Forum

erinfinnegan wrote:

Gunslinger Girl ran in freakin' Dengeki Daioh. I swear that magazine wil be the death of me yet. It's shonen, sometimes seinen. Here's another source.

So basically to you, if the demographic for something containing young girls is aimed at older boys and young men, it's AUTOMATICALLY sexual and therefore lolicon? Way to be sexist Rolling Eyes

outlaw55 wrote:

erinfinnegan wrote:

Gunslinger Girl ran in freakin' Dengeki Daioh. I swear that magazine wil be the death of me yet. It's shonen, sometimes seinen. Here's another source.

So basically to you, if the demographic for something containing young girls is aimed at older boys and young men, it's AUTOMATICALLY sexual and therefore lolicon? Way to be sexist Rolling Eyes

Yeah ... it also seems like anything that isn't either a soap opera or filled with floating hearts and flowers isn't in a genre "for women" in Japan. I'm sure there are lots of female fans of shounen/seinen stuff, though (there obviously are in the US!)

I'll admit that I like Lolicon to some extent, but I would have never even imagined classifying GSG as such. Maybe it's because it was one of the first anime series I ever watched, so "loli" wasn't even in my vocabulary, but I still love the series/manga and I don't feel any ... loli or even overt moe ... feelings ... from it. Maybe it's just me. I felt like it was too ... realistic? I mean, the emotions and the characters are believable which isn't usually the case for moe/loli. The girls look their age and aren't sexualized (no panty shots or skimpy outfits or anything like that). They never even toy w/ any weirdness between the girls and the handlers/brothers.

Okay, wow. Did you just make a Harry Potter reference with Initial Frakkin' D? That has to be the greatest leap of literary genious I've read lately. Well played.

I have to say, as reviews go, we generally don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. But I think your review of Gunslinger Girls was probably about spot on. I picked up the series (being a sucker for advertising and pretty pictures) and didn't feel particularly uneasy about it (although the 'romantic' aspect with the handlers did make me flinch a bit, but seemed like a logical result to the situation) but truly would have liked more character development. It seemed to be striding in a very fascinating direction, but ulimately just branched off to other characters without amounting to much. In fact, the most interesting character was the one ending up in the hospital. I thought that was an interesting part of the story that deserved more screen time.

At any rate, keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, even though I usually know I won't agree with it.

erinfinnegan wrote:

vashfanatic wrote:

So... lolicon is anything intended for a lolicon audience??? Ow, the tautology! Anime hyper

Well, we define other manga genres by demographic. How do you know Naruto is shonen? It runs in Shonen Jump, and, like the magazine, it is intended for a male audience of a certain age. It is shelved in with the other shonen manga, (in Japan anyway).

I have stood in the lolicon section of a manga store in Akihabara. There are lolicon anthology magazines.

Gunslinger Girl ran in freakin' Dengeki Daioh. I swear that magazine wil be the death of me yet. It's shonen, sometimes seinen. Here's another source.

First of all, "shounen" is NOT A GENRE. Action, science-fiction, romance, THESE are GENRES. It's a TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC.

But to address the rest of your response, as slipperybogle already pointed out that's the exact opposite of what I mean. Something is shounen if it is published in a magazine the publishers of which target at a specific age and gender demographic; ditto on shoujo, seinen, and josei. That's an objective, non-tautological definition. Unless Gunslinger Girl was published in a magazine whose specific demographic is the ephebolic/pedophilic audience (and I'm sure that they exist, sadly), then you'd need to do some research as to what it's "audience" is. And of course the "audience" may bear no relation to its original target demographic (witness Prince of Tennis).

Saying something is "lolicon" because it's for a "lolicon audience" is a tautology, because you have yet to define lolicon. So I repeat: your definition of lolicon is...? It would clear up the mess if we all just agreed on one definition for the sake of argument.

Btw, I remember taking a civics class where we had to have structured debate and I always thought it was silly that we had to define our terms at the outset. I have since come to realize that it is indeed THE most essential part of any debate or discussion, and many a stupidly protracted thread has demonstrated.

vashfanatic wrote:

It would clear up the mess if we all just agreed on one definition for the sake of argument.

spoiler alert, this will never happen

erinfinnegan wrote:

omoikane wrote:

Leave the L word alone if you don't know what it means. It is certainly possible to express the exact same concept without resorting to these cheap outs that are borderline troll terms (but I guess that's what you're doing?), and at the same time, gain clarity.

I wouldn't have used the word if I didn't think I knew what it meant. I'm not trolling intentionally.

The forum outrage often surprises me. From my perspective, it's as if I called The Rolling Stones a "rock band". I think I know what "rock" means. I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about rock (I know some of the history, I've heard a lot of albums, read magazines and books on the topic). The last thing I would expect is for a forum thread to pop up where 50 people can't believe I just called The Rolling Stones a "rock" band.

If I said, "I hate The Rolling Stones," knowing how well loved they are, sure, I'd expect some disagreement. But you can't really come back at me with "Well, you're wrong, you love The Rolling Stones."

I thought The Rolling Stones were the rock band of the 20th century, the prime example of what rock is and a way to define rock. I am downright shocked to find a large part of the internet disagrees with me and that the discussion has disintegrated into subjective definitions of the word "rock" itself.

Please look forward to my review of The Beatles... errr Gunslinger Girl Season 2.

You speak as if someone chewed you out for calling the Stones a rock band :p But I think you will get more outrage from people if you compare the Beatles with Season 2 of Gunslinger Girl....

I hope the surprising reaction you've gotten should give you a clue as to whether you got it right or not. But even so, I'm not so concerned as to your personal understanding of the term, but rather than the broad brush you used the L word as if that's what it is. As if you're some marketing person hawking goods by pulling in all the $$$ key words. Like OEL vendors from a few years back, or any fans who calls any manga with romantic elements they like shoujo.

Put it in another way, you're also saying the Beatles sucks and that's why you dislike them. Sure, you didn't actually use the word suck, but that's how some people here use the word moe and lolicon.

I think it's okay to call Gunslinger Girls a lolicon show, but if you can't see why Leon (The Professional) wasn't also a lolicon title, then you've got no cred here...

omoikane wrote:

Like... any fans who calls any manga with romantic elements they like shoujo.

What do you mean Love Hina isn't shoujo? What kind of guy would want to watch a show where there are no giant robots or explosions?

Zac wrote:

vashfanatic wrote:

It would clear up the mess if we all just agreed on one definition for the sake of argument.

spoiler alert, this will never happen

Well, it would clear it up for the sane people. Wink

I have a feeling I understand Erin's basic objection, a concern that the rather hideous plight of young girls and their relationships to those entrusted to take care of them might be a symptom of fetish rather than drama, that this is intended to be appealing rather than appalling. Which is admittedly a difficult thing to determine when looking at something... especially something 13 episodes long with minimal thematic development thanks to having, like, 8 girls in the story rather than a manageable number. Am I closing in on the issue or not?

vashfanatic wrote:

I remember taking a civics class where we had to have structured debate and I always thought it was silly that we had to define our terms at the outset. I have since come to realize that it is indeed THE most essential part of any debate or discussion, and many a stupidly protracted thread has demonstrated.

Layne's Law

Zin5ki wrote:

I am nonetheless hesitant to watch Appleseed, but only due to what I've seen of the character animation. The same applies to Freedom.

(staying out of the usual ongoing lolifire...)

Speaking just on visual style...
Having seen Freedom and part of Appleseed, I'd dare to say that even if you despise the character animation of Appleseed, it's possible you still may find Freedom acceptable, or at least tolerable.
In Freedom, tho the modeling and shading technique is similar, the end result is more subtle as they've given the effect a more flat even look, which IMO blends together much more pleasantly. It's still there, to be sure (particularly the hair and mouth), but I found myself not so distracted by it after a short while - unlike Appleseed which I thought the character shading style just absurdly distracting & repellent; like watching a feature length vintage PS2 game or an incomplete 3DCG rendering from a making-of program.

Note also Vexille and SOS! Tokyo Metro Explorers for this sort of character animation style (the latter being closer to the look of Freedom.)

vashfanatic wrote:

Zac wrote:

vashfanatic wrote:

It would clear up the mess if we all just agreed on one definition for the sake of argument.

spoiler alert, this will never happen

Well, it would clear it up for the sane people. Wink

I have a feeling I understand Erin's basic objection, a concern that the rather hideous plight of young girls and their relationships to those entrusted to take care of them might be a symptom of fetish rather than drama, that this is intended to be appealing rather than appalling. Which is admittedly a difficult thing to determine when looking at something... especially something 13 episodes long with minimal thematic development thanks to having, like, 8 girls in the story rather than a manageable number. Am I closing in on the issue or not?

H.L. Mencken once defined a Puritan as a person who was deathly afraid that somebody, somewhere was having a good time. Erin, as I perceive her attitude, seems pathologically haunted by the presumptive existence of a legion of middle-aged dudes jacking it to lolicon 24/7.

From what I can tell, the mere presence of a child character is enough for Erin's active imagination to kick in and the thought of all those grody old onanists drawing on their pre-nubile 2D image spank-bank sends her skittering into the gibbering madness of Hell.

So yeah, don't expect any review of hers that involves anime children not to mention lolicon.

vashfanatic wrote:

Zac wrote:

vashfanatic wrote:

It would clear up the mess if we all just agreed on one definition for the sake of argument.

spoiler alert, this will never happen

Well, it would clear it up for the sane people. Wink

I have a feeling I understand Erin's basic objection, a concern that the rather hideous plight of young girls and their relationships to those entrusted to take care of them might be a symptom of fetish rather than drama, that this is intended to be appealing rather than appalling. Which is admittedly a difficult thing to determine when looking at something... especially something 13 episodes long with minimal thematic development thanks to having, like, 8 girls in the story rather than a manageable number. Am I closing in on the issue or not?

I think you're on to something.

Probably why the show was done with 8 or 9 little girls, when the "jobs" they are performing could have been more efficiently done using 3 to 5 cybernetically enhanced Grannies.

Grannies wouldn't arouse suspicion, especially one using a (multi-purpose assault) walker.

It worked in Howl's Moving Castle.... just more Tarantino and less Miyazaki.

I would have bought that show.

Because certainly the body of a granny (~60 years old) could easily support drastic changes made to their bodies. That their bones wouldn't completely disintegrate..

Riiight Smile

tuxedocat wrote:

]I think you're on to something.

Probably why the show was done with 8 or 9 little girls, when the "jobs" they are performing could have been more efficiently done using 3 to 5 cybernetically enhanced Grannies.

Grannies wouldn't arouse suspicion, especially one using a (multi-purpose assault) walker.

It worked in Howl's Moving Castle.... just more Tarantino and less Miyazaki.

I would have bought that show.

If you've watched Roujin Z you would know why that just wouldn't work. Hint, old people and hi-tech gadgets just don't work only devastation is left when they try to mix.

Last edited by tuxedocat on Tue May 25, 2010 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

These are anime Grannies. They are not real Grannies. Just because I am watching an animated depiction of a Grannie doesn't mean I am suggesting that we go out and do this to a real Grannie.

and I'm not into Granniecon, either.

and until we can describe the REAL definition of Granniecon, I'm not admitting to anything.

So there.

Forum - View topic
Shelf Life - Apples and Oranges

Taste Naruto's Ichiraku Ramen in Real Life in Silverlake Ramen Campaign

New Spice & Wolf Anime's English Dub Features Returning Cast From Previous Series

Gundam SEED FREEDOM's Rie Tanaka, Sōichiro Hoshi Share Memories at Los Angeles Premiere

Kurayukaba and Kuramerukagari Anime Movies Review

The Spring 2024 Anime Preview Guide

Forum - View topicShelf Life - Apples and Oranges

Forum

Forum - View topic
Shelf Life - Apples and Oranges