Forum - View topic

ANNCast - Superhero Ouroboros

ParaChomp wrote:

While it's not a hinderance for the show itself, it does create an uncomfortable entry barrier for what has become a norm.

Since when has that ever been the norm in anime?

Thanks for catching that, I meant in Western society.

Lol what a bunch of bullcrap. If DITF constitutes a barrier to anime, it's only on some very specific websites (which I won't name). Western audiences are having a blast with DITF and plenty of very interesting discussions can be had, just not here.
Just look at what american tv is doing. They are hamfisting gays and lesbians left and right in all their shows. They're sprouting everywhere like mushrooms and this gives a very distorted world view. Gays and lesbians constitute a very very very tiny minority in all societies around the world. Watching american shows you'd think just the opposite, that normal heterosexual men and women were a species destined for extinction and that the future is all man on man and woman on woman action. This is seriously going to distort how you view entertainment and foster a climate of undying hate versus you know normal boys and girls.

Thanks for catching that, I meant in Western society.

A show doesn't have to make social commentary in order to be "good" or thematically deep, and trying to force your own desire of a specific commentary is rather unfair.

I try not to respond to this stuff but seriously: are you aware that this show is hosted by a couple of married men?

TasteyCookie wrote:

A show doesn't have to make social commentary in order to be "good" or thematically deep, and trying to force your own desire of a specific commentary is rather unfair.

The absolute state of Western commentary, where every single piece of media known to man has to be about having the "important conversations" or about tackling soc-jus themes in a politically correct manner so as to serve as a vessel to advocate for mainstream leftist ideology.

Zac wrote:

I try not to respond to this stuff but seriously: are you aware that this show is hosted by a couple of married men?

This sounds like the equivalent of the "b-but I have [insert minority group here] friends!" excuse.

BodaciousSpacePirate wrote:

Oh, definitely, from an intellectual history perspective it's probably the most influential scholarly work of the turn of the 20th century. It's just funny to me that people have been complaining for weeks about how Franxx's symbolism is the most basic thing ever, and it turns out it's heavily influenced by a work that - among other things - sought to explain why every culture around the world used the same basic symbolism.

Which is a silly complaint because symbolism's power is only in how concrete it is to its audience. To quote Robert Ebert (a man I definitely didn't always agree with, but do here): “If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.” Abstract symbolism is rampant in anime and often earns heaps of praise from self proclaimed anime critics that give their own irrelevant meaning to something that had no inherent meaning to begin with. In the case of Darling, it has both very obvious symbolism, such as mistletoe and the Jian bird, and more nuanced ones like the overwhelming power of names (and those who give them) and their consequence to society. The show really is better written than those who discredit will ever admit, as they are only concerned with the social commentary that they wanted the show to discuss, rather than actually analyzing the writing for its own merits. It's a self-imposed, biased critique that has become all too common.

I just want to point out that I definitely don't want to discredit Zac or Jacob's opinion on other aspects of the show. I wouldn't be listening to this podcast every(ish) week if I didn't care what they had to say I just think Darling has many interesting things to talk about that don't involve the piloting process as a metaphor for relationships.

^I think James Beckett's review of last week's episode does a good job of evaluating DiTF's strengths and weaknesses overall. While I haven't always agreed with his assessments of the show, frankly, I think his coverage of the show has been the best balanced of this site, showing a real understanding what fans of the show enjoy about it, while not glossing over the concerns that Jacob and Zac have brought up.

I have no problem with someone not finding the show interesting, but I find it irritating when (some of) the show's critics either assume ignorance on the part of the fans of the show (something to the effect of "Well they wouldn't enjoy it if that had watched Evangelion...") or couch their argument with the implication of "It is just not good/interesting, objectively speaking". I don't think it is fair or sensible to hold a reviewer to the standard of "objectivity" when evaluating a show, much less a viewer, but the corollary to that is that one should not frame one's opinions on such matters as if they were objective. It is not because people's standards are low that other people think more highly of the show and its characters than you; they just genuinely find them more interesting and emotionally affecting than you and others do.

^I think James Beckett's review of last week's episode does a good job of evaluating DiTF's strengths and weaknesses overall. While I haven't always agreed with his assessments of the show, frankly, I think his coverage of the show has been the best balanced of this site, showing a real understanding what fans of the show enjoy about it, while not glossing over the concerns that Jacob and Zac have brought up.

I have no problem with someone not finding the show interesting, but I find it irritating when (some of) the show's critics either assume ignorance on the part of the fans of the show (something to the effect of "Well they wouldn't enjoy it if that had watched Evangelion...") or couch their argument with the implication of "It is just not good/interesting, objectively speaking". I don't think it is fair or sensible to hold a reviewer to the standard of "objectivity" when evaluating a show, much less a viewer, but the corollary to that is that one should not frame one's opinions on such matters as if they were objective. It is not because people's standards are low that other people think more highly of the show and its characters than you; they just genuinely find them more interesting and emotionally affecting than you and others do.

It's not really the norm in Western society either. If it was, you think LBGT people would be so hungry for (proper) representation?

Sure, but i don't think it should be dismissed that some people might actually have their opinions regarding a particular piece of media significantly influenced if they happened to be exposed to "better works" or if they are have a better understanding of storytelling in general. Yes, not all the time does the reason a person does not like a work you do comes down to the other person's standards being lower; but that can't always be used as an excuse to ignore a lack of critical thinking. Like whatever you like; but if you're going to make something seem much more impressive than it really is just because you like it, then you should be able to argue and prove your points well enough. If the argument sounds like baseless praise, of course some people are going to come to the conclusion that the person' standards must be either low or they've not been exposed to enough of that content. Prove through strong arguments why the thing you like has value and why that the value is intrinsic to good storytelling. People say that DITF explores a lot of themes in a very interesting way, but asked how these themes are explored in a way beyond it's most superficial detail, most fans can't provide a substantial argument that is illustrated by the writing of the show. If you're going to say something is interesting then PROVE IT; if you can't do then why expect others to uphold your stance to any abject validity? Trying to hand-wave people's liking stuff only by "they just genuinely find them more interesting and emotionally affecting than you and others do" doesn't always fly. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that we are all affected differently by media; but there's no denying that when there is recurring pattern of people liking the same shit that does nothing but the bare minimum, sometimes you do have to question the level of those people's expectations.

we love lain wrote:

Sure, but i don't think it should be dismissed that some people might actually have their opinions regarding a particular piece of media significantly influenced if they happened to be exposed to "better works" or if they are have a better understanding of storytelling in general. Yes, not all the time does the reason a person does not like a work you do comes down to the other person's standards being lower; but that can't always be used as an excuse to ignore a lack of critical thinking. Like whatever you like; but if you're going to make something seem much more impressive than it really is just because you like it, then you should be able to argue and prove your points well enough. If the argument sounds like baseless praise, of course some people are going to come to the conclusion that the person' standards must be either low or they've not been exposed to enough of that content. Prove through strong arguments why the thing you like has value and why that the value is intrinsic to good storytelling. People say that DITF explores a lot of themes in a very interesting way, but asked how these themes are explored in a way beyond it's most superficial detail, most fans can't provide a substantial argument that is illustrated by the writing of the show. If you're going to say something is interesting then PROVE IT; if you can't do then why expect others to uphold your stance to any abject validity? Trying to hand-wave people's liking stuff only by "they just genuinely find them more interesting and emotionally affecting than you and others do" doesn't always fly. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that we are all affected differently by media; but there's no denying that when there is recurring pattern of people liking the same shit that does nothing but the bare minimum, sometimes you do have to question the level of those people's expectations.

I have already (very) briefly talked about some of the themes the show goes over, and linked you to a much more analytical thinker than any I have seen on this site (and BY FAR anyone who provides 'criticism' to the show) who does an hour-long unbiased analysis for each episode. Yet all you have said in attack of the show is surface level criticism (ie X is bad, boring, mediocre, etc.) with no depth behind it. How can someone try to engage in discourse when you haven't given anything to talk about in the first place? I'm not here to change your opinion, as you haven't provided any basis to your opinion besides: it just is. You claim the show doesn't explore themes, is mediocre, has poor characters, claim it is not well written, yet haven't provided any reasoning for it. That's just claiming your opinion as fact. I could tell you that Fomoffu is garbage, has poor writing, poor characters, or any of the other things you claim (I don't by the way just using it as an example), but why would you even entertain that thought? I haven't given you reason to, just as you haven't given me reason to take any of your points into consideration.