Forum - View topicREVIEW: Comic Artist and His Assistants Episodes 1-12 Streaming
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actar
 Posts: 1074 Location: Singapore |
|
|||||||
It is a common misconception that a review is all about personal opinion. While he has freedom of speech, it must also come with responsibility now that he is placed in a position of power as a writer for a prestigious website like ANN. Unfortunately, there are those whose opinions are easily swayed by reviewers and giving it an unfair review through prejudiced lenses does not do it justice. A good review is measured by objectivity and the ability to put yourself in the shoes of both sides, take the target audience into account, modify your rubric accordingly and weigh the pros and cons and be man enough to say: "I don't like it, but perhaps people who enjoy such comedy will" as opposed to just bashing it, its fans and using it to fulfill some agenda.
Yes, because fiction is all about adhering to the standards of morality that define our daily actions. You're completely missing the point of fiction - to allow you to do and experience things that you can't do in real life. Just because I enjoy playing GTA, shooting, robbing and murdering, doesn't mean I don't have a proper moral compass when going about my day to day activities. I follow the social contract, but that doesn't apply in fiction.
Thank you very much. You've conceded the point. He's attacking people for their tastes and preferences as opposed to conducting a review. Intolerance at its finest. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
blcskate
Posts: 10 Location: PA |
|
|||||||
|
Not a bad show. I definitely got a few laughs out of it. I am not a fan of shorter episodes, but it didn't ruin it for me either. Saying this is a "D" rank is a little extreme. There is some good background story stuff going on. I do wish it was more fleshed out though.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
zeo1fan
Posts: 1016 |
|
|||||||
|
So Actar pretty much proves my point. He reduces fiction as a medium and then compartmentalizes to excuse it. He's defensive because he projects himself onto Aito. When Carl critiques Aito, Actar feels criticized as well.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Eisenmann V
Posts: 212 |
|
|||||||
|
I guess the solution is for ANN to hire a designated pervert to review the ecchi series, since people who don't like sexism played for comedy are bad on a scale from "intolerant" to "mentally ill".
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||
|
Since Actar has already replied as I would (or better) the only thing I have to add is:
TBT Carl can write all the hate speech he wants, but it is the editors job to say "This shit has no place in ANN, rewrite it or ask me to assign another person to the task". That is what we call standards, which can be as high or low as the editor deems necessary. Saying you need to be a pervert to laugh at this comedy is Eisenmann V opinion and he has a right to have one even if I think it is sad opinion. I must repeat Actar's opinion, some people do not seem to know where fiction ends and reality starts, opps, I am taking their time, the people applauding carl's review no doubt are about to go in a rally to ask Funimation to stop streaming Psycho Pass extended, go on. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 23740 |
|
|||||||
Is that so. Can you please quote a section from Carl's review where he "attacks" people for their tastes and preferences. Look, I'm a pretty prickly guy myself. I bristle at any hint - either explicit or implicit - of a reviewer who seems to be making a value judgment about viewers who make like or dislike a show. I can't find even a scintilla of that in Carl's review. Please feel free to point out what I've missed. I have a feeling your definition of "attacking people for their tastes and preferences" translates into, "zomg, he didn't love this show that I do - the beast!" 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Eisenmann V
Posts: 212 |
|
|||||||
Calling it hate speech is somewhat hyperbolic, though I'm not sure you're trying to imply the full implications of the phrase. Point being, fandoms are not a protected class.
I didn't actually mean it that way. I was just trying some word play referencing the common theory that "ecchi" derives from the H in hentai. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
billy bob
Posts: 22 |
|
|||||||
Can see where your coming from here. He doesn't attack any viewer, he just attacks the show. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||
I would say Carl is a passive aggressive. I think it is clear to all that this is an ecchi comedy, nothing new, most people have seen a dozen without even making an effort. But from the moment when he says total wreck he start to crafty turn everything in this comedy into a perverse spectacle (that logically only a pervert would enjoy). He talks about sexual harassment, heck, series like Ranma 1/2 and City Hunter have this kind of comedy and no one raises any alert flags, but here it "leaves you feeling soiled and distinctly glad to be out of its clutches"? Then he tries to convinces us that Aito is "in a position of power"? Aito is the definition of powerless, the girls can kick him to the curb the instant they choose without any repercussions! Then he goes on to say that the whole deal with Sena "only makes whole enterprise that much ickier." <--- see again the passive aggressiveness? It is not comedy, it is something only perverts would enjoy or at least is what he wants us to feel. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Melicans
Posts: 620 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||
I don't think that is particularly fair. My interests and enjoyment tend to be opposite of Carl's views a good 80-90% of the time (and Zac's too, for that matter), but there have been multiple ecchi series reviewed quite fairly; meaning the show is assessed on all of its merits and not just slagged off BECAUSE it is ecchi. Rebecca Silverman reviewed B Gata H Kei: Yamada's First Time and gave it marks of B (sub) and A- (dub). Luke Carroll gave it the same grades. Erin Finnegan also pronounced it Shelf-worthy. This is a series that Zac has, for lack of a better word, denounced at least once in the past. Carl himself gave Cat Planet Cuties (my personal least favourite ecchi series) a grade of B when reviewing it. Theron Martin, probably the most ecchi-friendly reviewer on staff, gave the first six episodes an A-. Again, Shelf Life reviews found it with a Shelf-worthy rating. For what it is worth, I personally enjoyed Mangaka-san. My girlfriend did not for some of the same reasons raised by Carl. Do I think he overstepped in the way he disparaged the show? Absolutely. But saying that one ecchi anime with a bad review means ANN as a whole regards people who enjoy such fare as mentally ill, or needs to hire perverts to give a series a fair review... it is laughable at best, deplorable at worst. A series isn't bad because it has boobs in it. A series is bad because it is flat, stale, humourless, or just plain vapid. There are many ecchi series that have been reviewed and given high marks because they are smart, funny, or unique in some manner. They have character and stand-out. I've already listed two; here are 223 with the ecchi tag in the encyclopedia. There are plenty of reviews that I would deem to be fair nestled in amongst those pages. If a series is rated poorly that tends to be because it was not exactly brilliant to begin with. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy it (I've already said that I enjoyed this one), but it is certainly not a series that would even come close to a masterpiece in my books. I rather hope Carl has not read the vitriol laid out here and thrown in his direction; it is absolutely not what he deserves, regardless of what you think of this one particular series and his review thereof. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Eisenmann V
Posts: 212 |
|
|||||||
That's actually what I meant. I think the various hyperboles invoked by a few people are exactly that: hyperbole. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Barbobot
 Posts: 460 |
|
|||||||
So Carl saying that he feels a certain apsect is icky means that anyone who likes the show is a pervert? This reeks of a case of taking criticism on show as a personal attack, when it's not one at all. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
tuxedocat
 Posts: 2183 |
|
|||||||
|
I never even considered watching this show, but I always enjoy reading Carl when he rips on a show.
And of course the usual crowd of loserly "the reviewer is a feminist!" proclamations ... so entertaining. 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||||
Glad to know that the average Carl supporter in this thread could not care less if we were talking about The Comic Artist and His Assistants or Debbie Does Dallas, pretty illustrative *raises right eyebrow* |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Sachiko2010
Posts: 68 |
|
|||||||
But... he is clearly taking a feminist literary/TV/film critic stance on the show, isn't he? Having taken more than my fair share of feminist literary and film theory and criticism courses through grad school, I can say that a statement like "And all this while in a position of power over most of them" and references to "sexual politics" are canonical for that genre of critique. And a passage like the following is a perfect example of the perspective that guides a feminist review to its predictable conclusions: "Their scenes together get their "humor" from tearing down her pride, stripping her of strength and power. She's proud and aggressive and female and thus must be brought down. That alone would tank the series. The fact that the show laughs everything off—just a harmless bit of ecchi fun!—only makes whole enterprise that much ickier." The show can be safely "tanked" by the critic if it doesn't meet certain criteria for representing female characters ... often you'll see the term "objectification" bandied about in relation to the scenes the reviewer is describing. I'm not suggesting that a feminist approach to film, television, or literary works is "bad," but I will say (again) that it will always have predictable results when it encounters shows (like this one) that essentially gleefully wave an extended middle finger in a critic of this sort's general direction. Unless the feminist critic is of a certain caliber, you'll invariably get results like this review where the critic is just so flummoxed at the temerity of the show that they end up dedicating the vast majority of the review to empty "I'm an angry critic" crit speak, like "The hash that Comic Artist makes of itself is sad because, prior to opening its vulgar, vapid mouth, the show had potential" or equally empty demands that the show be something that it never ever intended to be: "It could poke fun at the influence of commercial needs on comic-writing, or ask seriously where monetary concerns end and artistic ones begin" (I'd say that being upset that the show doesn't address concerns like this is ... well, missing the whole point, isn't it?). So, the review was kind of humorous to me in its own right. I've been there; it takes a long time to float back up to the surface when you're that deeply submerged. Personally, I laughed out loud on quite a few occasions during the show and will definitely be buying it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group