Too long.
Still read.
This charge that scriptwriters have less influence on how their characters act or at how "dramatic situations develop" then animators seems silly to me. It is the script that at the fundamental level decides what even will be drawn. Sure it can be drawn as an offmodel still or or a superfluid 65 frames per milisecond sequence but the subject matter has been already decided by the script.
Ditto about the writing quality in anime quality.
I often disagree with you, but I do agree here to the extent that I think film and television, both live-action and especially animation, are composite mediums where their constituent parts need to be judged as to how they work together to create a whole. Neither animation nor writing (nor direction, voice acting, music, color design, background art design, character design, etc., etc.) are unimportant and they all have something to contribute positively or negatively to the overall artwork.
I'm not sure if tamerlane would essentially disagree with that, though I do find that he tends to focus on animation to the exclusion of all other elements a bit too much for my tastes. At any rate, a few specific comments on the linked article.
It could be using a drawing count so low that the animation is nothing more than a series of creatively edited stills, as in Kenji Nakamuras shows.
I would hesitate to use the word "animation" to describe a series of stills, because that seems dangerously close to eliminating the distinction between character animation and character art and thus needlessly obscuring the use of words. I like a good picture drama, such as the recent Tabi Machi Late Show, but I would also describe that sort of thing as having minimal to no animation - which doesn't have to be a problem depending on how it's executed, but is still a factor to be considered. But I agree (in opposition to some Western animators and anime fans) that framerate is not the primary factor in determining whether animation is good or not. A segment of animation can be very fluid and yet still be a failure in context, as in the infamous Nanoha breakfast scene by Kou Yoshinari or
this nonsensical Nisemonogatari cut (slight NSFW warning) by Gen'ichirou Abe.
While most animated films can be understood in terms of their script, their direction, their sound design, their voice acting, etc. at the end of the day all of those qualities are optional. An animated film can be completely silent (at one point they all were), or it can be non-narrative and abstract, or it can lack the vestiges of live action cinematography completely, but an animated film cannot under any circumstance lack animation.
I mean, yes, this is an obvious point that can go overlooked. Animation is not a garnish on top of everything else. But neither is everything else the garnish for animation. There are animated works with unpolished or mediocre animation that I still appreciate because of everything else they bring to the table, just as there are live-action works with unexceptional direction and cinematography that I appreciate because of everything else they bring to the table.
Sophisticated use of technique was routinely punished for being off-model and sloppy.
This is totally a problem, and still unfortunately is (note recent complaints about Space Dandy animation in this very thread). Demanding that animation stay absolutely consistent in a work with no stylistic deviations is something that really irks me, because one of the things I most enjoy about anime is the variety that an animator like Shinya Ohira brings to the scenes he works on. (Of course, a director has to take into account the context of scenes and assign animators intelligently to them, but that's a different matter.)
Theres also the semantic issue that, outside a few rare cases like the intertitles in Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei, theres no writing to speak of in anime.
This is unnecessarily pedantic. A book doesn't cease to be written when it's consumed in the form of an audiobook with someone speaking the text out loud. Spoken text or written text, it's still text. Even stage directions in a play are still writing.
The writing is far and away the weakest link in anime; without fail, even the best written anime are formulaic, embarrassing, and shallow.
I agree that writing is generally speaking the weakest link in anime, but the latter half of this sentence is so dogmatic that it ceases to be true. I don't really consider the writing in, say, Anne of Green Gables or Wolf's Rain or Eccentric Family to be "formulaic, embarassing, and shallow". If writing in anime really was entirely as bad as that, there's no way I would still be interested in it at all. Of course, looking at all writing and saying "Well, it's still not as good as Shakespeare" - or, for that matter, looking at all film direction and saying "Well, it's still not as good as Tarkovsky (or fill in your favorite film director here)" is missing the point. I don't look at all music and go "It doesn't match Bach's mastery of counterpoint; why even bother?" Every work of art has its own goals that it's trying to accomplish, and needs to be judged on how well it accomplishes those goals (and you can also throw in whether such goals are worthwhile in some cases), not on whether it "matches up" to a particular great artist of the past.
I somewhat agree with the criticism of Legend of the Galactic Heroes, in that greater refinement in direction and animation would certainly enhance the work. You can just look at the film Overture to a New War to see what benefits a visually strong treatment of the material brings. But I wouldn't be so dismissive of it either. Some of its writing is actually quite weak, most notably the cartoonish portrayal of the Earth Cult, but some is quite good; I like the portrayal of a character such as Yang. There are real merits to the work that aren't merely imagined by stupid uneducated viewers. Speaking of which:
The average artist is dumb and the average animator is dumber still.
This is just pointlessly insulting, and I do not see the grounds for or the purpose of such a statement.
As a result anime fans are quick to triumph unexceptional, derivative, yet mature shows in order to prove that the medium isnt just for kids (and possibly balm their embarrassment about sticking with a juvenile hobby into adulthood).
I have no problem with kids' anime; I really appreciate something like Jewelpet Kira Deco. But I do value maturity in art - genuine maturity, not the silly "M for Mature" idea that some people have when they extol hyper-violent, hyper-sexual OVAs of the 1980s and 90s as the ideal, but a certain seriousness with which an artist approaches their craft and tells whatever it is they want to tell. If a work relies too heavily on crudeness, such as Imaishi's Panty and Stocking, I'm not going to appreciate it no matter what medium it's in. There is material such as very base toilet humor that is simply unworthy of attention, no matter how much effort went into creating it.
But I do partially agree with the sentiment to the extent that I don't give a work points merely for having unusual or particularly appealing subject matter; it also has to execute that subject matter in a well-considered fashion. Hyouge Mono is a treatment of a really fascinating niche subject in Japanese history, but the sound direction of its anime is so abysmal that it's unwatchable.
Anyway, I do appreciate the seriousness with which tamerlane approaches this subject and I certainly appreciate the sakuga fandom. Yuyucow's articles on ANN dealing with animation and exposing a wide audience to its nuances - that's something I wholeheartedly applaud.