Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

It isn't a good example when it isn't made by one of the Japanese animation studios making the bad CGI that is currently being discussed.  It is an American developed product made by a professional CG artist (now, sadly, deceased).  I actually have seen very good CG from a few anime studios, but the majority is very, very, poor.

[Karnewarrior]

It isn't a good example when it isn't made by one of the Japanese animation studios making the bad CGI that is currently being discussed.  It is an American developed product made by a professional CG artist (now, sadly, deceased).  I actually have seen very good CG from a few anime studios, but the majority is very, very, poor.

I consider anime a style rather than a national product. RWBY meets this style, save the whole cgi bit, so it's an anime.

But that's pendantic. Another thing to consider is japan in general has a very... cheap... view on the economy. It's super capitalist in most cases. So studios don't usually get the kind of funding even roosterteeth does, or when they do they expect way more bang fr buck, or multiple shows. Anime is supposed to be cheap, whereas decent cgi meshing with 2d is hard and still new to the "not fifty or more dollars for this water" world of the non-disney titans.

[Twinwolf]

I'm just going to note that this anime/not anime debate has happened many times, and nobody ever makes points not previously made.

[Orange Wizard]

The word anime literally means "animation from Japan" so

[Reelya]

Without getting into that debate too much, there is definitely a style there, but it's not universal to this thing we call "anime". e.g a lot of Osamu Tezuka's classic stuff looks very much like Disney cartoons, yet nobody is debating Osamu Tezuka's work as "anime".

So there is a style there, but we lack the vocabulary to properly describe it. Another issue is that "styles" consist of specific elements, so you have classicism followed by realism followed by expressionism followed by modernism followed by post-modernism, and the relevant art experts can tell you exactly what elements characterize each style. If "anime" is a specific style, then there must be the possibility of a "post-anime" style.

Yet, there is no such thing as post-anime style. No matter what you do to the style people still call it anime. So "anime" is a medium, not a style. All animated things from Japan are called anime, regardless of whether they adhere to the traditional style or not. Have you ever heard of a "Japanese cartoon that isn't anime"? They must exist - if "anime" is a style.

[Flying Dice]

It isn't a good example when it isn't made by one of the Japanese animation studios making the bad CGI that is currently being discussed.  It is an American developed product made by a professional CG artist (now, sadly, deceased).  I actually have seen very good CG from a few anime studios, but the majority is very, very, poor.

Still missing the point.

Which is that it's an example of a CGI-only show being workable. Which supports the earlier suggestions that low-quality CGI in certain anime is probably due more to internal factors than anything else.

Really, if you're going to try to take issue with a nonissue that's unrelated to the discussion, why even bother posting? Especially if it's stirring up the same stupid old argument over whether anime is a style of animation or animation from Japan. obviously it's the latter

[Reelya]

Made for TV CGI is always going to be poor. It's unfair to compare that to e.g. Pixar's cinema releases. So it's not that these people can't do it, it's that making a weekly TV show is completely different to working on a feature film.

That Japanese one Karen Senki is the closest to RWBY in look and production values. That shows what Japan vs America can do working to similar constraints. In the end, they're pretty similar in quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JUBGNW4204

[Culise]

The word anime literally means "animation" so

One could easily claim my little tweak above, noting that this is the original meaning of the word in its native tongue, which was borrowed from the English word it means.  Mind you, arguing definitions is another one of the points in Twinwolf's comments.

[Putnam]

"anime" is an english word meaning "animation from japan", a loanword from the japanese term meaning simply "animation"

loanwords having different or more specific meaning from the original is extremely common and this is no exception

[Cruxador]

it's the same as everything else, not like if they were focusing any funding on sex appeal.

Seriously? I screenshot the latest episode as a case in point...here's a completely "non-sexualized" shot of a girl in a short skirt. There are multiple shots like this per episode for this specific girl. Her bending over like this is almost her trademark. (NSFW)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And like I said, it [the animation] is the same as everything else, not like if they were focusing any funding on sex appeal. It's not, overall, an ecchi show and while you're free to enjoy it in whatever way you see fit, I'm pretty sure you're not intended to masturbate to that image.

I don't think anyone is hating sexuality, just really disliking when it's used as an immature softcore porn-wannabe grab at pubescent boys. It can be used tastefully, it just requires that the author wants to use it to make his characters deeper rather than turning them into almost-there hentai characters.

I'm seeing both the insinuation that sexuality makes a show inherently bad and that nudity makes something inherently sexual.

I'm suprised no one brought up RWBY yet since it's almost all cgi.

It gets a free pass for being ugly since it's American.

Yuki Yuna is a Hero also had some good cgi with the vertex.

This is true.

Truthfully a lot of the examples give me of "it done right" still look more artificial then if the animation was done by puppets.

I can't parse this sentence

"give" should have been "given" (or "given to" in a more contemporary use) and "then" should have been "than".

The word anime literally means "animation from Japan" so

Well, it's a Japanese shortening of the word "animation" without an agreed-upon academic definition. There's some subjectivity.

[Orange Wizard]

Anime (Japanese: アニメ?, [anime] ( listen))[a] is Japanese hand-drawn or computer animation. The word is the abbreviated pronunciation of "animation" in Japanese, where this term references all animation without regards to the nation of origin.[1] Outside Japan however, anime is used to refer specifically to animation from Japan or as a Japanese-disseminated animation style often characterized by colorful graphics, vibrant characters and fantastical themes.[2][3] Arguably, the stylization approach to the meaning may open up the possibility of anime produced in countries other than Japan.[4][5][6] For simplicity, many Westerners strictly view anime as an animation product from Japan.

So, you're potentially right, but remember "for simplicity's sake" is a very attractive argument

[Flying Dice]

It's funny, when some point of grammar or linguistics is prescribed, people whine about "but muh descriptivism, words mean what I think they should mean". Here we are with a meaning that's clearly descriptivist in nature, in the normal pattern of loan-words (as Putnam said), and now that's not right either, instead it's "well nobody really knows exactly what it means".

[Reelya]

The real issue is that people who talk about anime-the-style are not using the same meaning of the word anime as people who talk about anime-the-medium.

anime-the-medium refers to the idea that all Japanese cartoons are referred to as "anime". There are really no exceptions to this rule, and style is irrelevant. anime-the-style refers to a set of generic "anime-esque" drawing techniques and makes no reference to country of origin.

So they're both valid. But a show isn't just a style, it's a finished product, and we're not trying to categorize character designs here, but whole shows. anime-the-medium = country-of-origin leads us to make less bizarre divisions. e.g. if we use anime-the-style as the dominate definition, then a fairly large chunk of Japanese animation is now "merely a cartoon and not a 'true' Japanese anime".

Let's say that tomorrow all Japanese studios decide that all characters will have square heads, and square eyes, looking nothing like the current shows. Would we say "Japanese cartoons have abandoned anime" or would we say that "anime has evolved to have square heads".

[Furtuka]

Spoiler: UQ Holder (click to show/hide)

AYAKA, CHACHAMARU, SAYO, ZAZIE, THE YURIBABIES, SPACE NEGI, EXPLANATION OF LIFEMAKER POSSESSION

THE NEGIMA PLOT IS BACK ON TRACK AND I AM HYPED

Damn I hope we get more info on that girl who attacked Tota soon (Who I shall continue to refer to as "Liquid Negi" until proven otherwise :V)

[Flying Dice]

Spoiler: the one true face of anime (click to show/hide)