|
From my personal perspective, the only two reasons we make a distinction between movies and TV is because the presentation format is sufficiently different (episodic vs single concentrated experience), and as with OVA because movies would otherwise not get much mention.
Disclaimer: By budget is never going to happen since it's too much work, even if we had accurate numbers on everything. And not just for the organizers mind you. The current fixed limit on categories is set in place precisely to keep everything manageable for the voters; as per feedback of several years back. But lets talk about this problem, since it's interesting nonetheless.
Lets suppose we ignored talent and prestige of studios doing them and considered that the so called "budget" was the single determining factor involved; as it's commonly worded in common lingo "[X] has good budget" / "[Y] is very low budget" and so on. Given that, why would it even be just movie vs tv? TV series don't have the same budget clearly. Or are we to believe things like netflix's new show or most of the fate series that won landslides in previous years had the same budget as any other show? You even have colabs like the FranXX show from this year, who knows where that fits in. Not to mention you also have the chicken & problem of TV series that come out as movies or movies that split into TV series. Similarly some movies have shit budget. It's not also even a case that movies have some unnatural advantage since they're shorter, they're not that much shorter at all, 100 min is roughly just 5 episodes, so half as long as a 10 episode show; not to mention they're given less wiggle room for wasting time then a TV show. How is that any different then 12-ish episode shows vs 26 episode shows? and we've had shows in the running that were much much more then 26 episodes as well. If we went by length the problems are unending.
An argument could be made that movies have an advantage at pitching the higher budget and TV series will naturally have expectations of lower budget. No justification of course but that's what everyone typically believes I think. However how much of a factor is that really? Since if an "idea" had enough clout to be pitched at said higher budget then it would have gotten a very favorable budget even as a TV series not just as a movie; and we've seen this plenty times over, in particular with the Fate shows; if nothing else they have this magical "budget" factor in their favor. Would Made in Abyss The Movie have been "higher budget"? I personally don't think they would change the style much at all, just compress in more content.
Finally,
I want to point out that this "per-budget" triage system wouldn't even work. Your Made in Abyss and similar would still have lost just the same, because even though they're TV they're clearly in the A+ budget category. If nothing else it would be an even more "undeserving" loss (as some might think of it) since now it's not just 2nd, it's technically even lower in importance since we have another A and B budget category. In addition whatever is "best" in the A and B category may be better or worse then your Made in Abyss of the year, the polls won't tell you either way, since in a cold blooded split-by-budget contest there is no differentiation by hard work or love put into it, just how much money per minute they got to do it. The voters have no say since the split in categories would already have been made. I'm sure this whole budget argument would be flipped around once people notice their favorites are not in the roflstomp budget categories they want. Not to mention scenarios of beloved show X, being marked B-tier due to them achieving greatness from nonexistent budget.
So at this point, in this fictional scenario, one has to ask. What does the budget triage even give?
Does anyone actually care what's the best B-tier animation—–-
Seems to me this "budget" argument for the split, only sounds good, but doesn't hold water.
|