coldwave said: bleachjoj said: If you know what happens then you should know it was not a coincidence. Enlighten me how it's not a coincidence. No need to be a smart ass since this page tells you how |
bleachjoj said: It was all *spoiler* I apologize, forgot that part about. |
coldwave said: bleachjoj said: It was all *spoiler* I apologize, forgot that part about. No problem |
Toto_y_Moi said: Anime_Name said: I'm not. I'm going by what I've seen and read of manga to know that's not Gon's reaction in that situation. Yeah those were tears of anger when he told Kurapica about his encounter and certainly he wasn't crying because that encounter traumatized him at all... Gon cries a total of three times (as far as I can remember) in the entire series: 1. Chapter 1--The flashback wherein Gon, as a much younger child, is attacked by a Foxbear. 2. Gon's conversation with Kurapika at the end of the Fourth Phase, wherein Gon vents his frustration with being unable to dominate the situation against Hisoka according to his own terms. 3. To reveal some things about Gon, I am not sure why the number of times Gon has cried is being brought up. The 2nd point is the only relevant one to what I've said so far. The fact you said he cried because of frustration means his tears weren't just from anger just supports my statements. Pointing out he cried for more reasons than just anger is all I was getting at. What you kept on ignoring is that it's the combination of ALL these changes made to Gon and Killua's characterization (their inner conflicts, actions, decision making, focuses) that altered the way they're presented thematically, hence they feel like different characters. To the point that they are completely different characters? Hardly. Enough to make note of the differences between the manga and 1999 series? Sure. If it's just one isolated incident then it's fine. But no it's not, there're changes upon changes, the out-of-character presentation was just so consistent throughout the pre-Yorkshin part that (esp. Killua's 'emo' frontal look and mannerism). It tells me that the director just didn't understand Gon and Killua. He has his own idea of how they should be, and he chose to input and highlight those things that encouraged his own vision, instead of Togashi's. Yeah that happens with adaptations. Some stuff gets cut and other things get focused on more intently, go figure. The 2011 series does it too, they removed Gon's reason for being a Hunter by not showing his meeting with Kaito(did that flashback ever happen?) But anyway the point of adaptations is to accurately as possible to replicate what the source did and not to make characters seem completely different, the 1999 series accomplished with minimum changes and was spot on more often than different from the manga. |
 |
Anime_Name said: Yeah that happens with adaptations. Some stuff gets cut and other things get focused on more intently, go figure. The 2011 series does it too, they removed Gon's reason for being a Hunter by not showing his meeting with Kaito(did that flashback ever happen?) But anyway the point of adaptations is to accurately as possible to replicate what the source did and not to make characters seem completely different, the 1999 series accomplished with minimum changes and was spot on more often than different from the manga. That's not removed. That will most likely be in the show eventually. Kaito is silhouetted in the intro during the Hunter exam. It's no different than when they didn't show Luffy's reason for being a pirate until like the 3rd arc. I'll end this by saying that I'm not sure how you don't see the difference in characterization of the two but, you have your viewpoint so I'll leave it alone. |
Anime_Name said: Yeah that happens with adaptations. Some stuff gets cut and other things get focused on more intently, go figure. The 2011 series does it too, they removed Gon's reason for being a Hunter by not showing his meeting with Kaito(did that flashback ever happen?) But anyway the point of adaptations is to accurately as possible to replicate what the source did and not to make characters seem completely different, the 1999 series accomplished with minimum changes and was spot on more often than different from the manga. Not for me, the 1999 series took way too much artistic license and the changes were damaging enough to made Gon and Killua different characters for me. I can never re-watch those early episodes again because stuff like non-stealing, goody goody Leorio-helping Gon, emo morality-tormented Killua annoyed me too much. |
That's not removed. That will most likely be in the show eventually. Kaito is silhouetted in the intro during the Hunter exam. That is what being removed is, not taking place within the story of the anime. Having a shadow in the opening doesn't cover his events in the story. It's funny that you want to bring up OP when the anime takes the same liberties with the source material as HxH's 1999 series, ie re-ordered events, filler material(a lot more than HxH), and other discrepancies but to my knowledge people(maybe there is but not to the extent you're doing here) don't go around saying Luffy is a completely different character than in the manga with the only reasoning being that Oda didn't do it. I am have not said that I don't see the difference in characterization. What I've said is the differences don't make Gon a completely different character. So please stop making it seem like I am not acknowledging that each version has differences. Not for me, the 1999 series took way too much artistic license and the changes were damaging enough to made Gon and Killua different characters for me. Too bad for you. I'm sure you'll adjust to how anime adaptations work eventually. At which time you should be able to stop focusing and over-emphasizing on what makes the adaptation different and start being to see that the similarities far outweigh the differences. No, I am not going to rush you. Everyone has to crawl before they can walk. |
|
| To deviate from the bickering that has been going on in this entire thread, I'll just say that I enjoy both versions for different reasons. I notice that everyone gives Togashi the free pass on everything he does and treats his version of the story like perfection since he's of course the original author. As an avid reader of the manga and a fan of the series in general, I will say that I find every version of the series to be pretty flawed in their own regard. The reason I like the series is because I look past its flaws and see the aspects I like about it. For the record, the 1999 version DOES make some significant changes, but I don't automatically hate all of those changes because its an adaptation and another director's interpretation of the world and characters that Togashi created. By nature an adaptation should be expected to have some significant differences from its source material (to be honest, I find it more interesting than just merely copying and pasting the story-line from the manga like most anime adaptations are expected to do, as in that case I'll just be fine reading the manga). That said I still do like the 2011 version but honestly I'd just opt to read the manga instead of watching it if I had to pick one. I can come back to the 1999 version because its a different entity and I honestly quite prefer some of its changes since there are aspects of Togashi's story-line and characters that I downright hate in the original version (the manga). To be clear, I like his version better, but he is far from a flawless writer and story-teller himself. So, that's my 2 cents on the matter. Basically I think that all 3 versions are worth checking out, but the 1999 version comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses whereas the manga and the 2011 remake carrying things out differently. If you only wanted to pick one over the other, I'd say go with the manga, but if you have the time then I do recommend checking out all versions of the series (or at least the manga and the 1999 version), because they are definitely different entities. I have no doubt that one of the hardcore manga fans will say how wrong I am for liking the 1999 series despite it being different and making changes (most of which admittedly make the series feel like a more conventional shonen, but not a "badly" written shonen), but I decided to get my opinion out anyways since the arguing that has been going on in this thread is more likely to turn newcomers away from the series in general than to give them insightful opinions on the series. |
Anime_Name said: That's not removed. That will most likely be in the show eventually. Kaito is silhouetted in the intro during the Hunter exam. That is what being removed is, not taking place within the story of the anime. Having a shadow in the opening doesn't cover his events in the story. It's funny that you want to bring up OP when the anime takes the same liberties with the source material as HxH's 1999 series, ie re-ordered events, filler material(a lot more than HxH), and other discrepancies but to my knowledge people(maybe there is but not to the extent you're doing here) don't go around saying Luffy is a completely different character than in the manga with the only reasoning being that Oda didn't do it. I am have not said that I don't see the difference in characterization. What I've said is the differences don't make Gon a completely different character. So please stop making it seem like I am not acknowledging that each version has differences. . You just haven't been listening. Didn't say because it didn't happen meant it made him a different character but the way he was portrayed did. No filler has made Luffy more than he is. Also if he's in the opening then obviously he's going to be in it.But like I said I'm leaving it alone, it's your opinion. |
Anime_Name said: Too bad for you. I'm sure you'll adjust to how anime adaptations work eventually. At which time you should be able to stop focusing and over-emphasizing on what makes the adaptation different and start being to see that the similarities far outweigh the differences. No, I am not going to rush you. Everyone has to crawl before they can walk. No, my main problem isn't with Furuhashi's adaptation (which I already argue is a BAD one in characterization, thematic department), he's infamous for being loud in crapping all over the original source material anyway. My problem is always with 1999 series fanboys who bash the manga/new series by citing those made up fillers and wrong characterization as a point of comparison, or how oblivious they're for never reading the manga but then trash the 2011 for being faithful. ensatsu-ken said: I have no doubt that one of the hardcore manga fans will say how wrong I am for liking the 1999 series despite it being different and making changes (most of which admittedly make the series feel like a more conventional shonen, but not a "badly" written shonen), but I decided to get my opinion out anyways since the arguing that has been going on in this thread is more likely to turn newcomers away from the series in general than to give them insightful opinions on the series. I'm sure the amount of unfair 2011 trashing has already turned many newcomers away early on. I'm not bothered at all with people preferring the 1999 adaptation even knowing about the changes, as some people do prefer Furuhashi's vision. It just bothers me when those changes aren't acknowledged and the flaws are brushed aside, then in turn to trash the new series for being 'wrong' for not following those filler craps and wrong characterization. There's too many of these kinda voices, some people even claimed HxH is seinen..... For awhile it's like no one is speaking up to defend the manga/2011 version at all. Anyway for me I'm already thankful that there's a re-ignite interest for this series thanks for it being in the mainstream radar again. Now if only if Togashi would work harder... |
kcacoMay 22, 2012 11:34 AM
Also if he's in the opening then obviously he's going to be in it.But like I said I'm leaving it alone, it's your opinion. Talk about not actually listening. I didn't say he wouldn't be in it. I said his introductory meeting with Gon, which also serves as Gon's reasoning for wanting to a hunter, was removed from the beginning and possibly moved to a different spot in the anime. I say possibly moved because I don't recall seeing it yet. You just haven't been listening. Didn't say because it didn't happen meant it made him a different character but the way he was portrayed did. No filler has made Luffy more than he is. And yet HxH(1999) had less filler and less changes than the OP adaptation and for some reason Gon is more changed than Luffy. You're being mighty hypocritical. |
|
kcaco said: Anime_Name said: Too bad for you. I'm sure you'll adjust to how anime adaptations work eventually. At which time you should be able to stop focusing and over-emphasizing on what makes the adaptation different and start being to see that the similarities far outweigh the differences. No, I am not going to rush you. Everyone has to crawl before they can walk. No, my main problem isn't with Furuhashi's adaptation (which I already argue is a BAD one in characterization, thematic department), he's infamous for being loud in crapping all over the original source material anyway. My problem is always with 1999 series fanboys who bash the manga/new series by citing those made up fillers and wrong characterization as a point of comparison, or how oblivious they're for never reading the manga but then trash the 2011 for being faithful. Then you're staring too deeply into the abyss and in your attempt to right the many ones you see all you end up doing is sounding just like the people you dislike. I mean come on; making up lies about people, cursing, and tossing out random negative statements points to you taking this too serious and needing to cooldown a bit. |
|
| I came into the series with the manga, and watched the 1999 anime after reading up to the end of the York Shin City arc. I noticed that the anime adaptation was quite different in characterization (among other things), though not so much that it butchered the characters for me. Either way, it wasn't bad characterization to me. Though what's good and bad is purely subjective in this case, anyways. For the record I'm not a fan of Gon's character in either the manga or the anime. In the manga he's purposefully selfish but also fairly unlikable to me, and in the anime he's kind of just bland and generic. I've always liked HXH more for its supporting characters and villains, like Killua, Kurapika, Hisoka, the Phantom Troupe, and so on. And, like I said, the source material is itself flawed, so I can't hold it against the 1999 anime for changing things but having flaws of its own. |
Anime_Name said: I mean come on; making up lies about people, cursing, and tossing out random negative statements points to you taking this too serious and needing to cooldown a bit. I didn't make up lies about you, I quoted your exact quote last time, so don't go on all poor-me victim mode. ensatsu-ken said: I came into the series with the manga, and watched the 1999 anime after reading up to the end of the York Shin City arc. I noticed that the anime adaptation was quite different in characterization (among other things), though not so much that it butchered the characters for me. Either way, it wasn't bad characterization to me. Though what's good and bad is purely subjective in this case, anyways. For the record I'm not a fan of Gon's character in either the manga or the anime. In the manga he's purposefully selfish but also fairly unlikable to me, and in the anime he's kind of just bland and generic. I've always liked HXH more for its supporting characters and villains, like Killua, Kurapika, Hisoka, the Phantom Troupe, and so on. And, like I said, the source material is itself flawed, so I can't hold it against the 1999 anime for changing things but having flaws of its own. Can you cite some examples of the 'flaws' in the source material? I don't know why 1999 anime felt like they need to fix the so called flaws (if there's any to begin with). So Furuhashi wanted Gon to be a generic good boy hero, but it raised inconsistency and contradicting characterization in the future. Are cripples trio fighter a flaw in the manga that the 1999 anime felt like 'fixing'? Did they felt the sweet vacation at Whale Island isn't soap opera and angsty enough so they have to turn it into a Killua bear-killing emo trip? Perhaps he should write his own series to begin with, instead of hijacking the series. 1999 series at times just felt like Furuhashi's own fanfic with a Kurapika-centric lens, and Togashi's story is definitely worth a re-telling from a team that has a better understanding and love for the source material. 1999 series just came off conventionalizing Togashi's more eccentric vision and turn it into something for the mass appeal. |
kcacoMay 22, 2012 12:22 PM
I didn't make up lies about you, I quoted your exact quote last time, so don't go on all poor-me victim mode. I meant the statements and accusations you were hurling at the "fanboys" and director. |
|
Anime_Name said: I didn't make up lies about you, I quoted your exact quote last time, so don't go on all poor-me victim mode. I meant the statements and accusations you were hurling at the "fanboys" and director. You need to be more specific, not following. I don't make stuff up. |
he's[Furuhashi] infamous for being loud in crapping all over the original source material anyway I watched and participated in discussions about Kenshin, HxH, Le Chevalier, and Get Backers. I've never read about his fame for crapping over source material. There have been complaints about the direction some things took but most will admit that such directions where just adjustments necessary for the change in media and new audience. The biggest problem I've heard was about Kenshin:Reflection but that complaint is lodged against the writer. how oblivious they're for never reading the manga but then trash the 2011 for being faithful. That's a pretty big assumption you have to use in order to devalue some people's opinion. |
|
kcaco said: Can you cite some examples of the 'flaws' in the source material? -Togashi's work is far too inconsistent in narrative and at times badly paced. Look at the latter half of the Chimera Ant arc for the best, or "worst", as it took such a long stretch of chapters to cover such a small amount of material over a short time-span, and all of a sudden Togashi felt the need to explain every little thing about the characters to use through out-of-character narration text rather than letting readers infer things for themselves; that's just bad writing, period. -Togashi tries to make situations look dire by killing off previously established characters (minor ones, though), rather than doing it through good plot writing. This happened at the beginning of the Chimera ant arc and also has happened a bit more recently in the manga as well. Its a cheap trick more than good writing that made me roll my eyes more than actually invest me in the story. -Togashi has a tendency to throw in too many new characters at once while barely characterizing any of them beyond a few quirks. See: the characters from the beginning of the Hunter Exam, the team working for the same mafia family as Kurapika in the York Shin City arc, the ones introduced in Greed Island, the 12 Zodiacs (oh, and you just have to love how he just threw Ging into the foreground story without any sort of build-up at all....and yeah, I'm being sarcastic) -Togashi has a tendency to overexplain things in general. For things like the conept of Nen and other areas of the plot, it makes sense. However if Togashi's material was always as intelligent as people claim it to be he wouldn't need to have his characters explain things to the very last detail. This is a common problem with shonen in general, and for a series that's supposed to be as non-conventional as HXH, that's a mighty big convention he's still following. He doesn't ever try to be subtle and just express character emotion through artwork alone and he has a heavy over-reliance on text (of course, he has terrible artwork to begin with, and even fans of the manga can't really disagree with this) -Togashi favors writing over-powered enemies rather than smart enemies. This is actually my BIGGEST issue with the series in general. There are some exceptions to the rule, of course, but anyone who reads any amount of shonen series knows that its a cheap tactic to make a villain seem threatening by making them so many times more powerful than the heroes that the heroes don't stand a chance. It makes things seem dire and hopeless, but not in a way conveyed by good writing. Examples are aplenty. I can give Hisoka the slide since he's sort of the goal that Gon has to work to overcome, but its absolutely ridiculous how overpowered the Chimera Ants are. To be fair about half-way into the arc he actually started giving them some characterization as Meruem changed his thoughts and ideas and came up with a goal of wanting to create a superior society through his selection process, but that development came about rapidly after the character had been well established, not as gradual development over a lot of instances but over having experienced defeat a few times by one person, Komugi. That's not really well-written characterization but bringing about a significant character change through a plot convenience that could have easily just been written in as soon as Togashi thought about it without having been properly planned out. I do like that he at least changed the character from a 1-dimensional villain, though, so I'll give him credit for that. In general, though, I MUCH prefer villains who have the edge over the other characters because they are intelligent. They don't need to be so much more powerful but should be able to constantly outwit their opposition and seem threatening through more than just their pure strength. -Togashi also has a bad habit of just abruptly introducing characters or plot points that are clearly meant to come back later on but doing so in such an abrupt and out of place way. In good writing, one can do such foreshadowing seamlessly and integrate it into the main story, but Togashi ignores this. Remember Jairo/Gyro? Yeah, Togashi just decided to give him a chapter out of the blue explaining his back-story and how it related to the Chimera-Ant incident, and then didn't even bother mentioning his name again until around the end of the arc. I understand that its foreshadowing to his later appearance, but its done in such a forced and abrupt way. Say what you will, but that's just bad writing, plain and simple. He did a couple chapters like this with the Phantom Troupe as well, and has done this before, and it doesn't lend itself to getting invested into the endeavors of such characters when he doesn't transition into their stories well. If you want a prime example of a manga-ka who can handle multiple characters and transition between their contribution to the story well and also foreshadow later events seamlessly, look up some of the work by Naoki Urasawa. That's the bar by which I judge most other manga writing, myself, and in comparison Togashi's writing is sloppy and inconsistent. The guy can write great material and has great ideas, but he doesn't execute them all very well. My main point out of all of this is that, while I like Togashi's work, it is VERY, VERY flawed in my eyes. Its fine to have a non-conventional story, but there are certain aspects of good writing which should never be ignored, and more often than not I find Togashi's writing of how a story pans out to be very lazy. That's just my opinion, of course, but I can't stand how fans of the manga like to put the guy on a pedestal. He's not perfect, and HXH is FAR from a perfect series. It has its own problems, and some of the unconventional stuff he does is sometimes just the result of bad writing rather than being clever, which some people just seem downright oblivious to distinguishing. I don't know why 1999 anime felt like they need to fix the so called flaws (if there's any to begin with). Changes in an adaptation don't necessarily have to be to correct flaws. Sometimes they may be necessary for practical reasons like not catching up to the manga (like in the case of filler), but other times they may just be the personal touches of the people adapting it which adds a different flavor to the mix. It makes it interesting to view the adaptation and compare the differences. If I want the original version untouched, I'll read the manga. If I want to see a different interpretation, I'll watch the adaptation if I like it (which I do in this case), and if I don't like the adaptation, I can always just ignore it. So Furuhashi wanted Gon to be a generic good boy hero, but it raised inconsistency and contradicting characterization in the future. Are cripples trio fighter a flaw in the manga that the 1999 anime felt like 'fixing'? Did they felt the sweet vacation at Whale Island isn't soap opera and angsty enough so they have to turn it into a Killua bear-killing emo trip? Oh, haha. I'm not sure if you think I'm stupid just because I disagree with you opinion but I can sense the obvious sarcasm either way. And this is why I tend to stay away from fans of the manga. Dude, get out of your fanboy mode for a second and look at your post? You come off with such a condescending attitude and show no respect for anyone else's opinions while (or at least not mine), while I did absolutely nothing to insult you or disrespect your outlook on the series, unless giving my own opinion is considered insulting. Seriously, that's pretty childish. Perhaps he should write his own series to begin with, instead of hijacking the series. A studio bought the writes to adapt Togashi's manga and Furahashi was brought onto direct the adaptation. Its an adaptation. Something anime fans don't seem to realize is supposed to be somewhat different than the source material by nature. Furahashi was just doing his job. Not hijacking a series (he didn't forcefully make Togashi let him adapt his series as far as I know). Whether you like it or not is up to you. It doesn't mean that if you think its bad everyone else has to as well. Togashi's story is definitely worth a re-telling from a team that has a better understanding and love for the source material. I never said it didn't, but you can't ignore the fact that doing things this way is really more or less copying and pasting the material straight from the manga with little deviation. Even if you like it, its not exactly an adaptation with a lot of effort from the writing staff of the anime. I'm not sure how the production works down there, but over here we just call that copying. Nothing wrong with that in this case, but I can't bring myself to praise a team that's just taking the source material almost word for word and frame for frame, and throwing in some sub-par music in the background. I like the 2011 anime just fine, but I can't bring myself to praise it as much as you for just following the manga to the letter. 1999 series just came off conventionalizing Togashi's more eccentric vision and turn it into something for the mass appeal. First of all it doesn't have a mass appeal because its still less conventional relative to most shonen, even if its more conventionalized. Second of all eccentric is a term that I hate. People like to use that term for authors, directors, or creators of any kind to highlight their work as being great. That's not what it means. It just means different. Togashi's HXH is certainly eccentric, but not all of it is non-conventional in a good way. I just have to roll my eyes every time someone thinks that just because something doesn't follow normal story protocol that its somehow a dignified masterpiece, because in this case it most certainly is not, at least from my point of view. |
ensatsu-ken said: [ I never said it didn't, but you can't ignore the fact that doing things this way is really more or less copying and pasting the material straight from the manga with little deviation. Even if you like it, its not exactly an adaptation with a lot of effort from the writing staff of the anime. I'm not sure how the production works down there, but over here we just call that copying. Nothing wrong with that in this case, but I can't bring myself to praise a team that's just taking the source material almost word for word and frame for frame, and throwing in some sub-par music in the background. I like the 2011 anime just fine, but I can't bring myself to praise it as much as you for just following the manga to the letter. . I think it takes a lot more work than simply putting everything from the manga. You have to understand the material and translate in a way that is interesting to a television audience.If all it did was put what was in the manga on screen it would be boring. I also don't think it's copying. |
| How is using a narrator bad writing? Where are the inconsistencies? The ca arc is togashi"s best work as of now and one of the best stories in manga, disliking it doesnt make it inconsistent And please stop using the "my opinion = fact, period" attitude It doesny help your case |
| End Zionazism |
Mikasa said: How is using a narrator bad writing? Where are the inconsistencies? The ca arc is togashi"s best work as of now and one of the best stories in manga, disliking it doesnt make it inconsistent Uh, That's not what I said at all. It doesn't even look like you read my post at all since you are addressing an argument that I didn't even make. I never said using a narrator in itself was bad writing, and I never said that its inconsistent because I dislike it (I never even said I disliked the arc as a whole, so you clearly pulled that out of nowhere). Its VERY inconsistent when Togashi all of a sudden starts using a narrator to constantly explain every detail of what's happening in almost every panel and what almost every character is thinking. He never did that so much before but he does it constantly in almost every page of ever chapter past chapter 270. How can you not notice that? Its very inconsistent and also takes the reader for granted since it pretty much explains everything and leaves nothing up to subtlety and leaves no room for viewer interpretation. And please stop using the "my opinion = fact, period" attitude It doesny help your case When did I ever use that attitude? I argued against someone else for using that attitude. I clearly stated that everything I said was just my opinion. |
ensatsu-kenMay 22, 2012 1:45 PM
| Ensatsu, I think we have a very different idea of what's 'flaws' meant in a creative work, your examples sounds to me you're imposing a by-the-book concept of 'proper storytelling' onto someone who's more of an auteur - an eccentric (that's what he is) author who's known to not follow rules and conventions. To you they are flaws, to me and other Togashi fans, they are style and artistic choice. To me flaws meant the likes of plot holes, cliches and derivative plot/characters, inconsistent characterizations, cheap fillers, hammy soap opera-ish angst, cheap abuse of deux ex machina (to me Alluka is one of the very few occasions where it's BAD writing in HxH). A lot of these are what 1999 series adaptation is guilty of. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi's work is far too inconsistent in narrative and at times badly paced. Look at the latter half of the Chimera Ant arc for the best, or "worst", as it took such a long stretch of chapters to cover such a small amount of material over a short time-span, and all of a sudden Togashi felt the need to explain every little thing about the characters to use through out-of-character narration text rather than letting readers infer things for themselves; that's just bad writing, period. Chimera Ant arc is my idea of a compelling epic storytelling. The scoop and the themes being covered is engaging. If you meant the out-of-character narration during the palace raid, that's a compelling writing choice for me. He rarely used narration like this (except for the few expositions), and he used it here because the tone is shifted. This is the first time in the story where the timing is crucial and there's so much tension and danger at stake that as if time has stopped. The feeling is suffocating and as a reader I felt like time has freezed and everything is in slow motion because every little action, the subtle changes in Killua's expression, a drop of a sweat, etc. they ALL MATTERS in setting a mood. I love the details that goes into describing every soldiers' subtle changes, it describe something undercurrent - the tension, the mixed emotions, etc. That's the power of that narration, it gaves me goosebumps. I can imagine if this were animated, it'd be lack of dialogues, with only heavy thrumming, timer clicking countdown sound and everything is in slow-motion. To me this is effective, unique storytelling/mood-setting, NOT bad writing. There's no inconsistency issues because using the narration style is an one-off to set the grave, by-the-minute tone of the raid. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi tries to make situations look dire by killing off previously established characters (minor ones, though), rather than doing it through good plot writing. This happened at the beginning of the Chimera ant arc and also has happened a bit more recently in the manga as well. Its a cheap trick more than good writing that made me roll my eyes more than actually invest me in the story. There're exactly two characters who got killed, because the story needed a hunter who knew nen to be captured. It's done for a plot purpose other than shock-value. Ponzu and Pokke dealt with insects/nature so it made sense they were there. You made it sound like Togashi abuses stuff like this but it's really not, I don't remember other cheap use. It's only cheap when it's done purely out of gratification, but he did this because the story needed the ant to find out about nen. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi has a tendency to throw in too many new characters at once while barely characterizing any of them beyond a few quirks. See: the characters from the beginning of the Hunter Exam, the team working for the same mafia family as Kurapika in the York Shin City arc, the ones introduced in Greed Island, the 12 Zodiacs (oh, and you just have to love how he just threw Ging into the foreground story without any sort of build-up at all....and yeah, I'm being sarcastic) Huh? I thought it's just a general world-building so as a reader you'll feel that this world is actually populated. Like in Harry Potter we'll have names of students from other schools, ancient wizards who contribute in spell invention, etc. They're called background world dwellers to make the world believable and functioning. Togashi wanted to established that there's an government-like Hunter association, which of course would have people in it. And like our world, there'd be the underworld (who'd have bodyguards and employees), there's a slum/ghetto, there's a hippie colony, etc. I'm in awe that you considered this a flaw....when it's just basic world-building in writings. These people all have their quirks as most people aren't bland existence but it's also unnecessary to get too deep into them, Togashi always give you just enough (i.e.: Hanso, Pokke, ). Therefore the Togashi's world felt colorful and has a presence. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi has a tendency to overexplain things in general. For things like the conept of Nen and other areas of the plot, it makes sense. However if Togashi's material was always as intelligent as people claim it to be he wouldn't need to have his characters explain things to the very last detail. This is a common problem with shonen in general, and for a series that's supposed to be as non-conventional as HXH, that's a mighty big convention he's still following. He doesn't ever try to be subtle and just express character emotion through artwork alone and he has a heavy over-reliance on text (of course, he has terrible artwork to begin with, and even fans of the manga can't really disagree with this) This is definitely a taste preference instead of a 'flaw'. I LOVE it when Togashi geek out like that, there's an obsessive quality when he explained his systems, games, etc. But no I disagree with you (and would ask you to cite examples) that he over explained the 'emotions'. He definitely geek out on the system stuff, but he's subtle when writing characters' feelings and emotions. The emotions Killua went through during Chimeric Ant arc is a good example. It was never spell out exactly what he's feeling, but it's portrayed through wordless frames, other characters' observations, etc. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi favors writing over-powered enemies rather than smart enemies. This is actually my BIGGEST issue with the series in general. There are some exceptions to the rule, of course, but anyone who reads any amount of shonen series knows that its a cheap tactic to make a villain seem threatening by making them so many times more powerful than the heroes that the heroes don't stand a chance. It makes things seem dire and hopeless, but not in a way conveyed by good writing. ) The only enemy I can think of that fit your descriptions is Meruem, he's the only overpowered super villain with absolutely no flaw in the entire series. One time…and you made it sound like it's something Togashi abuses all the time. There're so many different types of villains (from the eccentric to the petty) in HxH, yet you complained like they're all like Meruem. Just go down the list, how is Togashi oh-so-typical shounen? Aren't villains like Phantom Troupe and Hisoka an example of smart enemies? Even petty ones like the Bomber is not about strength. This ONE time where he took on writing a Dragonball-style superpower and he told a postmodern story about a perfect, all powerful being questioning his raison d'etre. It's almost like his pomo-take on Cell (Dragonball). Yet somehow you came out thinking the entire HxH is loaded only with non-smart, all powerful villains. ensatsu-ken said: That's not really well-written characterization but bringing about a significant character change through a plot convenience that could have easily just been written in as soon as Togashi thought about it without having been properly planned out. I do like that he at least changed the character from a 1-dimensional villain, though, so I'll give him credit for that. In general, though, I MUCH prefer villains who have the edge over the other characters because they are intelligent. They don't need to be so much more powerful but should be able to constantly outwit their opposition and seem threatening through more than just their pure strength. errr.. again, the epic story of Meruem built around the entire questioning of his raison d'être, that's how a lot of us do: we define our purpose in relation to others and our environment…the King came to this understanding with his interaction in the courses of the many sessions of chess games with the blind girl, it was setup, planned all along and beautifully executed. I don't understand how you don't see it. It's setup from the very beginning with his birth, with his dying mother giving his name. That happened toward the end of the introduction part of the chimera arc. So of course it's planned all along. Yet you're so biased that you accused Togashi of not planning this out, and somehow think the King's journey is all done only in the last minute and for pure plot convenience. Back to your point, other than Meruem, most of the other villains in HxH are smarts villain and battle of wits, so I seriously don't know what you're faulting here as a 'flaw'. Battles in the Chimeric Ant arc such as the tag team of Knuckle + Shoot + Killua + Chameleon vs Youpi is a good recent example of battles of strategies and teamwork, instead of strength. You sounded like the entire Phantom Troupe and Greed Island arc didn't exist. It's like you actually took a strength of Togashi, something he's beloved for, pretend they don't exist, then twisted it around and accuse him for being a cheap derivative shounen author who writes mostly power-levels battles. That's so far from the truth. ensatsu-ken said: -Togashi also has a bad habit of just abruptly introducing characters or plot points that are clearly meant to come back later on but doing so in such an abrupt and out of place way. In good writing, one can do such foreshadowing seamlessly and integrate it into the main story, but Togashi ignores this. Remember Jairo/Gyro? Yeah, Togashi just decided to give him a chapter out of the blue explaining his back-story and how it related to the Chimera-Ant incident, and then didn't even bother mentioning his name again until around the end of the arc. I understand that its foreshadowing to his later appearance, but its done in such a forced and abrupt way. Say what you will, but that's just bad writing, plain and simple. He did a couple chapters like this with the Phantom Troupe as well, and has done this before, and it doesn't lend itself to getting invested into the endeavors of such characters when he doesn't transition into their stories well. If you want a prime example of a manga-ka who can handle multiple characters and transition between their contribution to the story well and also foreshadow later events seamlessly, look up some of the work by Naoki Urasawa. That's the bar by which I judge most other manga writing, myself, and in comparison Togashi's writing is sloppy and inconsistent. The guy can write great material and has great ideas, but he doesn't execute them all very well. But is it even something 'bad'? The Jairo chapter has a surreal quality to it that's pretty damn awesome in my opinion. It's a serialization work yet when I read it in the book format, it didn't seem jarring because with that chapter, it concluded the NGL part of the story. We were given a little background of the kind of person who created NGL when the former NGL citizen-turned-ants were splitting off. And then story moved on from NGL after that. It's a mini-conclusion, it's not done just for fore-shadowing purpose only. I'd find it questionable if someone else's' try to do WTF!? stuff like this. But Togashi is someone who has style and he pulled it off, especially given the examples of Level-E and YYH. I guess it's a case of you not buying his flavors. It's not bad writing to me as it served a purpose (that's not fore-shadowing). Basically you're comparing apples and oranges, big time classic Hollywood director versus someone like Alejandro Jodorowsky. Naoki Urasawa is someone I considered 'by-the-book', who is very solid and has a traditional, cinematic, drama/thriller storytelling approach, while Togashi has always been the enfant terrible, who has a postmodern, talky and cult approach of his stories (not to mention 'bad taste'). Both are good storyteller who are appreciated differently. I think you're imposing traditional standard to someone who's a one-off. ensatsu-ken said: My main point out of all of this is that, while I like Togashi's work, it is VERY, VERY flawed in my eyes. I disagree with most of your take on those examples, because you were either biased (the lack of smart villains) or you're accusing artistic choices (world-building, surrealistic mini-conclusion) as bad writings. And no i don't think he ignore basic good writing in sacrifice of style, not most of the time at least. The part where I found the writing is off and lazy is Alluka. Anyway I appreciate your long posts that's why I'm responding in details too. By no mean coming off condescending hopefully. ensatsu-ken said: First of all it doesn't have a mass appeal because its still less conventional relative to most shonen, even if its more conventionalized. Second of all eccentric is a term that I hate. People like to use that term for authors, directors, or creators of any kind to highlight their work as being great. That's not what it means. It just means different. Togashi's HXH is certainly eccentric, but not all of it is non-conventional in a good way. I just have to roll my eyes every time someone thinks that just because something doesn't follow normal story protocol that its somehow a dignified masterpiece, because in this case it most certainly is not, at least from my point of view. Why does every writer has to follow normal story protocol, and if your examples up there is meant to list how he failed because he didn't followed those by-the-book protocol, then I disagree. |
kcacoMay 22, 2012 10:45 PM
Anime_Name said: he's[Furuhashi] infamous for being loud in crapping all over the original source material anyway I watched and participated in discussions about Kenshin, HxH, Le Chevalier, and Get Backers. I've never read about his fame for crapping over source material. There have been complaints about the direction some things took but most will admit that such directions where just adjustments necessary for the change in media and new audience. The biggest problem I've heard was about Kenshin:Reflection but that complaint is lodged against the writer. how oblivious they're for never reading the manga but then trash the 2011 for being faithful. That's a pretty big assumption you have to use in order to devalue some people's opinion. The former is called my opinions and observations, not lies I didn't make assumptions. There're plenty of fanboys who admitted they never read the manga, and accuse the 2011 series as botched adaptation for changing/deleting 1999 fillers. |
kcacoMay 22, 2012 10:21 PM
ensatsu-ken said: Mikasa said: How is using a narrator bad writing? Where are the inconsistencies? The ca arc is togashi"s best work as of now and one of the best stories in manga, disliking it doesnt make it inconsistent Uh, That's not what I said at all. It doesn't even look like you read my post at all since you are addressing an argument that I didn't even make. I never said using a narrator in itself was bad writing, and I never said that its inconsistent because I dislike it (I never even said I disliked the arc as a whole, so you clearly pulled that out of nowhere). Its VERY inconsistent when Togashi all of a sudden starts using a narrator to constantly explain every detail of what's happening in almost every panel and what almost every character is thinking. He never did that so much before but he does it constantly in almost every page of ever chapter past chapter 270. How can you not notice that? Its very inconsistent and also takes the reader for granted since it pretty much explains everything and leaves nothing up to subtlety and leaves no room for viewer interpretation. And please stop using the "my opinion = fact, period" attitude It doesny help your case When did I ever use that attitude? I argued against someone else for using that attitude. I clearly stated that everything I said was just my opinion. No, looks like YOU didnt read your own post. "that's just bad writing period" The writer narrating through plots doesnt show inconsistency within the plot itself If youre talking about the narration itself then there is nothing inconsistent with using a narrator at all Plus, he is always used it. The first line in hxh ever is the narrator's defining hunters Most recently corresponding with the anime is hisoka's past. It is not about subtelty, iif he hadnt revealedd this we would have never known anything. It would be a baseless Interpertation that leads nowhere, interpreting his character after that piece of characterization is what it is about If you cant interpret something out of something then that is really just you, not a manga's fault. Imagine this "chapter 1: the end, interpret everything yourself" is the Best story ever. That's what happens, we'd never have a clear(er) picture about hisoka if he had not revealed what we got in ch.55 since it was about kelso and hisoka taking the time to talk about kastro himself, someone he is no longer interested in, is what is inconsistent. If this wasnt given to us, then our interpertation would apply to anyone who no longer mentions any other character. Ep 32 had machi explain it, im fine with both so it depends on which d hoice of direction you prefer |
| End Zionazism |
| @kcaco Damn! You went all out on the guy. I agree that Alluka-the-genie comes out of the left field suddenly, I was in the WTF!? moment throughout the Election arc. Her powers and the "unknown" entity inside her threw the nen system out of wack. However, once it made clear that there IS an "unknown" world, I pretty much thought, "Oh, I see". Togashi was probably geeking out on "genies" that time. Here are interesting read about them that would probably shed light on what we could expect on the "unknown" world. http://i-see-them.blogspot.com/2008/09/genie-djinn.html http://mysticinvestigations.com/supernatural-beings/genies.htm |
 |
Mikasa said: No, looks like YOU didnt read your own post. "that's just bad writing period" You're just nitpicking a phrase I used. Fine, its not fact, but you guys can call it eccentric all you want. I have seen plenty of eccentric work (like stuff from Naoki Urasawa, films directed by Quentin Tarantino, etc.), that still have good writing and don't rely on lame plot conveniences. So, to me, Togashi has quite a few instances of bad writing. The writer narrating through plots doesnt show inconsistency within the plot itself If youre talking about the narration itself then there is nothing inconsistent with using a narrator at all Plus, he is always used it. The first line in hxh ever is the narrator's defining hunters Once again, you clearly DID NOT READ my post. I didn't say it was a plot inconsistency. I said it was a narration inconsistency. Togashi did use a narrator before, but not nearly as extensively as he did in the Chimera Ant arc. I don't even see how you can argue that point. Try reading the entire arc in one go. You can't miss the fact that he starts using the narrator to explain almost every little detail past chapter 270 of the CA arc. Before he uses the narrator sparingly, and not to just tell us what every character was thinking and describe everything that was going on. Most recently corresponding with the anime is hisoka's past. It is not about subtelty, iif he hadnt revealedd this we would have never known anything. It would be a baseless I'm not talking about character pasts. I meant it in terms of the present. Character emotions, development, and so on can be revealed through subtlety. Togashi on the other hand decides to tell us what every character is thinking in the latter half of the CA arc, which I feel that using subtlety instead of having a narrator explain it to us all would be much more effective (and once again, that's my point about the inconsistent narrative, he didn't do that so much before). Interpertation that leads nowhere, interpreting his character after that piece of characterization is what it is about If you cant interpret something out of something then that is really just you, not a manga's fault. Imagine this "chapter 1: the end, interpret everything yourself" is the Best story ever. That's what happens, we'd never have a clear(er) picture about hisoka if he had not revealed what we got in ch.55 since it was about kelso and hisoka taking the time to talk about kastro himself, someone he is no longer interested in, is what is inconsistent. If this wasnt given to us, then our interpertation would apply to anyone who no longer mentions any other character. The rest of this convinces me that you have absolutely no idea what I was even talking about. Literally nothing you said here addresses my point at all. I never said anything about back-stories. I'm talking about how Togashi literally narrated characters thoughts/feelings/emotions in the CA arc, and how in other arcs in general he has a ton of exposition about characters (that doesn't even relate to their back-stories). Back-stories are fine. I'm talking about characterization in the line of their development in the present story. Also, when did I say the problem was that I can't interpret the characters? Did you really read what I wrote? I said my problem was basically that Togashi "leaves no room for anyone to interpret his characters," because he basically does it for us through in-text exposition. Ep 32 had machi explain it, im fine with both so it depends on which d hoice of direction you prefer That's actually a prime example of exposition, really. If you stop to think about it, Machi had no reason to have that conversation with Hisoka. Why would she need to explain to Hisoka how he used his own trick? It doesn't even seem like something she'd normally be all that interested in given her normal character, especially since she only came to tell Hisoka about the Phantom Troupe's meeting arrangement. |
| @kcaco: I don't have nearly the amount of patience you do to write another extremely long post, so I'll commend you for at least responding to all of my points. I'm not going to start an all-out debate because I quite frankly have better things to do with my time. With the exception of 2 points you made which I can't necessarily argue against, most of what you said doesn't really sway my own opinion of the series. So, I think its just best for us to agree to disagree, right here and now. I'll elaborate on what I mean on the villains later on, though. |
Mikasa said: The ca arc is togashi"s best work as of now and one of the best stories in manga I strongly disagree with this, the arc consisted of way too many senseless fights and used the narration too much as opposed to letting the dialouge move the story along. The flow of the story was pretty off as well but that is understandable to an extent because of the amount of breaks Togashi took while writing it. Not to mention the atrocity that was I knew this thread would turn into a warzone which is quite sad. This has basically turned into a hate fest of the 1999 version which is still and always will be a classic. I enjoy both versions because they have both done parts of the story well. I agree with what some others said earlier before this thread went to hell. I feel that so far, 99 wins the Hunter Exam and most of the added filler in that part was nicely done by the way. 2011 did the Zoldyck arc better (just in my opinion). And so far it's still up in the air what will happen with Celestial Tower because the 2011 version hasn't finished that part yet. Overall I feel both are worth a watch because they both do certain things well and bring something different to the table. Also, damn you guys need to learn how to use spoiler tags, for anyone who hasn't read the manga in this thread, the whole story is being spoiled all to hell. |
| "The rest of this convinces me that you have absolutely no idea what I was even talking about." And this convinces me that you can't tie anything to anything else yet you ask for interpertation :\ Once again if you don't know what I meant it's you then @you and @featherbeard |
| End Zionazism |
ensatsu-ken said: @kcaco: I don't have nearly the amount of patience you do to write another extremely long post, so I'll commend you for at least responding to all of my points. I'm not going to start an all-out debate because I quite frankly have better things to do with my time. With the exception of 2 points you made which I can't necessarily argue against, most of what you said doesn't really sway my own opinion of the series. So, I think its just best for us to agree to disagree, right here and now. I addressed point by point already, dunno what else I can respond to. 1 don't mean to sway your opinion, I responded to the fact that you cited all these supposed 'author's tendency' (reoccuring flaws) that seems to be curiously from the Chimeric Ant arc only (many are just one-off plot point) ...sweeping generalization much? Your point to me was that since there're all these flaws in the source materials, the anime adaptation is right on to take liberties to fix them. But my point was always on 1999 series' director's twisted and dumbed down characterizations. fanimanga said: @kcaco Damn! You went all out on the guy. I agree that Alluka-the-genie comes out of the left field suddenly, I was in the WTF!? moment throughout the Election arc. Her powers and the "unknown" entity inside her threw the nen system out of wack. However, once it made clear that there IS an "unknown" world, I pretty much thought, "Oh, I see". Togashi was probably geeking out on "genies" that time. Here are interesting read about them that would probably shed light on what we could expect on the "unknown" world. http://i-see-them.blogspot.com/2008/09/genie-djinn.html http://mysticinvestigations.com/supernatural-beings/genies.htm I don't know, if he pull off the unknown world and genie concept without coming off silly, the character of Alluka might redeemed a little bit. So far she's the very example of a deus ex machina. I mean it's all very touching that she's a good metaphor for familial unconditioned love but as of now, that setup and plot line get dropped in a trollish manner. His laziness is the one true flaw for me. |
| @Mikasa I never said the arc was bad and I can't get all of my thoughts together, I just think Yorkshin and Greed Island were executed better. That might be due to the several breaks taking during the CA arc, but those two arcs I felt were Togashi's best in the series. |
kcaco said: 1 don't mean to sway your opinion, I responded to the fact that you cited all these supposed 'author's tendency' (reoccuring flaws) that seems to be curiously from the Chimeric Ant arc only (many are just one-off plot point) ...sweeping generalization much? Of course, considering just how long the Chimera Ant arc is (its over 100 chapters long, and takes up about a 3rd of the series length up to this point), that's not such a sweeping generalization when it takes a significant portion of the series to cover. I also have issues with other arcs as well, but not as much as with the Chimera Ant arc. I'd list my issues with other parts of the series, but I don't see the point as I already know the result will just be that you'll argue that I'm somehow wrong to dislike any of those aspects of the series and then I'll essentially have wasted my time writing up that stuff in the first place. That, and I honestly don't care about this enough to keep arguing about it in extensive detail. I'll just stick with my own opinion. Your point to me was that since there're all these flaws in the source materials, the anime adaptation is right on to take liberties to fix them. No, that was never my point, at all. My point was that you acted like the manga is absolutely perfect and devoid of flaws, which I highly disagree with. I have plenty of problems with it and I do find some of those to be flaws rather than just preferences. I did admittedly mostly use the Chimera Ant arc because that's honestly the one that was most fresh in my memory, and I also didn't like it as much as most other fans did (I liked it, but had problems with it as well). Either way, my point was that Togashi is not the perfect writer that people are making him out to be on this thread. As for the new anime, I never said that it was better because it fixed the problems with Togashi's work. I did say that I preferred some of its changes (and take note, I did say "prefer"). I also don't consider taking a firmer stance on characters. Whereas they are more gray in the manga, they are more discernable as "good" and "right" in the anime, which is something that I never denied. That said, I don't think of that as dumbing things down. I still enjoyed the series for what it was and it still felt smarter than most other shonen series. There was still a lot of gray to Killua's character in the beginning and I liked seeing him develop a little in the anime, for example, whereas in the manga he's still a pretty gray character for the most part (that is to say, not a bad guy, but far from a good guy, as well). Somehow you seem to get the impression that I was saying that the 1999 anime was superior to the manga, which I wasn't saying at all. |
Mikasa said: "And this convinces me that you can't tie anything to anything else yet you ask for interpertation : Once again if you don't know what I meant it's you then My problem was always that you weren't addressing what I was talking about. You're the one who brought up back-stories when I didn't even mention them. -_- @you and @featherbeard Well, that's my problem. If you like it, then fine, but I do not care for having to have things constantly narrated for me. I've seen plenty of good series that can get out characters emotions and feelings without even using words. Its called character expression and actions. I'd rather have more of that than be told exactly what Gon or Killua are feeling at a given moment. I want to be able to interpret it for myself as a reader. |
| the 1999 version is much better, the 2011 version felt rushed, i mean for one thing, they cut some episodes from the remake that was in the original, for another thing they compressed others into a shorter "episode'... the remake shouldnt have been "made" |
| ^This. 2011 version all the way! |
| the 1999 version is fine on it's own, but it's a meh adaptation, I enjoyed it as much as I did the new one until the Greed Island OVAs which were, really, really bad compared to how the manga and the newer version handled it. |
 |
| As far as animation and sticking to the manga (besides the Kite flashback), the 2011 version is better. However, I feel that much more heart went into the 1999 version and it felt a lot darker at times and more emotional. I would give the edge slightly to the 2011 version, however, because it ties everything together and is continuing the storyline. Love them both though <3 |
| To be honest, I would always suggest reading/watching all three to see which one you like best. Personally, I love all three versions. It's just more Hunter x Hunter for me to be a fan of. I'd rather cherish both anime and the manga together than try to fight over which one is superior. All of them have their strong points, but they all also have flaws and none of them are perfect. I feel that the three of them together cancel each other out and create a trio of some of the best shonen ever conceived by humans. |
| >.> |
 |
| I like the 1999 version more... it was more dark and serious, and the events were more detailed than the 2011 version... the 1999 verion's osts are my favorite, the 2011 osts weren't anything special... i recommend the 1999 version, but you'll watch the 2011 version anyway, cause the story doesn't end in the 1999, the continuation will be in the 2011 version, so i think you sould watch both of them. i'm confused DX |
| It reall comes down to which you value more...the animation (11) or the ost (99). |
 |
only4anime said: Or that (11) has less filler, more blood, more story, better art, and probably a couple of other things.It reall comes down to which you value more...the animation (11) or the ost (99). |
     Short of the day: Monotonous Purgatory(MAL) ✰Public Domain Club | One Piece Club✰ |
| The hunter x hunter 99 has better Soundtrack then the 2011 however. The 2011 has better fights scenes. Better animation. No fillers ( Exception episode 76 of 2011 which is a filler ) Better voice acting. Then again Hunter x Hunter has a better soundtrack to 2011 is just better that's a fact not a opinion! |
YuiDark said: It's an opinion.The hunter x hunter 99 has better Soundtrack then the 2011 however. The 2011 has better fights scenes. Better animation. No fillers ( Exception episode 76 of 2011 which is a filler ) Better voice acting. Then again Hunter x Hunter has a better soundtrack to 2011 is just better that's a fact not a opinion! |
Short of the day: Monotonous Purgatory(MAL) ✰Public Domain Club | One Piece Club✰ |
IntroverTurtle said: only4anime said: Or that (11) has less filler, more blood, more story, better art, and probably a couple of other things.It reall comes down to which you value more...the animation (11) or the ost (99). The music could make or break a scene; the same scene that I found epic while watching the old one was meh to me when I saw it in the new one. |
| |
More topics from this board
Poll: » is the chimera ant arc too slow?FriendUniverse - Mar 13, 2020 |
38 |
by geo-malor
»»
Yesterday, 9:50 PM |
|
» Whats the genre of "Just Awake" by Fear, and Loathing in Las Vegas?peterman_lv - Sep 26, 2022 |
13 |
by thehugeanifan
»»
Yesterday, 6:35 PM |
|
» Knov's shoesGuaxinito - Sep 22 |
3 |
by Cory0905
»»
Sep 23, 4:59 PM |
|
Poll: » Hunter x Hunter (2011) Episode 105 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Nov 19, 2013 |
150 |
by oozePOP
»»
Sep 22, 9:47 PM |
|
Poll: » Hunter x Hunter (2011) Episode 131 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - May 27, 2014 |
1046 |
by Ougi0Best0Girl
»»
Sep 20, 3:25 AM |