>Dinsey only inspired Osamu Tezuka
And Osamu Tezuka inspired everyone else. This is a redundant, needlessly angry thread.

"Normalfags" or western audiences, prioritize fluid animation over aesthetic quality, which is what Disney always aimed for. There are a few times when they pulled off a bit of both, such as beauty and the beast, which does get some praise among western fans for it's visual accomplishments, but overall people in the west are just happy to see something well animated first and foremost. I'd continue on about how western often like and even prefer ugliness, but I've ranted about that before on this board a few times already.

They basically want to take credit for it. It's stolen valor.

Try telling these same people that Romans and British inspired American culture, there for they're better. This is moronic logic.

>>34738
I do like some western animation, but my interest in anime specifically is specifically cultural

>>34740
Can you rant again?
I never understood that horribly ugly productions that were present in the 90's-early 00's.They seem absolutely abhorent.I cant fathom their appeal.
Also on Disney, they literally steal everything.
Their old movies that are so praised are all adaptations of euro folk tales.The first movie that was presented as "original" ,lion king was a blatant rip-off of the White Lion by the japs.
The japanese not only put western animations to shame by their craftmanship,they are also incredibly original and creative af, whereas the western animations have to continually look for something to copy/rip off/get inspiration.They are creatively bankrupt and as years go by it becomes more and more apparent.And i wont even mention the subtle underlying themes,because thats something that has to do more with the general worldview of east vs west.
I like the old disney films,their animation is decent and the stories are pretty fkn deep.But they are stolen/borrowed.And trying not only to portray them as original,but to claim they inspired the japs,too?Let me laugh

>>34742
>there for they're better
What? Does anybody really think this way? I'm of the opinion that without Disney, there wouldn't be anime or at least it would look different, but by no means does that make Disney better and definitely not western animation as a whole. Are people incapable to acknowledging influence without conflating that with superiority?

>>34738
The ones actually made by Walt are pretty good. Then you got up to a certain point with the company switching hands that ultimately had it end up with the leadership of somebody who didn't even have the faintest connection to Walt, thus beginning the spiral that gives us the modern day, creepily corporate mafia Disney, which just so happens to be the one people have "nostalgia!" over. The Little Mermaid is from that time period, so is that really dumb Hercules movie. What little good there was in this time was either from companies that were "partnering" with (see: getting eventually swallowed up by) Disney, or from Disney's own talent that faded away.
Now Disney is left with a lot of money to infinitely pump into anything they want, which is why they can make such shitty, forgettable movies on such high production values. The absolute godawfulness of modern day Disney is now attributed to Walt as much as possible for some reason, even though he had absolutely no hand in how fucking terrible the company became, nor did he have a hand in butchering the company's future adaptations to look so stupid and mindnumbing.
In either case, don't conflate the Disney, the animator who basically inspired everyone, even if just a little, with that Disney, the company that has put a stranglehold on not only our copyrights, but also our creativity in general for decades.
>>34740
This is right. People love it when something is "fluent", even if the artstyle looks like shit, and even like it if it uses automatic animation. I'm willing to bet most people can't even tell the difference between automatic and traditional, even if it's blindingly obvious. I don't mind if amateur animators use automatic or anything, since it can take a long ass time to do everything yourself, but when "professional" level work (like that one My Little Pony cartoon) does it, that's when it becomes purely baffling.
Apparently the biggest source of inspiration for cartoons right now is Adventure Time, and that looked like animated vomit. Steven Universe also has a similarly pathetic type of shitty looking animation.
And of course, don't forget the adult sitcoms which are probably the most popular cartoons airing. You know, your Seth Mcfarlane and modern day Simpsons. Seth's shows in particular tend to get the animation called "oddly good" at times, even though the whole thing looks fucking ridiculous and everything happens in 10 frames or less. Just look at any of the "fights" in the series and you'll see what I mean, 0 weight to the punches. There's also that one with the horse, and the one where small children show off their vaginal warts, and those weren't impressive either.

I'd like to imagine it's not impossible for Western animation to catch up, or even exceed in terms of quality, but you'd essentially have to leave all of the work onto independent animators, since anyone with actual money stopped giving a shit. The last one I can remember watching that didn't feel like a complete insult to my intelligence was The Iron Giant, and that movie was 2 decades ago.
You'd also have to convince people that CGI is to co-exist along with traditional animation at best, not outright replace it. I'd imagine our current landscape exists the way it does because too many people go into animation thinking "Why draw when I can just make CGI?", not realizing what is lost or what traditional excels at.

>>34748
>Seth Mcfarlane and modern day Simpsons.
I get the impression western audiences are very divided on Seth's works. dude bro stoners and morons still enjoy it, but plenty of people see Seth as a hack with very limited range and whose idea of humor is making references to pop culture. Can't say I've seen them refereed to as oddly good. If you look at his attempt at breaking into the film industry with A Million Ways To Die In The West, the setting didn't allow for very much pop culture referencing (he still tried) and as a result it made his lack of talent very apparent while the movie itself was a huge flop.
From what I've seen people often refer to modern Simpsons as the "zombie seasons" (because the series is dead, yet still active) and I believe the ratings have been in a steady decline for years. When I see people talk about or reference the Simpsons, it's -always- the decade old seasons. Futurama seems to be far more popular and in demand.

This is just a wild guess based on little so take it with a grain of salt. But I believe the Simpsons is only still on the air because it was once popular, and this is an industry that seems to think if something was popular once before it should be popular again. If nothing else, it's a safer bet than an unknown and untested name.
This is why I think stuff like family guy or American dad were put into production in the first place. They're superficially similar to the Simpsons. I remember the same network behind these "adult" cartoons did this exact same thing with one of their most popular live action series and they were very blatant about it. That being the popularity of That 70s show, which spawned unrelated bastard child's such as That 80s show and one set in the 60s but that didn't have a matching name (I forget what it was called), these were canceled after just a few ep and very poor ratings.
The people who run these networks are people after all, and people stick with what they know. Which is why we have so many ugly cartoons with the same style.
I guess I went on a bit of a tangent here but the point is, these aren't 'that' popular. I think a lot of the people who watch these probably only do so because it just happens to be on. I can only assume this is the case with Adventure Time as I haven't seen it or any of it's copy cat look alikes that I've seen images of online, but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say it started with something 'different' that caught people's attention, then the studios saw big numbers, and pushed for a bunch of copycats to be produced that they then marketed hard while convincing people that these were the next big thing.

Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the equivalent to the Simpsons would easily be sazae-san, which isn't exactly the best looking anime but like the simpsons is extremely long running and a house hold name among your average joe. Same for Crayon Shin-chan. The key difference of course is that the industry in japan tried different styles and themes, playing around with new concepts to see what did and didn't work. This is what made anime so fascinating to me in the first place and was what drew me to it. Imagine a world where the networks in japan made a dozen sazae-san clones, each less popular than the last, and using declining numbers as proof there's no future for the industry and no good reason to expand past that, because that's pretty much what the west did. Sure we had King of the Hill, and a few weird experimental animations on Adult Swim, but for the most part no one really wanted to invest much into these ventures, even when they did find an audience. Although I am reminded of one of their experiments, Gorgon the Barbarion. In that case they invested a little too much while going all out. It cost a fortune to make and was unsustainable, but even then it was butt ugly with an extreme focus on animation quality. That said, Many westerns would consider it gorgeous because of culture preferences. They don't want something pretty, they want something gritty.

These days however, japan's been getting a lot more like the west in that they keep copying themselves and whatever popular while becoming increasingly afraid to experiment and phasing out genre that were popular but not popular enough. Why bother with mecha anime when an isekai is more likely to be profitable?

>>34748
>he had absolutely no hand in how fucking terrible the company became
Didn't he steal credit for characters like Micky?

>>34738
There's nothing wrong about being inspired by something. Classic Disney produced most of the best animation ever made, while "wasted" in strictly family friendly products, sometimes kinda bland. As an example Aurora movies were also movies for children but still felt more risky and fascinating, but Disney technical quality can't be discussed.
Disney inspired Tezuka, he was an absolute fan or W. Disney himself, but with that inspiration he explored almost all fields a mangaka/animator could explore.
If something, the high quality of Disney in the past should highlight the pathetic state of animation in the west, were you can't have a 2D film anymore because there's probably no one who knows how to do 2D animation.

There was amazing western animation, problem is it's totally death today, but I will always love movies like Rock & Rule or The Secret of Nimh, being anime or not they are among the most beautiful animated movies ever.

>>34749
>Can't say I've seen them refereed to as oddly good
I might just be basing that off of what little I've seen people talking about it, which is that a few people have mentioned the fight scenes were well animated. Which, of course, they aren't. I guess the "majority" probably doesn't think about the animation at all.
>I believe the Simpsons is only still on the air because it was once popular, and this is an industry that seems to think if something was popular once before it should be popular again.
That's probably true, and it seems like this shit happens all the time. Apparently it has something to do with there being "too much information" these days, which leads to people remembering new things less, as opposed to before where there was less information overall so it was easier to take in.
>I guess I went on a bit of a tangent here but the point is, these aren't 'that' popular.
The ratings might be dying down after all the time they've been on, but you'd be surprised how often things can be successful or popular without you even knowing about them. Video games tend to be a good example of this, with sports games selling otherwise useless consoles and one of the highest grossing F2P games of all time being Dungeon Fighter Online, a game I'm willing to bet most people have barely even heard of outside of China.
The TV equivalent to this would probably be streaming services.
>These days however, japan's been getting a lot more like the west(...)
I don't think so. There's copycats and cash-ins, but quite a few seasonal shows still want to do their own thing, and have a lot of heart poured into them. Had Japan truly wanted to go the way of western animation, they could've done it quite some time ago. Even relatively generic things still tend to have a lot of heart put into them, like 'cute girls, cute things' shows have been done quite a bit but there still ones that are very pleasing to watch.

>>34750
That doesn't seem to be the case from what I've read, but he has had a falling out with the early animator and quite a few others. He probably wasn't a complete saint but he was far from the reason why Disney has the reputation it does now.

>>34751
The last bastions of 2D animation in the West seem to be either those old Newgrounds flash animators or other similar solo Indie animators who create odd/grossfunny animations, or indie studios that, while technically competent, waste their talents on things that are just straight up unwatchable. "Otachan" seems to be this, as the studio knows what it's doing but the whole thing makes you want to jump out a window.
Everything else is either incredibly ugly looking "kids shows" or 3d done so poorly it makes the budget-cut CGI used in a particularly low budget anime look good.

>>34738
I feel like disney is more of a cultural manipulation experiment than something to be enjoyed
>Are they blind?
I've known a couple of people that don't see a difference between cg things like knights of sidonia or houseki no kuni and traditional animation. Yes, normalfags are blind.

>>34754
One thing that bothers me a lot is how they can't distinguish good from bad animation. I've seen superbly animated OVA's or even movies called "badly animated" just because they look old in their eyes.

>>34752
>Otachan
Never heard of it before. What a waste or resources and time. Making good animation in the west is impossible because of the overall cultural landscape. Literally anything made for a larger audience, which animation would need to be to justify its high price-tag, must check off a bunch of items on a list. People are so stuck in their boring western expectations and demands that they can't see the possiblity of avoiding all of them. They like it. The only way it'd be possible is if a bunch of skilled-visionaries decided to slave away without hopng for or expecting any monetary return.

>>34756
Otachan is just a shitty youtuber. The only reason I remember her(?) is because she hired some indie studio to make Otachan: the anime, and the animation either looked okay or my standards were so low at that point I was fine with it anyways.

>>34757
>my standards were so low at that point
The "first episode" was released two months ago. How could your standards change substantially in two months? The animation looks better than average for a youtube video. The artstyle is pretty meh, the character designs are quite bad and everything else about it is godawful, but the actual animation is serviceable. If that level of quality was used on a good concept with a good script, there would be something worth admiration. Of course the price tag would be ridiculous.

>>34758
Ah sorry. I meant to say "My standards might've been so low for Western animation at the point I saw it that I was okay with it." Even getting something done half-good made it look better than most of the trash people make.
Of course this relates only to the animation itself. The script is terrible, and reeks of "ironic" narcissism.

>>34758
>If that level of quality was used on a good concept with a good script
I feel this way about sonic mania's intro, it looks neat but what's actually happening feels aimless and shallow

>>34759
>The script is terrible, and reeks of "ironic" narcissism.
I don't know what it is. There's this bizarre "approach" to having an interest in anime and otaku media as a whole I see a lot on the outside. "Gigguk" does the same thing. I don't understand how a person can like this type of media and yet interpret it and make their own "output" based on it so contrary to the mentality and "feel" of those same interests. It's like they just consume it without understanding its fundamental aesthetic and lack of whatever they can't help but inject into their own output. They don't get influenced in a positive way, instead it's like they seek to infect what they consume. I don't get it.

>>34761
I see 3 options:
a)maybe they don't have anything of beauty to express by themselves
b)liking jp media genuinely and expressing it genuinely instead of ironically scares them.
c)malign parasite behavior

>>34761
>>34761
According to my interpretation based on what I see in the internet, liking things makes you look dumb and what they call "cringe" (sorry for even mentioning that word just as an example), while disliking things makes you look smart and interesting. Since disliking things all the time is actually exhausting, you can like things, but ironically, to keep looking smart to others.

>>34762
>>34763
What does liking something ironically mean? How is it different for liking it whole-heartedly?

>>34764
As in watching it just to complain about it, or make fun of it.

>>34764
It's like the kind of guy who watches b-movies just to laugh at them and says "it's so bad it's good". You don't really like or understand what you're watching or appreciate the effort put in it but you just laugh at it.

>>34766
If one derives entertainment from something whose purpose is to provide entertainment, like a B-movie (or any movie), then one "unironically" likes the thing they consumed. "Ironically" is just another adverb that means nothing nowadays.

>>34764
Put that graph back in your ass.

>>34767
>Irony (from Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning 'dissimulation, feigned ignorance'[1]), in its broadest sense, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what appears, on the surface, to be the case, differs radically from what is actually the case.
The wikipedia blurb seems to fit, since they appear to attack everything the medium is about but they must like it since it has their interest. Or maybe they seem to like it but actually hate it since they reject everything it is about.
In either case, irony seems like a good word to denote the insincerity and contradiction of it.

>>34768
Why are you so angry?

>>34766
I feel that this behavior is really a result of group-signalling. B-roll movies have the perception of being quite bad, so genuinely admitting to liking one would implicitly convey that one has no sense of "taste" and invite scorn from others. By going with "it's so bad it's good" you add indirection that alleviates this.

>>34771
People can like things of the same catergory for different reasons. Everyone can agree that a boring movie is unenjoyable, but I don't think it's necessarily indirection when you say you find the ineptitude of the film making enjoyable.

Cartoons are dying anyway all kids watch Anime nowadays, in 10 years there will be no cartoons anymore except for the toddler ones.

Also cartoons were never good, Disney gets a pas because it tried to be semi-realistic, but most cartoons in the late 80's, the 90's and 2000's are all hideous. The worst and cheapest ones are the flash/paper doll ones, look so cheap.

>>34774
>Cartoons are dying anyway
Then why are Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network still in business? The adults who do watch their shows probably stream, so they don't explain it either.

>westerners often like and even prefer ugliness.

But why.

>>34777
Because they despise subtlety, nuance, and intricacy which is where beauty comes from. Subtlety and nuance means restrictions and boundaries, which they don't like and they don't understand is essential to creating something beautiful. Intricacy is hard work. What these artists want is to wildly scribble something on a page without troubling themself too much.

Post edited on 26th Apr 2020, 5:48pm

>>34777
>>34778
This is another thing to Blame Disney for, stuff like "identifiable silhouette" or "easily readable characters" are just justifications for being lazy or untalented.

>>34777
>It's a real video
I mean at least the guy on it is consistent with his aesthetics, his haircut still has me laughing.

>>34779
I don't know if I said this before, but the whole ideas that character design should in the most obvious, obtuse way possible display a character's personality is simplistic and childish. I'd even say it's insulting to people's intelligence. Making everything so obvious with little room for potential confusion is something that characterizes bad children's media. To think that would be a good design principle for characters with clear cleavage and skimpy clothes makes no sense.

>>34764
When I used to post on 4chan I noticed a lot of people who seemed to watch/read something solely in order to collect wacky screenshots to share with each other. I noticed it especially with lolicon and trap threads consisting of very little discussion of what they thought about the media in question, instead they would just shitpost and share their funny screenshots. It strikes me as the equivalent of collecting rare pepes for the anime community.

>>34782
Depending on the media, there might not be much that warrants actual discussion.

>>34780
Thats what you get when you tell people they "can be anything they want" and "forget" to mention that behind real art lies exceptional talent (and superhuman effort).They try to butcher everything in little reproducible "scientific" methods ands procedures so its easy for bugmen to follow.But the result speaks for itself,empty and ugly.The reason cell animation used to look so good was because it was coated in tears,of men far more talented than your modern drones.Simple as that.

>>34785
I think the moment we started to displace the concept of art from the concepts of technique and crafts we fucked up. An artist should be someone with a set of really particular skills that require intensive training. Like in the middle ages, keeping the individual recognition aspect from modern times if you like, but never forgetting the technique.

>>34786
Exactly
Also that picture is highly depressing,but illustrates the issue.
And its not just the arts that have suffered;you can see the same thing in the sciences,too.I found a book recently called Bankrupting physics, you can find it on libgen, its more or less the same issues like your pic,but on the hard sciences.
At any rate,im just glad that the japs made enough media during their good years, so i have a backlog big enough for a few decades more.And it takes a big burden off me too,since i dont have to look anymore for new stuff coming out.Maybe except 2hu.
There is still some soul there.

>>34787
Except well animated anime still comes out reguarly and plenty of older anime was done shoddily. The "Japs" are still in their "good years" by my yardstick. Don't know about yours. As for bankrupting physics:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156

>>34788
ad hominems and nothing else
i have already read it
but its ok anon whatever you say
enjoy your modern "well animated" isekai and leave me alone in the past.Everything is going great after all.God forbid anyone dares to ask questions

>>34790
Yeah yeah yeah, everything is isekai now or "moelove". Anime is shit now and ruined. Heard it a million times already everywhere else on the internet.

God forbid I want normalfags who blew in from another site recently and don't lurk to fuck off.

>>34791
ok name (1) one good one from the last years

There are good old anime and good new anime, and there are bad old anime and bad new anime. The difference is that the crap from the past has been filtered out, leaving only the (mostly still crap) better anime. (These principles apply to whatever art.) Additionally, there is the issue of anime that are meaningful only in a small time of it's publication. The problem is clear when you're choosing what to watch:
Of all new anime you might watch, you get all new anime---the good and the bad, and the ugly. Of all old anime you might watch, you get only those we have preserved---the good (or niche).

>>34792
>>34791
i like moe btw and i enjoy some lighthearted series.
But that uniqueness of the old ones is gone.

>>34794
I dont disagree with that
The thing is that among the many bad ones of the past,the few great ones that came out far surpassed what would be labeled the best today.
At any rate its pretty clear where you stand so i dont think there is any point continuing.Ive heard the same arguments a million times already

>>34792
Tatami Galaxy, Parastye, anything based on One, Ping Pong the Animation, Pyscho Pass, to name a few. That's not including strict comedies. If that's not recent enough for you, I don't pay attention to whatever is currently airing, I just look for whatever interests me and has already finished.

>>34790
I hate how westerners discovering a term for a specific subgenre or element of anime inevitably leads into them blaming them for ruining anime. It's tiresome.

>>34800
Its a symptom of a larger issue,not a cause.
Listening to the same excuses,now thats tiresome

>>34800
I know what you mean. It seems anime has been ruined since the 90's and it wasn't ruined before because there wasn't western fans to point it out.

>>34802
This post is especially funny to me because Omoide Poroporo was only 3 years old at the time yet he considers it part of some bygone golden age.

>>34803
In those years people didn't even know what was released in japan every season so they mostly had a distorted view from the little that was published in the west.
See pic related how in 1995 someone blames Sailor Moon for Wings of Honneamise lack of success or whatever nonsense (also because blaming 1987's Akira wouldn't sound cool at all).

>>34802
>>34804
>>34803
>>34800
Wtf guys?!Thanks for these posts!
You finally made me realize that japanese animation is better than ever!
I was worrying over nothing!
Brb i ll go download the latest series(dubed ofc) so i can enjoy what i was missing.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR DOWNLOADING DUBS)

>especially funny to me because Omoide Poroporo was only 3 years old at the time yet he considers it part of some bygone golden age.
Reminding, when were lamenting Kon Satosi's permanent disproductivity, methought old his œuvre. Having consumed, my of his heyday being early '90s impressate continued. Whatever shall temps withstand shall affect semiïgnorants as should had it yet.

>>34808
My attempt at an english translation:
Reminds me of when we were mourning Satoshi Kon's death. At the time, since I watched his popular early '90s work, I thought everything he worked on is old. Whatever stands the test of time will leave an impression on somewhat ignorant people as it should have already done.

>>34808
何これ

Delusional people are worst kind of people there is, when they say Anime are cartoons it sounds like people saying races don't exist. Or saying that grounded meat is the same as Filet Mignon

>>34738
Stop whining about Disney, you jealous little bitch! Disney is fucking badass! Just LOOK at how accomplished they are! Has anything you were involved in ever blasted off like that?

Remember the original X-men cartoon series from the 90s? Well, guess what, that's retroactively a Disney title now!

And BTW, it's unbelievably pathetic how Pravda is constantly picking on Marvel, whining up and down about how "woke" they are, particularly with tumblr-pandering, yet they never even bother to note what a prodigeous entertainment imperium it is! And the same thing is even repeated for Star Wars, yet Pravda, or Rolling Tankies or Rubble Tube or whatever they call themselves today won't even touch that!

But anyway, that thing was amazing. Everyone was crystal clear on that. That show even made me realize how much I crave to kill this worthless exocorporal cancer of mine that others would call my mother, who is acts exactly like Omega Red, albeit a whole lot more pitiful. Although I never would, because I never could harm her enough to make it worth it. What other series, be it anime or otherwise, has enlightened any of you to such a deep intense level?

>>34834
Are you being sarcastic?

>>34840
Hell no, that old X-men cartoon was indeed damn great! Don't know about their Clone Wars cartoon and all the other tons of stuff they have, but it IS such a fucking monumentally impressive arsenal. Talk about insollence to Disney, you don't even see anyone giving them props for the fiercest fucking empire ever ... okay, probably not that exceptionally fierce technically overall, I mean, I'm sure whichever one Time Warner is part of, for example, is similarly prodigeous.

Although I did idiotically misspell Rouble Tube. And yet they don't care how badass they are, yet they obsess over them. Freaks!!!

But yes, I'm serious, although I would love to hack that bitch to bits, I really, seriously, absolutely would never do it. The curent viral extravaganza has massively underscored how puny and pathetic such little efforts are. Though it may be hard to understand how anyone could resist dousing a creature like Omega Red in acid ... or alternatively, as this thread makes clear, some people may be biased against believing how crystal-clearly, brilliantly on-the-ball the piece of shit that is Omega Red is.

>>34842
>you don't even see anyone giving them props for the fiercest fucking empire ever
Because nothing about any of that is a good thing. Jesus...

>>34843
Okay, that is just seriously retarded.

It's "not good", so it shouldn't be appreciated? So it's an excuse for people, who BTW just constantly go out of their way to talk about intensely "not good" things in the first place, to fucking fail to do their job, because it would be unpleasant for them or something?

And it's okay for idiots hysterically afraid of tumblr to cry over and over if stuff's unabashedly all part of the same slick, slick game, just making a splash in multiple adjacent corners?

No wonder people are incapable of observing how badass Disney is if they have it spelled out to them and just blatantly resolve to not take note of it.

>>34852
Please take your medication and lay off the meth.

>>34853
Meth doesn't make Disney's Goliathan might go away. Cupping your ears and bellowing lalalalalala does not change the fact that they're like a demolition superhero taking pretentious little excuses for companies who think they're hot shit and sweeping them away like dominoes!

Do explain that to me, how can people be so stupid as to just cry like babies that Disney is doing something they don't like? It's so fucking clear cut, Disney gets to do what they want because they're a superpower.

>>34855
We all perfectly understand that Disney is shit. This is an entire thread talking about it. But talking like a slightly-below average intelligence schizophrenic gets you nowhere in convincing anybody of that.
Instead, please get your mind out of the perpetual high it is in, and focus on talking like you're not trying to pretend you're shouting in a room full of dissenters on a fairly unactive imageboard. It makes you sound like some 60 year old who has only the faintest idea how computers work and has no idea how to properly transmit his thoughts using it.

>>34856
You're getting it totally wrong. We have to prepare a blood sacrifice to appease the mighty Disney gods so they don't buy out every anime studio and force them to produce endless star wars and cape shit movies.

>>34857
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to buy ghibli. It seems like a logical move.

>>34858
Ahhhhhh, finally someone's getting it!!

I've seen a lot of nutsjobs on tc over the years but holy shit...

>>34860
Is he a nutjob because he's exceeded the human threshold of sarcasm, or is he a nutjob because he really loves Disney?

>>34861
There's a difference between love, and admiring a corporation's massive, throbbing capital.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2020, 4:15pm

Just stop. We can come up with enough arguments against Disney by ourselves without slipping into incoherence.

>>34834
Monopoly is bad, ok?

>>35121
But there is a very solid point to that gripe though, and it squarely contradicts that. RT sure does bend over backwards to call out whatever substantially bad things about the US.

So if monopolies are so bad, you'd think they'd be gettin blasted for them, eh?

>>35130
That's not a solid point, that's just being ignorant to the amount of power these corporations hold over legal entities. And no, that's not a good thing, No single person or group should have too much power, power corrupts.

>>35133
And just why are you so fussy about them having a virtual citadel-warehouse of garbage to offer you, or better put, a phone book sized menu of garbage to offer you? Do you need to cry about being oppressed by someone having power over a phone book sized menu of garbage?

>>34777
I think it's simply due to a difference in goals and aims. The Japanese seem to desire to take the real world and polish it into something as beautiful as possible whereas the west wants to take the world and exaggerate it and parody it as much as possible to the point it becomes grotesque. Body types are a good example of this, an anime body is usually drawn in a way that would work and be attractive in real life or at least would very nearly work, but western art exaggerates it to the point where it would not work and would be disgusting, indeed it's disgusting even as art.

>>35300
I think there's great western art, just see the french who sometimes were greatly appreciated by the japanese. So it has to be something else;
Maybe it's because animated art it's depreciated in the west, maybe it's an american thing or maybe it's a thing related to our days of cultural decadence. Personally I don't understand most modern cartoon aesthetics, like how all CG movies use the same generic, ugly style. Maybe we're just degenerating.

>>35301
I asked my parents once what they thought about animation and why animation can't have more adult themes. Their response was to keep insisting that animation inherently had less "weight" to it and they can't take it seriously or feel immersed in what they're watching unless it's live action. When I asked how come Japanese people can make and appreciate more mature animation, my mom said it was an aberration and that it's because they're "children at heart".

Post edited on 13th Jun 2020, 6:02am

>>35302
Today you wouldn't hear that too often about animation, but still similar things about particular genres, countries, or entire media like videogames.
I think it all can be resumed in "old dog doesn't learn new tricks" with some inherent racism.
Also what you said made me remember of the old "how you can fap to that? it's just a cartoon".