ANN degardes 00s anime, uses SEED as main example

>>15788658
We all know the people at ANN are retarded hacks. You can stop posting about them everyday now.

Why are their maths skills poor? I dont get that picture.

>>15788658
Nobody fucking care

>>15789087
I too am confused at this picture

>>15789091
I do and that is all that matters

Aquarion is trash lol

yeah, ANN is shit

File: [Autistic Shrieks].png (1MB, 1587x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1587x1600px

STOP MAKING THESE THREADS YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>>15789446

Not sure what that has to do with anything

File: the ugly.png (2MB, 1587x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1587x1600px

>>15789459
Your pic is ugly, anon.

>>15788658
But it's true that early 00s anime looks like shit. Digital animation in general looks horrible, but in those first few years it was especially bad.

>>15789463
>But it's true that early 00s anime looks like shit
No it is not, it looked fine.
>Digital animation in general looks horrible
Except it does not
>but in those first few years it was especially bad.
And who determines this, someone that danced with their mouth in the moonlight? Stop taking jargon from channel awesome too literally.

>>15789468
It really doesn't and your bait is low quality.

>>15789469
>Objective standards in art and animation techniques.
Which do not exist, now go back to /lit/ or /tv/ or TVTropes or wherever and get over it.

>>15789462
YOU'RE UGLY ON THE INSIDE

>>15789479
You're the one that made the /y/ny accusation, you show your proof first.

>>15789482
>They do exist.
Nice tinfoil hat theory, Alex Jones.
>doesn't mean they don't matter in the real world.
Because they do NOT matter in the real world. Go figure.

Whoever keeps making these threads gives me the creeps. He's so invested in ANN. It gives me buffalo bill vibes.

>>15789466
>someone actually defending early digital animation
Wow, now I've seen everything.

>>15789489
>referencing such a mediocre movie
>>15789491
This is /m/, we are not a hivemind.

>>15789494
>despite there being plenty of proof on the contrary for years
All zero of it.
> So unless you can produce something that is able to refute almost two decades worth of proof, your argument is moot not matter what you say.
You first, there is no evidence it is bad.

>>15789496
Meh I'll concede it's not Jonathan Demme's best film, but it's good for what it is.

>>15789497
>They do, though.
No they do not.
> You should go outside more and learn about the real world.
I do every day, you should try it.
>it is based on facts and real things.
No, it is based on a bunch of whiny old man complaining about how things are too new. Your mouth would make an ideal toilet.

>>15789499
Are you just against criticism as a concept? do you ever enjoy critical discussions about the art you enjoy? it seems like you just want folk blindly shoveling shit into their mouths

>>15789503
>Uses google
>finds no evidence
Checkmate, samefag.

OP chill it's just a show. You don't need to take offense at not everyone loving it.

>>15789505
>Are you just against criticism as a concept?
No, I'm against stupid people masturbating to things that do not exist.
>do you ever enjoy critical discussions about the art you enjoy?
Channel Awesome pretty much ruined that concept.
>it seems like you just want folk blindly shoveling shit into their mouths
Not blindly, only those that deserve it. At least until the FCC FINALLY gets rid of net neutrality.

>>15789512

I don't know what Channel Awesome is, but the idea that it would negate the entire lineage of art criticism is pretty funny

>>15789515
>I don't know what Channel Awesome is
The dominate criticism force on the internet since 2008, how new are you? That's lik asking what Twitter is.
>>15789516
>You will amount to nothing in your life
>has a bachelor's degree, a solid job, an IQ of 135, and a stable living
Whatever you say, troll.
>You are nothing more than a pathetic slob who still lives in your mom's basement, fapping to furry porn and hoping to get that next pillowcase in the hopes that it will make you feel better. You believe that defending shit shows will make you feel special and superior, going against proper standards and defending them with poor or outright non-arguments for the sake of having the last word.
Nice pasta, I remember when this was used on Valvrager.

>>15789524
I'd rather know Pauline Kael, Paul Schrader, James Agee, etc than whatever garbage you're incoherently rambling about. Sorry I don't live on the Internet

>>15789536
Sorry you're so ignorant on the world around you.

>>15789463
>>15789505
>>15789510
>>15789523
>>15789536
I always had a feeling Prager U watchers came to /m/ spouting right wing nonsense, but I could never be certain until this thread.

>>15789548
I'm a left wing tranny and I still believe in notions of objective quality in art, and the canonisation of art.

>>15788658
ANN sucks, but they're not wrong about how dated SEED looks. A lot of early 2000s anime has awful digital coloring and composite.

>>15789610
>ANN comes here to defend their bad position

>>15789524
A bunch of mankids stating a synopsis of what happened in a film with shitty comedy sprinkled over it is not critique.

>when you get permabanned for reporting shitposts but OP gets to shill for ANN while rambling about bullshit like a psychotic loon

Can we get a soft ban implemented for linking to ANN please?

>>15789680
The guy who makes these threads was probably the mod that banned you.
He also does that to those who report his shit threads.

OP's mental illness does me a frighten

>>15788658
>First encouraging dropping titles and now this? I question the respect for the medium on there.

Dude, ANN knows jack squat about mecha anime in general, but as they say even a broken clock is right twice a day. Late 90s-early 2000s digital anime looks like shit. And that includes Seed. Seed is not the first nor the last of that era to have shitty coloring, animation all due to really cheap ass CG.

>>15789742
>Late 90s-early 2000s digital anime looks like shit. And that includes Seed.
Incorrect statement and obvious troll bait.

>>15789748
Do you really believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this is a troll?

Why are you so invested in digipaint? do you want it to make a comeback? did you invent digipaint?

>>15789767
Digital = mechanics = /m/

CGI is the way of the future, we must embrace it.

>>15789772
Sure and digital animation looks good now. But it's hard to argue that early examples looked awkward. That's not a troll-like statement.

Yours, on the other hand...

>>15789839
>digital animation looks good now
No, it still looks clumsy and lacks subtlety. Just look at IBO for countless examples in basically every episode of how bad digital can look. It's weird that the amount of shoddy artwork seems to have INCREASED since the switch to digital when supposedly the switch was made so that it would be cheaper and easier to produce high quality animation.

>>15789748
>Incorrect statement and obvious troll bait.

Man I like Seed. But there is no denying it looks like shit. Seriously have you even fucking watched the original dvd version ? CG has come a long way since the late 90s, just look at the enormous difference in graphical quality between Seed and Gundam 00. 6 years and the difference is incredible. Good CG is costly, but in the late 90s-early 00s it wasn't even a question of cost, it was a question of early technology that just wasn't very good. It was the perfect storm of low resolution and early cheap ass CG technology. No wonder that a lot of shows from that era look bad. The tools weren't yet perfected.

Anon this is an obsession, you need to stop caring what they think.

>>15789848

IBO looks like shit because Sunrise didn't fucking care and gave the jobs to a team of monkeys. With little to no budget.
As I said, to see what good CG does look at Gundam 00. And that show is more than a decade older than IBO.

Why do you fuckers keep replying and bumping this thread? Either stop posting or do nothing but spam and shitpost

>>15789877
>Seriously have you even fucking watched the original dvd version ?
I have and it looks fine.
> No wonder that a lot of shows from that era look bad.
Go back to Macross World.

>>15788658
Is this an ANN thread or a parody of one? I can't tell anymore.

>>15788658
Once again, kill yourself TDSA.

>>15789885
>budget
there it is again

>>15789974
>Schwarz thinks I'm TDSA
Nice try

File: tdsa.jpg (49KB, 500x437px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x437px

>>15789974

Cool

>>15788658
making ANN bitch threads should be a ban-able offense.

>>15789087

He thinks reviews are required to adhere to a mathemathical formula if they use graded scores for individual elements of the review.

>>15789466
Animation from that era has aged horribly unless it was some super high level production.

>>15789848
That has to do more with how production schedules are a lot shorter and more hectic now. Virtually nobody besides KyoAni is consistently putting out animation that is better than their 00 counterpart. There are exceptions but they're exceptions.

So now a bunch of sites are being brought down, and there are rumors they are trying to bring down image boards. Have you thought about where you are going to go to shitpost if there isn't an /m/ anymore?

>>15792412
you can stop samefaggng now, channel awesome

>>15792412
The animation itself has aged just as well as all other animation. There's nothing wrong with the animation even today. The problem lies in composition.

>>15792425
Infinity-chan, or something. Wherever Dorkly ends up will be good enough.

>>15789685
Notice that most of the posts here, even the ones with dissenting opinions, have a similar posting style.

Either I've stumbled into a thread made by/for crazies, or OP is a loon whose madness should be feared.

Early 00 digipaint shows have not aged well. That should be an objective fact. It wasn't till 07ish that anime studios started to really output in hd resolutions.

The SEED remaster was a direct response to this. It was an attempt to bring the show up to more current video standards.

Normal upscaling can only go so far on shows that were output in 480i with composite masters.

>>15795400
Nice tinfoil n your hat, clearly you went with the good stuff and not the Wal Mart brand. Do you buy at Aldi too?