Anime: Current versus Past.

[DarthEnderX]

I think the question is pretty misleading.

Worse now then WHEN exactly? Each person's "nostalgic" period of anime is going to be different.

Bah. I considered the new FMA much better than the old one.

I consider the parts that are canon to be better in BOTH series.

The parts of the original that are before the series went off into filler handle those portions much better than Brotherhood, because Brotherhood tends to skim through those early parts.

Once you get to the part of the series where the original stopped following the manga, Brotherhood is better.

The second half of the original series is still good, but I prefer Brotherhood's progression and conclusion.

I'm always wishing I could merge the first half of the original series and the second two thirds of Brotherhood into one superseries.

Yes but had you seen those earth-shattering classics when they were released, when they were light-years ahead of their time, I think you'd see a difference between how great those were and how good the current stuff is.

I never really understood this argument and people love to make it all the time.

That somehow, something is quantifiably better just because everything around it was terrible.

I never followed that reasoning. Things that want to be considered great should be measured up against everything else that is considered great, not against whatever it happened to be up against at the time.

I mean, I understand the idea of "giving something it's due for doing something that had never been done before" but just because something did something unique doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it better.

[Kraco]

Yes but had you seen those earth-shattering classics when they were released, when they were light-years ahead of their time, I think you'd see a difference between how great those were and how good the current stuff is.

I never followed that reasoning. Things that want to be considered great should be measured up against everything else that is considered great, not against whatever it happened to be up against at the time.

I mean, I understand the idea of "giving something it's due for doing something that had never been done before" but just because something did something unique doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it better.

Yeah, I could call this the big Gilgamesh fallacy: That the original must always be better than those that followed. It would indicate people don't ever learn from past works and can't develop any existing ideas further. That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Naturally it can be said that first time seeing a totally novel idea would make it taste that much better, but such an argument would take us to a purely subjective area. Besides, it's not like the usually named anime classics would be treasure chests of unique ideas in the first place. They were simply shows that worked exceptionally well, but nothing has prevented later shows to work well either.

[Animeniax]

I never really understood this argument and people love to make it all the time.

That somehow, something is quantifiably better just because everything around it was terrible.

I never followed that reasoning. Things that want to be considered great should be measured up against everything else that is considered great, not against whatever it happened to be up against at the time.

I mean, I understand the idea of "giving something it's due for doing something that had never been done before" but just because something did something unique doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it better.

They make it a lot because it's a valid argument. Put up the best of the heyday of anime against the best of recent anime and there's no contest. There's a reason some will be considered classics of all time. In recent anime, there really isn't any that will be remembered even 10 years from now except for nostalgia. Meanwhile, the classics will hold nostalgia as well as intrinsic appeal.

Yeah, I could call this the big Gilgamesh fallacy: That the original must always be better than those that followed. It would indicate people don't ever learn from past works and can't develop any existing ideas further. That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Naturally it can be said that first time seeing a totally novel idea would make it taste that much better, but such an argument would take us to a purely subjective area. Besides, it's not like the usually named anime classics would be treasure chests of unique ideas in the first place. They were simply shows that worked exceptionally well, but nothing has prevented later shows to work well either.

We can look at Hollywood movies to prove it is no fallacy. Originality in a medium goes a long way to making it memorable and beloved, and we do tend to hate those that copy or derive material from them. And it's not just the ideas, it's the execution, the production values, and a certain "I don't know what" that captured our imaginations and led us to explore further that we love. Maybe we're just getting older and more cynical though, so our opinion of modern media just reflects that.

[DarthEnderX]

They make it a lot because it's a valid argument. Put up the best of the heyday of anime against the best of recent anime and there's no contest.

That's not even remotely the argument you were making though.

You said the older stuff was better BECAUSE it was better than anything else at the time. Not because it's better than what there is now.

If you want to say stuff then is better than stuff now, that's one thing, you said stuff then was better just because it was better than what else there was then.

Which doesn't even make sense when you think about it. Because if the stuff that was good then is better because everything else then was bad, why does everything you think is better come from that period.

We can look at Hollywood movies to prove it is no fallacy. Originality in a medium goes a long way to making it memorable and beloved, and we do tend to hate those that copy or derive material from them.

Memorable and beloved is not the same thing as better.

Maybe I´m overestimating "younger" people, but when I started watching anime, I entered as a Pokemon/Dragon Ball-fan. I proceeded to watch Naruto (with Japanese voices and English subtitles). And when the time was ripe, I was looking for the good stuff.

I'm 33, and I still consider Naruto to be "the good stuff". When it's not doing filler anyway.

[Dark Dragon]

Worse now then WHEN exactly? Each person's "nostalgic" period of anime is going to be different.

I didn't want to make the question too complicated. In general, we're comparing the current generation of moe of the past 5-6 years to the late 1990's and early 2000's when most people started to become interested in anime.

Of course everyone is going to have a favorite from different periods of time. However, it's safe to assume that most of the people here got interested in anime around the time when DBZ was very popular internationally and stayed interested in anime cultures because they liked the environment.

You can then argue that people who are not happy with the current quality of anime might not have ever become interested at all in the sub-culture if the current environment existed during the time when they started to take interest in anime. Then it comes down to a question of whether it is a change in taste, a decrease in general quality regardless of technology (writing, art style), or a combination of multiple factors.