>>121316159 They were way worse than Hyouka. Hyouka is more tightly conceptualized AND more polished. Yes, a 22 episode TV show is more polished than a feature film, that's how hard Kyoani evolved from 2009-2012.
If you go back to Disappearance you'll notice lots of sloppy character art and especially lighting/composition. The layouts were much less striking, there was still quite a bit of VN-style flat staging remnants from their Key days.
>>121316268 I did. It was overrated as fuck. Every 5ish years the new people of /a/ latch onto a new series. Recently it was bakemono/madoka, etc. Very few stand the test of time like eva. (not even a huge eva fan)
This all stems from lack of experience in the genre from previous shows. I call it toradora syndrome, since the MASSIVE majority of in experienced romance story anons fucking took over /a/ for months over a shitty show.
>>121316606 I'm saying shows like eva are popular/successful/"good" enough to stay relevant among multiple generations and are not just some recent+big show that people from that genre have not experienced. I'd say stuff like jojo and mushishi are similar, but they ironically both got anime recently.
Toradora was one of the larger/more popular romance shows, and people latched onto it completely unaware of how mediocrely it was written/produced, and how shallow/bad the characters were. They did this because they did not have experience with past romance shows, so they did not see the flaws. Ignorance is bliss, etc.
>>121316724 Toradora is not mediocre production-wise. It's pretty solid. I'd say the show looking as comparatively good and being as comparatively well directed for its genre was what gave it its impact with the general audience.
>>121316479 >I call it toradora syndrome, since the MASSIVE majority of in experienced romance story anons fucking took over /a/ for months over a shitty show. Oh please, we had Kanonfags before then. Stop trying to act like you've been here that long.
>>121316816 I'd disagree, I think it's "produced well," but produced poorly and inaccurately for a proper romance show. Ironically, both of those things lead to it being popular and a shitfest of a romance show.
>>121316932 >rely on style more than substance This is an empty claim. You'd have to first define "style", then "substance", then explain how substance is more valuable than style, and then point out where these shows rely more on style rather than substance.
Something you'll never be able to do, because it's a bullshit dichotomy when applied this way.
>>121316873 The characters circlejerking about things like "who closed the door" and "Ice Cream" for episodes felt too stupid and it had a bad impact on the dialogues. It didn't flow right, at least for me. At least the more drama focused episodes were good.
>>121316997 I'm saying that bakemono is visually appealing in both style of direction and art itself. The series is not that well written, and the action/"romance" plays backseat to poor dialogue and rampant waifu bait shit. I'd call that the substance.
Obviously I cannot 100% nail down all this shit, nor can anyone else, but you are a braindead chump if you think bakemono succeeds because of it's story, well written characters, character development and interaction, etc.
>>121317115 I don't like monogatari though. But if it succeeds with people because of its (apparently) appealing presentation, it's not any less valid than a show that succeeds because of its screenplay. After all, we are watching film with all its facets, not screenplays.
Would you call FLCL "style over substance"? Just testing your criteria.
>>121316996 Why did you choose to use "Toradora syndrome" out of all the popular romance shows in the 2000s? If you've been here since Haruhi aired, then you would have been here for the remake of Kanon. You would have called it Kanon syndrome. But it seems more like you got here in 2008 when Toradora aired.
>>121317176 Yes, but I'd say FLCL's style was intertwined with his substance, rather than bakemonos style where it feels more like they are writing content so they can put the characters in situations that will appease the fans.
Honestly FLCL is not that great of an example to use beyond the style/substance comment because of how short it was and it's purpose overall. I do think FLCL is a type of show that has stood the test of time, similar to eva.
>>121316742 >Dumb mysteries that totally break the immersion That was just the setting for the real point of the show, which is the character interactions and developments. >lots of dialogues that don't feel natural More natural than in most anime. Nothing really seemed forced and in my opinion Oreki is one of the most interesting characters in a while.
>>121317036 >The characters circlejerking about things like "who closed the door" and "Ice Cream" for episodes felt too stupid But that's what's good about it. It's just high school kids with all their flaws casually talking about things that don't even really matter, but it touches some interesting points. Like Oreki realizing that he isn't always right and that he was being an arrogant asshole. Or everything about Satoshi. I bet you're one of those people who dislike K-On because "nothing happens".
>>121317115 I think Monogatari is decent, lots of bullshit but it had its peaks. The flaws you listed don't apply to Madoka though.
>>121317169 It's actually a lot more than that. Most of his interactions with Haruhi and the SOS Brigade members are interesting in their own way and develop the characters. It's just not directly spelled out. >>121312697 was just the culmination of all this.
>>121317244 A few reasons, one it was one of the first/earlier times seeing it happen, and I thought maybe it was more about the show, than the people. The other reason is that the type of fans and reaction toradora brought was pretty different. They were similar fundamentally, but they were more rabid and ignorant I think. I feel like kanon fans were at least partially self-aware, or at least some of them. Why do you think GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD shit started with toradora?
I also have no idea why you are so obsessed with trying to say that I haven't been here that long, but I've been here since 4chan was a single board and basically just an offshoot of something awful.
>>121317260 I don't really care about the test of time, I was just addressing the style/substance argument. And FLCL is the pitch perfect example of this because it's a show that succeeds primarily because of its audiovisual presentation (what people vulgarly call "style), which itself is immensely aided by the screenplay (the story, the writing, the "substance" for most).
It shows that it makes no sense to talk about style over substance as euphemisms for writing/execution because in reality there's just execution in all its facets.
Your other complaint with monogatari seems more like calling it a bad style, rather than invoking another concept like substance just to make the argument seem more thorough.
>>121317344 I like K-on, especially the last episodes of S2. It did a great job at depicting friendship and the passage of time, and touched me. Something Hyouka didn't. Maybe that's just me, but most of the events in Hyouka felt pointless.
>>121317377 To be honest the show keeps repeating itself. Kyon's character arc with regards to this starts and concludes in Melancholy (with the world-ending kiss), and then for some reason he slowly reset the character back just to have the same arc again in Disappearance.
>>121317432 Why are you even responding if you had your mind made up before your first post?
If you don't think you can separate/analyze style vs substance that's fine, but I think many people would disagree with you. It's definitely hard and something that has to be addressed well, but I don't think it's senseless, like you said.
I think a great example of a romance show that has both style and substance, but succeeded through substance is honey and clover. It was well written and interesting throughout it, and didn't bullshit around with poorly written drama or fanservice, etc. Obviously it's art style and fucking amazing music (style) contributed to it's greatness, but I think you could take some of that away and it'd still be very solid.
>>121317514 You should rewatch Hyouka. It goes to great lengths to make sure nothing feels pointless. If anything, the criticism would be calling the show "tryhard" because of how meaningful it tries to make any bullshit everyday situation feel.
>>121317543 Melancholy was more focused on Haruhi's character. Sure, Kyon admitted he liked his life at the end of it, but the Brigade was pretty new at the time. And people admitting something and later denying it isn't surprising. Besides, Disappearance takes place after the events of Sighs, E8 and other stuff that could make anyone doubt whether going along with Haruhi's antics is worth it or not. Kyon and the watcher, especially. That's why Kyon's development felt very satisfying (there were other things too, but this mainly)
>>121317601 >Why are you even responding if you had your mind made up before your first post? Because I wanted to argue? Why are you even posting in 4chan?
>the rest The problem is when you're simply talking about writing vs execution and for some unholy reason decide to call writing 'substance' and execution 'style' as if the former was inherently more important than the latter. Which is not the case and has never been the case in the history of any art.
Any style has its own substance. It's the ideas and choices made by the creators to convey something, and it includes writing as well as visuals and any other aspect of film. If you call something "style over substance" it would have to do mostly with adopting superficial similarities to something without really understanding the approach behind the aesthetic.
You could accuse Monogatari, and most SHAFT, of this, since they're just trying to be Shinbo without really getting why Shinbo did what he did in his work. They're just aping the look without it being a natural result of aesthetic decisions. If you're a bit more informed, you might recognize a similar discussion when it comes to Kanada style animation. Kanada wanted to animate with little frames, so the took short cuts and used tricks that, in addition, resulted in his style. Other people liked the results they saw without necessarily caring about the ideas behind it, and just started copying the face value. Style before substance.
>>121317914 You don't understand what the words mean. It has nothing to do with what you think it is.
You're not talking about substance when you talk about writing, you're just talking about writing. And writing has its own style from author to author, from show to show. "Substance", if you even want to use the word, can apply to any aspect of a work. It's not some discrete property that a show has less or more of depending on how much you liked the plot.
>>121317514 Okay then, I can respect this just for K-On. Hyouka had a completely different tone than K-On, but it works similarly. Both shows flesh out their characters more than basically any other anime by presenting completely trivial situations. I agree with >>121317605 in the point that everything in Hyouka feels meaningful for the characters, kind of like how precious friendship is depicted in the last episodes (and the whole second season, kind of) of K-On. I feel like someone who likes K-On should appreciate Hyouka, but maybe you just didn't feel it for Hyouka, which is fine,
>>121318008 >>121317848 You are incredibly condescending and at the same time uneducated. You come off as a massive pseudo elitist who enjoys arguing and being correct more than actually discussing the topic.
Just because writing has it's own "style" as does other elements that are associated with substance, doesn't mean that they cannot be looked at individually or grouped as style/substance. You are an incredible tool, goodbye.
>>121318116 But Hyouka is very emotional. It's more suble than K-On, but in my opinion especially the characters' pain and the slowly developing romance between Oreki and Chitanda are conveyed extremely effectively. Kind of pointless to argue about feelings, though.
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.