Is anime getting ruined by the whole "Moe" craze....

[Raiga]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Atmosphere and emotion give 5cm per second its soul though.

Exactly. I was mostly playing devil's advocate on Kyuu's implication that anime has to have a "storyline" or be about "something happening" to be good. It's fully possible to have a deep and emotional episode about going grocery shopping, if you have a good enough writer on board. Hey, you never know.

[hyl]

I am more disturbed by the recent trend that lot's of anime is showing off fanservice rather than moe looking girls.
Also the art style these days are completely different than a decade ago, it may look like some of the art in the anime these days are moe compared to back then, but i think it's more the evolution of the art style what the current generation otakus want compared to the previous ones. The art of mangas and anime from 20 years ago are also quite diffrent from the ones from 10 years ago.
Story wise we had nice animes from the last 20 or 30 years ago that are called classics today, but even today the anime industry are making good anime. It may look like the current generation anime has more bad animes these days, but back then there were also lots of horrible animes. But of course most people don't remember the bad ones, but more likely the good ones

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Raiga

Exactly. I was mostly playing devil's advocate on Kyuu's implication that anime has to have a "storyline" or be about "something happening" to be good. It's fully possible to have a deep and emotional episode about going grocery shopping, if you have a good enough writer on board. Hey, you never know.

Well, there are few things that must be done. Masterful writing can turn something stupid into something great.

However, I still would think that an anime that lacks a storyline or meaningful development would have to have something exceptional in its place. In 5cm's place, it managed to fill in the story with these things via atmosphere which helps establish the world we are in and the people in them. We learn more things about the characters, events and situations better than your average anime sometimes in the span of an hour. Some of the best things just have to be realized.

It's a bit harder for me to see this in something like K-on. But that's just me, of course.

[Flawfinder]

Originally Posted by hyl

I am more disturbed by the recent trend that lot's of anime is showing off fanservice rather than moe looking girls.
Also the art style these days are completely different than a decade ago, it may look like some of the art in the anime these days are moe compared to back then, but i think it's more the evolution of the art style what the current generation otakus want compared to the previous ones. The art of mangas and anime from 20 years ago are also quite diffrent from the ones from 10 years.
Story wise, 10 years ago we had nice animes that are called classics today but even today the anime industry are making good anime.

Again, no different from the movie industry. And I don't see that dying anytime soon. Okay, the girls are underage in anime, but...what was my argument again?

But anyways, some of the stuff from a long time ago may be classics now, but back then, I don't think they were. Give it ten years and we'll be seeing some of these moe anime as classics as well...provided they're good. If Da Capo ever becomes a classic, I'm going to assume that a drug outbreak occurred.

[hyl]

I actually meant the classics from the 90's like serial lain, neon genesis evengelion, cowboy bebop etc. those series were popular in their time and are also considered classics today, but i am sure series like Code Geass, Death note, Naruto, bleach ,Puella Magi Madoka Magica are also classics in their own way.
Also back then the selection of anime seemed less abundant than today, so of course we are getting more bad animes if there are more animes every season than in the past.
(eventhough i dislike those shounen jump animes, they do get lots of viewers and lots of people like it)

[totoum]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

Personally I think if anything is hurting anime right now it's that it's basically struggling to differentiate itself from the light novel/Visual Novel scene, not specifically moe. This mostly relates to TV series though. There just honestly used to be a greater variety of themes, settings, character types and scenarios before light novels started getting popular.

What actually fustrates me is that I see this trend where mangas that have something other than a school setting get a live action adaptation (be it tv show or movie) while the mangas with a school setting get an anime.
Shoujos and Josei also tend to get live action adaptations rather than animes.

[hyl]

School settings are immensely popular in japan, no matter what media. So that's just trend that does not die. It's probably to romanticize the high school days for the people who later end up getting boring jobs or did not get a girl- or boyfriend (or a hidden crush)back then or just the high schoolers.

Originally Posted by Shai-Lang

Also while there might have been Moe in older anime as well, the main difference is that the girls weren't so blantly young. Even America's obsession with sex doesn't go as far as to sexualize young girls.

You are quite wrong on that. Lot's of people fantasized about characters in Evengelion, sailor moon, pokemon, cardcaptor sakura in those days and most of those characters are under 18.

Originally Posted by Shai-Lang

Alright I'm sorry I'll be civil. I just get so heated up when it comes to women's rights issues.

Anyways, there is a point to this thread. It's supposed to open up a discussion on whether Moe or not is declining the quality of anime, and also if it's objectifying to women.

I am pretty sure this has been said, but the objectifying to women has been a part of the history of human society in the media and especially art back then (lot's of nudes in the art of the renaissance, ancient greek and rome and more) . It's not just moe anime, sex just happens to sell. That's common knowledge for marketing people all around the world.

[Ithekro]

School settings or stories that revolve around teens (or younger) are nothing new. That was sort of the general setting for a lot of childrens programming, cartoons, and even some teen dramas. The only change in the trend is that there are more of them of late relative to other things, and it is possible that is reversing. About the only real difference between present day school setting shows and old time version is that most of the action takes place at the schools now, were most say American school setting shows took place outside of school with the school being the place they went when not going on adventures, or getting into trouble. (I'm thinking old 50s and 60s era stuff now). In anime, by the late 80s the trend for at least the main characters to be teens seemed to becomeing normal. Sometimes they were at school, but most stuff happened outside of school (Sailor Moon is an example of this. The characters are mostly middle school students, and we get some of their lives in school, but about everything going on in the story takes place outside of school).

Comedies just take a setting and stick with it. The idea of clubs seems to be the trend now as it keeps most of the story in the confines of a school, and thus you don't need as many background places to draw. This is sort of like American sitcoms that usually take place in one house. It cuts down on the number of sets you need and reduces any sort of location shooting needed inthe budget. And these sorts of shows have been going on since at least the late 50s or early 60s.

[relentlessflame]

I think this discussion is pretty senseless because each person has to start by re-defining what "moe" is. This word should probably be banned in this conversation because it's too confusing and nondescript. So what is the real problem here?

1. The perceived shift from plot-driven shows to character-driven shows? (from action/sci-fi/fantasy towards "slice-of-life"?)
2. The perceived shift from shows targeted at "all ages" to shows targeted at male 20-somethings?
3. The perceived lack of substance in "modern shows" compared to their "classic" pedigree?
4. The perceived increase in quantity or popularity of shows you dislike vs. shows you like? (Or the perceived increase in certain elements within genres of shows you liked in the past?)
5. The perceived shift from mature-looking "adult" female characters to younger-looking "childish" ones (and the character qualities that correspond to that appearance)?
6. The perceived increase in the amount of sexually-suggestive (or explicit?) material (whether featuring younger-looking characters or not)?

You'll note that I included "perceived" in each of these because the first point of clarification is whether a shift or change has actually occurred (or if it's driven more by exposure/perspective). I'm not saying that a shift hasn't occurred, but we need to be able to identify specifically what has really changed if we want to analyse the root cause and impact.

I think it's easy to make "moe" into a straw man that encompasses "everything bad about anime and my perception of its current fanbase", but that actually has little-to-nothing to do with what "moe" really is or was intended to be. There are peripheral topics that are sometimes associated with moe (like "lolicon"), but these need to be separated out and addressed on their own. There are also "consequent problems" that people have with moe (like the perception of "the creepy otaku" who watch it) that need to also be separated out and addressed on their own. Otherwise, people are attacking or defending an amorphous blob that takes the form imagined by each person in the argument, so there's no hope at reaching any sort of understanding or common ground. I'm not convinced that, if you took any two people in this thread and ask them to define the "moe craze", you'd stand a good chance of getting similar answers. It's sort of like "the things I don't like are increasing and it's a trend that's destroying anime because I don't like it". Well, okay...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some objectify women, but then non-moe styled shows do this as well. Other shows of this style do not objectify women in terms of being sexist as in being lesser than man.

Take the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. The moe character is Mikuru, who is passive and subserviant. However who is she subserviant to? Haruhi...a woman. Mikuru is also subserviant and passive to perform her job of blending in as much as possible without being noticed. This does not actually work as Haruhi picks her out for these traits specifically (though her job has still be unnoticed by anyone outside those few she's told).

Take the second moe style character, Yuki. She's quiet and unemotional. She's passive but mostly because she's not involved more than anything else (she observing). She's subserviant due to her nature of observing...but only does things when it is actually required. She takes orders pretty much only from Kyon, and usually it is requests rather than orders (due to Kyon's nature to be passive unless the world is ending.) Yuki, due to her nature, is considered almost godlike, so she is gnerally respected when requesting that she do something.

Then there is Haruhi. Subserviant to no one. Gives orders and expects them to be carried out even if they are pretty much impossible tasks. It takes a lot to get her to back down. She will back down for Kyon, but only because she likes him. And only if what she is doing will harm their friendship (or her place as master to his slave).

As I was reading what you wrote, I thought of something interesting: your descriptions of the characters are spot-on, but they're arguably cliches that are found across multiple series. More importantly, the roles you've identified are taken by both male and female characters. In light of that, is it even fair to claim that many female characters in anime objectify women, when it's really just a certain character trait put into a character drawn to be female?

In my mind, the objectification of women has more to do with body over mind. Designing characters with unrealistic proportions that walk around without covering up, for example, seems like objectification. Those types of characters certainly exist in anime. Yet even there, "moe" seems to go counter to that - you get the well-endowed character who dresses modestly, is prudish, and gets embarrassed over talk of her body or when wearing anything even slightly revealing. It seems a bit more of a respectful portrayal of women. Is it still objectification? (I don't think so, personally.)

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Raiga

Who says you need storyline for entertainment, much less depth? Furthermore, how is your conception of moe a story "killer"? If you took away the moe from K-On, would it suddenly have a story? Did adding the moe appeal "kill" the story?

No, but. If you create a series that is "moe focused", what incentive is there to create a story in the first place? This is what I'm going on about. Now, if this idea spreads out and becomes more "rampant", then you'll see more and more and more of this kind of stuff. Then suddenly, anything with a story becomes a... "minority".

This is exactly what happened to Hollywood. All the good, deep movies became "second tier" to the flashy visual effect movies.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

I think this discussion is pretty senseless because each person has to start by re-defining what "moe" is. This word should probably be banned in this conversation because it's too confusing and nondescript. So what is the real problem here?

Good point.

For me I was mostly talking about the industry's overall change to portrayal of female characters and their given presence in their respective series. Instead of trying to build up more natural character archetypes, a lot of females these days are given these quirky card board cut out archetypes who are designed to appeal with their personality traits to a crowd of people who like moe girls (Basically cute, though moe can go far beyond that I know). Things like tsunderes and kuuderes, or danderes or any other one you can think of.

As for the presence, I meant how a lot of shows these days live off portraying these cute/quirky personalities in cute ways for its bread and butter entertainment. It's not necessarily that the story is absent of anything compelling or that it doesn't have anything else of interest (Take Higurashi for example), but more so that a large facet of many shows is seeing these moe archetypes play out their personalities on screen to attract a certain crowd of people.

What I was arguing earlier was that the overexposure of moe, this idea of the industry that its the new hot topic to milk dry for every drop until people are nauseous is what is harming anime in more recent times, and that some variety is definitely called for nowadays. Mind you, I would say similar things about anything that gets an overexposure so it is definitely not moe in of it by itself.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by hyl

You are quite wrong on that. Lot's of people fantasized about characters in Evengelion, sailor moon, pokemon, cardcaptor sakura in those days and most of those characters are under 18.

Excepting Evangelion, which actually does have a decent amount of fanservice, that some people find those characters sexually attractive is just an example of how a certain subset of horny geeks essentially project their sexual desires on pretty much any character they like regardless of appropriateness - the dirty Harry Potter fanfics I mentioned earlier - and a hell of a lot of other fanfic, to be honest - is the western equivalent of this phenomenon.

Which, for reference, is exactly what Miyazaki was complaining about if you read that early 90s quote in context. Some of his fans were seeing his characters that way. Given how non-sexual a lot of moe shows are, many moe creators could make the same complaint about fans today and have it be just as valid.

As to the issue of underage moe characters in general, I'd be concerned if I felt that moe anime promoted sexual attraction to preteen girls. But contrary to what sometimes strikes me as popular belief, this is actually pretty rare in moe anime. When moe anime portrays under-18 girls as sexually attractive - which is not always the case - it's usually a teenage girl, and I see little to no reason to get up in arms over that.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

In my mind, the objectification of women has more to do with body over mind. Designing characters with unrealistic proportions that walk around without covering up, for example, seems like objectification. Those types of characters certainly exist in anime. Yet even there, "moe" seems to go counter to that - you get the well-endowed character who dresses modestly, is prudish, and gets embarrassed over talk of her body or when wearing anything even slightly revealing. It seems a bit more of a respectful portrayal of women. Is it still objectification? (I don't think so, personally.)

Claiming that moe anime objectifies women strikes me as somewhat difficult given that moe characters tend to a) frequently not be portrayed in a sexual fashion, and b) their personality is usually a large part of the appeal. Claiming that moe anime promotes stereotypes of women would be a far better angle of attack.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

No, but. If you create a series that is "moe focused", what incentive is there to create a story in the first place? This is what I'm going on about. Now, if this idea spreads out and becomes more "rampant", then you'll see more and more and more of this kind of stuff. Then suddenly, anything with a story becomes a... "minority".

This is exactly what happened to Hollywood. All the good, deep movies became "second tier" to the flashy visual effect movies.

These arguments don't really make much sense to me.

First, all anime have "stories". Even if it's a character-driven show that features various vignettes centered around random "day-in-the-life-of" events, it's a story. It may or may not have an over-arching plot that deeply connects all the episodes to each other in time and sequence (or it might)... but the actions and reactions of the characters are essential to character-driven franchises, and that can't happen without "stories". Everything has a story, at issue is only whether you find it interesting or engaging.

Second, your preference for "deep plot-driven narratives" is just that: a preference. There's nothing inherently "good" about it, or inherently bad about any other preference. And even in Hollywood, there continues to be a huge variety of different kinds of fare; despite an emphasis on the "flavour of the month", there are always works to consider in less-represented genres.

Your overall implication here is that character-driven stories represent "author laziness" (or inability to write a "real story"), but I think it's not trivial to execute a good visual effect movie, or a good character-driven show. Many people have tried and failed. I don't think that the apparent abundance of one sort of story means that any other sort is in jeopardy, if only because there is a pendulum effect, and at some point everything old will be new again. I'm also not necessarily convinced that the past was ever such a deep treasure trove of "good storytelling" either when you consider more than just the "best of" highlights... but I have no firm evidence either way.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Instead of trying to build up more natural character archetypes, a lot of females these days are given these quirky card board cut out archetypes who are designed to appeal with their personality traits to a crowd of people who like moe girls (Basically cute, though moe can go far beyond that I know). Things like tsunderes and kuuderes, or danderes or any other one you can think of.

Well, first, I think this is not necessarily limited or related to the stereotypical "moe" at all. Consider for a moment how so many male protagonists, antagonists, and other decidedly "non-moe" characters tend to also fall in a very limited number of categories and archetypes, and this even in "serious, plot-driven shows". This may be more a matter of preferring certain stereotypes over others, or perhaps that some shows offer other elements that better "distract" from the character archetypes portrayed.

Beyond that, I think this is mostly a marketing strategy, and is (at least seen as) needed for character-driven stories to stick out in an otherwise crowded market (maybe even moreso in the manga and light novel world than anime, but these are the sources for most anime produced). Knowing the character archetypes gives the readers/viewers some self of reassurance about whether they are likely to enjoy the property, since it's simply impossible to try it all. However, I think the most successful character-driven shows are those that do something with those archetypes to stretch or develop them in a unique way, providing a "unique value" to the audience. I think the amount of successful shows that truly survive on archetype alone are very few, and as I said above, I think it actually takes a certain skill to take these archetypes and really make them come alive for the audience.

Besides that... I think the stereotypical archetypes were developed as a result of a sort of "natural distilling" of all the popular characters in stories past, and represents a sort of "evolution of understanding" of the sorts of characters people generally like. So the fact that they can now use that platform as a starting point is almost like "evolved thinking", in a way. (So much of anime on the whole is really about the "evolution" and refinement of ideas, themes, and motifs.) But I grant that people who value particularly "uniqueness" and "originality" may struggle a bit to appreciate things that show "cookie-cutter signs". But again, like I said above, I think most of the successful works push the boundaries beyond the stereotypes, and that's what endears them to people most. So perhaps if someone's getting too focused on the patterns and is unable to see the uniqueness, they may need to seek a new perspective or new, unfamiliar experiences (perhaps in other media or from other cultures). Over-saturation leads to fatigue.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

As I was reading what you wrote, I thought of something interesting: your descriptions of the characters are spot-on, but they're arguably cliches that are found across multiple series. More importantly, the roles you've identified are taken by both male and female characters. In light of that, is it even fair to claim that many female characters in anime objectify women, when it's really just a certain character trait put into a character drawn to be female?

In my mind, the objectification of women has more to do with body over mind. Designing characters with unrealistic proportions that walk around without covering up, for example, seems like objectification. Those types of characters certainly exist in anime. Yet even there, "moe" seems to go counter to that - you get the well-endowed character who dresses modestly, is prudish, and gets embarrassed over talk of her body or when wearing anything even slightly revealing. It seems a bit more of a respectful portrayal of women. Is it still objectification? (I don't think so, personally.)

In the later example, it's a objectification of innocence and purity. Certainly, they aren't bad things inherently, but it could come across as sexist.

The thing is that females in general are subject to the slut/prude double standard. A woman that is utterly open sexually is derided as a slut while the overly shy character that gets embarrassed over the smallest hints of sensuality is a prude. But despite this, these extremes are frequently staples of male sexual fantasies as sold in the media; you'll usually have to have someone ahem "fix" the female character. Either is presenting a female character as something to be desired, a prize. This is why most harems feature one guy and many girls.

What I am saying, that particular moe stereotype isn't really that much better. Consider all the otaku rage about hearing that an anime characater may not be "pure" and you delve into some depraved and sexist kinds of thinking.

What is sexy is not necessarily sexist. It's the thought next to it. What's sexist is portraying a character as a bag of meat made to be consumed. Whether they wear skimpy clothing or not doesn't matter anymore.

This isn't to say that anyone's fantasies are wrong. But sometimes when you keep shoving enforced gender roles down people's throats it can be insulting.

There's plenty ways to show nudity and sex and general attractiveness without being trashy. But the later sells easier, so....

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

In my mind, the objectification of women has more to do with body over mind. Designing characters with unrealistic proportions that walk around without covering up, for example, seems like objectification.

Indeed. Revy in Black Lagoon is sexualized but hardly moe~. Giving her a couple of pistols is another form of objectification, the "girls-with-guns" trend that has also become rather widespread, and not just in Japanese anime. Revy has a lot in common with Lara Croft or La Femme Nikita.

As relentlessflame suggests, it's really not clear what this thread is supposed to be about, and the OP's rather inflammatory post didn't help matters any.

Women have been objectified in media for centuries; whatever we may think of moe~ as a trope, it's not the cause of this objectification. It's also hardly the only source of the "weak girl who needs a man to protect her" trope either. I'd suggest that that image of women dominated most Western media for most of my life.

There were exceptions, of course. We had the smart bombshell character that was a staple of Marilyn Monroe's best work like her performance as Sugar Kane Kowalczyk in Some Like it Hot. Strong women were often portrayed as manipulative schemers like Barbara Stanwyck's character in Double Indemnity or Vivian Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. Even Hepburn's Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story could be placed into this category. The Bond stories have superficially strong female characters like Honey Ryder in Doctor No or Pussy Galore in Goldfinger, but ultimately they all fall for the dashing 007. (Just their names suggest what their role is intended to be.) To me the transformation of this type of character began with The Avengers Emma Peel; her flirtatious yet asexual relationship with Steed was a precursor to the relationship between Scully and Mulder in the X-Files. Both Scully and Emma were clearly partners with their male companions, not underlings or doormats.

So what are we really talking about here? Are there sexist characterizations of women in anime? Certainly. Are they the norm? I'd say probably yes, though it's hard to make a blanket statement about an art form that extends over decades and comes from a culture with which I have no direct experience. Are there women in anime who don't fit this norm? Of course. I'd point to most of the ladies in my signature an exemplars.

I've said elsewhere in these forums that I've been surprised at the degree of feminism I've seen in anime given that the culture from which it's drawn is more patriarchal than what is considered acceptable in the US and Europe. Partly that has to do with the fact that artists and writers are generally more "liberal" than the mainstream cultures in which they live. CLAMP, for instance, has clearly pursued a feminist agenda, Angelic Layer being perhaps the best example from their work. Shows based on works by female authors like Twelve Kingdoms or Seirei no Moribito also have a feminist orientation. Nevertheless the largest segment of the anime audience in Japan is 14-30 year-old males; it's hardly surprising that an art form designed to extract yen from these viewers portrays women in more traditional and less disruptive roles.

[Ithekro]

One thing about stories, a successful one with either draw you in with the story, or draw you in with the characters.

Take a western example that has had many casts: Star Trek. The multiple works aren't usually what degraded the overall series, it was the writing and the casts. In the 1960s the cast of Star Trek, along with the writers, made it so the audiance would care what happened to the main characters (and by the time of the films, what happened the Enterprise, which had practically become a character.) The Next Generation had a good cast and sometime good writing, so that again, the audiance would care what happened to the characters each week. (no so much the Enterprise this time around, even though they made it a character a few times). However in Deep Space Nine, at least early on, the audiance didn't really care all hat much about the characters, nor the story. As the series went on, the writers and actors managed to change that so the audiance that stayed would care about the characters....or at least some of the characters. The trouble with Voyager and Enterprise was that the actors and writers for the most part, never got the audiance to really care what happened to the characters from week to week. The charcters changed too much from story to story in Voyager for people to really care about them., and the character interaction in Enterprise wasn't all that good until the last season, when they actually started to make it seem interesting again...but it was four years too late. The most recent movie, has some aspects that one might care about the characters, but some of that is a hold over from the original version of those characters from the 1960s.

The same principle applies to anime. If the writers and voice actors (and in several cases the artists) can make us care about the characters, then they did their job correctly. If the audiance doesn't care what happens to the characters, the story around them must be really good (or funny) or else the whole thing is pointless.

I use to write in High School, and I found the hardest thing for me to do was to make a believable character. I was fine with backstory, situations, technology, setting, even the story itself. But I just could not make a realistic character. Most of mine weer flat in one way or another. That or a generic copy of some one else's character.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Besides that... I think the stereotypical archetypes were developed as a result of a sort of "natural distilling" of all the popular characters in stories past, and represents a sort of "evolution of understanding" of the sorts of characters people generally like. So the fact that they can now use that platform as a starting point is almost like "evolved thinking", in a way. (So much of anime on the whole is really about the "evolution" and refinement of ideas, themes, and motifs.) But I grant that people who value particularly "uniqueness" and "originality" may struggle a bit to appreciate things that show "cookie-cutter signs". But again, like I said above, I think most of the successful works push the boundaries beyond the stereotypes, and that's what endears them to people most. So perhaps if someone's getting too focused on the patterns and is unable to see the uniqueness, they may need to seek a new perspective or new, unfamiliar experiences (perhaps in other media or from other cultures). Over-saturation leads to fatigue.

I know that personally, I love the study of the evolution and distillation of these character types in and of itself. So I have an extra layer of interest in most moe shows.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

What I am saying, that particular moe stereotype isn't really that much better. Consider all the otaku rage about hearing that an anime characater may not be "pure" and you delve into some depraved and sexist kinds of thinking.

The one thing I always feel oblidged to point out when we discuss the Kannagi incident and similar is that the I cannot think of any example of such an incident in which the property was not successful immediately after the controversy. That, to me suggests we're talking a fringe element. Or trolling - the 2ch equivalent of what my friend refers to as a "4chan misogyny thread".

Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with you though. Innocence and its close equivalents ("Angelic mode Palmtop Tiger", anyone?) is highly prized in moe for sheer cuteness value, which can come across as implicitly sexist even if this was not the explicit intention, because of the slut/prude dichotomy.

Although I do find it ironic that the most explicit demonstration of this dichotomy I've seen in the anime fandom - a guy alternatatively referring to Yamada from B Gata H Kei as a "slut" or "failed slut" (because she doesn't succeed in having sex with one hundred guys) - came from someone who was not a moe fan. (I love B Gata. Yamada's very character is like a satire of overstimulated teenagers with false bravado.)

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Although I do find it ironic that the most explicit demonstration of this dichotomy I've seen in the anime fandom - a guy alternatatively referring to Yamada from B Gata H Kei as a "slut" or "failed slut" (because she doesn't succeed in having sex with one hundred guys) - came from someone who was not a moe fan. (I love B Gata. Yamada's very character is like a satire of overstimulated teenagers with false bravado.)

This is exactly why I gave B Gata H Kei a pass (that, and Yukarin ), because it took the matter very tongue in cheek. It didn't really have the push to really register on my list and I lost interest halfway through but I felt it was a step above your average nonsense by trying. Too bad they didn't really give it the extreme oomph for it to be remembered for more than a silly ecchi comedy with a twist. But I enjoyed the parts I watched for what it did.

[Soliloquy]

I used to look at moe as OP did, nothing more than a gimmick and modern trend and I loathed the anime series making it as focal point of the show. Like the poster above said how the creators use the style in a more tasteful way. If it's done correctly, it's just charming and beautiful, if not, it's a gimmick just made to be the next merchandise to appeal to the otaku crowds. Looks like OP just looked at the surface rather than exploring deeper on the subject.

For me, this year was quite a surprise as there were so many shows with the little girl as the focus of the show and turned out very charming and entertaining. I really do think Noitamine is a very brilliant production unfortunately plagued with bad lucks. Leave it to them to make Moe charming and cute again while the rest of the Animation production are stuck with polarising crowds. In my opinion OP is better off watching something by Noitamine than whatever anime by Shaft.

As high quality as Shaft production goes, their polarising crowds are worse and more vocal than any production I've read. They might not be the one responsible for starting this trend, but they are probably the consistent one making more shows based around loli than other. They aren't necessarily good at execution but I like their styles better than other productions.

For some reason I think this trend is slowly evolving by experimenting with other styles especially this year. It's quite a while since I've seen bunch of shows based around loli trying to tackle different and mature subjects rather than talking about eating cakes and going to the beach. While I think OP's complaints were valid, he should probably get used to this trend. It will never go away but slowly evolving into something more.