Why does anime look like shit now?

We had a show with shading recently, the zombie trains one
It looked like shit, means shading is shit

That's not why most people get into anime

>>153449320
Not the question, idiot.

>>153449228

digital art, shading, tones, budget,

professionalisation, commercialisation, popularisation.

>>153449228
Why does your image look like shit?

>>153449228
Smoother animation. Thoes animes with a lot of shading had bad animation or were very expensive to make.

>>153449360
This right here. You got your anwser OP, now close this thread.

>>153449360
And the fact that anime didn't even commonly look like that back then. Most of the time it was flatter with a few shades. There was a lot of shit anime back in the day too. People who say otherwise are delusional.

>>153449419
>being a newfag

>>153449228
Actually, Japanese people love Disney, no surprise they'd take from them.

File: f4b39fea8986f140897404f610916106.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>153449228
More tones makes for pretty screenshots.

>>153449420
>animes
Retard.

>>153449228
Anime didn't all look good back in the day; there was plenty of shit. And detail in image is one thing, but quality of motion is another, and that was mostly fucking terrible back then. While I do get nostalgic for older art styles too, animation quality as a whole is a lot better these days.

>>153449781
>retard
I'm not the one looking for insignificant details.

>>153449736
Besides which, anime looks like it does to begin with because Tezuka took a lot of inspiration from Disney.

>>153449837
But you are the idiot using incorrect spelling.

>>153449821
It actually isn't, retard. It's all relative to budget.

Maison Ikkoku is far better animated than something like Shokugeki no Soma despite predating it by 30 years.

>>153449228
what disney lacked in color shading they made up with in amazing animation

a single scene in 101 dalmations where the guy turns around in his chair, smokes his pipe, and looks at his watch used an amazing amount of frames for something so casual.

it's totally unfair to justify animation quality by color basis alone.

All the budget went into the freakishly detailed eyes

>>153449228
It's not the shading, I think it has more to do with film/cel shading vs. digital coloring. It's easier to add special effects now, but for some reason digitally colored anime often looks washed-out. I don't know why that would be, since you'd think that with computers they would be able to make the anime look however they wanted. Maybe it was a stylistic choice, or maybe it's because we are used to seeing a version that was aired over broadcast for newer shows, but old shows we watch remastered. I've honestly been wondering this for a long time now.

anime looks better than ever now, you're just watching the wrong anime

>>153449859
Tezuka was actually more Fleischer-inspired if anything. His manga look nothing like Disney's style.

>>153449867
And? That doesn't invalid my argument, that just means I forgot I was writting in English for a second.

File: 1476265663394.jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

>>153449931
Eye's/pupils usually mean life in some parts of the world, this is something that goes back to over a thousand years. To give something life you need to give them eyes or something like that.

File: Hand Shakers ep4.webm (3MB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 568x320px

>>153449228
It actually looks better than ever.

>>153449975
Actually, I should say it's not about the amount of different tones used in the shading. I do think that modern anime trends away from the dramatic lighting that was used in the 80s, and that makes me sad.

>not recognizing Otaking

>>153450084
Oh fuck I haven't kept up with this masterpiece, looks like that's what I'll be doing tomorrow

>>153450084
This is bait, right?

>>153450082
These overdetailed eyes don't look good at all though. It's just freakish, especially when compared to the rest of the face, not to mention ratios

>>153449912
That's the basic stylistic difference between anime and western animation; western prioritises complexity of motion, anime prioritises detail.

File: Terra Formars S2 - 13 [480p].webm (3MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 852x480px

>>153450126
Just because it's unique doesn't mean it's bad. Keep an open mind about what constitutes as good animation.

>>153450084
How horrendous

>>153449990
>the Narutospammer has 4chan Gold

File: Concrete Revolutio - 24 Nakamura.webm (3MB, 568x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 568x320px

Modern anime is all about flashy effects, but there's no substance to them.

>>153450194
>posting images in threads designed for showing off good cinematography is now "spamming"
retard alert

>>153450101
You'd think the shitposting potential of Otaking's stuff would have waned as the years went by.

>>153450177
It's not so much about what they choose to prioritize as it is about budget. To use the other anon's example, 101 Dalmatians had a budget of 4M 1961 USD (which is apparently ~$32M today) for less than an hour and a half. I doubt if any anime movie has ever had that much budget relative to runtime, and absolutely no OVAs or TV series.

>>153450289
Well there's that too, but it is a lot easier to make motion that is both smooth and complex when the art style is simple.

Reminder that you have to be able to see what's going on for it to be considered good animation, just. High speed + flashy lights != good animation.

Here, have an example of how good animation looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlGxQIo772I

>>153450084
That looks terrible though.

>>153450379
That's pretty unimpressive, the fight plays out like in a bad shonen anime. There's mostly a bunch of talking and when they're actually fighting, the cuts are filled with flashy effects and smoke particles.

>>153449228
Seeing there are a lot of newfags in this thread, I think it's a good idea to remind everyone that the guy who made the OP image literally made this 'anime short':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_CP4SuoTU

File: tales fight.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>153450379
>>High speed + flashy lights != good animation.
>>Here, have an example of how good animation looks like:
>posts ufotable
are you being ironic

look i think ufotable's fights are awesome but they are like 80% flashy effects and "high speed"

>>153449867
LOL what a bitch.

File: 1471857537131.png (136KB, 188x276px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 188x276px

>>153450480
>that webm

>>153450379
You cant give the fate series as an example because they make great animation becacuse they have a shit ton of money most studios dont so you cant masure up to that

>>153450599
Shut the hell up.

>>153449228
No more talent left.

>>153450126
Just incase the other anon's reply put you in any doubt, yes it is bait. It's a trainwreck that's so bad nobody can be bothered to discuss it.

>>153450480
It pisses me off no end that nobody animates footwork anymore. It is, obviously, the most difficult part of animating a fight. That said, without it perspective gets lost, relative size gets lost and it becomes a fucking mess.

They stopped drawing characters with faces that are half black or gray because it looks like shit

Why is this shit thread still up? Ignore the nostalgiafaggots, for god's sake.

It's a serious problem. Look at moe, the whole fad is literally a marketed stereotype.

>>153453896
Because it's valid you braindead retard.

Because they have to spend minimum money for maximum profit.

>>153449228
Even without your trip we know who you are, Otaking. Stop reposting this shit.

>>153450258
It only gets more powerful.