How much value do you put into visual direction?
How much value do you put in the OPs threads?
>>118423577
Zero.
Its nice gimmic, but essentially when it comes to anime - if characters, directing, ost and story are good, it`d be enjoyable and great even if its QUALITY slideshow.
On other hand, even if the show looks fancy, with great backgrounds, colors, designs - its worthless if its not interesting.
Its merely a bonus, but never a deciding factor at wether i`d value this show or not.
RARELY there are some memorable scenes, where because of quality of direction and work put into it, it really shines - but its scenes that are remembered, not anime as whole.
Example from this season:
Wixoss has great visual direction, Shirobako rather poor. Shirobako wins hands down and Wixoss fancy visuals are ignored and forgotten.
The only exception, where visuals, architecture,symbolism really are important are Ikuhara shows.
>>118423775
>Its merely a bonus, but never a deciding factor at wether i`d value this show or not.
Value=!watch or not watch
None.
>>118423577
The hell is visual direction? Retarded camera angles that make the director think he is being artistic?
Fuck that shit
I'd rather have smooth, elaborate animation and something interesting going on than wallpapers and reaction images.
It's the most important thing. /a/, being people with very underdeveloped, surface-level tastes, obviously don't care about it.
>>118423929
>>118426149
Wow epic picture bro you sure told him.
>>118423577
>Tamako Market
>good visual direction
No.
>>118426375
Ironic shit posting is still shit posting.
>>118423577
This thread again? this is getting desperate.
>>118423775
>>118423929
>>118425149
Holy fuck.
>>118426442
Yes.
>>118423577
very little
Most anime is static scenery with one or two frame mouth movements and bobbing heads to simulate walking.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that when a show concentrates more on visuals than actually being entertaining it's quite often because they don't have a very interesting story.
Its shit
Just get on with the story
>>118426525
No, it's boring and the backgrounds are often unnecessarily detailed. It's excessive and tiring to the eyes.
They are basically showing off.
>>118423775
I agree. No matter how much icing you throw on top of a cake, if the cake is shit no one is going to eat it. However; I do think that there are some cases where "style over substance" is true but the story at least needs to be up to a certain standard. It's very easy for a shit story to make the visual direction a non factor, where as the visuals would have to be horrendous to ruin the a show with a great story. Pretty much, worry about baking the cake before you add the frosting.
>>118423577
Why don't all you faggots read a book if you watch anime for the plot?
>>118426688
Books dont have cute anime girls in them.
>LNs
They are shit and no color or sound.
>>118426645
>the backgrounds are often unnecessarily detailed. It's excessive and tiring to the eyes.
Wow,you are retarded.
>>118426688
moefags and shounenfags are cancer
>>118426616
What kind of crappy low-budget shit are you watching?
>>118426645
Here's your reply.
Holy Shit!
People have different opinions on things!
It's all about what you want out of what you're watching.
No one watched Ping Pong for the art and detail, though I'm sure people enjoyed the style.
People probably didn't like the storyline in Tamako Love Story and thought it was just a nice looking piece of trash; while others really enjoyed the story and the stunning visuals were icing on the cake.
Personally, I really enjoy a show with detailed, well done art, but I don't feel it should take away from the story where the real substance is.
>>118427011
? Yeah, people have different opinions, that's the point of this thread, for everyone to say what it is they like in a show.
Why are you assblasted about it?
>>118426616
But the only possible way for a show to be entertaining is by having good visuals
Your standards are pathetically poor
>>118427011
>visual art form
>"real substance" is entirely in the writing
>>118427663
These people have never had any meaningful interaction with actual art. Their benchmark for "quality" are HBO shows. They're the quintessential expression of American mediocrity.
>>118427663
Get into painting.
I can deal with a show that doesn't care about it's direction, it just means it will be less interesting to look compared to something that does. It's just that when a show takes advantage of its medium and the director can make the show look interesting, it stands out and can make even a dull show interesting.
>>118423577
For movies, 90%. There isn't much writing in a 2 hour movie, so strong visuals should tell the story.
For TV, there's more time for plotting and character development, so those can become more important. But good visuals are of course still necessary.
>>118427988
Anime is a subset of film. Film is a primarily visual medium. In fact, the first films were purely visual with no characters, narrative or even sound. It's the root of the medium.
It's okay to use it as a tool for other things such as plot-heavy serialized narrative (i.e. what happened with the arrival of TV) but rejecting the primary nature of the medium for no other reason than your lack of knowledge and exposure to art is laughable.
>>118428172
Go wank to fantasia over and over then because nothing will ever surpass that level of animation.
I can watch a show that looks like shit but has a good story but I cant watch a show that looks good but has a really shitty story.
>>118428253
Most anime have a crappy story.
Visuals and characters > story
>how much do you care about good visual direction in a visual medium
At first I thought I had accidentally left an /a/ tab open for the last five days unrefreshed but then I realized you're just spamming your shit thread.
>>118428198
lol you really think that
"oh man, nothing will surpass Rembrandt's painting xd"
Animation is not a competition. It doesn't exist on a linear scale where you can quantitatively assess quality like a number.
And besides, Fantasia's "level of animation" (if by that you mean the amount of detail and prowess of technique for realism) has been surpassed many times.
>>118428289
Most anime have beyond crappy animation too.
This thread again
>>118428347
>has been surpassed many times.
For example?
>>118428378
>shonenfags
>>118428466
>*****
>Shonen
You can't be this new.
Animation without good visual direction is bad animation.
Story, characters, plot, that's all secondary to composition of shots, timing, audio-video harmony, colours, and quality of shapes and motion.
Of course, these are commercial products, so I guess high school fruit harem MCs, tsundere lolis or something like that are necessary to cater to the needs of the market, and most of /a/ will judge a series or movie based on how much it fulfilled their need for escapism.
>>118428403
The Thief and the Cobbler
Akira
Redline
Hell, even other Disney flick both from the same era and the "renaissance" era are more technically advanced in some aspects. Fantasia was a very ambitious production, but the animation itself wasn't noticeably more ambitious than in the other AAA Disney films.
And again, many animators, including some who worked on the industry at that time, will insist that Disney's animation was shitty and uncreative and that the real deal were the Warner shorts. It's art, not technology, it doesn't run on horsepower.
>>118428347
>Animation is not a competition. It doesn't exist on a linear scale where you can quantitatively assess quality like a number.
this, a hundred times. Art is not a competition, it's about exploring the limits and and advantages of a medium, be it painting, animation, writing, film or even games.
Of course, a commercial product is a different thing; those are created to sell for profit, so in a market situation, it is a competition against similar products.
>>118423577
It's the only reason I'd watch an anime over a manga or book
>>118428378
I haven't watched that show in years.
I was really surprised that such a long scene could be pressed into 3 mb.
