can I be faulted for not liking this
>>67330426
Yeah, it's pretty entry level. Not liking that is basically proclaiming "i can't be bothered with anything challenging"
It's just a well-drawn cartoon with a thin veneer of plot. I don't know what's so great about it myself. Maybe it pushed its genre forward back in the day.
depends on what you dislike about it.
Plot? No, you're fine. It's hit and miss.
Vision? Yes, it's an extremely ambitious film, especially for the time, and you'd be kinda of a pleb if you couldn't recognize that.
Animation? Same. Not so great by modern standards, but no work can be judged in a vacuum. At the time it was made, it was stellar. Judging it based on modern styles and abilities is shitty, and I would judge you for it.
Characters? No, you're good. The characters are fairly bland and 1-dimensional.
Soundtrack? Kill yourself, plebshit.
etc.
>>67330426
It's a shitty movie that gets praised for its visuals.
If you are interested in the story just read the books
the manga made me appreciate the movie more
>>67330426
What do you like, OP? Let's hear it, I am sure it will be shit
>>67330426
Well, it's one of the most vivid and visually stunning portrayals of a dystopian future in the history of cinema, and the central human story carries genuine emotion and heart.
I guess there comes a point where you have to ask yourself why you even watch films.
it's really an overrated piece of shit that plebs and retards who barely skirt entry-level spout off about. almost all of the (already understated) themes from the manga are lost or submerged in the adaptation and no one with an iq over 95 really likes it, it just had slightly ahead of its time meme visuals that haven't aged well and a cardboard narrative.
5.5/10
>>67330668
My top 25 of all time
1. Dead Man's Letters (1986, Lopushansky)
2. A Man Escaped (1956, Bresson)
3. Guns of The Trees (1961, Mekas)
4. Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980, Fassbinder)
5. Closely Watched Trains (1966, Menzel)
6. The Great White Silence (1924, Ponting)
7. Syndromes and a Century (2006, Weerasethakul)
8. My Night at Maud's (1969, Rohmer)
9. The Color of Pomegranates (1968, Parajanov)
10. Lucky Star (1929, Borzage)
11. Markéta Lazarová (1967, Vláčil)
12. The Virgin Spring (1960, Bergman)
13. A Page of Madness (1926, Kinugasa)
14. The New Land (1972, Troell)
15. Evolution of a Filipino Family (2004, Diaz)
16. Days of Heaven (1978, Malick)
17. Distant Voices, Still Lives (1988, Davies)
18. Cold Water (1994, Assayas)
19. Bad Blood (1986, Carax)
20. Les Vampires (1915, Feuillade)
21. Viridiana (1961, Buñuel)
22. Orphée (1950, Cocteau)
23. Eden and After (1970, Robbe-Grillet)
24. The Goddess (1934, Yonggang)
25. A Short Film About Killing (1988, Kieślowski)
How about you?
read the manga
I say it gets more than it deserves, and it's certainly overrated but I'm a hardcore end of eva fag so theres some hypocrasy
>>67330758
Nice dude, no american films! You sure do have good taste. I'm proud
>>67330668
I don't even watch anime fag all I've seen is Akira and Bebop and some miyazaki movies when my wife's daughter monopolizes the TV
>>67330828
>what is days of heaven
>>67330426
Of course not, only children and retards like anime.
>>67330426
it's empty. Just watch first half and drop it.
>>67330828
>no american films
is this a joke?
>>67330933
You really weren't thinking hard is you found Akira "empty". There is a rich thematic undercurrent of the neglect and abuse of children running through the film.
>>67330758
Wait, so you are pretending to be OP to post a list of shit movies..?
>>67330851
Well, okay, you fucking plebeian, I asked what other videos do you watch, doesn't have to be anime
>>67331008
>rich
>>67331008
>abuse of children running through the film.
it's a child pornography?
I know that a lot of people throw out "The manga/comic/book is better" but really in this case, they made a two hour movie based on a REALLY good manga that spans if I remember correctly 36 comics.
The comic like another anon said, made me appreciate the movie since its make much more sense and fleshed out.
The story is pretty shit.
The animation is great however.
>>67331077
No I am OP
What's wrong with those movies?
>>67330426
It's mostly very good. But far from being a coherent work. The characters have almost non-existent human traces of personaity to them. It's a difficult watch especially for older people looking for something slower and more character driven, and it really isn't as accessible as its reputation of being the most famous anime suggests. But there's a lot more to it. I think that Akira is a visual feat, and is driven on its shreds and stack of flashy images mainly by emotion. Otomo wants something from the viewer, and this something is compassion, attention, and even agony, and frustration. There's a lot of emotion in this anime. It's a different visual presentation, intentionally or not. It's confusing and really something else when it comes to structure and direction and etc. I think it's mostly very good, albeit flawed, and definitely deserve its spot when it comes to must watch anime, mainly because it is very important, especially visually.
>>67331008
>rich thematic undercurrent
lad
I'd be willing to believe that this might be true of the manga but the scrape on my wife's son's knee goes deeper than the three scenes where kids are neglected
even ender's game had more finesse with the subject than the akira movie
>"im 14 and my appreciation and taste in eastern culture is so fucking superior" starter pack
>>67331264
If you fail to see the social commentary in Akira then I really don't know what to say. This theme informs pretty much every part of the film's plot. Tetsuo's story is a parable for the youth of Japan at the time it was written.
>>67331178
They are not particularly good, the ranking is odd(unless you meant them in no particular order), I don't know books related to them, they have weak appeal to reason but are instead built on flat emotion and drama, I wish I could get something more realistic out of you, or at least a reply like "there are no good movies, I see flaws in all movies I have seen". So there, ape
If I had to guess, this list is supposed to be just obscure, and that is what your ape instincts command your homosexual self to do
>>67330426
It's fine to not like it. But you have to understand why it got popular (before to deep for you gang) started to follow it.
At the time only disney had quality animation and when this came out it blew everyone's mind (sort of like star wars did in the visual fx department)
>>67331521
Why are they not good? Frances journey with Jan is literally considered one of the greatest feats of cinema and the film is literally on Criterion
Why don't you like it? and it's not even obscure
>>67331652
>and the film is literally on Criterion
Not him. This means nothing and I am laughing at you now.
Ending is shit. Also >>>/a/
>>67330581
Well said. Especially the visuals and soundtrack. If you're a turbo-fan check out the manga, it's well worth the read.
Not really. The plot is a fucking mess since it's literally half a story.
You could be faulted for not enjoying the animation or soundtrack though.
>>67330426
I didn't like Akira either.
Sure, from a technical standpoint, Akira has some pretty amazing frame-by-frame animation.
But from a story standpoint it's just a bunch of kids screaming and stuff blowing up. Not much to get other than "I HAVE TO STOP YOUUUUU!" and "TETSUAAAAAAAA!"
>>67331652
>Criterion
I'm curious, did you at least appreciate the animation and soundtrack?
>>67330828
>>67331077
>falling for the oldest fucking bait of all time
wew lad
I loved the night scene at the beginning but that's pretty much all. I didn't really care about the plot
>>67331843
>The plot is a fucking mess since it's literally half a story.
People who say this reveal themselves to be huge plebs. The movie stands on its own just fine as a self-contained work. Ambiguity is a perfectly acceptable storytelling technique.
>>67330758
jesus christ do you have this saved in notepad or something just in case someone asks
do all you guys here do that
also what do you call people here on tv im new
>>67331847
There's a bit more to it than that.
In essence, it's a metaphor for the way kids are handled in the modern education system of the western world: the kids are profiled early and then either designated "high-achieving" (the psychics) "regular" (the student protesters) or "low-achieving" (the biker gangs)
Each of those groups in the film is shown to break the mold they were allotted in some way, meaning that the path they were forced down was wrong for them, and they should have been able to choose their own. The protesters accomplish nothing and get shot in mass numbers, and so in reality are low-achieving, while the psychics are really just regular kids. They're actually normal, and just want to be normal.. And the biker gangs house both a powerful psychic of their own and a guy who actually saves the day, meaning at least some of the biker gangs are high-achieving.
All of this highlights the flaws of the education system of Japan and America. The manga gets even more in-depth into this, but the movie is self-contained just fine, and you don;t need to read the manga to get more out of it.
Is the theme handled well? Eh, maybe not. But there is more there than just cool scenery and kids yelling at each other.
>>67330895
>anime
You mean Japanimation?
>b-but this movie has a hidden social commentary about japan's teens when it was released
>b-but it was first astounding animation at the time
We are rating the movie and not the things that surrounds them
>>67332127
>it's a metaphor for the way kids are handled in the modern education system of the western world
>western world
I feel like that was not the intent.
>>67332236
>"I'm going to keep on being an uncultured, ignorant swine and there's nothing you can do to stop me!"
Why are you here? Your contribution to a conversation will never be useful or interesting, so why not just leave?
>>67330581
>Animation? Same. Not so great by modern standards, but no work can be judged in a vacuum. At the time it was made, it was stellar. Judging it based on modern styles and abilities is shitty, and I would judge you for it.
But the animation is still good by todays standards. Thats the thing about good animation, it doesn't age and suddenly become bad. All the Disney animated movies from over 50 years ago are still well animated. A lot of modern animators lack the abilities the old ones had, especially in Japan.
>>67331696
If it's on criterion it isn't obscure
>>67331883
No it was trash
>>67332340
That anon you're replying to is mostly right, but he's looking at it through too narrow a lens.
While the education system is part of it, the story is also talking about the general distrust and mistreatment of the youth in Japan, the kind of thing that was also the groundwork for the story of things like Battle Royale.
>>67332343
>"it's my first bait on 4chan.com"
ok
>>67332493
>in Japan
That was the point I was making. I don't consider Japan part of the Western World. Sure it's more technologically advanced than Polynesia, but it's still Eastern.
>>67332539
The Japs don't give a fuck about the western world bro. Akira is about Japan, not the west. The Japanese don't write fiction that deals with the west in any way, ever.
>>67330556
That it most certainly did. It helped influence the American market into anime for mature audiences. Guess that blew up on us since it created proto anime dweebs
>>67332388
Somewhat true, but also somewhat not.
old-school cell animation still looks good, and Akira is no exception, but modern animation techniques in the hand of a master simply outclass it.
Using the example of Disney, and Cinderella in particular, a number of more recent Disney animated pieces have simply outstripped it. Yes, it's still solid, and it has some beautiful work in places, but comparing it as a whole to some more modern works (Fantasia comes to mind), it just can't compete, by no fault of it's own. As time goes on, new technology and new animation techniques have created methods to go far beyond what the original Disney and Japanese animators could achieve.
Nothing wrong with that, and the originals are still good, but there's no way anyone could honestly try to argue that Akira's animation is better than say Redline's, or Jin Roh's.
>>67332522
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
Leave
>>67332340
Not that guy. It unironically was... you do know there is a manga right?
Akira is literally contentless. It's nothing but visuals, and whatever bullshit claims obscurantists can make stick to it for a few seconds by licking them first. Yet it's always cited as an example of "HIGH ART" anime.
Then watch popular but well-liked shit like Death Note. Death Note is the most uncanny thing ever, because it almost looks like a normal, proper, functional story, but then it rapidly and seamlessly goes beyond stupidity, and becomes more and more bizarre. None of the characters retain their initial motivations or concepts, everyone is just wacky dowhatever absurd every episode, the core ideas of the show are degraded and tossed around between pointless supporting characters as if the writers actively want to destroy their own material.
Even pop stuff suffers from it. Akira Toriyama can't keep his eyes on his own balls for five seconds. Every issue has something that ruins or trivialises a previously introduced concept, or demolishes a reason for the reader/viewer to be invested in the show. In Western content when this happens, like in a Star Trek episode where dumbass facts about the setting are established as canon, it's because of writer ignorance or incompetence, or apathy about how their one-off episode script affects the wider whole. The Japanese just do it regularly.
Complain about this and people will recommend esoteric manga and anime, NMH or Dwarf Fortress equivalent shit, expecting you won't actually check it out. But if you do, you'll find it's just always just as contentless as Akira, or some mixture of the above categories.
Weeaboos just don't notice it because they're so pathetically braindead that they have convinced themselves to like anything Japanese. I think they notice the uncanniness, but just mask it every time it occurs by shouting in their own internal monologue that they GET IT, TOTALLY GET IT, frantically trying to obscure from their /jp/ faggot friends that they have never gotten it.
>>67332651
Akira's animation style is totally different to Redline's. Neither could be called better than the other.
Jin-Roh is also quite different, using heavy contrasts between still scenes that feature only minimal animation and action scenes with incredibly fluid and dynamic animation, whereas Akira generally uses full motion throughout.
>>67332723
What a worthless post.
>>67332605
Alright. We agree on something. Now, and this is the hard part, go back through the discussion to see what my comment was about.
>>67332868
Oh, I thought I was talking to this guy >>67332127
>>67332723
apparently, you're very passionate about this. did not read.
>>67332723
your post is literally contentless
>>67332826
>>67332964
>>67332988
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/4498990
>>67332746
>Akira generally uses full motion throughout
that was its strong point back then
critics were saying how it was different from the japanese animation they knew which uses lots of static shots (and they were mentioning Speed Racer, Astroboy, Mazinger)
>>67331364
>I am 14 and still use normie memes that are years past their sell by date
>>67332651
>argue that Akira's animation is better than say Redline's, or Jin Roh's.
Because it is? At the very least it is on par with Redline. Not good examples though. Movies that I think "look" better than Akira are very very few. The reason is because it's really on top of the game when it comes to visuals. Anime moviws that look better, rich in details, are Metropolis, Howl's Moving Castle, Journey to Agatha, Innocence, and the last Evangelion movies look very good too. That's about it. It'll take a very popular book/manga and a very large budget to make an anime look as sharp and vivid in comparison to the rest as Akira did back in the day.
>>67332651
Metropolis (2001) would have been a better example to use than Redline or Jin Roh
>>67333060
>Innocence
Literally looks worse than GITS 1
>last Evangelion movies
You mean the Rebuilds? With their eye-cancer CGI?
>>67333111
eh
1.0 was the same shit with more money. it was like watching the original series - director's cut
>a movie about an angsty kid who gets psychic powers for some reason and wants to hurt everyone and nothing makes sense or is ever explained but wannabe hipsters will tell you they love it because they think it makes them look like they have diverse taste
nah don't worry about
>>67330581
animation wise is one of greatest work ever done on a movie and has the most numver of cells ever done
other than that I concurr
>>67333065
Yes, but hpw ay people know about Metropolis? I'm trying to use examples of films that people outside of a very niche fandom have probably heard of.
If I truly wanted to cite the best animation ever, I'd probably have pulled the Russian adaption of The Old Man and the Sea, but since I think maybe 8 other people on this board actually know that it exists, I had to try to pick something more conventional and widely known.
>>67333148
The series is FAR superior to Rebuild 1.0, both visually and in terms of its content.
>>67333180
don't forget about the bike, the bike is vital to the plot
>>67332101
Redditors
>>67332101
>jesus christ do you have this saved in notepad or something just in case someone asks
Is that a problem? This is a film board after all kiddo
>>67333193
not that guy but i watched metropolis
beside the cg part, the animation is great
the movie itself is pretty damn good along with the ost
>>67333193
well using The Old Man and the Sea is cheating, that's a once in a lifetime work.
>>67333364
indeed it is.
And yes, the other anon is right, it is also a good example of a film with better animation than Akira, despite it's obscurity. Genius Party Beyond also has some extremely good animation sections, though it too is fairly obscure, though probably less so now that it;s on netflix.
Also, if you're interested in the Old Man in The Sea, which is legit probably the best animation in the world I have seen, I'll link the video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ih1IRIRxI
>>67333489
oh, i've watched TOMATS before when i was a kid
it was indeed very beautiful but i didn't get much out of the story until i read the book years later
i should try to give it another watch again, thanks for the link
>>67332651
Your entire understanding of animation is just flawed. pic related and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJ-kGuOA_Q are both from 2000. Now if we didn't know better we would think Rhapsody is some cartoon from the 40s, Firebird Suite isn't inherently a superior piece of animation because it used modern techniques. They are aiming to do two very different things.
How would modern animation techniques create a better version of Rhapsody? What you are doing is comparing the cinematography of odyssey 2001 to interstellar and saying older films have poorer cinematography cause they look old.
>but there's no way anyone could honestly try to argue that Akira's animation is better than say Redline's, or Jin Roh's.
ask any animation student? Redline has this great perspective shots that could still have been done in the 80s if you took Koike in a time machine with a big enough budget. The irony here is that some of the redline machines were done in cg because there aren't enough modern japanese animators that know how to draw machines.
Steamboy a modern Otomo animation wasn't inherently better animated than akira for using computers.
>>67333760
obviously patlabor was not in Fantasia 2000
>>67333760
>The irony here is that some of the redline machines were done in cg
can you source this? I've heard it a few times but haven't turned anything up searching about it. Only CG I can find noted is computer interfaces and confetti. As far as I know I thought they printed 3d models of the cars to draw from that's about it.
>>67333760
I'm going to direct you to the interviews with the animators who worked on Snow White, who made it explicitly clear that while they were pushing the boundaries of what was possible in animation at the time, they do not view their work back then as comparable in quality of animation to their more recent work with newer techniques, better modeling, framing, and animating tools, computers.
Do I dispute that older animation is well done? No. I personally love the older style of cell animation. But that doesn't mean I'm blinded by nostalgia goggles and think that the older style is actually better than or equal to modern animation. The animators of many older works were limited by the tools that were available to them. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty look indisputably worse than Fantasia or Fantasia 2000, and eventually Fantasia will look worse than new things from Disney (some would argue that newer Disney animated works already do look better than the Fantasias, though I would disagree.)
Same thing with Mad Max Fury Road and the older Mad Maxes. The older ones are great. The original Mad Max is stellar. But the new one pretty much indisputably looks and sounds better because newer technology has allowed George Miller and his team to do more within the medium. Miller has come right out and said that he wishes he had the tools he currently has back then. He personally thinks the new one looks and sounds better than the old, and I agree.
Same for a lot of animation: yes, a good portion of what makes animation good is subjective. But there is also an objective aspect of animation, and when most of the older animators laud the newer tools as making their lives easier and the animation smoother and cleaner, it seems to me like disputing that animation has gotten better with time is purely nostalgia.
>>67334146
I believe he mentioned it in another interview but there is also this
>http://2chan.us/wordpress/2009/07/11/mamoru-oshii-toshio-suzuki-ponyo-vs-sky-crawlers/>Staff: Oshii-san, this time with Sky Crawlers, the aerial scenes are done in 3DCG and the scenes on the ground are, well, 2d animation. And well, I realize that it was intentional, but I was wondering why you decided to go in that direction?
>O: Well, to start off, we have to be realistic here: that was the only way we could get it done. I mean, there aren’t enough animators out there that could let us do everything hand-drawn.
There is a reason for the trend of giant robot cartoons being drawn more round round and human like
>>67333180
It's not that hard to get. The angsty kid is literally the youngest kid in a biker gang and a drug abuser. He's the bottom of the totem pole and suddenly gets the powers of god. His tiny drug addled brain can't keep up and he keeps freaking out and fucking shit up. One scientist is so happy to have a "mental mirror" of Akira. Akira is seen as the next step in human evolution. Japan never stopped trying to culture (blue old kids) the next step, but generally agreed to not force it. Except when the chance was there: one scientist fucks it all up and keeps prodding and poking the mind of a druggie child.
The setting is a super city having a massive depression. There are massive riots and bombings every week, so a biker gang seems tame compared to what military police deal with daily. The government is so weak there is a military coup halfway through the movie, fully independent of the main characters.
Druggie kid escapes and fucks shit up, incidently at first, then on purpose. An army's worth of rioters spur him on, the city goes into full blown anarchy. Kid fights his only real mentor in life, thinking it's proving something. He loses his arm and cobbles a new one from junk, but has to focus to keep it wired into himself. Meets up with his old girlfriend and basically kidnaps her. When he's hurt in the final showdown he freaks his girl out and and loses it for the final time. Explodes into a giant mass of metal and flesh and biological functions supersized and run a much.
Akira lived on from his explosive start, and returns to contain our favorite lil pill head, and dips again. It's just a "second verse, same as the first" lesson on playing god, or making one. Tell people they can't force evolution, close curtain.
>>67334456
Why is this interview no where to be found? Also Sky Crawlers didn't take nearly as long to make due to the deadline and budget given while Redline was a 7 year production nightmare.
I'm not trying to be a pushy asshole I just want to find the source to these little whispers, as far as I know redline could have all been traced CG but I would need sources from the actual team that worked on it before I make a conclusion.
>>67334227
Do you realize that Fantasia was made in 1940? With the exception of Snow White it's the oldest movie you mentioned. It's only 3 years younger than Snow White.
Not the person you're arguing with, I think more technology can make things look better (or at least easier to do certain things to artists can spend more time on other details). But, really? Saying that Fantasia had better technology than movies younger than it?
>>67333060
>That's about it.
I think the Tale of Princess Kaguya may be the prettiest animation I've seen out of Japan.
Might in part be because it was different.
