|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Mar 16, 2008 8:26:23 GMT -5
Yeeeouch! I'd hate to think any of my work encouraged sleep in its viewers...that is if I actually made anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by DojoCasino on Mar 16, 2008 8:34:36 GMT -5
Funnily enough my brother is a philosophy student and he is in love with everything ghost in the shell. I watched the film and some episodes of the series and thought it had cool action sequences but didn't understand what was going on most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Mar 16, 2008 8:51:29 GMT -5
After being introduced to him by Patlabor, each time I hear that the name Mamoru Oshii I brace myself for an overtly pretentious snore-fest (and this is coming from a Hideaki Anno fan, mind you!)
He allways transforms the characters he's working with into lifeless robot encyclopedias spewing out existential philosophy in a random, boring manner.
Just as with Elfen Lied and Trigun, the real meat is in the manga which doesn't try to be so "serious" and "deep" but asks important questions and manages to entertain more than just your eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Mar 16, 2008 9:27:36 GMT -5
At least he's not Balthasar Kormákur BA-ZING!
This is also why many people should like Haruhi; every single piece of technobabble is so incoherent and nonsensical, you can't help but laugh at every time Kyon tells them to stop reciting a dictionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Mar 16, 2008 10:01:08 GMT -5
I actually like Ghost in the Shell SAC and 2nd GIG. Sure, the characters sound like tech-manuals most of the time but there's actually a hint of humanity here and there and the Tachikomas manage make the philosophical banter FUN this time around.
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is the first and so far the only CGI infused Anime that has made my jaw drop because of it's beyond stunning visuals, and that owes more to it's heavy Blade Runer/steampunk inspired art-direction than it's digital means. But as usual, the story and phasing almost put me to sleep, and it's not because it was slow moving (I'm off the slow build-up, less is more crowd).
It's funny, but so far my favorite GItS animated work remains the cut sequences from the PS1 game because they are the only ones so far to capture the easy going mood of the manga.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isao Kronos (BANNED) on Mar 16, 2008 12:54:59 GMT -5
I'm more of a SAC/SSS viewer, but even then thinking back the philosophical and technical mumbo jumbo WAS sorta boring at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Mar 16, 2008 13:04:56 GMT -5
I never got into any of the GitS series. I liked SAC for awhile and even then it felt like all the technobabble was covering up for a lack of actual substance.
|
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Mar 16, 2008 13:16:04 GMT -5
I'm a medium-fan of GitS. I like the technobabble. Not because it feels "deep" or whatever, but because I really like that feeling of extreme confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 16, 2008 14:41:04 GMT -5
I've never seen GitS and don't really have any desire to, but I have to disagree with your "Ignorant White Folk Masterpieces" idea. I get where you're going and I almost half agree with you in concept, but when you get down to it, I think you're completely incorrect in believing someone like Robert Ebert doesn't have the knowledge or experience to make bold claims on anime films. While that may apply to any comments about the technical levels of the animation (in which case very few people would be qualified), I trust reviewers of his ilk MORE than the diehard anime fans, believe it or not. It doesn't take someone who gorges himself on mahou shoujo, mecha, and what have you to review a film well. It takes someone who has mastered the art of critique itself, someone who is extensively familiar with the elements of a quality film, animated or otherwise. Being an anime really has nothing to do how well a film conveys its story, how well the performers can act, how well the layout and direction of each scene is laid out, so on and so forth. Most anime reviewers frankly don't know these things. THEY'RE the ones that aren't experienced enough because they're so smitten with anything animated in Japan that they'll watch anything with saucer eyes and j-pop and completely love it. They're just not discriminating enough, so I'll frequently ask myself what the hell is the reviewer thinking when they actually believe so-and-so anime show or movie has a good plot or likable characters or attractive art/animation. I mean, just before coming here, I was reading a positive review of the Tekken movie, in which the reviewer also stated that the Fatal Fury movie is horrible. I mean, what the hell? :P Is this bizarro world? (By the way, I don't think the Fatal Fury movie is GOOD, but it's certainly better than that Tekken dreck.)
Oh, and just to not be misunderstood, this isn't a personal attack on your reviews, just a generalization on the idea of professional movie critics vs. reviews from anime fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Mar 16, 2008 15:01:37 GMT -5
What's all this talk about techno-babble the show is primarily about political science. I don't know what show you guys are watching, as you have not once mentioned this.
Edit:Well the show at least I've never seen the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Mar 16, 2008 23:46:36 GMT -5
I've never seen GitS and don't really have any desire to, but I have to disagree with your "Ignorant White Folk Masterpieces" idea. I get where you're going and I almost half agree with you in concept, but when you get down to it, I think you're completely incorrect in believing someone like Robert Ebert doesn't have the knowledge or experience to make bold claims on anime films. While that may apply to any comments about the technical levels of the animation (in which case very few people would be qualified), I trust reviewers of his ilk MORE than the diehard anime fans, believe it or not. It doesn't take someone who gorges himself on mahou shoujo, mecha, and what have you to review a film well. It takes someone who has mastered the art of critique itself, someone who is extensively familiar with the elements of a quality film, animated or otherwise. Being an anime really has nothing to do how well a film conveys its story, how well the performers can act, how well the layout and direction of each scene is laid out, so on and so forth. Most anime reviewers frankly don't know these things. THEY'RE the ones that aren't experienced enough because they're so smitten with anything animated in Japan that they'll watch anything with saucer eyes and j-pop and completely love it. They're just not discriminating enough, so I'll frequently ask myself what the hell is the reviewer thinking when they actually believe so-and-so anime show or movie has a good plot or likable characters or attractive art/animation. I mean, just before coming here, I was reading a positive review of the Tekken movie, in which the reviewer also stated that the Fatal Fury movie is horrible. I mean, what the hell? :P Is this bizarro world? (By the way, I don't think the Fatal Fury movie is GOOD, but it's certainly better than that Tekken dreck.) Oh, and just to not be misunderstood, this isn't a personal attack on your reviews, just a generalization on the idea of professional movie critics vs. reviews from anime fans. Sorry, but you're way wrong there. Roger Ebert's experience with film in general allows him to make claims about movies like My Neighbor Totoro being one of the greatest movies ever. Fine, whatever. Movies are his speciality. But Roger Ebert doesn't watch anime, so where does he get off saying that My Neighbor Totoro is one of the greatest animes of all time? What right does he have to say that? He might as well tell us which video games are masterpieces as well. We all have an area of expertise. Ebert is a film expert, not an anime expert. I have more credibility in saying what animes are better or worse than he does because I've probably seen 10,000 times as much anime as he has. Not that I'm holding it against him. I wouldn't expect someone of his age to be into anime enough to delve into its greater depths. But at the same time, he shouldn't really butt in by saying what's good and what's not. That's pretty silly, really. As a guy, do you think I should go around recommending gynecologists? |
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 17, 2008 0:31:05 GMT -5
Well, there's really no way of knowing how much anime Ebert has seen, but if it's a film and it got a US release, I imagine it's pretty likely he has seen it (more so if it came out in theaters, though, but Ebert & Roeper do review direct-to-video movies too). Within that criteria, I think he's entitled to call something the best anime since I think his readers/watchers are intelligent enough to know the terms under which such a statement is being said. It's obvious that it doesn't include TV shows, OVAs, and stuff that never left Japan.
I still don't think experiencing loads and loads of a certain given product magically gives someone the ability to analyze and critique things well. Maybe I'm more pessimistic than you, but I really do believe that the majority of diehard anime fans are drooling otaku that wouldn't know a bad anime from a good anime if it bit them on the ass. They're just happy to watch ANYTHING if it qualifies as anime (or now and then they'll dislike something for inane reasons), and these are also generally the people who have inundated themselves with the largest quantities of it. Experience is valuable, yes, but only when it's working together with skill in analysis. There's also a point where experience won't really get you any further. I could sit down and play through a hundred more games, but I don't think it's going to make me any better of a reviewer. However, if write 100 more reviews, that sure as heck would, especially if I pick apart my writing looking for ways to improve and analyzing how I receive games to pick up and convey finer aspects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Mar 17, 2008 7:24:27 GMT -5
Well, there's really no way of knowing how much anime Ebert has seen, but if it's a film and it got a US release, I imagine it's pretty likely he has seen it (more so if it came out in theaters, though, but Ebert & Roeper do review direct-to-video movies too). Within that criteria, I think he's entitled to call something the best anime since I think his readers/watchers are intelligent enough to know the terms under which such a statement is being said. It's obvious that it doesn't include TV shows, OVAs, and stuff that never left Japan. I still don't think experiencing loads and loads of a certain given product magically gives someone the ability to analyze and critique things well. Maybe I'm more pessimistic than you, but I really do believe that the majority of diehard anime fans are drooling otaku that wouldn't know a bad anime from a good anime if it bit them on the ass. They're just happy to watch ANYTHING if it qualifies as anime (or now and then they'll dislike something for inane reasons), and these are also generally the people who have inundated themselves with the largest quantities of it. Experience is valuable, yes, but only when it's working together with skill in analysis. There's also a point where experience won't really get you any further. I could sit down and play through a hundred more games, but I don't think it's going to make me any better of a reviewer. However, if write 100 more reviews, that sure as heck would, especially if I pick apart my writing looking for ways to improve and analyzing how I receive games to pick up and convey finer aspects. Almost any hardcore fanbase is made up of a majority of drooling retards, but that's not everybody. And the number of movies/anime you've watched or games you've played DOES play a major role in how much credibility your opinion has in that particular area. The amount of knowledge you have in that field of entertainment is very important. I can't say for certain, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that most, if not all of Ebert's anime consists of Manga Video and Studio Ghibli releases. That translates roughly to his opinion being worth less than shit to me in regards to anime. Anime feature movies aren't the holy grail of anime. Quite the contrary, really. Aside from a select few, I find that anime films are usually the most dull and least rewarding of the three categories of film, OVAs and TV shows. The only real benefit they have is a really big budget with gorgeous animation, a fact which is encapsulated with Ghost in the Shell. Most of the people who go nuts over anime feature films are people who don't watch much anime. |
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 17, 2008 13:08:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I find most anime movies boring as well. But in purely relative terms, if Ebert wants to say one anime film is the best compared to other anime films, that's fine by me, and I'd say he'd be one of the most capable reviewers to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 17, 2008 15:15:46 GMT -5
If I may interject - anime IS film. It's not a genre either. A good anime is a good film and there's really not much of a difference. I think in this case Ebert should be extolling its qualities as a film. I think he might be treading outside of his territory when he tries to say things like "best anime of all time" (don't know if he's ever said that) because he may not have the expertise to quantify it like that. But you shouldn't discount his opinion because he hasn't spent ungodly amounts of time watching Love Hina or something.
|
|
