Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff
He's drawn in a way that strays from the model sheets. Off model doesn't always mean bad.perucho1990 wrote: He looks more human, I dont really see him off model.
Off model was in the U6 arc when he was looking a goblin or skinny Shrek.
Back in the ROF and U6 arc Piccolo looked weird 95% of the time!!perucho1990 wrote:He looks more human, I dont really see him off model.ArchedThunder wrote:Thoughts on these two shots of Piccolo from the NEP?
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]
They're kinda sorta off model, but I like them.
Off model was in the U6 arc when he was looking a goblin or skinny Shrek.
I can understand not liking Tate's style, but how is this episode more interesting than last weeks? Interesting doesn't necessarily mean good. The week had nothing but serviceable, dull animation. The only thing it had was good art.Mazingerdestro wrote:Way more interesting episode than the last one and didn't need some flashy battle to impress us with "iffy" animation that was actually nothing special. The art consistency is the key to provide a great episode for a weekly series and this one did it while providing new nice designs for soldiers and the animals.
To be fair, this was a total nothing episode with barely any fighting. They didn't need the episode to look great. Just serviceable for the episode was. And it was for me. Was it visually unstimulating? Yes. But it was far from a bad looking episode. Episode 86 just set the bar too high for this arc because it had really good animators and a good amount of production time.Octorockandroll wrote:Well the animation was kind of a let down after last week's episode. I don't get why Toei insists on blowing their animation load early at the start of these 2 parters and then leaving the climax to look mundane in comparison even if it doesn't look all that bad. At least the model quality was consistent, it's good to see them remember 17's huge forehead.
Yeah that's my point, they don't pace thenselves properly with these two or three parters, giving us a spectacle to open with and giving us a climax and resolution that just feel dull by comparison. They did the same thing with the Krillin 2 parter and the exhibition matches a little bit as well.Lord Beerus wrote:To be fair, this was a total nothing episode with barely any fighting. They didn't need the episode to look great. Just serviceable for the episode was. And it was for me. Was it visually unstimulating? Yes. But it was far from a bad looking episode. Episode 86 just set the bar too high for this arc because it had really good animators and a good amount of production time.Octorockandroll wrote:Well the animation was kind of a let down after last week's episode. I don't get why Toei insists on blowing their animation load early at the start of these 2 parters and then leaving the climax to look mundane in comparison even if it doesn't look all that bad. At least the model quality was consistent, it's good to see them remember 17's huge forehead.
There is yet to be an episode in this arc that looks bad imo closest was the end of #82 but fortunately that was only at the end, even the Future Trunks arc had some bad looking episodes, so hopefully this keeps up.kinisking wrote:I thought this episode would be pretty meh from reactions, but it wasn't that bad. There was some interesting action, and I didn't really notice any bad shots. Hate to say it, but this episode looked better than a lot of super before the FT arc.
To be fair, the purpose of the Krillin two-parter was to give animators more time to work on future episodes for when the major arc (Universal Survival arc) begins and the big battles start. It seem the strategy is to focus all of the quality on the episodes, or the moments in episodes, that really matter. Which is the major fights., That's why in this arc Kitano is being tasked with handling non-action moments and why you see Kitano's art almost always being majorly corrected by Tsuji. Plus, the non-action moments he handles are very brief too.So it's obvious that the weaker animators are being tasked with much less and are the focus of clean-ups. Which is a good thing. Miyako Tsuji has done wonder in masking Kitano's lackluster art in this arc, I have to say. Kitano's art is barely recognizable at times with how much it's corrected.Octorockandroll wrote:Yeah that's my point, they don't pace thenselves properly with these two or three parters, giving us a spectacle to open with and giving us a climax and resolution that just feel dull by comparison. They did the same thing with the Krillin 2 parter and the exhibition matches a little bit as well.Lord Beerus wrote:To be fair, this was a total nothing episode with barely any fighting. They didn't need the episode to look great. Just serviceable for the episode was. And it was for me. Was it visually unstimulating? Yes. But it was far from a bad looking episode. Episode 86 just set the bar too high for this arc because it had really good animators and a good amount of production time.Octorockandroll wrote:Well the animation was kind of a let down after last week's episode. I don't get why Toei insists on blowing their animation load early at the start of these 2 parters and then leaving the climax to look mundane in comparison even if it doesn't look all that bad. At least the model quality was consistent, it's good to see them remember 17's huge forehead.
I'd say the worst looking episodes of Super so far have been EP 5, 24, 25 (second half), 26 (second half/majorly outsourced), 33, 45, and 67. And notice how most of those episodes were handle by Kitano. And episode 5 got majorly corrected afterwards.Baggie_Saiyan wrote:There is yet to be an episode in this arc that looks bad imo closest was the end of #82 but fortunately that was only at the end, even the Future Trunks arc had some bad looking episodes, so hopefully this keeps up.kinisking wrote:I thought this episode would be pretty meh from reactions, but it wasn't that bad. There was some interesting action, and I didn't really notice any bad shots. Hate to say it, but this episode looked better than a lot of super before the FT arc.
I already stated my opinion here about Tate. It's in this thread. I don't love the guy or hate him.KameNinja45 wrote:I can understand not liking Tate's style, but how is this episode more interesting than last weeks? Interesting doesn't necessarily mean good. The week had nothing but serviceable, dull animation. The only thing it had was good art.Mazingerdestro wrote:Way more interesting episode than the last one and didn't need some flashy battle to impress us with "iffy" animation that was actually nothing special. The art consistency is the key to provide a great episode for a weekly series and this one did it while providing new nice designs for soldiers and the animals.
We would like a bit more clarity on this stances of yours:Mazingerdestro wrote:I already stated my opinion here about Tate. It's in this thread. I don't love the guy or hate him.
However, last week's episode was just plain boring. Tate's cut had one nice moment as I stated and made me understand his mindset. You can check if you care to know my opinion
What exactly ep87 did in the animation department that was more impressive than ep86?Mazingerdestro wrote:Way more interesting episode than the last one and didn't need some flashy battle to impress us with "iffy" animation that was actually nothing special. The art consistency is the key to provide a great episode for a weekly series and this one did it while providing new nice designs for soldiers and the animals.
I would like to throw my 2 cents in here. I love Naoki Tate's work - one of the many reasons I love it is because how hard it breaks the design of the characters, while still keeping true to them. This is the work of a very clear master.Ajay wrote:
[spoiler]You're totally entitled to that opinion, but I do wanna take this opportunity to reiterate that this is 100% an intentional style, and absolutely not accidental. I appreciate you weren't necessarily implying that, so please take this rather lengthy post as a general topic, rather than a direct response.
To break form, you first need to really understand it, and I think it's clear that Tate absolutely does. I think his old work on Dragon Ball Z demonstrates that well enough. Yes, some of those earlier scenes are corrected, but once you hit the Boo arc (~8:30), he's mostly left to his own devices. Once you understand form and how things move, you can begin to break it down and start to play around with it, really pushing the boat out on the freedom that animation offers. You cannot do that if you lack the fundamental basics.
I was talking to Olympia about Tate a little while ago. While I'm an artist myself, I'm certainly no professional, and I wanted the opinion of someone who does this stuff for a living (and frankly, is pretty damn good). She found the idea that Tate was bad or lacked a strong artistic ability pretty ludicrous. In fact, she went through and did a study of his work to really understand his decisions and style. She said that it was clear that he draws with absolute confidence and precision, and that trying to replicate that was really hard; he creates effortless looking drawings that are actually surprisingly complex in their construction. When we spoke about why it is that a lot of fans aren't 100% on board with it, she acknowledged that it's really very different from the typical approach Dragon Ball artists tend to take - it's much softer, looser, and round, and therefore jarring for those with a very rigid idea of what Dragon Ball should look and move like.
I've gone over how he developed this style many times, but I suppose I've never spoken about his success with it, or others like him. Off the back of this style, he landed himself his own movie: One Piece Movie 9, where he was given 100% free reign to take the visuals where he wanted. With him at the helm, he attracted many other animators in the industry who shared this style. Hironori Tanaka produced one of the nuttiest things in One Piece's history for this film. It even brought in huge names like Hisashi Mori. Outside of people associated with him, you have legends like Shingo Yamashita who are arguably even looser than Tate. On the very extreme, you've got old masters like Shinya Ohira who have been doing this stuff for decades. While I appreciate some of the examples there are in works that are built from the ground up on that aesthetic, that's not always the case, and you can find these guys across all kinds of different productions.
Just like Tate, the average viewer doesn't always react well to their work. Across all parts of life, people are very averse to deviations from the norm. There are some really interesting studies on it, in fact. Ultimately, the longer something's been around and the more common it is, unconsciously, that's seen as the definitive option. While that's absolutely rational in many cases - if something's stood the test of time, there's probably a good reason for it - but that's not always true. Longevity and conventions aren't necessarily an indicator of quality -- how long a particular style has been around shouldn't dictate what's aesthetically pleasing. While walking around in the latest high street brands might be the norm, that doesn't invalidate the beauty in high fashion designs. Someone walking down the street in crazy catwalk outfits is going to stand out against the norm and place all eyes on them -- that's exactly what these animators are, and that's exactly why in many cases, they're chosen for these big moments. They're impressive, they're unapologetically boisterous, and they're exciting... to some people, at least.
The common retort to this argues that something shouldn't stand out so much as to be distracting, and absolutely shouldn't deviate to the point of feeling foreign. I totally understand and appreciate that point of view, and I think that's ultimately where you have to draw the line in the sand and accept that not everyone's going to respond the same way as you. At the same time, I do think it loops back around to my point about familiarity and preconceptions of what something should be. This opens up a whole complicated can of worms about franchise identity vs animator identity - and that's just not something everyone's going to agree on. We all have different ideas about that. I know some folks have commented in the past saying, "Well, Tate's Goku doesn't look like Goku, to me", and I just can't process that. The recent reveal of Funimation's Super Blu-ray cover has had similar accusations, and again, I just cannot for the life of me see how people don't think that looks like the character. That's the crux of it, and that's why I find these conversations so frustrating. To you, the exaggerated body shapes and smears are sloppy, while to me I see something's that interesting, creative, and making full use of the art form.
Art has always had this issue. Abstract art is often belittled by the general public, and even by those within the community itself. It's an unsolvable 'problem', and I think it comes down to the fact that some people just think in different ways -- one is not necessarily better than the other, to be clear. I remember reading an anecdote a while ago about someone playing pool with an engineer; one guy's approach was to simply aim and let fate decide, while the other wanted to calculate the perfect angle. When the guy told him to just imagine where he wanted the ball to go, the engineer responded, "I have no imagination. I see things for what they are, not for what they might be." I think that applies to art, too. Some people want art to imitate life - whether the character's doing things that aren't possible is irrelevant, so long as they're doing it 'realistically'. To others, that's not even remotely important, and ultimately they want to express an idea through other means -- in this case by taking a principle of animation (squash and stretch) to the absolute extreme. That doesn't mean that every instance of that is good - you don't get a free pass on poor work simply because you're different - but you do have to criticise with a full understanding of intent.
Unfortunately, not everyone does get it, and that's why you end up with hostility in threads like these. Notice the few regulars of this thread who do understand these aspects and didn't 100% appreciate this week's work aren't being met with any animosity. Their posts are reasonable and they show a fundamental understanding - there's nothing for me to really say other than, "Well, I disagree!" The posts that are disrespectful, hyperbolic, or missing the point are being challenged. I don't think it's that everyone's out there to change minds, I just think people are desperate for opinions to be formed with all of the information well understood. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation.[/spoiler]
How was it boring? This week had little to no animation, while last week had animation even when it didn't have to, like waves crashing into each other. The story boarding and setting were both excellent, and even the 17 vs. Poachers had more animation than the fight's in this episode. What did this episode have that was even mildly interesting?Mazingerdestro wrote:I already stated my opinion here about Tate. It's in this thread. I don't love the guy or hate him.KameNinja45 wrote:I can understand not liking Tate's style, but how is this episode more interesting than last weeks? Interesting doesn't necessarily mean good. The week had nothing but serviceable, dull animation. The only thing it had was good art.Mazingerdestro wrote:Way more interesting episode than the last one and didn't need some flashy battle to impress us with "iffy" animation that was actually nothing special. The art consistency is the key to provide a great episode for a weekly series and this one did it while providing new nice designs for soldiers and the animals.
However, last week's episode was just plain boring. Tate's cut had one nice moment as I stated and made me understand his mindset. You can check if you care to know my opinion
It's probably because last week's episode was far more controversial than most of its counterparts. Even many of us who normally adore Tate's work found it bland. After such an obvious rift in opinion regarding last week's episode, it's only natural that people would draw comparisons to the direct sequel.aaronWgamer wrote:To chip in on the 'This VS. Last Week's Episode' conversation that's happening, I don't get it. The action in this episode looked at best kinda cool but the animation itself was so unremarkable.
