Forum - View topicThis Week in Anime - When Criticism Meets Anime Fandom
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
WoodDude
 Posts: 64 |
|
|||
I actually think this is true at least in a general sense. I'm always reminded of those gaming site that get people who hate JRPGs to review JRPGs and then act surprised they don't like the JRPG and then fans get upset they didn't like it because they should have known they weren't going to like the JRPG. It makes me wonder why they were chosen to review the JRPG if they don't like them rather than using like the guy who likes JRPGS to evaluate it to see how it measures up to other JRPGs in the genre. At least if you want the review to be actually helpful. Maybe no one on the site likes JRPGs but you know not having anything for a big release would be leaving money on the table so it's an obligation to have at least something. As far as the 'don't be judgy about certain content' thing I think people should be free to express dislike of specific content in media. The trick is for people to know how to recognize and use that information. For example, if a show gets eviscerate in the preview guides here then I'm more likely to check it out or assume it will go on to be one of the biggest shows of the season because I know the type of content/anime the reviewers here tend to not like are the ones I do. So when something like Onimai or Mushoku Tensei gets so many 1s and meme review scores of the reviewers screaming "NOOO" I know they're probably going to be shows I like because I know the kind of content that sets off the reviewers here. Likewise when other people complain about woke stuff in a show the people who do like woke stuff can see that as a recommendation of it for themselves as well. So even negative reviews can be useful so long as you know how to interpret them and what the criticisms are actually saying. |
||||
|
||||
|
BlueFoot
Posts: 4 |
|
|||
|
I really don't care whether the reviewer is a fan of the genre of the work or its elements or format or whatever. What I want out of a review is an explanation of why the reviewer feels the way they do about it. I can figure things out from there. I don't need someone to make me feel better about liking or not liking something. I don't read reviews for validation.
To me, the worst reviews either do nothing but recap what happened or go to the opposite extreme and don't mention any of the content and just go with some variation of "Another great episode with everything that we've come to expect!" Both make it seem like there was nothing about the work in question that made the reviewer feel anything. Actually, the worst is when there's no review at all. I'll take a bitter, spiteful evisceration of something I like over nothing. Other perspectives can help you to see aspects that you may have overlooked or understand why something you liked didn't go over well with the masses. And that in turn can help you to interpret other reviews for your particular tastes. You still have to put that work in. As for that Gundam piece, I didn't bother trying to comment due to the direction the discussion took. There's certainly room for disagreement about anything that breaks something that huge into a bunch of yes/maybe/no recommendations. But first you need to accept that those are only one person's recommendations and not unbreakable rules. Again, it comes down to why something got the recommendation it did, which there really wasn't enough room to fully explore in a summary piece like that. The watch order piece also comes into play here. Where you start and what else you watch will cause the answers to shift. The experience will be different depending on what else you're familiar with. And that can be hard to see if you've already seen anything on the list. Sometimes it helps to step outside of your own experience and see things from a different perspective. And that's what I'm looking for from reviews. |
||||
|
||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4576 |
|
|||
|
That's a great post, BlueFoot. I think there are a few different issues in play here. For one, I fully agree that a critic shouldn't be required to be a fan of a particular genre in order to review a series from it. All that would do is breed echo chambers full of those already familiar with and accepting of that genre's tropes, and the reviews themselves would be largely useless to those who don't have prior experience with that genre. Even moreso, it would result in said tropes going unchallenged, even those that could be considered as problematic by a more general audience. What's most important is that the critic articulates why they like/dislike certain aspects of the work, so that even if the reader disagrees with their conclusions, they can still understand the reasoning behind them. Unfortunately I think there are too many people out there who only want reviews that reinforce their own opinions of a work, and they treat anything critical of what they enjoy as a personal attack against them. I don't think it's particularly healthy to tie one's identity that strongly to the media that one chooses to consume, and indeed I consider it to almost be a type of immaturity. Once you get older and/or more experienced in a medium, hopefully you realize that others' opinions of something you enjoy don't matter all that much either way, and that even a negative opinion of them can help you view your own enjoyment of them in a different light.
What I do think is important is finding critics who resonate with you personally, whether you frequently agree with them or just enjoy their writing style. Going back a ways, one of the ANN reviewers that clicked the most with me was Carl Kimlinger. I was on the same page as him at least 90% of the time, and even when I wasn't, he did such a good job of articulating his points that I could always see where he was coming from. (Unfortunately he seemed to fall off the face of the Internet after he stopped working for ANN, which is a shame.) I wasn't always as in lockstep with Zac's opinions, but I loved reading them regardless, because he'd forgotten more about the medium than I will ever know. More recently, I've really clicked with most of James Beckett's work. His reviews of the second season of Vinland Saga are some of the finest pieces of writing about the medium I've ever had the pleasure to read. Over the years there have been other reviewers whose opinions I've largely shared, and a few who frequently left me puzzled, but what was important was being able to recognize whose style I found the most valuable. (As an aside, I just finished up watching the Entertainment District Arc of Demon Slayer on Toonami, and I don't know if it's kosher to revive that comment thread, but man I have some opinions on the ridiculous pushback James received over his reviews. The man called it like it is.) Now for a spicier take: I won't pull out the "media literacy" chestnut, but I do think that many people out there don't have much of a developed critical sense in the first place. They never get past that shallow "I liked this thing, so therefore it's good," level, and as a result they bounce off negative reviews with the reflexive response, "But I liked it, so it can't be bad!" The quality and entertainment value of a work aren't inherently joined together, and a series can be woefully deficient in the former yet still hit a home run in the latter. Case in point: there was that recent article about Frieren knocking off FMA: Brotherhood from the top all-time ranking spot both here and on MAL, and after reading it I took a look at the top 10 rankings here out of curiosity. What immediately jumped off the page at me was Code Geass R2. By any sane measure, that second season was an absolute narrative cluster****...but I loved the hell out of watching it, largely because it was such a cluster****. My point being, you're allowed to really like bad things. There's no law saying you can't! But the problems start when people like bad things while actively denying that they're bad. When you reach the point when you're able to acknowledge that something is crap but still freely admit that you like it, then I think you've hit the next level. (Incidentally, this is why I've had my ratings column hidden on MAL since the day I created my account. I never decided for myself what those numbers should be: do I base them on how much I enjoyed a series, or on how good I thought it was? Couple that with how absurd I find reducing an entire viewing experience to a single number, and I figured I'm better off not even trying. If you want to know what I thought about something, then just ask me, and I'll happily talk your ear off about it!) And finally, for those who have felt attacked by lines in reviews of, well, "questionable" series, I will always defend the right of any piece of entertainment to be made, no matter how creepy or disgusting it may seem to society as a whole. If you're going to loudly and proudly state your love for a series which, for instance, features a guy who really wants to bang his little sister, then you have every right to do so. But at the same time, everyone else has an equal right to call you on that. Even the most basic sense of social awareness would tell you that there are certain things where it's best to keep your fandom on the DL. Like, there's a reason privacy mode exists on browsers, right? |
||||
|
||||
|
Lord Geo
Posts: 2547 Location: North Brunswick, New Jersey |
|
|||
While I do agree with the overall sentiment, it still follows the inherent flaw in this logic, which simply boils down to "I think this is bad, yet I still enjoy it; ergo, it's definitively bad, so others should just admit that it's bad, but still enjoy it". It's well intentioned, but still kind of insulting at the same time. Using Code Geass R2, since it was brought up, it is perfectly fine to enjoy the series, even if you think it's bad (or even BECAUSE you think it's bad). However, that doesn't mean that you should be telling other people who may legitimately enjoy it "Look, it's OK to enjoy things that are bad", because while you may not be intending to do so you're still essentially telling them "You're wrong, & I'm right" when it comes to stuff that's purely subjective, i.e. having an opinion on something like an anime. Yes, you yourself are allowed to like really bad things, but that doesn't mean that you should go around telling other people that it's OK if they like really bad things, especially if you use a specific example to illustrate that as though it's an objective fact. You can certainly enjoy Code Geass R2 despite or because you think it's bad, but others can also certainly enjoy Code Geass R2 because they legitimately think it's good. I certainly have enjoyed various things despite or because I think they're bad, but I'm not going to go around telling people who may enjoy it earnestly something like "It's OK if you like it; just admit that it's bad". I'd rather just say "We both like it, but probably for different reasons", and leave it at that. |
||||
|
||||
|
Top Gun
Posts: 4576 |
|
|||
|
Those are fair points. I didn't mean to fixate on any particular series. I don't think that Geass R2 is a spectacularly bad series or anything (far from it), but compared to the rest of the series listed in ANN's all-time top 10 it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb, so it's the first thing that came to mind. And I promise I don't see myself as some sort of universal arbiter of "good" or "bad." At the very least I'd like to think that in almost 20 years of actively watching anime, I've developed at least a little bit of a critical eye. (I also believe that, were someone to submit a plot summary of R2 in a creative writing class, the professor would most likely laugh them out of the room, which is what prompted me using it in the first place.)
Let me use another example. A group of friends and I love the hell out of s-CRY-ed, and have ever since we watched it together on [adult swim]. It's some of the most fun I've ever had with a series, and I'd take very little prompting to start rewatching it right now. It's cheesy beyond measure, it's full of shouting and nonsensical powers and rainbow-tinged salsa madness, and the very talented English cast is absolutely hamming it up and chewing every inch of the scenery. It's the anime equivalent of a B-movie, and that's why I love it. I also know that no sane person should list it anywhere near an all-time top 10 list (unless it's for "top 10 uses of Engrish in theme songs" of course). Series like that are what I was thinking of when I made that argument. As I said above, a review of a series is subjective by its very nature. But at the same time, I do think that an experienced critic can make a reasonable call on the overall quality of a series when held up against others in its medium, at least enough to determine whether it should join the all-time greats that have stood the test of time. Kind of a "still inherently subjective, yet carrying more weight than a singular opinion," if that makes any sense. |
||||
|
||||
|
AsleepBySunset
Posts: 205 |
|
|||
Personally, peoples top 10s should just be... their top 10. People shouldn't filter their top tens so that only series other people will agree on, or other people will think are good are included. If for whatever reason someone payed me to write a top 10, I have no interest in for example removing FMA 2003 and replacing it with brotherhood (considering brotherhood isn't 10/10 tier and 2003 is 10/10 tier) just to satisfy other people. |
||||
|
||||
|
Top Gun
Posts: 4576 |
|
|||
That's kind of the crux of my argument, though. There isn't necessarily a complete overlap between "series I have enjoyed the most" and "the best series I have seen." There are certainly series that are personal contenders for the former that I would never place anywhere near the latter. But at the same time, the two don't have to be mutually-exclusive either, as some of the series I've enjoyed the most are those I consider to be some of the greatest examples of the medium that will keep being referenced for decades. If you're creating your own personal rankings, you get to decide what to focus on, and if you are going strictly by "this is what I liked most," then of course you shouldn't let outside considerations sway you. However, if you're a professional critic writing a review, I think you have to keep at least some focus on the longer view, because a review limited to the level of "I liked/didn't like this" doesn't say much about how the work holds up to the rest of its genre. |
||||
|
||||
FishLion
 Posts: 18 |
|
|||
|
I've gotten plenty of good recommendations from negative reviews. There are some stories or genres that click with me less and I need those to be top tier in my estimation or I won't find them enjoyable, meanwhile there are genres that really connect with me and I am willing to forgive some of their flaws to get at the interesting things they are doing in that genre. I think expecting reviewer to be a passionate expert in every genre is a recipe for disappointment. Even if review sites purposefully hired "experts" in every genre, people would probably take issue with only one person reviewing their favorite material and want other voices. It would be nice if we could form a cohesive review site based on our favorite genres so we can go in knowing it is someone else with a passion for our interest, but we shouldn't come to a site that is purposefully big tent and targeted at the entire field of anime and say it's unreasonable to have someone give their thoughts on a genre outside their norm. It is a site made for any anime fan to show up and get editorials about what is new, so having the writers come from that perspective makes sense. If this was a site focused on a genre then expecting a high degree of literacy for each genre would be reasonable, but ANN does not market itself as such.
What I have learned to do is scan criticisms for markers of things I enjoy. I focus less on the final verdict and more on elements that intrigue me. If something catches my interest then I check out the first episode and I see if it hooks me. Looking for elements I enjoy in the review, however the reviewer felt about them, has lead me finding more new shows I enjoy than I have in a very long time, much more than building a list of high rated shows and going in blind. |
||||
|
||||
Alan45
 Village Elder Posts: 9841 Location: Virginia |
|
|||
|
I have to agree with FishLion here. If you actually read a review (and not just the score) and the writer is reasonably articulate about what they do and do not like about a show, there is plenty to tell you that you may like the show regardless of the critic's opinion.
Another consideration is that with modern streaming, the bar to checking a show out and forming your own opinion is extremely low. If the blurb, the review and forum discussion don't tell you if you will like a show, just go watch it your self. If you already like a show and you are reading a review to have your opinion affirmed, I'm sorry, you just need to accept that other people will have a different reaction. To the best of my knowledge, neither ANN or any other site out there has enough clout to kill a show with a bad review. |
||||
|
||||
King Chicken
 Posts: 88 |
|
|||
And it should be only fair said fans have an equal right to call those naysayers on that in turn. It's fine to not like "questionable" series, but at some point I feel people have to ask themselves if they're really the general audience or if they're the ones who are the minority here with the contrarian opinion. I feel like when the biggest nerd convention in the world is Comiket which has dedicated days to smut works filled with said "questionable" content, along with the majority of anime is filled with said "questionable" content and said "questionable" series tend to be the most popular and successful series worldwide then it's because that's what the general audience likes. If anyone should keep their opinions on the downlow and to themselves then maybe it should be the naysayers. Did the creators of One Piece, Dragonball, Mushoku Tensei, and all the other top dogs somehow game the system when they created such successful series despite being filled with problematic content, or is the truth that most people are fine with all the fanservice and crass jokes in those shows because it's what general audiences actually like. Are the people rolling their eyes everytime Nami gets her clothes torn off really the majority here? Is Oda just that disconnected from his general audience that he keeps making these blunders and putting in things most people don't actually like, or is he actually giving people exactly what they want and enjoy out of the series? Just my two cents. |
||||
|
||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 647 |
|
|||
Barely anything in this post was worth replying to, but have to take a moment to laugh at the absurdity of this grouping. |
||||
|
||||
|
Avec ou Nous
Posts: 105 |
|
|||
The day Akira Toiryama's passing was announced I saw a number of critics who felt that was perfect time to start criticizing his legacy and began calling him sexist, racist, homophobic, and the other kinds of words due to his beliefs or the content he put in his works. Never before did I see so many people across the world from all colors, nations, and creeds come together to defend one person and completely drown out those people to the point they had to go protected mode or just flat out delete their account on various social media platforms. My personal interpretation of that was that most people seemed completely fine with Toriyama's beliefs and/or the content he put in his works. |
||||
|
||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
Posts: 647 |
|
|||
Are those 'critics' in the room with us right now? |
||||
|
||||
|
Nigel Planter
Posts: 67 Location: London, UK |
|
|||
Depending on who you ask critics like The Critical Drinker are responsible for certain Hollywood movies and television shows doing poorly so I guess it depends how big of an audience said critics have or how certain executives and showrunners want to be and blame things on said critics. And we did get that expose from New York Magazine that reported on how studios pay PR firms to help boost their reviews on aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatos so I guess they do care what critics think enough to do stuff like that. But honestly I doubt most Japanese creators care very much about what people outside of the country think so probably not in this specific case. Although even in Japan I'm not sure how in depth the critic industry is or if it even bothers with anime at all outside films. |
||||
|
||||
Shay Guy
 Posts: 2123 |
|
|||
Not sure what your point is. In pure terms of popularity, Mushoku Tensei is pretty much the top dog in Narou isekai novels, just as much as DB and OP are in shonen battle manga. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group