Before I get down to discussing
Princess Principal in more detail I want to highlight, for a moment, my own ignorance of the subject I am discussing. I have no formal (or informal) training in the fine arts to any capacity. So I'm probably going to say some things and make some claims that sound dumb. Someone with a background in colour theory could do far better than I. I just happen to have a gut feeling when something appears 'off'.
I brought up
Hand Shakers earlier but I don't intend to claim that
Princess Principal is as visually repugnant as that series I only drew the comparison because both shows feel like they utterly fail to provide visually cohesive worlds. Where as
Hand Shakers takes that in the most garish possible direction,
Princess Principal instead opted to aim for a far more washed our variation on the same.
Now most shows tend to have a very safe or 'neutral' colour design. Nothing really stands out as memorable in a bad, or a good way. But there is a cohesion to them. Someone has sat down and worked out what kind of colours will exist within the world of the show, how they will compliment or contrast each other, how strong will they be, and what the maximum 'range' of spectrum will be employed. (I'm sure there are a zillion other factors).
Princess Principal certainly has a distinct range of colours that it generally employs. In the most part, I would describe them as 'sepia toned', a clear attempt by the artists to evoke the style of 19th century photographs. I'd say that's the macro-level colour design for the series. Unfortunately that broad idea for what the shows' colour scheme will be tends to fall apart on the shot-by-shot level. dimb has already highlighted some basic inconsistencies, but there are other problems too.
Due you notice anything that stands out in the below shot:
I don't know about you, but my eye gravitates first to that ruby red sofa, then those green and purple rocks, and finally to that blood-red valve in the top right hand corner. Why? Because they're completely incongruous with the other colours in the shot. There's a strong tonal affinity between the colours of the characters clothes, an affinity which extends to
most of the background art such as the brick walls and glass cases. There's no good reason for the sofa, rocks, and valves to be in their own separate colour universe - they aren't plot or character relevant, so what's going on with them? It just reveals that the image is nothing but different layers of visual art, created by different people, slapped together by yet another person and apparently not colour corrected by any kind of colour editor.
This kind of problem is made all the stranger because there are some scenes where all the colours and tones are correctly unified, which seems to speak towards a slightly rough production:
There are plenty of other visual issues worth discussing beside colour. Take, for example, the very first shot of the entire series:
What's with all this
Crest of the Stars-esque shit digital noise? I don't understand why the art director thinks 19th century photography = a blurry, vaseline smeared mess? Obviously some of the photographs were not as sharp, and you certainly have imperfections in lenses and other artefacts, but they don't resemble this visual garbage. Why are you trying to hide your art under so many bad layers?
Oh well, at least this shot above is a little better, because it at least attempts to more accurately portray a family potra-
Oh dear, what's going on in here? If this opening sequence is attempting to emulate old time photographic conventions with any kind of verisimilitude then they should not employ jarring modern techniques like zooms and canted angles. Pick one visual style - don't attempt to mix and match in such a sloppy manner.
I brought this particular shot up earlier, but now that I'm being more critical I want to explain what's wrong with it. Clearly the imagery of a women perched atop a ledge that overlooks a sprawling a metropolis is reminiscent of
Ghost in the Shell, especially as the women here also jumps off her perch in what appears to be an extremely reckless manner. What this particular re-creation fails to get right, however, is just about every element of what makes Oshii's shot powerful. Lets take a look at the original:
The key points of difference are fairly self explanatory. The original shot emphasise the Major's vulnerability - they're effectively naked and you can't be more vulnerable than that. More relevant for this discussion is how every element of this image emphasise the height the major has to fall. The camera is positioned very tightly against the back of the Major's body - this physical closeness between the camera and the character makes the audience feel subjectively more connected to the character and their peril. We cannot see any solid ground beneath the Major and this lack of visual support for the character makes us uneasy as it feels like they're about to plummet. The camera is positioned above the character with an angle that looks down upon them - making them appears visually threatened. Morevover, the downwards facing angle of the camera clearly reveals how far the Major has to fall. Lastly, the background art itself depicts a very clear and concrete world that Major could collide with violently if she fell. What about
Princess Principal?
The camera is set quite far back from Angie, meaning that we don't feel particularly connected with the character therefore lessoning the impact of their plunge from the roof. The camera is also pulled back far enough to reveal an extremely solid looking section of roof for the character to stand on, making them feel supported and safe. While the camera is tilted down, the angle is not nearly as extreme as in
Ghost in the Shell, reducing the feeling of vertigo and lessoning the tension of the shot. The background art is blurry
and obscured by fog - there's nothing solid or 'real' out there for Angie to collide with when she falls, further lowering any tension out of the image.
I could go on and on and I've barely scratched the surface. I just don't have time right now so let me flag these nasty examples:
Why does the character and the background art look like they're from two different worlds which shall never meet? (this is a huge issue in numerous scenes).
Why is half her face out of focus?
Why is the one moving chair that they had to animate in this scene a completely different visual design to the all the static background chairs?
Why employ all this horrendously busy wallpaper in your background art?
Are they in some 90's 1st person maze game?
The rim lighting here is disgustingly ridiculous. Are they on stage?
Gross, purple lens flares are distracting.