes, there is a polarizing stagnation of uncreativity.
What would interest me is: - Originality: I would love to see studios take risks and create original anime rather it is SoL, romcoms, psychological, mecha, war anime of any kind.
There seem to have become an over saturation of light novel adaptations and no matter how the synopsis read or how unique the studio try to make the adaptation it is regurgiated lowbrow popcorn entertainment. It seem so fucking soulless watching some of these anime. I feel there are few adaptaions of light novels I can earnestly admit I like.
It seem a lot of these light novelist have the wrong idea and not writing because they sought a career in becoming a writer but decide "I'll write and have this become a anime adaptation!" It is tragic.
Moreover, I would like to see less of the same trite of anime where studios try to copy off the success of another anime thinking it would have the same impact of its predecessors.
>>120421770 Maybe you should accept that something having substance does not depend on your appreciation of it.
People who enjoy harem anime on the whole don't think they have substance, they enjoy them knowing they are vapid and pandering and don't care. They are watching for that pandering, that pandering isn't suddenly substance because it appeals to those people. It is still just vapid. Likewise I might not enjoy an anime with a intricate meaningful plot but I would still be able to recognize that it has substance. Any reasonable person being honest with themselves can tell the difference.
>>120421840 Tell me how is it that a show can have substance for one person and not for another if you don't think substance depends on your appreciation and enjoyment?
>>120422050 >Likewise I might not enjoy an anime with a intricate meaningful plot but I would still be able to recognize that it has substance. Any reasonable person being honest with themselves can tell the difference. For all the people who say "Code Geass has no substance" or "Attack on Titan has no substance" and yet all the people who think they do, I tend to think you're wrong anon.
>>120422223 The fact that people disagree on if a show possess a property is not evidence of that property being subjective. People might disagree about the shape of the earth before it was objectively measurable but still only one shape was the truth. The nature of the property is not altered by the inability of some people to properly identify it.
>>120422321 >The nature of the property is not altered by the inability of some people to properly identify it.
It is for something not detectable by scientific instruments. You can tell the shape of the earth using said instruments. You can't measure the "substance" of an anime with scientific instruments though.
>>120422302 Substance is not a positive or negative quality. It is something a show has or does not have. Just like being art is neither a positive or negative quality. A show that has substance is the opposite of one that is vapid. Take a Hollywood action flick for example. It might entertaining to a lot of people but is just mindless entertainment, it has no substance.
>>120422427 Try reading the full point. The ability to measure is irrelevant, unless that is you think prior to the instruments to measure the Earths shape the shape was somehow magically different for everyone.
>>120422321 So do Code Geass and Attack on Titan have substance or not? I want to know which side of /a/ you're going to piss off today.
Also I really can't tell whether they do because I'm not sure my definition of substance is the same as everyone else's. Or rather even which definition to use: a strong one, where only truly DEEP and MEANINGFUL anime have it or a weaker one that allows in some other stuff like interesting characters.
>>120422735 That's because I know it's a position that would be satired by many on /a/. Maybe subconsciously I do that so that people who agree with me will pass it over and get the message and people who don't like it will just assume I'm trolling and not go "HAHA YOU LIKE EVANGELION YOURE A STEREOTYPE EDGY KID"
>>120422638 >>120422666 To expand on that for example something like Seirei no Moribito or Escaflowne could be said to have substance yet neither of them are particularly deep or thought provoking. It is more like the difference between popcorn (TLR, KissXSiS, Seikon no Qwaser) and steak.
>>120422934 I find that the best anime is usually around midway between average and thought provoking. If you get too thought provoking the thing just begins to get too stiff and boring like Texhnolyze or GitS. But between average and that you hit the JIBUN WOO point where you can have some fun too with stuff like Eva, RahXephon or SoulTaker or Noein.
>>120422903 I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the memes aren't a sign that they think it has substance. People like/watch Geass (on /a/, at least) because they find it ridiculous and fun, whereas they watch/like Eva, congratulations and sasuga Anno aside, because they enjoy the themes and character development.
>>120423422 Dystopia CAN be a theme, or at least stuff about dystopia. I wouldn't say that was really one of Geass', though I guess oppression/self-determination technically count, not that it said much of interest about them.
>>120423372 The very beginning is atmospherics (like much of the show, which I guess is fair to dislike), and I thought it worked really well to establish the alien feel and stuff. I thought the weakest point was the early Kano arc.
>>120423469 See that's where things turn a bit sour for me. I don't necessarily need a show to "tell me" something about the themes. It's like looking at a painting. It doesn't always tell you something but it can still be beautiful for the convergence and arrangement of entities. Like this is beautiful. But does it tell me anything? Probably not.
>>120423673 I know, but themes can be USED in such a way to create a beautiful anime. Even if the anime doesn't tell you anything revelatory about the themes. Like a dystopian anime can be beautiful without saying something meaningful about dystopias. For me, themes are often a means to an end.
And before I am killed, let me explain. The future for animation lies in crowdfunding as it is the only means to create an anime without depending on blue-ray sales, softcore pornografy and marketable toys/sex-aids in order to generate investment capital.
>>120423712 Yeah, but then you're not watching for the themes, which is sort of what I was saying about Geass in the first place. You can totally admire a show on an aesthetic basis (which I guess is a category distinct from substance), but I wouldn't say that's why most people like Geass, either. The story isn't beautiful or emotional or feel like a really accomplished depiction of society or anything. It's just fun and insane.
>>120423835 So is this the same for all mediums given that movies, music and etc are all older than anime? How did gangsta rap come to exist in the 80s and early 90s if there was no originality left to be had in music?
There was originality left--and there is still originality left in anime.
Wait til Japan becomes 50% black in 2099, and then >>120423895 Furude Rika gon' busta cap in a niggaz azz
>>120423939 >The story isn't ... emotional Um I wouldn't entirely agree with that. I don't necessarily recall being saddened at some of the deaths but I'm sure some people were especially if they really liked the characters. And tbh for some reason I don't remember a huge chunk of R2. I must have marathoned it.
>>120424235 >we can become cute 2D little girls and all that junk.
mite b cool, but the problem is, 2D worlds are very restricted. For example, since we're 3D creatures, we can see the entire world of a 2D character in a single sheet of paper. Now who would want to live in that small, enclosed world anyway?
>>120424150 >looks interesting >Students possessing special abilities >If these agents fail their mission, they will be killed along with their families, who have bombs planted within their heads >Anthea Kallenberg, seeks to find who she really is Wow sure sounds original. I'm so glad stuff like this exists to save us from the tropes and cliches that plague modern anime.
Some person hired by a company had a criminal background of embezzling and when the project was funded he started trying to embezzle money, so they fired him and continued to create the project without him?
I do not see why this is a argument against crowdfunding. This company got in trouble but still decided to deliver to the best of their ability in order to save their reputation?
It's bad sure, but stuff like this happens all the time. It is not like the people involved are "risk free" either. If you fail to deliver on a something like this your public name and career will be shit for a long time.
>>120424402 Video games are far more likely to crash than anime. Anime can be shat out for pretty cheap and all you need is some advertisers who will buy slots on a channel that broadcasts it. AAA games are actually getting extremely expensive.
>>120424402 Anime production has more or less leveled off and quality is consistent, so it's unlikely. The 80s crash was caused by low quality products flooding the market as more companies tried to get in on the fad by churning out awful, cheaply made games that caused people to stop buying. Otaku will keep buying for the foreseeable future, the industry knows exactly how to milk them.
>>120424591 >Some person hired by a company had a criminal background of embezzling and when the project was funded he started trying to embezzle money, so they fired him and continued to create the project without him? Your reading comprehension is terrible.
The creator of the project, Jiro Ishii, was the worst kind of "idea guy" who not only did no real work on his own project, but tried to take all credit for the work done by others. He basically conned a bunch of professionals into working for him by saying he had a great idea for an anime, started a campaign to crowdsource money, then did absolutely no work. He didn't write a single script, he didn't even name the characters. And when people tried to communicate with him he just blew them off.
Then after the project was funded, he suddenly starts getting involved. Except he's still not writing scripts, he was only interested in how the money was being spent. See, CIA had control of the funding since they were the ones actually doing all the work. So Jiro decided to litigate and get control of the funding on the grounds that he was the original creator. Which he did.
So now CIA, the people who did most of the work on UTD thus far, are effectively booted from the project and the lazy con man is now in charge.
>>120425376 No, scammers always win because a fool and his money are easily parted. Kickstarter is rife with obvious scams, practically every week you hear about how another kickstarter turned out to be a con, yet you still get naive people lining up to throw money at every idea guy with a video pitch.
There's not even anything inherently capitalistic about this, it's just stupid people being tricked.
Thread replies: 280 Thread images: 33
Thread DB ID: 34717
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@example.com with the post's information.