Has anime gone downhill in quality recently?

[systemacre]

(surely panty fatigue must be starting to set in now?!)

It will NEVER end MOHA HA HA but really i don't see to much of a problem with the lolicon scene its not my thing but at the end of the day its still something
people like and there for, dare i say it its classed as a good anime to those people if anything we should feel lucky that the style of animation we love/hate can cater
such a wide arrangement of people, surely that's going to produce a better understanding as a whole of what the different groups of anime watchers want.

Going back to the original topic i feel that the good or bad anime ratio has not changed or got worse, but more like there was no ratio between them to begin with
and its just yet another change in society and how openly we exept different view in are fellow humans. For example: Pantyshot lovers its on the rise not because
of anime production teams going downhill but more an understanding that its now acceptable for panyshot to be shown and allowing anime production company's
to deliver this type of anime the people that want it (and possibly money involvement) :lol:

basically its not my fault you dont like pantyshots :x lol

 

[ayase]

But that's not objective, you're putting a spin on that. I must confess I agree that the whole lolicon, toddlercon thing is more than a little disturbing to me, but some people dig that. Plus that's not even a facet of the plot or whatever, I'm not sure it could make an anime inherently bad.

Sorry, but any fanservice (in a sexual way) is going to be worse than something that is more subtle and plot-driven - unless you like your anime that way!

Isn't that the same as saying "One thing is worse than something else, unless you think it isn't"? That kinda validates the point a lot of people are making about subjectivity.

 

[mangaman74]

But you can't define objectivity in an objective matter. It's impossible. You can't prove anything in art as fact because by it's very nature art is subjective.

I have always thought of anime as entertainment not art. Watching the Marvel Avengers film at the cinema is entertainment. Watching a Ghibli film at the cinema is no different.

Sorry, but any fanservice (in a sexual way) is going to be worse than something that is more subtle and plot-driven - unless you like your anime that way!

Trying hard not to derail the thread into why lolicon is wrong - but it is comments like ' some people dig lolicon' which help retain the status quo, which also helps moe styled anime being bought and therefore bringing down the 'quality' - in my very subjective view. Sorry I'm just not interested in characters that look way too young for their age with lots of pantsu shots to be a 'waifu' for male viewers. It just doesn't help the image of anime in general.

Why does anime being ‘moe’ bring the quality down? I have seen seen Clannad, Hidamari Sketch, Lucky Star and Gunslinger Girl and the fact that each had moe characters in them did not bring down the quality of the shows (in my opinion).

Of course anime is still primarily made for Japanese people, so I guess until the next gen otaku get tired of seeing school children panties (surely panty fatigue must be starting to set in now?!) things won't change (and nor should they just change solely for western tastes).

Anime is made primarily for Japanese (and should remain so). If they started pandering to western tastes you would end up with (to use video games as an example) Resident Evil 5 – a game which is influenced by western games and which many Resident Evil fans didn’t like (and there is talk that Resident Evil 6 is aiming for the Call of Duty crowd so it looks like that will be even worse).

I can define objectively bad anime in one sentence: The kind that has frequent (and often somewhat explicit) sexualisation on 13 yr old anime children, so that the creators can pander to/cash in on/ further exasperate a mostly male demographic that really is in need of help. It's wrong in every way.

Wrong. Saying you don’t like anime with 13 year old children in them like that is being subjective not objective. It is not a fact that those anime are bad but your opinion.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

But that's not objective, you're putting a spin on that. I must confess I agree that the whole lolicon, toddlercon thing is more than a little disturbing to me, but some people dig that. Plus that's not even a facet of the plot or whatever, I'm not sure it could make an anime inherently bad.

Sorry, but any fanservice (in a sexual way) is going to be worse than something that is more subtle and plot-driven - unless you like your anime that way!

Trying hard not to derail the thread into why lolicon is wrong - but it is comments like ' some people dig lolicon' which help retain the status quo, which also helps moe styled anime being bought and therefore bringing down the 'quality' - in my very subjective view. Sorry I'm just not interested in characters that look way too young for their age with lots of pantsu shots to be a 'waifu' for male viewers. It just doesn't help the image of anime in general.

Oh I agree, personally, but I would say that is my opinion, I wouldn't say it is fact. And who's to say an anime with fanservice cannot be subtle and plot-driven? (Also, let the record reflect that I am not a partaker of lolicon, nor do I condone its use where underage parties are involved)

But you can't define objectivity in an objective matter. It's impossible. You can't prove anything in art as fact because by it's very nature art is subjective.

I have always thought of anime as entertainment not art. Watching the Marvel Avengers film at the cinema is entertainment. Watching a Ghibli film at the cinema is no different.

I don't want to get into an "is anime/film art" discussion now, but I wish to merely say: Are you saying that art is not entertaining? I just feel that post is a very leading statement heading towards the dreaded "what is art" topic which I think should be avoided because no one agrees and a conclusion is never reached =P

 

[mangaman74]

But you can't define objectivity in an objective matter. It's impossible. You can't prove anything in art as fact because by it's very nature art is subjective.

I have always thought of anime as entertainment not art. Watching the Marvel Avengers film at the cinema is entertainment. Watching a Ghibli film at the cinema is no different.

I don't want to get into an "is anime/film art" discussion now, but I wish to merely say: Are you saying that art is not entertaining? I just feel that post is a very leading statement heading towards the dreaded "what is art" topic which I think should be avoided because no one agrees and a conclusion is never reached =P

I'm not saying art isn't entertaining but then that doesn't mean all entertainment is art either.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

But you can't define objectivity in an objective matter. It's impossible. You can't prove anything in art as fact because by it's very nature art is subjective.

I have always thought of anime as entertainment not art. Watching the Marvel Avengers film at the cinema is entertainment. Watching a Ghibli film at the cinema is no different.

I don't want to get into an "is anime/film art" discussion now, but I wish to merely say: Are you saying that art is not entertaining? I just feel that post is a very leading statement heading towards the dreaded "what is art" topic which I think should be avoided because no one agrees and a conclusion is never reached =P

I'm not saying art isn't entertaining but then that doesn't mean all entertainment is art either.

I wasn't saying that either. I mean you can poke a squirrel with a stick for entertainment, but that doesn't make it art. No idea why that was the first thing I thought of...

 

[mangaman74]

But you can't define objectivity in an objective matter. It's impossible. You can't prove anything in art as fact because by it's very nature art is subjective.

I have always thought of anime as entertainment not art. Watching the Marvel Avengers film at the cinema is entertainment. Watching a Ghibli film at the cinema is no different.

I don't want to get into an "is anime/film art" discussion now, but I wish to merely say: Are you saying that art is not entertaining? I just feel that post is a very leading statement heading towards the dreaded "what is art" topic which I think should be avoided because no one agrees and a conclusion is never reached =P

I'm not saying art isn't entertaining but then that doesn't mean all entertainment is art either.

I wasn't saying that either. I mean you can poke a squirrel with a stick for entertainment, but that doesn't make it art. No idea why that was the first thing I thought of...

Glad we finally agree on something. Poking a squirrel with a stick would be entertainment not art. If you were to draw a picture or create a sculpture of someone poking a squirrel with a stick, then that would be art.

 

[VoxPhantom]

So if someone created an anime - moving pictures - about someone poking a squirrel with a stick, wouldn't that be art?

 

[mangaman74]

So if someone created an anime - moving pictures - about someone poking a squirrel with a stick, wouldn't that be art?

See my earlier post about not considering anime as art.

 

[Animefreak17]

well iv watched the first disc of H.O.T.D and its new and i think its awesome so no i dont think the quality has gone down

 

[ilmaestro]

I see some of my bros are still too upset by the fact that they can't personally know something for sure to accept the possibility that it exists independent of their limited minds.

 

[ayase]

I see some of my bros are still too upset by the fact that they can't personally know something for sure to accept the possibility that it exists independent of their limited minds.

Why do I get the feeling I should post my reply to that in the general conversation area, hmm?

Poking a squirrel with a stick would be entertainment not art.

Could it not count as performance art if done in public? Only poking a squirrel with a stick in private could have no prospect of being considered art. Even then, people can still create art in private with no witnesses and no intention of displaying it to the public. Ed Gein's bowls and lampshades, for example.

 

[ilmaestro]

I see some of my bros are still too upset by the fact that they can't personally know something for sure to accept the possibility that it exists independent of their limited minds.

Why do I get the feeling I should post my reply to that in the general conversation area, hmm?

:lol: Very possibly safer.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

It warms my heart that this has now partly become a discussion of "at what point does squirrel poking become art."