/amv/ - Anime, Manga, Vidya

>>1914(OP)
>I'm sure someone is going to immediately post a counterexample for some anime out there that struggles with its art/animation yet still tell a captivating story.
Does Hikari no Ou count?

It could also be read the other way. That if a story is good it will naturally attract a higher budget.

Still. I think shounen do rely heavily on production. Hence why Boku no Hero Acadamia and Kimitsu no Yaiba are so good. But then there are animes like Black Clover that have terrible production so are not so good.

With moe it's hard to tell. People say that the quality of Yuru Yuri dropped of in later seasons due to a change in animation company but I didn't care. I don't think moe needs quality as much as shounen does.

>>1916
I think Hikari no Ou had poor animation but high ambitions that you could see were all budget issues. It’s not like nobody was trying

>>1915
>Lots of shows with uninteresting stories become passable and good due to the visuals
This is like saying you watch a bad show just because the soundtrack is good or it has an actor you like in it. You're free to prioritize specific elements if you want, but it absolutely does not need to be repeated over and over again that sakuga makes some trashy show actually great. A show cannot be carried by any single element, they all need to be present to some degree for the final product to work.

>>1917
>I don't think moe needs quality as much as shounen does
Shounen is a demographic and moe is an emotion. What you mean is that action shows benefit more from portraying action well than dialogue or atmosphere focused shows do.

>>1922
I highly doubt you have a holistic view of entertainment and focus instead are focusing on what tropes are used.

Being dismissive of people who value artwork over narative is dishonest to yourself

>>1922
There is obviously a baseline quality that has to be achieved, in all aspects, for those aspects to not be offensively bad.

Shows, and other media, for that matter, can absolutely be carried by one aspect though; look at one punch man, which is arguably entirely carried by the writing. Of course people still favor media that are "balanced", as in the case of the same manga with murata's art.

Also, horror is an emotion, as is moe; and as there are shows designed to primarily evoke the feeling of horror, there are also those designed to evoke moe. Wouldn't it thus be valid to refer to them as a unified category of "moe" shows? Seekers of moe are as much a demographic as are seekers of horror.

Of course people like action-packed action shows better - they want to see action if they're watching an action show.

>>1918
There is plenty of 3-minute moe out there

Ore, Twintails (QUALITY)
Rokka no Yuusha (QUALITY)
Marchen Madchen (Q U A L I T Y)
Bakemonogatari (slideshow)
Baby Steps (generic and unimpressive visuals)
Initial D (horrendous 3D cars)
Frame Arms Girl (low-quality CG)
Inferno Cop/Ninja Slayer (paper cutout animation)
Tesagure/gdgd fairies (MMD-tier animation)
Evangelian (static pictures and rough sketches)

You can argue several of these have a "style", but once you start making those soul/soulless arguments there's no point trying to come up with generalizations and you're just complaining shows you like don't look as good as shows you don't like.

>>1914(OP)
>Maybe the animators could be concentrated into fewer projects to make better overall works
1. Scheduling and outsourcing to cheap animators who have no interest in creating great cuts don't get solved by having more manpower available.
2. Going all in on technical quality means higher costs and longer production times, which means bigger returns are needed, which means you need to appeal to the broadest audience possible, which means anime is Hollywood now and the niche stuff that appeals to you specifically never gets made.
3. The proportion of quality projects to slop projects is probably about the same as it was long ago, the slop projects just see a larger pure numbers increase as the industry grows and are more visible in the present.

>>1923
Saying BnHA is a good show because the pictures are pretty is not "valuing artwork over narrative," it's valuing artwork exclusively and nobody outside of sakugabooru or middle schools is going to completely look past everything else to rate it on pure visuals. Again, it's like when your mom says the Thor movies are great because Chris Hemsworth is hot. Her opinion may be valid, but you can't really trust it since she is overvaluing an aspect that a normal person wouldn't.

>>1924
Intent matters. Moe is like tearjerker in that it can apply to works of any genre that attempt to elicit a specific emotional response in the audience. Also, gay.

>>1928
I would say that moe, insofar that it is an emotion whose evocation is the main appeal of certain shows, has become a genre unto itself. What is the point of CGDCT if not moe? Certainly, iyashikei is close; but it does not necessitate cute girls, which are instead intrinsic to the popular conception of moe (boys can be substituted here with little trouble).

Nakige is undoubtedly a genre; yet its defining feature is nothing else than being a tearjerker, first and foremost.

tl;dr: There are shows whose principal intent is to evoke the feeling of moe

>>1928
>she is overvaluing an aspect that a normal person wouldn't.
Who cares what normal people think?

want to meet a kissuer's abnormal mum

>>1929
In this context you are the normal person and your pervmom is assuming you value hot men as much as she does because she thinks you're an enormous flaming faggot. Is she right to do this? Do you enjoy being told over and over again that movies are involve actors and therefore the attractiveness of male actors is the defining factor in a movie's quality?

>>1918
I would have thought most had a low budget. They don't need as much animation or production as other animes.

>>1932
Name ONE bad looking moe, you can’t
The moe mob operates at a higher level than us mortals can understand. Not even Hinako Note had poor production quality

>>1933
don’t think it has to be your favorite seiyuu. nobody knew who utena was before mahoako and she made the show magnitudes better with her performance

>>1933
Ah, the subjectivity defense, favorite response of everyone who has ever needed to backpedal their sweeping generalization. At least we can now conclusively declare that visual style is not actually more important than substance in anime, some people just feel like it is.

>>1934
Low cost or low production doesn't mean bad looking. Moe isn't going to spend it's budget on fight scenes or beautiful scenic shots. But also I think pretty much all anime looks good. Anime is a good looking medium.

>>1936
I don't think I made any sweeping generalizations, though. I brought up subjectivity just because you simply seemed to be unable to think that a shows quality might increase with hot men. People judge shows with different criteria; mecha otaku will obsess over the quality of the mechs, while a fujoshi will obsess over the male character's pairings.

Your original comment was about "overvaluing" something; I just pointed out that what we value is rather arbitrary.

And I kind of disagree with your conclusion: visual style can be substance (for example, redline, angels egg). Could Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt for example stand on its witty writing alone? Its visuals are an inseparable part of its substance

>>1939
The entire thread is based around the assertion that "style" is more important than "substance" in anime, and OP has clarified that "style" refers to the visuals. The entire thread and discussion becomes pointless if you're just going to go "well, it's all subjective anyway." You're either conceding the argument in the sorest of ways or jumping in the middle of a discussion you have no intention of engaging with just to deny its foundational assumptions.

>>1940
I wanted to, but it's just a parade of misunderstanding tropes for setting up underwhelming ecchi.

I tend to think seasonals can end up really fun without high production value, but nothing that's really great is truly lacking in production value.