| Many anime out there either have high praise or are tarnished for their animation, whether this is how things are drawn, smoothness of movement, how well high speed actions are animated, how proportions and distance are captured relative to a specific scene, and other variables that go into what makes people think of animation. I know that people say there is no objectivity in anime, but what about in the quality of its animation? Some praise Ping Pong the Animation for its art and animation, while others cannot stand it and say it is ugly, similar opinions being shared regarding Gurren Lagann and even the Monogatari series. Saitama vs Genos being an example of praised fight animation and more recently Escanor vs Meliodas being the stain of the anime community. Where does the objective line exist? |
| Well, obviously, there is such a thing as objectively good and bad. High production animation will almost always been objectively good, and low budget can sometimes verge into bad. But, beyond that is where it gets fuzzy because of a thing called Opinions. Opinions are a nasty little thing that makes rating things hard. And a lot of people can't see past their Opinions and back to what makes things objectively good or bad. But they do still exist. To sum it up, animation is always objectively good, bad, or average. Its the art decisions that make people form opinions on whether or not they like the animation or not, but that is, in fact, a separate matter |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: well stating land of the lustrous is kind of going against the point of this topic as that is cg, and is made via an entirely different process, but i do understand what youre saying Art doesn't have any objective because you can break standard rules and have a product that someone else enjoyed. For example, you typically don't want stiff movements. However, if you are drawing a character made out of literal wood it would not only be okay, but even better than the fluid movement. For other autistic reasons, you may not even want high-speed action scenes where sadness is mixed in with the other two characters. What makes good art isn't objective as it depends on your objective. An unpopular opinion of mine is that I didn't like Land of the Lustrous's animation because it was too light and fluid for what the characters were(gem creatures fully made out of it). A lot disagree with this opinion though and it can be for a variety of other things to consider like the fact that the fluid animation is because the characters are fighters within the universe(so they would be light on their feet) and the show has fights within it that would look better with the detail. This is ultimately what makes anything subjective in art, the measurement in how someone deems a work to be good. What you just listed are measurements and they can be disagreed with. |
| My opinion is that I don't care I just find it funny people use good or bad animation as fake argument to emphasise why a show is bad/good like when they can only think of around two points so they say that instead of etcetera because they have nothing to actually say of meaning  |
 |
Deknijff said: to not care about the animation quality in a show or series is something i will never be able to understand unfortunately My opinion is that I don't care I just find it funny people use good or bad animation as fake argument to emphasise why a show is bad/good like when they can only think of around two points so they say that instead of etcetera because they have nothing to actually say of meaning |
Peaceful_Critic said: Fluid animation = good animation, what you didn't liked there is the art direction. Having fluid animation is an artistic choice despite being an objective point.Art doesn't have any objective because you can break standard rules and have a product that someone else enjoyed. For example, you typically don't want stiff movements. However, if you are drawing a character made out of literal wood it would not only be okay, but even better than the fluid movement. For other autistic reasons, you may not even want high-speed action scenes where sadness is mixed in with the other two characters. What makes good art isn't objective as it depends on your objective. An unpopular opinion of mine is that I didn't like Land of the Lustrous's animation because it was too light and fluid for what the characters were(gem creatures fully made out of it). A lot disagree with this opinion though and it can be for a variety of other things to consider like the fact that the fluid animation is because the characters are fighters within the universe(so they would be light on their feet) and the show has fights within it that would look better with the detail. This is ultimately what makes anything subjective in art, the measurement in how someone deems a work to be good. What you just listed are measurements and they can be disagreed with. |
 |
| Kyuubi Naruto vs Pain is objectively good animation. Only people who don't understand animation as a medium will dislike it. It's frustrating reading opinions from people who have no idea what they are talking about in regards to that episode. |
 ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
EndlessMaria said: totally agree with you about that specific fight, but it is a good example regarding this thread, some people say that fight is great animation, while ive personally watched it with people who though it was awful Kyuubi Naruto vs Pain is objectively good animation. Only people who don't understand animation as a medium will dislike it. It's frustrating reading opinions from people who have no idea what they are talking about in regards to that episode. |
Shutos said: EndlessMaria said: totally agree with you about that specific fight, but it is a good example regarding this thread, some people say that fight is great animation, while ive personally watched it with people who though it was awful Kyuubi Naruto vs Pain is objectively good animation. Only people who don't understand animation as a medium will dislike it. It's frustrating reading opinions from people who have no idea what they are talking about in regards to that episode. You have to have an eye for animation to appreciate it. The typical Narutard might not like it because the episode sticks out like a sore thumb in an anime that mostly has flat low frame animation and they aren't used to the dynamic massively exaggerated movements. If someone only watches Naruto they might just write it off as wacky. Hell, I've heard that episodes compared to Looney Tunes as a means to shit on it, while ironically anyone who uses this comparison is kicking them self in the ass because Looney Tunes has very fluid animation. They are unknowingly praising the episode by comparing it to Looney Tunes. |
EndlessMariaJan 21, 2020 4:17 PM
| ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
| There is no single person that can be truly objective. Every person can only be subjective. It is my belief that only when a group of people (the majority) can unanimously pick apart the good, bad and mundane parts and reach a conclusion can an objective opinion come to be. First person says: I liked this Second person says I didn't like this, but instead liked this. Third personal says I didn't like it Forth person says I liked it. When these people can find everything they liked and disliked in an anime/movie/book. When they can agree that they all liked it in some way and disliked it in another way and agree on whether it's overall good /bad/neither can an objective opinion be born. |
 |
Peaceful_Critic said: What you are saying is basically: "sometimes bad animation is better than good animation", you don't make any sense, lol. Animation is basically motion, if you have no motion you have no animation...DaCraziGuy said: Art directors decide what would be good animation in the context of things. Art directing animation still has to do with the animation itself. You may feel fluid animation is always better because by itself you may prefer the detail, and you believe it would always look the best, but I beg a differ.Fluid animation = good animation, what you didn't liked there is the art direction. Having fluid animation is an artistic choice despite being an objective point. |
|
| Joe landing the cross counter on Wolf Kanagushi was pretty dope despite being a literal slide show. idc about your nerd stuff. (I'd post, but I believe the yt video got deleted. Sad times.) |
| In my opinion, there's really no such thing as "OBJECTIVELY" good or bad. It's all your own opinion. All 6,999,999,999 other people in the world can agree that an anime looks great and you yourself won't agree, and that's totally fine, isn't it? There's always going to be someone who doesn't like something no matter how well drawn or 'objectively' good it is. That's why there can never be anything truly objectively good or bad, I think. |
 「 I am forever your most devoted believer. 」 |
| Animation is probably the least subjective element of an anime. Though it depends on a few things. The classic is, do you take art style in to account? Last year: MP100 II or Kimetsu no Yaiba? MP was more fluid, but was able to achieve that fluidity "easier" due to a much simpler art style. Some even say that MP looks ugly, even with the fluidity. But now we're getting back to subjectivity. If someone isn't bothered by the art style (either doesn't mind it being simple, or doesn't find it ugly, or both), and what looks good to them is simply a matter of fluidity, then MP wins every time. But many (myself included) will say art style should be included in a critique of animation quality, because it is harder to animate a more complex art style, and the product can look better with less fluidity. So, someone with that approach would say that KnY beat MP100 because it looked better and was harder to make. As you can see, this is all still hugely debatable. But it's a much less subjective thing, and therefore not such a waste of time, than say, debating what anime had more interesting characters. The other major factor is, do we judge animation quality merely by the technical quality, or for artistic flourishes that aid the storytelling? Or create a certain atmosphere? One can make the most fluid anime ever but if it doesn't help tell a story or ellicit emotion, I think it's fair to say that it's worth less than a less fluid anime which uses its animation in a more artically expressive and creative way. Personally, I'm a big believer in that appraoch. As much as I love ufotable and I think they make amazing-looking anime, I think a lot of their animation quality is low on substance and more just eye candy. In that sense, as much as I don't like the MP100 art style, I think the animation quality is better than KnY. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
Shutos said: Deknijff said: to not care about the animation quality in a show or series is something i will never be able to understand unfortunately My opinion is that I don't care I just find it funny people use good or bad animation as fake argument to emphasise why a show is bad/good like when they can only think of around two points so they say that instead of etcetera because they have nothing to actually say of meaning You'll never understand why people might be only interested in the story / characters / art style and no the animation? I mean, people enjoy books which have nothing at all to look at. Visual Novels? Audio Books? Personally, I used to say I didn't care about animation quality but I've changed over time to value it slightly more, but I still get bored by shows which don't arouse my interest through the story and characters. I literally dropped MP100 S2 with only a couple episides to go because I couldn't sit through it without getting incredibly drousy. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: those are totally different mediums you're talking about in regarding me not understanding how someone couldnt care about animation Shutos said: to not care about the animation quality in a show or series is something i will never be able to understand unfortunately You'll never understand why people might be only interested in the story / characters / art style and no the animation? I mean, people enjoy books which have nothing at all to look at. Visual Novels? Audio Books? Personally, I used to say I didn't care about animation quality but I've changed over time to value it slightly more, but I still get bored by shows which don't arouse my interest through the story and characters. I literally dropped MP100 S2 with only a couple episides to go because I couldn't sit through it without getting incredibly drousy. |
Shutos said: YossaRedMage said: those are totally different mediums you're talking about in regarding me not understanding how someone couldnt care about animation You'll never understand why people might be only interested in the story / characters / art style and no the animation? I mean, people enjoy books which have nothing at all to look at. Visual Novels? Audio Books? Personally, I used to say I didn't care about animation quality but I've changed over time to value it slightly more, but I still get bored by shows which don't arouse my interest through the story and characters. I literally dropped MP100 S2 with only a couple episides to go because I couldn't sit through it without getting incredibly drousy. So? That they're different mediums doesn't change or invalidate my point at all. I was giving you examples of how people can enjoy stories that don't have animation. Surely it makes sense for there to be people who enjoy anime like a visual novel - for the art style, music, voice work, story etc. and don't care about animation quality. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: i get what youre saying but i do not agree with that logic at all, if you come to a medium that's entirety is motion picture, regardless of origin or other similar mediums, you should be appreciating the medium for what it is, not comparing it to other works of a different medium just because of similarity. so no, i will never see how someone can go into watching an anime, and not care about the animation. i do not care about how others enjoy stories that do not have animation, as that is not the point, they are free to do thatShutos said: those are totally different mediums you're talking about in regarding me not understanding how someone couldnt care about animation So? That they're different mediums doesn't change or invalidate my point at all. I was giving you examples of how people can enjoy stories that don't have animation. Surely it makes sense for there to be people who enjoy anime like a visual novel - for the art style, music, voice work, story etc. and don't care about animation quality. |
| sakuga just means good animation but art is subjective so theres that but there are universally accepted great sakuga like this https://www.sakugabooru.com/post/show/63255 as you can see there are more movements even camera movements for this example this is what they call Itano Circus (the first 20 seconds that is) https://www.sakugabooru.com/post/show/75273 but sakuga like this is controversial https://www.sakugabooru.com/post/show/64255 although to me that is a great sakuga too despite it having lower movement overall or lower drawn frames overall since it make up for a lot of different poses for each frames they call it Kanada School of animation so sakuga is also about the unique animation style of animators Ping Pong Animation is just the animation style of Masaaki Yuuasa Gurren Lagann is just the animation style of Imaishi |
| I’m pretty sure the animation in the latest seven deadly sins(from what I’ve seen) has objectively amazing animation |
 |
| Animation doesn't matter to me if the story, characters, and setting are trash. A 1/10 story, character, and setting means a 1/10 anime. Music and animation are just minimal. |
 |
| Ah yes, another thread talking about the objective aspects of an anime |
Deknijff said: My opinion is that I don't care I just find it funny people use good or bad animation as fake argument to emphasise why a show is bad/good like when they can only think of around two points so they say that instead of etcetera because they have nothing to actually say of meaning I have to say this as I have seen many of your posts . I like the use of images you use XD especially the posts that seem sarcastic or down right burn. |
Mattinator95Jan 22, 2020 4:46 AM
| The thing about objectivity is that it is very much tied to purpose. Something can be objectively good or bad only depending on what you're using it for. For example, why do we generally prefer rich background details? Because anime stories are often set in worlds with a level of visual detail comparable to our own real world, and thus it helps our immersion in a story to see something like that in the visuals. Though sometimes visual detail of backgrounds isn't helpful, depending on the scene. There are other things for which conclusions are less general, though. For example, I think some people prefer the camera to pan around the action during a fight, which helps make things look more dynamic, while I personally prefer a static camera so that I can see more accurately what goes on. And the usage of squash and stretch for some action scenes may be more appropriate for more silly, less-realistic action than for stuff intended to be serious. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
gaq_t said: Octavar said: Well, obviously, there is such a thing as objectively good and bad. High production animation will almost always been objectively good, and low budget can sometimes verge into bad. But, beyond that is where it gets fuzzy because of a thing called Opinions. Opinions are a nasty little thing that makes rating things hard. And a lot of people can't see past their Opinions and back to what makes things objectively good or bad. But they do still exist. To sum it up, animation is always objectively good, bad, or average. Its the art decisions that make people form opinions on whether or not they like the animation or not, but that is, in fact, a separate matter It doesnt work like that. What standard are you working by? High-Budget generally is objectively good? Why should I follow that standard, and if I decide on an even more reasonable standard, does that also make it objective? I was generalizing. My point was that animation quality isn't that subjective, as more frames=better animation, and more money=more frames. Its the art that is subjective |
|
SunBro26 said: we're talking about animation go cry about anime objectivity somewhere else Ah yes, another thread talking about the objective aspects of an anime |
Shutos said: So you're saying that animation in anime can be objectively judged? or the contrary, that it cant?SunBro26 said: we're talking about animation go cry about anime objectivity somewhere else Ah yes, another thread talking about the objective aspects of an anime |
SunBro26 said: im asking people's opinions on the matter, i like certain animation styles and executions that other people hate, and i hate some that other people love, just getting opinions on whether people think animation quality can be measured objectively or not Shutos said: So you're saying that animation in anime can be objectively judged? or the contrary, that it cant?we're talking about animation go cry about anime objectivity somewhere else |
Shutos said: Well then, if you won't get triggered by it, here's my opinion on the matter. People can't universally agree on good or bad animation, since even that varies from person to person. First up, I'm considering that you're talking strictly about animation and not visuals overall, since that'd include shit like the art style and aesthetic.SunBro26 said: im asking people's opinions on the matter, i like certain animation styles and executions that other people hate, and i hate some that other people love, just getting opinions on whether people think animation quality can be measured objectively or not So you're saying that animation in anime can be objectively judged? or the contrary, that it cant? I've seen people who like stills, thinking it helps to build atmosphere, and I've seen people who like more fluidity. Some prefer less movement over more detail, others prefer more movement over less detail. Some want both of those, others think that animation doesn't even matter and they care more about the narrative side of things. Take camerawork for another example. People have different preferences there. I've met people who prefer a fixed camera angle cause they think that too much zooms and cuts ruin the immersion. Others think that high-speed cuts and movement add to, say, the hype, or maybe gives them a new perspective to look at things. One example I saw of this was a debate over K Project. One guy liked the camerawork with constant shifts, zooms and even a fish eye effect if I recall right. The other guy thought it looked excessive and sloppy, and didn't like it at all. Differences exist. Another example would be Aku no Hana and its rotoscoped animation. One guy I saw said that the animation there looked straight up hideous, lazy and felt wonky in its movement. Another guy countered by saying that it was probably the animators' intention and complements the general theme of the ugliness of humanity very well with the quality being compared to the theme here. So yeah, even as far as animation goes, I've seen far too many examples of differences in opinions of its quality, and personally, I don't think its anything that can be judged objectively. You gotta take into account that not everyone is bound to like the generally accepted definition of good animation, which is stuff like fluid movement, well drawn characters and environments, maybe particle effects, or cinematography. People have different preferences and standards even in those aspects. That's my input here. |
SunBro26Jan 22, 2020 9:43 AM
Mattinator95 said: Not really on topic of the thread but thanks man. Glad you like the pic selection Deknijff said: I have to say this as I have seen many of your posts . My opinion is that I don't care I just find it funny people use good or bad animation as fake argument to emphasise why a show is bad/good like when they can only think of around two points so they say that instead of etcetera because they have nothing to actually say of meaning I like the use of images you use XD especially the posts that seem sarcastic or down right burn.  |
|
Peaceful_Critic said: A gem shouldn't be moving actually, lol. And having a fluid animation doesn't mean that you can't do a stiff nor subtle motion, fluid means natural, it doesn't mean fast nor anything like that. I think that having 5 frames per second would look bad in every scenario (that involves movement of course).DaCraziGuy said: No I am saying that different objects should move less or more fluid because that mirrors what the person/object is made out of. If there's a metal robot than you want to discard what you know about the animation of humans and move stiffer and unnaturally since in real life robots wouldn't follow human logic. That's where I am coming from. If there's a gem person they shouldn't be moving like a feather with as much flexibility as a regular human. Fluid =/= Better all the time.What you are saying is basically: "sometimes bad animation is better than good animation", you don't make any sense, lol. Animation is basically motion, if you have no motion you have no animation... And just in case, I don't like how the show looks... actually I didn't even enjoyed the show. |
|
gaq_t said: Octavar said: I was generalizing. My point was that animation quality isn't that subjective, as more frames=better animation, and more money=more frames. Its the art that is subjective Why is more money better? What if the Creator wanted less money than average? What if his/her goal wasnt money in the first place? If money is the Goal, does that mean everything that leads to more money is objective in this context? Then why is animation singled out? Does good animation make more money? Not as in making more money, but spending more money. The more money you spend, the more animators you can hire, the more frames you can make, the better your animation quality is. And no, not every show NEEDS high quality animation, but that's a different point. Most slice of life shows can get by with serviceable animation at best, but a show like OPM and UBW survives off of their high frame rates and animation quality, as they make the fight scenes feel fluid and fun to watch. And yes, there are shows with smaller budgets that have fight scenes as well, but the animation quality goes down. I'm sure you've seen all the still frames from fights from Naruto and the like that look ridiculous because of the lack of frames they had to use. |
|
| Your mistake is to presume technically difficult equates to objectively good, and then to presume there is an objective good in the first place. Let's walk through all of your leaps of faith: OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS Objective: Keyframes per second, frames per second, cels per frame, number of moving parts, etc., are all quantifiable. If you want to prove something is true, you could count it, and everyone is forced to agree. That's what objectivity means. (LEAP OF FAITH #1) TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY Subjective: Something is technically difficult requires the subject to judge what specifications confer difficulty. This must take into account skill level, domain expertise, whether someone specializes in some aspect, their tolerance for the quantity of work, their ego, their standards, etc. You could say something looks difficult, but an expert might disagree; whereas an expert might say a particular perspective is difficult to animate even if it has low frames per second. There is no way to measure whether something is "difficult" or how difficult it is on a numerical scale that would be universally agreeable. (LEAP OF FAITH #2) GOOD ANIMATION Subjective: Whether something is "good" or "bad" requires the artistic judgment of the subject. Perception of fluidity often depends visual acuity, and different people have different standards of what passes, or their brains fill in the blanks differently. Higher frames per second does not always equate to better: Anyone who is a film buff might appreciate the artistic effect of 24Hz as opposed to 120Hz causing the home video effect through interpolation. Higher number of moving objects does not mean better if it causes the composition to be too busy to be appreciated. Even if you could establish a correlation between technical difficulty and good animation, again, it would be difficult to draw lines where good animation crosses into bad animation, and the standard of how good something is does not necessarily map linearly to how difficult something is, and how difficult something is does not map linearly to the number of objects on screen. (LEAP OF FAITH #3) THAT OBJECTIVE GOOD EXISTS Subjective: "Good" is necessarily subjective because there is no physical property that can be scientifically measured that correlates to any notion of goodness. You can measure the color of something by observing the wavelength of light reflected off its surface, or the radioactive energy emitted by its electrons. You can measure the temperature of something by noting the frequency or amplitude of molecular vibrations. You can observe the number of individually distinct trees on a playground. You can count the number of distinct, independent objects overlaid on top of some background. You cannot measure the goodness -- any kind of goodness -- of anything in the world. You can assert that killing another person under some circumstance is "good" but you cannot objectively prove that it is good by any kind of measurement, you could only argue its cultural virtue or appeal to emotion with its consequences. "Good" does not exist. Conclusion: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Is-ought.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Your line of thinking has been questioned and effectively debunked almost 300 years ago, at least, when David Hume noted in 1739 the paradox wherein every author happens to derive "goodness" from some objective observation, but fail to explain how they made the jump, just as you've failed to explain how the number of frames must be interpreted as a measure of being "good". It is 2020 and no one has successfully convinced everyone that there is an answer to the Is-Ought problem. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Credit cards companies are forcing the Hentai industryDije - 7 hours ago |
34 |
by Jackson1333
»»
52 seconds ago |
|
» Characters you like but everyone else hates.Spunkert - May 17, 2023 |
41 |
by AverageRiceFan
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » What is your most common reason for rewatching anime?MeanMrMusician - Yesterday |
19 |
by mizukasa
»»
27 minutes ago |
|
» Anime you hope will be announced as soon as possible.Dominusew - Today |
17 |
by RaymondAnime
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» Isekai anime are better than any other genre.Alpha_1_Zero - Apr 20 |
43 |
by KittenCuddler
»»
32 minutes ago |