Forum - View topicMadoka: Otaku.
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||
|
You make some good points, Annf. Thank you for your input.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
NonoAsumy
Posts: 90 |
|
|||||
|
This whole discussion just rubbed me the wrong way.
It reminded me just too much of the whole tired literary fiction versus genre fiction debate. Especially since I really enjoyed watching PMMM. |
||||||
|
||||||
ArsenicSteel
 Posts: 2370 |
|
|||||
Oh let me guess this is where I burst out and proclaim that Annf's points were the same as mine and call attention to your faux sincerity. Here goes, ahem. "Man, that's bull!1!! I said most of those points already and you didn't budge an inch. Annf says the same stuff you suddenly back down. OH EM GEEE unbelievable!" That sounds about right. |
||||||
|
||||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 23834 |
|
|||||
|
Of course Madoka is an otaku show, that's obvious. If you enjoyed the show, does that mean you are otaku? No. Considering its immense popularity in Japan, is it likely that it attracted non-otaku buyers/viewers? Yes. Just because it's an otaku show, does that mean it isn't a good show? Of course not.
In the spirit of the OP let me put forward the next topic -- Cowboy Bebop: Science Fiction Discuss amongst yourselves. |
||||||
|
||||||
DuskyPredator
 Posts: 15499 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
|||||
I belive that Cowboy Bebop is actually a psychological piece on the changes of the economy. As there is expansion of markets different sources converted to meet its need. Case in point being ex gang members, police officers, con artists and compute experts changing from previous area, to the area of hunting criminals. Though the markets can be unstable that jobs conected (like the tv show) become threatened when the market becomes self controlable when enforcment does not need bounty hunters. The result eing recources having to return to original source for termination, lack of direaction and un-use of potential. spoiler[I am bull shitting.] |
||||||
|
||||||
Ikari1
 Posts: 531 Location: London |
|
|||||
|
Really? Does this really matter? .
You know Evangelion was a huge hit for deconstructing its genre and then later became huge with ''otaku''. It was made as a piece of art that was trying and succeeding to be different. Once it became popular then the marketing starting targetting people who liked that show (shock horror) Otaku in it's self is a word that basically rides on an uncertain set of rules for labeling people who have a certain set of hobbies. Despite the fact that its clearly wrong to label such people in such a broad way we still try and place an Otaku label on anyone that likes anime or comic books. I can shoot someone with an assault rifle or call in airstrikes on people that live in mud huts and watch anime all day long so what am I ? Since generally anime and manga is aimed at people that generally like to watch it then you could say convincingly that every single anime show is aimed at 'otaku' couldnt you? This is a stupid debate with no end because Otaku as a way of catagorising people is just ridiculous in the first place and even more ridculous to try and say that it has it's own genre. Genre is about the content in the media not the people who read it, you have it the wrong way round. This is especially true when in this day and age and pretty much how it has always been, rather than a term of endearment, the phrase ''Otaku'' has alot of negative connotations behind it when used. Considering that the show is clearly on the whole well recieved and respected what difference does it make who it was aimed at. They could have done what K'On did which took very little effort but had cute characters. They could have just made another run of the mill magical girl anime that probably would have been popular anyway with the art and characters but as it stands the anime has come out and done things that could have been unpopular with the supposed group of people it was supposedly aimed at. Madoka was a good show because the story, art and characters were interesting and different from the norm. The music gave this show a whole lot of character and depth before we even get into transformation scenes and Nendorid toys. Are we going to say that the music was aimed at Otaku now as well ? The show was good becasue it deconstructed and played with cliches that were rife in the 'magical girl genre' among other genres. Its like Bakuman says '' It will be popular if it is interesting. '' You have good shows and bad shows. A show isnt bad becasue it is aimed at a certain group of people which seems to be the latest trend with catagorising things like Kon and My sister cant possibly be this cute. Just judge each show on its individual story and how much you enjoyed it why dont you. This debate is like saying that Starwars and Lord of the Rings were some how all the poorer for being aimed at scifi and fantasy lovers. This debate is basically trying to decide wether or not we should bring down our views about modoka because it was aimed at ''Otaku''. Lets not beat around the bush here. That's the only concievable reason I can dicern that is making this debate push forwards and backwards. Some body else said this earlier and Im saying it again because Im sick of people recently IRL who dont know what it means to just sit and enjoy something and judge some thing on its own merits. The characters in madoka were going to be popular what ever the author did with them becasue they were beautifully drawn and had attractive designs. But again having moe characters does not give you the green light to just make assumptions on the series as a whole. Unless you think that designing unnatractive characters is a must in any anime that's worth it's salt. They were moe and then the depression and decapitation began. Otaku anime is an extremly poor way of catagorising anything and once again this is becasue you are tying to take something that isnt that simple and apply a broad and uncertain term to catagorise it. Steins gate for example. Very attractive character designs. The game origionally was popular because of the character designs to an exstent. The story though was fantastic IMO. The minute it becomes popular with so called Otaku however all of a sudden this somehow makes the show unworthy of our praise. So to make this a bit simpler; You shouldnt really be trying to judge Madoka on who it was aimed at. Madoka earned its cult following because it was good not because of who it was aimed at. Madoka compared to other series that activley aim for a certain demographic, decided to turn a certain genre on it's head even though this could have gone wrong and created a rift within its fans. Madoka has many much larger strengths behind it that are nothing to do with aiming at a certain audience. Unless you want to attach ( aimed at Otaku ) to every show that has Moe character designs, school girls and suggested yuri content then Madoka is clearly just trying to produce some new ideas that people who watch anime will like. Apologies for the wall of text. Dean |
||||||
|
||||||
|
GeminiDS85
Posts: 391 |
|
|||||
My postulations were certainly flirting with the importance of rules only established within the ambit of human consciousness, so I can certainly understand why your thought process navigated you towards that conclusion. However before I explicate on my original point, I again wanted to discuss displays of dominance.
I am rather curious to find out why you selected this particular phrase when formulating a response to my post. When you were composing your response, did you intend for this phrase to contain the implication that you are attempting to talk down to me? Contrariwise, it might simply be the result of you utilizing a vacuous expression with no intended negative connotations as a result of repeated exposure to that expression. Anyways, I would really appreciate it if you would respond candidly to this question. I am in the beginning stages of conducting research on postmodern narcissism, and I am particularly interested in how internet forums have become a hotbed for the development of cerebral narcissism. Now changing gears, let us talk about baseball. The Boston Red Sox are playing the New York Yankees on frigid April evening. During the first at bat, the leadoff man for the Yankees hits a line drive into foul territory off the Red Sox’s starting pitcher. The player then runs to first base and begins to gloat about his triumph. Now for some unknown reason, the entire Yankee team seems to be under the impression that hitting a ball into foul territory constitutes a hit, but according to the players on the Red Sox, a hit into foul territory does not constitute a hit. Subsequently, the game comes to a grinding halt, and right before punches are about to be thrown, the umpires step in to clarify that, according to the rules of the game, the Yankee players are incorrect. Here is just one example of a human created system that typifies how I wanted everyone to think about rules and systems. A baseball game being played between two American League teams is a system that enforces human created rules to determine one team’s quality over another. The system is allowed to operate because the players accept that once the two teams are interacting within the system by playing a game, they have to adhere to the rules or the game degenerates into nothing. Baseball is a system that is predicated by attempting to establish order through the use of rules. So when my hypothetical Yankee team enters into the system and attempts to play a game without grasping the rules, it is no surprise that the game comes to a grinding halt. (This is obviously a gross over-simplification of the game of baseball, but I do not feel the need to complicate this analogy any further by going into detail about specific value judgments in this closed system. However, all I wanted you to extract from this analogy is how ludicrous the actions of the Yankees look when they enter the system without understanding the rules.) Relating this back to system surrounding art, as typified in this particular thread, we can vividly see the result of when people enter into a system without first grasping the rules. As I stated before, the only finite rule that exists in the system encompassing art is that it has no definite rules. Art resists a strict definition, and this is perhaps why so many people are so fascinated by the limits of what we can describe as art. Given that art has no fixed rules, which paradoxically is a rule in itself, every method of evaluating art has to, technically, be assigned equal value. For example, the one concept that usually gets the most weight attached to it is authorial intent. From my perspective, the desire to cling to authorial intent is a rather comforting notion because it effectively allows a person claim they know the “truth” behind the piece of art. (“I know what the author was trying to communicate with this piece, so I am right and you’re wrong.”) When something is ambiguous or indeterminate in a piece of art, the typical response is to analyze it under the pretext of authorial intent. Don’t get me wrong, I am certainly not claiming that this is an incorrect approach, because I do value authorial intent. However, I want you to think about what happens to authorial intent inside the confines of postmodernity and the age of post-reproduction. We now inhabit an epoch where culture is so widely disseminated and reproduced that it becomes vexing to try and correctly trace where an author’s influences came from. That being said, would you agree that when an individual approaches art they should be mindful of the notion that when an author is creating a work that they might be inserting ideas, allusions, and concepts that they are not consciously aware of? If you agree, then what happens to the power of authorial intent? Furthermore, think about how many minds are used to create a product like anime. Don’t you think it’s relevant to think about what an individual artist might be inserting into a show that is unknown to the director? Getting back to reason for composing my first post in this thread, I merely wanted to point out that when people argue under the belief that there are finite rules and value judgments in art, the conversation usually turns into something counterproductive. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with someone else’s opinion, but in order for this kind of debate to be “productive” and not turn into a flame war, the individuals should first grasp the fundamental rules that govern the system they are interacting with.
I am rather fascinated by this statement. Why do you feel that meta discussions are empty? |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group