If you head onto Google and search "bad animation", you'll be greeted by endless
images from Naruto, Dragon Ball, One Piece, and countless other shows.
While you'll find some genuinely valid examples of poor animation, the vast majority demonstrate
that there's a real issue in the anime community: a lot of people lack even the most basic understanding
of what 'bad' animation is.
Let's start with what bad animation isn't.
Screenshots of in-betweens are not bad animation.
There's a very frustrating habit in the community of pausing during sequences and
passing off funny looking in-betweens as examples of poor work.
Inbetweens exist to facilitate motion, they are not the key frames within a sequence.
Even the most outstanding of scenes can be packed with funny looking in-betweens, but
that doesn't somehow make the overall scene bad.
In the vast majority of cases, you cannot see them in motion, and that's perfectly
fine.
They've introduced the required fluidity into a scene, and that's all they exist
for.
That's not to say inbetweens get a free pass.
They are perfectly capable of being bad, and bad in-betweening can absolutely ruin a scene.
For example, this dialogue scene in "Just Because" has the character's entire face
change shape as it moves between key frame and inbetween.
There's certainly something to be said about the general transition of the inbetweening
role moving from young animators within a studio to outsourced factory farms, but let's
be very clear and honest: that's not at all where the conversation is when these shots
are brought to light.
Time and time again, in-betweens are used in genuine attempts to discredit scenes, and
I think it's time to challenge that, and help foster more nuanced criticism.
If tweens very obviously break a scene, then sure, talk about that, and talk about it in
motion.
But there is nothing of worth found in posting stills with zero context.
Next: exaggeration is not bad animation.
Two of the founding 12 principles of animation are "squash and stretch", and "exaggeration".
The purpose of the former is to give a sense of weight and flexibility to an object or
person, while the latter exists as a powerful tool for creativity, as imitating reality
is... pretty dull.
Squash and stretch has been in use for decades and decades, and yet despite this, scenes
including it are some of the most commonly cited as examples of 'poor work'.
Whether it be the exaggerated face as Sasuke takes a punch, Android 17's extended limbs,
or Satoshi (Ash)'s face as he gleams with excitement.
They've all come under fire from certain parts of the various fandoms.
Again, it's an issue with fans pausing animation in motion and commenting on what they apparently
don't understand, or it's a bizarre hatred that their cartoons dare to look like cartoons.
Squash and stretch is essential – if you ignore it, you end up with animation that
looks like weird sentient puppets.
Exaggeration is equally critical.
In live action, actors can convey a number of emotions through micro-expressions.
A voice can only do so much though, so some of most exemplary examples of character acting
often elevate a performance through wonderful exaggeration.
The same goes for action scenes, too.
Horrifying facial expressions can do wonders of selling the impact of a punch.
Ugly is often equated with bad, but ugly can make an audience feel uncomfortable, and that's
very much the intent.
Art evokes emotion, and it's okay for those emotions to be negative.
Negative emotions can elevate the most dramatic of scenes.
It's also okay to find "exaggeration" and "squash and stretch" too extreme in
certain places.
Naruto vs Pain is one of the most spectacularly animated episodes in the entire show – it's
filled to the brim with some of the best animators in the industry – but it's also one of
the most divisive episodes because these animators are hugely idiosyncratic, taking these techniques
to the extreme in very overt ways.
For some fans, the extreme visuals are breath-taking, and hugely memorable.
For others, they're taken entirely out of the show, and wish for a more grounded approach.
Both viewpoints are perfectly fine, but it would be outright disingenuous, and frankly,
incorrect to say it's 'badly' animated.
Idiosyncratic expression is commonly mistaken for bad animation.
Episode 4 of Gurren Lagann and Episode 7 of Kemonozume are from Osamu Kobayashi, who has
an incredibly distinctive style.
He was personally invited aboard by the director, Hiroyuki Imaishi, in Gurren Lagann, and allowed
to do his own thing, despite Kobayashi asking whether his drawings would be corrected.
Fans kicked up a huge stink, which lead to a co-founder of Studio Gainax, Takami Akai,
coming out and quite bluntly saying, "The quality hasn't dropped, the style changed.
The staff really shouldn't listen to comments from amateurs who don't know any better,
but only from 'anime industry people'".
It's unfortunate that this had to happen, but it was necessary.
Loose, minimalist, or even just deviations from a set style are often met with hugely
negative reception.
Naoki Tate's loose style, and extreme use of smears are criticised regularly, for example.
Many fans don't like change, and struggle to separate their distaste for a style with
an accurate assessment of its quality.
So with all that said, let's look at what exactly bad animation really is.
One of the most obvious examples would be a scene that entirely disregards how form,
impact, and momentum works.
Episodes 5, 24, and 33 of Dragon Ball Super are the three worst in the series.
They're packed to the brim with anatomically incorrect forms, which contrary to what a
lot of people say, do actually matter when it comes to animation.
You can separate art to some degree – things in movement or in the distance will often
be lower detail and thus excused – but if the form falls apart, well outside of intentional
exaggeration, then your animation falls apart, too.
The movement itself is incredibly clunky.
The poses, even if you take them as stills, lack any sense of dynamism.
In movement, they defy the principle of inertia, which leads to very awkward and stiff animation,
and with little use of follow-through, the impacts just feel hollow.
Another example would be limited animation.
Limited animation is not necessary poor in and of itself, but it absolutely can be done
poorly, and I think the most recent example comes from a show ironically named DYNAMIC
CHORD.
Whether it be the horrendous band sequences or the infamous bike scene, the animation
relies heavily on digital key framing, moving components of stills around to create bizarre
puppet-like movement.
It's distracting… very disturbing at times… and definitely not good.
And it's fine example that well-drawn art can never sit in place of animation.
Moving well away from the specifics of actual movement, it's perfectly fine to levy criticisms
at episodes as a whole, even if they do contain one or two good sequences.
If an episode's supervision is lacking, leading to characters changing styles drastically
from scene to scene, it might not necessarily mean the episode is badly animated, but startling
inconsistency within an episode is not a great sign of polish.
It's fine for idiosyncratic animators to strut their stuff in key moments, or even
entire episodes as we mentioned earlier, but if you can literally see the key animator
change from cut to cut to cut, there's a real issue.
There are so many different ways to criticise animation fairly.
You don't need to result to pausing on in-betweens, or zooming in on low detail characters in
the background.
There are so many hilarious examples out there, and I do it and laugh about it with friends,
that is fine.
But passing them off as legitimate evidence for your criticisms is a great way to get
nobody to take you seriously.
This video isn't about telling you to shut up and just enjoy things, it's about challenging
how you view your anime.
It's about making you question whether something's bad or just different, or whether you're
really being fair when you're pausing on something intended to be seen in motion.
I am 100% sat up on my high-horse right now, and that's absolutely going to get under
some people's skin.
But I really hope it doesn't because I don't have better eyes than any of you.
My opinions on what's good and what isn't aren't facts.
I just want to be able to have discussions where we're being reasonable, and we can
talk about why something works or doesn't work, without resorting to examples that should
be reserved for comedy.
No more 'lazy' talk, no more 'budget' talk, let's focus on the 'who' and the
'why'.
Once we're comfortable with that, we can shitpost in peace.
Thank you so much for listening and putting up with Mr. Negative over here.
I hope this was at the very least something useful to pass around, if not informative
for yourself.
I know that in a lot of communities this isn't much of an issue anymore, but in many of the
larger series mentioned throughout this video, it's unfortunately still rampant, and I
really wanted to play a small part in attempting to oust it.
Let me know what shows, episode, or scenes you find to be badly animated, weigh in on
what I've mentioned in the video, and feel free to ask any questions.
Be sure to rate the video, and I will see you next time.
For more infomation >> Ivanka Trump appreciates daughter Arabella six-year-old's 'purity' and is 'inspired by her' - Duration: 5:15. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét