>>13294476 Captain Earth was trying to emulate their previous hit Star Driver and failing miserably. I don't know how they fucked up so badly when they were just trying to copy their own work, but they did.
I thought it was pretty good, it's /m/ as fuck, both it's mecha and toku section. In case anyone was confused about the story, it basically works like Kiva's story, it jumps between the past and future, telling sections of the story through the protags in different years. It's easily discernible by the different in Jirou's attire. Past Jirou in more wellkept, while future Jirou has a scarf.
> an anime Toku that isn't shit This is a great season to be a /m/echafag, Fafner is great as always, new Gundam was better than expected, Comet Lucifer doesn't have shit CG and now this. Only disappointed was Heavy Objects, but I didn't have high hopes for that in the first place.
>>13296556 i don't think the new gundam needs to be hated on just yet since it's only an episode in.. and if you hate shitty poorly done exposition don't watch anime? so far it seems it could go in a good direction. heavy objects just doesnt interest me so far but i'll eventually check it out
>>13296655 It's more like a gang war though, they are everywhere, you can see them, you can hear them, even if you don't participate in their feud, the moment you step out of your block a stray machete might stab you
>>13299226 I don't understand why the fuck they intersped the flash-forwards into the episode, it contributed literally nothing and the transitions were horrible. I normally love shit like that, but this was not well executed.
They could have just had that at the end or the beginning and accomplished the same thing in a better way.
I can't bring myself to talk shit about this because it amused me to no end. I just wish they handled the flash-forwards better, most of them were kinda jarring, the first one would be better used as the actual intro to the anime. Looking forward to next week.
You know, I saw the first chapter in raw version for this a week before this; it should more of the group from the bureau before Jiro met with the witch and it did not show the 5 year time skip like the anime version did.
This is pretty much exactly what I thought Samurai Flamenco was going to be at first, a totally schizophrenic mess of superhero cliches. I like where it's headed, just hope it manages to stay entertainingly batshit for the rest of its run.
>>13306415 I know Toku literally means special effects in nip, but the meaning of the word in this industry has become synonymous with "Japanese Hero shows" for a long time now, so just roll with it anon.
>>13299607 It was decent, but they tried too hard to make it epic in scale (like a big movie finale) and the bittersweet ending was far too predictable and plainly delivered to elicit any emotion. The animation and fights were cool, though.
>>13311115 >that videogame looks like an anime frame by frame What? No it doesn't. It plays into CGs strength, which is reaction to user input, and the scenes match the look of the game. The scenes as stand alones are still very clearly CG.
>>13311596 >soul in art is bullshit Please kill yourself. I sincerely mean it. If you like that oversaturated, awkward moving lifeless excuse for animation, keep it to yourself. Don't fucking pretend that good art doesn't have soul, you damn heathen.
>>13311666 >Satan calling other people heathens Hilarious. Also same to you. No-one cares about your shitty irrelevant opinion, just like nobody cares about mine. All animation is lifeless, and your bullshit about any having a "soul" is stupid. The only things that have a soul are living creatures.
>>13299135 >5 or 6 >with the hit-or-miss Aikawa on board That's probably like a fair estimate. Which is a shame, because Bones are mostly just good for the animation, so they ought to do like for Tenkai Knights and animate other studios' shows. If they bomb too many times thanks to lousy writers, they'll go bankrupt.
>>13305885 >Chaos Dragon In fairness, it wasn't even his fault that time, since it turns out the original author for that is a hack to begin with.
I honestly don't get how people say this. They just showed you a scene, then, where applicable, the flash forward shows the conclusion to characters or things being talked about, or actions in that scene, sometimes with more added symbolism, and a different atmosphere to differentiate. Pretty easy to get.
>>13327251 Yeah, it honestly was incredibly simple. I'm completely baffled at people finding it confusing as well. The only thing that I could understand was a bit confusing was the first scene transition. But after that it was abundantly clear.
>>13327702 >>13327251 The fact that is was just 2 timepoints (present and future) and each future timepoint played off some piece of information from the preceding present scene makes me think that anyone who couldn't follow it is actually brain-dead.
>>13328658 That's nice and all, but where's you proof that your opinion has any more merit than his? Because I'd be more inclined to take what you say seriously if you show proof in being experienced in what you're talking about.
Mostly the ones shitting on it, the one saying it's good are willing to talk, while the detractors go just "shit SUX !" "2D>>>>>>>3D" >>13319072 Even with excellent examples you see "shit sux etc." it's getting fucking ridiculous.
>>13328812 How about "it's not fucking anime" because as much as you pretend it's just another tool, it's fundamentally different than cels, digital or webgen in that the artist isn't holding a pencil (or something like it) to the paper and creating drawings that way? It's a fundamentally different skill that produces fundamentally different results, and just maybe, people that like animation don't like CG because it's not fucking anime? The models, coloring and motion all look bad.
>>13328842 And yet for all the talk of "Well the CG haters aren't making points and are just saying it's shit" you ignore the completely objective and factually correct part of my post and just home in on the part you don't like and call it subjective.
I don't care if you like CG. Stop pretending it's the same as everything other production method for anime. It's not, and it never will be.
>>13328872 But it is anime. Its animated. You don't get to say that a rock isn't a rock because its iconoclast and you only consider sedimentary rocks to be rocks. You idiots keep making that same argument and it never gets any less false.
>>13328999 I'm using the Western world definition of anime, since we're were having this discussion from a western perspective. Japan's definition is anything animated since it's their word for cartoon. You're the only one here calling Spongebob an anime though which is stupid since you're running away from arguing against the point that CG used in an anime does not make that work not an anime.
>>13329024 >I'm using the Western world definition of anime >I'm an idiot I know.
>You're the only one here calling Spongebob an anime though which is stupid since you're running away from arguing against the point that CG used in an anime does not make that work not an anime. No, I'm saying that expanding the definition of what anime is outside of real anime is fucking stupid because the word literally covers anything animated.
>>13329056 >outside of real anime >the word literally covers anything animated So now you're investing in your own ridiculous claim that Spongebob is anime in the hopes that somehow this will make me say that CG in anime isn't anime even though it is?
I honestly can't figure where you're going with this stupidity. First you say it's stupid to call Spongebob anime since it isn't (using the western definition) and now you're fully trying to say it is (using that Japanese definition)
Why did you switch sides? Are you finally admitting that CG is anime when it appears in anime?
>>13329113 Are you fucking stupid? My point is that anime is hand drawn animation from Japan. Cel, digital, webgen, whatever. It's all an artist drawing the anime and then connecting frames to create the illusion of motion. They all rely on the same skillset from the artist and produce comparable results. That's what people who have been watching anime for decades like. Do you know why people who aren't CG shills complain about 3DCG? It's fundamentally different. It's not the same kind of art, and it relies on a completely different skill set. You can say "Come on, this one doesn't look like total ass!" but the fact remains that people will always complain about over-saturated colors and awkward movements. Saying "Well CG is technically still anime." is as stupid as saying "Well Spongebob is technically anime." and neither have any bearing on the conversation. Trying to argue semantics is fucking stupid. The fact that you think your "it's technically still anime so you should accept it" argument isn't stupid is astounding.
>>13329141 >it's technically still anime so you should accept it
At no fucking point did the anon you were arguing with claim that. He just argued with you over whether or not CG was anime, absolutely nothing about whether or not it was good. And that won't change even if you call him a shill.
>>13329197 >He just argued with you over whether or not CG was anime It's not. It's computer generated 3D garbage and has no place in anime. Arguing that it is anime is as stupid as arguing that Spongebob is anime, because even if you argue semantics it won't change that the style is completely fucking different and anyone with eyes can tell they're not the same.
>>13329215 And I don't give a single fuck about any of that because I didn't get involved in this shitflinging for a reason, just don't go throwing words into people's mouths because of your hateboner against CG.
>>13329141 At this point you're just saying it's different so it's bad. My viewpoint if I had to quantify it in such terms would be it's different so it's different. CG has been used poorly, okay, and well across multitudes of shows but writing off anything that uses CG as not anime just for that is just being willfully ignorant.
>>13329234 >And I don't give a single fuck about any of that Except for that part where you decided to post about it like an idiot then pretend you don't care.
>>13329241 No, I've said why it looks like shit and the response is "Well that's subjective!" every time, despite the fact that no matter how "well" CG is done, people will always say it looks like shit. If you're so dead set on the viewpoint that it's subjective, then why do you feel the need to step in every time someone says it looks like shit?
>is just being willfully ignorant. No, I just don't like looking at horribly over saturated colors, models that stick out, awkward jerky movement, and animation that lacks the flair of a talented animator.
>>13329283 >I don't care if you were saying something equally as ridiculous as he was to make a point about semantics having no place in the discussion since semantics would put everything from Shrek to Gunbuster to Spongebob under the umbrella of "anime" >I just wanted to read your post in a vacuum and complain about it! Go gargle with some bleach.
>>13329262 >people will always say it looks like shit Well when there are people like you that write off 100% of CG that's to be expected. >then why do you feel the need to step in every time someone says it looks like shit? So I am now every anon that has ever had this argument with you and others with your viewpoint, ok. >No, I just don't like looking at horribly over saturated colors, models that stick out, awkward jerky movement, and animation that lacks the flair of a talented animator. When you say stuff like this like it applies to every thing in existence is where I find it hard to take you seriously.
Yeah CG doesn't look like hand drawn and yeah it isn't colored the same in most anime that use it. After that though it all depends on who worked on it and there is a definite range in quality of the final product.
>>13329302 That's not even remotely related to what I actually complained about, but nice reading comprehension. I can see why you think that he was trying to argue that CG was good just because he tried to argue CG was anime since that seems to be the only thing close and dear to your heart in this world.
>>13329333 >Well when there are people like you that write off 100% of CG that's to be expected. Because it's clearly CG and looks fundamentally different than hand drawn. Some people don't want to look at that. How do you not understand that? You can plead "Come on..... just give it a shot!" all you want, but I'm not going to suddenly like the colors and motion and lack of 2D aesthetic.
>When you say stuff like this like it applies to every thing in existence is where I find it hard to take you seriously. Alright. Show me CG that isn't clearly CG and looks good.
>>13329342 >That's not even remotely related to what I actually complained about, "He just argued with you over whether or not CG was anime" Talking about semantics has no fucking bearing on the discussion we're having, so saying that "Well he was right that CG is technically anime" means absolutely nothing, you mouth breathing retard.
>>13329378 >Under my definition Your definition literally means nothing. I used the real definition (you know, the one the people from the country of origin use) to point out that just because something is technically anime by definition doesn't mean it isn't clearly different than what we talk about here as anime.
>>13329397 Man, if only I gave a set of criteria and actually talked about what made 3D obviously different than anime and explained my gripes with it.
>>13329402 >he claimed all CG is good just because it's anime. No I didn't you fucking idiot. Who's strawmanning now? I said that he said I should accept CG is animation and that it has a place in anime. Never once did I claim that he said all CG is inherently good because it's anime.
I hope the irony of you telling me I lack reading comprehension isn't lost on you.
>>13329424 >if only I gave a set of criteria and actually talked about what made 3D obviously different than anime and explained my gripes with it. Except none of that makes CG not anime no matter how many times you claim it does. And me saying CG made by Japanese studios for anime production is still anime does not mean I'm arguing everything animated by everyone is also anime.
>>13329434 >Except none of that makes CG not anime no matter how many times you claim it does. And yet you're still focusing on semantics instead of actually talking about CG, despite the fact that semantics mean nothing. You're right, when I say "CG isn't anime and has no place in anime" I'm clearly confused as to what the word "anime" encompasses. Now that you've explained to me that it's technically anime, I'll suddenly stop complaining about it.
Oh wait, you're a fucking idiot and know exactly what I meant when I said "CG isn't real anime" but you felt like being a little prick about semantics instead of talking about the differences between hand drawn and CG. Way to go anon, really made a strong point.
>>13329476 >That's the part you are confused about I'm not confused at all. I'm calling you a faggot for focusing on semantics instead of talking about WHY people don't like CG.
>ut this was mainly about you writing off 100% of CG on the basis of being CG though. >on the basis of being CG Except for the part where I said >>13329262 >I just don't like looking at horribly over saturated colors, models that stick out, awkward jerky movement, and animation that lacks the flair of a talented animator. It's not "just because it's CG" it's because "All CG has this set of undesirable characteristics."
Keep on making those false equivalencies, wouldn't want to accidentally stumble your way into a point.
>>13329496 >instead of talking about WHY people don't like CG Because this, whatever the proper word for this exchange should be, was never about that. You hate CG yeah. I don't hate all CG yeah. The end. I don't feel like arguing opinion bullshit with you.
>I just don't like looking at horribly over saturated colors, models that stick out, awkward jerky movement, and animation that lacks the flair of a talented animator. >All CG has this set of undesirable characteristics And I told you it's ignorant to think those complaints apply to every use of CG.
I'm done with this now, so I guess you can tell yourself you won at arguing or whatever.
>>13329542 >I don't feel like arguing opinion bullshit with you. Except you tried to and just now you're realizing that you're an idiot without a point.
>And I told you it's ignorant to think those complaints apply to every use of CG. Then fucking show me an example that proves otherwise and can mimic the aesthetic of and flair of 2D without immediately being recognizable as CG because of those characteristics I mentioned.
>I'm done with this now, so I guess you can tell yourself you won at arguing or whatever. Given that you claimed "Not all CG is this" without ever trying to defend it after you finished talking in circles about meaningless semantics without addressing my point? You bet your ass you lost this one.
>>13336690 Wait, people are having trouble following the storytelling? It's so fucking stupid even a child could get it, they're just using the time skips to make the plot on each episode coherent, nothing more than that
>>13336736 People last week actually had trouble with it. After it got explained, they fell back on "Well yeah I understood it (even though I couldn't actually comment on it before) but I just don't like it!"
>>13336827 I know, right? That bit about how he wants the ghost to "stay himself" because his naivety will always keep him on the right track now makes sense given that we know the MC "goes rogue" later on, and the line between hero and villain is blurred. I'm starting to connect the dots now and can definitely see how some people had problems fighting it.
It's definitely not that those people are retarded.
Thread replies: 198 Thread images: 15
Thread DB ID: 60657
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.