CONTROVERSY! Why anime art is dead: discuss. [Archive]

Paul "OtaKing"

11-28-2006, 11:26 AM

Hmm... don't know what I'm talking about, eh? 小美ドクロ, you can't dismiss people's arguments like that without proof. And cold hard facts are something I have in abundance. Here are some arguments that nobody with eyes in their head can possibly counter.

The point is, anime art quality is odd in that it started out looking like rubbish (in the 50s and 60s), developed to a state of nigh-on perfection, considering what could be done with the medium (the 80s and early 90s), then degenerated into hastily-produced, digital rubbish from 1999 onwards.

Saying that comparing the old and new styles is useless is a flawed argument, and I can prove why. I never claimed that modern anime wasn't art. It is: just bad art, in my opinion. People claim that perception of art is based on the individual, and that art cannot be judged, but I firmly believe that you can measure the quality of anime artwork quite easily using actual, tangible criteria. For instance:

Line quailty and detail of linework, number of tones used in shading, placement of those tones on the artwork itself, the colour choices used in the shading, and detail of character/mechanical/background design.

These are the main factors of anime art, and they're quantifiable things, the quality of which can be measured just by watching in freeze frame or slow motion. And in each one of those criteria, modern anime falls down dead compared to 80s and 90s anime titles. Even the uber-expensive modern video releases, like the terrible new Hellsing ova, or the makedly better Death Note, are inferior in every one of those respects to such titles as Macross Plus, Dangaioh, Ninja Scroll, etc.

As for the judging criteria -
Modern anime line art is uniformly thin, with no weight variation, due to it being lazily drawn digitally. The majority of 'classic' anime, like Bubblegum Crisis, take advantage of their hand-drawn nature and look far more detailed for it. Any screen captures you may wish to take will validate this claim. Variety in line thickness, cross hatching, and overall number of pen strokes used to make up the character or face are all factors which classic anime surpass and excel in. Even a pretty good looking modern show, like Mushishi, looks bland and undetailed in comparison to this. Watch Mushishi, and follow it straight up with Yu Yu Hakusho, and you'll see what I mean straight away.

I don't need to go into how little shading modern anime has. Again, titles high in production values, Samurai 7 for example (the DVD box claims it's high-definition nature means it costs twice as much to produce as other titles) - have one tone of shading, or two at most. This shading is placed incredibly sparingly just under the chin and nose, in general, regardless of lighting conditions. Look at even cheap TV animation from the 80s (Ranma, Hokuto no Ken), and the depth of shading immediately stands out. The amount of time it must have taken to just produce the cel painting guide sheets must surely have been staggering. And you say "Old-school anime art is CRAP." It would appear that you're blind.

Colour, too, has been cpmpletely washed out by the digital process of modern anime. From the very first digital titles, like the Tv series of Mahou Tsukai Tai or Blue Sub Number 6, the grey, colourless nature of the shows is strikingly apparent. This makes no sense to me, as, if anything, I've found that Photoshop makes it easier to manage colour. Why anime should immediately turn grey the second it goes digital is beyond me... but it has, and nobody with eyes can deny that fact.

Probably the main factor in modern anime's unappealing look is the way the characters are drawn, though. Just compare any modern show to an 80s one, and they hardly look like the same country has produced them both. In general, anime character art has devolved to the point where characters have lost most of the distintive detail of the eyes and mouth... hairstyles, too. All of the things which people thought of as 'anime' characteristics... big eyes, small mouths, multicoloured hair... it's all become an incredibly simplified, minimalistic art style. Anime girls didn't use to have lips... nowadays, an anime girl can't be considered 'sexy' without having massive, pocking Angelina Jolie lips plastered to her face. No shading, of course. See Paradise Kiss or the sex symbol Okoi from Basilisk, for instance. The sheer characteristic detail of anime eyes seen in titles like Dragon Half, Battle Angel Alita, Lodoss War and the OVA Shadow Skill have been completely lost - replaced by a couple of lines and a circle. This, again, can be measured physically. Simply take a screenshot from a modern anime like Paradise Kiss or Paranoia Agent, and one from an old show, such as Dragon Half or Gundam 0083. The difference should be immediately apparent, but to take the test a step further, try and reproduce the still yourself on a piece of paper. If you time yourself, nine times out if ten every artist will find that it takes longer and requires more concentration to replicate the face from the old show. The reason for this is simple - there are less lines in modern anime. Less detail, less linework, and minimalistic flair.

Mecha and robots are the final area of comparison, and here modern anime holds up a little better. Modern shows like Rahzephon and Gundam Seed do actually feature some nice looking, well shaded mecha -even as the character art in those shows is exceptionally simple and lacking in quality. Obviously, these mecha don't have as much shading as classic titles - anyone who disagrees is blinkered by loyalty to these new shows, just because they happened to be born after 1985, and will change their tune after watching a couple of minutes of the classic Gundam 0083, Macross 2, Dangaioh or even Macross 7 (which many fans dislike because they think it looks cheap).

So, it's apparent from those comparitive criteria that modern anime is inferior, artwork-wise, to classic shows from the 80s to mid 90s. It's a concrete fact, based on the empirical marking criteria I outlined above. Even Cowboy bebop, one of the greatest anime ever in most critics' opinion (and mine too) was starting to look a little rough around the edges in terms of shading and character detail. It was made in 1998, and Escaflowne, a couple of years earlier, looked stunning in every crieria listed above.

I wasn't actually talking about the way anime moved, but it's a good point. And fluidity of movement in anime is another conrete factor which can be compared and weighed.

Some of the fight scenes in Naruto move extremely well. Likewise with Samurai Champloo. The first episode of Samurai 7 looks very nice in terms of movement, and all of these are modern shows. However, that's not especially hard considering all of these examples are motion captured (even I have pulled off some very smooth-looking fluid animation for Studio Trophis, merely by drawing over video footage of myself. Take a look at the gifs of my character animation for an exaple, attached below). 'Classic' anime was animated by hand, from the artist's brain. Nowadays, it's easy to take a shot of someone kicking someone else and simply trace. And trace is exactly what Naruto and others do... surely you've noticed how their proportions change drastically in the nice-looking action sequences? They suddely change from being anime proportiones, to having stumpy, real-life sized legs and arms. Either that, or they don't bother to draw at all, and just use cheap CG for the action sequences, as with much of Samurai 7 and indeed all of Macross Zero.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2406/10leesilhouette4mq.gif
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/2747/8vincesilhouette3kp.gif
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5434/leewalktoward5sr.gif
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1015/leewalkright2oe.gif
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/5060/leewalkaway5qw.gif
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3273/kierawalkdownleft5rg.gif
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4853/7shojisilhouette9gf.gif

If you then go and look at classic action anime, like Ninja Scroll, Macross Plus, the Fist of the North Star movie from 1986, etc, you can see levels of animation easily on par with those seen in Naruto and others you mentioned. The difference is, they were all drawn without resorting to tracing a real life video sequence. And as for CG - the makers of the 100% CG fest Macross Zero have gone on record as saying they simply could not top the frame rate of 1994's Macross Plus, so they didn't even try and just used CG instead. If the makers of the show have stated that the animated action scenes of their own early show is unsurpassable in terms of frames, that kind of negates any argument in favour of modern anime's animation being better. The eye can only see so many frames per second, and you can't get better than that. The aerial dogfights in Macross Plus are utterly flawless.
The final nail in the coffin is to watch the early 90's series The Guyver, and then watch last year's new version. You'll do well not to be sick all over your keyboard.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-28-2006, 11:41 AM

You bring up an interesting debate, but since your example image had so much inappropriate language, I had to remove it.
Bah! Fair enough. Lol, oh well, I shall re-upload it without any swearing in, then. ^^

To be honest, I don't completely agree with you. While there were a lot of shades, I don't feel that made for good art. And let's look at shows like Ranma, Fist of the North Star, or Voltron. Those were hardly characterized by spectacular art or animation.
Voltron is well before the golden era though, and barely moved at all! lol. As for Fist of the North Star... how much of it have you seen? Certainly, the first 20 episodes or so really don't look very good. They've dated badly, and didn't look astounding in the first place. However, if you keep watching, something insane happens. The artwork and animation become almost movie-quality as the series gets more popular and more and more cash gets pumped into it. At several points I couldn't believe that it was just a TV series, it looked so good. When Ken finally has the big fight with Raoh (only 7 epiosdes or so) they do a completely new opening sequence just for that fight... and it's such a well animated opening that they're clearly just showing off by that point.
People judge Hokuto no Ken on the two or three episodes they've seen at the start. Even before it's halfway through, it is a very different beast altogether in terms of art quality and animation.

If you ask me, the art style has changed, and possibly to something that you don't prefer. But I don't think it was for the worse. I think art, like anything, requires progression. Without progress, it's just stagnant, and art is no longer your own work.. It's just replicating the work of someone before you.
Exactly, and I couldn't agree more... but surely you can see that NOT having as much detail, not having as much colour, frames of animation, line quality and variety of character designs isn't progression - it's a step backwards? In my opinion, anime going digital was the death of anime art, and the end of it's (up till then rightful) place as the number one art style in the world.

Myself, I prefer a more "normal" look to something with vibrant contrasts between shades. To me, the excessive shading is more distracting, and not at all natural. Not to say that I like all modern anime either. One Piece is an example of the art style that I really completely hate. I don't get how the artist thought that was acceptable to submit, but apparently it works well enough. It's a quite popular manga, as well as anime.
But surely you love Akira? Everyone loves Akira. It looks utterly amazing, and its shading is magnificent. One Piece is, as you say, an absolute disgrace. To think that the people who draw that garbage probably get paid more that the people who slaved over Dragonball, drawing every tiny detail on Goku's hair....
The fact that it works well, as you say, is exactly my point. The anime production people KNOW for a fact that they can get away with half-hearted rubbish like One Piece (I'm only talking about the art here, not the story. Apparently it's quite funny.)... and 小美ドクロ's earlier comments prove it. Not only do modern anime audiences accept stuff as hideous looking as One Piece and Paradise Kiss (I cannot believe the anime character designer was the same guy who once drew masterpieces like Lodoss War and Battle Angel Alite - two of the most detailed, good looking anime titles ever)... but they actually believe that it looks amazing, and 80s anime looks crap! Lol. Once you've got the public believing that black is white, you can do anything.

Regex

11-28-2006, 11:46 AM

Your judging criteria that you listed is all personal preference. You're used to what you started with, and while that isn't bad, it doesn't make all different styles "bad". You go on about how you think shading is so important, and I look at the shading from the 80's and think it's excessive. And this is from someone who also watched anime in the 80's. You complain about the line art, but I see it as a shifted focus. First off, you're exaggerating that issue, and second off, the change isn't really so bad for everyone. I appreciate the art from the 80's as much as the next guy, but I welcome the new styles.

I don't agree that anime turned "gray", but the washed out look you're seeing is just the style changing. They've gone from super bright shiny everything and into a slightly more "realistic" look that fits their stories better. If you want colorful and stylistic, look into CLAMP manga. The stories are certainly not your style, but I think the art may suit you better.

I hate to say this, but your argument is pretty clouded, and that post proves it. There's nothing wrong with preferring the older style, but I for one don't appreciate the insults to my judgement that came with your observations any more than you appreciated it from 小美ドクロchan.

Oh, in response to your post responding to me...
Voltron was aired 1984-1985. I think that puts it right in the middle. That notwithstanding, you did specify that you think mecha anime has only improved, so I can accept that it doesn't count.

As for Akira, I really didn't like it. Barring the story, which is my real hang up on it, the art wasn't any more special than the art of Inu Yasha has been. I didn't have strong complaints about it, but I certainly wouldn't say it is all that wonderful.

In the end, something I think we all can agree on, is that most people aren't all that focused on the art. One Piece proves that one, doesn't it? Art certainly isn't my biggest criteria for anime. To me, I like the story, and I view the art as the frosting, the part that isn't necessary, but it can enhance the overall experience.

p.s. Your revised image still contained expletives :/ Cursing isn't allowed on the forums here, sorry.

kyubichan

11-28-2006, 11:47 AM

Mr. Paul makes a valid point. Don't come barging in conversations like this one acting like a schoolgirl, Miss Pink.

Anyway, I think this is all a matter of preference. I do find some recent character designs a tad bit easy to draw (by hand), since there isn't much detail in them. But seeing them animated is a whole other thing. Computers make animation faster, but it takes away that certain "luster" that older anime had. I do prefer 90's+ anime because it "looks good" (for me), but that does not dismiss Mr. Paul's argument.

EDIT:

Like Regez said, this stuff seems to be basing on personal preference.

Ωmega

11-28-2006, 11:52 AM

Paul "OtaKing"

11-28-2006, 11:54 AM

I also have to disagree. Sure, there are some animes that are just pure crap, but there are some beautifully animated series (such as Princess Mononoke, NEG, Lain, The Ah! My Goddess movie...I could go on). Many animes are poorly animated because they have to turn in episodes in a short amount of time, which doesnt leave much room for detailing and the such. But anime HAS changed a lot since the 80's
Mononoke doesn't count because it's Ghibli... the absolute, single only anime studio to have retained their style, unchanged since the 80s! ^_^
Oh My Goddess looks very nice... but it's classic anime from he early 90s, so that's why. lain, although I love the story and mood of it, looks pig ugly, I'm afraid. We're showing in here at the Sheffield Anime Society and it really is hard on the eyes... the only reaon I can keep watching is because the story's so interesting.

You're definitely right about some anime looking crap because they have to rush them out to meet deadlines... but that's no different to the 80s at all. And yet, somehow the 80s shows still managed to look bloody incredible. Just look at some of the shading and detail on Dragonball - the most rush produced show of all! It looks great, depite tight deadlines.

jep'ray

11-28-2006, 11:57 AM

There are always companys out to get a quick buck on the bones of an earlier success. I think that is the underlying factor in the shody workmenship your are refering to. retreads of older ainme always pale in comparison to the originals. But i can't agree to it all being rubbish.

As for shade quality, and line weight. its schools of thought on that. i've been to 2 schools for product design (art center and Long beach)and they had completely diffrent thoughts on what line weight should be. Art center tended to be very clean lines, little weight change, and long beach went for a agressive heavy line weight to help the drawing pop. Im sure it goes the same for anime schools, I dont know what they are teaching now. With all the digital work being done i think some of them just dont have a formal art education to fully express the line weights you are wanting. an artist hands his work off the the programer who scans it in the comp and cleans it, naturaly a good tech will clean the art work and the straighten out the line weights? I've seen alot of preporduction art and rendering of some of these current animes and say that alot of heart and work went into those ideals, it just got mashed in translation...But I can chalk that up to person taste.

I know the shading has gone from something close to like 10 layers to like 3 as of late, but are we seeing a new style, the digital age is here, and anim,e is going with the flow. as for the greying out of the art, i'm gonna have to rewatch my library and get back to you on that.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-28-2006, 12:05 PM

Your basing your arguement based on how anime is made, and not its outcome. True, art is based an the individual looking at the piece of artwork. With that in mind, I can say that anime from the 80's is crap because I may not like the line art, colors, and details. Now, you do have a point about the line work, shading, and coloring, but I personally prefer the cleaner, crisper lines and colors seen in todays anime, even if it means loosing small details like nice shadowing. Sure, you listed a few animes that have bland coloring, but its because that how it was INTENDED to be.

But that's the thing... the whole method of critiquing anime based on tangible criteria is a technique used to judge anime's artwork (not story or ambience) from a detached viewpoint. Like you so rightly say, if you judge something based on personal preference, you're not gonna get anywahere. You'll just be clouded by whatever you grew up wathcing being 'the best' to you. That's why I have used actual quality assurance techniques to get my point accross - I'm not being biased, I'm looking at the artwork of classic and modern anime through cold fact and weighing them accordingly. And in every single criteria I mentioned, classic anime comes out on top. That's honestly and truthfully not just my personal opinion, but something I've arrived at through in-depth study. I take on board all art styles in my career as a character designer and background artist - for example, I looked at Hyung Tae Kim's art, judged it on those criteria, and found it to be absolutely amazing, depite it being a 'new' style. So I have incorporated many of his shading techniques into my artwork.

Basically, I'm not just saying that because it is new, it is crap. I want to be proven wrong, in fact! I long for the day when I can look at a modern anime and weep tears of joy because it looks as good as Project A-Ko... but that just ain't gonna happen, judging by the current trend in anime artwork, and the fact that everyone here honestly and truthfully belives that it is better than old anime, despite all of the facts to the contrary I have laid out.

On a side note, eel free to have a lok at some of my art to make sure I'm not just talking out of me ***.
http://mightyotaking.deviantart.com/

There are always companys out to get a quick buck on the bones of an earlier success. I think that is the underlying factor in the shody workmenship your are refering to. retreads of older ainme always pale in comparison to the originals. But i can't agree to it all being rubbish.

As for shade quality, and line weight. its schools of thought on that. i've been to 2 schools for product design (art center and Long beach)and they had completely diffrent thoughts on what line weight should be. Art center tended to be very clean lines, little weight change, and long beach went for a agressive heavy line weight to help the drawing pop. Im sure it goes the same for anime schools, I dont know what they are teaching now. With all the digital work being done i think some of them just dont have a formal art education to fully express the line weights you are wanting. an artist hands his work off the the programer who scans it in the comp and cleans it, naturaly a good tech will clean the art work and the straighten out the line weights? I've seen alot of preporduction art and rendering of some of these current animes and say that alot of heart and work went into those ideals, it just got mashed in translation...But I can chalk that up to person taste.

I know the shading has gone from something close to like 10 layers to like 3 as of late, but are we seeing a new style, the digital age is here, and anim,e is going with the flow. as for the greying out of the art, i'm gonna have to rewatch my library and get back to you on that. I salute you, sir. That was all good stuff, backed in good solid fact.

Edit: Please refrain from double posting. Edit your responses to keep a cleaner thread, thanks. --Regex

.Gogo

11-28-2006, 12:26 PM

If anime art is dead, then I'm out of a job O_O;

Lol~ Hmmm... first off...

My opinions on this matter lie with Regex, Maru, and 小美ドクロchan. Their opinions side with my own. Although, I do respect and value your opinion Paul, you seem to be very passionate about your argument and well researched in the topic. I admire your enthusiasm and the fact that you are at least knowledgable about your opinion.

Now for just what I think; art is a highly debatable topic for one thing, with no point of resolution. Art is something that is based solely on opinion, therein lies the beauty of it's existence. Remember, a person can view a single dot as art, so long as it is art to them in their mind's eye.

With that in mind, to say that modern anime is not art is denying the support it recieves from others. Like Regex pointed out, art evolves. If it didn't, we'd have the same style repeating itself over and over. In my own opinion, anime art has evolved for the better.

Viewing modern anime as a whole, colors are more vibrant, animations are more fluent, character designs are more realistic. Although I agree that newer anime is being compromised by it being done digitally, but what I say is; what isn't? Technology just keeps making things easier. And I can't argue with that, because I for one support the results.

Last thing, anime seems to be gaining support, no? When looking at animes like Rurouni Kenshin, Ah Megami Sama, Love Hina, Gundam, FullMetalAlchemist... I can go on; I have to say that anime artists are doing something right. And I think alot of people feel the same.

Gnosis

11-28-2006, 01:52 PM

Art is something that is subjective, not universally objective. No one can tell you what you find good and pleasing to the eyes. It is a matter of personal taste. No amount of debating and "proving" one artistic style is better than the other will change a person's mind. It doesn't matter if one artist took twice as much time and added more detail to a drawing. What looks good, looks good, independent of how hard a person worked or how much detail a person added - sometimes simplicity wins against complexity. I will continue enjoying the styles I enjoy, regardless of its artistic "inadequacy."

Gjallarhorn

11-28-2006, 02:50 PM

As stated above, art is completely subjective. Though I agree that shading was done better in the past, I often dislike the actual style of illustration used in older anime from the 80s and 70s. In past decades, the shading and color transitions in anime had more of a flow to it. Despite this, I still like the modern colors used in anime, as you called it "Gray", I think it is more realistic than the bright and flashy coloring of said decades. Of course, in the past, anime usually had brighter messeges, whereas modern anime show more of a darker side to the light, creating a gray mood at times. I suppose this is just the change that comes with time.
If I want to see good art, I will go to manga. One Piece, as you call hideous as an anime, looks great down in black and white. The strength for the art is the attention to detail which is portrayed in the manga and the contrast of the black and white. Eiichiro Oda, the artist of One Piece, rarely uses screen-tones. What takes priority to me in anime and manga is the lines which are drawn. Sure, I don't like that anime is mostly done with computers now, but the harder, clearer lines look much better. Shading on characters and foreground objects does look blocky now, but that too is just a result of the change of times.
Whatever. It all ends up coming down to preference.
At any rate, while we debate amongst ourselves, anime and manga are styles yet to be recognised as "art" by most institutions. That's what gets me.

Herrpasz

11-28-2006, 03:07 PM

hmm as probably i will not add anything worthy to this conversation but i would at least try
i can not fully agree with you but i can't disagree as well
the anime just evolve and i guess for some is this a good direction for some not
i have not been watching much since a year 2003 so i may be a bit out of date
anyways i have admired many series in the past as well as i do now
such titles as
Neon Genesis Evangelion
Jin Roh
Ruroni Kenshin <only OAV>
Akira
are for me core of animation
you made 1999 a year of tha fall it is hard to agree if you think about Ghost in the shell, a year 1995 huge step forwards and you tell that it was made almost by the end, if you follow my path you will notice such series as Hellsing, Noir, Hack Sign, according to your words they are worthless cause done after the end of animation, for me it is hard to think this way, cause these series made me got back to animation made me found something fascinating again
but leaving them behind cause they might have been done after 90ies but kept the mood
We have now quite fresh titles like Final Fantasy Advent Children or Appleseed the movie, they are something different you can not compare then with "old School" but they made impression they open new doors noone was thinking to reach in 90s or 80s
your point of view is interesting but sounds a bit like a 40 years old man who misses the time when Abba was on the top and see nothing interesting in pop music of first decade new century
the animation is not dead yet and i gues it is quite healthy actually it changes only and it will we can not predict what will happen in next ten or twenty years. the good quotation to finish my post would be
De Gustibus non disputantum est
rest is silence...
Yours Lukas

小美ドクロchan

11-28-2006, 06:49 PM

And you say "Old-school anime art is CRAP." It would appear that you're blind.

I'm not blind. I just don't like that style okay? -_- You can't call someone blind just because their opinion in art differs from yours.

nowadays, an anime girl can't be considered 'sexy' without having massive, pocking Angelina Jolie lips plastered to her face. No shading, of course. See Paradise Kiss or the sex symbol Okoi from Basilisk
Oh my gosh that's SO not true. You take TWO series and immediately state that is how ALL anime girls look nowadays? :nono: Did you ignore what I said before? Paradise Kiss's author draws her characters that way because she wanted to be unique or whatever and the anime is simply COPYING her style because the series wouldn't look like the manga if they didn't.

I apologize for being rude, Paul but think about what you're saying. You're saying that modern anime art nowadays looks like a child scrawl in their feces, correct? Okay those choice words are very very offensive to I'm betting HALF of the forum, (me included) members because their favorite obsession was made either in the late 90s and up. Lots of people are fans of Inuyasha or Full Metal Alchemist or Bleach. It's not the smartest idea to come in here and say such a thing like you did because that means you're insulting half of this forum's taste in art.

And I still don't get why old school is so great-looking. Proof? Yes, I will give you proof.

THIS http://www.titney.org/anime/big/air.jpg

is more attractive than

THIShttp://www.zuhlcity.com/pix/a-kopix5/a-ko011a.jpg

Koshiro

11-28-2006, 07:51 PM

I noticed that in the topic's title you mentioned that anime art is dead. But from what your saying the only thing that is dead is the classical style of anime art which you seem to prefer over the new anime stlye which many others seem to prefer.

Although it is probably true that some of the older anime's took alot more effort to create and posses some values that modern anime's do not, it is also true that the old anime's do not posses many of the values that modern anime's does. (the actual list of values is too long to name though)

Honestly, I think it is stupid to call any form of anime art, or art in general for that matter, stupid, ugly, or dead. When reffering to art, art can be anything you want it to be, thus depending on your taste in art it may appear to be disgusting or appealing, however no matter how you may see it, that does not make it good or bad. For example if two people were to look at an abstract painting, one might see a painting of a plant while the other might see it as a painting of a person, it all depends on the individuals personal opinion.

Peronally I prefer the animation stlyes of modern anime over that of the old because they appear to be more visually appealing than they used to be. The color just appears to be alot denser than it used to be. Although, is the art and shading really that important? I mean is'nt whats really important the actual anime itself, such as its story and characters?

GaiSensei

11-28-2006, 09:05 PM

I don't know. I think it really depends on the artist. oo?

-Batman-

11-29-2006, 02:45 AM

Things change, and thinks improve. Deal with it. You act like EVERY new anime is crap.
I can't really say much for anime, so I'll use american comic books as an example.

Look up any scan from Marvel Civil War. Pick a character from that scan (Iron Man, Captain America, Spider-Man, She-Hulk, A member of the Fantastic 4, Thor, Whoever) And look up a scan from a comic from back in the 80's. The 80's comics are crap compaired to what we have today.

The same goes for anime. It's not that the shading was better in the 80's, it's simply that the lines were thicker, making you think it was more advanced. Also, you can recreate a screencapture from an 80's anime as long as you create it in the same manner it was originally created. Just like today, since most of the lines in anime are thin compaired to the 80's, you would need the right computer programs and pens.
Go get some art-books from some anime artists, read a few some time.
Most of them find that the digital age is making are BETTER.
I can see it as well, A lot of Shirow Masamune's work (I love Shirow) was great in the 80's, but upon upgrading to the digital era, his work has come out a lot more crysp. On top of that, Shirows been in the buisness for a long time, and his work is still as beautiful today as it was 10-15 years ago. Ever see Ghost in the Shell 2 Innocence? That was BEAUTIFUL. So WHAT if it used digital programs? We live in a digital age. Accept it.

jep'ray

11-29-2006, 03:30 AM

I do say, you brits sure know how to open a can of worms...or kick over a bee hive, the jury is still out. I think what we are running into is the style of cell shading what was traditionally a hand drawn picture that was later colored in. in all honestly i kinda like the cell shading of the current anime, some art houses do it better than others but thats the quick buck vs. the passion of a good anime. looking back to the likes of captain harlock and macross yeah the are and shading are nice. the animation was alittle jerky but hey its hand drawnand not computer matched...I am so not even gonna bring up speed racer and its horrid 1-5fps animation...now earlier you mentioned mecha and its shading...well with 2 good working eyes and some common sense (I've seen some dumb people even at art center...money does wonders if you have it...) almost anyone can figure out which side the shadow falls on, its all hard lines, almost never organic, or flowing so of course it will always look better. give me a basic line drawing of a gundam and a tria cool 2, 4, 6 and warm 2, 4, 6 markers and i can shadow it 5 ways to sunday, hell i can do a good job with just 2 markers honesly. give someone a few semesters of life art and watch how smooth lines can come and the tone of line weights move and flow, unless your just a perv and just stareing all day long...

im a born gear head so Mecha are what i lean to in anime, but i've found the bast are were no where near a mech, with few exception, macross plus being one of them...

Now for my own can of stuff. i would like to point out the art and style of "Last Exile". i think it is a fine example of better new anime, yes it uses cell shading, mostly 1-2 value hues, honestly it almost seems over exposed with how they got the colors to wash out (not grey out), but it does help with the mood of the show and does help bring it all to life rather well. it is one of my all time favorite animes both for art and storyarc.

"Planetes" is a good anime, story starts alittle slow but builds speed and has a good story arc too. Its along the lines of a hard sci-fi. i think the art and shadowing are also done well.

"Gunslinger girls" is another that looks good. both the background mat paintings and the character design are well off. the shading isnt rushed. its a collection of storys strung out along a time line.

what are your thoughts on these three?

now lets not forget, anime as it is called, is not simply art, it is the cultivation of the character design, the universe or world that character inhabits, and the story seperate it from something like american cartoons.

you can see art in something like the concept pics for something from like squaresoft's ff series. awsome art work, or the energetic marker sketches from metal gear solid. the concept art from studio Ghibli are also a several steps above what was draw in their final "Anime" form.

anime is also about capturing in the drawings everyday things that most folks take for granted. the breeze fliping pages in an open note book, the way the trees sway to the wind, food drinks, back ground junk that gets always gets animated and often over looked. That is anime, a world created on velium or paper. useing a Copic marker or Corel draw, it is the art of taking some thing as flat and lifeless as a blank paper and though a pen and markers, or a mouse and a monitor bring in everyday life into it. if you look too deep into art you'll fail to see see the art and only see the process, i say the glass is half full, what say you? and i'd love to you try and grab enough puffins to tape to your head, im sure the local zoo would not appreciate it...

Paul "OtaKing"

11-29-2006, 04:34 AM

Karmoon

11-29-2006, 07:44 AM

If you're an artist, or vaguely artistically enclined, then modern anime is actually quite painful to watch.

The shading is often in the wrong place, the proportions are more often than not wrong, and because it's all digital, it looks really artificial - never mind the 'CG slide' which always reminds me of flash animations.

The important thing to bear in mind is that, non artists can't actually see the difference. They only difference they can see is fuzzy VHS quality versus shiny download quality. So i think the problem with this debate is that most people actually can't see the difference - which is quite substantial.

A lot of people don't actually notice when shading goes down or art goes out of the window. Hell, most people don't notice when modern CG is spliced shamelessly into older stuff.

A lot of people have mentioned how old anime can be 'wonky' due to it's hand drawn nature (aah,, Minmei - you're looking particularly lovely tonight!). But has anyone ever had the mispleasure of seeing Ghost in the Shell the tv series? ... single cell organisms could draw better - and they can't even use a pencil. Just as wonky, just as badly animated, but look CG! haha, now no one noticed. It'll look dated in 6 months, but never mind.
So both sets of art is wonky, i just prefer human error to computer error.

For mechs, i've got to disagree with everyone and say that modern anime is definitely the loser. Everyone states Gundam Seedy and Raxephon, but trust me, these things are really not impressive compared with Dancougar, Zeta Gundam, Original Gun Buster, MAchine Robo etc etc etc.

Remember, popular does not mean good. Very very different concepts.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-29-2006, 09:44 AM

If you're an artist, or vaguely artistically enclined, then modern anime is actually quite painful to watch.

Everyone states Gundam Seedy and Raxephon, but trust me, these things are really not impressive compared with Dancougar, Zeta Gundam, Original Gun Buster, MAchine Robo etc etc etc.

Remember, popular does not mean good. Very very different concepts.You are so right that I would marry you if I was gay. Hahahaah!
A good test for many of the people on this board to do would be to watch Gunbuster, then watch the new "Aim for the Top 2" sequel immediately after. I think the results would speak for themselves. One has the best animetion I have ever seen... the other looks like a monkey has dined on a feast of the highest quality before punking said meal onto a PC screen. Ahh, the mistakes of youth.

Look at this image, ye who have eyes! I know you're all going to say the one on the left is better just out of principle, but I bet there's a twinge of doubt in your brains! I can see it, that twinge! Aaagh! I hate the word twinge now! Twinge.
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/6716/ourancomparisonkz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

PS- There's no way I would ever think to say modern anime mecha shows have improved. I quite liked Gundam Seed and Eureka 7, but both of their mecha artwork is vastly inferior to, say Gundam 0083. Then there's Char's Counterattack, which literaly wipes the floor with Seed in terns of artwork AND animation. The sliding, as Karmoon mentioned, is one of the worst things about Seed... I've never seen such a lazy digital technique in all my life.

Regex

11-29-2006, 09:56 AM

Guys, guys guys....

Art is subjective? You can't say which is better? That's what most of you are saying, right? You still reckon modern anime is crisper and better. You've all been convinced, in fact that it isn't grey and colourless because it's easier and cheaper to produce that way, but because it's looks better. One person even thinks honestly that Akira, the most critically acclaimed anime movie ever, doen't look any better than a TV episode of Inu Yasha!You're still arguing your own personal preference. Everything you have used to back up your statements has been "I like brighter colors, so the washed out look is bad. I like more shading, so the less shading is bad. I like thicker lines, so your thinner lines are bad." Those are not required to make good art. Anyone who has studied art beyond simply looking up how to draw their own favorite style would understand that different styles are not bad. Pablo Picasso was considered one of the greatest artists, and he drew some art that looks downright ridiculous. You have to keep an open mind, just because you don't prefer the direction the art has taken, that doesn't mean it's less "good".

As well as a video game artist/animator, I'm a translator by trade (hence why I'm sitting here in my pants. English pants, that is, not trousers.), - I've done the in-game text for Half Life 2 (arcade version), Ikusagami, Bomberman press releases for Hudson, instruction manuals for R-Type and I currently have a contract to translate three light novels for GoManga...though non disclosure doesn't allow me to say which of their "coming soon" titles it is. I'm not showing off, just establishing that I know what I'm talking about, here. Because exactly the same thing happened in the translation industry. A few decades ago, people said you couldn't say which translation is better, because it's subjective, like art. Because people had so much trouble arguing over what made a good translation - just like here on this forum, in fact, but with modern anime art - they realised they were getting nowehere, and devised a system now known as translation quality assessment. This allows companies to use concrete factors and physical criteria to actually judge a translation, and this system is now used all over the world to 'mark' translations... based on adherence to the message of the original text, localisation, fludity of English (in the Japanese-English translations at least), and generally how naural it sounds, whilst keeping all of the information and 'feel' of the original writing.

Can you see what I'm getting at? Because people have such a hard time saying which style of anime art is 'better,' I have used the same kind of criteria to crtically 'mark' anime art across a range of tangible properties. Because you can't look at art without being biased, this is the only way to look at anime art subjectively. I've weighed and contrasted each part of what goes into making an anime cel, and I've done it clinically, without bias. Because otherwise, you'll just end up saying whatever you grew up wathcing is the best, as many of you have rightly said.Your criteria is simply your preference. I could say that most dogs aren't good enough, because my criteria of a good pet is that it should rub up against you the way a cat does. This doesn't mean that dogs are truly inferior pets, and most people would argue completely the opposite, that a good pet should, for example, protect your household.

Even so, all of the counter arguments on this board have pretty much ignored this. I say that modern anime art is inferior to classic anime art because of this, this this and this, and I've backed my words up. But all of the arguments against me are, basically, 'you can't judge art, and if you look at stuff from the 80's, it looks crap.' EVEN THOUGH I've just spent ages critically proving that 80s art is cleaner, more detailed, better shaded and better in colour values.You've ignored how some of the modern art that you compare it to looks more consistent and realistic. Ridiculous amounts of shading only makes it look shaded, not "good". There are plenty of aspects of more modern anime that 80's anime didn't have, and you're just ignoring them, because to you, shading, line thickness, and colors are more important.
Not all art enthusiasts agree with you.

Here's my last image. Please have a look at it. If you think the images on the right look 'better' than the images on the right, then there really, really is no point me arguing any further, because something other than logic must be at work if that's the case.There is something other than logic at work. Remember, human beings and personal feelings are not logical. We have preferences, and you've made yours completely obvious. My preferences are not wrong. Akira's art was not special. What you saw there was pretty commonplace. So in truth, it really was no more spectacular than the art of Inu Yasha.

Now, as for your comparison image you just showed. Let me tell you what I do not like about the "80's shading"
Extreme contrasts between the shading. It's not "realistic." No, I recognize that anime isn't meant to be actually real, but why draw things that are supposed to be recognizable people in such a way that looks extreme? If a person's hair reflects some light, you don't see a defined line of "reflection" across their head. You don't see a defined shadow down their face. That little bit of hair would not cause such an extreme shadow over his eyes.
I realize that you prefer that style, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you like extreme colors and contrasts in art, that's excellent, and it's good that you know what you prefer. But don't go calling other styles "bad" just because it's not the style you like the best.
It isn't better. It's just different.

If you're an artist, or vaguely artistically enclined, then modern anime is actually quite painful to watch.

The shading is often in the wrong place, the proportions are more often than not wrong, and because it's all digital, it looks really artificial - never mind the 'CG slide' which always reminds me of flash animations.

The important thing to bear in mind is that, non artists can't actually see the difference. They only difference they can see is fuzzy VHS quality versus shiny download quality. So i think the problem with this debate is that most people actually can't see the difference - which is quite substantial.I do agree that plenty of people can't see the difference, but as someone who has recognized the difference already, I'm suggesting that it's not a bad difference. Some aspects are not as important in this generation, while others are more important. That doesn't make it poor grade art. It makes it art with a different focus.
There's no denying that there is some just plain bad art out there. But comparing the eras as a whole, I would say that they are different, and in a way that I prefer.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-29-2006, 10:57 AM

There is something other than logic at work. Remember, human beings and personal feelings are not logical. We have preferences, and you've made yours completely obvious. My preferences are not wrong. Akira's art was not special. What you saw there was pretty commonplace. So in truth, it really was no more spectacular than the art of Inu Yasha.I am absolutely stunned by this, and I'm jot joking. I'm not being insulting here - A lot of what you say is well thought out, but this is the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life! Lol. With the possible exception being Scientologist's beliefs... or the English weather reporter who claimed to be Jesus Christ.
I mean, the movie is so superior in quality to anything being produced at the time (and clearly above what we see today, even Howl's Moving Castle, which I like a lot)... and that's not just my opinion, but what pretty much every celebrated film critic who's reviewed it says. It cost more than anything in two decades to make, had the largest team of background artists and inbetweeners, had and indeed HAS the highest frame rate of any anime ever made in the history of the world... I don't see how you can compare it to a bog standard tv episode of a show which has only TV standard animation and artwork.

Now, as for your comparison image you just showed. Let me tell you what I do not like about the "80's shading"
Extreme contrasts between the shading. It's not "realistic." No, I recognize that anime isn't meant to be actually real, but why draw things that are supposed to be recognizable people in such a way that looks extreme? I also don't understand this... you say the shading was extreme and unrealistic, but that's what cel shading is by definition. That's why I love cel shading... it's such an uncompromising style. Modern anime also uses cel shading, and so is just as susceptible to your attack... except modern anime only shades approximately one tenth of the character. You say this is realistic, but when Kusanagi's stood in a darkened room in Ghost in the Shell, she *would* have plenty of shadows cast over her face. But she doesn't, because it's modern anime and modern anime doesn't have shading. I mean, it just doesn't. At all. As Karmoon said, the shading, when there even is any, is in the wrong place... like all over the lower jaw and a tiny bit under the ear... despite the fact that the light source is coming from directly in front or underneath. It's anything *but* realistic, as people here are claiming.

I'm convinced that this lack o' shading isn't top make it more 'real looking' than old anime, but purely and simply because it takes less time to produce that way. Less effort means quicker turnover means more cash for the animation studios fat cats. It's just easier to not put effort into drawing and colouring a show. What do you think?

Surely, your views on lots of shading automatically making something look inferior mean that you'd hate my artwork? My whole point in drawing is to try and become as good as what I see as anime perfection - the golden era of the late 80s. Heh heh.
I could probably get into trouble with the rest of the Stucio Trophis peeps for posting these before the new game's out, but I feel strongly about illustrating my point, so...
Try and imagine the following cut scenes being grey with no shading. Surely surely surely you can see that they would look worse than they do now? Consider the strong light source and everything... to have these shots as monochrome grey with a tiny bit of shadow under the nose would be complely against how lighting works, and it would look terrible into the bargain.

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7366/1copyrh0.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3923/2copyth2.jpg
http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/3830/3copysk9.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5268/4copygl5.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2456/5copypl0.jpg

jep'ray

11-29-2006, 11:44 AM

hmm, ok heres a query. Does the lack of multi-layer shadowing degrade the art work that much? I know all anime looks to have its light source above the target at about 45degrees, and of all things its looks to be only a 20 watt light bulb...but is shadowing anime? its your main argument right?
The art is still valid is it not, someone did the pen time. i'd have to say anime isn't dead, it has changed, and i know it will change again.
So who ever it was that was incharge of correct or multi-layer shadow rendering either got layed off, fired, or just plain died. That ship has sailed my friend, welcome to the new age of simple shadow fx. has it killed anime. nope. the art,( hand drawn concept art at least) still looks awsome. the on screen stuff has changes, for some the better, for others the worse.
just because someone worked hard just to have a company hand the inked cell over to a room full of monkeys with finger paint. Doesnt mean that someone didnt just draw an awsome pic, and the thought of having to shadow each cell for a show moving at 10-30fps for a half hour show gives me the chills...as long as the art work, the actual line drawing don't turn into some stupid half a@@ shadow of its former self...(see american morning cartoons) i still have faith in the current stack of anime. "ergo proxy" is a good example. though since the whole show is done in like cool grey #9 i guess your right its greyed out...

Regex

11-29-2006, 12:08 PM

I am absolutely stunned by this, and I'm jot joking. I'm not being insulting here - A lot of what you say is well thought out, but this is the most insane thing I've ever heard in my life! Lol. With the possible exception being Scientologist's beliefs... or the English weather reporter who claimed to be Jesus Christ.
I mean, the movie is so superior in quality to anything being produced at the time (and clearly above what we see today, even Howl's Moving Castle, which I like a lot)... and that's not just my opinion, but what pretty much every celebrated film critic who's reviewed it says. It cost more than anything in two decades to make, had the largest team of background artists and inbetweeners, had and indeed HAS the highest frame rate of any anime ever made in the history of the world... I don't see how you can compare it to a bog standard tv episode of a show which has only TV standard animation and artwork.

[QUOTE=Paul "OtaKing"]I also don't understand this... you say the shading was extreme and unrealistic, but that's what cel shading is by definition. That's why I love cel shading... it's such an uncompromising style. Modern anime also uses cel shading, and so is just as susceptible to your attack... except modern anime only shades approximately one tenth of the character. You say this is realistic, but when Kusanagi's stood in a darkened room in Ghost in the Shell, she *would* have plenty of shadows cast over her face. But she doesn't, because it's modern anime and modern anime doesn't have shading. I mean, it just doesn't. At all. As Karmoon said, the shading, when there even is any, is in the wrong place... like all over the lower jaw and a tiny bit under the ear... despite the fact that the light source is coming from directly in front or underneath. It's anything *but* realistic, as people here are claiming. You bring up an interesting point, one that I realized as I was looking back through some old Fist of the North Star again. I realized the shading isn't the point that I have issue with. While it's there, and I find it annoying, it's more the rest of the looks to the characters. They have very harsh looks to them, that the shading tends to bring out more. It's that style of the cell shading, and I don't much care for it. Much like I don't like the Dragon Ball Z look, but I didn't mind the look to Dragon Ball.
Quite bluntly, the characters are simply ugly. I don't like that.

I'm convinced that this lack o' shading isn't top make it more 'real looking' than old anime, but purely and simply because it takes less time to produce that way. Less effort means quicker turnover means more cash for the animation studios fat cats. It's just easier to not put effort into drawing and colouring a show. What do you think?I don't completely disagree. I think that certainly was a factor that caused a change in art style. I also think that the character designs are vastly different these days. To go with what I was saying earlier, if they were to give the Naruto characters that same harsh look, the characters would have a vastly different feel to them.. One that is simply not appropriate to the original artist's creation.

On the other hand, it would be appropriate to the first episode of Cowboy Bebop. The characters there were meant to be that harsh. Same with Trigun, many of the characters would have done well in that style.
But in my opinion, the art style to Trigun gave it a different feel, intended to help establish Vash's outlook on life in general. If they had given it the style that Fist of the North Star has, it may have worked well, but it would have been telling a slightly different story.

On a side note, when I said "realistic" (in quotes as well) I knew there was something I was getting wrong there. That wasn't the right word, and I think I've figured out what I meant by it now. I realize this may look like I'm making excuses... But I swear, I'm sincere.

Surely, your views on lots of shading automatically making something look inferior mean that you'd hate my artwork? My whole point in drawing is to try and become as good as what I see as anime perfection - the golden era of the late 80s. Heh heh.Don't mistake it, I appreciate the style, I just don't prefer it. As someone who is unable to draw myself, I have a lot of respect for people who not only can see a picture in their head, but they can also get that same picture onto paper.

Moreso, I don't prefer the genres of anime that tend to use this art style. I'm not a blood and gore fan, which I think has a lot to do with it. I like a good story, and to me, unecessary violence gets in the way of that. One of my more recent favorites, the Soul Society arc of Bleach (http://www.animepedia.com/Bleach), I feel does a great job keeping in action without getting overly crazy with it, all the while telling a story that I find to be very interesting.
But, I digress.

Good work on the stuff you're working on. Looks like you put a lot of effort into it.

小美ドクロchan

11-29-2006, 08:50 PM

All you've done is taken a piece of modern anime art... it's not even a shot from an actual anime, but a piece of promotional art by the look of it...
It most certainly IS a screenshot! That's how amazing Air's animation looks! So please stop busting on modern anime if you haven't seen the series or the Place Promised In Our Early Days.

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/6716/ourancomparisonkz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Okay if you do THAT, it doesn't even look shoujo anymore; it looks rough and masculine-styled. o_o I SEE what you're getting at but that style REALLY doesn't fit with Host Club at all.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-30-2006, 10:07 AM

Oh, I give up. Lol. There's no point arguing against folks who unconditionally love modern anime no matter what it looks like. My only comfort is that if you really do love the current 'style' of anime, then you'll feel my pain in ten years, when it has changed into something even worse than it looks now. Then you'll try arguing about how much better it looked in 2006, and people will look at you like you're actually insane. You'll feel my pain!

hmm, ok heres a query. Does the lack of multi-layer shadowing degrade the art work that much? I know all anime looks to have its light source above the target at about 45degrees, and of all things its looks to be only a 20 watt light bulb...but is shadowing anime? its your main argument right?

The art is still valid is it not, someone did the pen time. i'd have to say anime isn't dead, it has changed, and i know it will change again.
Yeah, basically that is my argument. That when people think of anime - your average man on the street - they think of the art style. they think of girls with big eyes and pink hair. And that, to me, is anime. The artwork. of course there are loads of amazing storytelling techniques in anime that you can never get away with in American cartoons - Gunbuster has one of the greatest stories I've ever seen. But I'm focussing on the art, as I am an artist. And, in terms of art, I'm saying that anime now is sloppy, minimalistic, and lacking in colour and detail. everyone here seems to think that this is a conscious choice on the part of the directors - that they *choose* to make it look grey and rushed because it fits the mood. But to me, at least, it is clearly due to one reason: the 80s were the economic boom years of Japan's economy. They poured cash into anime, and made it for the pure joy of getting it on the screen for all to see. Nowadays, everything has to be incredibly cheap, and even cutting corners like they do (using PCs to draw, automatic Photoshop shading routines which basically involve them selecting part of the face and adding 20% darken to it, etc), they still can't afford to get anywhere near the quality of 80s and mid 90s anime. The fact that people here are convinced that it's the opposite - that anime looks the way it does now because the directors are deliberately choosing to draw badly, is mind boggling to me.

To test this, I opened some screengrabs of Paradise Kiss, and tried adapting one of my art pieces into that style. Here's the result. It may look like a sick joke - it certainly feels that way to me, who had to draw it - but I rigourously stuck to the line quality and amount of shading that was on that Paradise Kiss screen. I even took the colours directly from it with the eye dropper tool.

And here's the result. I need to go be ill now.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7909/havershawstylesoc7.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

The Blue

11-30-2006, 10:09 AM

Hmm, this is an interesting debate indeed!

I have to admit, art isn't the be all and end all of a good anime, but it really REALLY helps. And I do have to agree with the OP's opinion that anime art has declined rather seriously over the past few years. Not only art, but someone mentioned (sorry, can't be bothered scrolling back) that the animation quality - namely the sliding - is also a problem. This too is very true, I mean, I would much rather see something move smoothly rather than amateurishly slide its way across the screen. Oh sigh.

But this is what really motivated me to take part in all this - Several of you were saying that you didn't like the shading in old anime because its not 'realistic' - that's... well, what can I say? First off, if you want realistic, watch a film or something, secondly - if that's the kind of shading / colouring you like, just watch Disney. The shading on pre-digital anime is, in most cases, a work of art. And that is what I think this is all about. Its the small things like shading that make anime so visually appealing, and without them anime IS (visually that is) no better than Disney.

Also, everyone seems to be talking about art being all about personal preference but that has little to do with it. Yes, some people might find a single dot in the centre of a canvas 'a graphical tour de force!' but THEY. ARE. WRONG. Come ON people, please tell me you have more sense than that? Something which has been worked on for longer, and has more detail to it is bound to look better. Its not preference, its FACT.

As for older shading not 'being shojo'... Well, lets compare something, shall we? CLAMP for example. THE shojo artists and story writers. Perhaps the greatest (if not the most well known) shojo group...

First, the X movie (1996):
http://www.animeforum.com/uploads/X1.jpg http://www.animeforum.com/uploads/X2.jpg

And then, perhaps, we should compare it to these two travesties from just last year:

xxxHolic Movie-http://www.animeforum.com/uploads/CLAMP1.jpg

Tsubasa Resevoir Chronicles Movie-http://www.animeforum.com/uploads/CLAMP2.jpg

Seriously, if no one can GENUINELY see the difference between the two (i.e: WHICH IS CLEARLY BETTER)... I don't think I can be bothered wasting time arguing otherwise (I've been through something simlar before).

p.s: I have seen the Place Promised In Our Early Days... and the art wasn't anything special, I'm afraid. Animation was nice though.

jep'ray

11-30-2006, 10:54 AM

hmm, someone erased it but i mentioned earlier, um...resistance is futile...the darlak had it right all along...come on paul, lets see that pic with the puffins now...

小美ドクロchan

11-30-2006, 11:30 AM

So nobody's going to argue that Haruhi looks WEIRD with 80s shading!? NOBODY?
O_o
Yes yes, I see how nice X looks but don't you guys understand that it's themes and moods that suit anime styles? Host Club is a light-hearted girl's comedy. X is dark dark dark. It DOESN'T FIT.

p.s: I have seen the Place Promised In Our Early Days... and the art wasn't anything special, I'm afraid. Animation was nice though.

Well I WAS talking about the animation...:rolleyes:

Regex

11-30-2006, 11:42 AM

To test this, I opened some screengrabs of Paradise Kiss, and tried adapting one of my art pieces into that style. Here's the result. It may look like a sick joke - it certainly feels that way to me, who had to draw it - but I rigourously stuck to the line quality and amount of shading that was on that Paradise Kiss screen. I even took the colours directly from it with the eye dropper tool.

And here's the result. I need to go be ill now.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7909/havershawstylesoc7.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)Did you notice the difference in the character design there? Notice how one looks menacing, and the other looks happy? The art is setting a completely different feel to the entire image. I don't care how long you spent on it. Your second drawing made it painfully clear that you only spent a few minutes on it. If you truly believe that's how modern anime looks, then you have just confirmed that you are absolutely biased, and you are unable to judge any art style that doesn't fit with your own. It's just not a style of art that you are good at.

Seriously, I think I presented enough logical arguments to make it perfectly clear that neither art style is actually "bad" but you continue on your insulting spree, saying that my judgement is not valid, simply because I don't agree with you.

Try to be as logical as you want us to be.

小美ドクロchan

11-30-2006, 12:12 PM

Did you notice the difference in the character design there? Notice how one looks menacing, and the other looks happy? The art is setting a completely different feel to the entire image. I don't care how long you spent on it. Your second drawing made it painfully clear that you only spent a few minutes on it. If you truly believe that's how modern anime looks, then you have just confirmed that you are absolutely biased, and you are unable to judge any art style that doesn't fit with your own.
Yes! Yes! This is what I'm trying to get at. If you apply that style to it, it looks like an action-packed shounen comic book from years ago. Which Paradise Kiss is not. And yeah, once you do that, the character design is WAY too different and it just doesn't flow right.

Karmoon

11-30-2006, 12:24 PM

Did you notice the difference in the character design there? Notice how one looks menacing, and the other looks happy? The art is setting a completely different feel to the entire image. I don't care how long you spent on it.Regex - you've nailed it on the head.
I think it's a fair comparison - because that's exactly what's happening to modern anime. It's not just an issue of shading, it's an issue of art and line. Of basic drawing skills.
Modern anime simply isn't getting the care and attention it deserves. If the studios spent more time drawing it, then I'm sure they could meld modern techniques and standard artistic principles to make something truly beautiful.

But modern anime lacks these basic artistic principles. There's as much shading now as there was back in the 70s. That aside, the lines are better placed, and the character's proportions are more indicative of reality in old anime.

There are some very very styled animes out there which go to break conventions - consider popolocrois.

Someone mentioned Picasso and his art, but I ask you, have you seen his normal artwork and studies? They are phenomenal. People like Picasso and Chagal are geniuses who proved he could draw and paint conventionally, but he chose to explore his own personal avenues.

What can I say? I prefer neoclassicism to namby pamby byzantine art - and i know which one modern anime looks like.

It's a shame, because with the stories and voices going the way they do, I find myself digging up really old anime in an effort to get some decent entertainment. Let's face it, they look just as bad/good as each other - gimme Xabungle and a 6 pack of pop anyday :)

You are so right that I would marry you if I was gay. Hahahaah!Please sir, the maids might see us! *waves hanky*

Paul "OtaKing"

11-30-2006, 06:41 PM

Seriously, if no one can GENUINELY see the difference between the two (i.e: WHICH IS CLEARLY BETTER)... I don't think I can be bothered wasting time arguing otherwise (I've been through something simlar before).
The Blue - You are my new hero. Not because you're helping prove my point, but because you are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that old artwork was superior in quality. People will probably not be impressed that you're comparing a movie to TV series, but Rayearth was a CLAMP TV series and it lookds ridiculously better than the two new CLAMP examples you posted. You're right, and I applaud you.

Jep'ray - Sadly my camera has gone missing. I reckon my kitten may have eaten it. Otherwise I'd definitely post the photos of my puffin flight attempts.

小美ドクロchan - I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that 80s shading doesn' fit lighthearted series. You've seen ranma, right? Maison Ikkoku? Orange Road? Dragon Half? All incredibly funny, lighthearted shows, and all filled with shading.
Modern anime artists don't remove all shading and colour from their shows to 'fit the mood' - they do it because they don't have the skill levels and ability anymore to shade and draw as intricately as in the 80s. Try not doing situps for ten years... you can't even manage one the next time you try. Skills fade away and die if they're not used, and that definitely goes for anime art too.

REGEX - I'm really not meaning to insult anyone. That second image I drew did honestly look rather close to the Paradise screencap I was using as reference. In fact, I'll post it here.
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4585/untitledvu5.png (http://imageshack.us/)
Like I said. This terrible, terrible nightmare was drawn by the same guy who did THIS:
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6583/battleangelalita7mk7.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5691/battleangelalita16oi6.jpg

Am I really the only one who finds this to be heartbreaking? Surely even the most hardened fan of modern anime can see that Paradise Kiss looks bad in comparison? Surely?

Everyone seems to ignore the data I meticulously presented at the start of this thread. This cannot be an argument about preferences, because in such an argument there can be no outcome. It's got to be based on facts. And as I said, you can weigh and contrast anime art using facts, just as you can the similarly subjective area of translation. As I said over on deviantart,The Sega Megadrive is a technically superior machine than the NES because it has more colours, more internal hardware trickery, and better sound processors. It is also 16-Bit whereas the NES is 8-Bit. That's fact. Nobody could argue against that.
Likewise, I have presented a ton of actual data to prove modern anime's inferiority in skill level across the board. Blue's visual evidence of the decline in CLAMP artwork MUST strike a chord with you on some level, surely? I mean, you can't *not* see the decline in the moden images he posted?

Karmoon - Right on. Although some of your classical art references went over my head like some kind of funky plane with Rembrant at the helm. And he doesn't know how to fly! Though you say modern anime has as little shading as 70s shows. That's true, but modern anime shading is in the wrong place. The little shading there was in the 70s at least obeyed the laws of lighting. And people had colour.

pfftlecakes

11-30-2006, 06:51 PM

I'll be brief because my eyes hurt from reading all this.

First off, I'd like to point out that you really need to have a trade-off of artwork and motion in many of these situations (not all, but the majority). If you think about this, you can see why people like one or the other better.

To have any extremely detailed anime, there needs to be a compromise in fluidity of the subject. This goes with thicker lines, shading, vibrant colors and every single detail one could think of. There are exceptions but, for the most part, this is true. A lot of the fanbase currently rests in anime that needs motion to move along what's happening because so much of it is based completely on fighting (Naruto, InuYasha, etc.). So, rather than give up the motion for the artwork, they do the opposite, creating thinner and fewer lines and shades to give the fight a little more detail, rather than the characters.

Personally, I can find good in most animes, some I adore, some simply okay and others I believe to be trash. However, there is something to enjoy for many genres and titles, whether it be detailed artwork, fluid fight scenes, plotlines, characterization or voice acting! Personally, I enjoy the more detailed works because I enjoy detail in the first place, but there is so much more an anime can offer. Sometimes people just look at the anime as a whole and enjoy it for what it is rather than getting so stuck on the artwork and other times they only like it for one aspect or another. Just because someone likes Naruto's storyline (Gods forbid) doesn't make Naruto the greatest anime of all times, but it's sketchy artwork isn't what makes it the worst. Animation should NOT be the the only factor in what makes or breaks an anime.

Now to a bold point I'd like to make: I don't believe the author of this thread really wants the readers to 'discuss', as it was claimed in the title. It seems this person wants everyone to believe what he thinks, based on criteria that he's put out for everyone else to read. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (because that's what this is about), including OtaKing. My opinion is that nobody should have to have a conclusion force fed to them.

I guess I wasn't all too brief.

Regex

11-30-2006, 07:09 PM

小美ドクロchan - I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that 80s shading doesn' fit lighthearted series. You've seen ranma, right? Maison Ikkoku? Orange Road? Dragon Half? All incredibly funny, lighthearted shows, and all filled with shading.
Modern anime artists don't remove all shading and colour from their shows to 'fit the mood' - they do it because they don't have the skill levels and ability anymore to shade and draw as intricately as in the 80s. Try not doing situps for ten years... you can't even manage one the next time you try. Skills fade away and die if they're not used, and that definitely goes for anime art too.Ranma didn't possess NEARLY as harsh a feel as the art that you have been showing. The shading, which you continue to bring up, isn't as extreme as the other shows that you like from the time period. The art in Ranma isn't so harsh, and it's certainly more enjoyable to watch and read than Fist of the North Star was.

What I did notice was a lot of the shapes used in Ranma. Not particularly appealing in the human characters. However, it worked really well for the animal counterparts. It was drawn in a very simple fashion. The same issue that you seem to hate so much about other modern anime.

So if Ranma can be simple, but still good, but nothing post-80's can be...
Doesn't that sound like bias to you?

The fact is, despite how you want to blame the change in art style on laziness and lack of skill, I argue that plenty of it was very much intentional. Like we've said before, when you apply the wrong style to a character, it creates a completely different characterization. You proved this yourself with the image that YOU created. Furthermore, if you apply differing styles throughout a show, you end up with a very distracting art difference.

And I'd like to point out one more time that you really did show yourself to be poor at the "modern" art style. If nothing else, that should be evidence enough that it's not as easy as you're making it out to be.

Paul "OtaKing"

11-30-2006, 07:18 PM

QuinzeValentine - I definitely get what you're driving at here. But I really can't agree, for the most part. Hellsing is an expensive new OVA series, and its' movement is terrible compared to Gunbuster, Macross Plus, Ninja Scroll, Bubblegum Crisis... the list goes on. Have you ever seen Zeta Gundam? It's an 80' TV series, yet has far, far far more animation than naruto or any of the other cheap shows today. Just watch if you don't believe me. Compare Gunbuster with Hellsing, or Death Note, or any of the best modern examples you can think of, and you'll see that saying old shows could only dream of having animation like the new shows is actually exactly the opposite way round.
That about says everything I was going to say. Plastic Little is a great example... ridiculously fluid animation, and 3-4 tones on every single one of those thousands of frames. The same with Dragonball Z- 4 tones as standard, and it doesn't move any less than shows do today.
And Gundam 0083... oh my ****.
What I'm saying, is that it WAS possible and it was standard fare in the 80s to have fluid animation made up of cels that had huge amounts of shading on them. So why not now?

Now to a bold point I'd like to make: I don't believe the author of this thread really wants the readers to 'discuss', as it was claimed in the title. It seems this person wants everyone to believe what he thinks.But doesn't everybody? Anyone who's ever gone to a debating society or started an argument didn't go there to or do so with the intention of being proven wrong. They want to convince others that they're right. In my case, I don't matter. I'm nothing - few of you will remember my name or what obscure UK company I work for in a couple of days from now. What I want people to see is that 80s anime is utterly astounding, and that they are wrong to think that it looks 'crap' or 'out of place' or 'so dated nobody would choose to watch it.' I don't want them to say "Hey, I was wrong and that Paul Johnson was right after all!" I want them to forget all about me, and realise that classic anime artwork, when critically examined, is technically superior than modern artwork, and deserves, nay DEMANDS their respect! Lol.
Not watching something like Gunbuster or Cyber City Oedo 808 or Bubblegum Crisis because it's not grey and colourless is a terrible, terrible loss to your eyes. That's what I'm saying.

So if Ranma can be simple, but still good, but nothing post-80's can be...
Doesn't that sound like bias to you?
The fact is, despite how you want to blame the change in art style on laziness and lack of skill, I argue that plenty of it was very much intentional.But Ranma looks like 80s art style and shading. Just look at the promotion material from the time. The colours were just as 'harsh' as the other shows I brought up. Even more that the Battle Angel Alita pics I put up above! I don't think Ranma looks simple... the excellent shading brings out facial details the likes of which the lack of defining shadows in modern shows can never hope to do.
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9613/ranma7tm7.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

The only real problem here is that you're assuming that having all of the new shows in pretty much greyscale is a deliberate choice on the part of the director. I don't think so. I've done a bit of research, watched a couple of 'making of' doccumentaries when I ws in Japan (Mezzo DSA was on at the time and they outline the process in the accompanying promo footage) and it seems to be that they use Photoshop to colour and shade now - and to shade someone's face/clothes/ etc, all they do is simply add some black into the colour mix. As anyone who's ever tried colouring anything will no doubt know... if you want to shade something, you don't just add black. The reason? Because it just makes a muddy grey of whatever your original colour was. Artists create a darker shade by adding various colours in, not just black. This is a basic priinciple in any kind of art theory. Sadly, it's not a principle the anime studios listen to. This would explain why every modern anime is so grey and washed out - they're just being lazy with Photoshop's automated processes to cut corners and save time.

In the 80's, to shade someone's face, they would take the base pink of the character's face and add yellow ochre, alizarin crimson and a tone of brown, along with a very small amount of black -all mixed together in a pot. I used to paint real cels in acrylic paint ten years back, and have had to do this for far too many hours to count. I tried just adding only black to the base pink, but all I got was a pink-grey. And whaddya know? It was exactly the same result you see in modern anime.

pfftlecakes

11-30-2006, 08:13 PM

OtaKing, re-read my post. You seem to have done a poor job with the first full paragraph.

You're right, there are many animes that don't fall into that category, but that's what's happening regardless. New studios are giving up detailed animation to make the fluidity of motion better without using anymore resources. It's what I said and is my -opinion- as to what's happening. I'm sticking to it because even with exceptions, it's a basic outline of what's going on.

Also, if you want a discussion, make for a good one, rather than cramming what you think down viewers' throats. You've given us YOUR scale of good and bad, including diagrams and photos, but that obviously does NOT overtake opinion. You're acting like you can tell someone what's right and wrong to like and have them automatically agree with you. Or even not automatically agree and eventually agree, based on what YOU believe to be fact.. but that's just your opinion too. You've asked for a discussion, so accept one, rather than spoon-feeding us opinionated 'truths'.

Please and thank you.

Sakura Koneko

11-30-2006, 08:31 PM

But surely you love Akira? Everyone loves Akira. It looks utterly amazing, and its shading is magnificent.No.

Not everyone loves Akira. I personally thought Akira was crap animation (and stupid in general), I couldn't tell the difference between the male and female characters except for their voices. But I'm not going to argue against anyone that liked it, that's their choice.

Anyway, that's the problem here. Everyone has their own -opinion- no true fact of wether the art is better or worse nowdays exists because it is up to each and every person on their own to decide if they like the animation or not. Thusly your opinion won't be changed, and neither will that of anyone who disagrees with you.

These are the same types of fights I try to keep out of with my boyfriend because it just leads to useless squabling with no resolution.

Regex

11-30-2006, 08:42 PM

That about says everything I was going to say. Plastic Little is a great example... ridiculously fluid animation, and 3-4 tones on every single one of those thousands of frames. The same with Dragonball Z- 4 tones as standard, and it doesn't move any less than shows do today.Are you using Dragonball Z as an example of better animation? One of the things about the earlier eras of anime is that they were very well known for being really downright poor animation overall. Dragonball Z was certainly not the best example you could use. It was one of the shows that I felt stood out as having poor animation. Sure, the parts where people were moving were "fluid" enough, but they spent a lot of time motionless, with only their mouth moving.

But doesn't everybody? Anyone who's ever gone to a debating society or started an argument didn't go there to or do so with the intention of being proven wrong. They want to convince others that they're right.Anyone who has ever been involved in professional debate knows the importance of keeping an open mind. Certainly, you want to prove your point. But when facts are brought up that you didn't consider, you are expected to adapt your argument, not repeat your previous arguments. Not to mention, one of the most important factors in debate is beeing free from bias. You have made it very obvious that your argument is rooted in your own personal bias, and not in facts. In fact, every time you pointed out that you used facts to prove your point, you only showed facts to show why anime doesn't look the same way that you prefer. Bad form.

In my case, I don't matter. I'm nothing - few of you will remember my name or what obscure UK company I work for in a couple of days from now. What I want people to see is that 80s anime is utterly astounding, and that they are wrong to think that it looks 'crap' or 'out of place' or 'so dated nobody would choose to watch it.' I don't want them to say "Hey, I was wrong and that Paul Johnson was right after all!" I want them to forget all about me, and realise that classic anime artwork, when critically examined, is technically superior than modern artwork, and deserves, nay DEMANDS their respect! Lol
Not watching something like Gunbuster or Cyber City Oedo 808 or Bubblegum Crisis because it's not grey and colourless is a terrible, terrible loss to your eyes. That's what I'm saying..Art demands respect as art. And you yourself are failing to show any respect for modern anime as art. Take your own words, and consider how you are acting.

But Ranma looks like 80s art style and shading. Just look at the promotion material from the time. The colours were just as 'harsh' as the other shows I brought up. Even more that the Battle Angel Alita pics I put up above! I don't think Ranma looks simple... the excellent shading brings out facial details the likes of which the lack of defining shadows in modern shows can never hope to do.Promotion material is not a valid comparison. That notwithstanding, I did mention that the shading was not as extreme, so it wasn't so unpleasant to see. The art in Ranma was far simpler than Fist of the North Star, Dragonball Z, etc.

In the 80's, to shade someone's face, they would take the base pink of the character's face and add yellow ochre, alizarin crimson and a tone of brown, along with a very small amount of black -all mixed together in a pot. I used to paint real cels in acrylic paint ten years back, and have had to do this for far too many hours to count. I tried just adding only black to the base pink, but all I got was a pink-grey. And whaddya know? It was exactly the same result you see in modern anime.I don't think anyone is denying that it does save time, and that it's not as detailed. At least I am not denying that. QuinzeValentine has been trying to say is that it was intentional, to allow for more detail in movement.
I have been trying to say that the shading detail is not a priority, due to added detail elsewhere. Essentially similar arguments, neither of which actually even contradict your fact-based arguments.

My main argument in all this is that the focus shift does not make modern anime bad. It just makes it different.

小美ドクロchan

12-02-2006, 07:50 PM

Also, you do have to take into consideration: Anime's a total explosion these days. It didn't used to be back then I think. With hundreds of titles pouring out more and more every year, the poor animators just don't have TIME to shade everything all detailed and stuff. It's something you can't avoid. =/ I blame this on America, where very much support for anime comes from, believe it or not. LOL

Princess Hoshi

12-02-2006, 10:09 PM

=( You know, I like all Anime art. It makes every anime unique. Let's look at Yu Yu Hakusho and Naruto. Yu Yu Hakusho premiered in 1992 and Naruto around 10 years later. Yes, it has changed since then. I do not see what the problem is. We now just have the technology to make the colors brighter and shiny. I love the Yu Yu Hakusho artwork, CLAMP, and Naoko Takeuchi the best. I learned from all of them and I made a style of my own.

小美ドクロchan

12-03-2006, 01:13 PM

I love the Yu Yu Hakusho artwork, CLAMP, and Naoko Takeuchi the best. I learned from all of them and I made a style of my own.

Ya me too!:) My style is like....combining Naoko Takeuchi, CLAMP, and my favorite, Arina-sama's stuff all into one. It's fun.^^

...a couple people said it looks similar to Mineko Ookami's (Dragon Knights) work.

Zarcon

12-05-2006, 03:43 AM

Man, I just lost my post because it logged me off the forum when I hit "Preview Post". =.=

I don't feel like typing all that up again since it's well past 4am so I'll summarize my main points.

- Old-school shading detail was, and still is, great.

-- If the harsh contrast in tones put you off, what if modern Anime just contained the level of detail where appropriate?

- Modern designs, for the most part, are better.

-- Modern design + Old-school shading detail = Perfect

--- I like your art Paul, they're modern designs with old-school shading and your own stylistic twist. Highly approved.

- Both sides are guilty of cheap animation tricks.

-- DBZ's "They're fighting so fast I only see a blur!"

-- Repeating scenes (Transformations, looping backgrounds, etc)

-- Sliding frames...mainly seen in modern Anime, but old-school isn't guilt free.

- If we look only at art then many of the "greats" can easily be compared to the "commoners"

- If we look only at the animation then you can't argue a fact like how Akira and a few other "greats" are vastly superior, even if the actual art doesn't appeal to you.

If we're talking about anime art as a whole, and not just from Anime (Japanese Animation) then a few other points are brought up.

- Paul, your existence proves anime art isn't dead.

- Hyung Tae Kim, many deviantART people, and others who draw for the sake of drawing also prove this point.

- Old-school flavoured Anime will likely not be seen too often anymore sadly; however, good anime Art as a whole will always be around.

There's more to Anime than just the art, like how there's more to games than just shiny graphics. I agree wholeheartedly that the visuals do play a role however, and it's sometimes quite a big role. These days the story is what grabs me first...but I'm guilty of not giving a chance to unknown Anime that doesn't look visually appealing.

About standards...standards are just what the majority agree upon. Of course, common sense often plays a big role in this.

- Many translations often translate too much for fans.

-- Professional Manga translations translate for the masses. Translating/changing sayings, honorifics, and cultural references is understandable in this case.

-- Fan translations tend to maintain the sayings and references with explanations somewhere as well as keep honorifics. For most fans, this is a standard to be expected.

What I'm getting at is that standards only apply to the audience they're made for. Not to sound like a jerk, but I don't care what you say about standards. Slaves used to be a standard. Men being better than women used to be a standard. Of course, the slaves and women would disagree. This is like trying to determine whether Vanilla ice cream or French Vanilla ice cream was better. They're both ice cream of the Vanilla variety, but there's no way you can determine which is hands down better from just facts, if you could then no one would bother with the other flavour.

Gah, I'm rambling again and my post probably lacks even more sense than it did before I lost the original. I'll check up on this again in the morning. I hope I made some sort of sense.