Takuan_Soho said:Darklight0303 said: It proves that an adaptation can follow the bloody source and still be popular. You say they changed up things in Arpeggio in order to not leave things unconcluded as they would have been if they followed the manga. Attack on Titan proves that excuse is utter bullshit with its huge ass open ending.
You really are comparing apples and oranges. Attack on Titan was a megahit selling well over 750,000 volumes even before the animation (it nearly doubled after); Aoki was selling less than 25,000 (the animation gave the last volume a nice bump up to nearly 40K). So the goal with Attack on Titan the adaptation was: don't screw it up; the goal of Aoki was "we need to appeal to a larger audience". Also, there was never going to be a doubt that Titan would sell well over 10,000 BDs, even if they screwed it up, ensuring that there would be a second season once the writer wrote enough stories to leave an open ending (in fact the producers WANTED an open ending so that they could do a season 2 and 3 and however many they could get away with).
Aoki had no such guarantee. The Producers pretty much knew that all they had was 11 episodes, so they decided to tell a complete story in the hope that this would attract more fans. In that nearly every person here who hasn't read the manga is really enjoying this, I would say they made the right decision to change the story (as the Titan producers did in NOT changing their story).
Hmm...well, though I understand what you mean, ultimately, it doesn't really matter in regard to evaluating the quality of the anime itself.
I mean, when one would be consistent in following your reasoning, and a company would say: well, we only get ONE episode, so we're going to cram in as much as possible, without any regard to plot, story, characters, consistency, etc., one still could utter the same: 'well, they did a good job *considering they only had one episode*', and 'their purpose was only to appeal to a larger audience'. Well, that's all very well, but it changes nothing to the fact that plot, story, etc., etc. were greatly diminished and are only a pale echo of the original. That would be true EVEN if a lot of people would still be enjoying that one episode.
Now, I'm not saying this series has no redeeming qualities, or isn't worth watching anymore, but one also has to face the facts: it's a lot, and a mean a lot, less good than what it's supposed to be based off. If they keep this immer-more deviation of the manga up, you end up, in fact, with a completely other story, apart from 'there are ships called the fog' and 'humans are trying to transport a new weapon'. But that doesn't make the story, imho.
The series is starting to lack in several area's. Is it still enjoyable to some extend? Yes. But not as good as it could have been. This is inherently linked to the quality of the anime itself I'm talking about, so reasons from a meta-perspective ('it's to appeal to a larger audience', 'it's to make more profit', etc.) just don't cut it. To make things clear: crap that is being sold well or used to cater to the masses, is still crap. (PS. I'm not saying the series IS crap, just pointing out the logic behind it). If a series becomes less good, then I really don't care whether it was because due to it having only 12 episodes, to promote CGI, to appeal to the masses, to make more profit or because the studio was lazy: that all dos NOT matter in an evaluation of how good the anime itself is. When it's lacking, it's still lacking, and then a meta-reason like "it was done to cater to the masses' just ain't a valid excuse. I don't care about what they MEANT to do with it in a meta-context, I care about the INHERENT quality of the anime.
Does, for instance, inconsistencies and bad pacing disappears, now that I know it's only going to be 12 episodes long? No it doesn't. So that knowledge does NOT make it any better, and warranted criticism is still as valid on it. It could even be that the director and the whole studio fell ill with a contagious disease and died, and that a series therefore turned out to be less good, as far as I care. Is that an understandable explanation? Yes. Does it make that series any better? No.
I'm always baffled by people who do not seem to get the point that it doesn't matter what the *cause* is for something to make something not too good, to acknowledge that it is not very good. (Again: making the point in regard to the reasoning used, not saying the series itself is crap.) |