Forum - View topicThe Spring 2009 Anime Preview Guide
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0utf0xZer0
Posts: 80 |
|
|||||
Okay, that was bad wording on my part. I don't think a mere plot synopsis serves to give the reader a complete picture of what they're getting into. I would also say, however, that a review will provide a far more accurate picture to the reader if the reviewer tries to place themselves in the readers shoes, which by nature means that the amount of opinion in the review has to be curtailed somewhat. Sometimes it also means trying to evaluate a series from two wildly differing perspectives. The result, however, is a lot more useful than a rant about what tropes the reviewer hates, which often says more about the reviewer than the show in question. ANN publishes some reviews I find genuinely useful. However, the more rant style reviews appear with far greater frequency than I like. |
||||||
|
||||||
Kalessin
 Posts: 931 |
|
|||||
While I definitely think that some reviewers are overly negative, I don't think that it makes much sense to expect the reviewer to put themself in someone else's shoes. Everyone has likes and dislikes, and everyone's "shoes" are different. Even if they were to try and see the show from someone else's point of view, that's still just one more point of view. They can't possibly take everyone's point of view into account. That would be next to impossible to do even if they knew everyone (which they obviously don't). Really, all the reviewer really has to go on is their own point of view. If that reviewer's point of view generally coincides with your own, then they're a good metric for you. If it doesn't, then they aren't. There's not really a good way around that. Now, it can certainly be unpleasant if a reviewer really dislikes what you like and they consistently mark it as being bad, and it's even worse if they rant about it, but again, that's pretty much how it goes. If a reviewer doesn't like something, they're going to tell you. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
0utf0xZer0
Posts: 80 |
|
|||||
(Edited because I reevaluated some of my previous position) Upon some consideration, you're probably right with this. When I think about it, opinion can provide the reader with valuable information. I would still say, however, that Kimlinger and to a lesser extent Santos have a really noticeable anti-moe trope biases and that their reviews would probably be better if they concentrated on such elements a little less. I'm fine with negative reviews (Martin's Tayutama review was hardly more positive), but right now their reviews of shows with such tropes read as if they have tunnel vision regarding such matters. (I would also still say that it's a good idea to possible other opinions on a show - I like Tayutama because the cute bits give me a lift after a mind numbing study session, but if I was trying to review the thing I'd definitely acknowledge that this won't be the case for signficant numbers of anime fans.) I guess my new position would be that some opinion in a review is fine, but it should be moderated. As for the ranting... well, some level of it can be okay, I guess, but if you go past a certain point it just starts to read as unprofessional. For me Kimlinger's Nanoha review definately crossed that line. Last edited by 0utf0xZer0 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Teriyaki Terrier
 Posts: 5689 |
|
|||||
|
Well I can safely say, this Spring had some great shows (Dragon Ball Kai, Full Metal Alchemist, Chi's New Address), but really nothing masterpiece worthly like Toradora last year. But I don't think its possible to make a masterpiece each year, but at least there is a second season to Chi's Sweet Home.
I am going to wait for Funimation to (hopefully) license Dragon Ball Kai and Full Metal Alchemist, but I look forward to watching the second season Chi's Sweet Home. I am half way done with the first season and really look forward to seeing what happens in the second. |
||||||
|
||||||
Megiddo
 Posts: 8360 Location: IL |
|
|||||
|
If you're looking for more forced drama a la Toradora, might I suggest you look for Doramas moreso than anime?
That said, Higashi no Eden, Cross Game, Phantom, and FMA:Brotherhood seem to be the winners this season. |
||||||
|
||||||
Stretch2424
 Posts: 166 |
|
|||||
|
I notice that nobody commented on Higepiyo. Surely if Chi's New Address deserves a review, wouldn't this one as well?
|
||||||
|
||||||
Charred Knight
 Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
|
Watching Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood reminds me of how stupid the way Ed can trasmutate because one of his arms saw the gate which means that if you have one of Ed's arms you can use alchemy without knowing anything about Alchemy.
|
||||||
|
||||||
braves
 Posts: 2309 Location: Puerto Rico (but living in Texas) |
|
|||||
...I don't think that's how it works.... spoiler[When Ed saw the Truth and the Gate, he went into the Gate and learned a ton of information (among those, how to transmute without a transmutation circle), and he paid a price for seeing all of that- and that price was his leg. Afterwards, he paid another price, his arm, to bring his brother back. ] |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Charred Knight
Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
|
Well that's what happens in the manga and second anime, its blatantly shown in the first anime that Ed can use alchemy without a transmutation circle because his body apparently changed spoiler[That's why Wrath can use alchemy without a transmutation circle or using Red stones in the first anime. He has Ed's two missing body parts.]
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Banken
Posts: 1280 |
|
|||||
|
Was the comment about overproduced bishoujo series referring to Toradora? (the art in the screencaps looks somewhat similar...)
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Yorozuya
Posts: 332 |
|
|||||
No; thats not how it works spoiler[Ed says in the anime (and the manga) that he felt like a ton of information was just pouring into his head-the truth. The truth gave him the knowledge he needed to know how to do it without a circle. Wrath came from the truth so we can guess that he might have also gained the same knowledge as Ed. That said this time we are following the manga more closely and in the manga that Wrath never existed. Which means that though your theory may have had some backing in the original it is completely irrelevant this time around.] Last edited by Yorozuya on Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
babbo
Posts: 274 |
|
|||||
No. Never. Reviews are supposed to be subjective. Peope read reviews because they want to see an assessment of a something from someone that has a working knowledge of the item being reviewed. There's no value to a review if it isn't opinionated. You obviously don't agree with carl on moe show reviews. That does not mean that he is wrong or necessarily even has a grudge against moe. It simply means that you should find another reviewer to gauge a shows worth for you. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Charred Knight
Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
Exactly, the only time a review is bad is when the reviewer shows that s/he wasn't paying attention and makes several mistakes. Obviously, if you don't like moe than you probably should hand it to someone else on the staff who does. It is better to have someone who likes the genre they are reviewing to handle it to get a better feel for the anime (for example if someone hates RPGs than all of his RPGs reviews are going to be low so when your looking for an RPG that review is not going to help), but in a situation like this where you might get 4 different reviews for the series that's not a problem. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
0utf0xZer0
Posts: 80 |
|
|||||
|
It appears I use a totally different criteria for reviews than some of you do. I'd really rather not get into a big argument over which of our opinions on reviews is "correct", especially since I don't think it's possible to objectively prove one approach is right.
For the record, however, here's how I evaluate reviews: I evaluate reviews based on the idea that they should give a reader a clear and accurate idea of what they are getting into. If you can integrate your opinions in a way that serves those objectives, that's good. If I feel your opinion sections undermine that purpose, I think it's a bad review. The "multiple viewpoints" angle can be useful if you actually get a good mix of viewpoints across a review staff, which judging from what I've seen sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's an approach that's less consistent than I like. I don't say Carl has a bias just because I disagree with him. I say Carl has a bias because he very strongly weights certain criteria when evaluating shows that aren't even close to being agreed upon as criteria that should be strongly weighed. That doesn't mean he's "wrong" in the objective sense, but I feel that said bias should be pointed out. |
||||||
|
||||||
RedLeader
 Posts: 310 |
|
|||||
See, that's the problem Shin Mazinger had. One reviewer was into Super Robot and got it just fine. The other two made it sound like it was the most horrible thing ever unless your some sort of super nerd and are already a fan which I think really reflects their own personal bias against the genre, rather than than reviewing the episode. :\ |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group