Says he's retiring

Only good movie was Arrival, he is way overrated.

the terry funk of anime

yes but his film isn't an insult to life itself

How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man?

That's fine user. Everybody has wrong opinions.
The only anime with good writing that doesn't go to shit can be counted on one hand. It's simply not a medium you go to for quality writing, but for an easy escape and wish fulfillment.
That doesn't mean Hollywood doesn't churn out trash like capeshit and movies with abysmal writing. It's just that the best movies surpass the greatest anime series easily, and there's way more movies with quality writing than anime.

Hollywood hasn't had well written movies since the 70s.

his hips are moving on their own.

based. He's a great artist and I'm glad he's doing what he loves to the day he dies.

>watch Miyzaki's shows
>first half of Sherlock hounds
>it's case of the week detective schlock wtih pretty animation but no engaging narrative or themes
>watch Future Boy Conan
>it's creatively bankrupt sci-fi adventure schlock but with snoozefest visual directing, an emotionally void story and cast and extremely pretty animation

I always love talking about Miyazaki. This man, despite being one of the greatest animators of all time, has never once managed to produce an anime that actually radiated actual emotional value. Your average isekai schlock creates a stronger emotional bond between audience and product. Even when he has unlimited creative controll and no reason to pander to an audience, he is unable to create anything of artistic significance. On Your Mark has got to be one of the blandest well animated short films I have ever seen.

He loves animating.

Really? No one?
"Retiring was a mistake." - Miyazaki

Good.

You're an intellectual lightweight if you think that Conan has boring directing, fuck off idiot. Also, he was director on the original Lupin III series and was a major contributor to other series, like 3,000 Leagues, Heidi of the Alps, Anne of Green Gables, and Toei's early films. The fact you even use terms like artistic significance, as if this means something in particular, shows how small and single-minded you still are.

>intellectual lightweight if you think that Conan has boring directing
Given the potential of the art form, I'd say that's less of an opinion and more of a fact. His layouts for Heidi are incredibly bland as well, but for that show he can chalk it off as a) not being the director and b) it being based on a traditional western novel depicting a realistic setting. Conan does not try to be realistic, yet his style of directing is about as sleep inducing as a 1 to 1 book adaptation.

Although I don't really get why you even bother to list all of these. Probably in an attempt to accuse the opposition of not being aware of their existence. Talk about being an "intellectual lightweight". There's nothing that makes either of those WMT entries stand out visually. They are great shows, but not because of their visual directing. That's about as paperthin and "by the book" (literally in this case) as it could possibly be. Miyazaki always sucked extremely hard at giving his works a significant amount of thematic depth, or incorporating any worthwhile metaphorical meaning into his depiction of objects or actions.

If Miyazaki was a live action director he'd be below average. The saving grace of his career is his skill as an animator. Skills so honed and developed that there are only few who can compete.

Attached: 1535176350646.jpg (936x1436, 331K)

Read Nausicaa.

I did, but this isn't a manga thread. It's an anime thread.

What this post means, if anything, is not entirely clear. I don't understand what you mean when you say things like "less of an opinion and more of a fact" and "incredibly bland" in just a few words away. Are you saying that bland isn't an opinion? I don't care if you think that those works really are bland, or simply aren't interesting enough, but you don't have to lie and suggest that other people are wrong in thinking otherwise. If we're talking about real-world significance on other people, you're definitely wrong, which is why I disliked your dig at Conan earlier. You're throwing around terms like artistic significance, but that term is highly undefined, and you seem to be skewing it way too far into your own favor in this conversation, and making everyone else play around these made-up rules. If I were to play devil's advocate and suggest that art is about the culture that embraces it, and not the artist, then those works definitely count as significant, influential, or embraced, both by fans and other artists. Will you accept this, or is it not good enough? I can prove this objectively, and not as a fact/opinion, after all. Of course, I think this is highly unlikely; If you think it's bad, then it must be bad.

Attached: 44.jpg (2000x1800, 1.1M)

He doesn't have a choice. Anime is such garbage compared to what he makes. After all the praise he gets you'd think more people would try and copy him or aim for quality above harem waifu shit.

>Anime is such garbage compared to what he makes.
Which is anime, you dumb poser. Overrated as shit, Takahata was better.

Nice picture. Not only is it an individual who worked wtih Miyazaki and has a very close personal relationship to him, ergo is biased in his evaluation, but he also almost exclusively refers to Miyazaki's ability as an animator/person who draws and his work ethics. What you attached to this post ultimately does nothing but read my own post back to me. So why attach it?

The rest of this post is about as pointless as the action of attaching the picture. I never even made the argument that he isn't influential, but simply that he's a creatively bankrupt director. So what are you gonna do? Bring up awards or the Laputa 150 poll? These sort of opinionated pieces are very often biased and primarly based on personal perception. If you were to ask these people "what is the best animated TV show of all time", they'd probably say Conan, despite the fact that something Dennou Coil objectively destroys it on both a technical and creative level. Nostalgia comes with these polls and opinions. It always does.

You bring up "significance" or "influence" as positive traits as if they meant something. Just in case you're unaware of it: Being original (and influential) used to be easy due to the sheer amount of new things you could do. It was an unexplored artform for Christ's sake. Do you seriously think that art (in general) has stagnated becasue people are dumber or less creative now? It's stagnated because it has become almost an impossibility to be original. So what people do is recycle already existing concepts and stitch them together to create something new. If you can't be original then the only way for you to be influential is through commercial success. And that sure as hell doesn't need you to make something that is directionally significant. It merely requires something that sells. I would love to MIyazaki as a young director during the 2010s, mostly because I have my doubts that he'd be influential at all.

It's still garbage compared to what he makes.

>Villeneuve
Yikes. I bet you enjoy the movies of Christopher Nolan.

>it's another person who wants literary fiction and shits on everything else thread

Again, we're skirting on meaningless here. "objectively destroys it on both a technical and creative level", ironically this sentence means nothing objectively. Creativity doesn't necessarily mean good, and nor is it really possible to measure creativity, so, again, it's a moot point and you're still ultimately talking to yourself in abstract terms that only yourself can comprehend. I also think it's hilarious that you're now talking about "opinionated" and "biased" with such huge disdain, when that's literally all you've been doing this whole thread. I don't think you completely understood my last point which was the most important, I don't care if you really think that Ghibli is boring, but you shouldn't force this opinion on me? Why should I accept that? I can think whatever I want is good or significant, dude. Personally, I still think that Miyazaki would still be a considerable figure today, even though I don't understand this dilemma that we need to take history out of context to gain a greater understanding of it.

Attached: 12d.jpg (567x561, 32K)

What can he make anymore that will still draw people's attention in the current state of anime? Could Miyazaki ever make a genre-subversive postmodern anime like Eva or Madoka that destroys consumer and industry expectations as his final magnum opus or is he just limited to making the same pro-environmentalist planes and lolis and shit?
>engaging in long discussions is autistic
absolute state of this board

>ironically this sentence means nothing objectively
There very much is objectivity to the quality of animation if both works attempt to accomplish the same thing: constant and fluent motion. The two works are so similar in their budget distribution (and therefore artistic approach) that they can very much be compared. But go ahead and chalk off everything as "muh subjectivity".
>but you shouldn't force this opinion on me
Nobody is forcing opinions on you. You can think whatever you want. I am simply making fun of you. I couldn't give less of a shit about our opinions aligning. Also: What you did was insult me for considering Conan's directing boring and bland. Please stop running away from your responsibility as an instigator.

The weirdest part is that I didn't even call his works "bad", which is what you accused me of. I called them bland, boring, schlock and snoozefests. I consciously avoided labeling them bad because, duh, how would that work if I constantly praise his ability as an animator?

>What can he make anymore that will still draw people's attention in the current state of anime?
an allegory about jihad or a critique of japan's sex industry/sexual dysfunction

>I called them bland, boring, schlock and snoozefests.
Aren't you just one of those people who needs constant distraction or stimulus to cover the looming dread over a life that's filled with problems with no clear answers?

But are those topics he's shown concern about in the past?

>What can he make anymore that will still draw people's attention in the current state of an
Anything he makes will draw attention regardless of the content.
>Could Miyazaki ever make a genre-subversive postmodern anime like Eva or Madoka
Die, teen.

It should be obvious that Miyazaki's ability as a director is severely limited. He's remembered because he was one of the first, not because he was one of the best. His influence stems from the year he was born in, not from his creativity.

Not really. I can watch something like Erin, a coming of age story for children that is traditional in it's narrative approach while constantly weaving expressionism as well as metaphorical language into it's visual presentation and have a jolly good time. That's what making use of the art form look like. Utilizing multilayered symbolism as a means to express yourself, the characters who take part in your story, and the story that is being told. You don't need insane animation if you know how to direct your way around budget constraints.

Although it's funny that you've now started to assume my personal circumstances.

NATURALISM BAD
EXPRESSIONISM GOOD
Do you even realized how limited and dumb your understanding of art is?

Not what I said.

Attached: 1525777710390.png (246x205, 4K)

he's a feminist and an environmentalist back when both those things were cool, he was probably in the student riots man

he probably makes movies the way he does because at this point making a serious film that deals with real shit would be slapping the fuck out of the child that exists inside every adult japanese person, they probably never relax until they're watching totoro man

>There very much is objectivity to the quality of animation if both works attempt to accomplish the same thing: constant and fluent motion
Well, no. This isn't actually true. Animation doesn't technically have an objective, because it's not a mathematical or scientific problem. "Visual medium" just means you're creating something with visuals, not that there is a goal, or a "right" way of doing it. It's purely subjective still, even if a lot of people will resist this fact. I know there are different theories for film and animation (like the 12 principles) but those are not necessarily a an irrefutable sign of greatness or virtue.

>You can think whatever you want. I am simply making fun of you.
Likewise.

>Although it's funny that you've now started to assume my personal circumstances.
I just dropped in man. The stuff Miyazaki makes is about the person watching it man, it is liquefied nostalgia and saudade pouring over your brain and dredging up secret feelings inside your soul. It's not just about the aesthetic, it's about how the aesthetic is creating a dialogue with your emotions by using images as words.

>because it's not a mathematical or scientific problem
Yikes, imagine actually thinking that there are only two possibilities: pure subjectivity and pure objectivity. The entire field of academia is a hoax because person A's approach is as subjective as person B's, no matter how many arguments person B presents or how much closer his approach is to the intended goal or final product. This is so embarrassing to read it's starting to cause physical pain. Shouldn't you be in a lab right now, STEMlet?
>it's about how the aesthetic is creating a dialogue with your emotions by using images as words
Man, sounds like anything that utilizes visuals beyond written text, like, man, you know, photographs.

>Man, sounds like anything that utilizes visuals beyond written text, like, man, you know, photographs.
what I'm saying is that the front narrative is a compromise to the money that payed for it, while the actual narrative is on the reverse face that never becomes explicitly stated

Cringe. And you wonder why I call you an intellectual lightweight. You actually think film and animation has an objective (although you've demonstrated this fact obviously throughout the whole thread to my knowledge).

>You actually think film and animation has an objective
Pretty entertaining how you're too retarded to differentiate between a work in it's entirety, and the budget distribution that dictates it's animation quality.

Miyazaki has stated that, to him, animation needs to be in constant motion. That's very much what Future Boy Conan does. It's a consistently well animated tvshow with meticulous budget distribution and very few true stand out sequences. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Dennou Coil (and most of Iso's works) do(es) as well, hence why they are comparable. Both directors strive for the same artistic vision. Both distribute funds accordingly instead of having shit animation for 90% of the duration just blow away the audience with the remaining 10. So yes, there is an objective here: Create the most consistently animated character cast you possibly can. And yes, when it comes to this sort of approach number of frames and fluency of the animation very much matters. Both directors try to do the same, but one of them simply does it better.

Pretty entertaining how this is a non-sequitur.

this old satyr is addicted to anime girl

>You actually think film and animation has an objective
It should be really obvious what the point is
the point is to change the world we live in

Is this a serious post? Miyazaki even went on record saying that there's no point in making movies.

What did Miyazaki mean by this?

Attached: 1553405614882.webm (1330x720, 2.93M)

NEW THING BAD
OLD THING GOOD

>plotfags on my Yea Forums again

Attached: 1553367170210.jpg (326x400, 96K)

>Your average isekai schlock creates a stronger emotional bond between audience and product.
Manipulative sentimentalism will always be a narrative failure, in every format it comes in.

>film and TV
>not manipulative
pick one, brother

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA!

Attached: 1540335387270.jpg (1200x675, 113K)

Wallowing in cynicism is not a refutation of what I said.