Forum - View topicEP. REVIEW: Kino's Journey - the Beautiful World-
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Alexis.Anagram
 Posts: 278 Location: Mishopshno |
|
|||
|
This is definitely my favorite show of the Fall season. I thought episode 1 was shaky but it worked for me, and episode 2 was tedious and kind of baffling right up until that fateful BANG which was, I thought, a really excellent, revelatory moment that this is not the straightforward "aesop's lite" I had been lead to expect. Episode 3 successfully clarified and, in some ways, reframed both of the preceding stories for me and I like the way it culminates as a subtle take-down of the "dispassionate observer" myth. On a general level, I love the way that it has successfully married a wicked sense of irony with a sort of manipulative level of (dis)regard for the conventions of its genre. I initially thought this show would make for some decent comparisons to Jing: King of Bandits (which I also love), but it seems more likely they'd have as much in contrast now.
I feel like it's a little strange to ask this question of a show that is working in such a logical vacuum, obviously on purpose. The exaggerated features of the show are on full display at all times, which I'm guessing is intended to heighten its unbelievability and make the questioning of each story's raison d'etre the audience's primary mode of engagement. Why would you knock it points for declining to make its message uniformly legible? That's like asking why in the world there's an entire nation rolling on tracks through the, well, world? Not knowing is half the fun here. But having not seen the original tv series or read the source material, maybe I'm just not on the same page as others. I see the violence on display as indicative of a tone which I hope will carry through: I can understand how the first episode reads as a morality fable and how that spirit works as an ongoing element or kind of structure, but I think its intent, in addition to some of the other summarizations like Gabriella's (which I think is not wrong), was to take a position something like: Violence is justice, or, Is violence justice? This duality has appeared to me to run through these three episodes, and it has made Kino more of a person and less of a peephole for the viewer, which is good news imo. In ep 2, their "colossally irresponsible" actions are ultimately personal, not poetic, and there's no attempt to infer vindication upon them while leaving plenty of room to debate their merits. Episode 3 also puts the onus on the viewer to reconcile Kino's disparate parts, and I believe that's part of an effort to stamp out the one factor in this hypothetical conversation to which we ought to be allergic: neutrality (or the illusion of it). By centering a generalized presentation of violence as a means to an end, the show invokes a question with some actual social tension to it. Extrapolating that out to the American Empire, to follow this thread's trajectory, we need only make cursory observations like the fact that the "center-right" state of affairs of the past few decades has produced a political climate in which there is no anti-war party; or that the history of America from establishment to expansion through such purportedly neutral interests as "economic liberty" has been hinged on the violent exploitation of Indigenous, black and brown bodies and resources. I'm sure it's not the only country of interest to this sort of dissection, though. Meanwhile, Kino seems to take on that mantle of abstract quietude as a disguise which is helpful in navigating the different landscapes they encounter (gotta give props to Aoi Yuki for that dry spell of almost-sarcasm she seems to whip up in every line), yet they make no bones of their involvement in each country's affairs. Without a clear delineation of the rights and wrongs of its world, the show does offer one guiding principle: Kino is the gun you don't want pointed at you. |
||||
|
||||
|
MJKS
Posts: 102 |
|
|||
That both countries have problems? Speaking as a red-white-and-blue capitalist, I don't see how this wasn't obvious. The trivialization of Roomba Country's sickening, ceaseless obliteration of the Earth was a (simplistic, but I digress) comment on capitalism/America's casual attitude to environmental destruction. Moreover, Wall Country's juxtaposition wasn't a positive framing device for Roomba Country; it illustrated that both are deeply flawed. This point was made explicitly in Kino and Hermes' dialogue. That Kino availed themselves of Roomba Country's services and departed on good terms is merely a recognition of the fact that intelligent and capable actors who are unbound from any fixed national or cultural heritage (i.e. a homeland) can and do use capitalist systems to cut through a lot of BS. Sometimes literally cut through, with directed-energy weapons. On that note, I don't see how Kino "contributed to (or even instigated)" a massive disaster in Wall Country. Kino didn't tell Roomba Country where to go. Kino just took a risk and hitched herself to the marketforcesmobile, and it ended up paying off for her. All that aside, I can imagine being frustrated by the direction that the new series is taking, even though I haven't seen the old one myself. Addendum: I would say Gabriella is right that Roomba Country/America/Capitalism is cast in a better light, insofar as Kino's discussion with the Diplomat at the end of the episode underscores Roomba Country's restraint regarding imperial domination. Yet it is true that the US has mostly abstained from such mistakes, and furthermore benefits from a large circle of friends. |
||||
|
||||
BodaciousSpacePirate
 Subscriber Posts: 3018 |
|
|||
|
Despite being a big fan of the 2003 version, I think that after episode 4 I'm done with this adaptation. I can't quite put my finger on why, but all the idyllic and wondrous elements of the previous adaptation don't really feel like they're present this time around, and in their place is a series of tones and world views that I don't really enjoy watching. Whether this is a closer adaptation of the light novels or not isn't really an issue for me, either.
|
||||
|
||||
|
vonPeterhof
Posts: 729 |
|
|||
Admittedly it's a little less obvious why a seafaring nation with no illusions of self-sufficiency would have this kind of besieged fortress mentality. It would be sort of understandable if it were mostly made up of fugitives from terrestrial nations, but the show sort of shuts that version down. Still, the cognitive dissonance itself didn't jump out as something unrealistic. |
||||
|
||||
|
hattori300
Posts: 52 |
|
|||
|
So....this is one of the worst episodes by far in a show that is already plagged with problems.....and you still give it a B-? Why the fudge are critics so scared of giving bad scores? This episode was awful, the whole review was about how awful it was, yet you think its good enough to get a B-? Bullshit. Get some back bone and give it the score it actually deserves, this was a garbage episode.
This adaptation is absolutely terrible, never underestimate the power fans have of ruining something good. Giving the choice of stories to the fans has proven to be a completely moronic idea, especially when the team behind the show has no clear intention of stringing those episodes in a thoughful order in an attempt to create some thematic sense or cohesion. Just look at the Colosseum ep for god sakes. That episode should have at least been in the middle of the show, not the second episode! We dont even have time to get into Kino's head before she starts meddling with countries' affairs! And the presentation is also bland. the 2003's version wasnt anything spectacular, but it had a unique artstyle and color palette. This version however, I dont know exactly how to put it, but it looks nauseating to look at. The colors pop out too much, there is this constant bloom effect, the character designs are so bland and mediocre, and the directing isnt anything spectacular. This has been a major letdown so far, with only ep 1 and 2 being what might be considered "good", but i dont think im gonna be following this version any longer unfortunately. |
||||
|
||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11428 |
|
|||
|
I pretty much agree the review's criticisms (though the grading was too lenient), especially that the story made no sense. About the only thing I could take away from it is that people are content to let infrastructure crumble as long as there's still a place to eat and sleep.
I could sort of understand their "the devil you know..." attitude, but the unanimity of that outlook rang false, although as a metaphor for...something, I guess that can be overlooked. But Shizu's a bit too saintly to believe. As for Kino, I do not know this character. If this series were to do "A Kind Land" again, the country wouldn't need a spoiler[volcano to kill everyone off.] |
||||
|
||||
MarshalBanana
 Posts: 5395 |
|
|||
|
I'm having a hard time with this episode, it was certainly weird, but it was Anime weird, not bad weird. Overall i think it was a pretty fun episode, and part of having all these different places is have some that are confusing to outsiders.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lemonchest
Posts: 1771 |
|
|||
|
Question from someone who isn't watching but is following the ep reviews: Is the problem with Kino that they're bad, or that they're a 2017 protagonist in a show people associate with 2003? Because so far this adaptation sounds pretty standard for the time's we're in; except it's adapting the source of a cult classic from a more contemplative era of anime, at least when it comes to sci-fi & fantasy.
|
||||
|
||||
TasteyCookie
 Posts: 421 |
|
|||
|
This has got to be the most frustrating streaming review/forum thread on this entire site. I guess every single episode is just going to be "Whine whine, 2003 version, whine whine, the old stuff was better, whine whine whine." So extremely annoying. I love how the only people actually contributing to the discussions the show is trying to merit are the ones who didn't watch, or didn't enjoy the 2003 version. I guess nostalgia goes a looooooong way. Full disclosure, I had not watched the original series until after episode 3 aired of the new one... I don't understand the criticisms at all. The new show is different, yes, but to me it's far more poignant. The 2003 series was bland and honestly just seems like it means more to people because they watched it back when they were younger and hadn't thought about the world much. Maybe it was the climate at the time, but I don't understand the god-tier-absolute-masterpiece praise for the original series one bit.
|
||||
|
||||
|
hattori300
Posts: 52 |
|
|||
It's ironic then that you also arent contributing nothing at all to the conversation other than bitching about the people who like the 2003 version and dont enjoy this new one. |
||||
|
||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11428 |
|
|||
|
^ ^ What's poignant about this version? So far Kino has just been a panda that eats, shoots and leaves.
|
||||
|
||||
|
hattori300
Posts: 52 |
|
|||
Poignant for him must be "yo dude, society is evil and shit!". He must be mind blowned every single episode lmao. Screw execution, screw characters worth being invested in, screw good directing, pacing and thematic focus. Just throw him a few cheap philosophical questions and thats enough. |
||||
|
||||
|
BodaciousSpacePirate
Subscriber Posts: 3018 |
|
|||
I watched it for the first time last year - I double checked just to make sure, and eBay says I bought the box set in April 2016 - and about the only thing that makes me nostalgic for 2016 is Flip Flappers.* For me, it's not a question about which version of the show is more "profound", as within the greater context of science fiction the franchise doesn't really do anything that new or insightful (the above-average scenarios have been about on par with an above-average Robert Silverberg short story, while the below-average scenarios have been about on par with a below-average Robert Silverberg short story). It's more the feeling that whenever the 2003 series left something ambiguous or unanswered, it was because the writers wanted the audience to think for themselves. On the other hand, whenever the 2017 adaptation has left something ambiguous or unanswered, you get the sense that the authors didn't have enough room to explore the concepts they introduced and still include a scene where Edgelord McBikechild totally could have totally killed someone but doesn't. I'd also like to chime in at this point and state that, unless a bunch of posts have been deleted from this thread before I got a chance to read them, there's nothing I'd really characterize as
Maybe if it was one or two people complaining over and over again throughout the thread, fine, I could see how you might find that annoying, but all I'm seeing are a ton of different people who all have similar issues. * Never miss a chance to name drop Flip Flappers. |
||||
|
||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11428 |
|
|||
As far as I can see, that's the sum total of the review that said anything at all about the 2003 series, and the comment was well supported by what followed it. |
||||
|
||||
|
Zeino
Posts: 1098 |
|
|||
|
I'm starting, just starting mind you, to get the idea that maybe as in the case with Sailor Moon, the original Kino's Journey anime was a case of a talented director and staff elevating the source materiel rather than Keiichi Sigsawa's writing being the key to make it great in itself. I hope I'm wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group