You need to get out more then.I didn't know that you were God.
Don't give me that rubbish. This may shcok and amaze you, but it's hardly a 'subjective concept' when the artwork is almost always off-model and the animation is horrendously choppy and stiff. Perhaps if Kinoshita was up to Iwane quality, there'd be room for opinions, but as it stands, he isn't. Maybe that kind of thing can be considered good in your happy world (the wonderous place that apparantly can't be debated against, ever!), but in the real world, that is bad.Now seriously, good and bad are the most subjetive concepts of all (as stated by philosophy and ethics).
I don't think he's bad. I know he's bad. You'd have to be blind not to see it.Again the same thing, just because you think Kinoshita makes bad animation the whole world does not have to think like you.
Uh, I thought you said your major complaint were the expressions? Now you're going on about them being seperate and in different formations? Make up your mind.No, I was specting separate Mitsuhoney or a formation of separate Mitsuhoney, not those strange groups that look anticlimatic because the Mitsuhoney inside the group can't fly and they are still in the air without falling.
Also
a.) We saw several 'seperate' Combee throughout the episode
b.) Last time I checked, the process of all the Combee joining together like that could be called a ....(dare I say it)....formation! :O
Agreed. But once again, that doesn't mean the rest of the episode was bad, which is what you seem to be insinuating.That's why I don't like when they use it, and they don't have the need to do so. The animation was good with traditionally animated characters and attacks.
Animation is movement. The backgrounds don't dance around and fire Hyper Beams.I'm not talking about the movement
For someone who liked the Kanto season so much, you certainly don't have any idea of how awful the background art was. I mean, just look at this for example: The trees are essentially just a bunch of round blobs, the mountains look flatter than a pancake under a steamroller and there really isn't any real detail there at all. It's not different from the city scenery. Or the interiors of the buildings (hey look! It's those brightly colored tiles you love so much!). Or the amazingly realistic looking rocks(!).I'm talking about how unreal and gleamy it looks. I loved those forest scenes of the early days, so well drawn and natural even if they didn't have the resources they have nowadays.
Then you look at this; The trees actually look like they have leaves. The different types of trees have various color palletes. The rock formations actually have some level of detail.
FYI, those shots from older cartoons are taken from two of my most favourite episodes, both script and animation-wise. So before you go and say the bgs from the old days were superior, I suggest you take off those rose-tinted glasses and take a second look. Because they're nowhere near as good as you make them out to be.
But in any case; Is it really necessary to bring up your qualms with them in every single one of these threads? I doubt anyone out there is dying to hear you bring up how much you dislike the backgrounds every 7 days.
Last edited: