/animu/ - Anime & Otaku Culture

Anything before the invention of moé was shit

>>15799

>but merchandising driven shows have existed since the mid-70s at least

I get that a lot of old mecha shows were made to sell toys but that doesn't change the fact that they did so by at least telling an interesting story and creating some lore behind the robots. Now it feels like shows that want to sell a certain product simply exist to make the product's name a bit more well-known and nothing more, it has no merits of its own, it's more of a drawn-out commercial rather than a TV series.

>>15800

What kind of shows are you talking about here, things like card game or toy-focused anime?

>>15799

Dragon Half & Slayers were both my favorite manga/anime. I couldn't find another series that are as similar as those two.

>>15803

I recommend Mahoujin Guru Guru if you haven't seen it yet, you might like it.

>>15800

>>15801

>>15813

<Relevant to the discussion on Pokémon, but the webm of this is on another computer

>>15818

>it's another hurr I'm an oldfag and I misunderstand your opinions about older shows for simply trying to be contrarian episode

So what yaer is that post from anyway? "2 hours ago" doesn't tell me much unless it's literally made 2 hours from now.

>>15822

*year

>>15823

>>15822

>it's another teehee my infantile opinions on the subject are 100% factual because I've watched five (5) whole anime and therefore you're wrong episode

>>15791

>Late 90s - (Early) 2000s

>late 90s

>when the OVA market bottomed out

>early 2000s

>when ugly digital paint shows rendered in sub 480p resolutions replaced traditional drawn animation shot on film

>the golden era of anime

I want you Toonamicucks to fuck off >>>/reddit/

>>>/somethingawful/

>>15800

>I get that a lot of old mecha shows were made to sell toys but that doesn't change the fact that they did so by at least telling an interesting story and creating some lore behind the robots. Now it feels like shows that want to sell a certain product simply exist to make the product's name a bit more well-known and nothing more, it has no merits of its own, it's more of a drawn-out commercial rather than a TV series.

It's obvious you've never actually watched those toyetic super robot shows (or anything before 1998) and clearly just rolled out of some shithole like ANN or reddit while listening to pretentious hack faggots like Bennet the Sage and Digibro. Leave and kill yourself.

>>15859

>It's obvious you've never actually watched those toyetic super robot shows

I've never seen those types of shows either, but I've got my own bit of experience with toy-pushing shows. Even I could tell that guy was talking out his ass. Current merchandising shows have their own merits and merely use handwavium to explain the presence of Goods in them. They sure as shit don't revolve the plot and narrative structure solely around it, even if they are vaguely important and showcased often. I can't imagine it was any different back then.

He forgets (or never realized) that the product these shows are pushing are for legitimate 5-10 year old children. Children don't need a fully realized concept behind the toys in their favorite shows to want them. Their mere presence alone is usually enough. Showrunners know this.

>>15861

>He forgets (or never realized) that the product these shows are pushing are for legitimate 5-10 year old children. Children don't need a fully realized concept behind the toys in their favorite shows to want them. Their mere presence alone is usually enough. Showrunners know this.

I'm not sure if the same runs true in Japan, but that didn't used to fly here in the U.S. (The same cannot be said anymore). The reason why is because the people writing the "children shows" took into account that the parents will also be watching the shows with their kids. So, they wrote the shows so that the kids were entertained with whatever was happening on-screen, while also providing entertainment for the adults without treating them like they were stupid or being talked down to.

>>15871

>but that didn't used to fly here in the U.S. (The same cannot be said anymore). The reason why is because the people writing the "children shows" took into account that the parents will also be watching the shows with their kids

That's not entirely correct; it was actual legislation (outside of the US) that took place that prevented children's shows from directly advertising products to children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_to_children#Legislation

While the US never had any legislation for it, if you wanted to export your American show to other countries, you better make sure it isn't packed with obvious advertisements to products within the show, or else it violates a particular nation's laws. There's also the Children's Television's Act in 1990 that placed some strict regulations in children's programming in the US, though it's mostly concerning educational content broadcast to kids.

>>15871

>I'm not sure if the same runs true in Japan, but that didn't used to fly here in the U.S.

You seem to be misunderstanding. I don't agree, at all, that these shows are written poorly and/or solely as a Good-pushing vehicle, even now. It's the exact opposite, rather. The committee generally decides on the product, sets a usage and mythos behind them to present in the show down to the exact episodes/arcs they will appear in, and then they write the rest of the show around that, paying service to the pre-established products predominately in the incredibly specific pre-determined time-frames (generally around holidays.) The important bit is emphasized there. While the merchandise is almost certainly going to be on full display at all times throughout the shows run, that by no means determines whether or not the rest of the show surrounding it is going to be shit/stupid/no merit. That depends on the strength of the writers, direction, and what they are allowed to get away with by the bigboys up top who are trying to make/keep a brand image.

I think these shows are generally pretty grand and hold some appeal for adults, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Adults aren't buying the toys for themselves and thus there needs be no in-story lore or coolness factor to convince them. Their children's whining, on the other hand, will do nicely. As for the kids, it's enough that their favorite heroes on their favorite show use the toy to convince them to want it as well.

>>15791

I'd say about 10 years before that was the closest thing to any sort of golden era. There's a lot great anime that was made both before and after this period, but as a whole the mid 80s - early 90s had a certain energy that hasn't been matched before or since. Even the bad stuff from back then is still fun to watch. And this isn't nostalgia talking, I didn't grow up with anything from that era besides DBZ. Anime from the 70s and early 80s felt like an awkward learning period in terms of both art and writing and anime made from around 95 or 96 onward felt watered down in comparison. Again, I'm talking about those periods as a whole. Obviously there are individual shows/movies/OVAs that those criticisms don't apply to.

>>15939

That's actually quite good, all things considering. The little details such as when he sheepishly looks behind his back manages to imbue him with some character and makes what's 4 seconds of a kid writing more visually interesting.

>>16200

While it's a bit unfair to compare a tv episode to an OVA that most likely had a higher budget than the average DBZ episode, I do think the picture is still valid. DBZ vs DBS is a good example of showcasing something that seems to be increasingly forgotten. Anime (especially TV anime) has historically been low budget, but since the 60s, animators and directors have been working to overcome that and find ways to still have a good looking final product. They invented shortcuts that allowed to give the illusion of having good animation while still working with a limited budget. You'd get things like a detailed still image that the camera pans over, heavy use of dynamic angles and dramatic colors, creative use of simple lighting (notice that the blinking red light on Trunks ads a lot of atmosphere), a lot of speed lines to give the impression of more movement than there actually is, and extreme close ups on faces where they would only have to animate the mouth or the eyes. They could take these short cuts, have a good looking scene, and then focus their budget on certain key scenes where the animation would be most important. DBZ has never been that spectacular in terms of animation. People pointed out its moments of QUALITY long before Super came around, but it knew how to make the most with what it had.

In the 80s and 90s, Sunrise was really good at using those shortcut. I picked the first Gundam Wing fight scene that came up and it illustrates the techniques I talked about perfectly. Closely examine it and notice how very little actual animated movement there is. Most of it is flourishes added to stationary objects to give the illusion of movement. Dynamic angles, dramatic colors, creative use of lighting, it's all there and helps distract from how simple everything really is. Most of the drawings and backgrounds are detailed and well done, so the limited animation doesn't immediately pop out and it still seems exciting.

I was watching the new Junji Ito anime earlier and I couldn't believe how hard they dropped the ball. With a good director who knew how to work with a budget, it could have been amazing. Instead they took an artist whose work is known for its grotesque, detailed images and made everything so flat and cheap looking.

>>15939

The sort of details like the wrinkles on the back of his shirt and sleeves changing when he moves around is what's being left out today. I miss that.

>>16895

pic unrelated

>>16895

That looks awful though. It's just flopping around on her face. At least center it properly.

>>16936

It's the way that it's drawn that I like.

>>16200

Anyone who posts this image is always a guaranteed moron who doesn't know the difference between a TV episode and a special.

>>16240

>While it's a bit unfair to compare a tv episode to an OVA that most likely had a higher budget than the average DBZ episode, I do think the picture is still valid.

It's not.

>>15818

>every single isekai is not basically identical to each other

>people rightly calling out isekaishit are the same ones shilling erased

he had good points but once he spouted those lines i instantly knew he was full of shit.

>>16895

>>16937

I know what you mean. I always hate when there's a side-profile of a character with the shape their lips outlined that stays stationary, while a trapezoid-shaped mouth stretches open and closed, just superimposed onto the side of their face.

>>21811

Unless it's cars.

>>21811

>The golden age of anything is usually when you personally were between the ages of 10 and 16. This has proven true for pretty much every generation ever to exist

My parents and grandparents are more nostalgic to about their their late teens or mid 20s. I've only noticed millennials and genZ nostalgic for the younger ages. (Millennials at the oldest would be about late-20s to mid-30s depending on your source of their age range, so they haven't lived long enough to feel as nostalgic for their high school or college years. Sure, there's factors that might affect nostalgia for each generation such as politics, the economy, fads, technological progress, but I'm not trying to get too specific.)

>Basically, cherrypicking the best of a generation when you were young and accepting of media will always lead to rose colored lasik eye surgery.

This is probably subjective, but I've usually seen the media push more on progress than holding onto the past. I've seen this for technical advancements in media, political movements, or whatever the media defines as progress. I've seen nostalgia used more for marketing than any real reminder of the past itself. (ie, some shitty remake of X that doesn't even resemble X outside of the name)

>Just embrace it, and get ready to be an even grumpier old fart in the future.

I'm not even old, but I'm grumpy now. The past wasn't good, the present is shit, and the future will be much worse.

>>21811

I consider the golden age of animu the 80s and I wasn't even born then. For vidya it was the 90s and I was below the age of 10 for that whole period and didn't play a lot of games back then since I was a poorfag.

Your theory a shit.

>>16972

Except that a lot of the stuff that pops out when you compare the two scenes via still images aren't really budget related. The colors are plastic looking, and the expressions are flat and lifeless. It doesn't effect the budget to use darker and richer colors to reflect the mood or to draw a wider mouth that conveys more emotion. In the third picture down, had they turned Trunks so he's not facing straight on, and we could see his back arched and his face pointed upwards like the one from 1993, it would have been more dynamic and visually interesting. Super just had bad directing in a lot of episodes. Judging from the fact that some scenes were fixed for the bluray releases, I get the feeling that the crew were rushed.

>>22895

>My parents and grandparents are more nostalgic to about their their late teens or mid 20s. I've only noticed millennials and genZ nostalgic for the younger ages

This might be because of higher expectations to go into college for an additional decade before trying to get into a stable career. Might just make early teen years the most pleasantly memorable for the recent generations while a few decades ago there wasn't such a barrier to enter the real world.

>>15797

>rather, shows that exist solely to sell products which is the case for a lot of adaptions of smartphone games or all those badly animated shows that shill for real life products.

This is why 99% of newer anime is utter garbage, moefags don't understand this.

>>30464

Yeah man. Gundam is where it's at. Le manly high T anime