ITT favorite directors
Here's a list of 20 directors I think range from very good to brilliant, each for different reasons; in no particular order. For some of them I've only seen one or two animes they directed, but they did a good enough job to be included on my list anyway. I've probably forgotten some good ones, but such is life being a fan of many. Most of these are very contemporary because I'm a newfag.
Planetes? Infinite Ryvius?
Yes, what's your point?
Mamoru Oshii WHERE?!?!?!
He did nothing for them. Infinite Ryvius is a melodramatic soap-opera. Planetes is worthless when compared to the source material. The guy is a gigantic hack.
Akiyuki Shinbo. GO.
Infinite Ryvius and Planetes have some of the most realistic and dynamic characters you'll find in anime. I haven't read Planetes' source material, but the anime is brilliant nonetheless. I think they're good enough to offset his not-so-great works like Code Geass and s-CRY-ed as well as his crap like GunXSword.
I thought /a/ liked Zetsubou Sensei and Pani Poni Dash.
You guys can always make your own lists, you know.
If afraid of criticism don't bother posting.
My point is that I haven't seen their works. Like I said, I'm a newfag. Notice how I also didn't include Tomino.
No, but you must be.
Infinite Ryvius? Realistic and dynamic? Are you 13?
And no Kenji Kamiyama?
I wouldn't be able to put anything in order. Especially because I'm not that qualified to comment on the actual animation aspect of anime beyond "I can clearly tell this is good and this is bad"
All of my favorites are already on your list, though. Imaishi, Yuasa, Dezaki, etc. I also like Oshii.
Okay, I apologize for the exclusion of Kenji Kamiyama. I'll be sure to add him.
>I thought /a/ liked Zetsubou Sensei and Pani Poni Dash.
He also did the first Nanoha (which was pretty good, just overshadowed by its sequel) as well as Hidamari Sketch. I didn't like Moon Phase that much, but that's just me.
- Yoshiyuki Tomino (Mobile Suit Gundam, Zeta Gundam, Char's Counterattack)
- Leiji Matsumoto (Space Battleship Yamato TV and movies)
- Shinichiro Watanabe (Cowboy Bebop TV and movie)
- Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, Castle of Cagliostro, Princess Mononoke)
- Mamoru Oshii (Patlabor OVA, Patlabor movies 1 and 2)
- Isao Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies)
- Shoji Kawamori (Macross Plus)
- Seiji Mizushima (Fullmetal Alchemist TV and movie)
- Kenji Kamiyama (GitS: SAC)
- Kazuki Akane (Escaflowne)
- Akitaro Daichi (Now and Then, Here and There)
- Hiroyuki Yamaga (Wings of the Honneamise)
- Yasuhiro Imagawa (Giant Robo OVA, G Gundam)
- Hideki Tonokatsu (Missed By A Dollar, Alcatraz Conection)
Kenji Kamiyama is worthless, actually. Not on the level of Dezaki or the rest of that list.
I would credit Plus to Watanable. And this one:
- Seiji Mizushima (Fullmetal Alchemist TV and movie)
Doesn't belongs there.
Oh shit, I think we've got a winner.
For terrible list other than Watanabe and Takahata.
What about Oshii?
And Leiji Matsumoto. Come on, now.
>>- Seiji Mizushima (Fullmetal Alchemist TV and movie)
>>Doesn't belongs there.
Pretty sure it does.
How is him a good director? Any specific characteristics his shows portray?
The fact that they're good.
Is that Japanese Leonard Malton?
Anyway, I'm unsure on how to credit anime directors for their work... specially in television shows.
An average director may be linked to good shows. The process of productions has way too many hands to credit everything on the director.
No, I'm pretty sure the director deserves all of the credit.
Really? What about storyboarding? Animation direction? Episode direction? For television shows, most series directors barely have a hand in the finished product.
What do you mean? The process of creating anime is a huge team effort and of course that can't be discounted. Especially when you consider that there are often episode directors as well. However from what I can tell the director still is control of the over all project and makes a good deal of the managerial decisions. If a show fails or succeeds must depend a lot on them.
Some are also much more involved and may write the script, direct certain episodes, even occasionally animate.
I look for consistency across the board. Usually you can tell what they bring to the project by looking at how similar teams do without them. An example would be the difference between Oshii's GitS and SAC. (Even if that's a bit unfair to compare a series to a movie, there's still a huge difference)
The things Imaishi brings to the table are clearly noticeable as well.
I wouldn't know how to point it out specifically, though. But as I said, I'm not really that qualified.
No, because there isn't a single director to a show. They have individual "episode directors" and individual storyboard artists. The director only oversees.
So, how can you measure all directors equally?
>>10134439 And Leiji Matsumoto. Come on, now.
The list is about directing, and Matsumoto's directing record is not good at all.
Yamato is the only thing of note that he's directed, and about half of the Yamato franchise wasn't very good.
Also note, Matsumoto absolutely hated one of the strongest Yamato pieces made (Arrivederci Space Battleship Yamato, which he retconned as soon as he could)
ANNO IS MY GOD!
To start with, on the cultural side, the main difference is that Japanese animation comes out of a completely different tradition of representation in art and performance. Western classicism is based on the strict adherence to realism, rendering the artist (and the process) invisible in order to elevate the subject. Classicist painting values the creation of an illusion. A painting should make the viewer forget he is looking at oil on canvas, and reveal its subject as if through a window on reality. Brush strokes must be blended so no trace of the artist's toil is evident. Western theatrical performance is likewise realist, defining a character through individuality, unique traits specific to period and setting. Japanese theatre and art, on the other hand, would fit the definition of "modernist" in Western culture. Asian painting is stylized, impressionistic (and expressionistic), concerned entirley with displaying the brush stroke and the flat, graphic nature of the picture plane. Japanese performance-- kabuki, noh, bunraku-- is similarly stylized, and more focused on capturing a distillation of character than emotional versimilitude.
This approach to representation carries over to animation. We can think of Japanese animation as an extension of Bunraku, using current technology. As in Bunraku, there is no attempt to create a seamless illusion of reality. The figures of the human performers can be seen manipulating the puppets. Likewise, the hand of the animator in Japanese aniimation is not only noticeable, it is often highlighted. (And this site seems curiously dedicated to cataloguing the signs to recognizing such individual animators' handprints.)
Yamato was strong throughout. And Matsumoto didn't HATE Farewell Yamato, he just thought that "young people shouldn't die" and wanted to redo the story with less character deaths. He actually was pretty fond of the movie overall.
One reason why many young artists (including myself at one time) are attracted to Japanese animation and may be inspired to emulate it is that you can see how it is done. You can easily see it is composed of individual drawings, and for that reason, it seems within one's reach. In classical animation (I will call traditional Disney animation "classical" from here on), to allow the viewer to notice he is looking at a drawing is a cardinal sin. In classical animation, even held poses were traced over and over to make them "breathe". These are called "moving holds".
In classical American animation, the animator's hand must not be noticeable. The focus is entirely on the character and in the illusion that it is a living, breathing creature. From a Western animator's perspective, it is NOT praise to say "I noticed how well you animated that scene." That is a statement of failure. It means that the animation drew attention to itself. That is the basic violation of classicist representation in Western art, and of "classical" American animation. John Lasseter puts it clearly when he says he prefers the animation of Frank Thomas to that of Milt Kahl. You can tell a scene animated by Kahl. Thomas's efforts disappear into the performance, like a good actor's. That is THE major difference between Japanese animation theory and Disney.
Onto the technical side of things, here's just the start of a list of the main differences:
1. Looped as opposed to pre-recorded dialogue. Most casual viewers notice this right away. What's not obvious is how this affects the director's approach to staging dialogue scenes. The American director will focus on the character's performance as he delivers the dialogue, to the exclusion of other factors in a scene, such as environment, lighting, camera angle and movement, and other incidental details. The Japanese director tends to do the opposite. Both tendencies have their good and bad points. The evolution of most current Japanese animated character design derives from the need to cover the imprecision of their lipsync. It has resulted in the tiny mouths and tapered chins of so many "cute" lead characters, since drawing them that way allows animators to use fewer mouth poses and not to animate the jaw during dialogue. Spoken Japanese is made up of fewer phonemes than Western languages, so it also easier to get away with less precise lipsync.
For my money, Hideaki Anno and Satoshi Kon are the two best animation directors to have worked in the business. And Miyazaki has the sort of technical perfection of a Spielberg.
And depending on the director, that can be very hands on. Junji Nishimura, who was series director for Simoun wrote several episodes, as well as storyboarding and directing several more. These shows don't have infinite budgets (actually, they're ridiculously tight), people wear several hats on every show.
3. Studio organization. The division of genga and douga. (Genga means "original drawing". Douga means "moving drawing".) Apart from the Sakkan, that's all there is. Sometimes, the sakkan's role is so important that he may even be paid more than the director. The job doesn't exist in an American studio.
The American feature animation studio is broken down into so many job categories, it is hard to keep them all straight. Supervising character lead animator, character animator, character assistant, character breakdown, rough inbetweener, inbetweener, lead cleanup, key assistant clean-up, assistant clean-up, effects animator, key effects breakdown, effects assistant and on and on. The most important difference is that Japanese animators are assigned sequences. They animate every element in a given sequence of scenes. Sometimes that includes characters, props, vehicles, machinery, animals, effects, shadows, backgrounds (if they move). American feature animators are cast by character. They will often have to "perform" with other animators on the same scene. The prince, the princess, the villain, extras, shadows, and any effects involved, will all be drawn by different animators, according to their specialty, even if they occur together in one layout.
2. Role of the director.
In a lot of well-known cases (Miyazaki, Rin Taro, Kawajiri, Kon, Oshii, Gainax's staffers), the kantoku draws the entire storyboard himself.
The director is usually the kantoku, but on most cases he is usually a glorified scene checker, in which case, his job is called "enshutsu". For a time, a large number of Japanese animation directors started their careers not as animators, designers, or even storyboard artists, but as checkers (satsudashi). I'm not sure if this is true anymore, as the importance of the checker has been diminished by the transition to digital photography.
>...a glorified scene checker...
Basically what >>10134585 said. And by viewing the finished product and deciding how it works as a whole.
For instance if I watched something and decided that it was basically a failure except for good animation I'm probably not going to think the director is very good. On the other hand, a good director might be able to carry a show despite its flaws.
Where the hell is Kunihiko Ikuhara?
And other directors may even handpick animators by themselves, like Tsurumaki or Imaishi.
And how can you measure so? If the finished product is "good" then the director is "good"?
Are you even reading my posts?
Well, yes. And you basically said that. I just find it... illogical.
>>10134786 And how can you measure so? If the finished product is "good" then the director is "good"?
Regardless of it's true accuracy, that's just how it works.
It's the same in reverse - look at how Anime Experts everywhere will declare, say, Mitsuo Fukuda as WORST DIRECTOR EVER just because Gundam Seed Destiny was a terrible show.
...totally overlooking that he had absolute shit to work with writing wise, and his directing in fact made a lot of parts better than the really should have had any right to be.
I just find unfair to judge directors with no unique traits on par with directors you may be able to recognize without being told so.
>and his directing in fact made a lot of parts better than the really should have had any right to be.
How so? I never watched GSD, but I want to understand your reasoning. How did his persona created this effect?
No. I said this:
>>For instance if I watched something and decided that it was basically a failure except for good animation I'm probably not going to think the director is very good. On the other hand, a good director might be able to carry a show despite its flaws.
In other words - use your brain. Find out who did what (script, episode director, storyboard, key animation, in-between, etc).
Then look at what other things the Director has done. Maybe that director has a certain style you can identify, or a certain type of work he usually does - it's usually obvious what kind of thing Miyazaki and Satoshi Kon are doing, for instance.
It's really not that different from deciding which live-action movie directors are good, it's just that you have to first learn about anime production process.
Anno, I love you! Still waitin for the movies.
Well, yes. Now read this:
I know of directors that take their projects very hands-on. But can you actually word how their style is noticeable?
In live-action cinema, it's also pretty hard to credit a director... specially in mainstream big-budgeted productions. Where do the line between an autheur and a manufacturer lies?
Yes, this I agree with. By-the-numbers directors like Kamiyama or Mizushima... shouldn't be measured equally.
>>Here's a list of 20 directors from the only 20 anime series I have seen.
>how their style is noticeable?
The same way you can tell Oshii's style from watching SAC and knowing that it fails to measure up. The same way you look at anything Imaishi has directed, and pick apart his style.
I don't know if it's measurable, I'm trying to stay out of this one because I'm in over my head, but it's certainly noticeable.
I know it's noticeable. I'm just asking you to word it, that's what I was asking for.
>>10134668 Yamato was strong throughout.
It very much was not.
It was a painful example of a good thing not being allowed to be let go with dignity because it kept bringing in money.
It's quality degraded gradually the further it went on, bottoming out with the final two sub-par movies (the later of which included a Gundam Seed Destiny level insult of a characters moving death being reversed for no good reason what-so-ever).
Yamato should have ended with Arrivederci.
Fuck that. I am simply not that competent. I'll leave that job to some other poor bastard.
Piping in, here.
>>In live-action cinema, it's also pretty hard to credit a director... specially in mainstream big-budgeted productions.
Well, yes. Mainstream (i.e. Hollywood) movies typically are consciously trying to emulate a generic style, one that hides the fact that you're watching a movie. We call this "Hollywood style."
In animation you can find the same thing. Directors like Kon or Anno do jarring things with the camera and the frame. Directors like--for the sake of argument--Mitsuo Fukuda employ a very generic, unnoticable style. This doesn't mean he's a bad director, it just means he typically attempts to frame scenes in such a way that his hand is less visible.
At least you admit it.
But even mainstream productions may use their determined style to make their work noticeable. Imaishi with Gurren-Lagann, for once. The show is obviously mainstream, but Imaishi's hand is there through the show. But then again, that's what Gainax is about.
I'm not competent either. I know a lot of storyboarding but very little of direction... which is why I asked in the first place.
Oshii : Slow moving plot with abrupt action sequences. Likes visually dark scenes, basset hounds.
Kon : Uses scenes rich in visual and audio content, juxtaposition of common things. Likes dream worlds, plot twists, and middle-aged men with a mustache.
Miyazaki : Feel good happy plots with western influences and few twists. Like female leads, goo villans, old women.
Are you saying GiTS is bad?
Yamato's only weak chapter was "The New Voyage" TV special, but it was followed up by "Be Forever" which was fuckwin epic. Final Yamato had some hokey concepts, but was a decent conclusion.
Eh... can't you be more technical?
>>But even mainstream productions may use their determined style to make their work noticeable. Imaishi with Gurren-Lagann, for once. The show is obviously mainstream, but Imaishi's hand is there through the show. But then again, that's what Gainax is about.
You're right of course. But I was thinking about mainstream live-action (Hollywood) films, not anime.
Oshii loves him some contrast, and I love him for loving him some contrast.
Specifically in Jin-Roh where the sound cuts low during a kill, and the focus changes to muzzle flash and the splashing water from the bullets. Good stuff.
Well, Jin Roh wasn't directed by Oshii.
He was being pretty technical. Those were good, concise descriptions of things that the director can influence. I would, however, tend to leave plot out of it, because that's more under the purview of the writers.
He was being technical in a very broad sense, I agree. But I want something more... in-depth.
That, and his description of Miyazaki was underwhelming.
I'll do a really easy one for you:
Makoto Shinkai - uses extremely beautiful visuals of the "every day" to tell his story and mirror his character's emotions. In some ways he avoids looking too closely at the character's and instead focuses the camera on details that evoke nostalgia, beauty and loss.
For instance in 5 Centimeters Per Second you often don't get a close up on the faces but instead you'll see a drop in a puddle, swirling sakura petals, a rocket launching in the air.
There's a lot more I could say about the themes and symbols he usually uses. If I knew more about cinema I could talk more confidently about the kind of shots he uses. As it is, I only know the basics, though.
Also think about any number of scenes from Evangelion. Anno LOVES odd camera angles. He often puts the camera in the perspective of some random object of the room, as if it were a fly on the wall.
I was talking about contrast and remembered jin roh, but I fucked up and forgot to actually say that. My mistake.
Thread should have been over at Satoshi Kon a long time ago.
Only that Oshii slathers the GitS universe with his own style. Watch Blood after the first GitS movie and you'll be floored at just how visually similar they are.
I found Kamiyama to have a much better grasp on what the world should feel like.
Isn't that storyboarding? Scene composition and framing, that is.
Isn't that a work of storyboarding?
As I understand it, the animation director is intimately involved with the storyboarding and scene composition (aka cinematography). In the same way, the director of a live-action film works closely with his cinematographer to achieve the effects that he wants for a scene.
I see that in every film and short he's done. I know that he worked on some of (most of?) the storyboarding of 5 Centimeter's himself.
>description of Miyazaki was underwhelming
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY MIYAZAKI I KNOW IS SO HAPPY IT'S YOUR TENTH BIRTHDAY PARTY ALL OVER AGAIN.
Shinkai : Uses skeleton character set, monologues, and avoids extensive dialog. Likes youthful romance, long-distance relationships, and CLOUDS.
Yet in the end, who should we credit? I just find it very ambiguous to determine the actual role of a director when is mostly an overseer.
When a director storyboards, his credit should go to his storyboarding rather than his direction. It's the same when he writes.
How can you measure "good direction"?
But you're talking about themes here. About his writing or visual design rather than "direction". How can you measure good direction?
And Ghost, you're not wrong: a lot of what we attribute to a specific director is often the work of any number of people (storyboarders, writers, animators, audio guys, etc). Because the director has the final say in almost all things, and because his choices often directly create a distinct feel across any number of works, we afford him the privilege of "author" status.
I agree that the direction should be "credited" as autheur. I just don't see how can we measure "good direction".
>How can you measure good direction?
How closely the visual aspect relates audio, which relates to the writing?
I would imagine that it's the directors job to make sure these things blend, so something like visual metaphors in the narrative would be credited to good direction?
Fuck if I know. I'm just naming something.
Well, of course, "good" is always subjective, and different people have different criteria. What I would call "good" is the ability to add meaning through your directorial decisions.
>How can you measure "good direction"?
A world of plot, character, visuals, and scenery that mesh together seamlessly. The point where you can't think of anything that could be done to improve the work further. Daring to try something so new and radical that it changes the genre forever. A work that draws in the viewer, making them doubt nothing.
But isn't that visual design or storyboarding? Wouldn't that be the director's skills at these rather than his skills at direction?
...why are you only naming elements of plot or writing?
But direction is just the management of the product as an artistic work, so skill at anything it entails would count as "Good direction" as long as it had a direct influence on blending the pieces.
That's the best I can do.
As Cirno says, >>I would imagine that it's the directors job to make sure these things blend.
The director keeps track of the individual elements of the production and weaves them into a coherent, more meaningful whole.
And what are these directorial decisions?
You're just not gonna accept any answer, are you.
>>Yet in the end, who should we credit? How can you measure "good direction"?
I think what you need to realize is that there's no simple answer. However just because anime is produced by a team doesn't mean you can't pick out certain elements and notice who did what.
"Good directing" is completely subjective. However with a little experience watching a director's work, some research into who did what, and some knowledge of cinema it's not that hard to come up with your own opinions about a director.
>>And what are these directorial decisions?
It's any number of things, from the background music, to background noise, to cinematography, to animation style, and even the script itself.
OMIGOD! WHAT IS COLONEL SANDERS DOING HERE!? WHY IS THIS SHIT STILL UP!
/ck/ is that way------>
So this is the only way of measuring direction? It's... pretty broad.
I know you can come with your opinions of a director, even if my favorite "directors" are mostly those that storyboard their works since that's what I notice the most... I'm just wondering about a more "down-to-earth" description of his role. As we're right now, it's completely subjective.
Good storyboarding that doesn't have any influence on the writing would be "Good storyboarding"
Good storyboarding that managed have some meaning in the narrative would be "Good directing"
At least that's the way I see it from this thread.
>>So this is the only way of measuring direction? It's... pretty broad.
Well, if you want something finite, then consider a thought experiment. Let's say you're watching a feature-length anime that is a murder mystery. All of a sudden, for no reason during an important chase scene, the Benny Hill music starts playing. That is a directorial decision. And I would call it a really really bad decision if the movie wanted to take itself seriously. By contrast, tense, exciting music would be a good directorial decision.
That makes sense, it's very concrete and I really see where you're coming from. I'm just wondering the meaning of what you call "good direction"... as in how you describe "good direction" with good direction through more technical descriptions.
>only naming elements of plot or writing
Don't think I am.
Radical can refer to visual (Deal Leaves) or audio (Ghost Hound) components as well.
"Drawing in" also depends on the consistency of the animation and quality of the universe the story is set in.
Meshing requires EVERYTHING to work in harmony - if there's excessive writing and little style the whole thing will feel flat.
>Daring to try something so new and radical that it changes the genre forever.
Wouldn't playing tense music be playing it by-the-numbers?
It was a very simple, finite example.
Consistency of the "animation"? Quality of the world?
Fuck off, Kamiyama is a hack.
Fuckwin, thank you.
I understood what you meant. But it would basically downgrade the role of a director to a "timer".
Going by the newer explanations in this thread...
Why are this directors still here:
Ok I'm gonna interrupt this discussion for a moment and ask something that occurred to me the other day:
Are there ANY women directors? Hell, are they even any woman animators?
I'd say that timing is extremely fucking important.
Because neither me, Cirno, GhostNia, nor whatever anonymous is still in this thread is actually the OP.
Basically, we call people "Good directors" because their talents in storyboarding, writing, or animation are apparent. The actual role of a director isn't credited often because no one really notices the way things mesh, or if they do, it doesn't happen very often.
I don't see a problem with this process, because direction is about everything. "Oshii is a good director because he injects his style into the writing and storyboarding and makes those aspects good."
Is that better?
Because they're excellent directors with a clear record of success?
Gainax has tons of woman animators. Akemi Hayashi, Shouko Nakamura, Yuka Shibara and Hitomi Hasegawa all were key-animators in episode 27.
OP here. I still like them.
How are they great directors? They're not unique, there is nothing special about their works. They are the definition of by-the-numbers.
Episode 27 of what?
Scene by Hitomi Hasegawa in episode 27.
Ok, cool. So female animators exist. What about directors?
Every single director I can think of is male.
Maybe because the thread is for "Favourite directors" and not "Objectively best directors."
Girls can't direct because they have cooties.
And they bleed out their vaginas.
Yuka Shibata directed an episode of Sister Princess 2... which is not on YouTube now.
Akemi Hayashi directed this:
Could you know a show is by them without knowing it is by them?
Yeah, they just make by the numbers and completely forgettable shows that just happen to be some of the most successful anime of the last decade.
How decidedly average of them!
>some of the most successful anime of the last decade
Is this a Naruto thread?
Naruto and Bleach are fucking awesome!
Naruto is a multiple award winning anime? I must have missed that one.
Possibly, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
If you couldn't, then they're average directors at best.
Tokyo Anime Fair is the equivalent of the Oscars.
TITANIC IS A MASTERPIECE! CRASH(not Croneberg's) IS A MASTERPIECE!
You know what, as much as I want to be an elite jerk and scoff at mediocre yet popular shows (why else would I be here?) >>10136222 has a point.
It comes down to the "film as art" vs "film as business" argument.
So even if I don't really like it, I can at least grudgingly respect a director who consistently creates mediocre by-the-book yet wildly successful projects. That takes skill, too, even if he may have very little artistic talent.
You're quite correct, Tokyo Anime Fair and Anime Kobe are completely meaningless awards as opposed to the insightful opinions of Anonymous.
For TV, Director ultimately has what I call "final vision" for the series
Even the enshutsu (episode director), their role is to convey what the director wants to their spicific team, of course they add some of their own flair too, but ultimately they are a medium for the Director to the animators.
Directors also are often uncredited for a lot of their work.
Directors often modify or "correct" or give their opinion to Storyboards, even if they are not working on it, and most of the time you won't see that reflected in the credits.
Directors also often put their input into the script, individual episode scripts that is. Generally even if someone else is credited for "series composition" the original story is often the product of both the director and the chief writer. In any case, such involvement in individual scripts is usually not credited.
So, while the Director is not always personally there with every memeber of the staff (this would be impossible) their influence is carried out by the episode directors and the Director also often puts his input in scripts/storyboards (as well as storyboard entire episodes himself sometimes)
As far as Animation Directors, their primary job is to make sure that the drawings are uniform. They correct the original frames by the animators themselves. Sometimes they do this extensively, making their style apparent in the final drawings (of course in these cases they are usually very invovled with the animators so that from the start the style of drawing is more to their liking)
Business skill is irrelevant when discussing artistic talent. A director who pushes out garbage with no merit and sells a billion copies is not a good director. He's a hack.
Those awards have no artistic merit.
Neither do the Oscars. Look to the Media Arts Festival Awards for credibility.
How do you measure artistic merit? I don't like those two guys for my own technical reasons... but I don't understand your points.
I was agreeing with this post. Forgot to include that.
>How do you measure artistic merit?
There you go.
>>How do you measure artistic merit?
Let's please not go there. Discussing the merit of a director is enough.
But a director may be very technically accomplished yet still lacking any kind of artistic vision.
>>But a director may be very technically accomplished yet still lacking any kind of artistic vision.
See also: Stephen Spielberg.
But he's still a great director. And I like him.
We all know that the Oscars is just one big Hollywood jerk-off. However there's usually something worth noticing about all of the films that are nominated and win.
I'm gonna use Kazuo Koike as an example. He's a guy who writes trashy pulp manga but somehow he's become incredibly popular. Would I call him a good writer and compare him to the likes of Ashinano (YKK)?
Hell no, but I've got to give him some credit for finding a successful formula and making it work. Same thing with that kind of anime director.
Being technically accomplished, to me, entails creativity.
Defining creativity beyond words like "Unique" will lead us to "Meaning" territory. Let's not go there. Just forget I said anything about artistic merit and bury it.
I don't see why you needed to use Asahino as "TOP OF THE MEDIA" with guys like Tezuka around.
Because I tried to think of something as far from Koike as possible and I came up with Ashinano. Just because I mentioned him doesn't mean I'm discounting every other great mangaka.