Icarus_prime's Profile

Yeah, I didn't have as much fun with Cowboy Bebop as a lot of others. It was very well made, and I think some individual episodes were really good, but as a whole it didn't interest me that much and I had to make myself finish it. The same goes with a lot of Hayao Miyazaki films, especially Howl's Moving Castle. I'm not really interested in the sorts of fantastical settings and stories and he likes to tell. I prefer generally stuff that's a bit more grounded.

For me, it felt like a grand culmination of 10 years worth of movies, and several films of character development for each of the heroes. Sure, a couple of those movies were pretty middling or mediocre in the process, but with a film like this, you really FEEL that it had that much baggage going into it.

Infinity War's place is pretty high up, but aside from that, Iron Man 1, Winter Soldier, the original Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Thor Ragnarok are the highest for me.

Sicario > Enemy > Blade Runner 2049 > Arrival

To be honest, my feeling towards it are rather mixed. I see it clearly has the potential to do big stuff, but it comes off as inconsistent at times. I like the tone and the atmosphere of the show, and it does evoke a strong feeling here and there, sometimes even tackling upon rather interesting concepts and ideas. But the realisation and execution is VERY subpar, and it kinda feels lile the show is threating the viewer like a retard, with its constant infodumping, unnecessary explanations, and tons of reminders for the things we already know. Not gonna judge anything deeper yet, so I'm waiting for the conclusion to give my final veridict.

Have Amazon in Australia?

The rewatches are very distinctly for Anime Club at my college. Every semester we pick 5 shows to rewatch. If we picka two cour, we can vote to keep watching it

Hear about this book?
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/anime-impact-chris-stuckmann/1127214077#/

I finally got it today and it's neat stuff. From LOADS of contributors, it talks about how anime has shaped their experiences. It's 450 pages long and covers anime across SIX DECADES like Astro Boy, Macross and Evangelion all the way up to Your Name and Violet Evergarden. Of course there's a Bebop section.

Still, it's neat to check out, if mainly because it does a very nice job of showing the reach, power and ways to tell stories present in anime.

In some regard. I respect it as a passion project though.

The setting and backgrounds are appealing. The anime captures the spirit of the ‘20s with brick buildings, old-timey cars, suits galore, rundown bars, and a decrepit living quarters. The show both looks and feels like a mafia movie – a boon indeed. Most of the character designs are good as well. But it falters in things like art design and walk cycles.
Worst of all are the noticeable inconsistencies. A repeated frame or incorrect cut makes Don Orco’s food magically reappear out of thin air after he ate it. One scene starts with a wide shot of what is clearly day time (or at most early evening), but the next shot shows it is nighttime. And Don Vanetti seems to have misplaced the scar on the left side of his face since it vanishes quite frequently.

Love it, probably Arnie's best film besides the first two terminators and predator. Just heaps of stupid fun, one of those types of films that you can receive pure bliss just from enjoyment of all the goofy action.

I would like to have thought there was meaning to most of the film, as Nicolas Winding Refn from what I have seen, achieves. But I could not see any interesting purpose or point in what I was watching most of the time. What did not help was Ryan Gosling barely saying anything throughout the film, there were around 40 thirty second shots of him doing something in slow motion. I would say Nicolas Winding Refn gave this film some underlining meaning to everything and it was not just pointless, self-indulgent, slow motion bull crap. It does deserve merit for it's cinematography which was very well put together and thought out, as well as the music. I would say it deserves to be watched once, like or hate the movie it does ignite interesting thoughts. It's no Drive.


To get back to your point, I would not call it pretentious. Nicolas Winding Refn im sure tried to give the really long shots of Ryan Gosling's face some meaning, but most of his filmography is very much style over substance, expect maybe this time it may have gone too far, suppressing what makes a film, pacing, story, tone etc. Unsure what to think going into his next film, The Neon Demon.

Brilliant, almost done, rating will be very very high. It's like one of those moefag shows but actually mentally incorporating, gives me a buttload of food for thought, beautiful show, done with much care and attention.

Agreed, simple when you think about it, the response is to navigate all that thought process of how it came to be that way. And yeah, speaking to people is the only true way for scores to matter. Once you know someone, their scores simply become an extension of themselves.

It depends on the show I'm reviewing. I usually just pencil things down and take notes. If it's for an older title, so like my last two, the process could take days to weeks since I'm effectively living with the content and I don't set a deadline for completion. It's not that I can't write it in less time, I just don't have the need to rush it. As for seasonals, sometimes I could write one in a 1-3 hours on the spot, other times, like with older titles, I could piece it together over the course of weeks if I know ahead of time if I want to review it. There's really no magic number with reviews. Just depends on my commitment/urgency level at any given moment.

Hopefully, you actually mull it over. I think most people don't have the insight when it comes to topics like this. The most I would do is a blog post but that's about it. I refuse to make a FAQ section just to appease people that can't think beyond trivial means.

I've addressed this so many times that it's honestly pretty annoying at this point. So I'll make this response very detailed, not only for your sake, but so I could have something to copy and paste to the inevitable dozens of more times I will get this question from others, that for some reason, can't register how much of a difference live-action and anime have when pitted against each other. So prepare yourself for a wall text, you brought this one on yourself. Enjoy.

Both mediums have its advantages and disadvantages over each other, which ultimately leads to strengths and weaknesses across both mediums. I will run through both.

Lineage:

In this category, films have an infinitely greater advantage over anime because film comes from the legacy of two of the oldest forms of storytelling: theatre and books. That's essentially what films are, theatrical plays meet adaptations/screenplays captured onto an image. Theatre has been around for over 2000+ years and stories as found on tablets, hieroglyphs etc have dated back since the beginning of mankind. These forms of storytelling are OLD and ESTABLISHED. They have thousands of years of fine-tuning gone into them. Films are basically the crossroads of these type of mediums. Stories passed on from tablets to leather to papyrus to paper etc is the "backbone" and what theatre does was add a form of entertainment to the mix. The same is also true for folktales, which were designed for those unable to read. So when you're dealing with film, you're dealing with something that balances these aspects with its ability to pull from outside as well.

Animation is an offshoot of films. So as a medium, it's incredibly new. Films are "new" to an extent as well, but that more has to do with the technical side of things; editing, lighting, blocking, storyboarding, etc. The actual backbone, the skeleton, is that of the 2 pre-established storytelling pillars, as previously mentioned. So film already has an advantage because most of the kinks that a fledgling medium would have to deal with has already been ironed out. Animation in its initial phases wasn't acknowledged as a means of storytelling yet. It was treated like the rest of the technicals I mentioned, as simply a "tool" in filmmaking's arsenal. To most, it was no different than editing or storyboarding.

Featured films were made in 1900 while animation featured films didn't happen until 1937, and even then, it was being treated as something novelty and not something made to be taken seriously. And this doesn't even get to anime from Japan, which was used as a means of war propaganda for the longest time, only truly being used for something else in 1960s with Astro Boy and Otogi Manga Calendar. And those two were aimed primarily at kids. It wouldn't be until the 1970s that anime would be produced beyond appeasing kids and taken as a serious form of storytelling with Ashita no Joe, Belladonna of Sadness and Space Battleship Yamada, just to name a few. But for the 70s, those cases were still rare, and it's in the 80s where the floodgates really opened up for better-tested adult demographics. And no, "adult" being a factor of quality isn't the point, the point is content being written as a valid means of storytelling BEYOND just being a novelty. When it goes from just something to throw on for kids, propaganda or merchandise, to being produced as a means of storytelling being taken into consideration. There may have been people taking the art form of animation seriously, but how it was being applied in Japan wasn't reflective of that until the 1970s. And even then, animation was only used as a means of storytelling for most because it was simply a cheaper alternative to film.

So taking all that into consideration, you're effectively comparing a medium of live-action film that's created movies as a means of storytelling since the 1900s, with its established pillars (theatre & literature) spanning for over a millennium, to that of animation, specifically Japanese animation, which has truly been producing anime consistently with storytelling and a wide demographic in mind since the 1970s. The difference in quality control is bound to happen. One simply had to perfect the technicals of its technique, while better modes of storytelling would crop up naturally along the way since its foundation was already established. The other medium had to do both, build a foundation and work on its technicals, since its foundation was in film.

If theatre and literature was the tree trunk and film was a branch from that tree, then Japanese anime would effectively be a twig now growing from that branch.

The difference is even easily apparent when you look at the critical consensus of both communities. One community is vastly older, therefore quality control is ESTABLISHED, the other is vastly younger, therefore quality control is still going through its establishing phase. Just look at the database gathering sites of both communities. Do you see the newest "hyped" marvel film making the top 100 critically acclaimed film of all time list? No, because film critics and viewer bases are mostly made up of adults, in a medium that's made up of an establishment. Look at anime now, every year has a "hyped" show that makes the top 100 critically acclaimed list, why? Because the community's "critics" and viewer base are mostly composed of teens to young adults, in a medium that hasn't even had ONE title in the ballpark of 2001: A Space Odyssey, 12 Angry Men, Citizen Kane etc with decades of reinforcement labeling it as "classic." The only established classic anime has is Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and when pitted against storytelling media as a whole (excluding gaming), that's a baby with not even 50 years under its belt yet. That's how young and new anime is. It's not a fully developed medium, it's still in its infancy. People need to get over themselves. I love the medium, but that doesn't change the facts for what it is. Outside of gaming as a form of storytelling, Japanese animation, anime, is one of the youngest storytelling mediums so far.


Marketing:

Because films are established for over a hundred years now, its marketing is supported as a primary means of income. And when something is seen as a profitable business venture, it usually means more is invested in it, from innovations to writing, to acting, to technicals etc. More is done to make films better because better films equal more money. That's why you could look at something like Rise of the Planet of the Apes 2011, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 2014, War for the Planet of the Apes 2017. And from all 3 of those films, the CGI for the monkies become drastically better, even to the point where in the 3rd one, they basically look real. Films make MONEY so more MONEY is spent to improve them in most aspects. This means something like Blade Runner can be made and a sequel could have a better-written screenplay and visual output. This is possible because films make it possible. I'm not saying that shit remakes and shit films don't get made, but what I am saying is that for where it matters, the drastic strides of improvement is more than apparent from simply seeing how much things are being improved.

Now just look at anime. Japan's business acumen, for the majority of it, still treats anime as a secondary aspect to selling for the manga and not a primary means of income. There are those that think otherwise, like the people actually creating the anime, but the big business itself that gives money to produce most of this content isn't seeing it that way. That's why the "read the manga" type adaptations still exists. That's why successful adaptations could do a decade without a sequel or sometimes with none at all. Japan's business practices are out of date. It's only recently in the late 2000s that we're starting to see a slow shift in that mindset. With online streaming platforms and other tactics being used to market anime as a primary interest. And this is also another result of age between the two mediums; live-action movies have been a primary for over 100 years, anime has only started seeing it that way in the 2000s. Just let that shit settle in.

And now what I consider to be the BIGGEST difference


Advantages vs Disadvantages of each medium:

Film advantage:
-It's live-action therefore suspension of disbelief isn't as steep
-Since it's live-action, when people emote, you could easily believe them as they're flesh and blood and not animated. Empathy is far easier to achieve and dimension is far easier to capture. Even improvs in movies could be turned into something fantastic. Think Django where Decaprio broke a glass and his hand began to bleed. That scene was improv and he really did bleed, but it led to a great scene. Humanistic range, humanistic expression, it makes for far more believable outcomes.
-Budget. Movies cost more so that usually means more staffing. Which usually leads to more quality control. More script revisions before a screenplay. More editors involved. More production designers. More coaching. More more more. It doesn't always mean better but is does usually mean better quality output.
-Investment. Because films are a primary means of profit for studios, there's a far greater expectation for the work to be successful. This usually means compromise in the material. A compromise might be bad for artistic vision but it usually also means a better chance at something being good. Studios want things that would draw in as many people as possible. It aims for the biggest demographic, as opposed to anime that aims for niches. So when you aim for bigger, it usually means your material is far safer. So on average, films are usually average to good. Even the big dumb blockbusters are usually safer bets because they're meant to be that. Indie films are where most of the risk-taking happens, which is why their budgets are smaller and are shown in fewer theaters.
-films are films, and films are shorter. Less time to fuck up equals better products. It also renders comparing films to anime a stupid thing since there's more live-action films and anime is usually in TV series format.

Film disadvantage:
-Actors age. Can't have a Goku or Ash Ketchum that never ages.
-More compromise means less experimental ideas. This is anime's advantage, will discuss more there and why anime is my fav medium DESPITE the average score.
-Impossible shit. Since films are live-action, in order to do some impossible shit CGI is usually needed, which can often not work to its benefit given everything else is tangible. So for every realistic monkey in that planet of the apes movies or the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, we get a fake looking justice league cyborg or lame x-men wolverine origins plastic claws.


Anime advantage:
-Characters could be the same age FOREVER.
-Riskier. This is ultimately the reason I love anime. Because it's animated, it could get away with a lot more shit (hentai exists with lolis in it for a reason). Japan's moral compass is far less demanding than Europe and the West. So Japan tackles the weird and the taboo far more. So anime could and does experiment more with stories that it could tell and story structures in general. For example, metaphysical stories in films might happen once or twice a year, in anime, that shit could happen a dozen times, at the least. Anime, as a result, EMPOWERS the artist to do whatever they want. Passion projects are far more abundant. And as a fellow artist, that's the reason I'm constantly drawn to the medium.
-Impossible could be done. Because it's all animated, as oppose to live-action that has to use CG, anime could make weirder shit that audiences could buy into. So when the worldbuilding is done really well (remember this), it feels far more imaginative on average to films. Physics doesn't apply if the story being told doesn't need it.
-Cheaper. Anime is seen as a cheaper alternative to film, so the loss is far less impactful. So your favorite creative could be allowed to make more crazy shit even if their projects are a financial failure. This is why if a movie flops, like Fantastic Four by Josh Trank, for example, that director could be put on a Hollywood blacklist for decades, sometimes even for good, while you look at companies like Manglobe, who before finally going bankrupt, made LOTS of fantastic financial failures. When the bottom dollar is less, artists are kept around longer to fuck up some more. Which is to the audiences' benefit since we get more experimental stuff on average.

Anime disadvantage:
-Characters are harder to make believable because of the uncanny valley. Anime has a far harder road to travel down in this aspect. Nuance and humanistic range are tougher to capture since all the blemishes that make humans, HUMAN is not naturally captured, they have to be artificially made. This is why something like Shouwa Rakugo or Only Yesterday stand out so much in comparison to the usual.
It’s one thing to give birth to this phenomenon with real-life actors and actresses in a live-action feature, but it’s a complete other when the already thin membrane of suspension of disbelief for watching an animated title still manages to dupe the audience into forgetting that realization. By effectively obtaining that same level of human intimacy, despite the fact that it’s animated, even if the illusion only happens for a split second, Flag proves that there’s more here than simply mimicking documentary-style storytelling. And this is something the show manages to do on more than one occasion, crossing this threshold into realism effortlessly.
-Riskier. Because it's less compromising, its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. There's a bigger chance to fail because there's a lot of time where this risk doesn't pay out. Also, due to it being treated with far less care, the chances of cancelation is higher. Also, remember, many studios treat anime as secondary still, so you could have lots of anime without a continuation, to begin with.
-Incestuous. Because it's so young, many ideas and concepts are recycled to no end.
When Hayao Miyazaki said that people "don't spend time watching real people" with industry, in-house anime creators being "humans who can't stand looking at other humans,” this is what he's referring to: shows that can't find inspiration outside of their own anime tropes because the people working on them don't see anything beyond anime. Re:Zero is a self-indulging anime with no worldly influence to speak of. Shinichirō Watanabe, Satoshi Kon, Mamoru Oshii, Yoko Kanno. What made these industry giants well-known was their ability to draw inspiration from influences outside of anime. They brought something new to the table, a claim that shows like Re:Zero can't prove. It's a product of its environment. Anime feeding into anime. It's Ouroboros incarnate.
I'm not saying the same isn't true about films, with the MCU vs DCU thing being a prime example. But what I am saying is that film doesn't literally have things like tsunderes and yanderes floating around because that's a result of GROWING UP. Films are incestuous but it usually brings other parties into the mix. You could go a year without encountering a "new" type of character or story in anime, where every single year in film, there's a handful of unique entries. Notice, I didn't mention the actual experimental nature of anime, but more so the elements that make up the titles themselves. Anime doesn't have a "indie scene" yet, films do.

Going back to my tree analogy, films have a branch dedicated to artistic freedom with indie films. Anime doesn't quite have that yet, "Noitama" being the closest to any semblance of that taking form. But that's why anime tend to be so insular as a result. Its young age is to its disadvantage. For every Oshii and Watanabe that bring new aspects to the table, there are dozens that don't. So when an anime creates a cliche or trope, it's FAR easier to notice.

And now the BIGGEST disadvantage, believable worldbuilding:


When the worldbuilding is done WELL, it works.. but worldbuilding for anime is HARDER for the same reason making realistic/believable characters are harder.
we must first examine the massive undertaking that the creators dedicated towards AoT's worldbuilding that made all of it possible.

It's no coincidence that the show effectively opens up by introducing us to the walled-off city and the architectural structures of the buildings inside. Or better yet, the scale of these structures when pitted against the monstrous threat that inhabits this world. All of this was done to help start the process of setting the stage. Something the anime will continuously do throughout its run. You see, proper worldbuilding doesn't just stop with establishing shots, it's something that's supposed to expand alongside the story to help accommodate the content placed in it. And in the case of AoT, that means a whole lot of inventive action, intriguing locations, and tactile environments that feel every bit as convincing to anything found in the real world.

From the title cards inserted at the halfway point to the medieval-inspired European houses, there's not a moment where the show isn't making the viewer privy to new world details, visual landmarks, and macroeconomic world functions. It cultivated a lived-in world for its inhabitants by reinforcing the means of living, the area layout of its civilians, even things that may be perceived as trivial, like the functionality of the weapons that the military uses. You see, in order for things to feel important, you must first give the viewer a sense of existence in the world, to be able to grasp what's at stake for those within it. So later on, when this once considered "useless" knowledge festers in the back of the viewer's mind — seeing the limitations of citizen mobility, the seemingly endless maze of alleyways, and the sense of hopelessness experienced by humanity when cornered by the evil forces out to get them — all of a sudden, the viewer is now standing there with them and not simply on the outside looking in.

Many action movies like 2006's Casino Royale or 2008's Taken don't have to worry about most of this because its world and locations are already accepted as is; this is the true advantage of live-action. This is why James Bond and his antics have very little hurdles to cross to make the audience accept what's going on because the world they're placed in is our own world. It's "real." AoT, and similarly any animated feature, isn't alotted that immediate acceptance, something that's often taken for granted. If the world isn't thought out, it's hard to get enveloped in it. So when you're running your fingers across the rough surface of a moss-covered stone, creeping through the back streets occupied by the dilapidated housing of the common people; their homes built up by lumber that's slightly weathered by decay; contrasted by the sturdy, clutter-free appearance of the religious facility, with its towering structure shooting up over the houses dwarfed below. Or simply lying under a tree, as the grass and blue wildflowers surrounding you are rustled by the breeze, the endless stretch of Wall Maria looming in the background, registering no comment from the citizens, as they accept it just as much as you accept the Pyramids or Eiffel Tower as real-life landmarks; you're getting a firsthand experience of all of this worldbuilding detail at play. You may not be aware of it, but somewhere in your subconscious, these registered efforts are sinking in.

You see, when a film sets its stage, many times the stages already exists. In anime, literally EVERYTHING doesn't exists, so everything is needed to be built.




SO, take everything I've said and really think about it.... and after you do, do you see how obvious the answer is? It's almost worth not asking if you actually think about all the variables compounded.

-more time and establishment
-more money
-less need for worldbuilding (physical things and locations exists)
-easier to believe its characters
-more compromised to succeed for a wider demographic (niche appeal isn't primary)
-is treated as an investment and not a secondary product (most of the time)
-far more condensed

and all the other shit I mentioned. The difference is clear to anyone paying attention. And scores are a dumb thing to focus on. Scores are a measurement of quality control, not a measurement of love/hate. I love both mediums, but on average, films simply have an advantage over anime. That's not "muh opinion man" that's tangible, statistical facts.

To be honest I thought the first half gave off a 'The World's End' kind of vibe, with the comedy and the main characters unsure of what is going on in a strange place. But it slowly started to ramp up the mystery and the emotions intensely. I went in expecting a feel good comedy to enjoy on a Saturday evening with the result being me in a sad mood :(. And im sure on a rewatch I would enjoy the film again.


I actually had a day trip Bruges about 1 or 2 years ago in the Summer. It's a very nice place but after I had seen and gotten sick of everything, it was extremely boring lol so I can relate to Ray in that sense.

I don't know what my fav and least fav Bebop ep is. It's not a show I think much about to make that assessment.

Yup, 3 Billboards is a masterclass of cinema. Gave me that kind of elation that only a "perfect in my eyes" film could do.