Forum - View topicEP. REVIEW: Goblin Slayer [2018-10-14]
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JustinTaco
 Posts: 118 |
|
|||||||||
Weekly reviewed shows are all voted on by readers at the beginning of the season, I believe. And a lot of people liking something does not make it good. A lot of people eat junk food. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
nargun
Posts: 925 |
|
|||||||||
|
Just to point out, there are really two valid reasons to read a review, or a criticism might be a better word:
a: to get an idea of its contents without watching it yourself, so you can for example decide whether or not to watch it yourself later, or b: to get a perspective on a show that's not yours, so you can see and comprehend things that you didn't see yourself unassisted. I guess there's a possible c:, too: to reiterate the experiences you got from watching a show through a method other than rewatching the show, which may not be time-practical and which won't give you the same experiences the second time around anyway. If you're a big fan of the show, then: + a: is of no relevance to you, and + it's pretty likely that the points raised in b:, the stuff that you missed, are going to be negative elements rather than positive. Which is fine, I think: I don't need there to be a link between "shows that I enjoy" and "shows that are low in flaws". But if you're after c: and you don't want any negatives from b: or a:, if you only-and-solely want the positive buzz from the show without any problem areas being pointed out to you... you're not going to get that from professional criticism. Because that's not what professional criticism is. There is nothing wrong with wanting to relive the experience of watching a show, not in the slightest, I've done it myself a few times... but professional critics cannot and thus will not deliver that experience to you. Their task is a: and b:, not c:, or c: only secondarily to a: and b:. Because serving purpose c: means sacrificing a: and b:, and we need a:, for the audience who haven't yet watched, and we need b:, to guide creators. c:... fans can do that by writing for each other, can't they? Like, absolutely you can do it: I'm sure the show was a positive experience for you that you want to relive and I don't want to stop you doing that... but don't demand that those of us who want a: and b: shouldn't be able to get it if it gets in the way of your vibe, don't demand that people never unrecommend a show or make critiques showing space for improvement. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
TexZero
Posts: 583 |
|
|||||||||
Hold on. Why would you think of this as something other than what we got ? Even the manga isn't any more "revolutionary" in its portrayal of events. The basic narrative structures between the two hardly change and the tone is fairly consistent as well which has me questioning if you were really here for something different or just to bash the show as a whole. This question is virtually the same for the reviewer, it strikes me as odd that they constantly draw deeper meaning from something that quite clearly isn't and hasn't been trying to be deep or thoughtful to begin with. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mavado
 Posts: 85 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
NPC
 Posts: 56 |
|
|||||||||
> The passage of time is enough of a plot point for it to be mentioned What kind of argument is that? Something being mentioned in passing doesn't make it a plot point, effect on the plot makes it plot point. Otherwise every little sentence in LN suddenly becomes a "plot point." I see you dropped the "key plot point" claim. Progress. > it affects more than just the fight with the goblin lord - it also heavily affects Goblin Slayer's mindset It doesn't affect the fight in any way. GS didn't intend to win it "fairly", him not being in top form changes nothing. It was an ambush. He had Priestess with him but he easily could have his entire party instead. Heck, he could delegate the entire fight to someone else. Mindset/mental journey thing just makes no sense - we are talking about fictional action character, his mindset exists for the sake of actions, not vice versa. Order switch doesn't create any inconsistencies in character development. Naturally you are not even trying to point out any real problem. Because they don't exist and trying to make them up would just inevitably look dumb. > Also no, there are dozens of way to deliver such basic information as the passage of time And we are not talking about passage of time. We are not even talking about something visible like wounds. We are talking about "GS was acutely aware that his skills had dulled." Go ahead and list the first 2-3 dozens of ways to deliver it naturally in anime. > And while you're right in that the Water Town arc would make for a poor ending to a season ... For the first season, there was no reason for the anime to venture into the Water Town arc at all. If they made season one volume one only, it would be radically different anime and you would find billion other faults in it. It is what it is though and it is what we were discussing. Keeping original order could be all the difference necessary between "we making the second season" and "it was a nice try, we will try harder next time." I am glad that we agree that volume 2 would be a poor ending. You conceded this point, switching discussion to other topic is pointless. I will mention though that postponing volume 2 to season 2 means just kicking the can down the road. It will still be there and they would still have to deal with it eventually. Bad idea. > if they just stopped trimming down dialogue in ways that rendered parts of it incoherent, BS. Which parts? > as well as cutting out the world-building, the non-action chapters and pretty much all signs of the female cast's internal thought processes. I think you missing an obvious yet important detail that internal though process is internal and therefore, while completely natural in LN, can't be naturally represented in manga or anime. And this is kinda important idea to get if you are trying to teach people how to properly adapt LN into anime. > Goblin Slayer anime wasn't facing any sort of "impossible" difficulties in adapting the original text into anime format; it simply didn't care to do so. Or maybe they just don't quite share your ideas. The adaptation was clearly successful, I suppose this is what they wanted. Considering they make anime for living and you are not, I don't see any reason to think you know better. > while I'm glad that you ended up enjoying it, for some of us expectations were a little higher than a brainless gory timewaster. I just love this pseudo-elitist declaration of own intellectual supremacy which is not based on anything at all. It is just so adorably dumb. Your expectations are not "higher", they are just different. Frankly, I doubt you would be happy with anything, all this "criticism" of yours is just an exercise in ego polishing. There is complete lack of substance in it. "Key plot point" affects nothing at all and you couldn't defend "basic order of events" idea either. Instead you produced a few new vague complains. It does look like you are complaining for the sake of complaining. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Galap
Moderator
 Posts: 2354 |
|
|||||||||
If you're going to make that claim, you have to explain it and back it up. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
nakobass
Posts: 57 |
|
|||||||||
|
My Rating A+
Episode 1 thru 12. Loved every second of Goblin Slayer. Looking forward to Season 2 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mavado
Posts: 85 |
|
|||||||||
You can take a look at openly political reviewers like Anime Feminist (I tried to find a good right wing counterbalance, but none stood out as prominent to me). Metacritic is actually a good place to look if you wan't to see this in action. Just search for criticism over "politically correct" reviews. Like here over Battlefield 5. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
NPC
Posts: 56 |
|
|||||||||
What is professional criticism? There are people who hired to make reviews. It doesn't automatically make them professionals. They can be just as bad at it as some random guy from the street. What makes critic successful is his readers. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has to pander to them but his reviews must be interesting, relevant and easy to read for majority of readers. This is how critics become professionals, they gradually get acceptance of public. I know nothing about Christopher Farris. I read the first weekly review in GS series because of all the noise around the first episode. There wasn't anything remotely interesting or thought provoking, my general impression was that this guy should just stop torturing himself and watch something else. Just an example:
There is nothing arbitrary about that, adventurers that worth their salt deal with much more dangerous creatures daily. Goblins are dangerous but weak and noob parties regularly deal with them. They fail sometimes, but this happens with all adventurers, this job is inherently dangerous. My goal would be "b" in your little classification and there is not a trace of it in Christopher Farris' reviews. Which accidentially makes them also completely uselsess for "a" and "c". I am definitely not inerested in anything he has to say about Goblin Slayer or anything else. The same is true for a few other ANN critics. Assigning popular anime to a reviewer who hates it is just setting him up for failure. He will not be able to write anything interesting about it. His numerous and generally enthusiastic readers will consider his reviews bad which would make him a bad critic (see definition above). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18210 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||
First, the definition of a "professional" is someone who gets paid to do what they do. We do get paid for reviews, so that makes us professionals. Now, as to whether we're any better than some random guy off the street, keep in mind that everyone who does reviews for ANN has either auditioned (as I did) or has an established track record in blogs, podcasts, and/or other web sites (most who have come into the fold in the last few years). Zac doesn't take anyone onto the reviewing staff who hasn't proven that they can write critically.
You seem to be under some bad misconceptions here. Given how prominent and controversial a title it was for the season, Chris almost certainly not only volunteered to review GS but probably had it high on his priority list. These days it's very rare for an episode reviewer to be assigned a title that they haven't at least expressed a willingness to do. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Galap
Moderator
Posts: 2354 |
|
|||||||||
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I know that people make politically motivated reviews. I'm just asking that you explain why you think this review in particular is politically motivated. It's OK to disagree with the staff or take issue with what they're doing, but it's not OK to just throw accusations out there without justification. No one will be banned for good-faith and reasoned criticism. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
NPC
Posts: 56 |
|
|||||||||
With all due respect, it doesn't matter for me if a person is paid or making it as a hobby as long as the reviews are interesting and useful for me. I can't imagine any reader who approaches it differently. And I pity the fool.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Ashabel
 Posts: 350 |
|
|||||||||
It has been brought up again and again - the manga is not the source material, the light novels are. The light novels are very tonally different from the manga, their writing style is more or less traditional fantasy in the vein of Lord of the Rings and they spend vastly more time on world-building and character introspective. They may not be revolutionary, but they're also not a borderline incoherent edgelord gorefest that the anmie ended up being. This may have something to do with the fact that the manga was extremely rushed into production - it was greenlit before the novels even hit the shelves. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mavado
Posts: 85 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Kendra Kirai
Posts: 187 |
|
|||||||||
Why and how did he have it high on his priority list? He didn't seem any more interested in what it was doing in his preview entry than any of the others who gave it a 3 rating, and all he did the whole time was bash the series for what it wasn't rather than what it was. He only grudgingly gave it props for what it did well and harped on the points it did poorly, he interpreted scenes so poorly that it seems like he was trying to get the wrong message from it, and in the same review he both *complained* that the show wasn't being excessive nor was it being boring in the *same sentence*. The one you used for the review snippet in fact! This all strikes me as being a reviewer who went in with a dislike for the show and no matter how different it became from the first episode, he was going to keep reviewing it like that first episode. We're (well, MOST of us are) fine if the reviewer doesn't like the show, but don't volunteer to review it if you aren't going to at least TRY to give it a chance. Let somebody who is *actually interested* in what it might have to say review it. We had this problem with Darling in the FranXX, too. It wasn't that good a show, but the reviewer didn't even seem to be paying attention while watching it after like episode 12, getting things wrong and asking questions in the review that previous or even *that same episode* answered straight out. We don't expect all glowing reviews. We expect actual effort and some level of open-mindedness. I don't think that's too much to ask from professionals who are getting paid to do this. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group