anime studios should be judge base on their original anime works rather than their anime adaptations

NeoAnkara said:
In short just go watch show by P.A Works.

anime-prime said:
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that plenty of appraised source material are completely ruined sometimes by an anime studio. Cough cough tokyo ghoul:re cough cough.

yhunata said:
Not really, because an adaptation does not mean a scene-for-scene remake. It is the studio's take on a pre-existing work, even if it regularly closely follows the source material. How well they adapt the source material is a testament to how good the staff is.

fuyuki said:
Nah I don't think I agree, compare manga adaptations from Pierrot and Bones for example.

MrZawa said:
I would say that if adaptation fails because of the animation, or because staff related to the studio messed up directing, script or other factors of the story, then they can take blame for it. Of course, in case of adaptations it's also possible that other factors were involved in the failure. Still, it's very clear that some studios are better than the rest, and that some fail much more often than others. So production committee alone does not explain it, unless some studios like to work with shitty production committees, which makes no sense.

However yes, in original anime it's easier to attribute the blame, as well as praise. Although I think that studio could also be therefore judged by the lack of original material, which some of them have.

Paulo_Goncalves said:
In my opinion you are partly right - although there are companies that do good adaptations and other cannot do it. Fate Series made by two different companies are a proof of that.

If you wanna go further - then you should judge the people behind it (producer & director). Because they are not fixed to one company...

Two companies that really do great works are PA Works & Kyoto Animations. Both do a lot of original work (but their non-original work is also very high rated). Interesting both are outside of Toyko :D (Trigger also do original work as you mention)

I don't know... It's very hard to judge a company, director, or originality. After all there are other stuff behind. Animators, voice actors, music and of course MONEY.

The best way to do this is forget everything and judge a anime by itself and not based on anything else.

fuyuki said:
@deg and these are things you can already use to judge a studio, aren't they? Anyway I wasn't even talking about animation quality, I don't see many people complanining about animation in Pierrot adaptations. I'm talking mostly about filler content (Naruto is 50% filler, TG root a is a filler etc) and faithfulness. Unless we judge those fillers as anime originals, then yeah you're partially right.

deg said:
EDIT:

about rush anime adaptations or bad animation quality
funding and deadline is decided by the production committee (owners of anime) and that usully affects how much the anime adaptation is rush
and also if the anime studio is overloaded with multiple anime projects already then expect bad animation quality like with JC Staff studio this days

anime studios own producers gather the anime staff but talented animators (that are usually freelancers) are scarce so not all anime adaptation can have good animation too

and it depends on how good the social connections of the anime studio producers on those scarce talented animators that determine if they can convince those talented animators to join their anime adaptation project

deg said:


Naruto is a long running anime showing in morning time slot that is different to the majority of anime that are shown in late night timeslot

long running TV series are funded through TV ads and merchandises sales, so they keep making fillers just to keep the funding going until the source material have enough chapters to animate again

anime directors are usually animators too that why i included them to the animators, i should have said anime staff in general there

lazypigz said:
Wait... what?

If i'm watching anime, then i'll rate the anime for what it is. If it turns out to be a shitty adaptation, then it deserves a score that is worth to that of a bad adaptation.

As much as I love the Fate route of the VN, I found the Deen adaptation to be extremely mediocre, so it gets a a barely passing score from me.
Also, take Shokugeki for example. While I loved the story of the third season, the people in charge of animation knows fuck all about it, andthat's why I had to dock some points off.


So what's your argument here? JC Staff could've just not adapted said content but they are money hungry so we get half-assed adaptations like Back Street Girls. If I watch anime, then I expect a good story coupled with good animations and whatnot. If I just wanted a good story, I would go ahead and read a manga or VN instead.

lazypigz said:
@deg You don't get what i'm saying don't you?

I don't care who makes what. I only care about the end result. If the end result is shit, then the end result deserves a lot score. Simple as that.

If the production team takes a good story but absolutely botches the adaptation, then I'll be forced to dock points off.

Likewise, if someone somewhere decides to adapt something really shitty, but turns out to have some nice animation (take Phantom World for example) then at the end of the day the score I give it will be low because it just wasn't good in the first place.

So, why should I not rate and anime based on the thing I watched, but rather on it's source material? I don't know, you tell me. So far you haven't told me jack.

lazypigz said:
@deg

Buddy, I don't care who animates who. I don't care how talented a group of animators are. If the end result is shit then I'll give it a shit score. End of the day i'm watching anime, not reading a VN or mangas. I'll rate it as such.

I've given the reasons why I rate anime the way I do. Now, where's your side of the argument?
Why should I rate an anime based on their source material?

deg said:

anime adaptations and original anime have different priorities with anime studios

and im telling you that because freelance talented animators and directors are scarce then it comes to lucky social connections plus deadline of anime release is what determine the quality of an anime adaptation

but if its an original work then the anime studio doing the original work can set the deadline and even gather enough time to hire talented freelance animators and directors, because with original anime the anime studio is part of the ownership of it

MrZawa said:


But then studio can still be blamed if they failed to procure the resources, in this case animators, necessary to make their projects right, and that is the reason why the adaptation failed. While other studios can be praised if they did mange to do it. You are essentially saying that we can't blame studio for their inability to get necessary resources, which is a stupid argument. However as some studios consistently do much better job than others, then just production committee can't be at fault. Either they produce amount of shows above their ability to produce, in which case they don't deserve the praise nor profit by rushing the job, or they just suck at what they are doing. In which case the same applies.

deg said:


deadline is set by the production committee though and that mainly determines the health of the production schedule, and as stupid as it sounds you have to face reality that there is scarcity of freelance talented animators and directors

but with original anime then the anime studio can freely set their own deadline and enough time to gather talented anime staff

MrZawa said:


That may be true, but then how does one explain the fact that some studios do much better job than others. And even some very old studios that should have plenty of contacts and opportunities to get good contracts fail often. So face it, some studios simply are better than others, regardless if we judge original content or adaptations. They are the ones that choose to go with adaptation rather than make something original, after all. And they accept the contract, and can negotiate different terms if they know it's not gonna end well. And lack of talent is mostly caused by low pay, which might to large extent depend on animation committee, but it also falls on studios if they are willing to work for Inadequate pay.

That's the same as saying that company X can't be blamed for failed product, because they accepted wrong contract, or failed to get resources. The failure still falls on company X and it can take blame for it's part of the failure.

Bourmegar said:

So Committees have full control over timeslots?

Well no, The tv channels are still boss over them. So they can make it hard for studios to delay their works before they air it there.
On TV channels, when the deadline is set, it is set and it cannot be changed.
And even if they have all the time, creators can still mess it up (Studios and their directors hire the makers, Writers and etc.).
So A thing like Berserk 2016 got time enough but the studio Took to long to decide what to make and the director had 0 experience with 3DCG.

When a Anime adaptation fails, you have to look at who messed it up. Sometimes it is the Committee but other times (if not most of) it's the studios fault.
Just look at Boogiepop this season. Whose idea was it to Rush the first novel and not involve the og creator?

deg said:


but original anime is where the anime studios have more control though especially with regards to deadline so if you want to judge an studio at their best then look for their original anime and how many original anime they made

MrZawa said:


Yeah, they get more control over them. Which does not mean they can't be judged if adaptation fails due to their mistakes.

But okay, for the sake of your argument, let's look at one of the more hated studios, Pierrot. They produced around 5 original shows, maybe 3 of those are specials of Naruto franchise. Then they have 2 original anime, neither of which look particularly great. How do we judge them according to this? However on top of that they have dozens of failed adaptations. They have occasional gems like Akatsuki no Yona, for which they deserve the praise, but I doubt that all those failed adaptation failed only for different reasons than their own mistakes. So they deserve all the dislike that they get. And I don't think that they can even judged by their originals, if they have ~5 out of 100 listed on their first page. They voluntarily choose to produce adaptations, and fail at ~80% of them.

We can choose any other studio, even other disliked studio like Deen, and get more and/or better originals and less failed adaptations. This gets all the more so if we compare them to generally praised studios like Madhouse or KyoAni. If committee or anyone else but studio could take the blame for all of them, then all studios should have similar amounts of failures. But they don't.

MrZawa said:


That may be true, but then how does one explain the fact that some studios do much better job than others. And even some very old studios that should have plenty of contacts and opportunities to get good contracts fail often. So face it, some studios simply are better than others, regardless if we judge original content or adaptations. They are the ones that choose to go with adaptation rather than make something original, after all. And they accept the contract, and can negotiate different terms if they know it's not gonna end well. And lack of talent is mostly caused by low pay, which might to large extent depend on animation committee, but it also falls on studios if they are willing to work for inadequate pay.

That's the same as saying that company X can't be blamed for failed product, because they accepted wrong contract, or failed to get resources. The failure still falls on company X and it can take blame for it's part of the failure.

deg said:


Pierrot like Toei usually does long running anime and they do 2 or more of it at the same time, and those kind of anime usually have production schedule as time goes on since unavoidable or common mistakes pile up like redraws and animation corrections so the production schedule goes tighter and tighter and the result is poor animation quality in later episodes

Madhouse did only 1 long running anime and that is Hunter X Hunter 2011 and because they can focus on that one anime alone the production schedule is not as bad so the animation quality stays good for most of its run of only 100+ episodes compared to 200+ episodes done by Toei and Pierrot most of the time

KyoAni is different they are self-sustaining studio like all their staff is in-house and they do not hire freelancers plus they only work on few anime each year and usually they own those anime (original anime of theirs), all anime studios want to be like them

deg said:


im not saying that, you can freely rate an anime adaptation of how good it is but do not blame or praise the anime studio for it since they are not part of the production committee (owners of anime adaptations) when it comes to anime adaptations

MrZawa said:


You are undermining your own argument with this. It was Pierrot/Toei's own decision to produce several shows at once even though they lack the staff to do it right. Therefore it is their own mistake and failure.

KyoAni does things very differently, and it clearly works better. So does Madhouse, or even Deen. And if we look at Toei's shows, they are still better on average than Pierrot's even though they still produce One Piece. Pierrot is done with Naruto for a while now, and they still fail. In the end, while other facts than just studio can be blamed for failure of the adaptations, studios certainly aren't clear of the faults, and deserve their part of the blame.

lazypigz said:
Wait what
but your title is literally an argument to convince me to rate anime based on their source material :bigthonk:

here is your title in case you forgot:
anime studios should be judge base on their original anime works rather than their anime adaptations

deg said:


ok anime studios have control over how much anime adaptation projects they can handle or manage, its their fault if they take up multiple anime projects but they do not have enough resources to give all of those anime good adaptations, even though anime adaptation is easy money for them so who does not want that

im just saying that if you want to judge an anime studio at their best performance then their original anime works is a better indicator

but ye we might be looking at things differently so i rest my case here

MrZawa said:


Okay, let's say that we have anime studio A that produced 1 masterpiece-level original, and 50 failed adaptations that range somewhere from bad to average at best. And studio B that produced, let's say 20 bad adaptations, 29 good to great adaptations, 1 masterpiece-level adaptation and 1 great original. If you judged them based on that 1 original show, studio A will be better, even though most of their shows are trash, while studio B will be worse even though they do much better job in most cases.

Therefore saying that studios should only be judged by their originals is stupid, they should be judged by their output in general. I would say we can safely say studio B is still better, and I would personally much more look forward to show done by studio B, and be very sceptical of a show done by A, regardless of that one original.

If this still won't get through, then I can only end it here, since we clearly won't understand each other.

Open-Dice said:
That's dumb. Making an adaptation is not as easy as copying the manga page by page and takes skill in and of itself. Just look at any crappy adaptation for proof, or any adaptation that managed to be better than the source.