^ Yes, there are good productions. I’m just not a fan of the anime drawing style.
I like animé in most cases. My only gripe is the way female characters’ hair stands up on end when they get annoyed. It irks me. 
Same here. I know there are good animes and mangas out there, story wise, but as far as the animation itself and the style, I dislike it.
Yeah, I mean, the only anime I ever watched and liked a bit was Ginga Nagareboshi Gin. Untranslated with subtitles lolz. Aside from the sexism I liked it because it has dogs. Talking dogs, no less! However, the sequel, Ginga Densetsu Weed wasn’t so good. The animation went bad and the main character was a little brat, so to say, and there was even MORE sexism. Jokes of a different name for female dogs aren’t very apt here. 
The original seemed nostalgic to me even though I had never seen it before. The sequel just lacked that feeling and just seemed like “just another anime series”.
Also, I can’t stand Video Brinquedo, but I’m sure most of you can agree to that. 
I mean, their animation is even worse than the Donkey Kong Country TV show… and that one predates Brinquedo by MORE THAN TEN YEARS! [size=85]DKCTV rules btw but im sure thats only because im a fangirl lol[/size]
I’m not exactly wild about the show itself, but Panty and Stocking has a different visual style than what most people expect from anime.
I’ve never heard of that show. Is it good?
Aren’t you being a bit dismissive? Have you seen any of Satoshi Kon’s works, like Paprika? What about Tezuka? Astro Boy and Kimba The White Lion? How about anime shows like Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, or Fullmetal Alchemist? And of course, the TV show with the coolest theme song on Earth (for the first season anyway), Pokemon?
If I have one gripe about Western animation, it’s that they don’t aim high enough. Now by Western, I’m talking major Hollywood studios. The Europeans and Middle Easterns at least have some daring movies like Persepolis, Waltz With Bahsir, Dragon Hunters, and Kirikou. Most contemporary Western animation is content with a) adapting existing properties b) ‘talking’ animal movies c) genre parodies
The Japanese, for all their over-the-top plots and action sequences, are at least not afraid to reach for the sky. They have an obsession with high-concept sci-fi (Gundam, Final Fantasy, Ghost in the Shell), but they have done some great genre work (like the Lupin series for the spy genre, or classical fantasy like Dragonball. And unlike their across-the-Pacific counterparts, they’re not afraid to market their films to all the four quadrants (Men under 25, Men over 25, Women under 25, Women over 25), and feature mature adult themes in their mainstream films.
That said, though, one thing I can’t stand about anime is their propensity to have overlong archs and to have ridiculously long quests and side-quests in subsequent seasons. This is an unfortunate natural progression, since most animes are about quests as opposed to Western cartoons which are more about day-to-day life or individual missions rather than an epic journey.
Another thing I can’t stand about animation is the focus on visual effects over story. Sometimes, it works, like with Animal Logic’s Happy Feet and LOTG (at least, for me). Other times, it just gets annoying (like with the Final Fantasy series). This also brings to mind another unfortunate aspect of anime; due to its numerous characters and sub-plots, it can prove impossible to assimilate for newcomers, and may put off any loyal fans. I remember being impressed by Advent Children’s jaw-dropping action scenes, but because I didn’t understand who’s who and what’s at stake, I ultimately didn’t care about what happened to the characters.
I’m also not exactly a fan of slapstick comedy, although if it’s done subtly and with good intentions, I may enjoy it. So a character unconsciously dancing to a song may put a smile on my face, but a character being socked in the groin repeatedly just makes me facepalm.
Also is it just me, or are a lot of American cartoons animated by Flash and set in high-schools nowadays?
^ I summarized my feeling in here:
I believe style is something that belongs to the individual. Does Crayon Shin-chan look anything like Hayao Miyazaki? Does Dragonball look like Sailor Moon? Yes, there tend to be ‘trends’ in Japanese animation and comics when it comes to the stylization, and I can understand why people tend to associate them with the whole ‘big eyes’ look, but it’s all up to the individual. It’d be like saying all American cartoons have big white eyeballs with tiny black pupils. Obviously that’s an overgeneralization, not all of it looks that way, but you see stuff like that a lot, right?
I really don’t choose what to watch based on the animation type. I choose based on the quality and whether I enjoy it.
^Exactly. As long as it’s not appalling, I don’t see why not…
Yeah. I don’t watch stuff like shrek and Doogal, but that’s because I dislike them, not because they were made in Japan and actually have an underlying purpose. 
A lot of Japanese animation is way better than most of ours, IMO.
When the show (or film, although it’s much rarer there) has multiple characters with the same basic design but different colours, and the animators keep mixing up the colours, so it looks like characters are where they literally cannot be, or you get the wrong voice actor speaking. Anyone who’s watched the original TMNT or Transformers cartoons will probably know what I mean.
What I can’t stand is that, since animated films take years to make, and we live in an Internet age, where we find out information a long time before the movie even has a voice cast, some movies are not ever made even though we are promised them.
I wanted to see Cat Tale so badly, only to find out that it can’t be made.
And then Pixar’s Newt. However, I’m sure that ten years from now, Pixar will want to make a new film and someone will go, “Hey, why don’t we revive that Newt picture we set aside a decade ago?” I trust that it will be made someday, that’s all.
If Dreamworks backs up on The Guardians of Childhood or The Guardians or whatever it is called now, I will be so angry I’ll throw my How to Train Your Dragon toy collection away.
I highly doubt that. Newt was a couple years in production when it was shelved. Pixar didn’t do all that work and throw it away so they might resurrect it.
There’s a reason they put it aside, it didn’t work and was a bit cliche.
Not to mention the similarities with Rio, which Pixar agreed to let Blue Sky finish, and shelved Newt. I think it was a really good thing to do, and I’m sure it was a tough choice for Rydstrom and his crew.
What I don’t like about this is that now any animation company can steal a Pixar idea once it is announced and make their own movie revolving around the basic premise of that idea. Pixar spends years working on their films, which is why they are so great. Other animation comapnies tend to spend only a few months or a single year making their film.
Thus, if say next week it is announced that Pixar is making a movie about pet thieves who are suddently attached by the dogs, cats, fish, and rodents they have stolen, another film copany coulg make a movie about mall theives who go into a living mall where all the merchandise attacks them and Pixar will say, “Well, you can take this idea since it’s too similar to our own.”
Then in the boardroom: “Well, The Angry and the Caged has been scrapped. What’s next on our plate?” “Bob, we got nothing.” “I know, let’s make a sequel to Cars!” “But we already have five of those!” “Well, let’s make a sixth, and a Finding Nemo 3, Toy Story 4, and Brave 2!” “Yeah, yeah, yeah!”
That’s so how thing DON’T work at Pixar.
Actually I heard the whole Newt thing being scrapped was Pixar generally coming to an agreement and politely deciding to scarp the idea after talking with them. Both had been worked on to as degree at that stage (I think?) or had been thinking on it and in the end rather having two very similar concepts released at a similar time and in a way competing with one another Pixar decided to let Blue Sky have it. I think one of them impressed Pixar enough in stating that this idea had been sat on a while- so they gave it up for them. Granted it wasn’t a huge sacrifice anyway. You could put anything with Pixar’s name on it and it’s basically guaranteed big bucks. There are other ideas (…Brave?)
Blue Sky in general has potential as a company but they’re kind of considered the ‘third wheel’ half the time between Dreamworks and Pixar (oh lord, it Pixar and Dreamworks were personifications and a couple it would be one of bitter anguish and arguments and drama both parties refusing to LET IT GO and move on after they broke up and yelling about how one of them never bought the other flowers but any hoodle). In any case Blue Sky’s ‘third’ status is sad almost because despite going a bit crazy with Ice Age sequels the original Ice Age is actually something I consider fantastic and one of my favourite computer animated films of all time- it really helped me out in a darker point of my life in a way.
Perhaps the whole newt thing could be considered bad business strategy on Pixar’s part considering the fact that pooor old Blue Sky would probably sink on the name basis (regardless of which one was actually better in reality). But then again it’s possible also Pixar would lose some valuable green and thus decided ‘cut losses’ as another reason for scrapping it (they are a company at the end of the day). I mean the Blue Sky company may not be as well knownas Pixar but Ice Age is really really popular and it’s not like Blue Sky is a complete no name (and for good reason- the first Ice Age is great!)…
But I don’t think Pixar wants another rivalry like the one with dreamworks (even if their past makes it uh a bit more ‘special’ to boot- it’s personal, which is a really bad thing in business actually)- that kind of bile they reserve for DW- if they directed such hatred and cut-throat business in terms of relationships to everyone it would probably be a bad thing and hurt their own company for good reason because… let’s face it Pixar are not underdogs. Not at all. If they are seen as people who squash and trample on people it kind of means that people could look at their movies in distaste and they lose their ‘golden’ image (well they’re not perfect anyway and there’s still criticisms, but you know what I mean right?). Having Blue Sky ‘like them’ in a way could work in their favour etc if it comes to a power thing almost. Kind of like politics almost (oh heck, Blue Sky are like the Lib Dems of the UK! 
) Okay so not exactly but in any case…
Also no, other movie places don’t generally just spend a year/few months in computer animation on it either. Blue Sky, DW and Pixar… yeah they take years. HTTYD took years, so did Megamind etc. Pixar has a different strategy sure but it’s not like these three only spend a few months on these things. That’s more or less never has been done to my knowledge by any of these three and can spend almost as long on a movie. Plus from the trailers Rio was so not a rushed job.
This is not true. Whether you like the end product or not, it still takes at least 4 years to make an animated film.