Reactions of the "fandom"

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Loghorn

Luna Crescens
Nov 4, 2009
204
1
0
39
#41
SmallLadySerenity said:
As much as I love, love, LOVE the trailer for Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon: Crystal, my enthusiasm in the past day or so has been dampened somewhat by the massive nitpicking by what seems to be a fairly sizable portion of the "fandom" (I use the term very loosely).

I'm really disappointed by the reactions, to be honest. From the comments section of ANN's story on it, to the deepest crevices of tumblr and on to the youtube comments section....it's all been very disappointing. I've seen LOTS of wonderful comments or thoughts, but mostly it's been one big whine-fest of:

"WHY ISN'T IT THE OLD ANIME?!?"
That's the main thing that gets on my nerves. And this is coming from an older Male Sailor Moon fan.

The purpose of Sailor Moon Crystal isn't supposed to be like the 90's anime, but is supposed to be more or less like the manga! If people were to start reading the mangas of Sailor Moon, they would see where they are going with it.
 
#42
Silver said:
In the meantime I've also seen edits and complaints about "anatomy" from people in my circle of "artist" acquaintances (convention people), and I've concluded that every idiot (pardon my bluntness) thinks he could do better. Why am I so mean on this point? 'Cause people who make the stupidest anatomy mistakes in their own drawings acted like they were the anatomy kings and queens and could've done a better job at animating this show, when they were 5 years old. And, heh, they can't even do that now. Draw one frame better than it already is, I mean (nevermind the actual animation). Oh momma.
So youre denouncing the objections of the visual audience just because they arent credited to the professional? Just because they cant portay what they expect onto paper themselves doesnt mean their eyes don't work. However the people making this new anime have the resources and the credit these people don't. Yet if the people incharge of drawing these characters who happen to be doing it so poorly that such amateurs can point out the flaws? Its not entirely about the animation itself, its the models and the clunkiness of the movement that people are disappointed with. It looks cheap and designs don't work animated. Its hard to deny with optimysm-bias aside. Anyone who has taken a basic art class can see this, most people professional should know this regardless of style or design. The proportions of the characters visually identified as human beings with a semi-realistic setting world make it all just look ugly. Their arms and legs are too long and lanky, their waists are too narrow, their knees are too small, the eyes are too close together and faces look frozen to stiffly transitioned from one emotion to the next... it looks like a mess especially when compared to the original anime that seemed to at least perfectly capture the models in an aesthetically reasonable design. From it I actually think the changes made from the original adaption might have even been necessary.
 

Fire

Aurorae Lunares
Apr 7, 2011
1,018
1
0
31
Eastern Europe
teo-hoble.deviantart.com
#43
FatherOuranos said:
Silver said:
In the meantime I've also seen edits and complaints about "anatomy" from people in my circle of "artist" acquaintances (convention people), and I've concluded that every idiot (pardon my bluntness) thinks he could do better. Why am I so mean on this point? 'Cause people who make the stupidest anatomy mistakes in their own drawings acted like they were the anatomy kings and queens and could've done a better job at animating this show, when they were 5 years old. And, heh, they can't even do that now. Draw one frame better than it already is, I mean (nevermind the actual animation). Oh momma.
So your denouncing the objections of the visual audience just because they arent credited to the professional? Just because they cant portay what they expect onto paper themselves doesnt mean their eyes don't work. However the people making this new anime have the resources and the credit these people don't. Yet if the people incharge of drawing these characters who happen to be doing it so poorly that such amateurs can point out the flaws? Its not entirely about the animation itself, its the models and the clunkiness of the movement that people are disappointed with. It looks cheap and designs don't work animated. Its hard to deny with optimysm-bias aside. Anyone who has taken a basic art class can see this, most people professional should know this regardless of style or design. The proportions of the characters visually identified as human beings with a semi-realistic setting world make it all just look ugly. Their arms and legs are too long and lanky, their waists are too narrow, their knees are too small, the eyes are too close together and faces look frozen to stiffly transitioned from one emotion to the next... it looks like a mess especially when compared to the original anime that seemed to at least perfectly capture the models in an aesthetically reasonable design. From it I actually think the changes made from the original adaption might have even been necessary.
Okay first off stop being so defensive because I didn't mean to insult you personally. In fact, I didn't mean to insult anyone personally (notice how I didn't give any names or link to any particular posts?), I was just describing what I've witnessed. And I think you fail to see the context here. I am myself an "artist". I dislike the word, it makes me sound like a crazy bohemian, but that's what I do for a hobby and what I'm trying to do as a freelancer. I am also an architecture student so even my professional domain is pretty close to the arts (or one of them, depending on your views). AS an architecture student I had to actually learn about proportions and "style" and pretty much witness how we started off from Greek architecture and sculpture, where everything had to be "perfect" and deeply rooted in the proportion seen in Nature (think "golden ratio"), to modern stylizations that to the unprepared look simply ghoulish (think Picasso). Am I a genius at anatomy? No, definitely not. I actually admit to making many anatomy mistakes.

BUT I also attend conventions and sell stuff like posters and mugs. I attend these conventions along with other artists. I don't sell much because I always treat the characters in my own style, which tries to be close to actual human proportions. I am fascinated by the way flesh looks under the different actions of gravitation and impact with other things (fleshy legs against each other, calves, breasts, etc); and that is NOT a popular direction in anime and manga. And that's okay. I COULD draw in those styles if I wanted to, because I understand what they're stylizations of. But I just don't want to and prefer to keep doing my own thing. You need to actually learn to do that real thing well, before you can draw the caricature of it. And here's the thing: the people I was talking about, that I know personally, do NOT have that experience. They draw in the anime style because that's all they learned how to do: imitate that one style and do everything the way it looks in other people's stylizations of the human body. They do NOT understand where the things that they are drawing, are coming from. Of course this is not the case of all convention artists - I know plenty who are far better than I am, but incidentally, those were not the people whining about Sailor Moon Crystal on Facebook and Tumblr!

And now that you know the context allow me to finally get back to the point: a person who doesn't have the smallest notion of human anatomy and general perspective is not, I am afraid to tell you, in a position to correct someone else on these. Some instances where correct, yes. I agree with the "eyes" thing, especially on Usagi. The people commenting on them weren't capable of explaining why it was wrong, but they did feel something was off. The "just because they cant portray what they expect onto paper themselves doesn't mean their eyes don't work" mentality you threw at me worked here. But THEN there were plain silly corrections. I think I mentioned the rib-cage thing in the previous message that you quoted. You can't tell me I'm wrong when facepalming at someone who draws or traces a FRONTAL rib-cage over a SEMI-PROFILE drawn character, and then goes "look! the right side of her body is so much smaller than the other side! who drew this? 4 year olds?!?" It's called PERSPECTIVE. And if you have no notion of it and no understanding of how it works, you're in no position to correct someone's drawings which CONTAIN it, and contain it well. Yes, even drawings of the human body contain perspective, and sometimes it's exaggerated, depending on the style and intention of the artist, to be more expressive or easier to "read". This is where your "just because they cant portay what they expect onto paper themselves doesnt mean their eyes don't work" argument went out the window and burned down to a crisp.

The proportions of the characters visually identified as human beings with a semi-realistic setting world make it all just look ugly. Their arms and legs are too long and lanky, their waists are too narrow, their knees are too small, the eyes are too close together and faces look frozen to stiffly transitioned from one emotion to the next... it looks like a mess especially when compared to the original anime that seemed to at least perfectly capture the models in an aesthetically reasonable design.
There is no such thing as an "aesthetically reasonable design". The very fact that you say this, tells me that you yourself are in no position to be talking about these things (sorry!). Aesthetics and choice in aesthetics depends a lot on the person looking at the image in question and the time period the design belongs to. Taste is one of the defining features of one's personality: taste in music, friends, books, movies, artistic styles, colors, vacation spots, foods, choice of words - whatever you can dream up! It's personal. DEEPLY SUBJECTIVE. I find girls with thick, meaty legs to be beautiful. Most people find them ugly or grotesque or "fat". Am I right? No, I'm not. Are they right? No, they're not. Neither of us is right because aesthetics are probably the most subjective thing out there and acting as if a design is "objectively" ugly is just silly and egocentric. Curvy girls were "beautiful" in Ancient times, and they were beautiful during the 1900s-1920s when Mucha worked. But now they're not, so I can't expect a 2014 anime to have its female characters designed to be "curvy" just because that's what's aesthetically pleasing in my eyes. The 90s Sailor Moon belongs to its time. And the new one belongs to today's standards.

It's a style. A stylization. It just so happens that it's not a style you like. But please don't try to serve me your personal opinion and personal taste as TRUTH and then criticize me for saying that some of the criticisms brought to this anime are silly. Yes, they are silly. And no, not everyone is an artist. And yes, people with experience in the arts and with knowledge of anatomy and perspective have a priority in expressing their opinions on this topic.

I am sorry for the wall of text but I feel this was necessary. People need to understand why it's important to know and understand anatomy and perspective to be able to correctly comment on them (because these are not subjective - or at least not until stylization comes into play; because then certain elements can be grossly exaggerated or completely eliminated and it'd still be "correct"). And they also need to understand what a style is and that there is NO truth in aesthetics. See? You need experience on the topic to be able to balance these two around. I'm sorry you don't like the new proportions on these girls, FatherOuranos. Honestly I don't like them either. But I will defend their right to exist and not ignorantly be called "incorrect", just as I will defend the right of my Art Nouveau girls to exist and not be called "aesthetically unreasonable".
 
#44
Silver said:
Okay first off stop being so defensive because I didn't mean to insult you personally. In fact, I didn't mean to insult anyone personally (notice how I didn't give any names or link to any particular posts?)
I'm not offended, I was speaking for in general, though you just came off with a lot of bias in that comment.

Silver said:
I was just describing what I've witnessed. And I think you fail to see the context here. I am myself an "artist". I dislike the word, it makes me sound like a crazy bohemian, but that's what I do for a hobby and what I'm trying to do as a freelancer.
So am I. I'm not a professional either.

Silver said:
Am I a genius at anatomy? No, definitely not. I actually admit to making many anatomy mistakes.
mistakes are mistakes but the level of oddity people are pointing out is how much the SMC anatomy doesnt appear to fit uor understanding of it. A lot of it seems to be disproportionate to points where its hard overlook. Its not an arrogance thing, its a more unattractive sight of it. Most cartoons dont have perfect anatomy but it only works when you already know they arent trying to have it. If the characters were all Chibi, fine, thats a style but they arent. They are semi-proportionate but lean toward the unpleasing side of being too skinny and narrow.

Silver said:
They draw in the anime style because that's all they learned how to do: imitate that one style and do everything the way it looks in other people's stylizations of the human body.
thats why I dont like "How to draw Manga" books, because it doesnt actually teach you anything and most schools like mine despise anime on another more bigoted extreme.

Silver said:
a person who doesn't have the smallest notion of human anatomy and general perspective is not, I am afraid to tell you, in a position to correct someone else on these.
Who are you talking about here?

Silver said:
Some instances where correct, yes. I agree with the "eyes" thing, especially on Usagi. The people commenting on them weren't capable of explaining why it was wrong, but they did feel something was off.
She looked semi-crosseyed to some people and others just thought her eyes were too close together with her head being to narrow. Then there were people making edits to her eye's design trying to make them less lifeless and more like the original anime's (which was closer to the manga's already)


Silver said:
The "just because they cant portray what they expect onto paper themselves doesn't mean their eyes don't work" mentality you threw at me worked here. But THEN there were plain silly corrections. I think I mentioned the rib-cage thing in the previous message that you quoted. You can't tell me I'm wrong when facepalming at someone who draws or traces a FRONTAL rib-cage over a SEMI-PROFILE drawn character, and then goes "look! the right side of her body is so much smaller than the other side! who drew this? 4 year olds?!?" It's called PERSPECTIVE. And if you have no notion of it and no understanding of how it works, you're in no position to correct someone's drawings which CONTAIN it, and contain it well. Yes, even drawings of the human body contain perspective, and sometimes it's exaggerated, depending on the style and intention of the artist, to be more expressive or easier to "read".
I didnt see what you're talking about with people tracing over things poorly or whatever. I was speaking on people's complaints about the unedited anime preview itself. The legs, the waist, the arms, and neck are the most common and clear. Too thin, too long, too narrow.
The old anime's character designs looked a lot more natural and evented out. Thats my response.

Silver said:
This is where your "just because they cant portay what they expect onto paper themselves doesnt mean their eyes don't work" argument went out the window and burned down to a crisp.
No, that was within the belief that you were against all people trying to edit the images to emphasize their complaints actually. Not all people who did, made them ideally worse.

Silver said:
There is no such thing as an "aesthetically reasonable design". The very fact that you say this, tells me that you yourself are in no position to be talking about these things (sorry!). Aesthetics and choice in aesthetics depends a lot on the person looking at the image in question and the time period the design belongs to.
You misunderstood the context I used that phrase for, I already said that proportions don't have to be perfect for a humanoid character but whats aesthetically reasonable is something that we can say looks human enough to what makes of the type of visual depiction or universe the characters are in. However this is not SMC's case. Its just underdone.

Silver said:
Taste is one of the defining features of one's personality: taste in music, friends, books, movies, artistic styles, colors, vacation spots, foods, choice of words - whatever you can dream up! It's personal.
The girls having long legs, yet flat butts at 14 is artistic preference. Them being really boney and doll-like isnt. Its what takes away from what the girls are supposed to be seen as.

Silver said:
DEEPLY SUBJECTIVE. I find girls with thick, meaty legs to be beautiful. Most people find them ugly or grotesque or "fat". Am I right? No, I'm not. Are they right? No, they're not. Neither of us is right because aesthetics are probably the most subjective thing out there and acting as if a design is "objectively" ugly is just silly and egocentric. Curvy girls were "beautiful" in Ancient times, and they were beautiful during the 1900s-1920s when Mucha worked. But now they're not, so I can't expect a 2014 anime to have its female characters designed to be "curvy" just because that's what's aesthetically pleasing in my eyes. The 90s Sailor Moon belongs to its time. And the new one belongs to today's standards.
Preference is what type of body I find attractive isnt what I meant. I mean that it doesnt look right in general to see the characters as weirdly distorted as they are now. The relativity in their body shapes is thrown off with their excessive skinniness. Its not entirely preference, it looks strange in motion. Just like a character with G-Cup breasts looks disgusting to me when animated. Its not that I prefer B-C cup, its that its distracting, and looks too unnatural on something presented to be natural. The body times dont look like they would look well animated, SMC's running scene already shown me how twiggy she is. How am I supposed to believe that character was supposed to be whatever age if her body doesny compute with it? I know that question is personal comprehension but the old anime at least had the benifit of the doubt to it by making SM look like a young pre-teen. SMC doesnt look like anything human, she looks like a robotic barbie. Its the animation failing to capture the idea it is trying to convey visually.

Silver said:
It's a style. A stylization. It just so happens that it's not a style you like. But please don't try to serve me your personal opinion and personal taste as TRUTH
I didnt critize anything off personal preferences, I spoke on it in the presentation of the quality it hints. You can say its a style, but the fact that its jarring to me and others at least says its not aesthetically pleasing artwork. Its more of a style that doesnt translate well into adaption from the stills of the manga. Thats the issue. Its not really about what the girls actually look like.

Silver said:
I am sorry for the wall of text but I feel this was necessary. People need to understand why it's important to know and understand anatomy and perspective to be able to correctly comment on them (because these are not subjective - or at least not until stylization comes into play; because then certain elements can be grossly exaggerated or completely eliminated and it'd still be "correct"). And they also need to understand what a style is and that there is NO truth in aesthetics. See? You need experience on the topic to be able to balance these two around. I'm sorry you don't like the new proportions on these girls, FatherOuranos. Honestly I don't like them either. But I will defend their right to exist and not ignorantly be called "incorrect", just as I will defend the right of my Art Nouveau girls to exist and not be called "aesthetically unreasonable".
Nothing is incorrect. (I wish I could tell my art teachers confidently) but the degree of what makes a pseudo-realistic design for a character trying to be portayed that way has the line of processability in peoples minds for what we can accept as appealing. It also shows the quality of a show's development. I cant entirely explain what I mean by this but theres a reason why people who dont like the models as they apparently are. The dont look human for what this series portays as human.
 

Kerochan no Miko

Knight Radiant
Staff member
Site Admin
Feb 29, 2004
6,242
123
165
#45
This is starting to verge a little too close to flaming, guys. Please watch your tone when responding, because I'd hate to have to lock this thread.
 

dekablue25

Lumen Cinererum
Mar 16, 2012
409
0
0
#46
So just seeing the opening and ending I must say really do look foward to the opening the most its really cool looking and the 4 generals look amazing.Like others have said I do complain about the art on the scouts.the eyes yes look odd and I dislike the scouts look way too skinny atm.The transformation I'm iffy about its cool they are using the new elements but some of it just seems off on it.yes some fans do complain y isnt it like the old anime and what not.they did say its a new version not a reboot like DBZ Kai is but I still want to hear the voices to do my final thoughs of everything
 
#47
Honestly, I'm finding it hard to take a lot of the complaints seriously. Most of it is kneejerk "It's different so it sucks". As soon as the show is actually on the air and people get used to it, they'll realize it's not as bad as they keep blasting on Tumblr or Twitter. It happens for every Sentai, it happens for every Rider, it happens for every show I watch where I bother to look at the fandom.