And I do follow sakuga, hell it may be the only thing I follow these days from anime. But what I observe personally, is that there's a rise of sakuga because anime can't keep it's shit straight and consistent for an entirely episode, let alone an entire series. Things can look fantastic in one shot, so very often, and then for the next 15 minutes look like complete shit. Or for the next several episodes. The highs might be higher, but the lows... the lows are everywhere. This was a lot rarer back in the day. Sakuga didn't really exist back then because... well, things were just a lot more consistent across the board. Usually (speaking in general, of course not all shows have the same talent/money). Showing me all these isolated clips of the best animators don't disprove that. That's what I'm really trying to say. That's a huge list you got, but is it as huge as the amount of minutes of anime that come out every season? How often do I check out some random anime and either be blown away by the first 10 minutes or maybe a scene 15 minutes in, and then suffer through stiff drawings and bad storyboarding for the rest of it? Enen no Shouboutai and Kimetsu no Yaiba, which are probably recent highlights in terms of having some sick sakuga, are both typical victims of what I'm talking about. The latter has CGI characters in walking scenes for fuck's sake.
Episodic inconsistency has
always been a thing—this isn't specific to newer anime. Furthermore, I'm not sure how inconsistent production values correlate to the "rise" of sakuga. Sakuga moments have been a thing for decades, so I'm not sure how you can say that sakuga "didn't really exist" when there are hundreds of examples (sakugabooru can attest to this) that prove that statement wrong. The vast majority of anime, regardless of the time period, have middling production values, which is
exactly why those moments stand out. Frankly, I've seen far too many bad, mediocre, or average-looking OVAs and TV series to believe in the "superior" consistency of older anime. Look at any long-running shounen anime, or even some 13-49 episode series (e.g.
Trigun, Outlaw Star, Weiss Kreuz, Tekkaman Blade, Master Mosquiton '99, Orphen Revenge, Night Walker, Legend of Himiko, Brave Series, Cybuster, Devilman Lady, Eat-Man, Burn-Up Excess). You can find
plenty of stiff drawing and bad storyboarding if you look beyond the usual selection of popular and critically-acclaimed anime.
Now, the "isolated clips" argument goes both ways—you could apply the same logic to that
Gunsmith Cats clip. After all, it's easy to cherry-pick examples that support your narrative. I could just as easily point to
Twinkle Nora Rock Me, Nora, Yami no Teio, Sword for Truth, Alice in Cyberland, Sin: The Movie, Panzer Dragoon, Aoki Honoo, Halley Densetsu, Superdimensional Romesque Samy, Gundress, Garzey's Wing, Dark Cat, Dragon Fist, Kimera, Psychic Wars, Kouryuu no Mimi, Battle Skipper, Roots Search, Dog Soldier, Art of Fighting, or
Eien no Filena—OVAs and movies rife with shoddy artwork, mediocre animation, weak storyboarding, and un-ambitious direction—as proof that movies and OVAs weren't nearly as consistent as you think. The point is that anime have
always been inconsistent and that it's silly to use cherry-picked examples as proof that things were
objectively better back then. Like TV anime, there are plenty of OVAs that look bad and a number of them that look great. Of course, the good-looking ones are the only ones that people ever talk about.
What I wanted to prove by posting those clips is that there's no real logical reason to
objectively claim that older animators had "tighter" skills, modern artists "cheat", and that standards were "higher", but if you feel that way, that's fine!
Look at the gunsmith cats clip. It's not actually spectacular. But the quality is pretty damn consistent, and I find that to be a rarity these days. Watch the whole thing. It never strays from that bar. Back then, for most anime, and the aim was always to look good across the whole episode, and it was hard to pick out the action sakuga from the rest. Nowadays I find, the first episode will be really high quality, and fairly consistent, then a different team/ animators will handle the rest of the series where it rarely looks as good again.
The clip doesn't prove anything other than that the
Gunsmith Cats had decent production values. I also don't think that it's the fairest point of comparison (seeing as how it's a three-episode OVA that was released over the span of a year), but fine. Again, it's easy to cherry-pick certain examples that confirm your biases. One particular OVA (out of hundreds) isn't definitive proof that what you're saying is true.
Anyway, none of what you're describing is specific to any particular time period. Some anime are more consistent than others in terms of quality—this has always been the case. Staff rotations and outsourcing have always existed, so it's not rare to see quality fluctuate on a per-episode basis, be it a TV anime or an OVA. On the other hand, there are many anime that maintain a baseline (albeit unspectacular) level of quality throughout their run. I'm not sure why you think that older anime were held to a different standard—creators have
always strived for their products to look good, but there are so many variables in anime production that it's
impossible to achieve 100% consistency on a regular basis. This has never changed. Nobody deliberately sets out to make a bad product. In any case, the assertion that things were somehow different and "more consistent" back then isn't supported by the older anime I've seen. Some are good, some are bad, and a lot of it is average or mediocre.
Frankly, considering the terrible working conditions of the anime industry (and the sheer amount of anime that are being produced), it's a miracle that more anime aren't
complete production disasters.
My point is less that animators these days are less talented than previous generations, it's more that a lot of things have changed in anime, including its production process and the production values. That's just a reality.
Yes, the nature of anime production has changed (due to a confluence of factors, including technological advancements and working conditions). Animation techniques have changed. Production values? I disagree. As I've said before, there are good looking anime and bad looking anime. There is no objective "better" or "worse".
There is way more anime produced every year, every season, at this point in time than several decades past. This results in a lot of rush jobs, and shortcuts. Animators are paid shit, and they were probably paid better in bubble era japan. There is less motivation, less circumstance for them to put their best foot forward. Then with digital, you can get away with much more than you can on paper, and you have tools the guys back then never dreamed of. If you are a student of animation, you would know even just the fact that flipping in digital animation software is much easier, and you are able to preview your animation in realtime far, far more easily. You also have a ton of reference at your fingertips, a luxury old animators didn't have. Because of this reality, because of all the things I mentioned, they are always trying to do more with less, more so than animators eons ago. Whether they're pressed for time, or not paid enough, or their eyes are trained differently. So yes, the standards are in fact different. This is not really up for debate.
It
is true that the anime industry suffers from horrible working conditions. As you said, not only are animators paid peanuts, but work schedules can be crushing. And yes,
the sheer amount of anime being produced has led to a lack of proper education and time for animators, which results in a need for animation/episode directors to redraw
heavy amounts of key animation. On top of that, competition is fierce for freelance animators and animation directors. As I said above, these factors are
huge contributors towards production breakdowns. Things definitely need to change.
If you stopped there, I'd agree with you. However, the rest of this feels like an attempt to make your (subjective) grievances seem like objective facts. You've still not actually explained these vaguely-defined "standards",
why they're different when it comes to newer anime, or how anything you've described relates to them. Standards are "different" because of digital tools (tools that are meant to improve the production process)? If you're implying that modern animation is less impressive because animators use technology to streamline the process, I don't know what to say. Digital tools aren't a magical panacea that cure
all anime production woes; like any other tool, they can be used effectively or ineffectively.
Frankly, the anime industry's poor working conditions are a
far more important matter than the tools animators are using or whatever arbitrary "standards" they're required to live up to.
I'm not so nostalgic asshole trying to put down modern animators. I work in animation, and I know how hard it is. But the strength of todays animators (and if you read my post again you'll know I acknowedged that) are talented but in a different way than those of yore. They have to be, because of how anime is produced today. They have to optimize what can look good with the limits they have. In general, For starters, it's choppier. Anime was never always on 2s, but anime today has less keys, less in betweens, less frames in general. Watch anime long enough and you'll observe that. Even with the best drawings, its noticeable. To compensate, or perhaps its just a result of living in an ADHD digital world, there's a big focus on effects, on tricks. Animators are better at crazy effects today than before, no doubt. They almost have to be.
Animating on twos and threes is common for anime (along with the occasional one), so I don't think anything has changed drastically. I hope that you're not trying to compare the most well-animated titles to everything else that comes out. And your assertion that digital effects are used to "compensate" or are the result of an "ADHD digital world" seem like a bit of an assumption. They're used to accentuate the work in question, not to "trick" the audience.
I guess I'll agree to disagree!
