Please help /a/ my 'friends' tell me my taste is all

Don't know about all over the place but it's definitely shit at least
Watch more anime

>>160839430
What's wrong with enjoying a variety of anime? If that means your taste is all over the place, I don't know if that's a bad thing.

Fuck off newfag.

>>160839465
I've seen a fair amount but I don't think I want to venture into stuff thats too old or hard to get a hold of

>>160839501
Stop being a shitter.
Watch more anime.

>>160839501
don't be a faggot faggot.

you are just a 20 titles-kun who makes 3x3 out of their 7/10s because you don't have any better. Nothing wrong with it except it's obvious. So your opinion if happened to be in the same post as your pic would be ignored.

File: aq11DyQ_700b.jpg (175KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 700x700px

>>160839430

>>160839484
shut the fuck up retard

>'friends'

>>160839430
Kill yourself.

>haruhi
>cowboy bebop
>evangelion
You first started watching anime recently, didn't you?

>>160841227
I've seen more than 25 now. Your point?

>>160841274
25 isn't a lot.
Also Stardust Crusaders is worst JoJo part

File: mosaic9291fa06384ac48cfcca900fd56674a2924ac54f.jpg (230KB, 920x920px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 920x920px

You need to make your friends fear your taste.

>>160841274
>I've seen more than 25 now.
>>160839430
>eva on any top list
You kids better put in some more work before you try this again. Try watching something made before 1995.

>>160841274
So it's not a favorites list, it's just less a bit less than half of the shows you've seen. Watch a bit more. You say you don't want to watch older stuff, but you have three shows from the 90s, the stuff from the earlier decade isn't that different, plus there's a huge variety anyways.

File: 3x3 アニメ&漫画 v2.jpg (513KB, 1842x924px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1842x924px

>>160839430
Refining one's taste is a journey everyone should go on.
Pic related is an example of refined taste.

>>160840920
>Tamayura
>Keion
>Hanasaku
My nigga

>>160841274
nu-/a/ in a nutshell.

>>160839430
No,, this is all entry lvl shit

>>160839430
>Please help /a/, my taste is full of basic-bitch garbage
FTFY

>>160839484
What's it like being a bell end?

>>160841274
wew lad that's a lot of animes there

>>160839430
It's just a bunch of entry level shows. Your friends are probably just confused/frustrated that they can't easily classify you as a moefag or manimefag or some other equally retarded label.

>>160841389
It's okay to have Eva on your 3x3 if the pic is an artsy shot from the show and it's in the company of shit like Utena and YKK.

>>160842004
>YKK
One of my favorite manga but why the fuck do people put it on their anime 3x3? It's very solid but nothing to write home about.

>>160842004
Don't talk shit about YKK.

>>160839430
Holy shit how many anime have you seen? Nine?

>>160842036
I can see putting it on a manga favorite list.
There isn't enough of the anime to justify it.

>>160839430
nothing wrong with it, but they are or were really popular series, so someone that likes only popular series = someone that didn't watch much anime = someone that needs to lurk more in /a/'s opinion.

>>160840920
my sugar levels are rising.

>>160841377
I don't even recognize them.

>>160841410
I need to read more manga.

>>160843052
>so someone that likes only popular series = someone that didn't watch much anime
But this is true. It's fine to like them, but if you name literally nothing else than MAL top 20 or something it's telling that you don't really know much about the medium.

>>160841377
>>160843052
>I don't even recognize them.
Same, except for Cat Soup.
Cropping + reverse image search isn't helpful either.

File: 3x3.jpg (218KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 900x900px

>>160839430
Care:
++ Berserkm, Bebop
+ Eva
Don't care:
Angel Beats, K-on, Toradora, JoJo, Clannad
>>160840920
Care:
+ Sora no Woto, Aria
Don't care:
Hidamari, K-on
>>160841377
Care:
++ Wonder, Tortov
+ Wanwa, Fig, Shashinkan, Tale of Street Corner, Winter Days, Cat Soup, Restaurant of Many Orders
>>160841410
Care:
++ Mushi, Lain
Don't Care:
K-on, Natsume, Your Voice, Lucky Star, Red girl fantasy

>>160843439
>>160843052
If you want, I've rated them all so you can get the names from there:
>>160844216

>>160841389
>Try watching something made before 1995
Whats the point? Most shows pre 95 are badly drawn out messes. What 80-90s have been good for are scifi related movies. There are maybe a handful of shows that are worth the viewers time from that era. Most of them arent even TV shows, they are OVAs.

File: DEir_JTW0AEFl4V.jpg (230KB, 900x898px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 900x898px

>>160839430
its half ok op

Still hasn't seen K-On!, it looks polished animation & stylistic-wise at least

File: laugh at you.jpg (47KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x480px

>>160840920
>hanasaku iroha
>not shit

>>160841389
Name a anime series that good and had aired before neon genisis

>>160839501
Literally what is hard to get a hold of in this day and age? If something hasn't been ripped and uploaded to the internet yet, the probability is that no one's ever heard of it anyway. If you see someone discussing something, you'll be able to get it easily.

>>160845592
Rose of Versailles.

File: 1501003628684.gif (706KB, 1280x1086px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 1280x1086px

>>160846913

>>160847033
I guess you're right. I posted a great, not good one. Good one would be Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water.

>>160839430
https://myanimelist.net/topanime.php
Why bother with the effort? Take the top six from the link, take three from Kyoto Animation, and call it a day.

>>160847665
How people can hand out an average of 9.1 to LotGH will always be beyond me. Its one of my favourite shows, but the shoddy art alone is reason enough to never hand it anything higher than an 8, maybe 8.5ish at best.

>>160847744
Because it's long and a classic and high-brow as far as anime goes, so giving it 9 or 10 raises your anime cred among MAL users.

>>160847744
People don't have the same rating criteria as you? People have different taste in aesthetics than you? People believe that story is all that matters in narrative driven media? There are plenty of explanations.

>>160847895
Just to clarify in this I still would give it a 9 on scale of 1 to 10. The art is nothing to write home about but something that manages to captivate me that much deserves it.

>>160847904
>People don't have the same rating criteria as you
If you completely ignore a certain aspect because of your subjective bias then whats the point in rating stuff? Weighing stuff is one thing, but completely dismissing something a different topic.

>People have different taste in aesthetics than you
This isnt realted to taste at all. If you unironically want to tell me that, considering the slow paced imaginery, LotGH looks good in any form or shape then you suffer from mental retardation. The production value go down every couple episodes and make the characters look like they wear 100g worth of makeup. The still shots are not impressive in the least, which in itself already is bad considering the fact that the show lacks any noteable form of animated sequence. Rate the art direction high for all I care, but the execution and animation are mediocre AT BEST. Thats a fact and not up to debate.

>People believe that story is all that matters in narrative driven media
Which is a legitimate argument, but that doesnt mean that other aspects should simply be ignored. Having a favourite because of the story? Fair enough. Having one because of art? Equally fine. But rating something on a website (when you pretend to be autistic about rating stuff) and then ignoring the central flaws the show has in the process? Thats just retarded. The worst part is that people wont even acknowledge those flaws most of the time. In LotGH it would be easy. The audio design needs to be considered a point of criticism because its nothing but pieces of classical music (they didnt have to put any work into the OST themselves) and, as stated above, the looks of the show. When two major areas already fall flat, how could anyone hand out a 9 or 10? Might as well jsut rate with smiley faces, would be more accurate for sure.

i think a very legendary person is missing from this thread.

>>160848256
>If you completely ignore a certain aspect because of your subjective bias then whats the point in rating stuff?
To have a subjective rating scale. Which is what everyone ultimately has anyway, given that objectivity in impressions of art doesn't exist. You can try to give ratings based on what you perceive to be objective elements, but your opinions on those elements will always be subjective. This can be proven just by looking at every criticism you've listed:


>The production value go down every couple episodes and make the characters look like they wear 100g worth of makeup.
This is a comparitive statement. You're saying that the characters look worse when they "look like they wear 100g worth of makeup" compared to how they normally look, but someone may like that style of drawing the characters better. In which case, they'd think that those episodes with low production values look better than the norm. As I said, it all comes down to taste.
>The still shots are not impressive in the least
Subjective, many will and do argue that LOTGH has great cinematography, and there's no objective way argue against that bc there's no objective scale for good cinematography. There's also the argument that cinematography is secondary to the details within the frame, and if you like LOTGH's art style than you will think that most every still shot looks good.
>which in itself already is bad considering the fact that the show lacks any noteable form of animated sequence.
There's the argument that conveying meaning through still shots is way more impressive than through fully animated sequences, thus the lack of animation would be a point in the series' favour.
>The audio design is nothing but pieces of classical music
This makes everything consistent and gives the show a unique feel, which many would argue is a good thing.

>>160848256
You're talking about anime as if it were an excel chart where you give points for "CHARACTERS", "ANIMATION, "MUSIC etc. It doesn't work that way, if a piece of art manages to engage and get an intellectual, emotional respons from you, strongly appeal to your aesthetics or just in general engrained itself in your mind someway then it doesn't matter if it didn't manage to fit into some arbitrary categories people chose.

I gave LotGH an 8/10 myself but I also gave a 9/10 to Wonder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtqywa7ASM
An 8-minute short that doesn't even have characters or a plot.

>>160847744
I'm glad someone else mentioned the art and shot composition. There are some clever shots like the wine reflecting off of Reinhard's hand when Kircheis scolds him about Westerland, but the shots are mostly bland and utilitarian aside from that. Don't forget how the majority of characters aside from Reinhard and Yang and very one-note and forgettable (I would have forgotten their names if they didn't flash them onscreen every time the character appeared) and also how the show goes downhill after Reinhard's coronation.

It's a good show, but it deserves no more than an 8/10. If you want a political drama, RoV is a much better show.

>>160850339
>RoV
>About politics
mate

>>160849554
>As I said, it all comes down to taste.
Fair enough, but I still question the fact that this sentiment (in regards to LotGH) applies to the average person, which is what I was referring to here. Not some outlier.

>there's no objective scale for good cinematography
The average person doesnt even know what cinematography is so they would never take this into account. I also would argue that cinematography loses a lot of its value if the basic frames are already simple. Which is exactly what applies to LotGH. Detail is abscent at almost all times, even in the supposedly "detailed shots". What do I based this on? Other shows from the 90s.

>to the details within the frame
What details? The show lacks details entirely.

>There's the argument that conveying meaning through still shots
I did not criticise the fact that there arent well animated sequences but simply said that the fact that there arent any can easily be salvaged by having better art direction and art quality if your goal is to preserve overall visual quality. However, LotGH fails in regards to both. And again, no this isnt subjective. The picture quality, the lack of character and environmental detail is not up to debate, its a fact. The only thing you can really commend LotGH on is the fact that it manages to create so many completely differently looking character without any of them having any facial details.

>which many would argue is a good thing
Which is fair, and I didnt even criticise the USE of classical music. But to me it still needs to be factored into your evaluation if the studio actually COMPOSES the OST itself. No one is talking badly about Mozart or Bach, but simply copy pasting accomplished compositions shouldnt net you more than an average score due to the effort being minimal.

>>160850339
>RoV is a much better show.
Now thats just retarded.

>>160850459
Politics is the reason 95% of the character drama happens. Without politics, there'd be no plot.

>>160850686
Thats like saying that the Dragonballs are the reason 95% of the fights in the original Dragonball happen which is its a treasure hunt, not a batlte shonen.

>>160850686
Doesn't make it to be about the political happenings. That's just the setting, not the actual substance of the drama.

File: 1490543394632.gif (621KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 480x270px

>>160839430
ITT: SummerFag Thread

>>160850478
>I still question the fact that this sentiment (in regards to LotGH) applies to the average person
They may not be able to express things as eloquently as I did and with the terminology I used, but they still have those thoughts. They still have basic taste.
>The average person doesnt even know what cinematography is so they would never take this into account.
Just because they don't know the term "cinematography" doesn't mean that they're not thinking about how the show looks. They're still thinking "I like how this looks" because f the cinematography being displayed. It's still their taste in aesthetics at work.
>The show lacks details entirely.
I don't even know what you mean by "details" here, bc it's impossible for something to be devoid of details. Stuff like the character design and everything that goes into making up those desogns, the architectural design of the buildings and ships, the colours used in the frame, etc. These are all details, and if they're used in a way that appeals to someone's taste, they're not going to care if the cinematography used to present them is basic.
>And again, no this isnt subjective.
Okay, I would even argue with you there about why it is subjective, but that would take us even further away from the point. You sked how someone could give the show a 9/10, I'm answering that. What you see as things that bring the show down, others see as things that don't matter or even raise the show up.
>simply copy pasting accomplished compositions shouldnt net you more than an average score due to the effort being minimal
This is a prime example, most people don't care about the amount of perceoved effort put into a work (which there's no true way of actually knowing anyway), and simply judge the end result and what their experience with that is.

>>160840920
Nice to know someone else remembers Ikoku Meiro no Croisee

>>160839430
Get rid of that loli crap and you'll finally grow up

>>160852271
>They still have basic taste.
Considering rush jobs to look better than the intended art is not what I would consider "basic taste". That is an outlier for sure.

>I don't even know what you mean by "details" here
The amount. Of course everything has "detail", but LotGH lacks a significant amount in almost all its areas. You compare still shots of the show to other works from the 90s and you will see that its nothing but average. There are no impressive shots, no overly detailed environments, no really imaginitive drawings or designs (outside of Reinhards main vessel and the simplicity of the Empires uniforms). The color palette isnt vibrant either, it uses mostly muted shades which compliments the mood, but it is far from being imaginitive or worth praising. Its a very basic concept.

Facial detail can be broken down to shape of the skull (mostly jaw and eye sockets). Nose, cheeks, lips, hardly any of them ever receive any attention. This is sufficient to get the job done, but when the vast majority of the show revolves around close shots of the characters face, then it certainly isnt an above average visual representation to basically fill the faces shape with [insert skin color].

>how someone could give the show a 9/10, I'm answering that.
To be fair, I didnt wonder why you 10/10 throwing user would hand it a high rating, but rather why someone who uses a rating system would. This obviously assumes that someone who rates shows puts some thought into why he rates it which I am fully aware that most people dont do, I just wish that they were or else wouldnt use rating systems to begin with. I realize that this is a bit retarded since earlier I referred to the average viewers, when I myself know that those cant be taken serious

>most people don't care
See above.

>>160839430
I've seen far worse taste but I can still tell you've watched a very limited selection of anime.

>>160840920
9/9 unironically

>>160839430
It's shit.

>>160844216
Which version of Restaurant of Many Orders?

File: 3x3.jpg (253KB, 900x898px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 900x898px

>>160839430
5/7
haven't seen toradora or angel beats
clannad and haruhi are shit, otherwise good
>>160840920
shit except k-on and aria
>>160845375
9/9 oh my rubber nigga
>>160845637
6/6
pretty good

>>160846011
Literally not true now that baka is private. There's tons of pre-2000s shit that you can't find unless you're willing to stream it.

>>160856297
so glad I got 2TB of 70-early 2000's blu ray rips before nyaa was kill and baka went private. need to buy a 2nd TB drive and back that shit up. good luck finding 1080p votoms and panzer world gallient now

>>160856297
Oh no, now you'll have to watch shows that were created in 360p on 480p streaming sites.

>>160856443
>Oh no, now you'll have to watch shows that were created in 360p
They werent created in 360p you retard, they are handdrawn and simply were rendered in that resolution because nothing else would fit on a DVD. Why do you think 1080p BD rips of so many shows from 70s to 90s exist? You think that they redrew all of them 1:1 to sell them as BDs or what?

>>160856443
>being this dumb
shows before the early 2000's were mostly done with real cels and shot on film. they look gorgeous with 1080p if they were preserved right. go watch the escaflowne, lodoss, gunbuster, or evangelion blu rays and come back before spouting this nonsense. Only shit from the early 2000's like fruits basket or technolxze are that low resolution

File: 1499969358838.jpg (43KB, 327x406px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 327x406px

>>160856443
>created in 360p

>>160856297
So how does one get into private trackers? I mean, I have most of the stuff I want but I still wondered.

File: 1500415467793.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>>160856443
>created in 360p

>>160839430
It's pretty generic. Not a surprise considering you still have friends.

>>160839430
> "i-is my taste shit?! p-please tell me"

why do you even care?
3x3 threads are cancer anyway

File: 3x3.jpg (248KB, 904x904px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 904x904px

>>160839430
These shows are mostly fine (except keyshit), but it's pretty typical of someone who has just started watching anime.

Having varied taste is a good thing by the way. Only liking one kind of show is boring.