Fwelin 
"[@Ihhh":](/1241085#comment_5415513
)
You actually did, word for word. "Some of the storyboard artists don’t know how to properly construct facial expressions." That's_*literally_* a statement of them lacking the knowledge.
If it's effective, and would not be more effective by being "properly constructed", then there's no merit in them being properly constructed in this instance. Them being effective is the entire point.
No, the "excuse" to ignore proper construction is that the faces are better for it. Distortion of anatomy is not automatically superior to ignoring it, when wielded by skilled animators in a situation like this, and often limits what they can do.
You implied it when you said that them ignoring proper construction is a bad thing, and entertainment ability, which it didn't negatively impact, is the only thing it could have been bad thing for.
I said_*this set_* of facial expressions, not the sets in those posts. Regardless, even in the case of that image, the people that didn't like them are in the extreme minority compared to those that did.
Also, I noticed that you were in one of those images, saying that faces like that one "are to be expected" in a cartoon. Did you change your mind?
No it wouldn't, because many of the fans enjoy the more extreme faces partially_*because they're so anatomy breaking_*. Reigning them in would reduce their appeal to many.
I'm saying that the fact that there's a "right" way and a "wrong" way is not inherently connected to the entertainment value of the face, and in the hands of skilled artists, a face being constructed improperly does not make it worse than a face being constructed properly. And yes, not restricting yourself to proper construction greatly expands the number of expressions you can make; that's a literal consequence of adding more possible expressions to the usable pool.
I'm not sure I'd consider this defensive, but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people thing that there's only one proper way to do something, even when doing it "improperly" can lead to equal or superior results.
(I apologize for not using quote blocks like you did, but I'm not entirely sure even how to make them, as the syntax quick reference doesn't mention them).
You actually did, word for word. "Some of the storyboard artists don’t know how to properly construct facial expressions." That's
If it's effective, and would not be more effective by being "properly constructed", then there's no merit in them being properly constructed in this instance. Them being effective is the entire point.
No, the "excuse" to ignore proper construction is that the faces are better for it. Distortion of anatomy is not automatically superior to ignoring it, when wielded by skilled animators in a situation like this, and often limits what they can do.
You implied it when you said that them ignoring proper construction is a bad thing, and entertainment ability, which it didn't negatively impact, is the only thing it could have been bad thing for.
I said
No it wouldn't, because many of the fans enjoy the more extreme faces partially
I'm saying that the fact that there's a "right" way and a "wrong" way is not inherently connected to the entertainment value of the face, and in the hands of skilled artists, a face being constructed improperly does not make it worse than a face being constructed properly. And yes, not restricting yourself to proper construction greatly expands the number of expressions you can make; that's a literal consequence of adding more possible expressions to the usable pool.
I'm not sure I'd consider this defensive, but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people thing that there's only one proper way to do something, even when doing it "improperly" can lead to equal or superior results.
(I apologize for not using quote blocks like you did, but I'm not entirely sure even how to make them, as the syntax quick reference doesn't mention them).