"Moe is killing anime." -Miyazaki, 2014
How many shit threads like this are you going to make in a row before you're satisfied?
What's bad about this thread? Just a quote.
Yet Miyazaki made My Neighbor Totoro and Kiki's Delivery Service. Two moeshit movies with lolicon fanservice.
Nigga I bet you haven't even seen those movies.
I fapped many times to the bath scence in Totoro.
Even though it sounds like he'd say stuff like that, you shouldn't believe every quote on ointernet.
I'm pretty sure he said that in 2013
What he said was that animators don't have enough experience watching humans and how they gesture themselves so they have no idea how to animate correctly. Honestly he's right about that. A lot of QUALITY in anime and various manga come from have no experience from drawing actual people but from copying another artist.
KyoAni is killing anime.
>he's hating my favorite thing
>this is shit!
>you shouldn't believe anything that hurts moe stuff
"Moe is moe"
as many times as you retards continue to post in them.
"Ghibli cause Anime Stagnation" O-re, 2014
Oh look another one! I wish I get 50 bucks for everythread that comes up. Is there any way to exploit money from these?
"I'm going to retire." -Miyazaki, 2013
"Just Kidding!" -Miyazaki, 2013
Go fake it yourself somewhere.
Tell me something I didn't know.
>Moe boom happened in the early 2000s
>Studios continued to cash in on moe blobs and otaku eat this shit up.
>Anime eventually becomes all moe because nothing else can survive because otaku have shit taste and won't buy anything else.
>Anime looses most appeal to viewers worldwide and at home because it's mostly weird pedo shit by then. People stop admiring japan so much now since they really produce nothing of use besides anime.
>Eventually most anime will only air on midnight time slots in japan.
>Being an otaku will become an even bigger sitgma and drive anime off of tv at one point. Only to be sold as dvd box sets. Many animation studios close down because they no longer turn a profit.
>Japan becomes irrelevant to the world and only synonymous with being weird as fuck and full of perverts.
>Moe boom happened in the early 2000s
Stopped reading here.
Uh, it's pretty obvious he was being facetious.
"Moe is a fucking pile of shit, fuck me I hate that shit so fucking badly"
Me, the year of our Lord 1910
>The problem with the anime industry STAFF is it's full of otaku -Miyazaki 2014
You don't know what that even means. Young girls in his films aren't sexually emphasized. If you think they are, that really is more due to your own lolicon fetishes.
I noticed that he had this over other directors/ animators when I watched Totoro. Mei's movements convey all the subtlety of a child's clumsiness. I rarely see that amount of detail in more modern series.
That's in part because you're comparing a film that can take all the time in the world to rushed hard-deadline TV series. TV series in the 80s trying to convey that childishness were likely just as stiff and "unrealistic" because they had no budget.
source or it isn't real anon.
"Miyazaki films a shit" - Anon
I rarely see it in high budget films either nowadays. What you said is in part true, but not all the way true. You're underestimating the meticulousness of Miyazaki's planning. More thought goes into Mei's movements than budget. Wolf Children is one example that comes to mind where there was enough budget to get movements right. But it didn't get it right. The children's movements in that film were very animated, yes, but they weren't believable. It focused more on being cute than having realistic movements.
Then chalk it up to Miyazaki being a rarity in how close he pays his attention to detail. That makes what he does an exception and should not be expected all the time.
Prepare for yet another shitstorm.
Please go back to whatever board you came from.
But isn't this old news, OP?
Miyazaki has always been against otaku and moe since the eighties.
It's like you're willfully stupid.
Amazing rebuttal. Would vote for president
That doesn't make much sense. Miyazaki is usually so respected precisely because his attention to detail. It should then naturally persuade and influence other animators to observe daily life more. It's never even been a secret that he got his style of detail from watching people's even most mundane movements.
I wonder why wasn't this news sticked on /a/?
It's not QUALITY.
It's more like lack of realism.
Characters taht do not exist, are the MC's of shows, so on and so forth.
Golden time is doing good in that aspect though.
Except those didn't have loads of needless fanservice and semantics in place of plot.
The vast majority of great artists in every medium have been neurotic, depressive, introverted shut-ins, and yet they produce more "convincing" and "moving" art than energetic socialites with orders of magnitude more day to day experience in human interaction. Artistic verisimilitude comes from minds that observe, imagine, and remember. By the time a human has reached puberty, they have tens of thousands of hours of experiences to reflect upon; more than plenty inspiration for "genius" works of "realism". We all know what life looks and sounds like, and thus we can tell when something looks "off" or "unrealistic", even if we've never tried our hands at animation. We don't expect the Chatty Cathy to be the best writer of dialogue we know, nor do great animators get to where they are by watching mundane scenes in order to pad their hundreds of thousands of hours of human experience. Instead, like any talented artist, they imagine and remember, you fucking imbecile.
Objects move differently under different conditions. If your point is that animators have all they need stored in their memory, and that if the animator is talented, then he or she shouldn't have trouble drawing it, your point is wrong. Would you tell an animator who lives primarily in a desert location that he or she has all she needs in their memory to animate a scene where characters are walking through a blizzard? This depiction that he or she is to draw would need to be studied first. You see, an artist's mind is comfortable with depicting things which are in their immediate surroundings, but it needs to draw on external sources to pursue works outside their own world. There are numerous examples of artists who didn't feel the remotest fondness of art until a late age because it took just one painting or piece of literature to move them. So, even if a person had "tens of thousands of hours" to reflect upon upon reaching puberty, it's impossible to claim those hours will have any effect on their artistic tendencies.
Also, it's clearly the case that different movements have greater impact on an animator than movements with others. How is it that one animator can be great at drawing hair blowing in the wind, while the other is superior in drawing a child's movements. Your argument doesn't hold up in regards to animators because not all of them are exposed to the same interactions with people, and because it's just natural that one animator likes noticing the subtleties of waving hair, while another can't help but noticing how children move if they are always around the house or neighborhood. For each of these two animators, they'd need to start studying if they want to venture out of their comfort zones.
>If your point is that animators have all they need stored in their memory, and that if the animator is talented, then he or she shouldn't have trouble drawing it, your point is wrong.
Actually, basic illustration pedagogy is all about teaching the student to draw things from memory, not from reference.
Animation that is not rotoscoping is inherently impressionistic. "Realistically" animating a blizzard would not look appealing in the least, as it consists of irregular, choppy white blurs.
>You see, an artist's mind is comfortable with depicting things which are in their immediate surroundings, but it needs to draw on external sources to pursue works outside their own world.
I don't know what nonsense you are trying to articulate, but you seem to think that the careful study of motifs is they key to conveying a theme, rather than the poignant imagination of a motif's impression. Even the technical skill required to construct those impressions can be honed without references beyond the artist's memory.
>There are numerous examples of artists who didn't feel the remotest fondness of art until a late age ... it's impossible to claim those hours will have any effect on their artistic tendencies.
They're moved by a particular piece because it reminds them of they're own impressions and emotions. Our experiences and temperaments determine what works we find moving.
>children and hair
Everyone has seen children move and hair blow in the wind. The animator who excels and expressing hair is more interested in hair; his imagination and memory come through stronger when thinking of hair blowing in the wind.
>For each of these two animators, they'd need to start studying if they want to venture out of their comfort zones.
We're talking about what makes an animator excel at something: imagination and memory. If the hair animator wants to improve his child movements, he will focus his imagination and memory on childhood and children as he did with hair.