Forum

I for one must say that I wasn't even aware that this was noitamina.

Must have either glanced by that info or never seen it. I did start watching this as more of an afterthought.

I don't really have much studio bias or timeslot bias anyway.

dtm42 wrote:

phia_one wrote:

Of course, he'll probably take that as winning the argument.

Damn right I would. You wasted your time on this stinker and yet I did not.

I would like to point out however that I do know exactly what has happened in the show, thanks to threads like this one and on several blogs such as Random Curiosity. So any assumption that I don't know what has occurred is a completely false one.

Except that I didn't waste my time and I didn't watch the show because it was a NoitaminA, I watched it because I thought it had potential.

dtm42 wrote:

Well, [I'm right because...] so what am I supposed to think?

Quote:

What is more plausible? [Obviously it's that I'm right because...]

Quote:

If you want to go there, [You're wrong about other anime stuff because...]

Quote:

Though that said, I don't understand why it is so hard for all of you to [admit I'm right which I am because...]

You really just don't get it do you? Sad

It doesn't matter if you're right. Hell, maybe you are. I really don't care one way or the other. But even if you are, the problem is your inability to be even reasonably respectful to anyone who you think is wrong. People tell you this over and over. A few of them like myself are even trying to be genuinely helpful. And yet all that goes through your mind is "Yeah but I'm right". And so that is always your response. Just to put your head down and keep driving away at why you're right. I really just don't know what to say about it at this point.

Last edited by CrowLia on Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:25 am; edited 1 time in total

Wouldn't you know, a page and a half later and Yttrbio comes out as the one who was most right out of all of us:

Yttrbio wrote:

People still try to communicate with dtm42 on these kinds of things?

Not that there's much to discuss about this show apart from how bad it is, but damn.

Anyway, I remember fleetingly hearing, when this and Samumenco were announced, that SF would be a two-cour and GD would be a split-cour (with Silver Spoon S2 in between the two seasons), did I imagine it or can we expect a cliffhanger ending?

ikillchicken wrote:

It doesn't matter if you're right. Hell, maybe you are. I really don't care one way or the other. But even if you are, the problem is your inability to be even reasonably respectful to anyone who you think is wrong.

I agree that is a problem, but it's not the only one in this thread. dtm42 has to pretend he doesn't read my posts, but the rest of you are letting him off the hook. He has failed TO PROVIDE A SINGLE SPECIFIC POINT as to why it was so thunderingly obvious that this show would be a stinker after only two episodes. His only point - that I can discern so far - is that we plebes are so mindless that the mere fact that this is a noitaminA title completed blinded our critical faculties. Laughing

Massive hypocrite that he is, he whines that Yttrbio won't "debate" the topic yet he himself refuses to do anything other than make asinine declarative statements that aren't backed up by any specific examples. Shocker.

ikillchicken wrote:

You really just don't get it do you? Sad

It doesn't matter if you're right. Hell, maybe you are.

I don't think you get it. If I've been getting frustrated it is only because people have tried to refute the irrefutable, which is impossible and pointless and is just arguing for the sake of arguing. You're so close-minded that you'll argue even though I've already logically proven that the evidence was clearly there.

I do stay with the my argument is sound line, because in this case my argument is logically sound, and claiming that it's not is frankly ridiculous. I mean, what the heck do you mean by "maybe"? How can something logically proven be only a "maybe"? Unless one of the following three premises is a lie:

Code:

1): that I checked out the show in the first place

2): that I dropped the show after two episodes

3): that my decision to drop it was based on what I saw rather than any other factor

then I have been proven right. And since I haven't lied - and no-one has even claimed that to be the case - then the logic is quite simply irrefutable.

Here, let me put it in step-by-step.

Code:

1): I correctly understood that the show was bad after just two episodes

ergo:

2): the fact that I knew means there was evidence that informed me of this truth

ergo:

3): the fact that there was evidence and yet you didn't know about it means you missed the signs

ergo:

4): I have been proven right, both in the assertions that the show was bad and that you didn't do due diligence in the early episodes

ergo:

5): trying to argue that there wasn't any evidence and that the series showed clear potential is useless because that quite clearly isn't the case

I put it in red in my previous post; if I was wrong and there weren't signs that it was bad then how did I know?

You can say all you like that the show started off well but as I have proven that isn't the case. You thought that it did, but it obviously didn't or else I wouldn't have known to drop it after just two episodes due to it being so unwatchable.

ikillchicken, all you've done is drag out a logically impossible argument for two pages. You say you want respect. You say I haven't shown you the respect you think you deserve. But I've been civil and afforded you plenty. I've been quite polite despite my now enormous exasperation with your logically unsound viewpoint. The only thing I said that was even remotely rude was that your views are foolish. Not you yourself, just your views. I did not go so far as to call you a fool, because I actually don't think you are one (see my previous post).

That said, it is sad that you, a guy I admire and whose opinion I do respect, have carried on with a logically impossible already-refuted argument. Given that you're at the point of wanting to talk more about the tone of the debate than the debate itself - you are clearly unwilling to seriously address the issues - I think this is finished. Obviously it is impossible for me to change your mind, no matter how sound my argument.

Code:

1): I correctly understood that the show was bad after just two episodes

Well, I'm not sure it's wise to say it's bad in such an objective way, since there are those who disagree with that, but I'll grant this for now.

Code:

2): the fact that I knew means there was evidence that informed me of this truth

sure.

Code:

3): the fact that there was evidence and yet you didn't know about it means you missed the signs

Not true.

The reasons he thinks it's bad could be completely different from the reasons you do. IKC could have liked the first few episodes, and then disliked what came later. I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but that's possible.

Personally I found the first few episodes pretty dull, and it only got more interesting later.

Code:

4): I have been proven right, both in the assertions that the show was bad and that you didn't do due diligence in the early episodes

ergo:

5): trying to argue that there wasn't any evidence and that the series showed clear potential is useless because that quite clearly isn't the case

Ok now I'll address the objective/subjective issue. For one, I don't think that it's a completely bottomless pit where everyone's opinions are only their own and all have equal merit, zero merit.

I also don't think that there's a single easily determinable 'correct' way to look at things, and all other ways are incorrect.

It's something between the two. More or less, rather than either or. Different people have different views about this stuff, because they themselves are different. The views of someone who is an idiot on these things may have less value than the views of someone who is smart, and I think that that's where the objective statements can begin to be made, but I think it's definitely still subjective enough that you can't just say that it's objectively bad outright. That being said, both you and IKC are people whose opinions I admire and respect. I'm not directly challenging your view that the show is bad, I just think it's not so simple.

As for the 'due diligence' thing, I'm not sure whether this was really where you were going with it, but that points to something that always bothered me about people's attitudes about shows. It seems that a lot of people seem to view quality as the lack of flaws or issues. That the best anime is the 'flawless' one. There are plenty of shows that I'd say had absolutely nothing wrong with them, and yet I have little to no interest in them. Likewise I'd say that there are true masterpieces that have aspects I don't like. I don't know. To me it seems better to treat this stuff like an untapped potential, waiting for something exciting or engaging to happen (and maybe bat things will happen too that make you not like it) than a product that's being inspected for defects, to be discarded if they are found.

Wow, that's one of the more insane dtm42 posts I've ever seen.

When he goes into full crazy like this, it's not the slightest bit illuminating to the topic at hand: i.e. did this show display a positive potential in its first two episodes, yes or no? - but you have to admit it's pretty entertaining in a, "Jesus Christ, what unhinged claim will he make next?" sort of way. Laughing

It just occurred to me that dtm42 is the Samurai Flamenco of posters. He's capable of making grounded, intelligent points that are identifiable as thoughts that originate from the planet Earth, but then, unaccountably we veer straight into spoiler[Gorillatine] territory without warning.

Galap wrote:

Not true.

The reasons he thinks it's bad could be completely different from the reasons you do. IKC could have liked the first few episodes, and then disliked what came later. I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but that's possible.

Personally I found the first few episodes pretty dull, and it only got more interesting later.

I readily grant you that it is very much possible to enjoy something that isn't good, and there's nothing wrong with that. I myself like plenty of not-so-good shows.

With that in mind, ikillchicken is perfectly entitled to like the first few episodes. Heck, he's entitled to like anything he wants. But I was talking about actual warning signs. These exist whether you liked the first couple of episodes or not.

Galap wrote:

Ok now I'll address the objective/subjective issue. For one, I don't think that it's a completely bottomless pit where everyone's opinions are only their own and all have equal merit, zero merit.

I also don't think that there's a single easily determinable 'correct' way to look at things, and all other ways are incorrect.

I was going to say something else, but had to catch myself. You're different from most other people in the thread in that you like where the show has gone. And that is fine; you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and don't let anyone tell you differently. If you like the latter episodes then cool, I've got no problem with that and I don't think anyone else does either.

But I do believe that the show is objectively weak. I mean, it is hard to scientifically analyse and pinpoint a show's quality. But based on comparisons to other series I feel very comfortable in saying that it is weaker than average.

Is there only one right answer, is objective quality truly objective? I'll answer that after your next paragraph.

Galap wrote:

It's something between the two. More or less, rather than either or. Different people have different views about this stuff, because they themselves are different. The views of someone who is an idiot on these things may have less value than the views of someone who is smart, and I think that that's where the objective statements can begin to be made, but I think it's definitely still subjective enough that you can't just say that it's objectively bad outright. That being said, both you and IKC are people whose opinions I admire and respect. I'm not directly challenging your view that the show is bad, I just think it's not so simple.

I will readily admit this: that different people at different stages of their lives can enjoy the same title in different ways, on different levels or at different amounts.

For example, if I had watched BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad when I was fourteen I may have found it to be far better - far more able to speak into my soul - than when I actually watched it in my twenties. A josei show aimed at middle-aged married women would probably make me yawn; I found most of the Otona Joshi no Anime Time shorts to be quite meh (except for the one about spoiler[the depressed mother whose husband lost his job]).

So the target audience is important. Anyone who isn't in it will struggle more than someone who is. I don't watch a show like Chousoku Henkei Gyrozetter and hold it up to the same standards as Gasaraki (or any other good mecha anime). I don't watch a Bleach movie and expect it to be the next Sword of the Stranger.

That said, there are still writing conventions that are very important no matter what sort of story. So even if a shoujo series does not speak to me as it would to a teenage girl, I can still make a good guess as to its quality (or lack thereof). This is based on things like internal consistency and logic, narrative strength, the clarity of the themes, the curve of the character arcs, those sorts of thing.

As an aside, I am constantly amazed at how much I can identify with characters of a different age, nationality, race (of species) and even gender. A well-written character speaks to the universal sapient condition (whatever that is; I just made it up, lol.) and therefore can be appreciated across many different audiences. Spock from Star Trek may be an alien who thinks a different way than I do but I can identify with his emotional struggle and search for his place in society. I can get caught up in Santiago's plight and his dogged determination in The Old Man and the Sea. I can empathise with Hitomi from Vision of Escaflowne as she experiences love. So the audience matters little if the writing is good enough.

So to sum up, I believe that who you are does somewhat affect the maximum enjoyment you can get out of a show, but also that the show's underlying quality is the same no matter who watches it.

Galap wrote:

As for the 'due diligence' thing, I'm not sure whether this was really where you were going with it, but that points to something that always bothered me about people's attitudes about shows. It seems that a lot of people seem to view quality as the lack of flaws or issues. That the best anime is the 'flawless' one. There are plenty of shows that I'd say had absolutely nothing wrong with them, and yet I have little to no interest in them. Likewise I'd say that there are true masterpieces that have aspects I don't like.

I agree with you on this. Quality is defined not just how little goes wrong but also by how much goes right. Every season there are shows where nothing really goes wrong with them but they don't venture outside a niche or very narrow comfort zone. They are a bit mild, a bit unimpressive, a bit bland. They most certainly are not masterpieces just because they don't have any real issues.

Galap wrote:

I don't know. To me it seems better to treat this stuff like an untapped potential, waiting for something exciting or engaging to happen (and maybe bat things will happen too that make you not like it) than a product that's being inspected for defects, to be discarded if they are found.

The way I see it is this; anime is entertainment first and foremost. It is difficult for me personally to enjoy something if the plot isn't cohesive and/or the characters engaging and sympathetic. If I am to immerse myself in the work, fully accept what is happening and get properly invested in the characters and their plight, then I have to be shown a well-put-together story.

Perhaps it is different for other people, but in my eyes at least, something with defects actively hinders my ability to immerse myself in a show. The larger the defects, the lesser my enjoyment becomes.

You know, I'm loathe to even get into the argument about whether you're correct dtm42 because as I've said, it is a completely meaningless topic. This is such a minor disagreement. The idea that we're all at each others throats because we agree that a show sucks but can't quite agree on whether it had potential to be better is bloody absurd. But that said, I'm gonna go ahead and highlight the flaw, because A) I am addicted to dissecting formal arguments and B) because I think it actually reflects the fundamental flaw in your overall thinking that leads you repeatedly into these situations. So here we go:

Consider your statement: "I correctly understood that the show was bad after just two episodes". This simply begs the question. You certainly thought the show would be bad and it certainly turned out that it is bad. But the whole issue at hand is precisely "did you actually know that based on two episodes?" I mean, I can look at the sky and on that basis believe it will rain tomorrow. And it might happen that I am correct. But that doesn't mean I knew it would rain, that there was some observable coloration that predicts rain, and that others therefore should also have seen it and known. It raining is perfectly consistent with me knowing it would rain but also with me not knowing but it happening to rain anyway. Same goes for the show being bad, which is consistent with both the show having no potential and the show having potential but simply never realizing it. Hence, all you can really say is that you believed the show would be bad. You cannot assume that you knew it would be bad without begging the question.

That being the case, your argument no longer works. When point #1 is merely "I believed that this show had no potential after two episodes" it no longer follows that there must be a reason that we all missed. It may simply be that your assessment was flawed. For example consider the reverse argument:
1): I checked out the show in the first place
2): I saw potential in the show after two episodes
3): my decision was based on what I saw rather than any other factor. Specifically, it was based on me seeing that Hozuki was shorter than Anna. (A completely meaningless fact but undeniably something I saw and not some external factor).
Therefore...
1): I believed that this show had potential after two episodes. (Again, to assume correctness simply begs the question).
2): the fact that I thought this means there was evidence that informed me of this (This of course no longer follows)
3): the fact that there was evidence and yet you didn't know about it means you missed the signs

Do you see the problem now? Ultimately, your argument presumes that your ability to formulate a belief based on evidence from the show is infallible. When in fact it may not be. That's not to say it necessarily is. But we both looked at this show and, based on the evidence therein, came to two different conclusions. Now, I basically agree with Galap. Especially if you're talking about something as vague as "potential" there's going to be some subjectivity. So it could be we're both right. But even if we are determined to say that it is a 100% objective matter, that simply means that one of us is wrong. One of us evidently made some kind of error in our assessing the show. Maybe it was me but maybe it was you as well. And it would be very helpful if you could at least consider the latter possibility. Because I think it is precisely that assumption that leads you to talk down to people as soon as they don't agree with you and to get frustrated when people seem to be failing to understand what seems to you to be an airtight conclusion. Your reasoning may seem accurate to you (I mean, why would you believe in it otherwise?) But at the very least, on occasion it may not be.

ikc - I think you are needlessly complicating this discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it really boil down to this:

Some of us: huh, this title showed some early promise, but as it went on, we noticed a lot of flaws.

dtm42: I watched the first two episodes, determined this show had no potential whatsoever and further, those of you who thought it had potential missed the obvious signs that it did not.

To date, he has not explained, using specific examples from the show, what these obvious signs were. You (and others) for someone reason won't ask him directly to provide those examples, so he continues to skate around that issue (since he continues to pretend he doesn't read my posts). I find that sloppy debating.

I find the omission of anyone other than myself raising the issue of why he won't provide any specific examples to "prove" that we were idiots to think this show had any potential in the first place particularly surprising since he himself bitched about others not providing specific examples of why they thought the show did have promise.

Guys, this is just like how dtm was in the Sword Art Online thread. He makes a subjective value judgement and expects everyone else to treat his opinion as if it were gospel. Once this happens, just ignore him and hope he goes away. It isn't worth the walls of text that don't add to the discussion about actual valid aspects of the show.

Blood: Well yeah, in an indirect sense, that is kinda my point. He's posted this whole argument that essentially suggests that simply by virtue of thinking the show would suck and being correct, it must logically indicate he is right. That doesn't actually hold any water though. The bottom line is, if we really want to examine who is right (assuming someone can be said to be right) we need to look at their specific reasoning process.

@ nayu - Oh, dtm42 was an ass in the SOA thread, but he was being an ass in a different way from here. At least in that thread he would "explain" his opinion using specific examples. Sometimes what he had to say fell into the realm of fair comment (after all, SOA is a very flawed show) and other times it was just his usual ridiculously nitpicky bullshit that makes everybody roll their eyes.

This is different. He's saying, basically, that anyone who thought this title had promise at the beginning missed obvious signs that it did not. But he refuses to say what those obvious signs are and nobody other than myself is willing to call him on that.

You are correct (as are the others in this thread who have said the same thing) that there is no point in debating dtm42 since he'll never climb down from his stupidity, but I find pointing out his ridiculousness entertaining even as I know it will change nothing.

@ ikc - exactly. We are in the realm of opinion, so questions of objective right and wrong do not apply. However, if you are going to make a claim like, "wow, all you morons missed the obvious signs that this show never had any potential at all" I think it behooves you to provide some specific examples from the show rather than the simple declaration that, like the Pope, your statements are infallible.

We're getting in to that territory again where an individuals perception and opinion on something is being touted as fact and the argument is centering around arguing those facts. The problem is that individual perception and opinion in regards to something that is 100% subjective is not fact and this has gone on long enough. Sorry dtm42, but your subjective opinion is not fact and you need to stop using it as such, particularly in the absence of any real support to your arguments as Blood has stated.

Congrats, you didn't like it and personally saw mysterious "warning signs" that proved it would be bad to you. You know what though, that doesn't mean others are fools for not seeing the same signs or for dismissing those signs or even liking what you don't. Everyone has different tastes and different criteria on what is good or bad. To one person something might be "proof" that something is bad but to others that might not matter in the least. Stop coming in to the forums and treating your opinion and viewpoint as scripture and you might actually make it this time without being banned. Because I have to tell you, it's unlikely Zac will make your next ban temporary at this point.

Forum - View topic
Galilei Donna (TV).

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 topicGalilei Donna (TV).

Forum

Forum - View topic
Galilei Donna (TV).