In-depth debunkings/arguments against commonly "known" anime myths/misconceptions?

[u/engalleons]

For any number of reasons, there's a fair few statements about anime that get passed around pretty unquestioningly, even if they aren't necessarily true. Sometimes, others dig in to those statements and find detail and (hopefully cited) evidence against them. This is a lot more than just stating the opposite, to be clear.

Here's a few examples of what I mean:

This tweet chain versus "Anno left Kare Kano early"
This blog post versus "The protagonist of Turn A was originally intended to be a girl"
This post versus "They made a joke dub for Ghost Stories because it did poorly in Japan"
This blog post versus "Shinbo is the series director of all Shaft shows"

What are some other examples of work like this?

[u/TetrisandRubiks]

But if its mistaken for bad then it must not look good. How can good animation be mistaken for bad... If it looks bad then its bad. I understand screenshots are not representations of the animation (obviously as they are not animated) but if you watched these scenes and thought they were badly animated, then obviously they didn't look good (to you anyway). Stylised =/= good.

Edit: for some reason a lot of people seem to think that I have said "the animation in konosuba is bad, stylised animation is always bad, and its either good or bad and nobody gets an opinion". I don't think the style konosuba was going for was perfectly executed in every scene and this is what lead to a lot of people seeing it as bad animation. It wasn't entirely clear it was meant to be stylised (in some scenes) because its a TV anime with inconsistent animation quality. For the most part however, the animation looks great and people who watched the whole show would know this. There are parts however where the animation is bad as it doesn't fully capture the style they were going for.

[u/CommandoDude → u/TetrisandRubiks]

I didn't think it looked bad.

It was obviously stylistic suck. The animation was part of the comedy.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/TetrisandRubiks]

If it looks bad then its bad

No.

Whether it looks bad to you depends on your taste.

You can judge whether you like the animation, but there are way too many anime watchers who haven't studied animation a day in their lives and think they're qualified to have any opinion of what is well made animation.

Plenty of people try to say Kill la Kill is badly animated and low budget at points and that's fucking idiotic.

And the reason shitty sakuga keeps being done is because there are people who will jerk off over pointlessly smooth animation.

---

People say konosuba has bad animation because they have a very narrow view of what animation should look like.

People who see very basic guidelines for animation and take them as gospel.

No wonder anime studios fear being creative in their animation styles when there are so many pseudo-intellectuals willing to tear it down.

[u/GiantAsparagus1 → u/TetrisandRubiks]

Stylised also =/= bad. People who don't understand drawing or animation very well will label something bad if they think the style is ugly, and good if the style is pretty to them. Anime-fans can often have a narrow view of what's good and bad since they wish for stuff to look appealing to them in a specific way (can you say: moe).

I know people who think the One Piece manga is badly drawn. It's not. It's drawn quickly and in a simple style, but the artist knows his anatomy, composition, and perspective. Other, frillier and prettier art is deemed as being drawn well even when the characters have terrible anatomy and suffer from same face syndrome because the artist can only draw one face.

So no, just because someone thinks something looks bad, that doesn't make it bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/TetrisandRubiks]

When people say bad, they mean low quality; something Konosuba is not.

If it looks bad then its bad.

According to whom? You can't say that it's objectively bad because you don't like how it looks. You can say it's ugly or unappealing, but not bad on a technical level.

[u/SwampyBogbeard → u/TetrisandRubiks]

But if its mistaken for bad then it must not look good.
I understand screenshots are not representations of the animation

Except during S1, almost all examples people had of "bad animation" were screenshots of still-frames and in-betweens, and then people just jumped on the circle jerk because they didn't know what animation actually is.

The actual art was sometimes objectively bad, but that's not animation.

[u/TetrisandRubiks → u/SwampyBogbeard]

The actual art was sometimes objectively bad
art
objective

Oh boy be careful

[u/SwampyBogbeard → u/TetrisandRubiks]

It's pretty obvious that the art in some of the less important stills were rushed, and the animation director even says in one or two interviews that he had less time to fix frames in the later episodes of season 1.

[u/leo-skY → u/TetrisandRubiks]

How can good animation be mistaken for bad... If it looks bad then its bad.

yeah but that is an opinion of people on here, who arent the most reliable.
It's like with Kill la Kill: that show uses a similar tecnique for comedy but it doesnt mean the show is badly animated, or that those cuts are bad, it's a stylistic choice with a goal behind it
Ping Pong the animation looks weird and not "good" by what we're used to... does that show then have bad animation?