Forum - View topicANNCast - This One's About Reviews!
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cheesecracker
 Posts: 240 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Interesting subject this week.
When a review stops being useful it'd better be entertaining. Either way, it doesn't matter how many people are doing it. There's lotsa people doing lotsa stuff. It's whether or not you can pull it off. However, if you're going to stray from utility to entertainment, is it valid to say that you reap what you sow and, as entertainment, you are now subject to a review of your own? What if you critique your own review? Do you then become your own Grandparent? Of course, once you fall to the dark side that is infotainment, you *can* go too far. I listen to one podcast that is great fun but I don't know that I would watch/read/buy anything based on one of their reviews. I can't tell if they are ever *not* joking. On the other hand I listen to one is dull as dishwater yet informative. YMMV I'd hate to see it become like Pro wrestling(or worse, cable news programs) where reviewers become like villains(or worse, Divas). Like professional trolls(or worse, Daryl Surat), aligning themselves with the dark side, getting attention by getting peoples heads to explode by snark and controversy. (IT'S PRONOUNCED NA-RU-TO NOT NA-ROOD-O WTF!?) The consideration that 'the informed discussion is part of the review' was raised in the ANN cast. It's already real in my opinion.(Perhaps some informed individual can give their opinion on my opinion regarding this topic) The names Web and Net are not just analogies to signify being connected. They also signify being trapped, trapped like a fly by a ugly unwashed spider in one very large smelly bathroom where http://www.ceiling-cat.com/ Internetvangelion: You are NOT Alone(and you never will be...ever, EV-VER) 1.0.1.32646 XP Internetvangelion: You are CANNOT Advance(the discussion intelligently, beware of Internetvangelion: I do NOT know the name of the next film(I'm too lazy) 0.0.00 oooh All the worlds a stage and everyone's a critic. Speaking of critics: Apologies to Señor Surat (I am a fan, because of your impressive intellect, hilarious wit and willingness to go ...that...extra mile... to a place... that is called... "going full tard") |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
asimpson2006
 Posts: 3151 Location: USA |
|
|||||||||||||
|
I enjoyed listing to this pod cast. Zac's voice seemed to be different than what I expected. I was expecting a much deeper voice for Zac, and for some reason I visualize him holding a flask while doing the ANNCast.
While I did agree with some of what was talked about I have decided to give my 2 cents regarding some of what was talked about. I will agree that one of the worst things someone can do in a review is either just giving mostly plot synopsis then going well you like it or you won't like it, or just say well if you like x genre than you will like y show. I don't want to read paragraph after paragraph of plot synopsis, one paragraph is fine which gives me a rough idea of what the show is about, but more than and I don't want to give it a further reading. I also don't like reviews saying if you like this type of show or series than you will like this. I see this in the forums often and while I don't have a problem with others making a suggestion which I think is great, it is not review material. If a review is trying to convince me to spend my hard earned money on a product I wanna know why I should or should not purchase it not just well it's like this show so you should like it. I think a lot of my opinion for reviews comes for the fact that I do reviews for my job on a daily basis albeit I am not reviewing products I reviewing agent interactions with customers. I never liked when I was told well don't do this, do this instead, but never told why I shouldn't do this. I always let agents know why you should do this or why you should do this instead. The "show x gets better after y episode" While yes if a show takes that long to get good, it is flawed, but there is always enjoyment of watching something either just run of the mill or just bad to get to the good stuff. I don't really have that much of a problem going this route because I enjoy the generic and run of the mill show (if you would see what I have given good praise to you would see why), along with the shows that are really good. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Ooh, my first reply to an ANN podcast!
Allow me to take a moment to thank the ANN staff for having them. They've been very entertaining. I'm also very thankful for the mp3 offerings, as they give me a chance to listen to them regardless where I'm at. I will have to say this podcast is my favorite to date. It was nice to get a connection made between reader and reviewer as well as get their input to their side of doing them. I'm glad a future podcast will continue the review topic. To address some concern about fan input, I wanted to give my take on this. When I read a review, I do try to manage to keep an open mind, despite the opinion. I generally don't chastise someone for their opinion, but have found when I comment, it's because of a misunderstanding. When Zac mentioned the tale of the young woman asked to write a review, I was curious at the remark about returning it for clarification. Thinking back, this is probably what sparked my comment originally. One of these debates came from Key's review of Clannad. Boy, did I rip him apart for his review. I don't think I could ever apologize enough for being so rude, especially when the whole thing started over my interpretation of his use of the word "moe". Poor guy, but he stood his ground and, more importantly, gave me some words I still keep with me. With this, I've noticed that "clarification" is a word used only when differing opinions conflict. This seems to coincide with another remark Zac made regarding how "everyone isn't like that". I'm not going to fish through every review I've read, but there are times in which I see statements made which aren't for everyone, but target a select few in the audience. Some are good, some are bad. An example of this is when one series is compared to another. What if the reader never saw the other anime? It's hard to connect to the opinion when references are being made which we can not grasp simply because we can't get the reference. In these cases, I do try to ask for clarification if the comments haven't done so for me. The latest "Anime News Nina" is a perfect example in which the styling of an anime series was used within the strip. If it wasn't for the comments, I'd have been completely lost! I think it's rather easy for people to "attack the writer" rather than the comment, because (and boy, can I attest to this!) the words are often seen as an "extension" of the one providing the information. It's very easy to forget to separate the two when one is hastily applying the argument to why the statement is wrong. I'm hoping my mistake with Key was learned from, but only the readers (and staff) can decide that. Do know I do appreciate the reviews, regardless of the opinions within in them. Now, to change the subject a bit. There was a comment made over the animation of the Key/Visual Arts anime and I'm curious to know what the staff considers "good" anime when these series don't measure up to those in mind. I ask because many of the K/VA reviews often have a "B" or higher rating. Kanon, for example, had an "A" average. I'm not debating the statement, but more curious to know what series out there has better animation which isn't done through CGI. Now, onto some comments posted in this thread.
My PM box probably won't get an invite, I take it? That's okay, I know you feel I can't stand you, but that's something you'll need to get over. Thus, I'll keep an open acceptance with one condition: we never, ever talk about copyright and licensing. Those topics force me to lose my calm, beautiful demeanor without hesitation.
It's deeper than Zac's, but not by much. I'm still shocked my voice sounds higher than what I hear in my head.
Sorry, egoist, but it'll never happen. I'm learning to understand it, not speak it.
A perfect example of not separating out the person from the words. The person wearing the "Yankees junk" could be the nicest in the world and "bad mouthing" could be as harmless as "Our luck was the pitcher couldn't close the series". This example even shows the "offender" getting off better than any online reviewer does.
I'm waiting for the complimentary "Luke, I am your father." comment as done through a Darth Vader voice synthesizer. However, I get the feeling this will never happen.
Sure, once it's spelled correctly.
Dynamic? "Coming to you from sunny California, I'm Zac. Today's guests are Case, Petrified Jello, and Dom Fortress. I'm outta here." Well, at least it would retain the record of the shortest podcast ever. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
jgreen
 Posts: 1325 Location: St. Louis, MO |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great podcast this week, as usual. I didn't notice anyone else mention it, so I just wanted to point out that one of the things I most enjoyed about it was the roundtable aspect, with many guests discussing the same issue. The mutliple guests worked great for Yuri Lowenthal and Tara Platt last week, and worked even better on a subject like this. Also, listening to ANNCast makes me wish Chicks On Anime was done as a podcast as well.
And hey, a link to the ANNCast archives needs to be added to the "Views" page so it's easier to find. 
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
JacobC
ANN Contributor
 Posts: 3728 Location: SoCal |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Well, I wasn't going to comment at first because the cast has been out for a while and I'm late to the party.
 But I did finally get the chance to listen to it and YAY~! I think this was the best podcast yet! Really great stuff! 
I think the part I identified with the most is the idea of negative reviews having a positive effect on some people. I mean, you really can't tell people what to like. It's arrogant to think that your tastes can always distinguish a good product from a bad product for everyone, so you have to feel around for an objective basis to ground people to where you're coming from. That "why" is so important. It not only gives a basis to your readers, but it helps you to think about where you're coming from. I'd love to review Vampire Knight in the future here, because that'll REALLY force me to face my biases. I absolutely love the show for all the wrong reasons. It's like watching a trainwreck in...a tuxedo with perfect hair. Mmm. Not a good metaphor, but I love a lot of the elements that make it stupid and reviewing it would force me to woman up and look at it more seriously. That'll be fun... Erm, point is that once you get that out of the way and know why you think what you think and have tapered your gut feelings off to a rational view of what is and what isn't, you can speak to people of many different opinions and tastes, right? Like Karl's "firebrand" reviews, (they are indeed, but he likes some series as passionately as he hates some, read the Nana review,) can speak well to people by telling readers who agree with him that they'll love it, and those who vehemently disagree all the time that they'll hate it, or vice versa. Either way he's really helped. For viewers that aren't familiar with his writings in general, they can look at the invaluable "whys" of the review and say "Well, I like series that are slow and mindrapey, so even though it drove HIM crazy..." etc. You've created a good review for someone who didn't get a thing that you got out of the product in question. Hooray~! My use of the word "objective" should be telling as to the part I identified with least: the initial quote from Ebert. Not that I don't respect Mr. Ebert, (he's STILL writing! That man is passionate!) but it's one of those quotes that can easily be taken the wrong way and result in reviews like the ones the team was complaining about where the writer coats their piece with "I like this," "I hate this," and there's no analysis to be found...no "why" to go by, so I've wasted my time reading. I do agree that a lot of hardcore fans are allergic to real analysis. I think they just don't understand that things can honestly be "judged" on merits like technical finesse and believability. If you "like" it, it must be good, right? No, you can like crap. Admit it when you like crap, and if you're reviewing, point out the good things about it that make it such a guilty pleasure...but you have to ultimately admit that it's just that or your opinion doesn't inform anyone. On the converse side of that, although some anime fans can be called "elitist," the flesh-crawling brand of elitism you see in the film and literature communities isn't really present in anime. You know..."THIS movie is great because it's socially relevant and blarghity blargh, that's why everyone should love it. If you don't 'get' Synecdoche and how awesome Philip Seymour Hoffman is, you're a dumb peon." The closest you get to that in anime is the EVA fandom, but they're not even HALF as bad as the Lynch and Kaufman fanatics out there...I think I'll take the overzealous fan reaction of "Screw you, critic, I like mah Love Hina and it is NOT stupid!" over "Well, you must be a total bigot not to realize the incredible relevance and depth of this indie project...not a good critic like me...can't you tell it's great because it didn't earn any money?" ...Sure, you...tell yourself that. I'ma go watch some Coen Brothers or something and get my brain out of that awful mess I just sat through. Tangent.
As for forumgoers being involved in a podcast, that sounds really neat. I just wish I knew more about who was active in the Community forum so I could guess who it might be. Key, Karl, and Carlo (wow, they form a pattern!) are good obvious choices, forumgoers or not, but as for regular users, I can't help but think abunai, rainbowcourage, and Dorcas_Aurelia could be good choices seeing as they're very active fans in the forums, very up on what's being released on fansubs as well as stateside, articulate and witty too. (And...maybe me? *extreme puppy dog eyes* I'll behave! Pinky swear!) |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
asimpson2006
Posts: 3151 Location: USA |
|
|||||||||||||
That is why I am looking forward to your reviews on this site. I love watching your reviews on Youtube. I found them very enjoyable plus it is always nice to see a video of the show/movie/ova during the review and someone explains parts of why it has problems, or why this is good, or etc. The fact that I have been influenced by review to either purchase shows that I probably would have never purchased normally or check shows out that I probably wouldn't have looked at otherwise shows that I have some high regards for reviews in general, but I still take them to some extent with a grain of salt as with anything being review "it is in the eye of the beholder". |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
rainbowcourage
 Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||||||
And you know, that's what surprises and frustrates me. It seems obvious but often people have no justification to back up their arguments--that's got to be the root of about three-quarters of forum disagreements right there. I go CRAZY when I read a review without any whys. I think that's why I like Erin as Shelf Life's columnist. Example: she starts out her review of Yumeiro Patissiere by explaining that she is pro-sugary-sweetness because of her childhood, and bang, we've got a reason. I, on the other hand, can't handle that much cuteness overload most of the time. But at least I understand. When reviewers forget to keep it simple and scharge ahead based on unexplained personal taste they make their reviews convoluted and inaccessible. In terms of ANN's reviews, one of the reasons I like reading them is just how freaking well-written they are. Sure sometimes when I read movie reviews I want 'em quick and painless but the actual writing quality here is unbelievably high, specifically in terms of language, vocabulary, etc...the reviews are actually just a joy to read for that reason. I do have to say I'm partial to Key's upbeat reviews, probably because he looks at everything with a critical eye but in this kind of forgiving, positive, optimistic way, which is exactly how I tend to write reviews.
I just think it would make sense to do a separate cast with ANN's review staff. As for forumites that would be very, very fun (as long as there are ladies and gentleman represented I'd be a happy camper). I would love to hear the voices of some of my fellow users. I'm guessing location will be a factor, though (last time I checked abunai was in Daneland, though it'd be neat to hear him). And we all know how colorful you are on camera, Jesu so I'm pretty sure you'd be the same on the airwaves 
edit:
Whoa jump back Jesu are you writing reviews for ANN? |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Prede
 Posts: 388 |
|
|||||||||||||
No the closest thing to that is not EVA fandom. Your not looking at this critically enough. EVA is nothing like that, neither are the reviewers who praise it, nor are the fans who enjoy it. Not sure where your getting that from. Last edited by Prede on Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
jgreen
Posts: 1325 Location: St. Louis, MO |
|
|||||||||||||
Yep! The beans got spilled here. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
|||||||||||||
Manga is slightly better represented in that category, oddly enough.
I also wouldn't include Lynch with Kaufman; his works have consistently put him up with types like Tarkovsky, Melville, Kubrick, and Oshima. Anno would be there with Miyazaki and Takahata, but he hasn't refined the passion and technical genius from Evangeliion. (Wouldn't personally include Oshii and Kon in that group; I may love some of their works, but they're too inconsistent and problematic. Maybe Hosoda and Hamazaki could be included at some point, and Yuasa, as well, if he decides to never get ambitious with plots again...) |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Lyzl
 Posts: 24 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
I've never listened to the ANN podcast before, but this one caught my eye as it was about reviewing itself. (Actually it caught my friend's eye and he sent me the link, but close enough
 )
There was a lot of good things said in the podcast, I don't think I have the time to go through them all. So here's some that I particularly liked: the Roger Ebert Quote about Objectivity - I think this is a great quote, as it really makes you think of the true meaning of objectivity. It is truly impossible to give an objective review in the same way someone can objectively state that 1+1=2. Instead, reviewers must rely on reasoning based on they're personal human likes and dislikes. Thankfully, many human beings find the same things likable, but consider if someone just happens to gain extreme pleasure from scenes of animals being tortured. They see a show where many animals are abused and absolutely love it. A reviewer says it's a terrible show. Can the reviewer really be objectively correct in this situation? I argue no, and that instead, humans have a lot of general things that please us, a universal subjectivity, if I may call it that. When reviewers talk about being objective, what they are really saying is that people have psychological norms of things they enjoy. More realistic art with smoother scenes is a generally universal subjectively better thing, as you get to see more details, clarity, and realism of the scenes. It's not objectively better though, there may be an alien species out there that finds choppy scenes for us line up with their eye viewing speed perfectly, and it looks perfect to them. However, they almost certainly would find that 1+1=2 as we do. I could go into a lot more detail, but I hope my point has gotten across. I also really enjoyed the points about critical analysis and honesty - You definitely should be honest in your review, as just saying "well, everyone liked Haruhi... so I guess haruhi was really good even though I wanted to gouge my eyes out". I certainly fall into this trap myself constantly. Many times, the perks of a good story and strong characters do make a series seem very good, but I still won't love it. In those cases, I think it's best to be honest and express the fact that it didn't work for you, but you have to express why as well. If it just has great story and characters and you didn't like it, you aren't giving a very good review. Expressing the "why", as many people said, is probably the most important part, even if it is just "Sexy girls make it seem all the better". (Or sexy guys in the case of the latest twilight film). I will be keeping an eye out for future podcasts similar to this one, great work! |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
JacobC
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3728 Location: SoCal |
|
|||||||||||||
Oh no! I don't mean all EVA fans! Not at all! There are some very cool fandom boards that are really helpful and I relied on to learn more about the series after I initially watched it many years ago. There are lots of cool EVA fans out there, even cool hardcores like HellKorn who...sometimes visits the forums. Eh, he was here once. EDIT: HA HA, awesome, he responded in this thread as I was writing this... ...but there are segments of the fandom that are, for lack of a better word, as close as anime fandom comes to the elitism that pervades the film community. You know, the folks that can write 12 page articles about the newest movie they loved but could not make a short film to save their lives...but instead of ADMITTING this like cool human beings, they accuse anyone who doesn't "get" their "masterpiece" of being a simpleton. That bugs me to end and being a lover of Hollywood myself, I prefer anime fandom to film fandom and haven't found a forum I was comfortable with in that vein despite loving film. So I'm familiar with the 'tude. The only place I see it is in that niche of EVA hardcores who accuse anyone that gets one tiny detail in EoE wrong or doesn't use the word "lillim" right, or just plain doesn't LOVE the series (like those Key series fans, only they fancy themselves intellectual,) of "not getting" that this is a "masterpiece" meant only for the upper echelon who understand the great social relevance of the work and believe in all its (contradictory!) philosophies, how "it's so much about Anno expressing himself through Shinji, it's so META, you can't understand," blah blah blah BLEUGH. THOSE guys. Not all EVA fans. Heck, I'm a huge fan of the...middle third of Evangelion. The last third can take a long walk off a short pier. I'd let the EoE movie off with a little slap on the wrist, though. (The problem is I can't REALLY segregate the series like that...so overall I despise it, but respect aspects of it...still hate it though.) OFF TOPIC! X___X To address the new reviewer thing, the beans did indeed get spilled in another thread here on the forums, but I've been chosen to be the newest reviewer here on ANN! Exciting! If you see a review of Nabari no Ou on the site soon(ish), you'll know it was me!
EDIT: More stuff to discuss...
Well, that's the point I was making. There are...way...too many faux intellectuals in film study, theory, etc. There are some great, brilliant, down-to-earth people, too, but far too many have their head up their arse. So, yeah, glad you got exactly what I was trying to say! Not that faux-intellectuals are the only ones who saw more in Synecdoche than it really was. (It's a movie about nothing, okay, we get it, it doesn't need to be THIS LONG.) Roger Ebert loved it, rated it 4 stars, the whole mess, and I think he's a pretty sharp individual. He did point out that he was more fascinated by its editorial approach and visual symbolism than the..."story" itself. He liked that it was a movie about a movie about life. (I didn't!  )
I know, my apologies. X_X I already clarified myself for EVA fans and as to Lynch...yes...some people just love him because he's weird and doesn't care what anyone else thinks about it. There's a nobility to that. But some people really get freaking RANDOM interpretations out of every odd detail in his arthouse extravaganzas. (He put it in there because it looked cool! It just LOOKS COOL. *points* That means something, let's talk about that, now ignore all the playing around he did in that part over there.) |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||||||
This I shall agree with, provided the judgement of the production's qualities abstractable from individual response do not bear too much influence on more personally-influenced judgements. Separating the garnish from the nutrition, so to speak. I might have misinterpreted the strength of your claim, however.
I err to stand in disagreement to such a notion, it appears to be implicit aesthetic objecitivism. Of course, one may have in mind personal states (or, alternatively, 'personal avowals') to which one can reduce something's goodness aside just 'liking' it—being moved by it, for example—but I'd expect enjoyment to be a factor somewhere.
I assume this achieves the review's purpose. If ever I had to write a review, I can imagine being able to elucidate my potentially misleading views, but would probably either nervously warn that others might not like what I liked, or else pepper my statements with unsuitable instances of 'I think that'. I would end up either being uninformative or timid in my critique, such that reviewing something would probably never achieve much for me. The notion of a guilty pleasure is something with which I struggle: it seems to be established by some sort of social convention, the exact character of which I can never quite grasp. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4582 |
|
|||||||||||||
This is a fantastic point, and I think it bears repeating. I can't count how many times in the past, even as recently as a few days ago, where I've come across someone making negative comments about a series or movie I enjoyed that don't amount to much more than, "The characters weren't realistic, there were a lot of plot holes, and nothing made sense," with no qualifying statements explaining why...or even worse, they're making claims that are flat-out falsehoods. And though it sometimes runs the risk of driving the thread off-topic, I usually feel compelled to call them on it, because nothing gets to me more than seeing someone attempt to use generalities or misconceptions to trash a series. I don't mind at all if someone has a different opinion than I do, but they have to be willing to sit down and explain why they think as they do; otherwise, it's not really worth anything.
I completely agree with this, too. To a person, ANN's review staff have a fantastic grasp of the English language, and they're able to express themselves in a way that's incredibly entertaining to read; even when I don't completely agree with a particular review, I feel like my time was well-spent reading it. I don't know if it's a popular opinion, but I have to say that I tend to enjoy Carl's reviews the most: not only do they often spur the most entertaining vitriol in the forums, but more often than not, his tastes are generally in-line with my own. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
pparker
 Posts: 1185 Location: Florida |
|
|||||||||||||
First, congrats on your new job here. I'm a newcomer to your reviews, but have watched a few and enjoyed them. I think this point is best answered in the paragraph Erin quotes in the current Shelf Life regarding criticism vs. review. Most of what you're going to review is mass entertainment. People aren't anxious to have their entertainment dissected and bludgeoned, which would be the overwhelming majority since most of it is "crap" as the saying goes. If you critiqued and analyzed every anime, very few would stand up well. And the specialized audience for criticism can find it. On the other hand, by writing an honest and informed review (meaning by someone who is actually knowledgeable in the medium and can write entertaining copy), you help someone determine what to buy, which is the point. Some people confuse the two forms, thinking that reviews are supposed to be critiques, or be deeply analytical. I don't. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group