| Speeed racah oooeeeoooeeeooo |
<img src="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e297/kitsu_ayame/Untitled-6.png" /> |
| Legend of The Galactic Heroes. Although I guess you couldn't really consider late 80's and 90's really old. |
| I automatically think of Cardcaptor Sakura, Sailor Moon, Dragonball Z and Pokemon for me. |
 |
| I think I get what you mean... Gundam: Many Gundam animes nowadays are based on a template which came from this series, the first one which brought the Gundam series into popularity and getting recognized as a symbol of peace and hope. General concept is that the protagonist pilots a Gundam, the enemy pilot always wears a mask, the protagonist tends to be anti-government, the enemies tend to be warmongers, the main characters would start off being backed by some government or organization then to be betrayed midway into the series, etc... Repetitve-ness! |
 |
Brian333 said: Baman said: For this visual vs the rest discussion, only setting value on the visuals and not wanting to see anything that doesn't look good is indeed shallow, no question about it. I disagree and think it's rather short-sighted to paint such a definite statement. People are shallow. The intent to look at and prioritize the formal aspects of a work of art is not. It's true that shallow people tend to gravitate towards this method of behavior but there are people that find great depth and room for exploration in the formal analysis of a quality piece of animation. I have a number of friends that work as illustrators, animators, and film directors / editors that will watch a work purely for the visual significance of it. Shallow? I think not. Again, like I've said numerous times in this thread, it's merely a question of individual preferences and motives. It's the same on the opposite side of the spectrum. In terms of prioritizing other things above the quality of animation, there are those that work from that perspective that fall into pitfalls of superficiality and fail to notice, explore or understand the deeper meanings or themes in a work of animation. I do get what you said, but I think they are criticizing those who ignore old animes because they think old animation = bad animation when this isn't true and new animation = automatically good animation when it's not true as well. I'm not going into the storytelling merit and I think storytelling and animation quality are two separated things and should be discussed separately. Let's just stick with the animation argument. I do agree that their argument citing animes with bad animation, but good stories are not really good, but I see their point as well. I appreciate some animes just for the animation like, for example, The Diary of Tortov Roddle. It's new and well animated. Or some older things like Fairy Florence that is kind of old, but it's very fluidly animated. Some people will say "ah, it's from the 80's, so the animation is outdated and bad, I won't see it". Those are shallow. They are ignoring some good animation from old animes for nothing. |
| Eo tempore, cum tibi occuri, Mihi vita laeta fuit, Cum autem te nusquam conspexi, Eo tempore mortem cognovi |
Baman said: For this visual vs the rest discussion, only setting value on the visuals and not wanting to see anything that doesn't look good is indeed shallow, no question about it. Brian333 said: I have a number of friends that work as illustrators, animators, and film directors / editors that will watch a work purely for the visual significance of it. Shallow? I think not. Again, like I've said numerous times in this thread, it's merely a question of individual preferences and motives. You missed the point - his point was focusing only on one thing is bad, not that visuals aren't important, though they're the most readily appreciated. I'm sure when your friends make a list of classic works in their fields, they wouldn't just use visual significance as their criterion. P.S. About the 'it's all opinion' subjective crap, well that's crap - there are objectively great works and bad works in all art forms and all media, and whether you liked it or not doesn't diminish it's greatness. Even more so in a discussion of classics! Whether or not something is a classic is not up to you! |
| I've heard Macross was really good. And Gundam wasn't too bad. Zeta > Mobile Suit Gundam though. I'm not a big fan of mecha anime, but if you are looking for classics, then this one is recommended. Personally, I'd suggest Grave of the Fireflies, LOGH (plan to watch this one) Totoro, Kenshin, Slamdunk, Speed Racer and Urusei Yatsura if you like to watch anime from a historical standpoint. |
| Fear the finger of death |
Baman said: For this visual vs the rest discussion, only setting value on the visuals and not wanting to see anything that doesn't look good is indeed shallow, no question about it. But it is still true that some people just happen to be less analytical and thus preferring peripheral persuasion, which may seem sad, but there's nothing one can do about it. This is also why the market has turned into a giant cash cow that produce visual or cheap emotional treats with no substance, because so many people go for just that. At any rate, for classics, there are many oldies that I haven't watched, but I would at least list Gundam, Macross and LoGH. Yes, it is shallow.Then I must be exactly that but in all honesty bad artwork really irks me. I mean, how hard is it to at least try to make your characters look good. I'm looking at you Kaiji + Onepiece. |
| Fear the finger of death |
Brian333 said: I was thinking about people who would watch anime as entertainment and not care for anything other than animation, and then judge it based on only that. That would be shallow.I'm saying it's an issue dependent on individual intent. If someone wants to appreciate only the visual aspect of anime but take that appreciation to a very detailed level (down to visual style, cultural / historical relevance, animation techniques, key frame counts, inbetween detail and relative fluidity, etc) would you call that shallow? I sure wouldn't. He said there was no question. There are plenty of questions. It's not a definite truth that everyone who looks only at visuals is shallow. That was my point. It's true though as you say that the motives change things a lot, I wasn't thinking about people who might watch something solely for studying the animation. But for all other normal intents and purposes, it would be shallow to only concentrate on one thing when viewing something that is composed of many parts. Dexterous said: It's a matter balance really, if on has poor art, one should have a really good story or something to make up for it, anime is never about just the art or just the story.Yes, it is shallow.Then I must be exactly that but in all honesty bad artwork really irks me. I mean, how hard is it to at least try to make your characters look good. I'm looking at you Kaiji + Onepiece. fisher_88 said: I'd be inclined to agree, at least when it comes to story and character writing there is obviously a clear objective quality present, or lack thereof, and one could very well judge objectively whether or not the graphics are technically proficient.P.S. About the 'it's all opinion' subjective crap, well that's crap - there are objectively great works and bad works in all art forms and all media, and whether you liked it or not doesn't diminish it's greatness. Even more so in a discussion of classics! Whether or not something is a classic is not up to you! The only problem is what criteria one should have when judging something's objective quality. If something is clearly of a certain genre it could be easy, as one would only have to see whether or not the object in question fulfills or exceeds the expectations of the genre, but the moment something doesn't have a clear genre to cling on to, it could be a bit more problematic. |
| Older Gundams, Lupin III, Mirai Shounen Conan, The older Ghibli movies, Hokuto No Ken, Dragon Ball, Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu, Gah, so many.. |
 |
| fist of the north star and akira. true classics. everyone who enjoys anime has at one point given both these movies a try |
| I can't believe I'm the first person to say what I'm about to say. Evangelion Like it or hate it, it changed anime permanently. It normalized the 26-episode format, featured some of the last gorgeous cel animation, and was arguably one of if not the most dark and disturbing television anime, with the conclusive movie still being one of the most deeply uncomfortable anime one can watch even in today's day and age. All anime following Evangelion either wanted to be it or wanted to be nothing like it. It has so deeply been ingrained in the Japanese public as well as animation lore on the whole, that it's status as a "true classic" cannot be denied. |
| My first novel, Kardia has been published! Click here to read! |
Brian333 said: Splitter said: I can't believe I'm the first person to say what I'm about to say. Evangelion Probably because the TC opened by saying: brand_182 said: And I don't mean Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, etc. What are the older anime series that people are referring to when they say "it's been done before?" I really want to watch these series first now, and then move on to newer stuff. And while NGE is a classic, I don't think it was really what the TC was looking for as he mentioned GitS, a similarly futuristic, introspective, philosophical work that had darker, more serious tones that aired at a similar point in time. I came here under the impression that he was looking for the works that preceded and influenced later influential works like NGE. Stuff like Space Battleship Yamato. When I see people have listed Azumanga Daioh and FLCL before Evangelion, I feel I have a right, nay a responsibility to mention Evangelion. |
| My first novel, Kardia has been published! Click here to read! |
Splitter said: brand_182 said: And I don't mean Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, etc. What are the older anime series that people are referring to when they say "it's been done before?" I really want to watch these series first now, and then move on to newer stuff. And while NGE is a classic, I don't think it was really what the TC was looking for as he mentioned GitS, a similarly futuristic, introspective, philosophical work that had darker, more serious tones that aired at a similar point in time. I came here under the impression that he was looking for the works that preceded and influenced later influential works like NGE. Stuff like Space Battleship Yamato. When I see people have listed Azumanga Daioh and FLCL before Evangelion, I feel I have a right, nay a responsibility to mention Evangelion. Does that mean I have a responsibility to mention Space Runaway Ideon? :< |
Brian333 said: Splitter said: I can't believe I'm the first person to say what I'm about to say. Evangelion Probably because the TC opened by saying: brand_182 said: And I don't mean Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, etc. What are the older anime series that people are referring to when they say "it's been done before?" I really want to watch these series first now, and then move on to newer stuff. And while NGE is a classic, I don't think it was really what the TC was looking for as he mentioned GitS, a similarly futuristic, introspective, philosophical work that had darker, more serious tones that aired at a similar point in time. I came here under the impression that he was looking for the works that preceded and influenced later influential works like NGE. Stuff like Space Battleship Yamato. yeah that's right. I have seen NGE and would consider it more in the company of GitS and Bebop. I was looking for the true classics that really set the tone of things. But in the above poster's defense, I wouldn't consider FLCL a classic either, and I don't know what the other one that starts with an A even is. |
| Check out my blog for anime reviews, news, and episode downloads. http://4649anime.blogspot.com/ |
| Giant Robo, the defining giant robot anime of the 90's |
Baman said: The only problem is what criteria one should have when judging something's objective quality. If something is clearly of a certain genre it could be easy, as one would only have to see whether or not the object in question fulfills or exceeds the expectations of the genre, but the moment something doesn't have a clear genre to cling on to, it could be a bit more problematic. In art theory, it's a 'you'll know it when you see it' kinda thing, especially since great works typically defy genre or other classifications. My point was that once history has decided what is great and what isn't, not much can change the value of the work. Unless, of course society changes it's value structure. You in that case, it not a matter of thinking about what anime you like, but doing some research into the history of animation in Japan and determing what anime did today's author's watch, who created the genres we know today, who made it mainstream, etc. |
More topics from this board
» is ur fave genre ur most watched genre ?ame - Yesterday |
24 |
by Suntanned_Duck2
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Skibidi toilet piece (One piece story but with skibidi toilet)Cyborgium - Today |
20 |
by Oofmastre9000
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Do you fantasize about anime while you sleep?Alpha_1_Zero - 8 hours ago |
20 |
by AverageRiceFan
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Attack on skibidi toilet (attack on Titan story but with skibidi toilet)Cyborgium - 2 hours ago |
3 |
by AverageRiceFan
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» ❄️ Anime Winter 2024 Male Characters Tournament ( 1 2 3 4 )ISeeLifePeople - Apr 14 |
196 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
36 minutes ago |