ArchedThunder wrote:Asura wrote:
So if an episode is drawn where Goku and co. literally look like hastily drawn stick figures (even worse than Tate draws them) but the animation is great because, well, you’re literally animating stick figures, you’re telling me you’d be able to call that one of the “best looking” episodes?
If an episode looks good, it’s because the art looks good. When people say 114 is the best looking episode it’s because the art looks amazing. If they were referring to an episode with the best animation in the series they wouldn’t say it’s the best looking episode, they’d say it’s the best animated episode.
How something looks is art. How that art moves is animation. That’s why people say 114 is the best looking episode.
This is wrong on so many levels. The way something moves is a huge part of how it LOOKS, you are looking at not only the art but the way it moves.
If art was all that mattered this shit like this wouldn't be so hilarious;
https://twitter.com/Yuyucow/status/935224795674939394
This has detailed art, but it looks horrible because of how they "animated" it.
Nothing about what you posted contradicts what I said or makes me "wrong on so many levels". Unless an anime is intentionally drawn in a specific, simplistic style, animation can only take an episode so far. Dragon Ball has always been a series that focused on art over animation. People are more interested in seeing good art then good animation. If an episode "LOOKS" amazing to people (as in they're specifically using the word looks), it's because of the art, or a combination of great art and animation, but almost never is it referring to great animation with bad art. This is why animators like Tate are heavily criticized when his bad art sometimes shines through because the majority of the fanbase much prefers seeing detailed art rather than fluid animation with bad art. I know this is the case because when people say "why can't Super look like Z?" they're not referring to the animation. Wanna know why Ep. 5 was criticized for "looking" so horrible? People's complaints about it looking horrible wasn't because of the animation, that's for sure.
No one is going to look at a DBS episode with very fluid smears and stick figures and say "That's the best looking episode I've ever seen", but if there's an episode with incredible art but very limited animation, people will say it's the best looking episode they've ever seen because art is about looks and animation is about movement. This shouldn't come as any kind of surprise given it's said every time someone says "the animation looks horrible" in response to a badly drawn picture. To combine both art and animation and label one episode as having the best balance of both is completely up to personal preference, and when people say something is "the best looking" they're not talking about the combination of both of those factors, art has to be the thing shining through the most, not animation. When it comes to a way an episode LOOKS compared to how an episode is ANIMATED you're talking about the difference between art and animation. That's why when people say something is "the best looking" they're referring to the art, because again, Dragon Ball has never been a series that has been known for its animation, it's a series that was known for its detailed drawings and unique 90s art style.
But this changes from series to series. What might "look the best" for one series like DBZ which prioritizes art over animation might mean the best looking animation for a series that has always been about animation over art. Something that is "the best looking" will always change from show to show depending on what the show focuses on, but for the Dragon Ball franchise when the fanbase says an episode is "the best looking", they're referring mostly to the art especially since DBS has always had wildly inconsistent art that looks nothing like Z's since its inception (which again, is why you always have people asking why Super can't just look like Z, because they're referring to the art, not the animation)
