[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

I digress on that matter: when you have a long time director for a given studio, this assertion is indeed true (i.e: Shinbo for Shaft), but otherwise it is not the case.

Freelance directors and newcomers aren't exactly reflecting the whole studio. Otherwise, you are telling me that KyoAni is completely schizophrenic considering how certain series like LS has glaring difference in term of scenes despite being the same studio and same series.

Likewise, I really doubt you can define studio like A-1 picture considering the huge amount of directors they hire, and they aren't the only studios doing that.
On the same tangeant, you can recognize gimmicks from the same director in different series from different studio: Kishi Seiji for his persistent tendency to add gameplay gimmicks in his adaptations, Yamauchi and his retro style and peculiar animation preferences, etc etc.

Defining a studio with a director is not exactly applicable unless the said director has worked with a given studio for a certain time.
On the other hand, depending of the director, you can easily recognize their "touch" and perspective due to how a series was produced, regardless of the studio involved.

There are different models of studios out there, yes. When you go into a studio's portfolio, you are going to see a bunch of different anime. Some may be more similar than others, and in the case of studios like A-1 who are huge and act more like mercenaries than anything, it's also possible that each individual project is very different. Indeed, if you are A-1, it might be impossible to build a consistent style and each project depends solely on who is backing it, and who the director is, etc.

But that's not really my point. I'm talking about simple reputation. If A-1 as a company is unable to coordinate enough talented staff, or manage a project and a budget for each work they are contracted for, the quality of their works will suffer. If they consistently produce mediocrity across the board... Well yes, each individual project is going to matter in the grand scheme of things. Together, it builds the studio's portfolio, and hence reputation.

I think maybe you're combining my view point with someone else because little of what I have been saying is about the "style" of the studio, and more about the reputation. I was simply commenting on the idea that somehow it is incorrect to levy criticism towards the studio as a whole simply because some of their staff members or contracted people screwed up. This is not how things work in the real world. Now if you want to pick and choose who deserves the most blame within a given project, that's another discussion. I think cyth did quite well to point out the dangers in such an approach.

Originally Posted by ultimatemegax

To me, when you say "KyoAni screwed up!" there is ton of ambiguity behind said statement to the point of nothingness. Instead of blaming the company as a whole (which happens frequently amongst anime fandom), it's certain people who are of fault, just like certain people are to credit when things go well. I know it takes more effort to learn who's in charge of things, but it's worthwhile to realize who you really want to blame and who you want to credit so you can make better viewing decisions later.

My point is that they assume responsibility for the project. Kyoani's reputation is on the line when a given work is made. If you want to go into the studio's behind the scenes, then there is certainly plenty of stuff you can point to that resulted to any given failure. Maybe Kyoukai no Kanata had a crappy source material that wasn't suited to the director's vision. Maybe the director was simply inexperienced and didn't know how to approach the work. Maybe the writer sucked. This is all incidental though and often is just speculatory. These factors matter more to the studio themselves than it does to outsiders who are not necessarily going to be researching this in their free time. And as cyth pointed out, it carries certain dangers.

Originally Posted by ultimatemegax

The examples given of random organizations/programs don't really fit into the entertainment structure like they do elsewhere. There's a certain amount of control given to the director of a project that doesn't fit other corporate structures. They're more hands-on than project leads in gaming/software creation to counter Wing's example. This is their vision of the project. Klash gave great examples of directors that have their own quirks that would be present regardless of what studio was assigned to animate that particular project.

See above where I commented to Klash that my main points were about reputation, not really style.

There is a reason why people freaked out when JC Staff chose to adapt Little Busters, including Klash if I am to call someone out here (Nothing personal). This is despite JC Staff being a huge studio with many many works, and many different directors filtering through their system.